3.54pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
Little Piggy Dragonguy said
I don’t know how anybody could support Hillary. Trump is not nearly as corrupt or repulsive, but his downfalls all anybody focuses on. Donald Trump is so stupid and disrespectful to women, but what about all the things Hillary has said about Monika Lewinsky and the women her husband has raped, and what about her laughing on video about getting the rapist of a little girl free and what about her accepting money from countries that suppress women (but yeah, Hillary is totally a feminist)? But nobody cares about any of that because she’s a democrat.
I think is a case of one being as bad as the other however the majority of the media appear to be on Hilary’s side.
"I told you everything I could about me, Told you everything I could" ('Before Believing' - Emmylou Harris)
4.24pm
1 November 2013
Little Piggy Dragonguy said
I don’t know how anybody could support Hillary. Trump is not nearly as corrupt or repulsive, but his downfalls all anybody focuses on. Donald Trump is so stupid and disrespectful to women, but what about all the things Hillary has said about Monika Lewinsky and the women her husband has raped, and what about her laughing on video about getting the rapist of a little girl free and what about her accepting money from countries that suppress women (but yeah, Hillary is totally a feminist)? But nobody cares about any of that because she’s a democrat.
Here is some info about the whole Hillary rape story.
WHAT’S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.
WHAT’S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant’s lawyer, she did not laugh about the case’s outcome, she did not assert that the complainant “made up the rape story,” she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not “free” the defendant.
If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.
5.38pm
5 November 2011
Starr Shine? said
Here is some info about the whole Hillary rape story.
WHAT’S TRUE: In 1975, young lawyer Hillary Rodham was appointed to represent a defendant charged with raping a 12-year-old girl. Clinton reluctantly took on the case, which ended with a plea bargain for the defendant, and later chuckled about some aspects of the case when discussing it years later.
WHAT’S FALSE: Hillary Clinton did not volunteer to be the defendant’s lawyer, she did not laugh about the case’s outcome, she did not assert that the complainant “made up the rape story,” she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty, and she did not “free” the defendant.
Okay well here is some more info
Clinton filed a motion to order the 12-year-old girl to get a psychiatric examination. “I have been informed that the complainant is emotionally unstable with a tendency to seek out older men and engage in fantasizing.”
Clinton also cited an expert in child psychology who said that “children in early adolescence tend to exaggerate or romanticize sexual experiences and that adolescents with disorganized families, such as the complainant’s, are even more prone to such behavior,” Clinton wrote in her affidavit.
Is that not implying that what the child was saying was not true? Maybe she didn’t say it directly, but it certainly was insinuated.
And here is yet again more
“Of course he [the defendant] claimed he didn’t [rape]. All this stuff. He took a lie detector test. I had him take a polygraph, which he passed, which forever destroyed my faith in polygraphs.”
Does this not imply that she believed that the defendant was guilty? Obviously she could not have known the actual truth, but to me this implies that she at least believed he was not innocent.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
6.09pm
Reviewers
Moderators
1 May 2011
6.18pm
1 November 2013
“She was vigorously advocating for her client. What she did was appropriate,” said Andrew Schepard, director of Hofstra Law School’s Center for Children, Families and the Law. “He was lucky to have her as a lawyer … In terms of what’s good for the little girl? It would have been hell on the victim. But that wasn’t Hillary’s problem.”
As for the claim that Hillary Clinton “knew the defendant was guilty,” she couldn’t possibly have known that unless she were present when the incident in question occurred. It’s also largely irrelevant given that under Hillary Clinton’s handling of the case, the defendant pled guilty rather than going to trial and asserting his innocence.
Besides, you claimed she was laughing at the girl which is false.
If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.
6.24pm
5 November 2011
Starr Shine? said
“She was vigorously advocating for her client. What she did was appropriate,” said Andrew Schepard, director of Hofstra Law School’s Center for Children, Families and the Law. “He was lucky to have her as a lawyer … In terms of what’s good for the little girl? It would have been hell on the victim. But that wasn’t Hillary’s problem.”
