Another High Tech Lynching

[PoliticalChic]

What's would be wrong with labeling Clarence Thomas a sexual abuser based only on unproven allegations,

when Bill Clinton has been routinely called a rapist based on the same sort of unproven allegations?

Fair is fair, isn't it?

You mean this Bill Clinton?

Clinton Misogyny - SexJuanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scannedCLINTON S ROGUES GALLERY

 

[bodecea]

1. That famous phrase, 'high tech lynching,' was provided by the brilliant Clarence Thomas, underscoring how the Left was attempting to do to him what those in charge in the South, the Democrats, did to so many earlier black who became 'uppity.'

Instead of a rope, they were using the media.




2. The aim was similar to that of other forms of 'execution' during the Middle Ages,
Burned at the stake, hung, or drawn and quartered, or introduced to the Iron Maiden.....

Such was the fate of those who spoke out against those in power, the heretics, the free thinkers.

Today the 'executions' take a different form: they simply ruin reputations; take away livelihoods and status, cause those who disagree to be ridiculed.....

Heaven help those who don't toe the party line.....and that party is the Democrat Party.





Look into the future: if the Left becomes even more powerful, this is what America will look like:

3. Last March (2014), pioneering Internet company Mozilla announced the appointment of co-founder Brendan Eich as CEO... " The Mozilla Board of Directors has announced that co-founder and current Chief Technology Officer Brendan Eich will be appointed to the role of CEO of Mozilla, effective immediately."
Mozilla Leadership Changes The Mozilla Blog



The Left used their version of high tech for the lynching:


"....a number of Mozilla employees took to Twitter with a united, nearly simultaneous message to new Mozilla Corporation CEO Brendan Eich: "Step down."

The internal response began this morning with two tweets from MozillaOpen Badgesproject lead Chris McAvoy. "I love Mozilla but I'm disappointed this week," McAvoy said, referring to the controversial decision to appoint Eich as CEO after he had donated thousands to both California's Proposition 8 and political candidates who supported it. "Mozilla stands for openness and empowerment, but is acting in the opposite way." He then made a more pronounced declaration: "I'm an employee of Mozilla and I'm asking @brendaneich to step down as CEO."

Within minutes, many other Mozilla employees followed suit, using similar language or copying each other's statements outright. Those included Mozilla Festival curator Chloe Vareldi, partnerships lead John Bevan, designer Jessica Klein, and engagement team member Sydney Moyer." Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to step down Ars Technica


"McAvoy added that he feels fortunate to work at a company like Mozilla, "where I can say that without fear of retribution."
So typical of the Left-wing hypocrites, he didn't allow Brendan Eich to be as fortunate.

This has something to do with FDR, doesn't it?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. That famous phrase, 'high tech lynching,' was provided by the brilliant Clarence Thomas, underscoring how the Left was attempting to do to him what those in charge in the South, the Democrats, did to so many earlier black who became 'uppity.'

Instead of a rope, they were using the media.




2. The aim was similar to that of other forms of 'execution' during the Middle Ages,
Burned at the stake, hung, or drawn and quartered, or introduced to the Iron Maiden.....

Such was the fate of those who spoke out against those in power, the heretics, the free thinkers.

Today the 'executions' take a different form: they simply ruin reputations; take away livelihoods and status, cause those who disagree to be ridiculed.....

Heaven help those who don't toe the party line.....and that party is the Democrat Party.





Look into the future: if the Left becomes even more powerful, this is what America will look like:

3. Last March (2014), pioneering Internet company Mozilla announced the appointment of co-founder Brendan Eich as CEO... " The Mozilla Board of Directors has announced that co-founder and current Chief Technology Officer Brendan Eich will be appointed to the role of CEO of Mozilla, effective immediately."
Mozilla Leadership Changes The Mozilla Blog



The Left used their version of high tech for the lynching:


"....a number of Mozilla employees took to Twitter with a united, nearly simultaneous message to new Mozilla Corporation CEO Brendan Eich: "Step down."

