Jump to content
Scout

The results of CAPITALISM

Recommended Posts

The results of capitalism are $20 trillion of federal gov't debt and trillions more in personal debt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Scout said:

The results of capitalism are $20 trillion of federal gov't debt and trillions more in personal debt.

 

The results of the Federal Reserve Act, the 17th Amdt and Keynesian economic theory.

 

You really are quite the Treason Monkey.

 

 

 

 

kj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Scout said:

The results of capitalism are $20 trillion of federal gov't debt and trillions more in personal debt.

 

   The results of socialism are a new monarchy where you get a load of mandatory

high inflation contracts and your death will always be completely legal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scout said:

The results of capitalism are $20 trillion of federal gov't debt and trillions more in personal debt.

Last I checked, the federal government is not part of the capitalist market economy.  It makes nothing.  It sells nothing.  It taxes people and forces them to pay over a portion of their earnings.  And, it spends on SOCIALIST programs that cost too much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Skans said:

Last I checked, the federal government is not part of the capitalist market economy.  It makes nothing.  It sells nothing.  It taxes people and forces them to pay over a portion of their earnings.  And, it spends on SOCIALIST programs that cost too much.

 

Find me some academic text that proclaims the gov't is not part of a capitalist market.   Until then, your opinion isn't worth a nickel.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scout said:

The results of capitalism are $20 trillion of federal gov't debt and trillions more in personal debt.

 

Good grief you are stupid.  

 

Remember how I wanted to talk about the $25 trillion that you UNIPARTY socialists spent on the failed War On Poverty?   And you ran off?

 

And say ... did you ever figure out that white soldiers are not less willing to give their lives for their country than black soldiers?  That blacks don't die in disproportionately larger numbers in active duty military than do white soldiers?    Or are you still lying about that?

 

And did you ever figure out that the DOJ did not need proof of intent to charge Hillary of mishandling classified material?   Or that evidence clearly suggests Clinton sexually assaulted and rape numerous women?   Or do you still have your head in the sand?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Scout said:

 

Find me some academic text that proclaims the gov't is not part of a capitalist market.   Until then, your opinion isn't worth a nickel.

 

Hard to follow the logic of right wing idiots.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, BeAChooser said:

And did you ever figure out that the DOJ did not need proof of intent to charge Hillary of mishandling classified material?   Or that evidence clearly suggests Clinton sexually assaulted and rape numerous women?   Or do you still have your head in the sand?

 

Then I guess you can conclude that Hillary is totally innocent else the DOJ would be charging her with crimes.

 

There is no evidence that Clinton sexually assaulted or raped any woman.  That is why you haven't posted any with your claim.  :D 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Capitalism is a game that we are supposed to play, and the government's job is to make sure the competition continues in perpetuity.  Monopolies and cartels destroy competition, which is the whole purpose of the free market in the first place:  competition drives innovation and efficiency, competition for labor keeps wages high.  Trotsky's permanent revolution must play out in the market, preventing final winners from emerging to dominate the field, ending the competition.  Communism amounts to monopoly control.  It might sound different to say that the state owns everything, but in the end, control is centralized and in the hands of very few human beings.  They make mistakes, and they fear losing control, so they do not act like competitors hungry to solve problems efficiently and push things forward.  We need a hybrid economy, which I think is pretty obvious when you look at what works around the world.  The market provides a venue for people to compete to solve problems, and the government acts as a referee to keep the game vibrant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, splunch said:

Capitalism is a game that we are supposed to play, and the government's job is to make sure the competition continues in perpetuity.  Monopolies and cartels destroy competition, which is the whole purpose of the free market in the first place:  competition drives innovation and efficiency, competition for labor keeps wages high.  Trotsky's permanent revolution must play out in the market, preventing final winners from emerging to dominate the field, ending the competition.  Communism amounts to monopoly control.  It might sound different to say that the state owns everything, but in the end, control is centralized and in the hands of very few human beings.  They make mistakes, and they fear losing control, so they do not act like competitors hungry to solve problems efficiently and push things forward.  We need a hybrid economy, which I think is pretty obvious when you look at what works around the world.  The market provides a venue for people to compete to solve problems, and the government acts as a referee to keep the game vibrant.

well done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, splunch said:

Capitalism is a game that we are supposed to play, and the government's job is to make sure the competition continues in perpetuity.  Monopolies and cartels destroy competition, which is the whole purpose of the free market in the first place:  competition drives innovation and efficiency, competition for labor keeps wages high.  Trotsky's permanent revolution must play out in the market, preventing final winners from emerging to dominate the field, ending the competition.  Communism amounts to monopoly control.  It might sound different to say that the state owns everything, but in the end, control is centralized and in the hands of very few human beings.  They make mistakes, and they fear losing control, so they do not act like competitors hungry to solve problems efficiently and push things forward.  We need a hybrid economy, which I think is pretty obvious when you look at what works around the world.  The market provides a venue for people to compete to solve problems, and the government acts as a referee to keep the game vibrant.

well said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scout said:

 

Find me some academic text that proclaims....

Ha ha ha, oh boy, I love how you will only trust an academic text written by life-long academicians who have never done anything other than teach and write text books to sell to their worthless 19 year old students. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I love how I fecked you over by blocking another garbage rightwinger source of info. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, splunch said:

Capitalism is a game that we are supposed to play, and the government's job is to make sure the competition continues in perpetuity.  Monopolies and cartels destroy competition, which is the whole purpose of the free market in the first place:  competition drives innovation and efficiency, competition for labor keeps wages high. 

