RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness

RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DaddySatyr -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 3:56:42 AM)
I saw the first link and that's all I'm going to comment on, in this post. Allred is quite simply wrong. If a lawsuit (or a criminal case) has been filed, a respondent (or defendant, in a criminal case) has the absolute RIGHT to examine any evidence. It's black-letter law. So, either there's been nothing filed, no evidence (the book) brought into court, Moore's lawyer hasn't filed a discovery motion (I doubt that) or Allred is posturing for some reason. Our judicial system doesn't demand that civil (or local criminal) cases be brought to either house of congress (thank God). Of those four options I just gave, either no case has been filed (and I think one has) or Allred is playing fast-and-loose with procedure (which could get her a bar association ethics spanking). So, if a case has been filed, why is Allred posturing? This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. It makes me think: She's got nothing and this is just politics. Add that to the timing of the allegations (why not before the "primary" against Luther Strange?) and it's a big bowl of disbelief soup. Neither party is above this kind of political stunt (unfortunately). quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic This is the news report I read because it was video and not just info, http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/28/politics/gloria-allred-yearbook-roy-moore-cnntv/index.html Allred: To get yearbook, Moore must testify 01:56 Washington (CNN)The attorney representing a woman who has accused Alabama Senate candidate Roy Moore of sexual assault said Tuesday she'll hand over a key piece of evidence for third-party examination on the condition that the Senate holds a hearing over the accusations against Moore. Moore's attorney, Phillip Jauregui, requested earlier this month that Gloria Allred's legal team turn over a late-1970s yearbook from Beverly Young Nelson to a neutral party for examination. The yearbook appears to show an inscription with Moore's signature which calls Nelson, who is now 56, "a beautiful girl," and is signed off with "Love, Roy Moore D.A." The Senate candidate's team has cast doubt on the signature's authenticity.

DaddySatyr -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 4:11:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I have other links if you prefer... This one definitely covers the handwriting info, but as I said, I would prefer to see independence in the exam. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/08/us/alabama-moore-nelson-allred.html BTW I most certainly agree false accusations are a horrible consequence of this kind of revelations... in especially sex related matters, always have been and always will be. its one of quite a few things we have agreed on on the subject as a whole. I found the whole idea of project veritas sending a woman to the washington post to make a false accusation against moore....revolting, in my view, it was at the "false accusation" more than she was trying to hoodwink wapo that pissed me off. its not a partisan thing, if she will do it, for a job, someone will do it for fame. edited to add, notice the date, that was when I first saw it.:) I saw the Times piece (hard copy; not interwebz) and I was less than convinced. Again, I have had issues with Allred's tactics for a long time and an expert that she pays (and I'm sure they're paid well) is not all that convincing to me. If Moore gets a stab at the book and we don't hear anything about his expert vehemently denying its authenticity, I think we can make a decision and I will grant that if we do hear a vehement denial, that doesn't mean it's any more accurate than Allred's expert, but in reality, we're only hearing one side, here. I wouldn't have known Moore, if I'd tripped over him before these allegations came to light, but Allred has had a few controversial cases in her past. Controversial in that her tactics are a bit close to the line, when it comes to professional ethics (wasn't she "suspended" by the bar for a short time? I remember something like that, but I could be wrong). To me, that makes her veracity "spotty", at best so, I will not accept her client's story at face value. At this point, if Harvey Weinstain wrote a post on here, telling you what a great guy I am, you'd think, pretty much, the opposite, just on speculation, right? And why wouldn't you? That's not to say some people can't be complete degenerates, but still know (and recognize) decent people, but we are known by the company we keep (unfortunately).