The internal response began this morning with two tweets from MozillaOpen Badgesproject lead Chris McAvoy. "I love Mozilla but I'm disappointed this week," McAvoy said, referring to the controversial decision to appoint Eich as CEO after he had donated thousands to both California's Proposition 8 and political candidates who supported it. "Mozilla stands for openness and empowerment, but is acting in the opposite way." He then made a more pronounced declaration: "I'm an employee of Mozilla and I'm asking @brendaneich to step down as CEO."

Within minutes, many other Mozilla employees followed suit, using similar language or copying each other's statements outright. Those included Mozilla Festival curator Chloe Vareldi, partnerships lead John Bevan, designer Jessica Klein, and engagement team member Sydney Moyer." Mozilla employees tell Brendan Eich he needs to step down Ars Technica


"McAvoy added that he feels fortunate to work at a company like Mozilla, "where I can say that without fear of retribution."
So typical of the Left-wing hypocrites, he didn't allow Brendan Eich to be as fortunate.

This has something to do with FDR, doesn't it?

Just wanted to see who would stand up for free speech.

I guess you're not one of 'em.

 

[Uncensored2008]

No, I just think you're wasting my time on here.

You demonized McCarthy on behalf of your party. Whatever demagoguery and slander you may offer, the fact remains that McCarthy was right - irrefutably proven decades ago.

You don't have something proper to say and in a manner that's proper. You're just playing the boring boring boring partisan slag off match. I'm not interested. Is it that hard to understand?

It isn't "proper" to point out the slander and libel you engage in on behalf of the party?

Oh, and what is your reason for slandering McCarthy, if not the "boring boring boring partisan slag off match"?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's would be wrong with labeling Clarence Thomas a sexual abuser based only on unproven allegations,

when Bill Clinton has been routinely called a rapist based on the same sort of unproven allegations?

Fair is fair, isn't it?

You mean this Bill Clinton?

Clinton Misogyny - SexJuanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scannedCLINTON S ROGUES GALLERY

Yes, a long list of unproven accusations. Exactly the sort of unproven accusations that you yourself characterize as a lynching of Clarence Thomas.

You then, by the standard your yourself set,

believe Clinton was lynched multiple times.

Thanks for falling into that trap. lol, dumbass.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Hey, are they high tech lynching Red States owner for disinviting Trump or do you call it something else?

 

[PoliticalChic]

What's would be wrong with labeling Clarence Thomas a sexual abuser based only on unproven allegations,

when Bill Clinton has been routinely called a rapist based on the same sort of unproven allegations?

Fair is fair, isn't it?

You mean this Bill Clinton?

Clinton Misogyny - SexJuanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scannedCLINTON S ROGUES GALLERY

Yes, a long list of unproven accusations. Exactly the sort of unproven accusations that you yourself characterize as a lynching of Clarence Thomas.

You then, by the standard your yourself set,

believe Clinton was lynched multiple times.

Thanks for falling into that trap. lol, dumbass.

You just can't break that habit of lying, huh?


Let's review the other low-life.....