 

Yeah.....sure.....competition....and, the fruit$ o' labor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scout said:

Then I guess you can conclude that Hillary is totally innocent else the DOJ would be charging her with crimes.

 

No, I guess you are absolutely STUCK ON STUPID.   You don't seem to grasp, even despite all that's been revealed about the DOJ and FBI in just the last 2 years, that they've been in the pocket of the Clintons and DNC for nearly 30 years.    I *guess* you are incapable of learning, Scout. 

 

Quote

There is no evidence that Clinton sexually assaulted or raped any woman.  .  That is why you haven't posted any with your claim.

 

And on top of being STUCK ON STUPID, you're an outright liar, Scout.  

 

Not only is there evidence that Clinton sexually assaulted and raped women, but I have posted repeatedly on this subject.  

 

One case in particular you should know about.  

 

Don't you remember, Scout?

 

You've repeatedly tried to smear and dismiss Juanita Broaddrick's accusation against Clintons by posting the affidavit she signed.  

 

Don't you remember my response to you each time you tried that?  

 

Don't you remember?  Or is your memory completely shot on top of everything else?   Is your memory worse than you claimed Juanita Broadrick was, snowflake?

 

One exchange was in October of 2017 when I cited and quoted an earlier exchange between us back in April 2017.  

 

Here, let me just link and quote my October response to you ... so that folks can see you're a LIAR.

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/220204-wonder-why-mueller-hasnt-approached-assange/?page=8&tab=comments#comment-1060070243

 

Quote

 

   On 10/16/2017 at 10:22 AM,  Scout said: 

Page 5..."I will give you a hint for your obviously very faulty memory:   'Juanita Broderick' (sp?)"

 

Could you give me a hint as to what you're claiming Juanita did...did she change her mind about the accusations against Bill?

 

=====================

 

This indicates you are not well informed enuf to participate equally in this exchange.  

 

I addressed this previously with you, Scout ... and you ran off.

 

Here:

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/210576-bill-oreily-is-no-longer-with-fox-news/?page=6&tab=comments#comment-1059854338

 

  Quote

 

   On 4/19/2017 at 5:31 PM, Scout said: 
   On 4/19/2017 at 5:31 PM, Scout said: 

Juanita Broderick has signed at LEAST one affidavit indicating she lied about her Clinton tale.

Yeah about that …

 

Schippers explained the reasons that Broaddrick lied in her affidavit. He said "She was so terrified. And the reason she was terrified was because she saw what had happened to Kathleen Willey, Gennifer Flowers and all the rest of them." Speaking of Willey, Schippers said “Let me tell you something. They [meaning Clinton's people] were all over that woman, and it was the type of stuff we ran into with the outfit (the Chicago mob). Intimidation just by watching her, making their presence known. ... Just to let her know 'We can do what we want.’” Code Shearer, who worked for the Clintons, was identified by Chris Matthews (not exactly a right wing source) as the man who approached Willey near her home, asked her about her punctured car tires and her kids and lost cat, and then said "Get the message?" That’s the type of people Broaddrick was facing. She had reason to be afraid. Just ask Ron Brown and Vince Foster.

 

And keep in mind that Bruce Lindsey was involved in Broaddrick getting the affidavit sample that she used from the Whitehouse. Lindsey was a *fixer* for Clinton who was implicated in numerous illegalities. Bill Burton, another former top Clinton official, said "There is no end to which Bruce wouldn't go for the president, There are things Bruce would do for the president that nobody else on Earth would do, and Bruce wouldn't even think twice about it." Clinton used Executive Privilege to keep Lindsey from having to talk to investigators. Given what we know about the Clintons, is there any doubt about how far his "fixers" might have been willing to "go for" Bill in this case?

 

He would have been willing to pressure a woman into signing ANY false affidavit that they supplied. They wouldn’t even need to be explicit about their desire. The woman might simply feel she was being constantly watched, find her home broken into, find her pets released, and find her answering machine stolen … all of which Broaddrick testified happened. She’d get the message. And what a coincidence that during the Jones discovery, they found that Clinton made a 158 minute phone call to someone named "Juanita" … and that the day after that phone call a woman named Juanita Broaddrick had her lawyer apply to the White House counsel's office for an affidavit sample. You don’t have to be a genius to connect the dots here. You just have to realize that the affidavit template was supplied by the Clinton Whitehouse … an affidavit that another woman used to falsely deny involvement with Clinton (want to guess who, Scout?). In fact, it was the same type of affidavit that almost all the women in the Paula Jones case got. And we know who lied in that case, don’t we?

 

The fact is that Broaddrick tried desperately not to be involved in this matter at all. She didn’t want to relive it after all these years. She didn’t want to be smeared by Clinton’s gang. She said "I didn’t want to be forced to testify about one of the most horrific events in my life. I didn’t want to go through it again.” Which is entirely possible, don't you think? Many women have done just that sort of thing rather than have to relive a violent rape and have their reputation dragged through the mud. And in this case her life would have been dragged through the mud nationally. And as the Clinton gang proved over and over, they certainly weren't above dragging a woman's reputation through the mud. In fact, just before the Blue Dress surface, they were doing it to poor Monica. Remember? So I completely understand why Broaddrick might have filed a false affidavit. That you can’t understand that just shows how out of touch you are with the horror of being raped by someone in a position of almost absolute power and then being raped again by the rapist’s lawyers and the media. Just saying ...