As for the claim that Hillary Clinton “knew the defendant was guilty,” she couldn’t possibly have known that unless she were present when the incident in question occurred. It’s also largely irrelevant given that under Hillary Clinton’s handling of the case, the defendant pled guilty rather than going to trial and asserting his innocence.
Besides, you claimed she was laughing at the girl which is false.
She didn’t laugh at the girl, but she did laugh about the case, and I don’t understand how what you just posted was relevant. I never said she knew the defendant was guilty; I said she believed he was.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
6.27pm
5 November 2011
meanmistermustard said
I have a sore throat and dry cough and have had for a week. At this rate i’ll be buying them Christmas presents and putting up stockings for when Santa visits.
Awww poor mmm. ):
Who is “them”? Or are you using “them” in place of “those”?
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
6.29pm
1 November 2013
She had him plead guilty. So having her think he is guilty is fine for a guilty plead.
And also it is sensible for a defence lawyer to try and look for reasonable doubt in a case.
If you can't log in and can't use the forum go here and someone will help you out.
6.43pm
5 November 2011
Starr Shine? said
She had him plead guilty. So having her think he is guilty is fine for a guilty plead.And also it is sensible for a defence lawyer to try and look for reasonable doubt in a case.
Okay, but the quote you provided said: “…she did not assert that the complainant ‘made up the rape story,’ she did not claim she knew the defendant to be guilty…”, and I provided quotes to show how that was not true, but now it seems you are trying to say the opposite of this quote. ??????????
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
7.01pm
Reviewers
17 December 2012
@Little Piggy Dragonguy said
Donald Trump is so stupid and disrespectful to women, but what about all the things Hillary has said about Monika Lewinsky and the women her husband has raped…
If the accuracy of your statement matters to you, could you please tell me how many rape convictions Bill Clinton has?
I am not aware of any.
Now I’m not suggesting Bill has been a loyal and faithful husband, but nor has Donald been. Marriage number three, isn’t it?
And if you’re going to hold up accusations against Bill that have not resulted in any criminal charges or convictions, you could at least reference the fact that your man is not simply accused of being “so stupid and disrespectful to women”, he now has a line of women accusing him of sexual assault.
I don’t think either are good candidates but it does annoy me when a flaw in common is used to attack one but ignored in the other.
"I only said we were bigger than Rod... and now there's all this!" Ron Nasty
To @ Ron Nasty it's @ mja6758
The Beatles Bible 2020 non-Canon Poll Part One: 1958-1963 and Part Two: 1964-August 1966
7.15pm
14 June 2016
@AppleScruffJunior said
Can’t we all just get rid of all the nuclear missiles and promise one another that if we do go to war we’ll do it the nice way around with guns, a few bombs etc. and not wipe out 100,000s of people both instantly and from exposure even years later.Nuclear weapons benefit no one and hurt everyone, if there is anyone we should nuke, it’s the whales.
Here | There | Everywhere
It's ya boi! The one and only Billy Shears (AKA Paul's Replacement)
"Sometimes I wish I was just George Harrison" - John Lennon
7.24pm
5 November 2011
I guess I should have said “…has allegedly raped…”, and that is what I had meant to say but I guess I accidentally left out “allegedly”.
I never said Donald Trump wasn’t disrespectful to women. I was showing how the media attacks him for the same qualities Hillary has but doesn’t get attacked for.
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
7.55pm
18 May 2016
Starr Shine? said
It takes more than the president to launch the nuclear missiles.
Alright, so that means that The President tells the people working at the missile fields to fire, takes 5 seconds and can destroy a planet faster than you can say Death Star.