bounty44 -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 5:29:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic PS trump also lied this week, by stating that clinton lied to the FBI. I seriously wish you comrades would learn what a "lie" is. quote: However, Clinton did make claims that critics believe to be untrue. She told the FBI that she used a private server as a matter of convenience and denied using the server to avoid federal records requirements. But since there’s no way to assess Clinton’s motives, no federal prosecutor would have grounds to charge Clinton with making false statements. Under the False Statements Act, a prosecutor would not only have to demonstrate Clinton lied, but also show she did so “knowingly and willfully.” http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/05/fact-check-did-hillary-clinton-lie-to-the-fbi/ technically the article calls trumps claim "false" (note, not a "lie") but it does so in a particular context or perspective that does not include what im about to write below. he is NOT saying that the fbi caught Hillary in a lie and they refused to do nothing, he's simply is simply stating, given what I quoted above, and many others believe likewise, an OPINION that Hillary lied to the fbi. its not a LIE for him to express that. oh, and your time time magazine cover sucks. for things to have some effect from anything other than a ridiculous wishful thinking perspective, there has to be some connection with the truth to it. as I see it, it just serves to create more hyperpartisan hysteria.

bounty44 -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 5:46:32 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Barking mad doesnt and cant come close to describe the extreme right propaganda media. ALSO MSM Batshit bonkers is close. But lacks a certain flair, mentally deficient, is apt. but unfair to the mentally deficient, as its self imposed at fox, along with Sinclair, rush, and ingraham , coulter, levin, breitbart, alex and info wars, prison planet, gateway pundit, tucker carlsons daily caller etc that so many trumpers use as their own singular reality. i'll try again...people think about and view things differently. they value different things. the people with whom you disagree are on the whole, educated, smart, reasoned, loving, etc, as anyone with whom you agree. it does not mean they cant "see reality", it does not make what they say "propaganda" nor does it make them "mentally deficient"---although given the circumstances, the last one, really, seriously, continues to apply to you. youre not the arbiter of truth and when you continually have that pointed out to you, but you continue to act otherwise, well...you make the connection. wise up.

Lucylastic -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 6:03:03 AM)
The day you are ever willing to give an inch on your hyper partisanship, I will discuss things with you, otherwise its moot, but its up to you. wise up

bounty44 -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 6:19:45 AM)
unfortunately, you conflate "hyperpartisanship" with strong convictions of a particular side, as opposed to its intended usage. you were in on a thread before where I addressed this. quote: im a staunch conservative leaning libertarian. I promote and argue from that point of view. I criticize where I can views and positions I reject. I see the left as the enemy, and ive rationally explained, on multiple occasions, how. that's "hyperpartisan?" sorry...its called knowing what I believe and acting accordingly. do you even know what the term means? i'll help---partisan: a strong and often UNCRITICAL supporter of a person or cause---emphasis on the word "uncritical". hyper: excessive. alternatively, partisan hack: someone who cares more about supporting a particular party or ideology than supporting what is morally right, or factually true. no doubt the irony is lost on you that I spend a fair amount of my time here confronting that very thing. you think you catch me being that way, let me invite you to do two things. first, run what you think youre seeing through the rubric above and multiple other times where ive said, "see things differently, think differently, value different things" and see if that takes care of the issue. if it doesnt, feel invited, as ive also said to people numerous times here, to send me a private message and we'll talk about it. meanwhile, none of that changes the admonition to both learn what a "lie" is, and again, to wise up.

Lucylastic -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 7:17:10 AM)
Your advise is taken with the respect it deserves, and expectations? even less

BoscoX -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 8:15:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr When we're talking about the alt-left, propaganda arm of the DNC (that's pronounced: "Main Stream media" for those of you in Poughkeepsie), I don't know if the term "howlers" applies. I've never heard any of them howling. There is, however, a British term that I've always loved that I think does apply to CNN, PMSNBC, et al. and it does kind of "tie in" to "howlers". I like the term "barking mad" and it's caused by Trumpophobia©™. There are a lot of ways of saying "insane" Every morning they wake up thinking, today is the day they're finally going to get President Trump... Every evening they go to bed only to endure another night with images of the president's huge grin haunting their dreams

