You use that word "conspiracy" a lot when you can't argue your position. It's strange how you don't see a problem with a group of women popping up for the first time when an election is being held after nearly 40 years after his actions supposedly occurred. You're either really naive or are so brainwashed by the media that you refuse to use your critical thinking skills. You really believe that Access tape is a smoking gun? Good grief. There isn't much hope for you, son.
The Media Industry
- Thread starter texas_ex2000
- Start date
You use that word "conspiracy" a lot when you can't argue your position. It's strange how you don't see a problem with a group of women popping up for the first time when an election is being held after nearly 40 years after his actions supposedly occurred. You're either really naive or are so brainwashed by the media that you refuse to use your critical thinking skills. You really believe that Access tape is a smoking gun? Good grief. There isn't much hope for you, son.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
I use the word because that's exactly what your proposing.
Brainwashed by the media enough to believe that 9 women and many locals conspired to tell a story of a 30+ yr old DA that preyed on teenage girls? Who is brainwashed? The person that believes it's some Soros conspiracy or the person that uses their critical thinking skills to acknowledge that Moore's story has changed and the chance that only 2 women told their story originally then another 7 came forward to speak about similar behavior might be telling the truth?
I'm not saying that there aren't Democrats using this to take down Moore. That still doesn't make 9 women and dozens of corroborating witnesses liars.
I use the word because that's exactly what your proposing.
Brainwashed by the media enough to believe that 9 women and many locals conspired to tell a story of a 30+ yr old DA that preyed on teenage girls? Who is brainwashed? The person that believes it's some Soros conspiracy or the person that uses their critical thinking skills to acknowledge that Moore's story has changed and the chance that only 2 women told their story originally then another 7 came forward to speak about similar behavior might be telling the truth?
I'm not saying that there aren't Democrats using this to take down Moore. That still doesn't make 9 women and dozens of corroborating witnesses liars.
Oh, I know exactly what a conspiracy is. I just think it's funny that someone who brings up a lot of alt-right conspiracies calls others conspiracy theorists. You do know that the Russian collusion stuff is technically a conspiracy theory, right? Perhaps you should call Mueller and inform him that conspiracy theories are impossible and he should stop because he's wasting his time. In all seriousness, conspiracies sometimes do exist and the way you try to shut down others by yelling "conspiracy" is being dickish.
Btw, I didn't say that the 9 women and the locals conspired together. Usually in these situations the women/locals are seeking attention or there is someone offering money to the individual women to tell their stories. Supposedly, the Post didn't pay money in this case but who knows as shady as they've been in the past. Yes, you are brainwashed. Unlike you I have admitted that I could be wrong on this. However, you have been on this like a brainwashed MSM zealot. Btw, I was wrong about Soros backing the Trump accusers directly but one of his groups are.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/24524/george-soros-funded-group-gathering-trumps-ryan-saavedra
Last edited:
I voted Libertarian, as I have in every POTUS election since 1992.
I use the word because that's exactly what your proposing.
Brainwashed by the media enough to believe that 9 women and many locals conspired to tell a story of a 30+ yr old DA that preyed on teenage girls? Who is brainwashed? The person that believes it's some Soros conspiracy or the person that uses their critical thinking skills to acknowledge that Moore's story has changed and the chance that only 2 women told their story originally then another 7 came forward to speak about similar behavior might be telling the truth?
I'm not saying that there aren't Democrats using this to take down Moore. That still doesn't make 9 women and dozens of corroborating witnesses liars.
I forgot to add that although Moore's story might have changed so have the women's. 40 years is a long time and memories change.
Garmel, do you believe Juanita Broaddrick? Do you believe Paula Jones? Before "the dress" was made public, did you believe the story about Monica Lewinsky? I did and still do believe all three, even though (1) all three made their accusations under political circumstances; (2) at least two had Republican money (through Richard Mellon Scaife) associated with them; (3) had their stories reinforced and blasted by media figures who were hostile to Clinton (Limbaugh, Matt Drudge, and many others like them), and (4) at least until the dress was produced, all three were swearing matches. Furthermore, Broaddrick had made previous statements denying the rape UNDER OATH. There's nothing that damning against any of Moore's accusers. Hell, if Broaddrick's story is true, then she's a perjurer. Despite all that, I'll bet you believed all three just as I did.
