Fair Game?

Superfreak said:
1) Unfortunately many women don't report rape/abuse. For a variety of reasons.

2) She LIVED IN ARKANSAS... Clinton was running for AG of Arkansas.

I can't speak for her as to why she didn't back then.

But I will say this... the comment YOU made was addressing MY comment that she would have been in the public eye. You 'rolled your eyes' and said she wouldn't be dragged in the public eye in 1978, which made NO FUCKING SENSE as a response to my comment.
Click to expand...

"
Y O U made this comment: LMAO... because she didn't want to be dragged into the scandal in front of the nation... yep... shocking."

I don't know why she didn't report the attack 20 years earlier either. But it wasn't Clinton who brought it up in 1998, it was his enemies trying to put him out of office. It was his enemies who put her in the public eye. I guess you're too stupid to get it.
 
christiefan915 said:
GFY, you disgusting piece of shit. I already said I believe that something happened with Broaddrick but it couldn't be proven by Starr and anyone else.
Click to expand...

Yet you are regurgitating the same type of crap that Tom would. Why? If you think something happened with her, why are you trying so hard to defend Clinton?
 
christiefan915 said:
"
Y O U made this comment: LMAO... because she didn't want to be dragged into the scandal in front of the nation... yep... shocking."

I don't know why she didn't report the attack 20 years earlier either. But it wasn't Clinton who brought it up in 1998, it was his enemies trying to put him out of office. It was his enemies who put her in the public eye. I guess you're too stupid to get it.
Click to expand...

You are the one proving you are as retarded as Desh. I didn't comment once on WHO was trying to force her into the public eye. Desh commented on her affadavit. I responded with a reason for her lying at the time.

Are you too stupid to comprehend that has NOTHING to do with who was forcing her into the public eye????
 
christiefan915 said:
Why are so many cons defending Cosby and calling his accusers money-grubbers?
Click to expand...

It's not just cons. Read what a lot of people in the black community have to say.

At the crux of this whole thing is Hillary's recent comments about rape victims and how Beoderick was treated
 
Superfreak said:
Yet you are regurgitating the same type of crap that Tom would. Why? If you think something happened with her, why are you trying so hard to defend Clinton?
Click to expand...

I am not defending Bill Clinton, you moron. And the only thing I "regurgitated" was what the Starr investigation and other investigations concluded about the women, which you would know if you actually researched them.
 
Superfreak said:
You are the one proving you are as retarded as Desh. I didn't comment once on WHO was trying to force her into the public eye. Desh commented on her affadavit. I responded with a reason for her lying at the time.

Are you too stupid to comprehend that has NOTHING to do with who was forcing her into the public eye????
Click to expand...

Are you too stupid to comprehend that her lying, recanting and new accusation is the reason her comments were being questioned?

It's just too funny that you're calling Hillary a hypocrite but giving Broaddrick's actions a pass.

And your calling me a rape apologist because I posted the results of the 1999 investigation shows what a nasty piece of work you really are.
 
evince said:
Using a Verimetrics Instrument, a cutting edge computerized psychological stress evaluator and lie detector that measures stress levels in a person's voice, Harwood has concluded that Broaddrick did have a sexual encounter with Clinton on the day she claims he sexually assaulted her, but it wasn't forced.
Click to expand...

Yet, she was crying and in distress afterward and told 2 of her friends that he raped her....why...why would she lie to her friends about that....

If she was the ONLY women to have come forward with accusations against him, I might give him the benefit of the doubt....but she was only one of a dozen others that have accused him.
Are they all liars, or is he the one and only liar.
 
NOVA said:
Yet, she was crying and in distress afterward and told 2 of her friends that he raped her....why...why would she lie to her friends about that....

If she was the ONLY women to have come forward with accusations against him, I might give him the benefit of the doubt....but she was only one of a dozen others that have accused him.
Are they all liars, or is he the one and only liar.
Click to expand...

Leftists are such hypocrites. With Anita Hill, that was all her evidence against Thomas. And she wasn't crying. But the leftists all said she told her friends! Guilty!!!!!

Liberalism is a fallacy wrapped in a double standard inside a hypocrisy
 
NOVA said:
Yet, she was crying and in distress afterward and told 2 of her friends that he raped her....why...why would she lie to her friends about that....

