The next Abuser--Charlie Rose!

[Esmeralda]

What are you babbling about? Rose never said he was innocent, neither did Franken or any of the Hollywood Democrats.

Have any more strawmen you need to post? Why your desperate need to defend Democrat rapists and molestors?

So Moore is innocent because he says he's innocent? Simple. OK

Cosby must be innocent because he admits to nothing, and most of the accusations are decades old. Right? According to your belief system. Oh, no! He can't be innocent, he's a liberal. Hmmm.....

But there are gazillion red neck, i.e. conservative, men in prison who claim they are innoncent; so they must be. We better let them out. Yep.

Yes, you nor Moore's accusers have no evidence. We know that already. People in prison had their days in court, and can still have them if they're innocent.

Next dissembling 'talking points' with no basis in facts?

What about Cosby? Is he innocent? Because there is no evidence and his trial ended in a mistrial. And all the accusations are decades old. According to your way of seeing it, he must be innocent and all the women are lying--oops, except he is a liberal, so therefore he must be guilty. Right?

Unless and until Bill Cosby is convicted of a crime, society is powerless to punish him for anything. It is not the job of the court of public opinion to decide who is guilty of a crime.

I think the narrative is that we're supposed to believe women never lie, manipulate, or use sex to gain advantages or something. We all know that's nonsense, and a lot of women would screw a pack of dogs in the middle of a freeway if it got them a star role in a movie or an easy job, but PC Nazism demands we shouldn't be skeptical of baseless claims with no evidence if the claims are made against rich guys in show biz or politics; in Rose's case we know he's guilty, same with Franken, so no need to defend their stupidity, but Moore has denied it and there is zero proof he did anything illegal, no credible sources yet, so tough for the gimps who have spent some $30 million on ruining him and his campaign so far.

I think what you are supposed to consider is preponderence of evidence. Where you have 20 or 30 or so women making the same claims, women who don't know each other and are even of different generations and often have no stake whatever, nothing to gain, accusing someone of the same thing, then we can't just ignore it.

 

[Picaro]

So Moore is innocent because he says he's innocent? Simple. OK

Cosby must be innocent because he admits to nothing, and most of the accusations are decades old. Right? According to your belief system. Oh, no! He can't be innocent, he's a liberal. Hmmm.....

But there are gazillion red neck, i.e. conservative, men in prison who claim they are innoncent; so they must be. We better let them out. Yep.

Yes, you nor Moore's accusers have no evidence. We know that already. People in prison had their days in court, and can still have them if they're innocent.

Next dissembling 'talking points' with no basis in facts?

What about Cosby? Is he innocent? Because there is no evidence and his trial ended in a mistrial. And all the accusations are decades old. According to your way of seeing it, he must be innocent and all the women are lying--oops, except he is a liberal, so therefore he must be guilty. Right?

Unless and until Bill Cosby is convicted of a crime, society is powerless to punish him for anything. It is not the job of the court of public opinion to decide who is guilty of a crime.

I think the narrative is that we're supposed to believe women never lie, manipulate, or use sex to gain advantages or something. We all know that's nonsense, and a lot of women would screw a pack of dogs in the middle of a freeway if it got them a star role in a movie or an easy job, but PC Nazism demands we shouldn't be skeptical of baseless claims with no evidence if the claims are made against rich guys in show biz or politics; in Rose's case we know he's guilty, same with Franken, so no need to defend their stupidity, but Moore has denied it and there is zero proof he did anything illegal, no credible sources yet, so tough for the gimps who have spent some $30 million on ruining him and his campaign so far.

I think what you are supposed to consider is preponderence of evidence. Where you have 20 or 30 or so women making the same claims, women who don't know each other and are even of different generations and often have no stake whatever, nothing to gain, accusing someone of the same thing, then we can't just ignore it.

Ah well, I see your excellent point... So if I can find a couple dozen Nazis who say Jews kil and eat Gentile babies, I should take their testimony seriously ....

 

[Esmeralda]

Yes, you nor Moore's accusers have no evidence. We know that already. People in prison had their days in court, and can still have them if they're innocent.

Next dissembling 'talking points' with no basis in facts?

What about Cosby? Is he innocent? Because there is no evidence and his trial ended in a mistrial. And all the accusations are decades old. According to your way of seeing it, he must be innocent and all the women are lying--oops, except he is a liberal, so therefore he must be guilty. Right?

Unless and until Bill Cosby is convicted of a crime, society is powerless to punish him for anything. It is not the job of the court of public opinion to decide who is guilty of a crime.

I think the narrative is that we're supposed to believe women never lie, manipulate, or use sex to gain advantages or something. We all know that's nonsense, and a lot of women would screw a pack of dogs in the middle of a freeway if it got them a star role in a movie or an easy job, but PC Nazism demands we shouldn't be skeptical of baseless claims with no evidence if the claims are made against rich guys in show biz or politics; in Rose's case we know he's guilty, same with Franken, so no need to defend their stupidity, but Moore has denied it and there is zero proof he did anything illegal, no credible sources yet, so tough for the gimps who have spent some $30 million on ruining him and his campaign so far.

I think what you are supposed to consider is preponderence of evidence. Where you have 20 or 30 or so women making the same claims, women who don't know each other and are even of different generations and often have no stake whatever, nothing to gain, accusing someone of the same thing, then we can't just ignore it.

Ah well, I see your excellent point... So if I can find a couple dozen Nazis who say Jews kil and eat Gentile babies, I should take their testimony seriously ....

That's a logical fallacy. And BTW, if women accuse Franken without any evidence, are they lying too, like the ones who accuse Moore? Or is it just when Republicans are accused that the women are lying?