 

Now once Broaddrick was forced to come clean, she sought no money … didn’t even ask to be paid for interviews. She sought no book deals. She made no profit from the accusation. So what was her motivation for going after a sitting President,? Issuing an affidavit denying the rape to avoid this going public is nothing more than a form of trying to make it all go away which was what she wanted from the very beginning. Furthermore, she had nothing to gain by admitting the affidavit was false. It put her at risk of perjury charges. Finally, she explained her reasoning to the satisfaction of the FBI, NBC interviewers, David Schippers, Ken Starr and most of the public (in polls taken shortly after she came forward to admit the truth). If you can’t accept that, Scout, perhaps we should wonder what’s wrong with YOU? 

 

The reason Broaddrick finally came forward and admitted to the false affidavit is that she was advised by her son, a lawyer, not to lie to the FBI. That’s all a matter of record. Even the NYTimes reported it: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/24/us/on-tortuous-route-sexual-assault-accusation-against-clinton-resurfaces.html?pagewanted=2 . You don’t lie to the FBI. Not unless you’re a Clinton and have the MSM to protect you. Eventually, she was granted immunity by Starr for her admission that she did lie in the affidavit before she agreed to talk to the FBI. And when all is said and done, Scout, there are 4 witnesses who contradict her denial in the affidavit. She had told those people she was raped long before the matter even came to the attention of the Jones investigators and the IOC. Some of the witnesses testified that they saw physical evidence of that rape (emotional distress, torn pantyhose and a swollen, bloodied lip), so by that standard, the Broaddrick case has more evidence than most rape cases. Only one possibility is consistent with what she told those people years ago, what she told people before being pressed into signing the affidavit by the White House fixers, and what she told the world after the FBI began to grill her under threat of perjury. And that's that Bill Clinton raped her and that she did indeed lie in the affidavit. 

 

Besides, as I told maineman on another thread, the evidence in this case was sufficient to convince David Schippers, the life-long Democrat (at least up until Clinton's impeachment) who twice voted for Clinton and who ran the impeachment effort for the House Managers, that Bill raped her. He publicly stated that had the statute of limitation not expired on the crime, he would have charged Clinton with rape. The evidence was sufficient to convince both of the government investigators who interviewed her. One was a former FBI agent and the other worked with rape victims during her days on the Chicago police force. They told Schippers that she fit the pattern of a classic rape victim and that she was the most credible witness that either one had met. The evidence was sufficient that Ken Starr characterized it to reporters as “sobering to the point of devastating”. The information was not included in the independent counsel's public report, Starr said, because it did not relate to possible obstruction of justice, which was the focus of his probe. ''I didn't think it was completely irrelevant. I had to be careful about what I was keeping from the Congress.'' Asked whether he believed Broaddrick's charges, Starr said he did not meet her, but added: "The investigators found her entirely credible." The evidence was sufficient to convince all but a few of the Congressmen who went to the Ford building where it was kept … something that not one Senator (to their everlasting shame) ever did. Some of the Congressmen spoke publicly about what they saw. One said he left the building “nauseated”. Another was reduced to tears. A third even said that, based on the still secret evidence he viewed in the Ford Building, Clinton raped Broaddrick not one but twice. The evidence was sufficient to convince the interviewers of Broaddrick at NBC and they spent hours and hours with her. A Fox News poll conducted immediately following the one-time NBC broadcast of her interview showed that 54% of American believed Broaddrick and only 23% found her not credible. The evidence was sufficient that even Chris Matthews, a DemocRAT hack if there ever was one, called it “believable.” He said “I think it's very credible. I know a reporter for the Washington Post who I've known for 20 years and she told me that she interviewed this woman and found her highly, in fact, totally credible.”

 

And on top of that, Scout, the truth is that Bill Clinton had a long history of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment accusations by dozens of women. If you’d like, I’ll be happy to review some of those many, many accusations ... several of which are rapes. So you can’t even claim it would have been *unlike* him to rape Broaddrick. No, in fact he has all the characteristics of serial rapist for whom a rape attempt would have been very much *in character*. Just saying ...  

 

Your response?

 

CRICKETS.

 

As you say ... Wonder Why?

 

 

 

I invite everyone to visit that thread and see how you responded to that post.    

 

By continuing to just spin and dismissing the accusation out of hand.

 

By demanding that I provide even more proof that Clinton was a sexual predator. 

 

So I did.   Here's another post from that October 2017 thread ...

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/220204-wonder-why-mueller-hasnt-approached-assange/?page=8&tab=comments#comment-1060070319

 

Quote

 

   On 10/16/2017 at 10:45 AM,  Scout said: 

And on top of that, Scout, the truth is that Bill Clinton had a long history of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment accusations by dozens of women.

 

==========================================

 

I think this is a deeply flawed statement relative to the truth.

 

Is that you challenging me to back up my statement?   

 

Happy too.

 

But let's start with some more details about the Broaddrick rape ...

