Coulter Accuses Democrats of Rape, Slander and Treason

[IJ Reilly]

Last week on Fox, Ann Coulter called Bill Clinton a "scumbag," and labeled him as a rapist. On MSNBC, she accused both Nancy Pelosi and Edward Kennedy of slander, and Kennedy and Michael Moore of treason.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405210006

So the question I've got is this: why is this woman invited to speak on cable network programs like Hannity and Colmes, and Scarbrough Country, instead of being denounced by everyone in the country who's in possession even the smallest shred of decency and sense?

[LethalWolfe]

Last week on Fox, Ann Coulter called Bill Clinton a "scumbag," and labeled him as a rapist. On MSNBC, she accused both Nancy Pelosi and Edward Kennedy of slander, and Kennedy and Michael Moore of treason.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405210006

So the question I've got is this: why is this woman invited to speak on cable network programs like Hannity and Colmes, and Scarbrough Country, instead of being denounced by everyone in the country who's in possession even the smallest shred of decency and sense?

Ratings? Maybe for the same reason Stern is popular, people tune in to see what "shocking" thing she'll say next. America is the country that has made "The Swan" a hit TV show.


Lethal

[Voltron]

Last week on Fox, Ann Coulter called Bill Clinton a "scumbag," and labeled him as a rapist. On MSNBC, she accused both Nancy Pelosi and Edward Kennedy of slander, and Kennedy and Michael Moore of treason.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405210006

So the question I've got is this: why is this woman invited to speak on cable network programs like Hannity and Colmes, and Scarbrough Country, instead of being denounced by everyone in the country who's in possession even the smallest shred of decency and sense?
She overlooked the manslaughter conviction Kennedy should've received for that little lake incident.

[professor]

[...]So the question I've got is this: why is this woman invited to speak on cable network programs like Hannity and Colmes, and Scarbrough Country, instead of being denounced by everyone in the country who's in possession even the smallest shred of decency and sense?

Maybe it's because they (Fox, etc.) think there are always some idiots whose attention they can direct away from the havoc George Bush is wreaking in the world these days.

[zimv20]

perhaps it's because airing the right-wing ann coulter gives most other commentators leeway to call themselves moderate

"i've never advocated nuking the middle east, therefore i am moderate. q.e.d."

[IJ Reilly]

Ratings? Maybe for the same reason Stern is popular, people tune in to see what "shocking" thing she'll say next. America is the country that has made "The Swan" a hit TV show.

Well perhaps, but Coulter already has a soapbox of her own. I'm asking how she gets herself invited onto programs hosted by others. What are we being told here by the hosts of these programs -- that Coulter is a legitimate political commentator?

[numediaman]

More "moderates":

Crush the Insurgents in Iraq

By Lewis E. Lehrman and William Kristol

Sunday, May 23, 2004; Page B07

"The United States will lead, or the world will shift into neutral." Wise words from President Bush on May 20 to congressional Republicans. From the beginning, the president has made clear that we must lead and win the war on terror. To win the strategic war, we must of course win tactical battles. The central battle in the war on terror is Iraq. Unless we win that battle, we will see America itself, and the world, shift disastrously into neutral in the broader war.

In every war there are crucial turning moments, hard to foresee. They often occur in the midst of public despair about war prospects. Today there is considerable despair over the situation in Iraq. But despair existed in Britain and the United States after the fall of Singapore in World War II -- before the U.S. Navy's astonishing destruction of a Japanese carrier force in 1942 at Midway. In August 1864 there was a widespread belief in the North that the Civil War could not be won. President Abraham Lincoln believed that the war stalemate and the terrible casualties could lead to the election of his opponent, George McClellan, who might repudiate the Emancipation Proclamation and sue for peace on the basis of the status quo ante -- a free North, a slave South.

But Lincoln pressed forward. He argued that "no attempt at negotiation with the insurgent leader could result in any good. . . . He affords us no excuse to deceive ourselves. . . . Between him and us the issue is distinct, simple and inflexible. It is an issue which can only be tried by war, and decided by victory."

Then Atlanta fell to Union troops in the late summer of 1864. Lincoln was reelected, with 80 percent of the soldier vote. Shortly thereafter came the 13th Amendment, the abolition of slavery, the surrender of the Confederacy and the beginning of a long process of Reconstruction. Lincoln's war aims were ultimately realized . . .