1. ‘Some years ago, when Gennifer Flowers informed Bill Clinton that she had lied under oath before a grievance committee in Arkansas, the man already known as Slick Willie replied, ''Good for you.''’ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/26/opinion/in-america-cut-him-loose.html+Bob+Herbert+“In+America?pagewanted=all
2. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul. Ibid.
3. -- the man is so thoroughly corrupt it's frightening.” Ibid.
4. “Andrew Sullivan of The New Republic notes, 'In Bill Clinton, we had for eight years a truly irrational person in the White House, someone who, I think, lived on the edge of serious mental illness. He was and is a psychologically sick man'” Olson, “The Final Days,” (p. 199).
5. “Some papers, such asThe Economist, had, after initially supporting him, decided early on that Mr Clinton was too dishonest an individual to be trusted with the presidency, however clever he might be.” http://www.economist.com/node/513005
6. “So he committed perjury before a federal investigation? A mere technicality, and after all a lie told about the very private matter of an affair with a junior member of his staff.” Ibid.
7. The New York Observer noted that the Clinton critics "were right, after all. Mr. Clinton was, in fact, an untrustworthy low-life who used people for his own purposes and then discarded them." As for Hillary, the newspaper explained that New Yorkers had "made a terrible mistake, for Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit for elective office. Had she any shame, she would resign." Remembering Clinton and the Episodic Apologists The American Spectator
8. ‘ The [New York] Times called for congressional investigations, lamenting that "the former president… seemed to make a redoubled effort in the last moments of his presidency to plunge further and further beneath the already low expectations of his most cynical critics and most world-weary friends." ‘Between Two Eras - NYTimes.com
9. In an NBC interview with Lisa Meyers, Juanita Broaderick gave a detailed account of a rape she suffered at the hands of then-Arkansas attorney general Bill Clinton. Journalists uncovered considerable corroborating evidence. Newsweek’s account of the story added the editorial comment “sounds like our guy,” a sentiment that Elizabeth Gracen, Kathleen Willey, and perhaps many others would second. Nevertheless, it is OK to defend Clinton in this instance because:
   a. It’s only about sex.
   b. Lisa Meyers, NBC, and Newsweek are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
   c. Henry Kissinger murdered the president of Chile.
   d. The Republicans want to give us a tax cut we can’t afford.
   e. It’s not at all OK. No decent person would defend such conduct. How conspiratorial are you
10. The outrageous final hours of the Clinton presidency provoked many hitherto-silent Democrats to denounce Clinton as the most unworthy individual ever to occupy the presidency. Former Carter chief-of-staff Hamilton Jordan, for instance, lambastes the Clintons as the “first grifters,” denouncing the extreme corruption of the former first-couple. Ibid.
11. The Clintons' White House exit led even Democrats to inveigh: "totally indefensible" (Joe Biden), "disgraceful" (Jimmy Carter), "terrible, devastating" and "appalling" (William Daley), "Clinton is utterly disgraced" (former Clinton secretary of labor Robert Reich),…Ibid.
12. “Chris Matthewson the Clintons: Before this, we laughed at poor little countries that drug dealers and international crooks could buy. We mocked the Third World capitals where a little money on the fingers of a certain family member could open doors or close eyes. Thanks to Bill and Hillary Clinton, we have now forfeited that small national vanity. The next movie about international drug-dealing… may well feature not a Mexican police chief but an American president as the bag man.” Doug Ross Journal Line o the Day The Bag Man

OMG!
Perjury....corrupt....low-life...dishonest....untrustworthy....utterly disgraced...psychologically sick...

Sounds just like you, huh?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's would be wrong with labeling Clarence Thomas a sexual abuser based only on unproven allegations,

when Bill Clinton has been routinely called a rapist based on the same sort of unproven allegations?

Fair is fair, isn't it?

You mean this Bill Clinton?

Clinton Misogyny - SexJuanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scannedCLINTON S ROGUES GALLERY

Yes, a long list of unproven accusations. Exactly the sort of unproven accusations that you yourself characterize as a lynching of Clarence Thomas.

You then, by the standard your yourself set,

believe Clinton was lynched multiple times.

Thanks for falling into that trap. lol, dumbass.

You just can't break that habit of lying, huh?


Let's review the other low-life.....

