Democrat/Hollywood mogul, Harvey Weinstein, officially accused of rape by women

[Slyhunter]

Twisting words...

Trump was making a joke, and it was actually derogatory toward the women who'd let him do it (as in they were slutty.)

Frankly, even if Trump does love grabbing *****, there's nothing wrong with that so get off your phony moral high horse and stop making a fool of yourself. Personally I have zero issues with letting my husband grab my ***** - I loved it before we got married, before we got "serious," before we were even officially "dating."

Yeah, but I bet you loved your husband. What phony high horse? I'm disgusted by pig like the Orange Buffoon using his power and influence to intimidate women and grab their pussies and you're not. That says a lot about you. None of it good.

My first husband? Yes I do, but that immature young love we had when we got married was... transient, for both of us. We were in a rush for that white picket fence, American dream; a home and starting a family. We love each other as friends, always have, likely always will, we tried to turn that into marriage and it's just not the same kind of love.

Trump didn't intimidate anyone, nor did he use power and influence to get women in bed. Again you're making shit up. He said "they would" throw themselves at him, he said they'd "let him" grab them by the *****. That is not the same as doing it, nor is it the same as condoning it - if you note his tone of voice he was contemptuous of it, of those types of women.

News flash kido; most men do not like gold diggers or those who want to use them to advance their personal standing or finances. Now you know.

you should probably worry more about the sexual predator in the White House.

no one on the left is defending Weinstein.... unlike the way you wackjobs defend the orange sociopath who has the hots for his own daughter and who likes watching teenage girls get undressed when he isn't grabbing women by the genitals.

I'd **** his daughter. And Trump is exactly who we need in the White House.

 

[jillian]

Twisting words...

Trump was making a joke, and it was actually derogatory toward the women who'd let him do it (as in they were slutty.)

Frankly, even if Trump does love grabbing *****, there's nothing wrong with that so get off your phony moral high horse and stop making a fool of yourself. Personally I have zero issues with letting my husband grab my ***** - I loved it before we got married, before we got "serious," before we were even officially "dating."

Yeah, but I bet you loved your husband. What phony high horse? I'm disgusted by pig like the Orange Buffoon using his power and influence to intimidate women and grab their pussies and you're not. That says a lot about you. None of it good.

My first husband? Yes I do, but that immature young love we had when we got married was... transient, for both of us. We were in a rush for that white picket fence, American dream; a home and starting a family. We love each other as friends, always have, likely always will, we tried to turn that into marriage and it's just not the same kind of love.

Trump didn't intimidate anyone, nor did he use power and influence to get women in bed. Again you're making shit up. He said "they would" throw themselves at him, he said they'd "let him" grab them by the *****. That is not the same as doing it, nor is it the same as condoning it - if you note his tone of voice he was contemptuous of it, of those types of women.

News flash kido; most men do not like gold diggers or those who want to use them to advance their personal standing or finances. Now you know.

you should probably worry more about the sexual predator in the White House.

no one on the left is defending Weinstein.... unlike the way you wackjobs defend the orange sociopath who has the hots for his own daughter and who likes watching teenage girls get undressed when he isn't grabbing women by the genitals.

I'd **** his daughter. And Trump is exactly who we need in the White House.

no one cares if you have the hots for her. she's his daughter and he's a pedophile and a sexual predator.

the orange loon is the last person we need int he White House....

unless of course you hate the country. but then again we expect nothing less from trumptards.

 

[Roudy]

The only real sexual predator in the White House was Bill Clinton.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'd **** his daughter. And Trump is exactly who we need in the White House.

Yeah, but you'd have to put a paper bag over your head.

Trump is who you need in the WH is like needing a kleptomaniac in charge of store security.

 

[Slyhunter]

Twisting words...

Trump was making a joke, and it was actually derogatory toward the women who'd let him do it (as in they were slutty.)

Frankly, even if Trump does love grabbing *****, there's nothing wrong with that so get off your phony moral high horse and stop making a fool of yourself. Personally I have zero issues with letting my husband grab my ***** - I loved it before we got married, before we got "serious," before we were even officially "dating."

Yeah, but I bet you loved your husband. What phony high horse? I'm disgusted by pig like the Orange Buffoon using his power and influence to intimidate women and grab their pussies and you're not. That says a lot about you. None of it good.