. . . So any armed insurgency opposed to a peaceful transition in Iraq must be destroyed. Fallujah must be conquered and terrorists denied safe haven in Fallujah and other centers of insurrection. Moqtada Sadr's militia must be rendered powerless. This will have to be accomplished primarily by American and British military power -- however useful various political efforts can be, however useful Iraqi and coalition forces can be. Then a sovereign Iraq, with continued U.S. military and other assistance, will be able to move ahead with the task of political and economic reconstruction.

Such decisive military victories in Iraq would be respected by Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds alike. The new Iraqi government could then depend more confidently on Iraqi and American police and military power until it is ready to provide fully for its own police and military security . . .

. . . .Meanwhile, as after William T. Sherman's victory in Atlanta, the reelection of the president at home would follow -- with a mandate to carry on, and to win, the global war against terror.

Lewis E. Lehrman, a former Republican candidate for governor of New York, is a partner in the investment firm L.E. Lehrman & Co. William Kristol is editor of the Weekly Standard.

And the South really loved the North after Atlanta, didn't they? In fact, 140 after the Civil War, the North and the South still love each other, right?

During the Albigensian Crusade, after the Battle of Béziers, when asked what to do with the residents of the city, Arnald Amaury, the Abbot of Citeaux famously gave the order to "burn them all, God will know his own".

I guess these "moderates" would give the same response.

[Mason]

She overlooked the manslaughter conviction Kennedy should've received for that little lake incident.

As well as the one Laura Bush should have received, too. Right?



P.S. Coulter should be careful about calling someone a rapist; falsely accusing someone of a crime is per se slander.

[Voltron]

As well as the one Laura Bush should have received, too. Right?



P.S. Coulter should be careful about calling someone a rapist; falsely accusing someone of a crime is per se slander.
You mean like accusing Bush of AWOL or Desertion?

[3rdpath]

So the question I've got is this: why is this woman invited to speak on cable network programs like Hannity and Colmes, and Scarbrough Country, instead of being denounced by everyone in the country who's in possession even the smallest shred of decency and sense?

both h&c and scarbrough have little sense and decency...ntm, journalistic integrity. sadly, there is a portion of the population who enjoy the mean-spirited lies of people like her, rush and savage. these listeners would rather be spoonfed tripe than do any thinking for themselves...

and as for coulter, my cats routinely cough up something far more worthwhile than her pointless ramblings. she confuses emotionally fueled vindictiveness with well-researched incisiveness. funny that she abhores the freedom to question our government while using that same freedom to denounce those that disagree with her political views. she wishes she was like mccarthey but she's actually more like roy cohn...repressed, depressed and inevitably doomed.

[Mason]

You mean like accusing Bush of AWOL or Desertion?

Moore shouldn't have done that, I agree. But that doesn't excuse all of Coulter's statements.

[IJ Reilly]

P.S. Coulter should be careful about calling someone a rapist; falsely accusing someone of a crime is per se slander.

Not necessarily. In the US, slander has to meet a stringent three-part test to be subject to a civil action: The accusation has to be untrue, the person who says it has to know it's untrue, and it has to cause demonstrable harm. Slander is very, very difficult to prove in a US courtroom. An aggressively vicious person like Ann Coulter snipes behind the protective cover of the First Amendment.

Once again, I'm led back to my original question. Why would any credible television network provide her with even a minute of airtime to spout her nastiness? And the second part of my question: where are the denunciations of these lies?

[Mason]

Not necessarily. In the US, slander has to meet a stringent three-part test to be subject to a civil action: The accusation has to be untrue, the person who says it has to know it's untrue, and it has to cause demonstrable harm. Slander is very, very difficult to prove in a US courtroom. An aggressively vicious person like Ann Coulter snipes behind the protective cover of the First Amendment.


Slander per se doesn't mean that you will automatically win the case. When someone is falsely accused of a serious crime (i.e., murder, rape, kidnapping, burglary, etc), damages are presumed.

In this instance, there is no evidence to support Coulter's statement that Clinton is a rapist. As such, damages are presumed and Clinton would have a fairly easy case against her - if he chose to persue such an option (though I doubt he would).

[LethalWolfe]

Well perhaps, but Coulter already has a soapbox of her own. I'm asking how she gets herself invited onto programs hosted by others. What are we being told here by the hosts of these programs -- that Coulter is a legitimate political commentator?

I'm not familiar w/Coulter but if she already has a "following" that following will tune in to other shows she is on. And people who dislike Coulter will tune in as well to she was she has to say (so they can gripe about it later), and hopefully to see her get "shot down." To stay w/my past example Stern has his own show but is relatively frequently a guest on other people's shows. I don't think they are neccesarily<sp?> saying she is a legit poltical commentator, but she does sound like she'd be good for ratings (at least for right now).


