Exactly the type of insensitive, cruel, ignorant, uncalled for mud slinging that keeps victims from coming forward
The art of mudslinging against sexual abuse victims was perfected by the Clintons. Including mudslinging against an accuser who claimed Bill Clinton brutally raped her. If not for Monica's stained blue dress, she would've gone down in history as just another crazy bimbo who accused Bill Clinton of acting badly. Just like Juanita Broaddrick is portrayed by the media.
But of course, bringing up the Clintons' abuse of woman is pooh-poohed by liberals, who tell us that's in the past. While of course, accusing Kavanaugh of something that happened 10 years before the Clintons moved into the White House is fine and dandy. Now we have to believe this woman without question, and if we even attempt to question her testimony, harridans like Charlotte come out of the woodwork and accuse us of being misogynists. Of course, that was part of the scheme of forcing Ford to come out of hiding - because the Dems knew they could accuse anyone who questioned a woman's word of being insensitive, cruel, and ignorant.
Tell me, Charlotte, why should we believe Ford and not Broaddrick?
reply
share
CharlotteXavier (2357)
6 years ago
Oh dear, you are slow. Normally I have a ton of compassion for people with low intelligence who just don't have the tools necessary to comprehend what they read. But you are just so nasty.
The art of mudslinging against sexual abuse victims has been an ongoing phenomenon for thousands of years by the way.
You make all kinds of assumptions about me in your emotional, irrational replies, all chock full of cliched, name calling slang, that have no basis in anything I've written. You call people "tards, morons, idiots.." while exposing yourself as having no clue as to what is being discussed. Yet you respond. Idiotically you respond.
I've already pointed out that I wasn't responding to any mention of people asking someone for proof. Of course any serious accusation needs to be investigated, questioned and verified as much as possible. I never said it didn't. I was responding to the OP. Can you understand that I wasn't addressing the entire hearing? I was referring to OP saying Ford didn't "raise an alarm" for so long and that she didn't remember certain details of the day in question.
To assume that I support the Clintons is based on what? I most certainly do not support the Clintons and I would love nothing more than to see them both behind bars. But you just assume away while prattling on and name calling over responses you didn't even understand.
It is you, Snagswolf who is an idiot. I won't see any responses from you creep.
reply
share
Frogarama (12942)
6 years ago
But of course, bringing up the Clintons' abuse of woman is pooh-poohed by liberals, who tell us that's in the past. While of course, accusing Kavanaugh of something that happened 10 years before the Clintons moved into the White House is fine and dandy.
Is Bill Clinton trying to be put on the Supreme Court? You are truly an idiot as usual.
"why should we believe Ford and not Broaddrick?"
There is no conflict in believing both of them. It's not an either/or situation.
reply
share
SnagsWolf (1172)
6 years ago
"Is Bill Clinton trying to be put on the Supreme Court?"
No, but he was president at the time of the allegations. And you assholes just ignored her. Ignored a allegation of brutal rape, and now you're trying to make a allegation of someone holding their hand over someone's mouth much worse than that.
"There is no conflict in believing both of them. It's not an either/or situation."
But the FACT is, Broaddrick WAS ignored. By fucking idiots like you who now prove you're hypocrites.
No fucking honesty at all.
reply
share