Which goes to prove he uses Christianity as a mask. Who does that? Not Christians.
Christianity on JPP, and nationally
- Thread starter BartenderElite
- Start date
He's a genuinely good person. I've witnessed when he has been beset upon by the liars, haters, and bullies of two forums -- several of whom are frauds who put themselves out as something they are not. They seem to really despise those who are the real deal and wish to destroy them. Jade's never said boo to Minty, for example, yet on several occasions she's viciously attacked him for being disabled. When someone who self-describes as ever so strong, brave, honest, etc. has such an emotional meltdown over some stranger on the Internet who barely knows that she exists, it's telling, don't you think?
Most sexual assualt cases are He said/She said. He perjured himself in the Paula Flowers case. I have no doubt Clinton assaulted them.
Worse, was that the women were quickly shut down and labeled gold digging whores by Democrats faithful to Bill. IMO, there is a direct line between the immorality of Bill Clinton to the even greater immorality of Donald Trump. In both cases their fans are supporting immoral people for political ends. It's not good for the nation to do so.
Our leaders should be held to a higher standard. When we don't do that, then we end up with assholes like Pedo Don.
You have a very good knowledge of Catholic practices, Owl.
You forgot about some of the important stuff like Bingo however.
A couple of very good friends of mine were in a band back in the day.
A local parish priest gave them the key to his church basement function hall
so it could serve as their band practice studio whenever it was available, which was most of the time.
The "rent" was that they would play the parish's two annual dinner dances.
Meanwhile, most of the Protestant congregations in town
didn't even have liquor licenses!!!
Two words: Parish picnics!!! And of course, the Friday fish fries during Lent! Those Catholic ladies can sure serve up some fried jack salmon and meatless spaghetti! lol
Most sexual assualt cases are He said/She said. He perjured himself in the Paula Flowers case. I have no doubt Clinton assaulted them.
Worse, was that the women were quickly shut down and labeled gold digging whores by Democrats faithful to Bill. IMO, there is a direct line between the immorality of Bill Clinton to the even greater immorality of Donald Trump. In both cases their fans are supporting immoral people for political ends. It's not good for the nation to do so.
Our leaders should be held to a higher standard. When we don't do that, then we end up with assholes like Pedo Don.
I think I tried to wait until Trump was legally found to be a rapist in a court of law, before I began calling him a sexual assaulter.
There's no doubt that Clinton had at least two extramarital affairs, and seems to have made clumsy and sleazy passes at a few other women.
I'm not going to call him a rapist and a perjurer until a court or jury declares him such.
Parse all you like, neef. No one is denying polarization, especially among political extremists, which includes those advocating forced partition of Americans.
Perhaps you should reread the Constitution's Preamble: https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/preamble/
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Your choice. There's the legal issue and there's the moral issue.
I, for one, would never vote for someone who has a strong record of sleaziness. Consider Biden and Tara Reade. He said/she said. One incident which could go either way. Now consider the track records of both Slick Willie and Pedo Don; both lengthy and both proved to an extent by their own words and deeds. Biden's record is clean and he has no history of sleaziness despite the single, unsupported accusation. Not so with the other two.
Let's be honest; if a CEO or General took advantage of an intern the way Willie did with Monica, there'd be a lot of Democrats asking for their heads. So why is Bill Clinton different? Because Bill served a political purpose. The exact same reasoning is being used by the MAGAts for Donnie. We should hold our leaders to a higher standard than "Well, he's not as bad as the opposing side's guy".
E. Jean Carroll didn't have any first hand witnesses to Trump's sexual assault. It doesn't have to boil down to he said she said.
But she was able to establish other lines of evidence corroborating the credibility of her story and it's legal standing in court.
That legal approach was and is available to all the women who accused Clinton of assault. There's no statue of limitations in a civil trial as far as I know. So they could still sue Clinton this summer if they could produce witnesses that she told about the assault directly after it happened, and witnesses willing to testify under oath that Clinton has the same pattern of assault with them. That's how E. Jean Carroll won her case.