1. ‘Some years ago, when Gennifer Flowers informed Bill Clinton that she had lied under oath before a grievance committee in Arkansas, the man already known as Slick Willie replied, ''Good for you.''’ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/26/opinion/in-america-cut-him-loose.html+Bob+Herbert+“In+America?pagewanted=all
2. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul. Ibid.
3. -- the man is so thoroughly corrupt it's frightening.” Ibid.
4. “Andrew Sullivan of The New Republic notes, 'In Bill Clinton, we had for eight years a truly irrational person in the White House, someone who, I think, lived on the edge of serious mental illness. He was and is a psychologically sick man'” Olson, “The Final Days,” (p. 199).
5. “Some papers, such asThe Economist, had, after initially supporting him, decided early on that Mr Clinton was too dishonest an individual to be trusted with the presidency, however clever he might be.” http://www.economist.com/node/513005
6. “So he committed perjury before a federal investigation? A mere technicality, and after all a lie told about the very private matter of an affair with a junior member of his staff.” Ibid.
7. The New York Observer noted that the Clinton critics "were right, after all. Mr. Clinton was, in fact, an untrustworthy low-life who used people for his own purposes and then discarded them." As for Hillary, the newspaper explained that New Yorkers had "made a terrible mistake, for Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit for elective office. Had she any shame, she would resign." Remembering Clinton and the Episodic Apologists The American Spectator
8. ‘ The [New York] Times called for congressional investigations, lamenting that "the former president… seemed to make a redoubled effort in the last moments of his presidency to plunge further and further beneath the already low expectations of his most cynical critics and most world-weary friends." ‘Between Two Eras - NYTimes.com
9. In an NBC interview with Lisa Meyers, Juanita Broaderick gave a detailed account of a rape she suffered at the hands of then-Arkansas attorney general Bill Clinton. Journalists uncovered considerable corroborating evidence. Newsweek’s account of the story added the editorial comment “sounds like our guy,” a sentiment that Elizabeth Gracen, Kathleen Willey, and perhaps many others would second. Nevertheless, it is OK to defend Clinton in this instance because:
   a. It’s only about sex.
   b. Lisa Meyers, NBC, and Newsweek are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
   c. Henry Kissinger murdered the president of Chile.
   d. The Republicans want to give us a tax cut we can’t afford.
   e. It’s not at all OK. No decent person would defend such conduct. How conspiratorial are you
10. The outrageous final hours of the Clinton presidency provoked many hitherto-silent Democrats to denounce Clinton as the most unworthy individual ever to occupy the presidency. Former Carter chief-of-staff Hamilton Jordan, for instance, lambastes the Clintons as the “first grifters,” denouncing the extreme corruption of the former first-couple. Ibid.
11. The Clintons' White House exit led even Democrats to inveigh: "totally indefensible" (Joe Biden), "disgraceful" (Jimmy Carter), "terrible, devastating" and "appalling" (William Daley), "Clinton is utterly disgraced" (former Clinton secretary of labor Robert Reich),…Ibid.
12. “Chris Matthewson the Clintons: Before this, we laughed at poor little countries that drug dealers and international crooks could buy. We mocked the Third World capitals where a little money on the fingers of a certain family member could open doors or close eyes. Thanks to Bill and Hillary Clinton, we have now forfeited that small national vanity. The next movie about international drug-dealing… may well feature not a Mexican police chief but an American president as the bag man.” Doug Ross Journal Line o the Day The Bag Man

OMG!
Perjury....corrupt....low-life...dishonest....untrustworthy....utterly disgraced...psychologically sick...

Sounds just like you, huh?

Bill Clinton has been convicted of exactly the same number of sex crimes as has been Clarence Thomas.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What's would be wrong with labeling Clarence Thomas a sexual abuser based only on unproven allegations,

when Bill Clinton has been routinely called a rapist based on the same sort of unproven allegations?

Fair is fair, isn't it?

You mean this Bill Clinton?

Clinton Misogyny - SexJuanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scannedCLINTON S ROGUES GALLERY

Yes, a long list of unproven accusations. Exactly the sort of unproven accusations that you yourself characterize as a lynching of Clarence Thomas.

You then, by the standard your yourself set,

believe Clinton was lynched multiple times.

Thanks for falling into that trap. lol, dumbass.

You just can't break that habit of lying, huh?


Let's review the other low-life.....