My first husband? Yes I do, but that immature young love we had when we got married was... transient, for both of us. We were in a rush for that white picket fence, American dream; a home and starting a family. We love each other as friends, always have, likely always will, we tried to turn that into marriage and it's just not the same kind of love.

Trump didn't intimidate anyone, nor did he use power and influence to get women in bed. Again you're making shit up. He said "they would" throw themselves at him, he said they'd "let him" grab them by the *****. That is not the same as doing it, nor is it the same as condoning it - if you note his tone of voice he was contemptuous of it, of those types of women.

News flash kido; most men do not like gold diggers or those who want to use them to advance their personal standing or finances. Now you know.

you should probably worry more about the sexual predator in the White House.

no one on the left is defending Weinstein.... unlike the way you wackjobs defend the orange sociopath who has the hots for his own daughter and who likes watching teenage girls get undressed when he isn't grabbing women by the genitals.

I'd **** his daughter. And Trump is exactly who we need in the White House.

no one cares if you have the hots for her. she's his daughter and he's a pedophile and a sexual predator.

the orange loon is the last person we need int he White House....

unless of course you hate the country. but then again we expect nothing less from trumptards.

And you are full of shit filled with unsubstantiated allegations.

 

[skye]

ohhh it's just a big happy family!

 

[Pogo]

So what happened is a lot of very vulnerable women got weinsteined into giving monicas in order to secure a ticket into an acting career.

The election of Trump was just the first step of the implosion of the Democratic Party and the crooked media as we know it.

This is the second.

This isn't even ******* related to politics.

I challenged the OP to demonstrate that alleged connection. He ran away.

That's because you're a ******* moron and a hack!

Nnnnnnope. Actually it's because he can't answer it, because it's not there. And he doesn't have the balls to confess that he pulled it out of his ass.

And he ran away because he knows where I'd be going with the next question if he could find it. Straight to the Composition Fallacy trap door.

Big time donor and promoter for Democratic leaders, who ran a few media outlets, falls on the sword between his legs. All the while Democrats pretend to be for sexual equality and women's rights blah blah blah, their leaders were in bed with a rapist and a sexual predator. Wow.

(a) he's not a politician. (b) we don't know (or care) what his voter registration looks like, or if he even has one. (c) even if we did it would mean nothing except to a Composition Fallacy, because (d) rape isn't a political act ---- which is why the OP ran away; and (e) the OP article STILL continues not to mention anything about politics at all (see d), which is also why he ran away --- because he got called on it and he knows better than to show is face after being busted.

You on the other hand are still here.

 

[Pogo]

ohhh it's just a big happy family!

Who is that even supposed to be?

 

[Roudy]

So what happened is a lot of very vulnerable women got weinsteined into giving monicas in order to secure a ticket into an acting career.

The election of Trump was just the first step of the implosion of the Democratic Party and the crooked media as we know it.

This is the second.

This isn't even ******* related to politics.

I challenged the OP to demonstrate that alleged connection. He ran away.

That's because you're a ******* moron and a hack!

Nnnnnnope. Actually it's because he can't answer it, because it's not there. And he doesn't have the balls to confess that he pulled it out of his ass.

And he ran away because he knows where I'd be going with the next question if he could find it. Straight to the Composition Fallacy trap door.

Big time donor and promoter for Democratic leaders, who ran a few media outlets, falls on the sword between his legs. All the while Democrats pretend to be for sexual equality and women's rights blah blah blah, their leaders were in bed with a rapist and a sexual predator. Wow.

(a) he's not a politiian. (b) we don't know (or care) what his voter registration looks like, or if he even has one. (c) even if we did it would mean nothing except to a Composition Fallacy, which is why the OP ran away; and (d) the OP article STILL continues not to mention anything about politics at all, which is also why he ran away --- because he got called on it and he knows better than to show is face after being busted.

You on the other hand are still here.

Yeah right. Keep fooling yourself. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party keeps destroying itself from within.

 

[Pogo]

This isn't even ******* related to politics.

I challenged the OP to demonstrate that alleged connection. He ran away.

That's because you're a ******* moron and a hack!

Nnnnnnope. Actually it's because he can't answer it, because it's not there. And he doesn't have the balls to confess that he pulled it out of his ass.

