Liberal Forum

Misty » 11 Nov 2017 11:23 am » wrote: Search for what?
First of all, I never defended Weiner, or denied what he did, and he is now being held accountable for his actions.

He lost his job, and his wife, and he is now serving 21 months for 'sexting' with an underage girl.
A girl he never met in person or touched.

You keep telling us how smart you are, yet it seems like you are too stupid to understand that with Roy Moore it's about hypocrisy.

Anthony Weiner is not a pious self-righteous person who made his career by sitting in judgement of other people's morals and values.
Roy Moore is.

And if you are going to hold yourself out as holier than thou, preach morality, and shove your religious beliefs down everyone else's throat, then you'd better make sure your own house is in order.

Secondly, I never called Anthony Weiner's victim a 'skank' which Crimson has done more than once, in addition to calling her 'white trash.'

So since you were so outraged over my thread title, that you accused me of 'taking pleasure' in the statutory rape of a 14 year old girl, do you have any issue with Crimson denegrating Roy Moore's accuser like that?

If I did a search would I find that you objected to his use of those words, because you sure as hell didn't do it in this post.

Looks like Roy Moore is not the only hypocrite.

Can you show us the same evidence we have on the Weiner?


No...I didn't think so.


If he's guilty, then he's guilty.


Now let me see...what can I accuse Misty of without evidence?

roadkill » 11 Nov 2017 11:32 am » wrote:Can you show us the same evidence we have on the Weiner?
No...I didn't think so.
If he's guilty, then he's guilty.

Here's a hint......when people molest a child, they don't do it in front of witnesses.
And there were no cell phones in 1979 genius, so how could there be the same type of evidence we have on Weiner?

At least four people have gone on record saying that Leigh Coffman told them about her experience with Roy Moore years ago.

Two of them were childhood friends who she told at the time, one was her mother who she told ten years later, and one was a man she was dating who said she told him in 2009.

roadkill » 11 Nov 2017 11:32 am » wrote:Now let me see...what can I accuse Misty of without evidence?

You already did that the other day when you accused me of child abuse.
But that's okay because you can accuse a Lib of anything without any evidence, right?

roadkill » 09 Nov 2017 3:30 pm » wrote:I heard you abused some children...don't try to deny it cause I have sources.

Misty » 11 Nov 2017 11:23 am » wrote: Search for what?
First of all, I never defended Weiner, or denied what he did, and he is now being held accountable for his actions.

He lost his job, and his wife, and he is now serving 21 months for 'sexting' with an underage girl.
A girl he never met in person or touched.

You keep telling us how smart you are, yet it seems like you are too stupid to understand that with Roy Moore it's about hypocrisy.

Anthony Weiner is not a pious self-righteous person who made his career by sitting in judgement of other people's morals and values.
Roy Moore is.

And if you are going to hold yourself out as holier than thou, preach morality, and shove your religious beliefs down everyone else's throat, then you'd better make sure your own house is in order.

Secondly, I never called Anthony Weiner's victim a 'skank' which Crimson has done more than once to Roy Moore's accuser, in addition to calling her 'white trash.'

So since you were so outraged over my thread title (which you totally mischaracterized) that you accused me of 'taking pleasure' in the statutory rape of a 14 year old girl, do you have any issue with Crimson denegrating Roy Moore's accuser like that?

If I did a search would I find that you objected to his use of those words, because you sure as hell didn't do it in this post, did you?

Looks like Roy Moore is not the only hypocrite.
It's pretty obvious that your outrage over my thread title is manufactured, phony and selective.
:rofl:

Sounds like she is ducking to me. The point is you did not get this worked up over Weiner. No sicko threads discussing how delicious the story was.

Huey » 11 Nov 2017 12:39 pm » wrote:Sounds like she is ducking to me. The point is you did not get this worked up over Weiner. No sicko threads discussing how delicious the story was.

That's right.
Keep pretending that it's not about the hypocrisy.

Contrary to your filthy lie that I find statutory rape delicious, it is the hypocrisy that I found delicious.
There is no hypocrisy in the Anthony Weiner case.
He did not pretend to be holier than thou, preach morality or shove his religious beliefs down everyone's throat.

My thread was all about hypocrisy, yet you have dishonestly portrayed it as a thread in which I am celebrating statutory rape, even though you yourself did not believe the accuser.

And you ignore people calling the accuser that you feigned so much concern for a 'skank' and 'white trash.'

Misty » 11 Nov 2017 12:39 pm » wrote: Here's a hint......when people molest a child, they don't do it in front of witnesses.
And there were no cell phones in 1979 genius, so how could there be the same type of evidence we have on Weiner?

At least four people have gone on record saying that Leigh Coffman told them about her experience with Roy Moore years ago.

Two of them were childhood friends who she told at the time, one was her mother who she told ten years later, and one was a man she was dating who said she told him in 2009.