 

There were 7 witnesses.  They were (1) the victim … who says she was raped, (2) Bill Clinton, (3) a women who saw Broaddrick immediately after the assault and who said Broaddrick told her she was raped, (4) a man who saw Broaddrick a short time after that and who says she told him she was raped, and (5) (6) (7) 3 other women … all of whom said Broaddrick told them she’d been raped by Bill Clinton.  Some of the witnesses testified that they saw physical evidence of that rape (emotional distress, torn pantyhose and a swollen, bloodied lip), so by that standard, the Broaddrick case has more evidence than most rape cases.

 

As I said to that COWARD, mm, the evidence was sufficient to convince David Schippers, the life-long Democrat (at least up until Clinton's impeachment) who twice voted for Clinton and who ran the impeachment effort for the House Managers, that Bill raped Broaddrick. He publicly stated that had the statute of limitation not expired on the crime, he would have charged Clinton with rape.

 

The evidence was sufficient to convince both of the government investigators who interviewed her. One was a former FBI agent and the other worked with rape victims during her days on the Chicago police force. They told Schippers that she fit the pattern of a classic rape victim and that she was the most credible witness that either one had met.

 

The evidence was sufficient that Ken Starr characterized it to reporters as “sobering to the point of devastating”.   The information was not included in the independent counsel's public report, Starr said, because it did not relate to possible obstruction of justice, which was the focus of his probe. ''I didn't think it was completely irrelevant. I had to be careful about what I was keeping from the Congress.'' Asked whether he believed Broaddrick's charges, Starr said he did not meet her, but added: "The investigators found her entirely credible."

 

The evidence was sufficient to convince all but a few of the Congressmen who went to the Ford building where it was kept … something that not one Senator (to their everlasting shame) ever did. Some of the Congressmen spoke publicly about what they saw. One said he left the building “nauseated”. Another was reduced to tears. A third even said that, based on the still secret evidence he viewed in the Ford Building, Clinton raped Broaddrick not one but twice.

 

The evidence was sufficient to convince the interviewers of Broaddrick at NBC and they spent hours and hours with her. A Fox News poll conducted immediately following the one-time NBC broadcast of her interview showed that 54% of American believed Broaddrick and only 23% found her not credible.

 

The evidence was sufficient that even Chris Matthews, a DemocRAT hack if there ever was one, called it “believable.” He said “I think it's very credible. I know a reporter for the Washington Post who I've known for 20 years and she told me that she interviewed this woman and found her highly, in fact, totally credible.”

 

The truth, that I'm going to prove to you, is that Bill Clinton had a long history of rape, sexual assault and sexual harassment accusations by dozens of women.  

 

He has all the characteristics of a man for whom a rape attempt would have been very much *in character*.  

 

Now in the Broaddrick rape allegation, the truth is that Clinton did not personally deny the rape. Most (all?) innocent men would issue a personal denial that they raped anyone.  They would stand before a camera and deny it.  Not Clinton.   His only statement about it was made through his lawyer, Bob Bennet, who issued a terse and very carefully worded statement ("Any allegation that the president assaulted Ms. Broaddrick more than 20 years ago is absolutely false.”).  When parsed, that statement cannot be considered a denial because in 1978 Ms. Broaddrick was not known as Ms. Broaddrick but as "Mrs Hickey" and she alleged rape, not "assault".  So technically the statement may be true but only if one parses words like Democrats always do ... like the Clintons ALWAYS DO. This, by the way, was the same lawyer who told a federal judge that there was “absolutely no sex of any kind between Monica and Bill” ... another example of parsing.    Just saying …

 

Furthermore, there is NO evidence that Bill could not have commited the crime.  NONE.   Most (all?) innocent men would have offered an alibi in a case like this.  Right away.   They’d have provided their location at the alleged time of the rape as their defense.   Police would check it out and that would be that, if the accused was indeed there.  But not Clinton.   No, Bill and his lawyers have refused to this day to say where he was that day.  Nor has a single witness come forward to claim Bill was with them that day.

 

Furthermore, Bill Clinton has previously issued denials related to some of the many assault and harassment accusations … denials which eventually turned out to be false.  He’s even lied about having sex in consensual cases.   These facts don’t give one confidence that Bill’s lawyer denial is worth anything at all.   And  Bill’s various lawyers over the years have been caught lying and obfuscating about many other matters as well.   They seem to have a habit of playing fast and loose with the truth and the law.    It’s not unlike Bill’s legal assistants to do things that only a lawyer would view as ethical to protect him.  That’s been found true in scandal after scandal.  So his lawyer simply isn’t trustworthy either.

 

Seriously, Scout … do you really want to go down this path … risk what little remains of your credibility in defense of Bill Clinton in the Broaddrick case?
 
Because Broaddrick probably wasn’t the only one.
 
There is a mountain of smoke regarding non-consensual sex by Bill Clinton.

 

For example, in 1969, Oxford University asked Bill Clinton not to return after 19 year old Eileen Wellstone accused him of rape. In his book, Unlimited Access, former FBI agent Gary Aldrich reported that Clinton left Oxford and was told he was no longer welcome. And no one has ever disputed that. Why would he be unwelcome unless school officials believed he raped this woman? Why wouldn't he fight the expulsion unless he didn't want the accusation brought to the light of day? Also, according to one source, a retired State Department employee stated "There was no doubt in my mind that this young woman had suffered severe emotional trauma. But we were under tremendous pressure to avoid the embarrassment of having a Rhodes Scholar charged with rape. I filed a report with my superiors and that was the last I heard of it."   Obviously something happened about that time because Clinton suddenly left Oxford and that's not something done lightly if you're career minded.
 
