Hollywood/Political Sex Offense Scandals (Now Louis CK and AL-GOPSenateNom Roy Moore)

Doug Jones‏Verified account @GDouglasJones

Roy Moore won’t talk to the media, won’t talk to voters, won’t campaign, won’t debate, and couldn’t

even handle me calling him embarrassing-

he thinks he gets a free pass to the senate even with his disturbing history.
#NoMoore
 
I get your jab === except, Bill Clinton is a private citizen, Franken a US Senator and Thomas a seat on Supreme Court for life.
But hey, false equivalencies and all ...
 
57Brave said:
I get your jab === except, Bill Clinton is a private citizen, Franen a US Senator and Thomas a seat on Supreme Court for life.
But hey, false equivalencies and all ...
Click to expand...

So we should only hold Washington folk accountable for heinous behavior if they are > elected or appointed?

That's rich.
 
I asked where people stood.

Was told where I stood on Bill Clinton.

...........................

Let me try again, where do people stand on Clarence Thomas ?
 
Hawk said:
So we should only hold Washington folk accountable for heinous behavior if they are > elected or appointed?

That's rich.
Click to expand...

There are different kinds of accountability. In the case of those in office or running for office, I think obviously removal is an option. Its not an option for those not in office. But I think ultimately an honest reckoning is what we would all like to see. An honest reckoning by those who engaged in the behavior and by those who enabled it or defended it. I will say it isn't that easy in the real world. In some of these cases I have some doubts about the truthfulness of the accusers.
 
57Brave said:
I asked where people stood.

Was told where I stood on Bill Clinton.

...........................

Let me try again, where do people stand on Clarence Thomas ?
Click to expand...

And the question was answered.

People are indifferent - just like you.

Except you are willfully indifferent, which is the worst kind of indifferent to be.

An enabler.
 
nsacpi said:
There are different kinds of accountability. In the case of those in office or running for office, I think obviously removal is an option. Its not an option for those not in office. But I think ultimately an honest reckoning is what we would all like to see. An honest reckoning by those who engaged in the behavior and by those who enabled it or defended it. I will say it isn't that easy in the real world. In some of these cases I have some doubts about the truthfulness of the accusers.
Click to expand...

I hate to be one of those guys who doubt these woman but all of these can't be true...
 
nsacpi said:
There are different kinds of accountability. In the case of those in office or running for office, I think obviously removal is an option. Its not an option for those not in office. But I think ultimately an honest reckoning is what we would all like to see. An honest reckoning by those who engaged in the behavior and by those who enabled it or defended it. I will say it isn't that easy in the real world. In some of these cases I have some doubts about the truthfulness of the accusers.
Click to expand...

Honest reckoning is a good way to put it. I think that approach is, in many ways, a more damning form of punishment than ejection from office. Conyers, for example, hasn't yet expressly admitted to having done anything wrong. Some will view his resignation as a signal of guilt, but, to be clear, he still maintains the accusations have been blown out of proportion and that he's simply "retiring". Obviously not much of a reckoning, and as a result, the level of moral satisfaction seems a tad diminished.
 
It is always a pleasure having my thoughts explained,

I am not indifferent at all.
Thomas should stand same scrutiny Clinton did and every time a Hollywood producer is accused of impropriety we should invoke a sitting public official rather than one that has been out of office for close to 20 years

Perhaps we should be asked everyday has the Paul Ryan demanded Thomas step down.

No I am not indifferent at all. Just ask for an honest back and forth which, is not what is taking place.
If Franken is expected to step down, I would hope those same people clamoring for his scalp would include Justice Thomas in the "high tech lynching"

After all, both sides and all that rot
............................

Perhaps, Conyers is simply retiring ? To that point, perhaps that wasn't Trump on the Billy Bush tape.
An honest reckoning is standing before your accusers and being found guilty or not
 
Clarence would have never made it through in today's climate. Imagine a Supreme Court nominee being the decisive one on a 5-4 swing, being accused now. This country would be going even more ape****.
 
And the picture we have is , Thomas is not only accused of harassment ( albeit a rather tame definition of 2017 harassment ) , but has a wife that is involved with organizations that the Justice is to rule on and was for a period associated ( I forget the nature of her connection ) by an entity that had pending cases before the court.