BoscoX -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 8:18:30 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/05/fact-check-did-hillary-clinton-lie-to-the-fbi/ technically the article calls trumps claim "false" (note, not a "lie") but it does so in a particular context or perspective that does not include what im about to write below. he is NOT saying that the fbi caught Hillary in a lie and they refused to do nothing, he's simply is simply stating, given what I quoted above, and many others believe likewise, an OPINION that Hillary lied to the fbi. its not a LIE for him to express that. oh, and your time time magazine cover sucks. for things to have some effect from anything other than a ridiculous wishful thinking perspective, there has to be some connection with the truth to it. as I see it, it just serves to create more hyperpartisan hysteria. See also cartoonish delusions, howler

BoscoX -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 10:48:42 AM)
FR Seven times in the last year that CNN howlers shit their bed (coincidentally, every time they have suffered these epic journalistic fails it has gone against the president): 7 Times CNN Botched The News In 2017

Wayward5oul -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 11:15:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr Had you two ladies read ALL of the article I linked, you'd have seen: quote: ORIGINAL: From The Link Gloria Allred, later presented the note as evidence in court that Moore sought an inappropriate relationship with her in the 1970s. So ... not MY contention, but the *contention of the AUTHOR OF THE ARTICLE* . I mean, for goodness sake. It wasn't a long article to begin with and that sentence was the last in the third paragraph. I'm done, doing other peoples' research for them. The link was there to be read. You two didn't read it and then, climbed on your high horse. It's too bad that horse didn't take you to the high ground for which you'd hoped. You'd rather try to paint me as wrong than to actually read. I apologize. Maybe I'm doing a bit of "mind reading" there so, I'll ask: Was it that you didn't *want* to read or were some of the words too big for you? Maybe get a grown up to help? As I just replied in the other thread, I don't need a grown-up to read anything to me. I read your link. I just know better than to rely on one biased source for my information, as you did in your 'research'. I did research, I read other articles, and I published other links for you. Your article contained inaccurate information, including the line that you quoted above. Nothing has been presented in any court, except the court of public opinion. The yearbook has been presented to the public in a press conference. Had you done any actual research, rather than rely on an article that was quickly edited for errors, and even now still contains errors, you would have known this as well. quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Was that the one without "evidence of tampering", and the non existent "court" it could be produced at? Yep, that would be the one. Still waiting on him to show how what he said wasn't a lie. I acknowledge that using the word 'lie' was incorrect on my part. You simply hadn't done your research and relied on fake news.

Wayward5oul -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 11:18:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I also transposed "evidence" and "tampering"...in the post above(oopth) But this is the post I took it from It wasn't whether or not you mixed up "evidence" and "tampering". It was that you claimed the court was "non-existent" The book was changed/tampered with by the young lady. Had it been just a girl, doing stuff to impress her friends, that would have been childish, but understandable. The legal issue comes in when you realize she "tampered" with the book (no matter what the reason) and then understand that Allred presented that evidence to a court. Once introduced as "evidence", it becomes "tampered evidence". Allred needs to hope the lady didn't tell her that she'd tampered with it or there's also an ethics violation that might slide into the legal world, also. A lawyer is required to do due diligence to make sure the evidence is authentic before they present it. Yes Allred screwed up here. She chased an ambulance and rushed her facts. But it was not presented to any court, so no ethics violations can actually be claimed. And it still doesn't' change any of the story.

Wayward5oul -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 11:21:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic I also transposed "evidence" and "tampering"...in the post above(oopth) But this is the post I took it from It wasn't whether or not you mixed up "evidence" and "tampering". It was that you claimed the court was "non-existent" The book was changed/tampered with by the young lady. Had it been just a girl, doing stuff to impress her friends, that would have been childish, but understandable. The legal issue comes in when you realize she "tampered" with the book (no matter what the reason) and then understand that Allred presented that evidence to a court. Once introduced as "evidence", it becomes "tampered evidence". Allred needs to hope the lady didn't tell her that she'd tampered with it or there's also an ethics violation that might slide into the legal world, also. A lawyer is required to do due diligence to make sure the evidence is authentic before they present it. eating crow, I was thinking criminal court, and not the civil court. I fucked up and I unconditionally apologise. no excuses. Lucy, you did not fuck up. The statue of limitations has passed for both criminal and civil court. Even for a civil lawsuit, the statue of limitations is only two years. The legal system has not been involved in this case, at all. The article stating that it was presented in court was inaccurate.