The following people thank sgtpepper63 for this post:
trcanberra8.09pm
18 May 2016
I don’t know why everyone is using something that happened in 1975. If you want something to hate her for, I’ll give you two:
1. She supposedly gave out government secrets through her email
2. She uses the fact that She’s A Woman to encourage people to vote for her
8.42pm
5 November 2011
sgtpepper63 said
. If you want something to hate her for, I’ll give you two:1. She supposedly gave out government secrets through her email
2. She uses the fact that She’s A Woman to encourage people to vote for her
1. Somebody “supposedly” doing something is not a reason to hate a person.
2. When has she done this? Can you provide an example?
All living things must abide by the laws of the shape they inhabit
3.10pm
23 July 2016
Since me and Steve finally got set into our new house, we can plan for thanksgiving, here’s who we want to bring over (I will be using their year of birth instead of names to keep privacy):
Me:
Family:
Father (1939)
Mother (1945)
Cousin (1965) (will be driving parents, since my father’s too senile to drive and according to my family, it’s a sin for a girl to drive)
Steve:
Family:
Brother (1975)
Cousin (1967)
Oldest Son (1982) (all other children will be with Steve’s ex-wife)
Our Friends (mostly coworkers and boss (the oldest) from record store we used to work at in Arizona):
My former boss (1953) (sadly, my ex-boss has a family, so this is going to be a hard one)
1955
1962
1963 (this should be easy, since he is homeless as of the last time I saw him)
1964
1965
1966 (another hard one since I am not sure if his parole officer would let him be 24 hours away for Thanksgiving, although it’s worth a shot)
1968
1969
1969
The following people thank HMBeatlesfan for this post:
trcanberra, sgtpepper63, Little Piggy DragonguyMaybe you should try posting more.
9.47pm
18 May 2016
10.58pm
14 June 2016
This week is going to be very Nevada Day spirit filled! Nevada Day is only 8 days away! I just completed my Nevada Day costume! I’m super pumped!
Here | There | Everywhere
It's ya boi! The one and only Billy Shears (AKA Paul's Replacement)
"Sometimes I wish I was just George Harrison" - John Lennon
11.01am
20 January 2012
A few weeks ago, our 3-yr-old dishwasher decided to revolt and just stopped working (I’m not a fan of washing dishes, so I sort of get it, but still, three years???!!). A few days ago, someone dropped a box on my eyeglasses (they were sitting on my desk), and crunched them. So two recent kind of expensive breakages has me a bit paranoid, because my wife and I both firmly believe that these things happen in threes. Not that there’s some kind of supernatural bad luck fairy responsible for stuff we depend on breaking in groups of three, but it just seems to work out that way.
Maybe it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy, who knows?
So by paranoid, I mean this: yesterday I was in our laundry room, and heard a “thump-thump-thump” noise coming from somewhere. It sure sounded like water dripping in a hollow place, and the “drip” was steady-and-fast-enough to cause me alarm (if you’ve ever had a plumbing leak, you know what I mean). I spent the next half hour looking everywhere for the source of the sound, to no avail. My third trip outside (this is what I meant by “looking everywhere”) was because I wanted to confirm exactly where the laundry room was located relative to the garage (the garage is directly underneath the laundry), so that I could look for wet spots on the ceiling of the garage.
While standing there, I happened to look at the dryer exhaust on the outside wall of the laundry room…and saw the “flapper” opening and closing in the breeze, making a very faint, nearly inaudible “thump” each time it closed. Thump, thump, thump…yeah, that’s it! Sounding like a freaking drum indoors, could barely hear it outside.
I’m still waiting for that “third shoe” to drop.
The following people thank BluemeanAl for this post:
Beatlebug, WeepingAtlasCedars, pepperlandIt's gotta be rock and roll music if you wanna dance with me
11.43am
Moderators
15 February 2015
Good luck, @BluemeanAl! Perhaps if we Forumpudlians send enough good vibes, we’ll reverse the curse.
The following people thank Beatlebug for this post:
BluemeanAl([{BRACKETS!}])
New to Forumpool? You can introduce yourself here.
If you love The Beatles Bible, and you have adblock, don't forget to white-list this site!
7 Guest(s)