And he ran away because he knows where I'd be going with the next question if he could find it. Straight to the Composition Fallacy trap door.

Big time donor and promoter for Democratic leaders, who ran a few media outlets, falls on the sword between his legs. All the while Democrats pretend to be for sexual equality and women's rights blah blah blah, their leaders were in bed with a rapist and a sexual predator. Wow.

(a) he's not a politiian. (b) we don't know (or care) what his voter registration looks like, or if he even has one. (c) even if we did it would mean nothing except to a Composition Fallacy, which is why the OP ran away; and (d) the OP article STILL continues not to mention anything about politics at all, which is also why he ran away --- because he got called on it and he knows better than to show is face after being busted.

You on the other hand are still here.

Yeah right. Keep fooling yourself. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party keeps destroying itself from within.

Once AGAIN for the slow readers here ---- there is nothing in this story about any "Democratic Party". Or any kind of politics at all.

Prove me wrong, Dumbass.

 

[Roudy]

That's because you're a ******* moron and a hack!

Nnnnnnope. Actually it's because he can't answer it, because it's not there. And he doesn't have the balls to confess that he pulled it out of his ass.

And he ran away because he knows where I'd be going with the next question if he could find it. Straight to the Composition Fallacy trap door.

Big time donor and promoter for Democratic leaders, who ran a few media outlets, falls on the sword between his legs. All the while Democrats pretend to be for sexual equality and women's rights blah blah blah, their leaders were in bed with a rapist and a sexual predator. Wow.

(a) he's not a politiian. (b) we don't know (or care) what his voter registration looks like, or if he even has one. (c) even if we did it would mean nothing except to a Composition Fallacy, which is why the OP ran away; and (d) the OP article STILL continues not to mention anything about politics at all, which is also why he ran away --- because he got called on it and he knows better than to show is face after being busted.

You on the other hand are still here.

Yeah right. Keep fooling yourself. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party keeps destroying itself from within.

Once AGAIN for the slow readers here ---- there is nothing in this story about any "Democratic Party". Or any kind of politics at all.

Prove me wrong, Dumbass.

Yup...one of the biggest donors to the party of women's rights (and their leaders) turns out to be a serial rapist and sexual predator with a known history. Nothing political here. Ha ha ha. Funny shit.

 

[Pogo]

Nnnnnnope. Actually it's because he can't answer it, because it's not there. And he doesn't have the balls to confess that he pulled it out of his ass.

And he ran away because he knows where I'd be going with the next question if he could find it. Straight to the Composition Fallacy trap door.

Big time donor and promoter for Democratic leaders, who ran a few media outlets, falls on the sword between his legs. All the while Democrats pretend to be for sexual equality and women's rights blah blah blah, their leaders were in bed with a rapist and a sexual predator. Wow.

(a) he's not a politiian. (b) we don't know (or care) what his voter registration looks like, or if he even has one. (c) even if we did it would mean nothing except to a Composition Fallacy, which is why the OP ran away; and (d) the OP article STILL continues not to mention anything about politics at all, which is also why he ran away --- because he got called on it and he knows better than to show is face after being busted.

You on the other hand are still here.

Yeah right. Keep fooling yourself. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party keeps destroying itself from within.

Once AGAIN for the slow readers here ---- there is nothing in this story about any "Democratic Party". Or any kind of politics at all.

Prove me wrong, Dumbass.

Yup...one of the biggest donors to the party of women's rights (and their leaders) turns out to be a serial rapist and sexual predator with a known history. Nothing political here. Ha ha ha. Funny shit.

I accept your hilarious concession. "Ha ha ha".

Quit trying to make Composition Fallacies work and you won't need them.

Are you so dense you don't know when you're making a Composition Fallacy?

Here's a handy guide. Watch.

Oh look --- David Vitter pays prostitutes to dress him up in diapers and humiliate him. What's David Vitter's political party? Ah yes well then "all Republicans are infantile masochists who patronize hookers".

Oh look --- Greg Gianforte assaults people who ask questions. What's Gianforte's political party? Ah yes, well then "all Republicans assault people who ask questions. When they're not paying a dominatrix to dress them up in diapers".