1. ‘Some years ago, when Gennifer Flowers informed Bill Clinton that she had lied under oath before a grievance committee in Arkansas, the man already known as Slick Willie replied, ''Good for you.''’ http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/26/opinion/in-america-cut-him-loose.html+Bob+Herbert+“In+America?pagewanted=all
2. But the Democratic Party overlooked the ethical red flags and made a pact with Mr. Clinton that was the equivalent of a pact with the devil. And he delivered. With Mr. Clinton at the controls, the party won the White House twice. But in the process it lost its bearings and maybe even its soul. Ibid.
3. -- the man is so thoroughly corrupt it's frightening.” Ibid.
4. “Andrew Sullivan of The New Republic notes, 'In Bill Clinton, we had for eight years a truly irrational person in the White House, someone who, I think, lived on the edge of serious mental illness. He was and is a psychologically sick man'” Olson, “The Final Days,” (p. 199).
5. “Some papers, such asThe Economist, had, after initially supporting him, decided early on that Mr Clinton was too dishonest an individual to be trusted with the presidency, however clever he might be.” http://www.economist.com/node/513005
6. “So he committed perjury before a federal investigation? A mere technicality, and after all a lie told about the very private matter of an affair with a junior member of his staff.” Ibid.
7. The New York Observer noted that the Clinton critics "were right, after all. Mr. Clinton was, in fact, an untrustworthy low-life who used people for his own purposes and then discarded them." As for Hillary, the newspaper explained that New Yorkers had "made a terrible mistake, for Hillary Rodham Clinton is unfit for elective office. Had she any shame, she would resign." Remembering Clinton and the Episodic Apologists The American Spectator
8. ‘ The [New York] Times called for congressional investigations, lamenting that "the former president… seemed to make a redoubled effort in the last moments of his presidency to plunge further and further beneath the already low expectations of his most cynical critics and most world-weary friends." ‘Between Two Eras - NYTimes.com
9. In an NBC interview with Lisa Meyers, Juanita Broaderick gave a detailed account of a rape she suffered at the hands of then-Arkansas attorney general Bill Clinton. Journalists uncovered considerable corroborating evidence. Newsweek’s account of the story added the editorial comment “sounds like our guy,” a sentiment that Elizabeth Gracen, Kathleen Willey, and perhaps many others would second. Nevertheless, it is OK to defend Clinton in this instance because:
   a. It’s only about sex.
   b. Lisa Meyers, NBC, and Newsweek are all part of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
   c. Henry Kissinger murdered the president of Chile.
   d. The Republicans want to give us a tax cut we can’t afford.
   e. It’s not at all OK. No decent person would defend such conduct. How conspiratorial are you
10. The outrageous final hours of the Clinton presidency provoked many hitherto-silent Democrats to denounce Clinton as the most unworthy individual ever to occupy the presidency. Former Carter chief-of-staff Hamilton Jordan, for instance, lambastes the Clintons as the “first grifters,” denouncing the extreme corruption of the former first-couple. Ibid.
11. The Clintons' White House exit led even Democrats to inveigh: "totally indefensible" (Joe Biden), "disgraceful" (Jimmy Carter), "terrible, devastating" and "appalling" (William Daley), "Clinton is utterly disgraced" (former Clinton secretary of labor Robert Reich),…Ibid.
12. “Chris Matthewson the Clintons: Before this, we laughed at poor little countries that drug dealers and international crooks could buy. We mocked the Third World capitals where a little money on the fingers of a certain family member could open doors or close eyes. Thanks to Bill and Hillary Clinton, we have now forfeited that small national vanity. The next movie about international drug-dealing… may well feature not a Mexican police chief but an American president as the bag man.” Doug Ross Journal Line o the Day The Bag Man

OMG!
Perjury....corrupt....low-life...dishonest....untrustworthy....utterly disgraced...psychologically sick...

Sounds just like you, huh?

Bill Clinton has been convicted of exactly the same number of sex crimes as has been Clarence Thomas.

Being guilty and being proven so in a court of law are hardly the same, liar.

Even you know he is guilty of everything I've posted.

Everyone does...but low-lives like you simply don't care.



Here's your 'War on Women'

PAULA JONES'S DEPOSITION WHICH THREW A PRESIDENT INTO CRISIS
We talked for a few minutes. Mr. Clinton asked me about my job. He told me that Dave Harrington (who at that time was in charge of the AIDC) was his 'good friend'.

Mr. Clinton then unexpectedly reached over to me, took my hand, and pulled me toward him, so that our bodies were close to each other. I removed my hand from his and retreated several feet.

Mr. Clinton approached me again, saying 'I love the way your hair flows down your back' and 'I love your curves.'

