Thanks liberals

ZappasGuitar said:
Am I surprised that GBA conveniently forgets that the "dallience" with the young intern was CONSENSUAL and NOT sexual assault? Of course I'm not surprised...he's more interested in whining about how wrong I am than he is in the truth.
Click to expand...

I don't recall claiming that it was an "assault", my little puppet.

Y O U, on the other hand, made this claim:

ZappasGuitar said:
As is so very typical, the JPP conservative has the facts wrong. It wasn't Liberals who started this form of "campaigning". It was REPUBLICANS who first used women from the past to try and bring down Bill Clinton.
Click to expand...

Nothing to say about the fact that I debunked your inaccurate statement?

Have you never heard the stories DEMOCRATS spread about Grover Cleveland and Maria Halpin?

Have you "forgotten" the documented antics of Andrew Jackson, the first DEMOCRAT president, FDR, JFK, LBJ, RFK, Ted Kennedy, and Gary Hart?

Have you never heard the rumors that were circulated about President James Buchanan and William Rufus King?

Obviously, "women from the past" have been widely used by both parties to "try and bring down" opposition candidates for over a century in American politics.

So, no, it wasn't "REPUBLICANS who first used women from the past to try and bring down Bill Clinton" or "started this form of campaigning".

You seem to be be ignoring that fact, Zappacrite.
 
floridafan said:
Most of the allegations against Clinton, were just that, allegations. yet it didnt stop you from convicting him without proof
Click to expand...

Of course these days the GOP and their TROLLS are busily engaged in revisionist history.

What are "unfounded allegations" when levelled against Roy Moore was "proof" that Clinton was guilty back during the Paula Jones/Juanita Broaddrick scandals.

All the GOP needed was Juanita Broaddrick's word to convince them Clinton was a rapist, but the accusations of multiple women regarding Roy Moore are nothing but unfounded hearsay.
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Of course these days the GOP and their TROLLS are busily engaged in revisionist history. What are "unfounded allegations" when levelled against Roy Moore was "proof" that Clinton was guilty back during the Paula Jones/Juanita Broaddrick scandals. All the GOP needed was Juanita Broaddrick's word to convince them Clinton was a rapist, but the accusations of multiple women regarding Roy Moore are nothing but unfounded hearsay.
Click to expand...

I seem to recall a time when you seemed to be possessed of some skepticism about conveniently-timed allegations.

ZappasGuitar said:
"But you DON'T have a right to wait 20+ years, until it is politically advantageous, to raise your voice." A pity not a one of those women came forward AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED ASSAULT to make their claims.
Click to expand...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Oh WOW! What biting wit!! You sure got him that time!
Click to expand...

What I didn't get is a single example that might lend his claim any validity, Zappacrite.

anchovies said:
Actually, the right wing media has been doing that for decades, except they wouldn't go as far as "holding news conferences," rather their tactic was to introduce an innuendo, and then "promote what ever" the innuendo implied "to denigrate the political opposition."
Click to expand...
 
ZappasGuitar said:
Actually the "Clinton sex scandals" were based on nothing but baseless, unfounded allegations.

Not a single charge was levied...not a single guilty plea was uttered.

And of course, due process mattered not to the GOP during their witch hunt
Click to expand...

Blue dress.
 
floridafan said:
Not speaking of her cum quat, but all the other women whose allegations you accept completely without any evidence. The same evidence you were demanding with the Moore accusations.
Click to expand...

Are you seriously attacking Lewinsky, still?

The testimony in the Clinton case was corroborated by several women who had not been privy to the other victim's stories. Then there was the egregious behavior of Hillary Clinton attacking the victims, corroborated by additional witnesses. And there was nothing, except the Clinton's vehement denials and lies, that opposed the testimony. And of course, the allegations of rape.

Not at all like the Moore case.
 
Right said:
Are you seriously attacking Lewinsky, still?

The testimony in the Clinton case was corroborated by several women who had not been privy to the other victim's stories. Then there was the egregious behavior of Hillary Clinton attacking the victims, corroborated by additional witnesses. And there was nothing, except the Clinton's vehement denials and lies, that opposed the testimony. And of course, the allegations of rape.



Not at all like the Moore case.
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with Lewinsky, moron. Dont play dumber than you actually are
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top