You might remember ol' "Wide-Stance" Larry, the senator who was busted for propositioning men in an airport bathroom. Of course, that was ten years ago, when the GOP, the Gathering of Old Perverts, had a shred of moral outrage left.
Not any more, it seems. Ten years ago, a perv like Roy Moore would have had the moral decency to slink back under his rock. Now, they have to try and push him to quit and so far, Gropin' Roy isn't going away.
Now we see that the only value that the "values voters" cherish is political power. They will tolerate anyone, even an alleged child molester, so long as said alleged molester cloaks himself in their cloth.
I guess I'm old enough to recall when the Republicans claimed that they had the moral high ground. Not any more.
So this is what I say: If the evangelicals and "values voters" are so enamored of political power that they will tolerate knowingly support the candidacy of an alleged pedophile, then that tells me all that I need to know about their so-called morals and values.
And if the voters of Alabama elect Moore as their senator, that tells me all that I need to know about their state.
A blog by a "sucker" and a "loser" who served her country in the Navy.
If you're one of the Covidiots who believe that COVID-19 is "just the flu",
that the 2020 election was stolen, or
especially if you supported the 1/6/21 insurrection,
leave now.
Slava Ukraini!
Tuesday, November 14, 2017
12 comments:
House Rules #1, #2 and #6 apply to all comments. Rule #3 also applies to political comments.
In short, don't be a jackass. THIS MEANS YOU!
If you never see your comments posted, see Rule #7.
All comments must be on point and address either the points raised in the blog post or points raised by commenters in response.
Any comments that drift off onto other topics are subject to deletion.
(Please don't feed the trolls.)
中國詞不評論，冒抹除的風險。僅英語。
COMMENT MODERATION IS IN EFFECT UFN. This means that if you are an insulting dick, nobody will ever see it.
Seriously - You claim the high ground on this. Wow lets look at the Hollywood left right now. And Mrs. Huffington. And Bill Clinton. Jeff Epstein? Seriously. Wow. Just Wow.
ReplyDeleteWhere were all these women 10, 20, 30 years ago? Why did it take them being dug up by the Washington Post?
ReplyDeleteThey have even less credibility that the accusers of Clarence Thomas, Herman Caine,Judge Bork, etc.
THe Left uses Personal Destruction to damage an opposing candidate, and it is a reprehensible tactic.
Now, Larry Craig is different, and you should be ahamed to conflate the two.
Seriously.
And whom, exactly, would have taken them seriously back then?
ReplyDeleteThan answer is: Nobody. Moore molested those kids because he knew he could get away with it. Because he was politically powerful. Just like Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein and a gazillion Roman Catholic priests. They were invulnerable and they acted like it.
Things have changed and now the victims are coming out.
But hey, you want to stand up for a child molester, go right ahead.
Screw `Em, really? You're going with the "But MAAA, Billy did it, tooo. Nooo Faaaiiirrrr" defense?
ReplyDeleteIf that's your best argument to justify your supporting a child molester, then sit the fuck down.
It's simple, B: They were intimidated by the powerful men who had their future lives in their hands. Well, guess what? Weinstein got greedy and screwed up the deal, and the worm has turned. There's a lot of payback coming.
ReplyDeleteAaahhhh ...doesn't the self-confessed pussy grabbing peeping tom serial sex assulter(16) current sitting POTUS not count?
ReplyDeleteNot even honorable mention?
WOW!
Too soon?
Remember when Mitch McConnell ran Bob Packwood out of the senate?
ReplyDeleteSo we know he knows what to do, the question is will he do it?
-Doug in Oakland
Yo, B., just wondering exactly who started “attacking people as a political tactic”...let’s see...sounds familiar...wait, I’ll get it...hummmm, maybe 1993-2001 (and 2009-2017), when Republicans ceaselessly attacked sitting Presidents to try to forward their agenda? Oh, and show me the difference in proof between the statements against Weinstein and Trump please. Answer, there isn’t any, but you jump on one versus the other...they both should pay.
ReplyDeleteI hold weinstien's accusers to the same level as the others.
ReplyDeleteIf they chose not to say anything at the time of the incident , then they chose to ignore his behavior..it couldn't have been that bad.
If they took a settlement and signed a Non Disclosure, then the whored themselves after the fact. Worse, they chose being paid to be silent and therefore opened others up to the same traumatic treatment. Essentially let it happen to others in order to get some money.
THese accusations from 20 or 30 or 40 years ago are ludicrous. I like how you compare them to things that happened in real time , CP. Not the same. Not even close.
Innit odd how none of these women remembered anything until the men they accuse somehow became a target? Then they all came forward at once. And only when the DNC is losing an election..Yet there is no collusion. Strange.
Again, where were they all last year? Or 5 years before?
Some of the right-wing crap being cited are the lies of a troll.
ReplyDelete“attacking people as a political tactic"
ReplyDeleteThat would be 1996 when Newton Leroy Gineich's GOPAC released "Language: A Key Mechanism of Control" and urged every Republican who got within shouting distance of a microphone to call Democrats one or more of the pejoratives handily listed for them.
I mean that wasn't the very first time, but things have been measurably worse ever since.
-Doug in Oakland
So, B., at what age does a person become responsible for not raising an outcry? Doesn’t that mean we should ignore all those Catholic priests? The standing of the guilty party in the community, how is that factored in? What about how an accuser is treated, how is that figured in? Does that mean prison rape is OK too? Or the guards getting it on with inmates?
ReplyDelete