In 1972, a 22-year-old woman told campus police at Yale University that she was sexually assaulted by Bill Clinton, who was a law student at the college. No charges were filed, but retired campus policemen contacted by a media outlet confirmed that an incident had occurred.  The woman was also tracked down and confirmed the incident, but declined to discuss it further and would not give the media permission to use her name.     And given the way the media and people like you have treated these women, can anyone blame her?
 
Christopher Hitchens, in "No One Left to Lie To: the Values of the Worst Family", said he located another woman (a radical activist at the time of the assault) who alleged Clinton bit her on the lip during an attempted rape in 1972 in San Francisco's Golden Gate Park.  And yes, Bill and Hillary were living in Berkeley at the time of this alleged assault.

 

In 1974, a female student at the University of Arkansas complained that then-law school instructor Bill Clinton tried to prevent her from leaving his office during a conference. She said he groped her and forced his hand inside her blouse. She complained to her faculty advisor who confronted Clinton, but Clinton claimed the student ''came on'' to him. The student left the school shortly after the incident. Reached at her home in Texas, the former student confirmed the incident, but declined to go on the record with her account. Several former students at the University have confirmed the incident in confidential interviews and said there were other reports of Clinton attempting to force himself on female students.
 
In fact, from 1978 to 1980, during Clinton's first term as governor of Arkansas, state troopers assigned to protect the governor were aware of at least seven complaints from women who said Clinton forced, or attempted to force, himself on them sexually. One retired state trooper said in an interview that the common joke among those assigned to protect Clinton was "who's next?". One former state trooper said other troopers would often escort women to the governor's hotel room after political events, often more than one an evening
 
Beverly Lambert, an investigator in the Paula Jones case, provided details of Clinton's assault on a "young woman lawyer" that he met at a Democratic fundraiser in Little Rock in the late '70s. The incident had been mentioned in a book by Clinton Biographer Roger Morris, "Partners in Power." The victim had talked to Morris on condition of confidentiality. He wrote "A young woman lawyer in Little Rock claimed that she was accosted by Clinton while he was attorney general and that when she recoiled he forced himself on her, biting and bruising her."  Lambert said he interviewed her and her husband several times back in 1992/1993.  After the fundraiser at a popular waterfront restaurant, known then as Fisherman's Wharf, Lambert said ”She offered Clinton a ride home. And once he got her alone in her car, he grabbed this woman and assaulted her. He did his trademark thing; exposed himself, asked her to 'kiss it,' and pushed her head down into his lap.” Rick and Beverly Lambert's investigative materials were turned over to the House Judiciary Committee after they had been subpoenaed by the Office of Independent Counsel. Some believe that it is their evidence that convinced wavering congressmen to change their vote for impeachment.
 
Rick and Beverly Lambert have said they interviewed 209 witnesses, uncovering leads on previously unknown incidents involving Clinton and providing additional details about events already known to the public. A number of "promising leads" were abandoned when the Jones case was dismissed. Among the leads not followed up was one that involved the rape of a 14-year-old girl at a Little Rock cocaine party.   That incident is said to have happened in 1984, at a party hosted by Dan Lasater, who later went to jail for supplying cocaine to underage girls (pardoned by Clinton 6 months into a 30 month sentence). In exchange for the drugs, they were supposed to agree to have sex with men he invited to his soirees.  By numerous accounts, Lasater was one of Clinton's closest associates in the 1980s.   As told to Lambert, the 14-year-old was rendered unconscious by a deliberate overdose. When she came to she was half-naked, with the governor of the state of Arkansas (Clinton) on top of her.  According to Lambert, the young assault victim fled Arkansas when Governor Clinton won the 1992 Democratic presidential nomination. The private detective, along with several reporters, traced the woman to California. After a stakeout that lasted several days, they concluded she had been tipped off and fled town, never to be seen or heard from again.

 

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met then-governor Clinton at a political fundraiser and shortly thereafter received an invitation to meet the governor in his hotel room. "I was escorted there by a state trooper. When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. I told him I didn't even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room."
 
Elizabeth Ward, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state crown.   Ward, who is now married with the last name of Gracen (from her first marriage), told an interviewer she did have sex with Clinton but said it was consensual but close friends of Ward said she still maintains privately that Clinton forced himself on her.  It's worth noting that she said Clinton bit her on the lip (just like Broaddrick claimed).   This admission is in Michael Isikoff's book "Uncovering Clinton: A Reporter's Story".  Judy Stokes, one of her friends, swore in the deposition she gave in the Jones case that Gracen had "tearfully told her in the mid-1980s that Clinton forced her into sex in the back of a limousine in 1982."  Rick Lambert, the investigator for the Paula Jones legal team is on record saying: "I talked to Judy Stokes for an hour and a half. At first, she was reluctant to burn her bridges with Liz (Gracen). But I finally asked, 'Do you believe Clinton raped her?' She said, 'Absolutely. He forced her to have sex. What do you call that?' Stokes was totally convinced it was rape." Ken Starr, when he was investigating Clinton in the Paula Jones lawsuit, issued a subpoena to have Gracen testify but she eluded the subpoena, at one point leaving the country to do so. Paula Jones' attorneys were also unable to track Gracen down because she had made various unscheduled trips in and outside the country.  Why was she hiding if Clinton did nothing?