After a 24 month period of being bombarded with allegations against the Clintons -- we actually have a Supreme Court Justice that has embodied each and every accusation.
Except the child porn ring in the basement of the pizza parlor. I trust the Thomas' were not involved in that.
 
57Brave said:
It is always a pleasure having my thoughts explained,

I am not indifferent at all.
Thomas should stand same scrutiny Clinton did and every time a Hollywood producer is accused of impropriety we should invoke a sitting public official rather than one that has been out of office for close to 20 years
Click to expand...

Thomas was subjected to an intense amount of scrutiny, and had to answer for it in a public way that Bill Clinton never has never been forced to. Also, one key difference that you've neglected to mention is that Bill Clinton has admitted to malfeasance. Clarence Thomas denied each and every single accusation against him, under oath, on live TV, during a heated confirmation hearing.

Perhaps we should be asked everyday has the Paul Ryan demanded Thomas step down.
Click to expand...

Why? This doesn't even make sense.

No I am not indifferent at all. Just ask for an honest back and forth which, is not what is taking place.
If Franken is expected to step down, I would hope those same people clamoring for his scalp would include Justice Thomas in the "high tech lynching"
Click to expand...

No, what you want is an 'honest' back and forth predicated on lies, indifference, and half-truths.

Perhaps, Conyers is simply retiring ? To that point, perhaps that wasn't Trump on the Billy Bush tape.
An honest reckoning is standing before your accusers and being found guilty or not
Click to expand...

I don't have an opinion about the truth and Conyers - and I don't really care. I'm just relieved the senile boob is out. The people of Michigan deserve competency.

An honest reckoning is standing before your accusers and being found guilty
Click to expand...

Being found guilty or not by whom?
 
bravesnumberone said:
Clarence would have never made it through in today's climate. Imagine a Supreme Court nominee being the decisive one on a 5-4 swing, being accused now. This country would be going even more ape****.
Click to expand...

I mean, Anita Hill testified over the course of 3 days, on live TV, during the most controversial SCOTUS confirmation hearing in history. In 1991. Amidst rough days for GHWB. Months after Rodney King was beat. So, yeah, I'd say the climate at the time was preeettyy intense, on numerous fronts.
 
Before there was Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Al Franken or John Conyers

there was Clarence Thomas

whose accuser swore under oath before the Senate her accusations .
 
"I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her."

Under oath.

I'd like to see how Clinton (or Trump) would handle Long Dong Silver or pubic hair in my Coke questions. Under oath. Let's ask Bill about the cigar on live TV. Let's ask him where he shot his load. Let's see how composed he remains after being grilled by the opposition party for hours. On live TV. Under oath.

But, yeah, something something honest repartee and false equivalencies.
 
Hawk said:
I mean, Anita Hill testified over the course of 3 days, on live TV, during the most controversial SCOTUS confirmation hearing in history. In 1991. Amidst rough days for GHWB. Months after Rodney King was beat. So, yeah, I'd say the climate at the time was preeettyy intense, on numerous fronts.
Click to expand...

your history is shaky. These were all but the rough days to come for Bush41 and it was a year later that Rodney King, but, whatever.
 
Hawk said:
"I deny each and every single allegation against me today that suggested in any way that I had conversations of a sexual nature or about pornographic material with Anita Hill, that I ever attempted to date her, that I ever had any personal sexual interest in her, or that I in any way ever harassed her."

Under oath.

I'd like to see how Clinton (or Trump) would handle Long Dong Silver or pubic hair in my Coke questions. Under oath. Let's ask Bill about the cigar on live TV. Let's ask him where he shot his load. Let's see how composed he remains after being grilled by the opposition party for hours. On live TV. Under oath.

But, yeah, something something honest repartee and false equivalencies.
Click to expand...

That was both parties agree , consensual .

Let me help you
Jennifer Flowers, or Paula Jones Juanita Broderick
 
57Brave said:
your history is shaky. These were all but the rough days to come for Bush41 and it was a year later that Rodney King, but, whatever.
Click to expand...

King was beat, and the officers indicted, in 1991. The trial was in 1992.

I don't understand what you mean about Bush.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top