The point is that all the claims you and Brad make about the accusers in the Moore controversies could have been made and were made in the Clinton controversies and with similar (and in the case of Broaddrick greater) claims of legitimacy. They looked like "hit jobs," had "right wing money" involved, and sometimes became public through nefarious means (taped phone conversations, partisan media figures, etc.). Why do I dismiss these claims in the Moore case as I did in the Clinton case? Because (with the exception of Broaddrick's prior inconsistent statement), they didn't reflect on the merits of the accusers' claims. They were attacks on the messengers and the circumstances in which the stories arose rather than substantive evidence that actually weakened the accuser's version of the facts. Most of the time, such attacks are diversions raised because the accused has no real case.
If you're choosing to believe Clinton's accusers but disbelieve Moore's, I think you need to step back and consider whether your real agenda is a concern for the truth or whether it's a concern for politics. It smells a lot more like politics, and by the way, that doesn't make you a bad guy. It makes you like the overwhelming majority of Americans nowadays who do exactly the same thing. That's why the same Democrats who are eulogizing Moore's accusers as saints were slandering Clinton's accusers as a bunch of lying skanks who should be disbelieved.
The point is that all the claims you and Brad make about the accusers in the Moore controversies could have been made and were made in the Clinton controversies and with similar (and in the case of Broaddrick greater) claims of legitimacy. They looked like "hit jobs," had "right wing money" involved, and sometimes became public through nefarious means (taped phone conversations, partisan media figures, etc.). Why do I dismiss these claims in the Moore case as I did in the Clinton case? Because (with the exception of Broaddrick's prior inconsistent statement), they didn't reflect on the merits of the accusers' claims. They were attacks on the messengers and the circumstances in which the stories arose rather than substantive evidence that actually weakened the accuser's version of the facts. Most of the time, such attacks are diversions raised because the accused has no real case.
If you're choosing to believe Clinton's accusers but disbelieve Moore's, I think you need to step back and consider whether your real agenda is a concern for the truth or whether it's a concern for politics. It smells a lot more like politics, and by the way, that doesn't make you a bad guy. It makes you like the overwhelming majority of Americans nowadays who do exactly the same thing. That's why the same Democrats who are eulogizing Moore's accusers as saints were slandering Clinton's accusers as a bunch of lying skanks who should be disbelieved.
Last edited:
Did the Clinton accusers wait 40 years before going public with the charges?
They waited until it was most advantageous to do so like Moore's accusers have, which was never soon after the alleged acts. In the case of Jones, it was about three years. In the case of Broaddrick, it was about 19 years. And of course, Lewinsky never went public. She was ratted out by Linda Tripp, who was pretending to be her friend and recording her phone conversations. And of course, Tripp went public when it was most advantageous.
Last edited:
Hell I don't know who to believe anymore.
Last edited:
I35
5,000+ Posts
I think the only thing that doesn't fly with this statement is they had plenty of the "most advantageous" opportunities over 40 years worth and also that they knew Moore would still be in politics for the biggest payday this many years later.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Local state media didn't pursue the story until AFTER the WaPo broke it. They then corroborated the story. Not all 9 women came to the WaPo. Local media also found mall managers and the Asst. DA to detail that he was well known fgor pursuing teenage girls. That's what some are missing. WaPo may have started the ball rolling with their reporting but many other media contributed context. WaPo had less to lose by pursuing the story than local media. If argue WaPo reporting have them cover to report investigate what had previously been whispers.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
You know it's bad when Jimmy Kimmel actually gets called out by the Washington Post... although they definitely took it easy on him.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...immel-on-chip-funding/?utm_term=.5cf0d80e0d06
"So, in the video above and the text below, we offer a quick guide to his rhetoric. Since this is akin to a round-up, we’re not awarding Pinocchios."
Yeah. OK. Basically he lies through his teeth through the entire monolog.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...immel-on-chip-funding/?utm_term=.5cf0d80e0d06
"So, in the video above and the text below, we offer a quick guide to his rhetoric. Since this is akin to a round-up, we’re not awarding Pinocchios."
Yeah. OK. Basically he lies through his teeth through the entire monolog.
I was told these things are just wild conspiracies that are incapable of occurring. It wouldn't surprise me that in the future we'll find out something similar happened in the Moore situation. http://thehill.com/homenews/adminis...wyer-sought-donor-cash-for-two-trump-accusers
Last edited:
Is Kimmel trying to compete with Colbert for the self-righteous liberal audience?
Unless there's evidence of the women being asked to lie, this isn't going to be treated as a major story. And even if such evidence is found, it's going to be assumed to only taint that one accuser. That's the nature of media bias.
Ah yes, I remember the days prior to Obama care, when babies, children, and everyday Americans were dying in droves because hospitals tossed them to the curb.
I have asked many people, from as many walks of life as I can find, to see if any of them had been completely denied medical care before Obama. I haven't found one yet. That is what really riles me up about the Kimmel's of the world.
