Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There's still no specific reference to the statement about hating black guys counting his money.Not only will we do that, but first let's post the complete quote:
"I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza—black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."
Get that? The writer's a "fucking loser" and at the same time what he wrote was 'probably true'. Considering his subject in the book was Donald Rump, and by writing about Rump the author was serving Rump's interests by publicizing him, yeah perhaps "fucking loser" is accurate. But so is the quote.
>> In an interview in 1999 with Playboy, Trump dismissed O’Donnell (the biographer) as a “fucking loser,” but not before conceding “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.” << --- Slate
You're welcome.
Oh by the way you'll find a link to the housing discrimination suit on that same page.
>> Trump settled the case two years later without admitting guilt, but as part of the deal he was required to provide the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies for two years. <<
You'll find that right before the paragraph about the Central Park Five, an accusation he has STILL to this day never backed down from, even after the perpetrator was caught, confessed, and the Five were cleared by DNA evidence. You know, the same way you have STILL to this day never admitted how you got pawned by a fake blog claiming a political convention took place on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks. In December.
More hearsay. Post a quote of Trump making that statement or him saying he made it. I'm not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims he said.
Actually I just did that. See the reference to the Playboy interview above.
I'm not aware of this writer's political positions, or if he even has any, and I'll bet the house you aren't either. Doesn't matter; the quote has nothing to do with politics, and Rump already confirmed it.
Funny how you're "not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims", and yet when some rightwing hack fake blogger posted a picture of wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and called it a political convention you came in your pants.
Is that what's smeared all over your face? Picked cherries?
When you click on the link to the playboy interview you get a "404 error," so no you didn't. Furthermore "stuff" is meaningless. What "stuff" is he referring to?
That's Slate's bad link. If you knew how to use the internets you could have found the original, here.
Then again if you knew how to use the internets you wouldn't be in the position of trying to tell readers that the 1924 Democratic convention took place on some trolley tracks in Wisconsin a month after the election had already happened, now would you?
Say, remind us again why "Liberals aren't liking" that 93-year-old photo? I forget. Oh wait, you never explained it.
Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
You know- like we imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea.- apparently leaving them 'no choice' but to go to war.....
In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said. Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said. Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said. Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
You're the one who has been defending Joseph Stalin, cockroach.
And their "solution" to eliminate the diversity they perceive as a threat is to rid the U.S. of all Jews, blacks, and other assorted minorities. Not too different than Nazi Germany's solution before they transitioned to their "final solution." When they hear, "make America great again," their pea brains translates that into, "make Amerikkka White again." Which is why the alt-right flocks to Trump,So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said. Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
View attachment 147048
You're equating a crime with relations between countries. Dropping depth charges on another nation's ships is an act of war. You're desperately trying to pretend that it's not. Germany never initiated any attack any American vessel prior to Dec 7 1941.In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said. Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
No- you just keep demonstrating what an Axis fan boy you are.
Using your own example
A man is raping a woman- another man sees this and pulls a gun on the rapist and says "I will shoot you if you don't stop raping that woman' - the rapist continues to rape and gets shot.
You would of course- claim that the man who shot the rapist was a murderer.
Japan of course being the rapist- the rapist of China and Vietnam- and the United States being the one trying to stop the rape.
But clearly the rape of Vietnam and China doesn't bother you- the only thing that bothers you is that the United States tried to stop the rape.
And their "solution" to eliminate the diversity they perceive as a threat is to rid the U.S. of all Jews, blacks, and other assorted minorities. Not too different than Nazi Germany's solution before they transitioned to their "final solution." When they hear, "make America great again," their pea brains translates that into, "make Amerikkka White again." Which is why the alt-right flocks to Trump,So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said. Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
View attachment 147048
That's the message Nazi-boi agrees with by agreeing with that banner.
So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said. Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
View attachment 147048
Like I said earlier, you'll make up any shit just to support your anti-American bullshit.You're equating a crime with relations between countries. Dropping depth charges on another nation's ships is an act of war. You're desperately trying to pretend that it's not. Germany never initiated any attack any American vessel prior to Dec 7 1941.Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said. Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
No- you just keep demonstrating what an Axis fan boy you are.
Using your own example
A man is raping a woman- another man sees this and pulls a gun on the rapist and says "I will shoot you if you don't stop raping that woman' - the rapist continues to rape and gets shot.
You would of course- claim that the man who shot the rapist was a murderer.
Japan of course being the rapist- the rapist of China and Vietnam- and the United States being the one trying to stop the rape.
But clearly the rape of Vietnam and China doesn't bother you- the only thing that bothers you is that the United States tried to stop the rape.
