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

[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!

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

LIsten skank, you worthless bags of meat have no proof of anything, and you never do. You are evil useless of scum. I hope Moore wins just to piss you bastards off and you all have heart attacks.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

 

[miketx]

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.

Proof proof? what part of that word don't you understand? I can say you licked a little boys butt all day long but If I can't prove it it's nothing.

 

[bodecea]

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.

And to think that all these years of demonizing the Clintons happened because Bill DIDN'T hit on Laura Ingraham...........

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

So, if I accuse you of beating your wife/girlfriend, that is first person evidence that you did so? Sorry, you are dead wrong Derp. This allegedly happened almost 4 decades ago, there is no evidence, so I'm gonna presume him innocent until proven guilty; which is never gonna happen.

 

[bodecea]

Refresh our memory. What is currently happening to Kevin Spacey? You agree the same should be happening to Roy Moore?

 

[bodecea]

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.

Proof proof? what part of that word don't you understand? I can say you licked a little boys butt all day long but If I can't prove it it's nothing.

MikeTx quote: I don't care what Moore did or didn't do. I hope he wins pedophile or not because it serves lying ******* liberals right!

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

And to think that all these years of demonizing the Clintons happened because Bill DIDN'T hit on Laura Ingraham...........

I'll say it again, Bill's a scumbag. But, at the end of the day, all that shit with the hearings etc. was improper, at best.

 

[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?

Hypocriticus Maximus

View attachment 160570 View attachment 160571 View attachment 160572 View attachment 160573 View attachment 160574 View attachment 160575 View attachment 160576 View attachment 160577 View attachment 160578

No one is defending Biden. I'm not defending Biden. So another instance of whatabout on your part. That's a pretty bad habit you got there. Also, no one's accused Biden of sexual assault or harassment, whereas plenty have accused Moore. So what you're doing is trying to equate Moore with Biden because you recognize the hideousness of Roy Moore but can't bring yourself to admit that in a vacuum. So that's why you invoke whatabout.

That's weak sauce, dude. What a *****.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Refresh our memory. What is currently happening to Kevin Spacey? You agree the same should be happening to Roy Moore?

What does Roy Moore have to do with rapist Bill Clinton or child molester, Kevin Spacey?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

Proof proof? what part of that word don't you understand? I can say you licked a little boys butt all day long but If I can't prove it it's nothing.

MikeTx quote: I don't care what Moore did or didn't do. I hope he wins pedophile or not because it serves lying ******* liberals right!

Yeah, not sure what that means... wins pedophile? Personally, I hope he isn't, and so far, there is zero evidence to the contrary. I don't like this ruining of reputations over unsubstantiated claims... and yes, that includes Spacy.

 

[Norman]

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

View attachment 160570 View attachment 160571 View attachment 160572 View attachment 160573 View attachment 160574 View attachment 160575 View attachment 160576 View attachment 160577 View attachment 160578

No one is defending Biden. I'm not defending Biden. So another instance of whatabout on your part. That's a pretty bad habit you got there. Also, no one's accused Biden of sexual assault or harassment, whereas plenty have accused Moore. So what you're doing is trying to equate Moore with Biden because you recognize the hideousness of Roy Moore but can't bring yourself to admit that in a vacuum. So that's why you invoke whatabout.

That's weak sauce, dude. What a *****.

It's hideous to be falsely accused by leftists?

Are you confusing hideous with heroic? If the far left is baselessly accusing you of something, you are doing something very correctly.

 

[The Derp]

ointing out inconsistency is cowardly?

So that's where you're wrong. Because unlike you, no one is making excuses for the actions of others. No one is defending them. Your only defense of Roy Moore is to point to other people and say "whatabout". That's it. So you're not actually defending Moore, what you're doing is implicating yourself in the propaganda on Moore's behalf.

You're being used because you're either weak willed, or weak minded.

You accuse us of inconsistency but you can't explain how or why...you just vomit up random names and hope that it bridges the massive credibility gap in your shit argument.

So why do you do that? Why do you have a compulsion to try to find equivalence? I'll tell you why; you are insecure in your shit argument.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

ointing out inconsistency is cowardly?

So that's where you're wrong. Because unlike you, no one is making excuses for the actions of others. No one is defending them. Your only defense of Roy Moore is to point to other people and say "whatabout". That's it. So you're not actually defending Moore, what you're doing is implicating yourself in the propaganda on Moore's behalf. You're being used.

You accuse us of inconsistency but you can't explain how or why...you just vomit up random names and hope that it bridges the massive credibility gap in your shit argument.

So why do you do that? Why do you have a compulsion to try to find equivalence? I'll tell you why; you are insecure in your shit argument.

I'm not defending Moore only pointing out that we don't know what/if any of this is true and that is wrong to label him a pedophile. It's pretty simple, he doesn't need defending because as of now, he hasn't done anything wrong.

 

[The Derp]

Proof proof?.

Such as...? What?

what part of that word don't you understand?.

It's not the word I don't understand, it's what you define as "proof". That's what you are refusing to say for obvious reasons. You say you demand "proof"...ok...what kind of proof? Because the first person account of what happened isn't proof enough for you. So what would be proof enough?

 

[The Derp]

I'll say it again, Bill's a scumbag. But, at the end of the day, all that shit with the hearings etc. was improper, at best.

You say that now, after the fact. Go **** yourself.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Proof proof?.

Such as...? What?

what part of that word don't you understand?.

It's not the word I don't understand, it's what you define as "proof". That's what you are refusing to say for obvious reasons. You say you demand "proof"...ok...what kind of proof? Because the first person account of what happened isn't proof enough for you. So what would be proof enough?

Such as proof. So, if you get charged with rape, the state doesn't have to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt that you actually did it? What planet do you live on? This is not Venezuela, we don't convict people with no proof.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I'll say it again, Bill's a scumbag. But, at the end of the day, all that shit with the hearings etc. was improper, at best.

You say that now, after the fact. Go **** yourself.

I said it at the time... you seem like one miserable human being.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

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?

What was moore convicted of?

 

[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

View attachment 160570 View attachment 160571 View attachment 160572 View attachment 160573 View attachment 160574 View attachment 160575 View attachment 160576 View attachment 160577 View attachment 160578

No one is defending Biden. I'm not defending Biden. So another instance of whatabout on your part. That's a pretty bad habit you got there. Also, no one's accused Biden of sexual assault or harassment, whereas plenty have accused Moore. So what you're doing is trying to equate Moore with Biden because you recognize the hideousness of Roy Moore but can't bring yourself to admit that in a vacuum. So that's why you invoke whatabout.

That's weak sauce, dude. What a *****.

Uncle Joe Creepy Biden is the Dems leading candidate for 2020. The lack of outrage over his decades of actions speaks volumes.