 

Sandra Allen James, a former Washington, DC, political fundraiser said Presidential candidate-to-be Clinton invited her to his hotel room during a political trip to the nation's capital in 1991, pinned her against the wall and stuck his hand up her dress. She said she screamed loud enough for the Arkansas State Trooper stationed outside the hotel suite to bang on the door and ask if everything was all right, at which point Clinton released her and she fled the room.   Reached at her home by the media, the former Miss James said she later learned that other women suffered the same fate at Clinton's hands when he was in Washington during his Presidential run.
 
Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's leased campaign plane in 1992, says Presidential candidate Clinton exposed himself to her, grabbed her breasts and made explicit remarks about oral sex. A video shot on board the plane by ABC News shows an obviously inebriated Clinton with his hand between another young flight attendant's legs. Zercher said later in an interview that White House attorney Bruce Lindsey tried to pressure her into not going public about the assault.
 
Kathleen Willey, a White House volunteer, reported that Clinton grabbed her, fondled her breast and pressed her hand against his genitals during an Oval Office meeting in November, 1993. Willey, who told her story in a 60 Minutes interview, became a target of a White House-directed smear campaign after she went public.  And by the way, Scout, none of these women were paid for their stories, contrary to what you suggested ... low-life that you are.

 

So let's review the list ...


- Paula Corbin Jones (harassment).
- Kathleen Willey (assault).
- Liz Ward Gracen (rape).
- Juanita Broaddrick (rape).
- Sally Perdue (harassment).
- Monica Lewinsky (harassment).
- Dolly Kyle Browning (harassment).
- Oxford University student, Eileen Wellston (rape).
- a 22-year-old student at Yale in 1972 (rape)
- a woman activist when Bill was in San Francisco that 1972 (rape)
- University of Arkansas student (Kathy Bradshaw?) (assault)
- Little Rock legal secretary Carolyn Moffet (assault)
- Sandra Allen James, another political fundraiser (assault)
- Christy Zercher, a flight attendant on Clinton's campaign plane (molested)
- another flight attendant that can be seen in video shot on board Clinton’s plane by ABC News (molested)
- Helen Dowdy, wife of one of Hillary’s cousins (harassment)
- Becky Brown, Chelsea’s nanny and wife of L.D. Brown, an Arkansas State Trooper (harassment)
- the seven women who complained to Arkansas state troopers between 1978 and 1980 (assault)

 

That’s TWO DOZEN right there, and I’m sure I missed a few.

 

If fact, given what's coming out about Harvey Weinstein (Bill's good friend) now, I bet there were HUNDREDS of abused women in Bill Clinton's case.   

 

And maybe once Hillary and those defending the Clintons are gone, they'll feel safe enough to come out and reveal the TRUE legacy of the Clintons.

 

 

And your response to that?  This delusional bit of spin and nonsense ...

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/220204-wonder-why-mueller-hasnt-approached-assange/?page=8&tab=comments#comment-1060070337

 

Quote

 

You have provided names - and that is all.  David Schippers was NOT a Democrat when he decided to go after Clinton.  Nor was he one when he wrote a book about it. 

 

ALL of those women have received income because they claimed to be victims of Clinton AFTER decades of never saying anything.  The Presidency brings out the stories, eh?

 

Clinton's stories are innuendo.  Trump's are actually supported by evidence.  It is a sad day when rumor is given the weight of affidavits and legal documentation.

 

 

... which I showed is filled with more of your LIES, too ... here:

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/220204-wonder-why-mueller-hasnt-approached-assange/?page=9&tab=comments#comment-1060070422

 

Quote

 

   On 10/16/2017 at 11:23 AM,  Scout said: 

You have provided names - and that is all.

 

I said there were dozens of accusations ... and I've now proven that.

 

And I provided more than just names, as anyone reading the above can see.

 

   On 10/16/2017 at 11:23 AM,  Scout said: 

David Schippers was NOT a Democrat when he decided to go after Clinton. 

 

LIAR.  

 

He was still a Democrat when the House Managers asked him to investigate Clinton during the Impeachment.  

 

He said so.

 

USA Today said so.

 

A bunch of mainstream sources said so.

 

Even CNN said it.

 

In fact, he'd voted for Clinton TWICE ... including 1996 only years before the impeachment.

 

And he had no known bias against Clinton when he agreed to work for the House Managers.

 

He came to Washington as a highly respected lawyer.

 

If you think you can prove otherwise ... go ahead.   

 

I predict {crickets} will be your response.

 

   On 10/16/2017 at 11:23 AM,  Scout said: 

Nor was he one when he wrote a book about it. 

 

Nor was he a republican then, either.

 

The title and contents of the book should tell you that, Scout.

 

   On 10/16/2017 at 11:23 AM,  Scout said: 

ALL of those women have received income because they claimed to be victims of Clinton AFTER decades of never saying anything.


LIAR.   

 

I dare you to prove that "all" ... or even some ... of those women received income from their claims of abuse.

 

You're a LIAR and you're just making things up now out of desperation to defend a serial rapist.

 

   On 10/16/2017 at 11:23 AM,  Scout said: 

Clinton's stories are innuendo.  Trump's are actually supported by evidence.

 

Again you LIE.  

 

There is far more evidence in the accusations against the Clintons (including the rape and assault accusations) than against Trump.

 

In fact, before the election idiots like you were claiming that Trump was going down over the alleged rape of a 13 year old.