Someone will pay eventually, but, everyone who needed it got some type of care.
It may have not been at the best hospital in the US, but, they received care.
I have asked many people, from as many walks of life as I can find, to see if any of them had been completely denied medical care before Obama. I haven't found one yet. That is what really riles me up about the Kimmel's of the world.
Someone will pay eventually, but, everyone who needed it got some type of care.
It may have not been at the best hospital in the US, but, they received care.
Last edited:
It's also not cool to use your kid as a cheap political prop like he did. He's not the first to do it by any means, but it's still not good.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
That's the key, none of the women are saying they were asked to lie, including the woman that runs in Trump circles. Of course, if someone is being paid to come forward it's pretty obvious where there might be incentive to lie. To me that hampers the accusers credibility which is why I personally decrement the credibility of any women associated with Gloria Allred. Now I'll need to add Bloom to the list.
Another thing...I'd separate those women exposed by the media that come forward without representation from those with Allred's ilk. There is no proof that the MSM is paying these women despite repeated attempts to claim/prove they are. Most of Moore's accusers were clearly media shy which to me gives them greater credibility.
Allred and Bloom (her daughter) have a bit of a fuzzy game going. I'm not going to call it a racket, because it's not illegal. However, they're both lawyers and give the impression that they're involved in these cases for legal representation, when it's clear that they're actually involved for PR and media representation. For example, she "represents" Beverly Young Nelson, but is she actually representing her to sue Roy Moore over the allegations? I seriously doubt it.
I'm not saying they never handle real cases. They do, and though I'm probably hostile to most of their work, there are exceptions. However, in a hell of a lot of these "cases," their job seems to be serving as professional ****-stirers and promoters rather than as actual trial counsels. Frankly, I'd be curious to know when either of them were last in a courtroom.
I don't think the allegation is that the media is paying people off. It's that Soros and/or other left-leaning rich guys are paying people off under the table. I have no reason to assume that's happening, but that's the allegation.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
Soros must be omnipresent with as much as he's cited here yet nobody has ever surfaced a single bit of evidence of him paying a protester, voter or a sexual assault accuser. He's a red herring that is brought out any time someone on the right doesn't agree with an action and needs a justification to not believe it.
Still, dark money like that which was offered to this would be accuser is the scourge of our political system. I personally think Allred and Bloom are most interested in their own media exposure.
Assassinate his worthless *** and see how many of these things dry up.
Every political movement has a rich guy or a group of rich guys today it uses as villains. I even hear his name in Europe from time to time. For the Right, it's Soros and to a lesser extent, Mark Zuckerberg, Tom Steyer, and Peter Lewis. For the Left, it's the Koch Brothers (and of course the entire "1 percent") and to a lesser extent, Sheldon Adelson and the Mercer Family (bankrolls Steve Bannon). It's easier to make people cynical if they believe some rich guy is secretly pulling the levers of government at his whim.
No question about it. Obviously they're media whores who like the attention, but in addition, everytime they go on TV, it's like a free television ad with a national audience. Law firms pay serious coin to put ads on TV. Allred and Bloom don't have to do that. They can just run their mouths on TV for free.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
If Bob Menendez can call the tax bill a "tax scam," then you can call whatever this is a racket.
Seattle Husker
10,000+ Posts
The original outrage tweet got 15,000 RTs
Her forced correction tweet limped in with just 280 RTs
Is the first instinct of lefties ever correct?
Is Donald Trump a "leftie"? Inquiring minds want to know.
I35
5,000+ Posts
Hardly ever correct! Sometimes they know it, but it's their only way to have their "Ha Ha got you" moment.
Point taken? I doubt it.
ProdigalHorn
10,000+ Posts
Moreso than he'd like people to think. That tweet was a giveaway of his true instinct, which is that since he's in government, it's on him to fix an issue, meaning more government solutions. He's not a conservative no matter how much he claims to be, and no matter whether some of his policies align with conservative priorities. He's a pragmatist, which means he'll use whatever tool he thinks will get him results.
But let's be clear: Joy Reed is a hard core leftist, and she very clearly wanted to use this situation to support a liberal agenda. As it happened, she and Trump were on the same song page in this case.
Recent Threads
-
Trump Administration Accomplishments
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 848
- West Mall
-
The Media Industry
- Started by texas_ex2000
- Replies: 8K
- West Mall
-
Elon Musk Stuff
- Started by LonghornCatholic
- Replies: 624
- West Mall
-
Lord Soros is not happy
- Started by BrothaHorn
- Replies: 31
- West Mall
-
'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'
- Started by Namewithheld
- Replies: 3K
- West Mall