Lethal

[Thomas Veil]

Coulter is the very worst of the "lying liars," as Al Franken calls them.

She is so outrageous, I really have to question whether the woman is mentally stable.

Which, if she isn't, brings us back to IJ's question of why this woman is even on television.

[Voltron]

http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com | If liberals won't move on from the prison abuse photos calculated to incite hatred toward the very troops liberals loudly claim to "support," I'm not moving on from the fact that the editor of the Los Angeles Times, John Carroll, is instructing journalists on ethics. The editor of the Los Angeles Times telling reporters how to behave ethically is a complete contradiction, like ... oh, I don't know ... giving Yasser Arafat a Nobel Peace Prize or something. You know, just patently silly.

This is the same L.A. Times that engaged in desperate, 11th-hour attempts to sabotage Arnold Schwarzenegger during the California recall election with lurid sex stories from anonymous assistant crudite girls who worked the craft services tables on Arnold's movies from the 1980s and were still trying to break into show biz 20 years later.

This is the same L.A. Times that in recent years instituted racial and gender quotas for sources on "so-called" news - oops, I mean, news stories - which puts reporters in the position of having to round up a black expert on nuclear fusion, a Native American expert on cubism, and a female expert on great moments in football.

This is the same L.A. Times where reporters had to be told in an internal memo (from Carroll himself) to stop injecting opinion in news stories, specifically the practice of prefacing the term "pro-life" with the term "so-called."

This is the same L.A. Times that responded to the largest number of canceled subscriptions in the paper's history from readers enraged by the paper's liberal bias by putting Michael Kinsley, one of America's leading leftists, in charge of the editorial page.

And this is the same L.A. Times that pays unrepentant Castro fan and former North Korea defender Robert Scheer for his hysterical anti-American rants every Tuesday, after hiring him mostly because his wife was on the editorial board.

The title of Carroll's speech was "The Wolf in Reporter's Clothing: The Rise of Pseudo-Journalism in America." One has to admit: If you wanted an expert on the practice of partisan pseudo-journalism, you could do a lot worse than the editor of the Los Angeles Times.

Alas, Carroll's speech wasn't the "how-to" lecture dozens of would-be yellow journalists were expecting when they showed up for his presentation. Like the "ombudsman" at the New York Times, Carroll chastised his own newspaper for some small, irrelevant infraction no one would ever complain about while ignoring the paper's consistent Soviet-style reporting that has led thousands of readers to cancel their subscriptions.

http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/coulter1.asp

I don't know I like her writing.

[Voltron]

Coulter is the very worst of the "lying liars," as Al Franken calls them.

She is so outrageous, I really have to question whether the woman is mentally stable.

Which, if she isn't, brings us back to IJ's question of why this woman is even on television.
I'm not sure but isn't this a slanderous statement?

And speaking of Clinton being a rapist there is some validity to it.

While most reporters stay focused on the central characters of Ken Starr's impeachment report -- Monica Lewinsky, Linda Tripp, etc. -- the most explosive new aspect to emerge from the Starr investigation may have to do with a name few Americans are familiar with. In the Starr report, she is known only as "Jane Doe #5." And in his report's appendix, Starr reveals only this much about her:
"On Friday, January 2, 1998, ... Jane Doe #5 signed an affidavit in which she denied that the President made 'unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies.' (On April 8, 1998, however, Jane Doe#5 stated to OIC [Office of Independent Counsel] investigators that this affidavit was false.)"

Few outside the White House, the OIC, Paula Jones’ legal team, and news editors currently keeping this story bottled up know how damaging Jane Doe #5's story really is. For the story that Jane Doe #5, a.k.a. Juanita Broaddrick, no longer denies is the story she told her Arkansas friends years ago: that Bill Clinton, while state attorney general, brutally raped her in a Little Rock hotel room after she had enlisted to work in his first gubernatorial campaign.

On March 28, when the Broaddrick story first broke, it was covered fairly well -- by NBC and ABC News and on MSNBC's Web site.

There were four witnesses who told NBC that Broaddrick had revealed to them years ago that Clinton had brutally raped her in 1978. One was a nurse who told NBC that she tended to Broaddrick after the assault, applying ice to the victim’s bruised face and badly swollen lips. It was right after the attack that Broaddrick first revealed the rape, telling the nurse that Clinton had sex with her "against her will," NBC reported. ABC News released a statement from Broaddrick friend Phillip Yoakum, who identified the nurse as Norma Rogers.