 

What happened, Scout?

 

Would you like to discuss that case and the "so-called" evidence you folks claimed existed?

 

I bet you don't.

 

 

 

And your response to that?   This gem ...

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/220204-wonder-why-mueller-hasnt-approached-assange/?page=9&tab=comments#comment-1060070449

 

Quote

I stand by my statements.  Why is it important to you that I believe Clinton is a rapist?

 

AND THAT is you RUNNING from this thread too, although you continued to make posts.

 

My response was this ...

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/220204-wonder-why-mueller-hasnt-approached-assange/?page=9&tab=comments#comment-1060070475

 

Quote

 

   On 10/16/2017 at 12:14 PM,  Scout said: 

I stand by my statements.

 

You challenged me to back up my assertion about Clinton being accused of rape, assault and harassment by dozens of women.

 

In fact, you HOUNDED me to do so, Scout.

 

So I did.

 

Now you've made several claims, yourself.

 

And you now say you stand by them.

 

Ok.

 

You say that David Schippers was not a Democrat when he agreed to work for the House Managers.   PROVE IT.   Let's see your proof.

 

You say that "ALL of those women have received income because they claimed to be victims of Clinton."  PROVE IT.   Let's see your proof.

 

You say that there's more evidence against Trump than Clinton.  PROVE IT.   In fact, I've posted a whole thread (https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/ ) containing a mountain of evidence against Clinton (backed up by source after source after source).  And NONE OF IT has been disproven by any of you leftists at LF.   You folks have just run from it ... just like you're running from the allegations of rape here.  So go ahead, big mouth.   Prove that there's more against Trump than that.  

 

Or be hounded.   

 

   On 10/16/2017 at 12:14 PM,  Scout said: 

Why is it important to you that I believe Clinton is a rapist?

 

I don't give a damn about what you *believe*.  

 

I just don't like you LYING TO OTHERS about what really happened.

 

 

 

And I'll stand by every one of my statements in that post here today.

 

But you were so STUCK ON STUPID that you continued trying to defend Bill Clinton and offer more LIES about the accusations against him in that thread.

 

For example, you tried to dismiss the Ellen Wellstone accusation with the post quoted below, along with my response to you:

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/220204-wonder-why-mueller-hasnt-approached-assange/?page=9&tab=comments#comment-1060070799

 

Quote

 

   On 10/16/2017 at 12:49 PM,  Scout said: 

The backdrop for these rumors was that just prior to his graduation from Georgetown University, Bill Clinton won a prestigious Rhodes Scholarship to study at University College, Oxford, for two years and headed off to England for the 1968-69 academic term — but he returned to the United States before finishing out the full two-year course of study.

In October 1992, during Bill Clinton’s first presidential campaign, a British news report included interviews with a number of Clinton’s Oxford classmates. The article described Clinton’s truncated study trajectory at Oxford as one that was disrupted by the Vietnam-era draft, not by penalties for misbehavior. Had Clinton left Oxford under dubious circumstances, reporting on such a scoop just prior to the presidential election of 1992 would have been irresistible for the British (and American) press. But Clinton’s classmates made absolutely no mention of his departing abruptly or in disgrace:

Clinton never completed his degree. In part this was due to his worry about the draft. According to one contemporary, he thought his first year would be his last and so there was little point in doing the work for a two-year degree; in his second year it was too late to start. This was not seen to matter. Many American Rhodes scholars treated their time at Oxford as a version of the Grand Tour. They had their degree and planned to go to law school when they returned to the US; Oxford was an interesting interlude.

Clinton’s non-completion of the scholar program at Oxford was public knowledge more than 20 years prior to the origination of rumors that he had been expelled from that university for sexual misconduct. And as documented in a separate article on this site, Clinton’s efforts to avoid the military draft (ostensibly by joining the ROTC at the University of Arkansas) were the likely reason behind the timing of his movements between the U.S. and England.

Nonetheless, by June 2004 the Eileen Wellstone rape allegation had appeared in the Washington Times, published in an article that lacked an author, a citation, or any other information supporting the claim.  

 

More obfuscation.   The Washington Times wasn't the original source of this accusation.  That article (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jun/24/20040624-121742-7463r/) merely listed some of the many allegations already out against Bill.  The Washington Times failing to provide sources does not disprove the Wellstone allegation.  If you want to do that, Scout, you’re going to have to deal with the book Unlimited Access by former FBI agent Gary Aldrich and the article on Wellstone that appeared in Capital Hill Blue.  

 

As for Clinton's absence from Oxford being due to his efforts to avoid the draft, his letter to Colonel Holmes disproves that.   In that letter, written in December of 1969 when he was still at Oxford, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/clinton/etc/draftletter.html , he explained his PAST efforts to get a deferment, why he joined the ROTC, and then why he’d reneged on the agreement he apparently made regarding that.    In the letter, he said "Going on with my education, even coming back to England, played no part in my decision to join ROTC".  And the letter was written AFTER he’d returned to England for his second year of his Rhodes scholarship.   His draft dodging/ROTC issues were already resolved by that time.   Yet, he didn’t complete that scholarship, leaving us with the question … WHY?  The letter proves that his leaving Oxford in January 1970, shortly thereafter, didn’t have ANYTHING to do with dodging the draft, no matter what your Clinton excusing source (SNOPES) claimed.   And it was apparently after that letter was written that Wellstone made her accusation to the school.   Of course, you could offer something to prove that Clinton completed his course of study at Oxford.   But you won’t, since Clinton never did.  In fact, source after mainstream source states that Clinton never completed his degree.   You could also offer proof that there was no rape allegation filed by Wellstone.   But you won’t.    Oxford never denied that a report was filed about a rape, even though they could easily have done so … and, in fact, had every reason to do so since they are proud to say that Clinton attended their school.    Just saying …

 

 

And on and on that exchange went.