Oh look --- David Duke, who started his own Klan chapter, running for office. What's his political party? Ah yes, well then "all Republicans start their own Klan chapters. After they get done paying dominatrices to dress them up in diapers and in between assaulting reporters".

Oh look --- Larry Craig and his "wide stance", soliciting hand jobs at the airport. What's his political party? Ah yes, well then "all Republicans solicit hand jobs in public restrooms --- in between paying dominatrices to dress them up in diapers, assaulting reporters, and starting their own Klan chapters".

It's a busy life. So much to do.

Four cases of personal behavior that have nothing to do with politics, applied to a coincident political party in an association fallacy that only an idiot would run with. The difference being of course that these four actually ARE politicians who actually DID run for office. And got elected.

Had enough, IDIOT? Because hey, we can play this child's game all day.

 

[EverCurious]

My first husband? Yes I do, but that immature young love we had when we got married was... transient, for both of us. We were in a rush for that white picket fence, American dream; a home and starting a family. We love each other as friends, always have, likely always will, we tried to turn that into marriage and it's just not the same kind of love.

Trump didn't intimidate anyone, nor did he use power and influence to get women in bed. Again you're making shit up. He said "they would" throw themselves at him, he said they'd "let him" grab them by the *****. That is not the same as doing it, nor is it the same as condoning it - if you note his tone of voice he was contemptuous of it, of those types of women.

News flash kido; most men do not like gold diggers or those who want to use them to advance their personal standing or finances. Now you know.

Of course he used his power and position to try and get women to sleep with him. There were many examples given during the election and that is what Weinstein is finding now. I like how you say "he says". Yeah, he also says he had the biggest crowds and his inauguration. He has said a lot of things that have been utter BS. He opens his mouth and lies come rolling out. No, he didn't sound contemptuous at all. It was more amazement and an attempt to ingratiate himself with Billy Boy.

And most attractive women don't like big, fat, bloated buffoons hitting on them.

I doubt it. I will support 100% his impeachment if it turns out one of these ladies is telling the truth about him sexually assaulting or raping them, in fact I've said it on this board before that if Trump was tied up in any of the child sex ring bullshit I wanted him strung up. Tell those women to go through with their cases, I guarantee you that D's across the nation will pay for the best lawyers and every legal fee they might incur, hell they'd probably even pay for security for the woman(en) and their entire families, don't you agree? Get off your butt and make something happen with those cases so you can achieve your dream of impeachment son.

As for the rest of your partisan drivel - ~rolls eyes~

Your media lied to you kid, but you're free to believe what you want to be true. ~shrug~ Let me know when they make it illegal to say some women will do anything for money/fame/power, because that's essentially what he was saying - and reality check, it's true - until then you just come off as full of partisan hate and unhinged; on the plus side I'm sure you fit right in with all your similarly unhinged friends and ya'll have a great time patting each other on the back for confirming each others opinions. Hopefully some day you all get past your own needs for attention and realize that not everything revolves around your opinions and preferences.

On that final note, and in response to your final statement; you're sorely mistaken and expose yourself a shallow pathetic individual. Not all people look only at the outside of a person to judge their merit as a partner, friend, or lover. Some women do not have a "problem" with "fat" men as you apparently do. Such women are not required nor obligated by your disgusting fat shaming to conform to your narrow viewpoints of what is attractive to them. Get over yourself.

 

[sealybobo]

You're one of those fools who Trump has convinced that the media is lying to you. Not him of course, the media. LOL. And don't lie. You aren't close to a classical liberal. Here is what you told us 3 years ago

....an affiliation test was sent to me and I came out 86% Libertarian, 83% Republican, 67% Democrat, 62% Green Party, and 17% Socialist.

Libertarians are retarded. Especially the ones who take dicks in the ass.

Actually that was my sig last year yea... 11%-20% isn't that much of a difference son, and /all/ of it is social/moral issues - as I said.

Again, Partisan much? Here I am saying I'm a classical liberal and my shit reflects that I supported well over half of D's positions in 2016 - aka I am on the left's side on a good number of issues - and you're calling me "retarded" for not being 100% on 'your' side... Son, this is why your side loses elections, reflect on that for a while.

You're just proving how easily duped you are. If that's all it takes to get you to either not vote or vote Republican.