On Monday, March 30, the London Telegraph reported that investigators working for Paula Jones had tape-recorded an interview with Broaddrick, where the alleged rape victim revealed that she had suffered "a traumatic encounter" with Bill Clinton that "turned her life upside down" -- causing her to flee from Arkansas to California for a lengthy period. Broaddrick would not go into more detail, said the Telegraph, because she did not want to "relive her ordeal."

The paper reported that Ken Starr had subpoenaed the Jones team's Broaddrick audiotape, along with Broaddrick herself, as part of his Monica Lewinsky investigation.

But then two things happened that gave reporters an excuse to drop the story, which they did in a heartbeat. First, journalists acquiesced to White House arguments that Broaddrick's sworn denial of the Clinton assault proved that the charge was baseless. And second, just days after the story broke, Judge Susan Webber Wright dismissed the Paula Jones case.

Now, however, with Clinton's perjury in the Jones case thoroughly exposed, experts predict the odds are good that Jones could win her appeal for reinstatement (if, of course, the case is not settled first, for settlement talks are under way between the Jones legal team and White House lawyers). Add to that Broaddrick's retraction of her sworn denial and it's a whole new ballgame.

If anything, this new set of circumstances should have catapulted the Juanita Broaddrick story to the front pages of every newspaper in America. Thus far, however, only the New York Post's Page Six has reported the story in any detail.

After all, we have a perjurious president awash in accusations of sexual misconduct now being accused of forcible rape as part of an official investigation. The scandal beat doesn't get any hotter than this. So why the media silence?

Indeed, this latest development may have jogged the memories of others close to Clinton.

Dick Morris, who goes back with Clinton all the way to 1977 and presumably knows a personal detail or two about the man, appeared on Fox News' "Hannity & Colmes Show" last Monday. In the closing moments of his appearance, Alan Colmes popped the question about Jane Doe #5:

Colmes: Dick, tell me about this allegation about another woman coming forward. Could that be the end of Bill Clinton?

Morris: Rape trials are very problematic. It was date rape if it was anything. He didn't jump out of the bushes with a knife. Look at Willie Kennedy Smith. The difficulty in proving that stuff is enormous --especially after 10 years."

Morris himself was the first to use the "R" word that night, and he did so without any prompting. And Morris, at least in this comment, doesn't seem to even entertain the possibility that the Broaddrick allegation was simply fabricated. Rather, the onetime presidential confidant narrows the question down to a choice between stranger-on-stranger rape and "date rape" -- and even speculates about prosecution.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/10/2/43829

[Neserk]

I'm not sure but isn't this a slanderous statement?

And speaking of Clinton being a rapist there is some validity to it.

http://www.newsmax.com/articles/?a=1998/10/2/43829

For better or worse you aren't a rapist until you are convicted by a jury. At least legally.

[IJ Reilly]

Coulter also wrote a book that attempted to rehabilitate the image of Joseph McCarthy.

[blackfox]

As I can't comment on Coulters' comments more than has already been said, I add two questions:
1) Wouldn't you agree, she is far and away the most attractive of these extreme right-wing pundits? and..
2) Do you believe she means what she says, or has just realized that this kind of inflammatory rhetoric will make her rich and powerful? (the same question could be asked of Savage, Limbaugh, Stern etc...) and as an attractive woman, she fills a niche in the market?

I guess that is three questions...I have my opinions, but I am curious as to the thoughts of others on this matter...I mean, we ARE talking about her...in someones' book that means something...

[Voltron]

As I can't comment on Coulters' comments more than has already been said, I add two questions:
1) Wouldn't you agree, she is far and away the most attractive of these extreme right-wing pundits? and..
2) Do you believe she means what she says, or has just realized that this kind of inflammatory rhetoric will make her rich and powerful? (the same question could be asked of Savage, Limbaugh, Stern etc...) and as an attractive woman, she fills a niche in the market?

I guess that is three questions...I have my opinions, but I am curious as to the thoughts of others on this matter...I mean, we ARE talking about her...in someones' book that means something...
1. No.
2. I don't think she's all that inflammatory or doing anything other than "just her job" Same as Limbaugh. Savage is a conservatives liberal. Meaning he uses liberal tactics. He yells and screams, goes to extremes, Keeps his mic turned up compared to the incoming calls so as to step on their end of the conversation, uses a 11 second delay (most people have 7) to silence anyone who actually might be able to beat him in an intellectual argument. Stern simply says outloud what most adult men think, but know they shouldn't and most teenagers only say when no women are around.

[skunk]

Stern simply says outloud what most adult men think, but know they shouldn't and most teenagers only say when no women are around.
Speak for yourself.

[IJ Reilly]

Speak for yourself.

