Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
15 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

I asked which ones were fake and you're implying it's all of them when you also don't know how much of that was paid our for sex harassment claims? Boy you're all over the shop.

Also: $17 million over 10 years isn't that much money.

I see you're going with "it happens to everyone" but hundreds if not thousands of politicians, celebrities and athletes don't have sex allegations against them. I'm somewhat surprised you think that's the case, but given you swim in MAGA waters, maybe it's normal in your circles?

Even Tom Hamks has a pedophilia allegations.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fact-check-tom-hanks-greek-citizen-but-pedophilia-claim-false/3353055001/

Tom freaking Hanks!

There isn't a single male celebrity that doesn't have a sexual misconduct allegation. Most aren't true. How many? Hell if I know. But enough that Gaetz gets the benefit of the doubt when the allegations is thrown out by the DOJ.

 

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
7 minutes ago, impartialobserver said:

the reason that I have read is that the confirmation hearing would be too much of a distraction. Taking that at face value (which I do not), that seems ok. There will be other options. 

A Distraction isn't a bad thing. Biden's handlers were sending a radical justice and an ultra radical justice to the same confirmation hearings so that Republicans would have to concentrate on one and ignore the other.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

A Distraction isn't a bad thing. Biden's handlers were sending a radical justice and an ultra radical justice to the same confirmation hearings so that Republicans would have to concentrate on one and ignore the other.

apparently, Gaetz viewed this distraction as being too "bad" of a thing and therefore disagrees with you. 

Posted
1 minute ago, impartialobserver said:

apparently, Gaetz viewed this distraction as being too "bad" of a thing and therefore disagrees with you. 

Or, it was too hard on his family. That aspect isn't to be forgotten.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
1 hour ago, gatomontes99 said:

No, he doesn't. No one has come forward claiming Tom Hanks molested them.

What you're seeing here are deranged Republican QAnon people throwing shit at the wall.

Quote

There isn't a single male celebrity that doesn't have a sexual misconduct allegation.

LOL bullshit. 

Quote

Most aren't true. How many? Hell if I know. But enough that Gaetz gets the benefit of the doubt when the allegations is thrown out by the DOJ.

No the guy who looks like a sex pest, acts like a sex pest, hangs around with sex pests does not get the benefit of the doubt and neither does his AG pick.

52 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Or, it was too hard on his family. That aspect isn't to be forgotten.

By his "family" do you mean the adult man he "adopted"?

Posted
33 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

No, he doesn't. No one has come forward claiming Tom Hanks molested them.

What you're seeing here are deranged Republican QAnon people throwing shit at the wall.

 

🫤

No sense of irony here? You don't have the slightest twinge of hypocrisy? You actually said that with a straight face?

Ok...you do you.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Even Tom Hamks has a pedophilia allegations.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/08/13/fact-check-tom-hanks-greek-citizen-but-pedophilia-claim-false/3353055001/

Tom freaking Hanks!

There isn't a single male celebrity that doesn't have a sexual misconduct allegation. Most aren't true. How many? Hell if I know. But enough that Gaetz gets the benefit of the doubt when the allegations is thrown out by the DOJ.

 

That's a ridiculous QAnon wacky conspiracy. The same group that claims Sandy Hook never occurred, and Oprah has a sex trafficking ring. The same group that spread weird lies about a fandom pizza place in a strip mall being a "front" for child prostitution.

With all due respect, gato. Can you read English?

It took me two whole minutes to read that USA Today article, and it clearly states that the Tom Hanks rumour was just the latest wacky QAnon conspiracy theory, that had no basis with reality.

 

  • Thanks 1
Posted
3 hours ago, impartialobserver said:

I do not know. He seemed like an ok selection but maybe he resurfaces later on in some other capacity. 

You believe a statutory rapist is ok to be the top LEO of the nation? What is NOT "ok" in your mind? LMAO

  • Like 1
Posted
7 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

That's a ridiculous QAnon wacky conspiracy. The same group that claims Sandy Hook never occurred, and Oprah has a sex trafficking ring. The same group that spread weird lies about a fandom pizza place in a strip mall being a "front" for child prostitution.

With all due respect, gato. Can you read English?

It took me two whole minutes to read that USA Today article, and it clearly states that the Tom Hanks rumour was just the latest wacky QAnon conspiracy theory, that had no basis with reality.

 

You are making my point and dont even know it.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted

Matt Gaetz may be moved into a vacant senate seat.

The new AG nominee is Pam Bondi. She's very qualified and has the same detest for Libbie lawfare as Gaetz.

Oh...I'm afraid that hammer is still gonna be used.

Have a nice day Libbies.

  • Haha 1

Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.

Posted
12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

probabilities are involved and the vast majority of people will fall within a standard group with a few outliers.

that's not how probability works with genetics. Look up Punnet squares.