 

Read that thread, folks.  

 

You'll see in detail what a dishonest debater Scout is ... why I ended up labeling her a WEASEL by the end of that thread.

 

You'll see that she outright LIED numerous times.

 

Just like she lied above, when she declared "There is no evidence that Clinton sexually assaulted or raped any woman."

 

Because there is plenty of evidence and it was even pointed out to her previously ... repeatedly.  

 

Enough evidence that Schippers said that had the statute of limitations on Broaddrick's rape not elapsed, he would have charged Bill with the crime of rape.  

 

Enough evidence that many of the Congressmen who went and looked at it left the Ford Building stunned ... saying it convinced them to vote for impeachment.  

 

I have a whole thread on the evidence against the Clintons.

 

https://www.liberalforum.org/topic/119154-the-p-b-s-whitewash-of-clintons-legacy/ .  

 

It includes a mountain of evidence that Bill Clinton harassed, sexually assaulted, and even raped dozens of women.  

 

But Scout is so obstinately STUCK ON STUPID, I bet that even today she's never bothered to peruse that thread once.

 

She knows what she knows and that's all she knows.  

 

And she can't be talked into looking beyond her nose.

 

PS ... Scout ... Don't you just hate the internet?   It's memory (which apparently you don't have)?  Don't you hate how easy it is to prove you're a liar and idiot?   :lol:

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Skans said:

Ha ha ha, oh boy, I love how you will only trust an academic text written by life-long academicians who have never done anything other than teach and write text books to sell to their worthless 19 year old students. 

 

Who teaches computer scientists how to make your computer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

 

Who teaches computer scientists how to make your computer?

 

I'll guarantee you, lefty, that it wasn't a socialist who invented the computer.  It is a result of capitalism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BeAChooser said:

 

I'll guarantee you, lefty, that it wasn't a socialist who invented the computer.  It is a result of capitalism.

 

You're just very stupid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Scout said:

The results of capitalism are $20 trillion of federal gov't debt and trillions more in personal debt.

See the source image

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Chongo said:

 

   The results of socialism are a new monarchy where you get a load of mandatory

high inflation contracts and your death will always be completely legal.

Socialism is not a monarchy, you fool. Inflation in the USSR  ansd Eastern Europe. was minuscule. Inflation does not seem to be much of a problem in China, the largest communist system of them all. Chongo has a knack for finding the stupidest conspiracies and making them sound even more stupid. When Russia decided to abandon Communism, inflation went wild.

 

Capitalism is a system for developing companies  by combining the capital of multiple individuals. It is not per se a political system.

 

The deficit is a result of the fact that legislatures can get votes for cutting taxes or providing services, but find it difficult to get any votes for increasing taxes and denying services.This is not something to blame capitalism for. We CAN blame Reagan and the constant harping by Republicans that tax cuts always pay for themselves. This has happened, not very spectacularly, when JFK was president, but that was a rare fluke that has not been repeated.

 

There is an ideal tax rate that will maximize both growth and government revenues, but it is not a constant rate, and varies throughout the economy.

 

Wars have been a tested and true method for getting the public to accept higher taxes, but lately this has not been tried.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

 

You're just very stupid.

Inventors are generally far more concerned with making a great invention than in getting very, very rich. They tend to not be capitalists, simply because they do not have enough assets to invest.

"Capitalists" surely contributed to the development of computers, but they were not the inventors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, XavierOnassis said:

Inventors are generally far more concerned with making a great invention than in getting very, very rich. They tend to not be capitalists, simply because they do not have enough assets to invest.

"Capitalists" surely contributed to the development of computers, but they were not the inventors.

 

Capitalism did not invent the university. Right wing idiots don't know shiit about education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, XavierOnassis said:

Inventors are generally far more concerned with making a great invention than in getting very, very rich. They tend to not be capitalists, simply because they do not have enough assets to invest.

"Capitalists" surely contributed to the development of computers, but they were not the inventors.

Tesla is a famous example of a talented person who sought invention and discovery because that's who he was.  He was not any sort of a business mind and had zero interest in it.  Pure business people, capitalists of the highest order, who excel at lassoing resources and harnessing them to do their will, accomplish great things, and can push fledgling industries into maturity.  But that is more innovation in terms of process and organization and finance than invention or discovery.

 

Pure science happens in the ivory towers, because in the business world people are interested in taking something already feasible and capitalizing on it.  They don't want to do the heavy lifting up front to push through theoretical barriers, develop new approaches, get past the insurmountable hurdles, to bring truly new ideas into reality.  They aren't typically interested in spending a vast fortune on years or even decades of research in pursuit of understanding.  They just want to take the understanding once it's done and run with it, apply it.

 

So you need both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, leftwinger said:

 

Who teaches computer scientists how to make your computer? 

Steve Jobs dropped out of College.  I think Bill Gates did too.  Obviously they neither of them learned anything from some dumb text book about building computers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...