Thank you. It may please Stern's fans to think that he speaks for all men, but in reality, he is a spokesman only for the knuckle-draggers among us.

[Backtothemac]

Last week on Fox, Ann Coulter called Bill Clinton a "scumbag," and labeled him as a rapist. On MSNBC, she accused both Nancy Pelosi and Edward Kennedy of slander, and Kennedy and Michael Moore of treason.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200405210006

So the question I've got is this: why is this woman invited to speak on cable network programs like Hannity and Colmes, and Scarbrough Country, instead of being denounced by everyone in the country who's in possession even the smallest shred of decency and sense?

I agree with you, and I would say the exact same thing about Susan Estridge

[IJ Reilly]

I guess that is three questions...I have my opinions, but I am curious as to the thoughts of others on this matter...I mean, we ARE talking about her...in someones' book that means something...

As Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."

If a person makes a habit of dropping their pants in public, they'll be talked about. But will they be invited to appear in polite company? Coulter gains her attention by engaging in the verbal equivalent of dropping her pants in public, yet she's invited onto national TV shows, where's she's actually encouraged to do her act. This suggests to me that the programs on which she appears have extremely low standards of legitimacy.

[IJ Reilly]

I agree with you, and I would say the exact same thing about Susan Estridge

Could you? I googled around quite a bit, and couldn't find her making a single outrageous remark, although I did find quite a few people making fun of the way she looks and talks (some of the comments are very crude).

I'll admit, I don't watch cable network news at all. So set me straight here.

[mactastic]

I agree with you, and I would say the exact same thing about Susan Estridge

You mean the woman who's now working for a Republican govenor? ;)

And speaking of Estrich, the channel I see her most often on is... you guessed it! FAUX News.

[Backtothemac]

Yea, I see her most on Fox news, occasionally on CNN. I actually love the way she talks. Really I do. And, most of the time, I like her opinion, but sometimes, she is just as far out there as Ann.

[mactastic]

Yea, I see her most on Fox news, occasionally on CNN. I actually love the way she talks. Really I do. And, most of the time, I like her opinion, but sometimes, she is just as far out there as Ann.

The difference I see between those two is that I've never heard Coulter make a moderate statement. Ever.

[Sayhey]

The difference I see between those two is that I've never heard Coulter make a moderate statement. Ever.

There is also that little difference that Estrich at least has some experience to draw on. She did run a Presidential campaign in 1988. Not the best run campaign in history, but she knows enough to get into that position. What, exactly, are Coulter's qualifications to have any of us pay attention to her?

By the way, I've never heard Estrich make the outrageous statements that B2TM alludes to, but I don't doubt her partisanship. Coulter goes way beyond partisanship - she is just crazy.

[IJ Reilly]

Yea, I see her most on Fox news, occasionally on CNN. I actually love the way she talks. Really I do. And, most of the time, I like her opinion, but sometimes, she is just as far out there as Ann.

Can you cite one of these far out Estrich comments? Personally, I'm not big on the "no worse than" defense, but if you're going to say anyone is as wigged out as Ann Coulter, you might want to have the quotes to back it up.

[LethalWolfe]

As Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about."

If a person makes a habit of dropping their pants in public, they'll be talked about. But will they be invited to appear in polite company? Coulter gains her attention by engaging in the verbal equivalent of dropping her pants in public, yet she's invited onto national TV shows, where's she's actually encouraged to do her act. This suggests to me that the programs on which she appears have extremely low standards of legitimacy.


I think most, if not all, of the politcal talk shows revolve more around ratings than legitimacy. It's people that argue their opinion for a living. The bigger the arguement the more "exciting" the program the bigger the ratings. How many people would tune in if the hosts and guests actually had civil discussion and agreed on things? Just look at the success of the loud, rude (IMO), in-your-face, info-tainment.


Lethal

[zimv20]

How many people would tune in if the hosts and guests actually had civil discussion and agreed on things?
i'm not sure if you meant to equate civility and agreement (i'm guessing you didn't).

some examples: meet the press, charlie rose, jim lehrer news hour, NOW

even on the McLaughlin Group, where an apparent lack of civility is built into the show, there's more respect for each others' opinions than i find on most other shows

[LethalWolfe]

i'm not sure if you meant to equate civility and agreement (i'm guessing you didn't).

some examples: meet the press, charlie rose, jim lehrer news hour, NOW

even on the McLaughlin Group, where an apparent lack of civility is built into the show, there's more respect for each others' opinions than i find on most other shows


My bad for being unclear. You are correct. I did not mean to equate civility and agreement. I guess I should have said had civil discussions or agreed on things. (?)