While saying these things, Mr. Clinton put his hand on my leg and started sliding his hand toward my pelvic area. I did not consent to him doing this. He also bent down to kiss me on the neck, but I would not let him do so.

I exclaimed, 'What are you doing?' and escaped from Mr. Clinton's reach by walking away from him. I was extremely upset and confused and I did not know what to do. I tried to distract Mr. Clinton by asking him about his wife and her activities, and I sat down at the end of the sofa nearest the door.

Mr. Clinton then walked over to the sofa, lowered his trousers and underwear, exposed his penis (which was erect) and told me to 'kiss it'.

I was horrified by this. I jumped up from the couch and told Mr. Clinton that I had to go, saying something to the effect that I had to get back to the registration desk. Mr. Clinton, while fondling his penis, said: 'Well, I don't want to make you do anything you don't want to do.'

Mr. Clinton then stood up, pulled up his pants and said: 'If you get in trouble for leaving work, have Dave call me immediately and I'll take care of it.'

As I left the room, Mr. Clinton detained me momentarily, looked sternly at me and said: 'You are smart. Let's keep this between ourselves.'

It wasn't until two years later, in 1993, when former Clinton bodyguards spoke in a magazine interview about escorting a woman called 'Paula' to his room in May 1991 that she was advised to go public.

She hired a lawyer and in 1994 sued Clinton and asked for $700,000 in damages, claiming she suffered emotional trauma.

Clinton denied the claims, or even that he had met Jones. He dismissed her as an opportunist out for money and to damage him politically.

He asked that the civil suit be put off until he left the White House but in January 1997 an appeals court ruled the trial should go ahead.

A year later Judge Susan Webber Wright tossed out Jones's case saying she had not suffered any damages. She ruled that even if Clinton's behavior had been 'boorish and offensive' it did not amount to sexual harassment under the law.

Jones appealed and the Supreme Court reinstated her case leading to the unprecedented step of President Clinton being forced to make a deposition.
:Paula Jones warns against voting for Hillary Clinton because of Bill Daily Mail Online


And Clinton paid Jones.

 

[JoeB131]

why are you bitching about something that happened over a year ago, Political Spice?

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing the outrage. You clowns on the right have no problem when rich corporations fire working schlubs by the thousands in order to increase profits.

But a rich corporation made a decision that one rich guy had become so toxic to their brand with their employees and customers that he had to go, and you guys are SCREAMING.

Hey, reality check. Brendon Eich was already rich. He's going to be just fine, really. There's no chance he's going to have to slaughter his Dressage Horses in order to provide meat for his family.

 

[JoeB131]

What's would be wrong with labeling Clarence Thomas a sexual abuser based only on unproven allegations,

when Bill Clinton has been routinely called a rapist based on the same sort of unproven allegations?

Fair is fair, isn't it?

You mean this Bill Clinton?

Clinton Misogyny - SexJuanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scannedCLINTON S ROGUES GALLERY

Do you rub one out every time you post that list?

 

[Seawytch]

You demonized McCarthy on behalf of your party. Whatever demagoguery and slander you may offer, the fact remains that McCarthy was right - irrefutably proven decades ago.

There are several ways that one can treat a figure like McCarthy—one might, for instance, learn from him that it is a logical contradiction with horrific consequences to think that one can protect democracy by subverting democratic principles like due process and free speech. If, however, like Ashcroft, Bush, Coulter, et al, one is engaged in exactly that practice, then one is determined not to learn that lesson. The answer is to re-write history, and that is what the right is currently trying to do by claiming that McCarthy has been proven right.

This argument depends upon characterizing McCarthy's rhetoric and his critics' in two very specific ways. First, one has to transmogrify McCarthy's assertions and policies into something strikingly different from what they were. Second, one has to reduce all criticism of McCarthy to an assertion made by a fringe part of a fringe part of what is mis-named "the left." That is, this argument runs, McCarthy was right because there really were communists. What this ignores is that McCarthy asserted much, much more than just that there were communists, that he was wrong in how he identified communists, what he thought should be done about them, and his basic strategies for dealing with Soviet spies. It also ignores that, except for Stalinist stooges, his critics granted that there were communists. What they did not grant was that he was correctly identifying them, that his methods for fighting communism were helpful, nor that the situation merited abrogating basic constitutional principles.

