(11-13-2017 03:00 PM)usmbacker Wrote: [ -> ]![[Image: 2ez7o77.jpg]](http://i67.tinypic.com/2ez7o77.jpg)
BAM!!!!
Quote:Juanita Broaddrick slammed comedian Chelsea Handler over a tweet the comedian made imagining what it must be like for an alleged rapist to be elected to a seat of power.
Handler’s tweet referenced the allegations against Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore and asked what message young girls might receive if a man can molest a young girl and then get elected to the U.S. Senate. She told her followers to imagine that scenario.
Broaddrick responded with “I can imagine.”
“Yeah, @chelseahandler I can imagine. I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President and NBC held my interview explaining the rape until after his impeachment hearing. But I’m sure you don’t want to go there,” Broaddrick tweeted out.
![[Image: 2iqxxdh.jpg]](http://i64.tinypic.com/2iqxxdh.jpg)
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/13/chelse...hold-back/
Classic 'whataboutism'. Even if someone assumed that the allegations were true, how does that excuse Roy Moore's allegations?
(11-13-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Classic 'whataboutism'. Even if someone assumed that the allegations were true, how does that excuse Roy Moore's allegations?
You b*tch about 'whataboutism' and tell people to start new threads, and then when they do, you come to them and continue to b*tch about 'whataboutism'.
Sad.
(11-13-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:00 PM)usmbacker Wrote: [ -> ]
BAM!!!!
Quote:Juanita Broaddrick slammed comedian Chelsea Handler over a tweet the comedian made imagining what it must be like for an alleged rapist to be elected to a seat of power.
Handler’s tweet referenced the allegations against Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore and asked what message young girls might receive if a man can molest a young girl and then get elected to the U.S. Senate. She told her followers to imagine that scenario.
Broaddrick responded with “I can imagine.”
“Yeah, @chelseahandler I can imagine. I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President and NBC held my interview explaining the rape until after his impeachment hearing. But I’m sure you don’t want to go there,” Broaddrick tweeted out.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/13/chelse...hold-back/
Classic 'whataboutism'. Even if someone assumed that the allegations were true, how does that excuse Roy Moore's allegations?
She told her followers to imagine that scenario. Well, Dems and libs got reminded that scenario has played out. If Moore is guilty, he needs to go. Two different subjects. Dems put their head in the sand when an accused rapist and proven sexual harasser was President, so Dems have proven to ignore a rapist and abuser. Dems love to forget history, well, not going to happen.
(11-13-2017 03:05 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Classic 'whataboutism'. Even if someone assumed that the allegations were true, how does that excuse Roy Moore's allegations?
You b*tch about 'whataboutism' and tell people to start new threads, and then when they do, you come to them and continue to b*tch about 'whataboutism'.
Sad.
Uh, you don't understand how whataboutism works.
The entire implication of the OP was 'whataboutism'. Bascially, the OP attempted to excuse or deflect from the allegations against Moore by using the 'but what about Bill Clinton" meme.
So, keeping with the OP and staying on topic, I simply called it out as whataboutism and asked the poster to explain
How does any true or untrue allegations against Bill Clinton have any relevance whatsoever to the accusations against Roy Moore?
Now if the OP is not trying to argue that the fact that there were allegations against Bill Clinton excuses Roy Moore's behavior or can be used as a defense against said claims, then he's free to do that at all.
---
Now it would be okay to call out hypocrisy, IF you could show that Doug Jones or all the accusers against Moore specifically hindered the discussion regarding Bill Clinton. Good luck with that. Some of them are lifelong Republicans.
If you want to call out Chelsea Handler as a hypocrite, I suppose you could argue that. Not that it really matters with regards to Roy Moore
But come on guys, you're just trying to use the 'but what about Bill Clinton' argument. Its transparent.
(11-13-2017 03:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:05 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Classic 'whataboutism'. Even if someone assumed that the allegations were true, how does that excuse Roy Moore's allegations?
You b*tch about 'whataboutism' and tell people to start new threads, and then when they do, you come to them and continue to b*tch about 'whataboutism'.
Sad.
Uh, you don't understand how whataboutism works.
The entire implication of the OP was 'whataboutism'. Bascially, the OP attempted to excuse or deflect from the allegations against Moore by using the 'but what about Bill Clinton" meme.
So, keeping with the OP and staying on topic, I simply called it out as whataboutism and asked the poster to explain
How does any true or untrue allegations against Bill Clinton have any relevance whatsoever to the accusations against Roy Moore?
Now if the OP is not trying to argue that the fact that there were allegations against Bill Clinton excuses Roy Moore's behavior or can be used as a defense against said claims, then he's free to do that at all.