Lethal

[Frohickey]

She overlooked the manslaughter conviction Kennedy should've received for that little lake incident.

The Hero of Chappaquiddick is untouchable!!!!
I'm sure the parents of Mary Jo Kopechne are still getting fruitcakes every Christmas.

[Frohickey]

P.S. Coulter should be careful about calling someone a rapist; falsely accusing someone of a crime is per se slander.

IIRC, it was Mrs. Juanita Broderick that made the charge that Bill Clinton raped her. Strange thing though, is how come N.O.W. did not come to the defense of Mrs. Broderick? Hmmmmmm???????

[Frohickey]

Once again, I'm led back to my original question. Why would any credible television network provide her with even a minute of airtime to spout her nastiness? And the second part of my question: where are the denunciations of these lies?

Because she's a babe, unlike Janeane Garofalo. :p

[Neserk]

IIRC, it was Mrs. Juanita Broderick that made the charge that Bill Clinton raped her. Strange thing though, is how come N.O.W. did not come to the defense of Mrs. Broderick? Hmmmmmm???????

Perhaps because the belive that her claim was politically motivated. Extremists will do funny things to get what they want. Including lying.

[Frohickey]

For better or worse you aren't a rapist until you are convicted by a jury. At least legally.

So, *HYPOTHETICALLY*, if I were to come up behind you, *HYPOTHETICALLY* point a weapon at you, *HYPOTHETICALLY* rip of your clothes and proceed to *HYPOTHETICALLY* have sex with you against your will, and you *HYPOTHETICALLY* have a concealed handgun on you, you cannot *HYPOTHETICALLY* shoot me because I'm not a rapist yet? :eek: :eek: :eek: ?????

[Frohickey]

As I can't comment on Coulters' comments more than has already been said, I add two questions:
1) Wouldn't you agree, she is far and away the most attractive of these extreme right-wing pundits? and..


Laura Ingram is a babe too. :p

[mactastic]

So, *HYPOTHETICALLY*, if I were to come up behind you, *HYPOTHETICALLY* point a weapon at you, *HYPOTHETICALLY* rip of your clothes and proceed to *HYPOTHETICALLY* have sex with you against your will, and you *HYPOTHETICALLY* have a concealed handgun on you, you cannot *HYPOTHETICALLY* shoot me because I'm not a rapist yet? :eek: :eek: :eek: ?????

DID YOU FAIL READING COMPREHENSION 101????? SHE SAID 'AT LEAST NOT LEGALLY' AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek:

[Frohickey]

You mean the woman who's now working for a Republican govenor? ;)

And speaking of Estrich, the channel I see her most often on is... you guessed it! FAUX News.

I think Susan Estrich has a contract with Fox News. Same with Alan Colmes.

[Frohickey]

DID YOU FAIL READING COMPREHENSION 101????? SHE SAID 'AT LEAST NOT LEGALLY' AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE. :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :eek:

Not legally... oh, the logical contortions you have to go through in order to hold on to your argument that is leaking like a sieve.

[mactastic]

Not legally... oh, the logical contortions you have to go through in order to hold on to your argument that is leaking like a sieve.

Are you saying an accusation of rape is all it takes to be legally considered a rapist?

Can we say Kobe is a rapist right now? :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Frohickey]

Are you saying an accusation of rape is all it takes to be legally considered a rapist?

Can we say Kobe is a rapist right now? :eek: :eek: :eek:

...depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. :eek: :eek: :eek:

[mactastic]

...depends on what the meaning of 'is' is. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Bull$***. And you know it. Your attempts to 'spank' me are only making your arguments less and less credible. Get over it and admit you were wrong. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

[Neserk]

So, *HYPOTHETICALLY*, if I were to come up behind you, *HYPOTHETICALLY* point a weapon at you, *HYPOTHETICALLY* rip of your clothes and proceed to *HYPOTHETICALLY* have sex with you against your will, and you *HYPOTHETICALLY* have a concealed handgun on you, you cannot *HYPOTHETICALLY* shoot me because I'm not a rapist yet? :eek: :eek: :eek: ?????

You should reread my post.

[IJ Reilly]

My bad for being unclear. You are correct. I did not mean to equate civility and agreement. I guess I should have said had civil discussions or agreed on things. (?)

So, are you now saying that people aren't going to tune into programs where people express their differences civilly?

BTW, I agree with you on your ratings comment. What concerns me about this truth is the degree to which the so-called news networks will pander to their audiences. They're supposed to inform their viewers, but they'll happily throw them red meat if it makes money. This is the environment in which the Ann Coulters of this world thrive.

