So Today We Believe Every Accusation Against a Male, Bill Clinton Smiles

[miketx]

You're an idiot. Bill takes what he wants. He also was a frequent flyer to pedo island. It hurts when your "heroes" fall doesn't it?

Bill was a hero 17 years ago. Try to keep up.

And looking at this thread Bill is still a hero to the left, despite him being a sexual predator.

Not a sexual predator. You have claimed that for a long time. Haven't proven it yet.

The accusations as well as the proven facts say he is a sexual predator.

He doesn't go after teenagers. But that's totally ok for those white knighting Moore.

Modern regressive libertards do not need proof or evidence to ruin anyone.

 

[Weatherman2020]

You're an idiot. Bill takes what he wants. He also was a frequent flyer to pedo island. It hurts when your "heroes" fall doesn't it?

Bill was a hero 17 years ago. Try to keep up.

And looking at this thread Bill is still a hero to the left, despite him being a sexual predator.

Not a sexual predator. You have claimed that for a long time. Haven't proven it yet.

The accusations as well as the proven facts say he is a sexual predator.

He doesn't go after teenagers. But that's totally ok for those white knighting Moore.

I agree. 26 trips to the private island of a pedophile shows he likes preteens.

 

[miketx]

Feminists did a great job making sure everything Bill did and continues to do is kept silent.

Whatabout your whataboutism? How come you are compelled to whatabout whenever the debate edges on subjects that make you look monstrous? What about all that?

It really all just depends on what the meaning of is is.

 

[bodecea]

Clinton's fooling around was dealt with a couple of decades ago. Moore was kicked out of a mall for perving on little girls, and hasn't answered for it yet.

Rape is not fooling around.

Was Clinton convicted of rape, or did you just pull that out of your ass?

Apparently that's the standard of evidence now.

At least when Bill Clinton is involved.

It's very important to make this about Bill Clinton....that's how helpless the Moore syncophants are right now.

 

[The Derp]

No, but he was accused by multiple women, so, given the left's standards, he did it!

No one is rushing to defend Clinton on sexual harrassment claims. Rather, no one real, just the imaginary liberals in your head.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Feminists did a great job making sure everything Bill did and continues to do is kept silent.

Whatabout your whataboutism? How come you are compelled to whatabout whenever the debate edges on subjects that make you look monstrous? What about all that?

Of palease... it's a bout those that automatically presumed the Clinton's accusers were all lying trailer park trash (see Carville's remarks) yet automatically believe every word when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[Weatherman2020]

Clinton's fooling around was dealt with a couple of decades ago. Moore was kicked out of a mall for perving on little girls, and hasn't answered for it yet.

Rape is not fooling around.

Was Clinton convicted of rape, or did you just pull that out of your ass?

Apparently that's the standard of evidence now.

At least when Bill Clinton is involved.

It's very important to make this about Bill Clinton....that's how helpless the Moore syncophants are right now.

You’re drowning in your own hypocrisy....

 

[The Derp]

It really all just depends on what the meaning of is is.

For Moore it really all just depends on if you consider perving on high school girls an acceptable action for a man in his 30's.

But that doesn't answer whatabout your whatbouts? So whatabout them? Why is it you are compelled to whatabout? Is it because you can't win the debate so you have to try non-sequiturs? Is it because you're a propagandist and have to do that because it's your job? What about all that, anyway?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

There has been zero evidence provided to support the claims. His religious beliefs are irrelevant in this context.

So what kind of evidence would suffice for you to believe these women, exactly?

Actual evidence.

ev·i·dence
ˈevədəns/
noun

1. 1.
   the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.
   "the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination"
   synonyms: proof, confirmation, verification, substantiation, corroboration, affirmation, attestation
   "they found evidence of his plotting"

Truth of the matter, this allegedly happened 38 years ago, it cannot be proven at this juncture.

 

[miketx]

Clinton's fooling around was dealt with a couple of decades ago. Moore was kicked out of a mall for perving on little girls, and hasn't answered for it yet.

Rape is not fooling around.

Was Clinton convicted of rape, or did you just pull that out of your ass?

Apparently that's the standard of evidence now.

At least when Bill Clinton is involved.

It's very important to make this about Bill Clinton....that's how helpless the Moore syncophants are right now.

No, what it is, is it's about showing what hypocrites liberal scum is.

 

[The Derp]

Of palease... it's a bout those that automatically presumed the Clinton's accusers were all lying trailer park trash (see Carville's remarks) yet automatically believe every word when the shoe is on the other foot.

Ah, so you're admitting your whatabout is intended to redirect the conversation away from Moore, to the familiar grounds of Clinton because that way, you can avoid responsibility for the position you're defending.

Pretty cowardly, dude. Who took your balls?

 

[miketx]

It really all just depends on what the meaning of is is.

For Moore it really all just depends on if you consider perving on high school girls an acceptable action for a man in his 30's.