Lots of sexual assaults go unprosecuted for lack of evidence.
Once we develop a mind-reading machine, then things will change. I have great hopes for the future.
BartenderElite
Verified User
Nope.
Lots of sexual assaults go unprosecuted for lack of evidence.
Once we develop a mind-reading machine, then things will change. I have great hopes for the future.
We don't convict people or call them guilty without sufficient evidence and corroboration.
I've never been on the bandwagon that says we have to believe anything and everything any woman says.
We should take it seriously. But we also need corroborating evidence.
Johnny Depp was not a good husband. But a court of law and jury determined that Amber Heard lied her ass off about him
Agreed. Innocent until proven guilty. Still, voting is different. If a person's background is suspect, I won't vote for them. Bill lied to the American public when he claimed he didn't inhale. His draft-dodging was a particular point of immorality to me for a person running to become Commander-in-Chief. Just because Trump is several times worse doesn't excuse Bill's actions.
To be clear; I'm talking about holding our leaders to a higher standard since they have direct control over the life and death of American citizens.
Depp and Heard are both flakes. Their choice. I wouldn't vote for either of them to become Dog Catcher much less a Senator or President.
You definitely can't just automatically believe everything any woman says anywhere at any time. A psychotic ex-friend of my wife had a falling out with my spouse, and then she tried to retaliate by claiming to my wife that she had had sex with me. A complete lie intended to hurt my wife and poison our marriage. An attempt which failed.
Any one person? Agreed. However, two points define a line. Additionally, there are the comments and actions of the accused. Again, this is apples and oranges: There is the legal, court side and there's voting for a suspected scumbag.
I've seen a lot of nasty divorces. In one, the wife accused the soon-to-be ex of molesting their baby. Some have become very bitter over a dog. Still, we're talking about single instances, not repeated accusations and certainly not about a candidate for President.
Consider this; I wouldn't vote for Ted Cruz for several reasons but two good reasons are him sucking up to the man who insulted his wife and his running off to Cancun during the Big Texas Freeze. None of them are crimes nor has he been convicted of anything. Are you saying I'm wrong not to vote for him based on either of those two incidents?
Yakuda
Verified User
Haters never think they hate right?
Correct.
BTW, you forgot to call him a leftist cockroach, a dimwitted dunce, a lying sack of dog shit and a host of other hateful names you use for those who disagree with you.
BartenderElite
Verified User
Why do you think that?
Hate is something I consciously stay away from. It's poisonous & counter-productive.
I've never posted hatefully here. I criticize some public figures, but that isn't hate.
Yakuda
Verified User
What's else should I call a leftist cockroach, a dimwitted dunce, a lying sack of shit, etc, etc? I'm open to suggestions. You realize dont you one of the "friendly leftist atheists" on this site has posted their hope that I be violently murdered and you have the stones to whine that I use hateful names for those that disagree with me? Forgive me if I'm not too upset. As much of a pain in the ass as I might be I have never wished I'll on anyone. Yet when "anti vaxxers" died during the pandemic leftists were so full of sympathy huh? Or when rush Limbaugh died. Stop the silliness.
BTW I disagree with you, have I called you a hateful name?
Last edited:
Yakuda
Verified User
I admit I hate haters. Yes. And if someone behaves like an animal I treat them like an animal.
Lots of people think they aren't haters. Do you think the poster who has said they hope I am violently murdered would consider themself hateful? I started a thread one time asking leftist why they hate trump so much. Only one person was honest enough to say they hate trump. You honestly want to tell me leftists dont hate trump? Its this delusional thinking of leftists that I have a problem with not the hate.
BartenderElite
Verified User
I think another poster made that same argument on this thread. The idea that someone else is always responsible for hateful words.
We all own the way we communicate. I have had quite a few posters on here react to my posts w/ hate, insults, name-calling & just generally vile sentiments. I'm never goaded to respond in kind.