And you said you didn't even vote in the last election so I don't give a **** what you think. Was that in 2012, 14 or 2016?

You remind me of the stupid black people who take a knee but then don't show up to vote.

I did not vote in 2012 because I wasn't informed on the candidates, and? I did vote this year, for Donald Trump, who I know from having watched him for some 30+ years is an independent.

Clearly you've never been an independent before, and this next paragraph will probably be lost in your partisan take on politics... You seem to be unable to understand that viewpoints on specific issues can bridge the parties. Just because I voted R in 2016 doesn't mean I agree with everything on the R platform... It just means that was my best option that year. Independents like me vote on a win/loss ratio; there are issues that we find are "most important" and we have to kind of "sacrifice" other issues that we might disagree with the person we vote for on. There is no such thing as a "perfect candidate" for people like me, we always end up losing on something. You do get used to filtering through everything and sorting out the pros and cons of those running, but it takes a lot of time and effort to do - which is a lot of why I ended up not voting in 2012, because I was disheartened by who was on the ticket, of having to chose between beliefs (right and left) that were /both/ important to me each time, and yea, because OWS was very disturbing for me in particular ( as a capitalist ), especially when the R's were caving into D's instead of standing up for capitalism ( in my opinion anyway. )

How do you think the Republican way is going to benefit you? What do you do for a living? Me? I'm rich (sort of), white, college educated, no kids, a man, straight. The GOP will screw everyone else before they screw me.

I'm a capitalist, I play the stock market for a living. I've been able to retire since I was like 25 (thank you Microsoft and BP.) I climbed the corporate ladder, I later went into business for myself as an interim executive; basically when a CEO or higher up manager gets canned, quits, or dies, I would come in and hold down the fort. I also did consulting for logistics and HR. In more "recent" years I've managed a couple small businesses - though that was more to help out friends of the family than anything else; generally speaking, these days, I play housewife and do whatever the hell I want all day.

What do R's offer me? That's a partisan question. It's about the issues, not the party.

Why did I vote Trump? That's a question I can answer. Because he loves this country and knows that socialism is a losing proposition, because I like that he's straight forward and doesn't play bullshit games with hiding his feelings on issues, because he's a balls to the walls kind of guy who I have no doubt will do everything in his power to get what he wants done, done. I agree with a lot of what he believes in, and the stuff I don't agree with I could "lose" on this time around. Nothing he's done or said was enough for me to vote for Hillary Clinton; though to be fair I've never liked her. Bill was okay, damned disrespectful of the Oval office, but alright. He fucked up with the housing thing, but other than that he did pretty well - him and Trump actually have a lot in common if you could find your way down off your partisan high horse to look for it...

In any event, just to tear your accusations of me all to shit; I am more apt to vote D on the local level than R - up here the R's are all in the oil companies pockets and sell us out, where as the D's actually put forward logical and realistic social programs and systems that can work and that I fully support.

Well I'm voting Republican from now on. Aren't you half a ***?

Trump Becomes First Sitting President To Address Anti-LGBTQ Event | HuffPost

President Donald Trump on Friday became the first sitting president to address the Values Voter Summit, an event sponsored by the Family Research Council, a group known for its anti-LGBTQ views.

During his remarks at the event in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Trump touted his administrations “religious freedom” guidance, arguing that “no religious group is ever targeted under my administration.” But Trump’s actions in the White House so far contradict that statement.

Since January, Trump’s administration has been fighting for a travel ban that would keep people from several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

 

[EverCurious]

Actually that was my sig last year yea... 11%-20% isn't that much of a difference son, and /all/ of it is social/moral issues - as I said.

Again, Partisan much? Here I am saying I'm a classical liberal and my shit reflects that I supported well over half of D's positions in 2016 - aka I am on the left's side on a good number of issues - and you're calling me "retarded" for not being 100% on 'your' side... Son, this is why your side loses elections, reflect on that for a while.

You're just proving how easily duped you are. If that's all it takes to get you to either not vote or vote Republican.

And you said you didn't even vote in the last election so I don't give a **** what you think. Was that in 2012, 14 or 2016?

You remind me of the stupid black people who take a knee but then don't show up to vote.

I did not vote in 2012 because I wasn't informed on the candidates, and? I did vote this year, for Donald Trump, who I know from having watched him for some 30+ years is an independent.