[LethalWolfe]

So, are you now saying that people aren't going to tune into programs where people express their differences civilly?

BTW, I agree with you on your ratings comment. What concerns me about this truth is the degree to which the so-called news networks will pander to their audiences. They're supposed to inform their viewers, but they'll happily throw them red meat if it makes money. This is the environment in which the Ann Coulters of this world thrive.

I would hope, I would prefer, people to pick content over sensationalism but that doesn't seem to be the current trend. Heck, I remember reading about a poll a few months ago that showed that most people 18-35 (roughly that was the age bracket IIRC) get most of their news from late night talk shows (Letterman, Conan, Leno, etc.,.) and shows like SNL. Tell me that's not scary.


Lethal

[IJ Reilly]

Tell me that's not scary.

Sorry, I can't do that. :(

[Frohickey]

So 'legally', the victim cannot determine/classify their assailant while the act was being committed, and they have to wait for the cops to catch the b*stard and a jury seated and the trial completed?

I wonder how much credibility the 'robbery' victim will have when he flags down a cop and tells him, "Officer, I think that the guy that took my wallet at knifepoint just robbed me. I'm not too sure though, since you haven't caught him and there hasn't been a trial yet. Could you go and catch him so we can find out?"

Is that what Neserk and mactastic are trying to say?

[Neserk]

So 'legally', the victim cannot determine/classify their assailant while the act was being committed, and they have to wait for the cops to catch the b*stard and a jury seated and the trial completed?

?

There is a reason that you hear "alleged" in front of vicitm and perpetrator. *LEGALLY* they are not those until the perpetrator has been convicted in a court of law. Ann can not call Clinton a rapist unless he has been convicted in a court of law. Hell, he hasn't even been indicted. And we all know from watching law and order you can indict a ham sandwhich!

[IJ Reilly]

It's so interesting to get these little glimpses into the inner workings of the "strict constitutionalist's" mind. Due process? We don't need no stinking due process! At least, not for our political enemies we don't.

[pseudobrit]

So 'legally', the victim cannot determine/classify their assailant while the act was being committed, and they have to wait for the cops to catch the b*stard and a jury seated and the trial completed?

I wonder how much credibility the 'robbery' victim will have when he flags down a cop and tells him, "Officer, I think that the guy that took my wallet at knifepoint just robbed me. I'm not too sure though, since you haven't caught him and there hasn't been a trial yet. Could you go and catch him so we can find out?"

Is that what Neserk and mactastic are trying to say?

Apparently you don't think we need a trial to determine what the legal status of a person accused of a crime is.

Dude, you got caught in a moment of ************. Own up to it and stop dragging this thread down the toilet with you trying to save face.

[Taft]

So 'legally', the victim cannot determine/classify their assailant while the act was being committed, and they have to wait for the cops to catch the b*stard and a jury seated and the trial completed?

I wonder how much credibility the 'robbery' victim will have when he flags down a cop and tells him, "Officer, I think that the guy that took my wallet at knifepoint just robbed me. I'm not too sure though, since you haven't caught him and there hasn't been a trial yet. Could you go and catch him so we can find out?"

Is that what Neserk and mactastic are trying to say?

Unbelievable.

Had the girl who accused Clinton of rape actually been telling the truth (and we don't really know, do we? Or are you flippin' omniscient? :rolleyes: ), and had that girl been carrying a gun, and had she shot Clinton we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. In fact, if that had happened, I think a lot of people here would have thought he had it coming.

It didn't happen. If she was raped, she didn't defend herself. So now, since the crime is long past, all we have left is the courts to decide it. That is the only reasonably fair way to determine if a crime happened, and who perpetrated that crime.

If we don't let the courts handle it, then I guess we have to believe every person who alleges rape. Is that your reasoning?

If so, then I accuse you of rape. By your logic you are already guilty. Done. Case closed. Does it matter that we've never met? Not if we don't get to present evidence in a court of law it doesn't. You're guilty, man.

So how should society deal with sex offenders? Castrate them? Sucks to be you, under your system of law.

Taft

[mactastic]

So 'legally', the victim cannot determine/classify their assailant while the act was being committed, and they have to wait for the cops to catch the b*stard and a jury seated and the trial completed?

I wonder how much credibility the 'robbery' victim will have when he flags down a cop and tells him, "Officer, I think that the guy that took my wallet at knifepoint just robbed me. I'm not too sure though, since you haven't caught him and there hasn't been a trial yet. Could you go and catch him so we can find out?"

Is that what Neserk and mactastic are trying to say?