 

[Humorme]

What are you babbling about? Rose never said he was innocent, neither did Franken or any of the Hollywood Democrats.

Have any more strawmen you need to post? Why your desperate need to defend Democrat rapists and molestors?

So Moore is innocent because he says he's innocent? Simple. OK

Cosby must be innocent because he admits to nothing, and most of the accusations are decades old. Right? According to your belief system. Oh, no! He can't be innocent, he's a liberal. Hmmm.....

But there are gazillion red neck, i.e. conservative, men in prison who claim they are innoncent; so they must be. We better let them out. Yep.

Yes, you nor Moore's accusers have no evidence. We know that already. People in prison had their days in court, and can still have them if they're innocent.

Next dissembling 'talking points' with no basis in facts?

What about Cosby? Is he innocent? Because there is no evidence and his trial ended in a mistrial. And all the accusations are decades old. According to your way of seeing it, he must be innocent and all the women are lying--oops, except he is a liberal, so therefore he must be guilty. Right?

Unless and until Bill Cosby is convicted of a crime, society is powerless to punish him for anything. It is not the job of the court of public opinion to decide who is guilty of a crime.

I think the narrative is that we're supposed to believe women never lie, manipulate, or use sex to gain advantages or something. We all know that's nonsense, and a lot of women would screw a pack of dogs in the middle of a freeway if it got them a star role in a movie or an easy job, but PC Nazism demands we shouldn't be skeptical of baseless claims with no evidence if the claims are made against rich guys in show biz or politics; in Rose's case we know he's guilty, same with Franken, so no need to defend their stupidity, but Moore has denied it and there is zero proof he did anything illegal, no credible sources yet, so tough for the gimps who have spent some $30 million on ruining him and his campaign so far.

You are right about the narrative, but I have some other opinions on the subject. I responded to a thread on another board that was applicable. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I'd like to reproduce what I said and let the chips fall where they may:

So Moore is innocent because he says he's innocent? Simple. OK

Cosby must be innocent because he admits to nothing, and most of the accusations are decades old. Right? According to your belief system. Oh, no! He can't be innocent, he's a liberal. Hmmm.....

But there are gazillion red neck, i.e. conservative, men in prison who claim they are innoncent; so they must be. We better let them out. Yep.

Yes, you nor Moore's accusers have no evidence. We know that already. People in prison had their days in court, and can still have them if they're innocent.

Next dissembling 'talking points' with no basis in facts?

What about Cosby? Is he innocent? Because there is no evidence and his trial ended in a mistrial. And all the accusations are decades old. According to your way of seeing it, he must be innocent and all the women are lying--oops, except he is a liberal, so therefore he must be guilty. Right?

Unless and until Bill Cosby is convicted of a crime, society is powerless to punish him for anything. It is not the job of the court of public opinion to decide who is guilty of a crime.

I think the narrative is that we're supposed to believe women never lie, manipulate, or use sex to gain advantages or something. We all know that's nonsense, and a lot of women would screw a pack of dogs in the middle of a freeway if it got them a star role in a movie or an easy job, but PC Nazism demands we shouldn't be skeptical of baseless claims with no evidence if the claims are made against rich guys in show biz or politics; in Rose's case we know he's guilty, same with Franken, so no need to defend their stupidity, but Moore has denied it and there is zero proof he did anything illegal, no credible sources yet, so tough for the gimps who have spent some $30 million on ruining him and his campaign so far.

I think what you are supposed to consider is preponderence of evidence. Where you have 20 or 30 or so women making the same claims, women who don't know each other and are even of different generations and often have no stake whatever, nothing to gain, accusing someone of the same thing, then we can't just ignore it.

Whether you ignore it or not is up to you. You should not try someone in the court of public opinion. We have courts for that. Maybe women should be prosecuted for not reporting crimes. That way they cannot use it as ammunition for political blackmail.

 

[Picaro]

What about Cosby? Is he innocent? Because there is no evidence and his trial ended in a mistrial. And all the accusations are decades old. According to your way of seeing it, he must be innocent and all the women are lying--oops, except he is a liberal, so therefore he must be guilty. Right?

Unless and until Bill Cosby is convicted of a crime, society is powerless to punish him for anything. It is not the job of the court of public opinion to decide who is guilty of a crime.

I think the narrative is that we're supposed to believe women never lie, manipulate, or use sex to gain advantages or something. We all know that's nonsense, and a lot of women would screw a pack of dogs in the middle of a freeway if it got them a star role in a movie or an easy job, but PC Nazism demands we shouldn't be skeptical of baseless claims with no evidence if the claims are made against rich guys in show biz or politics; in Rose's case we know he's guilty, same with Franken, so no need to defend their stupidity, but Moore has denied it and there is zero proof he did anything illegal, no credible sources yet, so tough for the gimps who have spent some $30 million on ruining him and his campaign so far.

I think what you are supposed to consider is preponderence of evidence. Where you have 20 or 30 or so women making the same claims, women who don't know each other and are even of different generations and often have no stake whatever, nothing to gain, accusing someone of the same thing, then we can't just ignore it.

Ah well, I see your excellent point... So if I can find a couple dozen Nazis who say Jews kil and eat Gentile babies, I should take their testimony seriously ....

That's a logical fallacy. And BTW, if women accuse Franken without any evidence, are they lying too, like the ones who accuse Moore? Or is it just when Republicans are accused that the women are lying?

It's a fallacy you keep repeating here over and over and over, so quit embarrassing yourself with that. We've already covered the differences; whether you and the Hive are happy about the truth or not is of no concern to me or anybody but yourselves. It's not my problem if you just want to be fashionable rather than think for yourself, after all.