Clearly you've never been an independent before, and this next paragraph will probably be lost in your partisan take on politics... You seem to be unable to understand that viewpoints on specific issues can bridge the parties. Just because I voted R in 2016 doesn't mean I agree with everything on the R platform... It just means that was my best option that year. Independents like me vote on a win/loss ratio; there are issues that we find are "most important" and we have to kind of "sacrifice" other issues that we might disagree with the person we vote for on. There is no such thing as a "perfect candidate" for people like me, we always end up losing on something. You do get used to filtering through everything and sorting out the pros and cons of those running, but it takes a lot of time and effort to do - which is a lot of why I ended up not voting in 2012, because I was disheartened by who was on the ticket, of having to chose between beliefs (right and left) that were /both/ important to me each time, and yea, because OWS was very disturbing for me in particular ( as a capitalist ), especially when the R's were caving into D's instead of standing up for capitalism ( in my opinion anyway. )

How do you think the Republican way is going to benefit you? What do you do for a living? Me? I'm rich (sort of), white, college educated, no kids, a man, straight. The GOP will screw everyone else before they screw me.

I'm a capitalist, I play the stock market for a living. I've been able to retire since I was like 25 (thank you Microsoft and BP.) I climbed the corporate ladder, I later went into business for myself as an interim executive; basically when a CEO or higher up manager gets canned, quits, or dies, I would come in and hold down the fort. I also did consulting for logistics and HR. In more "recent" years I've managed a couple small businesses - though that was more to help out friends of the family than anything else; generally speaking, these days, I play housewife and do whatever the hell I want all day.

What do R's offer me? That's a partisan question. It's about the issues, not the party.

Why did I vote Trump? That's a question I can answer. Because he loves this country and knows that socialism is a losing proposition, because I like that he's straight forward and doesn't play bullshit games with hiding his feelings on issues, because he's a balls to the walls kind of guy who I have no doubt will do everything in his power to get what he wants done, done. I agree with a lot of what he believes in, and the stuff I don't agree with I could "lose" on this time around. Nothing he's done or said was enough for me to vote for Hillary Clinton; though to be fair I've never liked her. Bill was okay, damned disrespectful of the Oval office, but alright. He fucked up with the housing thing, but other than that he did pretty well - him and Trump actually have a lot in common if you could find your way down off your partisan high horse to look for it...

In any event, just to tear your accusations of me all to shit; I am more apt to vote D on the local level than R - up here the R's are all in the oil companies pockets and sell us out, where as the D's actually put forward logical and realistic social programs and systems that can work and that I fully support.

Well I'm voting Republican from now on. Aren't you half a ***?

Trump Becomes First Sitting President To Address Anti-LGBTQ Event | HuffPost

President Donald Trump on Friday became the first sitting president to address the Values Voter Summit, an event sponsored by the Family Research Council, a group known for its anti-LGBTQ views.

During his remarks at the event in Washington, D.C., on Friday, Trump touted his administrations “religious freedom” guidance, arguing that “no religious group is ever targeted under my administration.” But Trump’s actions in the White House so far contradict that statement.

Since January, Trump’s administration has been fighting for a travel ban that would keep people from several Muslim-majority countries from entering the United States.

Son, do you not realize that not one person buys your transparent attempts to portray a republican?

You're almost as fake as Tigerred, keep trying...

 

[Dr Grump]

Yup...one of the biggest donors to the party of women's rights (and their leaders) turns out to be a serial rapist and sexual predator with a known history. Nothing political here. Ha ha ha. Funny shit.

The Orange Buffoon donated to his own party? Interesting...

 

[Dr Grump]

I doubt it. I will support 100% his impeachment if it turns out one of these ladies is telling the truth about him sexually assaulting or raping them, in fact I've said it on this board before that if Trump was tied up in any of the child sex ring bullshit I wanted him strung up. Tell those women to go through with their cases, I guarantee you that D's across the nation will pay for the best lawyers and every legal fee they might incur, hell they'd probably even pay for security for the woman(en) and their entire families, don't you agree? Get off your butt and make something happen with those cases so you can achieve your dream of impeachment son.