You already did that the other day when you accused me of child abuse.
But that's okay because you can accuse a Lib of anything without any evidence, right?

I believe it was Corfman, not sure.

Someone that knew her in highschool said she was 17, not 14. Whether or not any of it is true, Corfman better hope this matches her account or it will be over.

Here's a hint for you...when people accuse someone without evidence it's just as bad.

Here's another hint for you...one of the woman worked in multiple dem positions, including working for Hillary.

If Moore is guilty, with evidence, you won't get any argument from me...maybe you should wait?

roadkill » 11 Nov 2017 12:56 pm » wrote:Here's a hint for you...when people accuse someone without evidence it's just as bad.

What evidence have you seen that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick?
In 1999, she said for the first time that he had raped her 21 years before that, even though two years before that (in 1997) she testified under oath that he did NOT rape her.
But you still believe her right?


Just admit that you have a double standard.
We all see it.
You make all kinds of accusations against Dems/Libs with no evidence at all.
Even accusations of murder.

roadkill » 11 Nov 2017 12:56 pm » wrote:Here's another hint for you...one of the woman worked in multiple dem positions, including working for Hillary.

As a sign language interpreter.
Not exactly a political position, but keep grasping at this straws.


Anyway in his radio interview with Sean Hannity, Roy Moore verified the stories of the other women in the Washington Post article.

The only one he denies is the one who was underage.

Misty » 11 Nov 2017 1:18 pm » wrote: What evidence have you seen that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick?
In 1999, she said for the first time that he had raped her 21 years before that, even though two years before that (in 1997) she testified under oath that he did NOT rape her.
But you still believe her right?


Just admit that you have a double standard.
We all see it.
You make all kinds of accusations against Dems/Libs with no evidence at all.
Even accusations of murder.

As a sign language interpreter.
Not exactly a political position, but keep grasping at this straws.


Anyway in his radio interview with Sean Hannity, Roy Moore verified the stories of the other women in the Washington Post article.

The only one he denies is the one who was underage.

So you believe him from that interview? That's very open minded of you. Oh wait...you don't believe the part you don't want to believe.

Was someone forced/raped, and were they of legal age? Except the part that you choose not to believe that Moore said.


Show us the exact link on your Juanita claim.


BTW...remember the rape hoax by the leftist Rolling Stone against male students?

They accused these male students of rape and were proven wrong.

Same thing happened to the Duke lacrosse team... they were falsely accused. After that the media and people like Al Sharpton crawled back under their rock.


P.S. Looks like the Rolling Hoax has a problem of it's own...


"Rolling Stone’s Jann Wenner Is 11th Elite Media Member Accused of Sexual Misconduct"



http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism ... isconduct/

roadkill » 11 Nov 2017 1:37 pm » wrote:Show us the exact link on your Juanita claim.

Nice dodge.
It's all public record.
Google it and choose which ever link you like.

On Jan. 2, 1998, she provided investigators on the Paula Jones case with a sworn affidavit.

Broaddrick: "During the 1992 Presidential campaign there were unfounded rumors and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies," she said.

"Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales.

I repeatedly denied the allegations and requested that my family's privacy be respected.

These allegations are untrue and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family."

Then in an interview on NBC's Dateline in 1999 she said that he did rape her.

roadkill » 11 Nov 2017 1:37 pm » wrote:BTW...remember the rape hoax by the leftist Rolling Stone against male students?
They accused these male students of rape and were proven wrong.
Same thing happened to the Duke lacrosse team... they were falsely accused. After that the media and people like Al Sharpton crawled back under their rock.

So are you calling Roy Moore's accuser a liar then?

And you are calling the four people who are on record saying that she told them about this years ago liars too?

I guess everyone is a liar except Roy Moore.

roadkill » 11 Nov 2017 1:37 pm » wrote:P.S. Looks like the Rolling Hoax has a problem of it's own...
"Rolling Stone’s Jann Wenner Is 11th Elite Media Member Accused of Sexual Misconduct"
http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism ... isconduct/

And it surprises you that yet another powerful man used his position to sexually harass someone?

The floodgates have been opened, and the dam has burst.
People aren't going to put up with that **** any more.

Misty » 11 Nov 2017 2:21 pm » wrote: Nice dodge.
It's all public record.
Google it and choose which ever link you like.

On Jan. 2, 1998, she provided investigators on the Paula Jones case with a sworn affidavit.


Then in an interview on NBC's Dateline in 1999 she said that he did rape her.


So are you calling Roy Moore's accuser a liar then?

And you are calling the four people who are on record saying that she told them about this years ago liars too?

I guess everyone is a liar except Roy Moore.


And it surprises you that yet another powerful man used his position to sexually harass someone?

The floodgates have been opened, and the dam has burst.
People aren't going to put up with that **** any more.

I did Google it a few weeks ago...you better check your source again.