Do you disavow alt-left terror on those in the LGBT community that don't have what you consider to be the "right" politics?
I now know how to make tom vanish from threads.
lulz
(11-13-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Classic 'whataboutism'.
We learned a new trick after eight years of every criticism of Obama being met with "But Bush....."
Chin up Soy-boy....you've got seven more years to deal with it.
(11-13-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:00 PM)usmbacker Wrote: [ -> ]
BAM!!!!
Quote:Juanita Broaddrick slammed comedian Chelsea Handler over a tweet the comedian made imagining what it must be like for an alleged rapist to be elected to a seat of power.
Handler’s tweet referenced the allegations against Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore and asked what message young girls might receive if a man can molest a young girl and then get elected to the U.S. Senate. She told her followers to imagine that scenario.
Broaddrick responded with “I can imagine.”
“Yeah, @chelseahandler I can imagine. I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President and NBC held my interview explaining the rape until after his impeachment hearing. But I’m sure you don’t want to go there,” Broaddrick tweeted out.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/13/chelse...hold-back/
Classic 'whataboutism'. Even if someone assumed that the allegations were true, how does that excuse Roy Moore's allegations?
No. Its just pointing out hypocrisy and the crocodile tears shed by the rape enablers from the left.
(11-13-2017 03:14 PM)Kaplony Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Classic 'whataboutism'.
We learned a new trick after eight years of every criticism of Obama being met with "But Bush....."
Chin up Soy-boy....you've got seven more years to deal with it.
Did I see Tom denounce Bill Clinton for his sexual attacks, rapes and abusing a young intern in the White House? Did I just miss it.
(11-13-2017 03:11 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:05 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Classic 'whataboutism'. Even if someone assumed that the allegations were true, how does that excuse Roy Moore's allegations?
You b*tch about 'whataboutism' and tell people to start new threads, and then when they do, you come to them and continue to b*tch about 'whataboutism'.
Sad.
Uh, you don't understand how whataboutism works.
The entire implication of the OP was 'whataboutism'. Bascially, the OP attempted to excuse or deflect from the allegations against Moore by using the 'but what about Bill Clinton" meme.
So, keeping with the OP and staying on topic, I simply called it out as whataboutism and asked the poster to explain
How does any true or untrue allegations against Bill Clinton have any relevance whatsoever to the accusations against Roy Moore?
Now if the OP is not trying to argue that the fact that there were allegations against Bill Clinton excuses Roy Moore's behavior or can be used as a defense against said claims, then he's free to do that at all.
Do you disavow alt-left terror on those in the LGBT community that don't have what you consider to be the "right" politics?
OT. But since you asked, I did note that you posted something on it, then I read it. I then attempted to google it to find the story outside of some right wing blogs, couldn't find a word on it, and decided to not comment on it.
But again, I fail to see how this has anything to do with Bill Clinton, Roy Moore, Chelsea Handler, Miss Broderick.
This isn't whataboutism. Its just deflection.
(11-13-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:00 PM)usmbacker Wrote: [ -> ]
BAM!!!!
Quote:Juanita Broaddrick slammed comedian Chelsea Handler over a tweet the comedian made imagining what it must be like for an alleged rapist to be elected to a seat of power.
Handler’s tweet referenced the allegations against Alabama Republican Senate candidate Roy Moore and asked what message young girls might receive if a man can molest a young girl and then get elected to the U.S. Senate. She told her followers to imagine that scenario.
Broaddrick responded with “I can imagine.”
“Yeah, @chelseahandler I can imagine. I was raped by the Arkansas AG who then becomes Governor & President and NBC held my interview explaining the rape until after his impeachment hearing. But I’m sure you don’t want to go there,” Broaddrick tweeted out.
http://dailycaller.com/2017/11/13/chelse...hold-back/
Classic 'whataboutism'. Even if someone assumed that the allegations were true, how does that excuse Roy Moore's allegations?
Believe me, we fully understand the hypocrisy of the radical left.
This is not "whataboutism". It's about consistency.
If there is moral outrage for one, then you're going to have to explain why there isn't moral outrage for all.
It's either wrong or it's not.
It seems leftists are the masters of whataboutism.
(11-13-2017 03:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:11 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:05 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Classic 'whataboutism'. Even if someone assumed that the allegations were true, how does that excuse Roy Moore's allegations?
You b*tch about 'whataboutism' and tell people to start new threads, and then when they do, you come to them and continue to b*tch about 'whataboutism'.
Sad.
Uh, you don't understand how whataboutism works.