As for the rest of your partisan drivel - ~rolls eyes~

Your media lied to you kid, but you're free to believe what you want to be true. ~shrug~ Let me know when they make it illegal to say some women will do anything for money/fame/power, because that's essentially what he was saying - and reality check, it's true - until then you just come off as full of partisan hate and unhinged; on the plus side I'm sure you fit right in with all your similarly unhinged friends and ya'll have a great time patting each other on the back for confirming each others opinions. Hopefully some day you all get past your own needs for attention and realize that not everything revolves around your opinions and preferences.

On that final note, and in response to your final statement; you're sorely mistaken and expose yourself a shallow pathetic individual. Not all people look only at the outside of a person to judge their merit as a partner, friend, or lover. Some women do not have a "problem" with "fat" men as you apparently do. Such women are not required nor obligated by your disgusting fat shaming to conform to your narrow viewpoints of what is attractive to them. Get over yourself.

You contradict yourself. No surprises there as you are a ******* moron. On the one hand you're saying women will sleep with these fatties for power and fame then you say they're doing it because they like what is on the inside. Let's do a little experiment. I'll post pictures of super rich old fat ***** and their trophy wives. You post pics of old fat super rich women and their trophy husbands. I'll be here all day. You'll be about five minutes. Then lecture me.


No, he was saying he could get away with it. And the only reason he got away with it was the perception that he is rich and powerful. I'm telling you right now if he was Joe The Plumber and did what he did he'd be in prison.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Weinstein is the victim of vigilantes. Oliver Stone says so.

Does Madonna want to burn down miramax?

 

[Roudy]

Yup...one of the biggest donors to the party of women's rights (and their leaders) turns out to be a serial rapist and sexual predator with a known history. Nothing political here. Ha ha ha. Funny shit.

The Orange Buffoon donated to his own party? Interesting...

Keep up, Leftie shithead.

 

[Roudy]

Big time donor and promoter for Democratic leaders, who ran a few media outlets, falls on the sword between his legs. All the while Democrats pretend to be for sexual equality and women's rights blah blah blah, their leaders were in bed with a rapist and a sexual predator. Wow.

(a) he's not a politiian. (b) we don't know (or care) what his voter registration looks like, or if he even has one. (c) even if we did it would mean nothing except to a Composition Fallacy, which is why the OP ran away; and (d) the OP article STILL continues not to mention anything about politics at all, which is also why he ran away --- because he got called on it and he knows better than to show is face after being busted.

You on the other hand are still here.

Yeah right. Keep fooling yourself. Meanwhile, the Democratic Party keeps destroying itself from within.

Once AGAIN for the slow readers here ---- there is nothing in this story about any "Democratic Party". Or any kind of politics at all.

Prove me wrong, Dumbass.

Yup...one of the biggest donors to the party of women's rights (and their leaders) turns out to be a serial rapist and sexual predator with a known history. Nothing political here. Ha ha ha. Funny shit.

I accept your hilarious concession. "Ha ha ha".

Quit trying to make Composition Fallacies work and you won't need them.

Are you so dense you don't know when you're making a Composition Fallacy?

Here's a handy guide. Watch.

Oh look --- David Vitter pays prostitutes to dress him up in diapers and humiliate him. What's David Vitter's political party? Ah yes well then "all Republicans are infantile masochists who patronize hookers".

Oh look --- Greg Gianforte assaults people who ask questions. What's Gianforte's political party? Ah yes, well then "all Republicans assault people who ask questions. When they're not paying a dominatrix to dress them up in diapers".

Oh look --- David Duke, who started his own Klan chapter, running for office. What's his political party? Ah yes, well then "all Republicans start their own Klan chapters. After they get done paying dominatrices to dress them up in diapers and in between assaulting reporters".

Oh look --- Larry Craig and his "wide stance", soliciting hand jobs at the airport. What's his political party? Ah yes, well then "all Republicans solicit hand jobs in public restrooms --- in between paying dominatrices to dress them up in diapers, assaulting reporters, and starting their own Klan chapters".

It's a busy life. So much to do.

Four cases of personal behavior that have nothing to do with politics, applied to a coincident political party in an association fallacy that only an idiot would run with. The difference being of course that these four actually ARE politicians who actually DID run for office. And got elected.

Had enough, IDIOT? Because hey, we can play this child's game all day.

Is that all you have? I feel sorry for you.