But that doesn't answer whatabout your whatbouts? So whatabout them? Why is it you are compelled to whatabout? Is it because you can't win the debate so you have to try non-sequiturs? Is it because you're a propagandist and have to do that because it's your job? What about all that, anyway?

No what it's about is you not having nay proof on anything. And you know what? With the way sorry ass liberals lie cheat and smoke 24/7, I don't care what Moore did or didn't do. I hope he wins pedophile or not because it serves lying ******* liberals right!

 

[bodecea]

Bill was a hero 17 years ago. Try to keep up.

And looking at this thread Bill is still a hero to the left, despite him being a sexual predator.

Not a sexual predator. You have claimed that for a long time. Haven't proven it yet.

The accusations as well as the proven facts say he is a sexual predator.

He doesn't go after teenagers. But that's totally ok for those white knighting Moore.

Modern regressive libertards do not need proof or evidence to ruin anyone.

Speaking of those totally ok with Moore's predatory ways.................

 

[The Derp]

You’re drowning in your own hypocrisy....

What is the hypocrisy? How so? Liberals aren't defending Clinton's sexual harassment, yet you're defending Moore's by...invoking Clinton? What sense does that make?

Clinton has nothing to do with Moore, and everything to do with this involuntary compulsion you have to whatabout Clinton. Whatabout your whatabouts? What about that? Why do you do that? You're not exposing any hypocrisy because liberals don't defend Clinton's actions. Yet you're defending Moore's by inventing make-believe liberals who defend Clinton along the same lines you're defending Moore.

That shit is like amateur propagandizing, dude. You're pretty shitty at it.

 

[miketx]

Of palease... it's a bout those that automatically presumed the Clinton's accusers were all lying trailer park trash (see Carville's remarks) yet automatically believe every word when the shoe is on the other foot.

Ah, so you're admitting your whatabout is intended to redirect the conversation away from Moore, to the familiar grounds of Clinton because that way, you can avoid responsibility for the position you're defending.

Pretty cowardly, dude. Who took your balls?

No it just shows the hypocrisy of lying liberals.

 

[bodecea]

It really all just depends on what the meaning of is is.

For Moore it really all just depends on if you consider perving on high school girls an acceptable action for a man in his 30's.

But that doesn't answer whatabout your whatbouts? So whatabout them? Why is it you are compelled to whatabout? Is it because you can't win the debate so you have to try non-sequiturs? Is it because you're a propagandist and have to do that because it's your job? What about all that, anyway?

No what it's about is you not having nay proof on anything. And you know what? With the way sorry ass liberals lie cheat and smoke 24/7, I don't care what Moore did or didn't do. I hope he wins pedophile or not because it serves lying ******* liberals right!

Ah......and here we get to the real truth of why miketx white knights for Moore.

 

[miketx]

You’re drowning in your own hypocrisy....

What is the hypocrisy? How so? Liberals aren't defending Clinton's sexual harassment, yet you're defending Moore's by...invoking Clinton? What sense does that make?

Clinton has nothing to do with Moore, and everything to do with this involuntary compulsion you have to whatabout Clinton. Whatabout your whatabouts? What about that? Why do you do that? You're not exposing any hypocrisy because liberals don't defend Clinton's actions. Yet you're defending Moore's by inventing make-believe liberals who defend Clinton along the same lines you're defending Moore.

That shit is like amateur propagandizing, dude. You're pretty shitty at it.

Pretending again, huh?

 

[Weatherman2020]

It really all just depends on what the meaning of is is.

For Moore it really all just depends on if you consider perving on high school girls an acceptable action for a man in his 30's.

But that doesn't answer whatabout your whatbouts? So whatabout them? Why is it you are compelled to whatabout? Is it because you can't win the debate so you have to try non-sequiturs? Is it because you're a propagandist and have to do that because it's your job? What about all that, anyway?

Hypocriticus Maximus

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Of palease... it's a bout those that automatically presumed the Clinton's accusers were all lying trailer park trash (see Carville's remarks) yet automatically believe every word when the shoe is on the other foot.

Ah, so you're admitting your whatabout is intended to redirect the conversation away from Moore, to the familiar grounds of Clinton because that way, you can avoid responsibility for the position you're defending.

Pretty cowardly, dude. Who took your balls?

Pointing out inconsistency is cowardly? Look, I'll be the 1st to say the Clinton fiasco was a waste of time & money. However, I guarantee you there are some here that completely trashed Paula Jones and the others yet automatically believe these women in the Moore case.

 

[The Derp]

Truth of the matter, this allegedly happened 38 years ago, it cannot be proven at this juncture.

So, the first person accounts are evidence.

I asked you what level of evidence would be enough for you to believe and you can't or won'tsay...obviously because no level of evidence would be enough for you because you simply don't believe women at all. So you're establishing a false standard because that's what propagandists do.

And so what if it happened 38 years ago? What is the statute of limitations for your personal standard as to when an allegation loses validity? You obviously won't answer that because you lack the balls.