12 hours ago, CdnFox said:

there is a bracket in which the probability say the vast majority of people will fall, with a handful falling outside of the most probable outcomes

I’m not sure how this is a counterpoint to my point about the genetic variation possible in one offspring from two parents.

The formula to predict the number of possible genotypes in the offspring from two parents is 3 raised to the power of n, where n is the number of genes involved.

Humans have approximately 20,000 genes in their genome, so the number of possible genomes in the offspring (i.e. number of genetically different offspring possible from two human parents) is 3 raised to the power of 20,000.

I tried to calculate this on the Exponent Calculator but the number was too large to calculate.

And this does not even take into account other things that affect gene expression, like environmental factors (including epigenetics) and mutation.

 

Posted
17 hours ago, Radiorum said:

No, there are checks and balances on a president's power, and Trump is trying to bypass it all. He thinks he is a king.

Let's follow your logic. I shouldn't speak. Maybe I should "know my place?" Maybe I shouldn't vote? 

I am informed, and - 

‘Whenever the people are well-informed, they can be trusted with their own government.’ – Thomas Jefferson

 

I'm sensing disgust. Can the disgust of one for another ever be the basis on which legislation is founded?

You're sensing the truth and trying to spin it as disgust. 

Leftoids are quite accomplished at skewing the truth. ;) 

Posted (edited)
13 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

🫤

No sense of irony here? You don't have the slightest twinge of hypocrisy? You actually said that with a straight face?

Ok...you do you.

You're conflating obviously spurious claims made by a third party with allegations by victims themselves, which is a pretty stupid thing to do.

Edited by Black Dog
Posted
7 minutes ago, Radiorum said:

Here's my response to that:

 

What's your point, dude? Are you trying to say that the Left is so much more honest than the Right, that you don't need to back that up with legitimate sources? 

Posted
49 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

You're conflating obviously spurious claims made by a third party with allegations by victims themselves, which is a pretty stupid thing to do.

The DOJ...Biden's corrupt DOJ...Said these allegations don't warrant charges. That puts them on the same level as Tom Hanks having some weird allegations levied against him. The difference is, you have such a hatred for Gaetz, you will look past the facts and only except the emotion of the allegations. So he's guilty, in your mind, despite evidence to the contrary.

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.
Posted
4 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

The DOJ...Biden's corrupt DOJ...Said these allegations don't warrant charges. That puts them on the same level as Tom Hanks having some weird allegations levied against him.

No, no it does not. This is actual smoke.

In addition to the Justice Department probe, the House Ethics Committee has investigated similar allegations and subpoenaed testimony from the woman, who was a teen at the time, at the center of the investigation. The committee reportedly interviewed at least six different women who described attending parties where Gaetz was also present. At least one was under the age of 18 at the time and told House investigators that the then-congressman had sex with her, according to ABC News. 

Allegations surrounding Gaetz and sexual encounters with minors also came to light in a civil case brought by Florida lobbyist Chris Dorwoth, who had previously sued Greenberg and others in an effort to distance himself from the controversies involving Gaetz. Dorworth has since dropped the lawsuit, but in court filings made public earlier this year, three eyewitnesses testified that Gaetz had sex with a 17-year-old woman minor at a July 2017 party hosted at Dorworth’s house that included “alcohol; cocaine; middle-aged men; and young attractive females,” one witness stated.   

 

  • Like 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

No, no it does not. This is actual smoke.

In addition to the Justice Department probe, the House Ethics Committee has investigated similar allegations and subpoenaed testimony from the woman, who was a teen at the time, at the center of the investigation. The committee reportedly interviewed at least six different women who described attending parties where Gaetz was also present. At least one was under the age of 18 at the time and told House investigators that the then-congressman had sex with her, according to ABC News. 

Allegations surrounding Gaetz and sexual encounters with minors also came to light in a civil case brought by Florida lobbyist Chris Dorwoth, who had previously sued Greenberg and others in an effort to distance himself from the controversies involving Gaetz. Dorworth has since dropped the lawsuit, but in court filings made public earlier this year, three eyewitnesses testified that Gaetz had sex with a 17-year-old woman minor at a July 2017 party hosted at Dorworth’s house that included “alcohol; cocaine; middle-aged men; and young attractive females,” one witness stated.   

 

The DOJ reviewed the evidence and said it was not a crime. You can bìťch and moan all you want, but you've got nothing.

 

The Rules for Liberal tactics:

  1. If they can't refute the content, attack the source.
  2. If they can't refute the content, attack the poster.
  3. If 1 and 2 fail, pretend it never happened.
  4. Everyone you disagree with is Hitler.
  5. A word is defined by the emotion it elicits and not the actual definition.
  6. If they are wrong, blame the opponent.
  7. If a liberal policy didn't work, it's a conservatives fault and vice versa.
  8. If all else fails, just be angry.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,896
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    postuploader
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Akalupenn earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • User earned a badge
      One Year In
    • josej earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • josej earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Dave L went up a rank
      Contributor
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...