The entire implication of the OP was 'whataboutism'. Bascially, the OP attempted to excuse or deflect from the allegations against Moore by using the 'but what about Bill Clinton" meme.
So, keeping with the OP and staying on topic, I simply called it out as whataboutism and asked the poster to explain
How does any true or untrue allegations against Bill Clinton have any relevance whatsoever to the accusations against Roy Moore?
Now if the OP is not trying to argue that the fact that there were allegations against Bill Clinton excuses Roy Moore's behavior or can be used as a defense against said claims, then he's free to do that at all.
Do you disavow alt-left terror on those in the LGBT community that don't have what you consider to be the "right" politics?
OT. But since you asked, I did note that you posted something on it, then I read it. I then attempted to google it to find the story outside of some right wing blogs, couldn't find a word on it, and decided to not comment on it.
Pathetic attempt to deflect.
So if the controlled, alt-left fake news media chooses not to (told not to) cover alt-left terror attacks, that means they didn't happen? It's on freakin' video, man.
If you actually believe the words you typed, you have reached a level of delusion/gaslighting that is downright dangerous.
Chelsea Handler just got kicked in the gonads.
(11-13-2017 03:28 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:11 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:05 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]You b*tch about 'whataboutism' and tell people to start new threads, and then when they do, you come to them and continue to b*tch about 'whataboutism'.
Sad.
Uh, you don't understand how whataboutism works.
The entire implication of the OP was 'whataboutism'. Bascially, the OP attempted to excuse or deflect from the allegations against Moore by using the 'but what about Bill Clinton" meme.
So, keeping with the OP and staying on topic, I simply called it out as whataboutism and asked the poster to explain
How does any true or untrue allegations against Bill Clinton have any relevance whatsoever to the accusations against Roy Moore?
Now if the OP is not trying to argue that the fact that there were allegations against Bill Clinton excuses Roy Moore's behavior or can be used as a defense against said claims, then he's free to do that at all.
Do you disavow alt-left terror on those in the LGBT community that don't have what you consider to be the "right" politics?
OT. But since you asked, I did note that you posted something on it, then I read it. I then attempted to google it to find the story outside of some right wing blogs, couldn't find a word on it, and decided to not comment on it.
Pathetic attempt to deflect.
So if the controlled, alt-left fake news media chooses not to (told not to) cover alt-left terror attacks, that means they didn't happen? It's on freakin' video, man.
If you actually believe the words you typed, you have reached a level of delusion/gaslighting that is downright dangerous.
Again, you're OT. Any comments on the thread title? I suppose you could go with the Chelsea Handler is a hypocrite line, of course, if Miss Handler had made some comments regarding Bill Clinton. Of course Miss Handler could simply find Brodericks allegation to be not credible. And y'all are free to fine the allegations against Moore to be not credible (although its getting really hard to do so).
But this, in no way whatsoever, excuses Roy Moore's behavior.
(11-13-2017 04:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:28 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:11 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:09 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Uh, you don't understand how whataboutism works.
The entire implication of the OP was 'whataboutism'. Bascially, the OP attempted to excuse or deflect from the allegations against Moore by using the 'but what about Bill Clinton" meme.
So, keeping with the OP and staying on topic, I simply called it out as whataboutism and asked the poster to explain
How does any true or untrue allegations against Bill Clinton have any relevance whatsoever to the accusations against Roy Moore?
Now if the OP is not trying to argue that the fact that there were allegations against Bill Clinton excuses Roy Moore's behavior or can be used as a defense against said claims, then he's free to do that at all.
Do you disavow alt-left terror on those in the LGBT community that don't have what you consider to be the "right" politics?
OT. But since you asked, I did note that you posted something on it, then I read it. I then attempted to google it to find the story outside of some right wing blogs, couldn't find a word on it, and decided to not comment on it.
Pathetic attempt to deflect.
So if the controlled, alt-left fake news media chooses not to (told not to) cover alt-left terror attacks, that means they didn't happen? It's on freakin' video, man.
If you actually believe the words you typed, you have reached a level of delusion/gaslighting that is downright dangerous.
Again, you're OT. Any comments on the thread title? I suppose you could go with the Chelsea Handler is a hypocrite line, of course, if Miss Handler had made some comments regarding Bill Clinton. Of course Miss Handler could simply find Brodericks allegation to be not credible. And y'all are free to fine the allegations against Moore to be not credible (although its getting really hard to do so).
But this, in no way whatsoever, excuses Roy Moore's behavior.
So, do you denounce Bill Clinton as a sexual predator, abuser of a young intern in the White House and his numerous actual attacks on women?