And that is the point that defenders of McCarthy are trying to slide over. It is not simply that McCarthy said there were communist spies—which there were, but whom he did not name—but that he wanted to conflate two completely different categories of people: people who were engaged in something illegal (treason) and people who were engaged in something constitutionally protected (dissent).
​

McCarthy was Wrong

 

[gipper]

why are you bitching about something that happened over a year ago, Political Spice?

I guess I'm having a hard time seeing the outrage. You clowns on the right have no problem when rich corporations fire working schlubs by the thousands in order to increase profits.

But a rich corporation made a decision that one rich guy had become so toxic to their brand with their employees and customers that he had to go, and you guys are SCREAMING.

Hey, reality check. Brendon Eich was already rich. He's going to be just fine, really. There's no chance he's going to have to slaughter his Dressage Horses in order to provide meat for his family.

Yeah...we should just forget about it. The most powerful man in the world gets a pass by the Left, but those dirty corporations....get em!!!!

 

[gipper]

What's would be wrong with labeling Clarence Thomas a sexual abuser based only on unproven allegations,

when Bill Clinton has been routinely called a rapist based on the same sort of unproven allegations?

Fair is fair, isn't it?

You mean this Bill Clinton?

Clinton Misogyny - SexJuanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scannedCLINTON S ROGUES GALLERY

Do you rub one out every time you post that list?

Geez Joey...you are a lot of things, but a pervert too....

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah...we should just forget about it. The most powerful man in the world gets a pass by the Left, but those dirty corporations....get em!!!!

Uh, guy, it was the AMERICAN PEOPLE who gave Clinton a pass. 67% were opposed to impeachment, either because they were happy with the way things were going, or they just felt that this was between Clinton and his wife and no one else's business. (Since something like 60% of married people cheat during the marriage at some point, they were willing to be forgiving.)

It was also bad form that Clinton's biggest persecutors were guys who either got divorces or cheated on their spouses or both.

Now, my point about Mozilla/Firefox is that they made a business decision. Brendon Eich was bad for their brand name. Was it unfair? Yup. So was the lady I worked with who was fired for being gay in 2000 because her Christian Co-worker whined about her.

 

[JoeB131]

Geez Joey...you are a lot of things, but a pervert too....

No, I was just asking the question, you wingnuts seem awfully fixated on where Clinton was sticking his wiener. I just picture Political Spice rubbing one out when she reads that list.

 

[gipper]

Yeah...we should just forget about it. The most powerful man in the world gets a pass by the Left, but those dirty corporations....get em!!!!

Uh, guy, it was the AMERICAN PEOPLE who gave Clinton a pass. 67% were opposed to impeachment, either because they were happy with the way things were going, or they just felt that this was between Clinton and his wife and no one else's business. (Since something like 60% of married people cheat during the marriage at some point, they were willing to be forgiving.)

It was also bad form that Clinton's biggest persecutors were guys who either got divorces or cheated on their spouses or both.

Now, my point about Mozilla/Firefox is that they made a business decision. Brendon Eich was bad for their brand name. Was it unfair? Yup. So was the lady I worked with who was fired for being gay in 2000 because her Christian Co-worker whined about her.

So in your mind, since the voters voted for BJ Bubba (no one would confuse American voters with intelligence) he should be above the law and any criminal acts he has caused should be ignored. Is that your position?

Do you really think an R pol with BJ's resume, would also get a pass?

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are several ways that one can treat a figure like McCarthy​

Perhaps, but you are a democrat, so you will lynch him - that is what democrats do.

—one might, for instance, learn from him that it is a logical contradiction with horrific consequences to think that one can protect democracy by subverting democratic principles like due process and free speech. If, however, like Ashcroft, Bush, Coulter, et al, one is engaged in exactly that practice, then one is determined not to learn that lesson. The answer is to re-write history, and that is what the right is currently trying to do by claiming that McCarthy has been proven right.