If she was the ONLY women to have come forward with accusations against him, I might give him the benefit of the doubt....but she was only one of a dozen others that have accused him.
Are they all liars, or is he the one and only liar.
Click to expand...

Post 240. What "dozen of others"?
 
Jarod said:
Trump has abused women, according to his second wife.

Trump has cheated on at least two of his three wives... admittedly.

Trump has fathered children out of wedlock while married.

And he's attacking HRC because her husband was a philanderer?
Click to expand...
actually, I'm pretty sure he's attacking HRC because she said Trump had a bad record on women's issues.......which is sort of like the coal mine calling the kettle black........
 
Jarod said:
1) His people, not hers.

2) She never said women should be believed about rape claims. She said victims of rape should be believed. There is a very significant difference, you know enough to see that.

Do you disagree with her that those who truly are victims should be believed?
Click to expand...

I disagree with your silly spin on 1) and 2)........We both know if a conservative made the same claim you wouldn't agree with it either......
 
christiefan915 said:
GFY, you disgusting piece of shit. I already said I believe that something happened with Broaddrick but it couldn't be proven by Starr and anyone else.
Click to expand...

More to the point, it couldn't be proven she committed perjury by Starr....she was under oath and claimed he raped her....she told 2 friends he raped her right after the incident.

Broaddrick had confided in Phillip Yoakum, in 1991, whom she knew from business circles and at the time considered a friend. Yoakum arranged a meeting between Nelson and Broaddrick, who resisted Yoakum's and Nelson’s push that she go public. Yoakum secretly taped the conversation and wrote a letter summarizing the allegations, which began to circulate within Republican circles. The story reached the New York Times and the LA Times in October 1992, but the papers dropped the story after Broaddrick refused to talk to reporters and Yoakum refused to release the recording .

The court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000.
Odd....the lawsuit is dropped and THEN Clinton settles for 850K ?

Gennifer Flowers, Monica Lewinsky ? He lied about both of them, until he confessed to having affairs with both....

So who passes The Pinocchio Test ?
 
NOVA said:
More to the point, it couldn't be proven she committed perjury by Starr....she was under oath and claimed he raped her....she told 2 friends he raped her right after the incident.

Broaddrick had confided in Phillip Yoakum, in 1991, whom she knew from business circles and at the time considered a friend. Yoakum arranged a meeting between Nelson and Broaddrick, who resisted Yoakum's and Nelson’s push that she go public. Yoakum secretly taped the conversation and wrote a letter summarizing the allegations, which began to circulate within Republican circles. The story reached the New York Times and the LA Times in October 1992, but the papers dropped the story after Broaddrick refused to talk to reporters and Yoakum refused to release the recording .

The court dismissed the Paula Jones harassment lawsuit, before trial, on the grounds that Jones failed to demonstrate any damages. However, while the dismissal was on appeal, Clinton entered into an out-of-court settlement by agreeing to pay Jones $850,000.
Odd....the lawsuit is dropped and THEN Clinton settles for 850K ?


So who passes The Pinocchio Test ?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

"Despite Broaddrick’s denial in her affidavit, Jones’ lawyers included Yoakum’s letter and Broaddrick's name in a 1998 filing.[SUP][8][/SUP] The letter suggested that the Clintons had bought Broaddrick’s silence, describing a phone call where Broaddrick’s husband asked Yoakum to say the incident never happened and said that he intended to ask Clinton “for a couple of big favors.”[SUP][11][/SUP] This, along with the discrepancy between the letter and Broaddrick’s affidavit, attracted the attention of independent counsel Kenneth Starr, who was investigating Clinton for obstruction of justice. After being approached by the FBI, Broaddrick consulted her son, a lawyer, who told her she could not lie to federal investigators.[SUP][3][/SUP] After they promised her she would not be prosecuted for perjury regarding her affidavit in the Jones case, Broaddrick recanted the affadavit. However, she insisted that Clinton had not pressured or bribed her in any way, and so Starr concluded that the story was not relevant to his investigation and his report only mentioned the recanting in a footnote.[SUP][9]"

[/SUP]And this is about Broaddrick, not Jones.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top