Wayward5oul -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 11:24:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic One handwriting expert has apparently said it IS moores handwriting, (not the added bits) But I dont know if it was an independent one or Allreds "expert" I dont like allred at all as a person, so I have suspicions automatically with a case of hers, but I believe the woman. its very credible, so much more than moores "i did not know that/these/this woman" "responses" The handwriting expert that analyzed the inscription was Allred's. It probably won't get turned over to an independent analyst unless a probe is opened up in the Senate. That won't happen unless Moore is elected (and maybe not even then). Unfortunately, I do think that he is going to get elected. Which is a damn shame. Even before this, he was unfit to be a senator. He has already been removed from the bench TWICE in Alabama because of his illegal actions. Allred is an ambulance chaser. She just wears better suits and chases better ambulances. But still just as sketchy as any other. But like you, I believe the woman.

DaddySatyr -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 11:26:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul (Emphasis by DaddySatyr) Yes Allred screwed up here. She chased an ambulance and rushed her facts. But it was not presented to any court, so no ethics violations can actually be claimed. And it still doesn't' change any of the story. I'm wondering if you're making this claim based upon any evidence? The author of the article, obviously, believes there's been some kind of filing. That is the "fact" upon which I based my claim of tampering with "evidence" which is what Lucy (specifically) and you (by inference) contended. If there was some kind of court filing (civil or criminal) in which the yearbook was presented, that made the book "evidence" in that case. If the yearbook was tampered with (Allred and Nelson seem to be admitting that) then a charge of tampering with evidence would be appropriate. Can you state, definitively - with some kind of evidence to back it up - that the author is wrong and there has been no filing to either civil or criminal court? . o 0 (Forget the "criminal" court. I'll concede that, based upon SoL)

Wayward5oul -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 11:34:36 AM)
quote: "took an oath" or "went under oath"? I hadn't heard about this. It's why I'm asking. That said, if one side presents evidence in court, the other side is entitled to have that evidence examined by their own expert. So, if Moore asked for the book, after Allred submitted it, he was entitled to it (sure, he might have had to go through the discovery process). The hesitation also plants seeds of disbelief ie; if you have nothing to hide, let's see your evidence. The only sort of 'court' that this may end up in is a Senate ethics probe, if that. At that point, Allred will have to hand it over. As of yet, nothing has been filed, no court, nada. quote: To the best of my knowledge, this lady has not said that Moore had sex with her; that he "only kissed" her. I find that disgusting and I would never vote for Moore, but I don't live in Abalama, ... yet. The Abalama voters should be the ones to decide and, if these accusations prove false (which won't happen until after the special election), Moore's reputation will have been tarnished beyond repair (as far as career and election go). Incorrect. This lady claims that he offered her a ride home one night, drove her to a secluded spot, struggled with her and forced her head down into his crotch. When he finally released her, he threatened her to never tell. https://nypost.com/2017/11/13/new-roy-moore-accuser-alleges-he-sexually-assaulted-her-when-she-was-16/ This woman, and the woman who was 14 at the time that she went out with Moore, are the only ones of the 'accusers' that actually claim events beyond kissing. The other women who claim they went out with Moore while in their teens have not actually accused him of anything, but they are counted among his accusers by the media.