It's interesting that Communists, such as the one you are plagiarizing from a Soros hate site, fail when challenged to demonstrate that McCarthy subverted free speech. How exactly did he do so?

Ah, but this isn't an examination of fact, just more demagoguery from the left - slander and libel are the weapons you use - that is when you are not subverting free speech and due process through political correctness.

This argument depends upon characterizing McCarthy's rhetoric and his critics' in two very specific ways. First, one has to transmogrify McCarthy's assertions and policies into something strikingly different from what they were. Second, one has to reduce all criticism of McCarthy to an assertion made by a fringe part of a fringe part of what is mis-named "the left." That is, this argument runs, McCarthy was right because there really were communists. What this ignores is that McCarthy asserted much, much more than just that there were communists, that he was wrong in how he identified communists, what he thought should be done about them, and his basic strategies for dealing with Soviet spies. It also ignores that, except for Stalinist stooges, his critics granted that there were communists. What they did not grant was that he was correctly identifying them, that his methods for fighting communism were helpful, nor that the situation merited abrogating basic constitutional principles.

And that is the point that defenders of McCarthy are trying to slide over. It is not simply that McCarthy said there were communist spies—which there were, but whom he did not name—but that he wanted to conflate two completely different categories of people: people who were engaged in something illegal (treason) and people who were engaged in something constitutionally protected (dissent).

Again, the hate site you plagiarized offers demagoguery, but we simply can's show any facts. More slander and libel don't make your case.

MCarthy named very few people as Communists, but those he did name have been positively confirmed. McCarthy was right, and you are a demagogue.

 

[Seawytch]

There are several ways that one can treat a figure like McCarthy​

Perhaps, but you are a democrat, so you will lynch him - that is what democrats do.

—one might, for instance, learn from him that it is a logical contradiction with horrific consequences to think that one can protect democracy by subverting democratic principles like due process and free speech. If, however, like Ashcroft, Bush, Coulter, et al, one is engaged in exactly that practice, then one is determined not to learn that lesson. The answer is to re-write history, and that is what the right is currently trying to do by claiming that McCarthy has been proven right.

It's interesting that Communists, such as the one you are plagiarizing from a Soros hate site, fail when challenged to demonstrate that McCarthy subverted free speech. How exactly did he do so?

Ah, but this isn't an examination of fact, just more demagoguery from the left - slander and libel are the weapons you use - that is when you are not subverting free speech and due process through political correctness.

This argument depends upon characterizing McCarthy's rhetoric and his critics' in two very specific ways. First, one has to transmogrify McCarthy's assertions and policies into something strikingly different from what they were. Second, one has to reduce all criticism of McCarthy to an assertion made by a fringe part of a fringe part of what is mis-named "the left." That is, this argument runs, McCarthy was right because there really were communists. What this ignores is that McCarthy asserted much, much more than just that there were communists, that he was wrong in how he identified communists, what he thought should be done about them, and his basic strategies for dealing with Soviet spies. It also ignores that, except for Stalinist stooges, his critics granted that there were communists. What they did not grant was that he was correctly identifying them, that his methods for fighting communism were helpful, nor that the situation merited abrogating basic constitutional principles.

And that is the point that defenders of McCarthy are trying to slide over. It is not simply that McCarthy said there were communist spies—which there were, but whom he did not name—but that he wanted to conflate two completely different categories of people: people who were engaged in something illegal (treason) and people who were engaged in something constitutionally protected (dissent).

Again, the hate site you plagiarized offers demagoguery, but we simply can's show any facts. More slander and libel don't make your case.

MCarthy named very few people as Communists, but those he did name have been positively confirmed. McCarthy was right, and you are a demagogue.

You proved one of the first lines I quoted...that nutty RWers today embrace a kook like McCarthy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You proved one of the first lines I quoted...that nutty RWers today embrace a kook like McCarthy.

More slander, but still not a single fact from you.

Who did McCarthy deny free speech to? How did he do so?

Go back to your hate site and see if there are any hate memes that answer this.