^^^ more deranged bullshit.And their "solution" to eliminate the diversity they perceive as a threat is to rid the U.S. of all Jews, blacks, and other assorted minorities. Not too different than Nazi Germany's solution before they transitioned to their "final solution." When they hear, "make America great again," their pea brains translates that into, "make Amerikkka White again." Which is why the alt-right flocks to Trump,So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
View attachment 147048
That's the message Nazi-boi agrees with by agreeing with that banner.
No one is talking about ridding this country of anyone except the left, which is proposing to rid it of white people. What they are proposing is to quit importing foreign cultures that are alien to our culture and our values. We've had our fill of that. The claim that somehow we benefit from "diversity" is obvious hogwash. The example of Japan is sufficient proof of that.
So what is your new justification for white genocide?
You're equating a crime with relations between countries. .Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said. Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
No- you just keep demonstrating what an Axis fan boy you are.
Using your own example
A man is raping a woman- another man sees this and pulls a gun on the rapist and says "I will shoot you if you don't stop raping that woman' - the rapist continues to rape and gets shot.
You would of course- claim that the man who shot the rapist was a murderer.
Japan of course being the rapist- the rapist of China and Vietnam- and the United States being the one trying to stop the rape.
But clearly the rape of Vietnam and China doesn't bother you- the only thing that bothers you is that the United States tried to stop the rape.
Germany never initiated any attack any American vessel prior to Dec 7 1941.Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said. Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
No- you just keep demonstrating what an Axis fan boy you are.
Using your own example
A man is raping a woman- another man sees this and pulls a gun on the rapist and says "I will shoot you if you don't stop raping that woman' - the rapist continues to rape and gets shot.
You would of course- claim that the man who shot the rapist was a murderer.
Japan of course being the rapist- the rapist of China and Vietnam- and the United States being the one trying to stop the rape.
But clearly the rape of Vietnam and China doesn't bother you- the only thing that bothers you is that the United States tried to stop the rape.
And their "solution" to eliminate the diversity they perceive as a threat is to rid the U.S. of all Jews, blacks, and other assorted minorities. Not too different than Nazi Germany's solution before they transitioned to their "final solution." When they hear, "make America great again," their pea brains translates that into, "make Amerikkka White again." Which is why the alt-right flocks to Trump,So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
View attachment 147048
That's the message Nazi-boi agrees with by agreeing with that banner.
No one is talking about ridding this country of anyone except the left, which is proposing to rid it of white people. What they are proposing is to quit importing foreign cultures that are alien to our culture and our values. We've had our fill of that. The claim that somehow we benefit from "diversity" is obvious hogwash. The example of Japan is sufficient proof of that.
So what is your new justification for white genocide?
So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said. Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
View attachment 147048
The people who engineered us into a war with Germany and Japan are Stalinists..
So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said. Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest. That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan. That's called "force." The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
View attachment 147048
Even leftists agree with the banner in the photo. .
Rapist?When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.Democrats opposed:
1. The Emancipation Proclamation
2. The 13th Amendment
3. The 14th Amendment
4. The 15th Amendment
5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867
6. The Civil Rights of 1866
7. The Enforcement Act of 1870
8. The Forced Act of 1871
9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871
10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875
11. The Freeman Bureau
12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957
13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960
14. The United State Civil Rights Commission
The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
The Democrats have never changed....champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
"The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity. "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties. That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders. Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections. So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew. That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans. Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery. The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force. And they had nothing to do with politics.
Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
Answer, you dunce.
LOLOL
Who has he raped?
LOLOLRapist?When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
The Democrats have never changed....champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
"The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity. "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties. That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders. Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections. So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew. That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans. Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery. The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force. And they had nothing to do with politics.
Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
Answer, you dunce.
LOLOL
Who has he raped?
NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
"But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?" Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
LOLOLRapist?The Democrats have never changed....champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
"The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity. "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties. That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders. Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections. So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew. That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans. Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery. The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force. And they had nothing to do with politics.
Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
Answer, you dunce.
LOLOL
Who has he raped?
NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
"But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?" Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
An opinion piece, ‘what if, Starr was right’; which speculates...
Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.
So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
LOLOLRapist?The Democrats have never changed....champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
"The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity. "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties. That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders. Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections. So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew. That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans. Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery. The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force. And they had nothing to do with politics.
Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
Answer, you dunce.
LOLOL
Who has he raped?
NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
"But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?" Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
An opinion piece, ‘what if, Starr was right’; which speculates...
Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected. These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family.
So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
Rapist?When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
The Democrats have never changed....champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
"The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity. "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties. That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders. Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections. So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew. That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans. Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery. The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force. And they had nothing to do with politics.
Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
Answer, you dunce.
LOLOL
Who has he raped?
NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...?