Misty » 11 Nov 2017 1:18 pm » wrote: What evidence have you seen that Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick?
In 1999, she said for the first time that he had raped her 21 years before that, even though two years before that (in 1997) she testified under oath that he did NOT rape her.
But you still believe her right?


Just admit that you have a double standard.
We all see it.
You make all kinds of accusations against Dems/Libs with no evidence at all.
Even accusations of murder.

As a sign language interpreter.
Not exactly a political position, but keep grasping at this straws.


Anyway in his radio interview with Sean Hannity, Roy Moore verified the stories of the other women in the Washington Post article.

The only one he denies is the one who was underage.

Like I said giggly puss...better check your source...carefully.

roadkill » 11 Nov 2017 11:32 am » wrote:
Can you show us the same evidence we have on the Weiner?

No...I didn't think so.

If he's guilty, then he's guilty.

Now let me see...what can I accuse Misty of without evidence?

Take the moral high road for a change RK.

You don't want to become another Huey!

nuckin futz » 11 Nov 2017 4:52 pm » wrote:
Take the moral high road for a change RK.

You don't want to become another Huey!

Looks who's talking.

roadkill » 11 Nov 2017 6:16 pm » wrote:
Looks who's talking.

Son, I don't stalk people like Huey! I don't troll people like you do me.I an generally nice and respectfull.

Look at your posts!

Donald J. Trump
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!
4:48 PM · Nov 11, 2017 from Vietnam




Can anyone verify this was a real tweet? Huey?

roadkill » 11 Nov 2017 4:35 pm » wrote:I did Google it a few weeks ago...you better check your source again.

So what part of that is not true?

roadkill » 11 Nov 2017 4:39 pm » wrote:Like I said giggly puss...better check your source...carefully.

Either prove what I said was not true or STFU.

onlyaladd » 11 Nov 2017 7:50 pm » wrote:Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
Why would Kim Jong-un insult me by calling me "old," when I would NEVER call him "short and fat?" Oh well, I try so hard to be his friend - and maybe someday that will happen!
4:48 PM · Nov 11, 2017 from Vietnam

Can anyone verify this was a real tweet? Huey?

It's real.
I couldn't believe it myself, but it's on his official account.
I thought it was so weird that I started a thread on it.



Others thought it was strange too.







Here is another weird one.



Haters?
'THERE' always playing politics?
He doesn't know the difference between there and they're?
And he wants Russia to help him solve Ukraine?
WTF?

I seriously have to wonder if his account was hacked.

Misty » 12 Nov 2017 1:56 am » wrote: It's real.
I couldn't believe it myself, but it's on his official account.
I thought it was so weird that I started a thread on it.



Others thought it was strange too.







Here is another weird one.



Haters?
'THERE' always playing politics?
He doesn't know the difference between there and they're?
And he wants Russia to help him solve Ukraine?
WTF?

I seriously have to wonder if his account was hacked.

He's a child. And what is worse, there are real life human beings, who are technically not children, who to this day defend him. Amazing and very sad.

I can understand one crazy entitled daddy's boy idiot existing. I am baffled by the idea there are a few million people left in his corner. Wtf?

Misty » 12 Nov 2017 1:44 am » wrote: Either prove what I said was not true or STFU.

Juanita Broaddrick did say in an affidavit that Bill didn't rape her.

Then, after the fact, Ken Starr wanted to try and find out if Juanita had been intimidated into signing that affidavit...so Starr offered her immunity from perjury due Juanita's reasons for originally agreeing to the affidavit.

Juanita originally wanted to stay away from this whole thing...and one of the reasons was her fear of the Clintons.

Then later Juanita said her statement in the affidavit was not true due to her immunity agreement from Starr.

Some, probably your sources Misty, claim Starr said Juanita's claims did not have "credibility", which was false. Starr's report said her claims were "inconclusive" due to the lack of evidence beyond Juanita's claim and the people that knew about what happened.

The statute of limitations prevented Starr from using the rape allegations, but he could have used intimidation by the Clintons in his investigation...of course he couldn't prove if the intimidation occurred.

Remember your point about other people supporting Corfman's claims against Moore? Juanita has the same support.

Juanita Broaddrick’s claim was supported by five witnesses.

Norma Rogers, who was attending the conference in Little Rock with Juanita, says she found Broaddrick in her hotel room crying on the morning of the alleged assault, her pantyhose torn and her lip swollen. According to Rogers, Broaddrick told her that Bill Clinton had forced himself on her.

So Misty, this explains the affidavit. If you had gone beyond what you wanted to believe, you would have noticed that Juanita was able to say later that her affidavit claims were not true. Once she was offered immunity, she was able to speak out and say, in fact, Bill Clinton did rape her, and she has never changed her claim since.

Now the ball is in your court Misty.

Prove me wrong...or STFU!!!

P.S. If I personally can conclude that Moore should step down, even without solid evidence, I will not run from it like you have done with Juanita's claims against Bill Clinton.