Wayward5oul -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 11:41:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I saw the first link and that's all I'm going to comment on, in this post. Allred is quite simply wrong. If a lawsuit (or a criminal case) has been filed, a respondent (or defendant, in a criminal case) has the absolute RIGHT to examine any evidence. It's black-letter law. So, either there's been nothing filed, no evidence (the book) brought into court, Moore's lawyer hasn't filed a discovery motion (I doubt that) or Allred is posturing for some reason. Our judicial system doesn't demand that civil (or local criminal) cases be brought to either house of congress (thank God). Of those four options I just gave, either no case has been filed (and I think one has) or Allred is playing fast-and-loose with procedure (which could get her a bar association ethics spanking). So, if a case has been filed, why is Allred posturing? She isn't. Nothing has been filed. Nothing can be filed. Even if there were eye witnesses to everything, statue of limitations has passed on all of it. quote: This is the kind of thing I'm talking about. It makes me think: She's got nothing and this is just politics. Add that to the timing of the allegations (why not before the "primary" against Luther Strange?) and it's a big bowl of disbelief soup. Allred didn't start this, the women making the claims didn't step forward themselves. WaPo was down here doing stories on Moore and Strange during the primary, and caught wind of the rumors of Moore's actions and followed the trail. They found the women, which they would not have been able to do had the women not talked enough about it years ago for the rumors to have been out there in the first place. quote: Neither party is above this kind of political stunt (unfortunately). On that we agree.

Wayward5oul -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 11:44:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I wouldn't have known Moore, if I'd tripped over him before these allegations came to light, but Allred has had a few controversial cases in her past. Controversial in that her tactics are a bit close to the line, when it comes to professional ethics (wasn't she "suspended" by the bar for a short time? I remember something like that, but I could be wrong). To me, that makes her veracity "spotty", at best so, I will not accept her client's story at face value. [/color] Being in Alabama and knowing how much of a figure he has been here for years, it is sometimes strange to consider that others around the country are not aware of the history surrounding Moore. Interesting reality check. Just FYI-Moore has been removed from the bench twice in Alabama already for failing to follow the law. Yes, the good people of Alabama voted him in again after he was removed the first time.

Wayward5oul -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 11:50:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: bounty44 unfortunately, you conflate "hyperpartisanship" with strong convictions of a particular side, as opposed to its intended usage. you were in on a thread before where I addressed this. quote: im a staunch conservative leaning libertarian. I promote and argue from that point of view. I criticize where I can views and positions I reject. I see the left as the enemy, and ive rationally explained, on multiple occasions, how. that's "hyperpartisan?" sorry...its called knowing what I believe and acting accordingly. do you even know what the term means? i'll help---partisan: a strong and often UNCRITICAL supporter of a person or cause---emphasis on the word "uncritical". hyper: excessive. alternatively, partisan hack: someone who cares more about supporting a particular party or ideology than supporting what is morally right, or factually true. no doubt the irony is lost on you that I spend a fair amount of my time here confronting that very thing. you think you catch me being that way, let me invite you to do two things. first, run what you think youre seeing through the rubric above and multiple other times where ive said, "see things differently, think differently, value different things" and see if that takes care of the issue. if it doesnt, feel invited, as ive also said to people numerous times here, to send me a private message and we'll talk about it. meanwhile, none of that changes the admonition to both learn what a "lie" is, and again, to wise up. Bounty, while I understand that you claim to be a staunch Libertarian, I don't see how that can be true when you don't support the totality of their platform. You may be Libertarian, but you are not a staunch Libertarian. There are actually aspects of the Libertarian party that you reject. And the claim that you are not hyperpartisan while at the same time claiming that the left is your enemy? Do you not see the ridiculousness of that statement?

DaddySatyr -> RE: CNN Mad Howlers And Their Howling Madness (12/9/2017 11:54:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Wayward5oul (Emphasis by DaddySatyr) quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic Was that the one without "evidence of tampering", and the non existent "court" it could be produced at? Yep, that would be the one. Still waiting on him to show how what he said wasn't a lie. You accuse me of being a liar. I re-present the evidence upon which I based my claim. While I may have been mistaken in believing that author's contention, how does that make me a liar? This is the kind of bullshit I'm always on about. I didn't lie. I gave the author the benefit of the doubt.

Page: << < prev 1 2 [3] 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625