(11-13-2017 04:24 PM)usmbacker Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 04:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:28 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:11 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Do you disavow alt-left terror on those in the LGBT community that don't have what you consider to be the "right" politics?
OT. But since you asked, I did note that you posted something on it, then I read it. I then attempted to google it to find the story outside of some right wing blogs, couldn't find a word on it, and decided to not comment on it.
Pathetic attempt to deflect.
So if the controlled, alt-left fake news media chooses not to (told not to) cover alt-left terror attacks, that means they didn't happen? It's on freakin' video, man.
If you actually believe the words you typed, you have reached a level of delusion/gaslighting that is downright dangerous.
Again, you're OT. Any comments on the thread title? I suppose you could go with the Chelsea Handler is a hypocrite line, of course, if Miss Handler had made some comments regarding Bill Clinton. Of course Miss Handler could simply find Brodericks allegation to be not credible. And y'all are free to fine the allegations against Moore to be not credible (although its getting really hard to do so).
But this, in no way whatsoever, excuses Roy Moore's behavior.
So, do you denounce Bill Clinton as a sexual predator, abuser of a young intern in the White House and his numerous actual attacks on women?
About as much as he’ll disavow terror attacks on those in the LGBT community that have the “wrong” politics.
(11-13-2017 04:24 PM)usmbacker Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 04:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:28 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:11 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ]Do you disavow alt-left terror on those in the LGBT community that don't have what you consider to be the "right" politics?
OT. But since you asked, I did note that you posted something on it, then I read it. I then attempted to google it to find the story outside of some right wing blogs, couldn't find a word on it, and decided to not comment on it.
Pathetic attempt to deflect.
So if the controlled, alt-left fake news media chooses not to (told not to) cover alt-left terror attacks, that means they didn't happen? It's on freakin' video, man.
If you actually believe the words you typed, you have reached a level of delusion/gaslighting that is downright dangerous.
Again, you're OT. Any comments on the thread title? I suppose you could go with the Chelsea Handler is a hypocrite line, of course, if Miss Handler had made some comments regarding Bill Clinton. Of course Miss Handler could simply find Brodericks allegation to be not credible. And y'all are free to fine the allegations against Moore to be not credible (although its getting really hard to do so).
But this, in no way whatsoever, excuses Roy Moore's behavior.
So, do you denounce Bill Clinton as a sexual predator, abuser of a young intern in the White House and his numerous actual attacks on women?
I personally know Monica Lewinsky btw. She has never claimed that it wasn't consensual. She was an adult. Was Bill Clinton creepy? Yes. Do I condemn Bill Clinton for being stupid enough to didle with coworkers? Yep.
There were several other allegations against Bill Clinton. I'm not obliged to believe them. You aren't obliged to believe the allegations against Moore. Quite frankly, neither Clinton is up for office now. But Moore is.
(11-13-2017 03:05 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]Classic 'whataboutism'. Even if someone assumed that the allegations were true, how does that excuse Roy Moore's allegations?
You b*tch about 'whataboutism' and tell people to start new threads, and then when they do, you come to them and continue to b*tch about 'whataboutism'.
Sad.
he's a twisted pretzel....he's only good for ferreting....
(11-13-2017 04:25 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 04:24 PM)usmbacker Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 04:11 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:28 PM)Kronke Wrote: [ -> ] (11-13-2017 03:21 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote: [ -> ]OT. But since you asked, I did note that you posted something on it, then I read it. I then attempted to google it to find the story outside of some right wing blogs, couldn't find a word on it, and decided to not comment on it.
Pathetic attempt to deflect.
So if the controlled, alt-left fake news media chooses not to (told not to) cover alt-left terror attacks, that means they didn't happen? It's on freakin' video, man.
If you actually believe the words you typed, you have reached a level of delusion/gaslighting that is downright dangerous.
Again, you're OT. Any comments on the thread title? I suppose you could go with the Chelsea Handler is a hypocrite line, of course, if Miss Handler had made some comments regarding Bill Clinton. Of course Miss Handler could simply find Brodericks allegation to be not credible. And y'all are free to fine the allegations against Moore to be not credible (although its getting really hard to do so).
But this, in no way whatsoever, excuses Roy Moore's behavior.
So, do you denounce Bill Clinton as a sexual predator, abuser of a young intern in the White House and his numerous actual attacks on women?
About as much as he’ll disavow terror attacks on those in the LGBT community that have the “wrong” politics.
OT.
LOL. I'm under no obligation to respond to your threads. I explained why I didn't respond to your thread, even though I don't have to justify it.