I *GUESS* I have to *ASK* you again. DID YOU FAIL READING COMPREHENSION 101? :eek: :eek: :eek: We're *NOT* talking about *SELF-DEFENSE* here. We're talking about *DUE PROCESS* and the right to be considered *INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY*. What do you not understand about that? Reread the posts if you still don't get it. You can twist it any way you want, but you can't say that an accusation of rape makes the accused guilty. Well, you did say it, but it's such BS. It's certainly not true. I'd think someone who claims to be such an expert on the constitution would *KNOW* that.

When you talk to the cop about the guy who took your wallet, you are *ACCUSING* him of a crime. There may even be enough evidence to *ARREST* him for the crime, but he is not (and *THIS* is where it gets tricky for you) *LEGALLY* considered guilty even if *YOU* *PERSONALLY* *KNOW* he is guilty. Get it now? Or do I need to ask about your reading comprehension again?

[Voltron]

Aren't the same people jumping on Frohickey the ones who have condemned Bush for lieing and other things and wanting him thrown in jail. I guess innocent until proven guilty only applies to Democrats.

[mactastic]

I hope you're not refering to me. I want Bush tried before he goes to jail! :eek: :D

[Frohickey]

Okay, I'll concede... that everytime you invoke the name of Clinton, you have to preface it with 'the alleged rapist'. How about that??? :eek:

Juanita Broderick did not get her day in court.
Even the nurse that treated Mrs. Broderick agrees that the injuries sustained is convinced that Clinton raped Juanita (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33270).

Why not just let this case to in front of a jury??? This should have been right up N.O.W.'s area of expertise.

[mactastic]

Okay, I'll concede... that everytime you invoke the name of Clinton, you have to preface it with 'the alleged rapist'. How about that??? :eek:

Juanita Broderick did not get her day in court.
Even the nurse that treated Mrs. Broderick agrees that the injuries sustained is convinced that Clinton raped Juanita (http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33270).

Why not just let this case to in front of a jury??? This should have been right up N.O.W.'s area of expertise.

As long as you preface every reference to Dubya with "the alleged liar". Deal? :eek: :eek: :eek:

[numediaman]

This seems as good a place as any to post this thought:

Many of you do not reside in Washington DC, but right now there is a little bit of news that is starting to drown out the Iraq war noise. Now wouldn't it be the ultimate in irony if the one thing that can get people's minds off of the administrations troubles in a good old fashioned sex scandal!

A Diarist's Safe-Sex Proviso

• A public service announcement for the half-dozen men (so far) caught up in the "Washingtonienne" sex scandal on Capitol Hill: It would be prudent to get HIV tests, advises Jessica Cutler, who wrote a diary of her sexual escapades, then posted it on the Internet, causing Sen. Mike DeWine (R-Ohio) to fire her last week for inappropriate use of Senate computers. "I'm not the only one in the world who should worry about this," Cutler, the 24-year-old former staff assistant who kept the Washingtonienne blog, told us yesterday.

"I was practicing safe sex, as much as that is possible," she added. Juggling media interviews and requests, Cutler said she intended to keep a previously scheduled doctor's appointment yesterday to get tested for the virus. "I get tested at least once a year. I'm fine as far as I know. It's not like I'm in a panic or anything."

But in an interview with us Friday, she seemed concerned about the potential transmission of HIV because of some of her partners' preferences or carelessness. "These people, these relationships, have been going on for various lengths of time. There are situations that are very questionable. You never know. . . . With AIDS, who's not afraid of that?"

Some Web sites are speculating on the names of various sexual partners whom Cutler only identified with initials. The sites are eager to ID a married, Bush-appointed "chief of staff" at a federal agency who she claimed paid her $400 for a lunch-hour tryst last Tuesday. But she held firm to her vow not to name names, declaring: "I'm not going to help anyone figure this out."

The background story can be found here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A48909-2004May22.html as well as the Wonkette blog.

The WaPo ran this photo with the caption "Jessica Carter, tested once a year".

[Neserk]

Okay, I'll concede... that everytime you invoke the name of Clinton, you have to preface it with 'the alleged rapist'. How about that??? :eek:



Is he under investigation for the alleged rape? Is there a grand jury that is looking at the case?

[pseudobrit]

As long as you preface every reference to Dubya with "the alleged liar". Deal? :eek: :eek: :eek:

How about "convicted drunk?"

[mactastic]

How about "convicted drunk?"

Or alleged coke fiend...

[zimv20]

alleged president

[blackfox]

alleged president
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...priceless

[skunk]

alleged president
Nice :D