The need for excitement was raised so.......

StarSong said:
RPG - You're kidding, right? As with Bill Cosby, Charlie Rose and others, Harvey Weinstein does not have a sole accuser. These men have well-established MOs with multiple victims. Their patterns of behavior are strikingly similar from victim to victim. HW has been paying off accusers for decades. The number of women who have come out with virtually identical stories are upward of 40. But don't take my word for it, spend a minute on an Internet search to find out for yourself.

Regardless of what you might think, false rape or molestation claims are actually quite rare. Victims tend not to report sexually aggressive because they're afraid of not being believed, terrified at potential repercussions from the perpetrator or the community, deeply embarrassed and ashamed at having been unable to protect themselves from predators. We've seen this repeatedly over the past several decades, whether the abuse was at the hands of priests, relatives, bosses, coaches, doctors, teachers, trusted adults, or other people in positions of respect and power. Victims often don't report their experience because they feel isolated and guilty, as if they're partly responsible - maybe they unintentionally sent off seductive signals?

I have great confidence that the justice system can sort this out.
Click to expand...
Qft. Statistics indicate false claims max out at eight percent.
 
rgp said:
And just what says the stories ARE indeed true? The accusers ? Why is it that their word is absolute ? He says they are not true.
Click to expand...
They are from all over the USA with the police and detectives and family members. The station could not say they are true if they were not.

As for HW there are many accusers and why would they make it up? Mass amounts of people don't go around making false accusations and the statistics show that.
 

Do you have reading comprehension problems? I said I was not going to read or reply to any further comments you posted in a particularr thread. AND - I'll ignore or not ignore whoever and whenever I want.

Also, the quote was from StarSong ... I was replying to that person, not you. Goodness, you seem to crave my attention.

So you've sunk to name calling . . WATCH YOUR STEP. That's a good way to get permanently BANNED.

Keep it up. :whome:
 
Last edited:
Ruthanne said:
They are from all over the USA with the police and detectives and family members. The station could not say they are true if they were not.

As for HW there are many accusers and why would they make it up? Mass amounts of people don't go around making false accusations and the statistics show that.
Click to expand...


Well I disagree , something that seems to be frowned on around here...But I stand by it.

Announce that they have ...witnesses, photos, video,audio....anything , & I'll say they may have something....But just because she said / they said ?....I need more.
 
applecruncher said:
Do you have reading comprehension problems? I said I was nor going to read or reply to any further comments you posted in a particularr thread. AND - I'll ignore or not ignpre whoever and whenever I want.

So you've sunk to name calling . . WATCH YOUR STEP. That's a good way to get permanently BANNED.

Keep it u. :wink:
Click to expand...



So ? ban...don't threaten me....You started the name calling IMO...when you said my approach / opinion was sad. Just as you asked if I had comprehension problems...I asked if you were a liar.....Don't dish it if ya can't take it.
 
applecruncher said:
You have no clue what evidence grand jury has, and they don't give a rip what YOU need.
Click to expand...

Still not ignoring me I see....No they do not...And I don't give a rip what opposing opinions may be here. And WE ALL should require more than just vague reference to evidence ....when our freedom is on the line.
 
rgp said:
Still not ignoring me I see....No they do not...And I don't give a rip what opposing opinions may be here. And WE ALL should require more than just vague reference to evidence ....when our freedom is on the line.
Click to expand...


No! Our freedom is on the line when cases are tried in the court of public opinion and not in actual courts of law.

You'll have access to all the minutiae you want after the case is tried -- until then, you're not entitled to it.
 
rgp said:
Fine but,....if we are going to continually hear of only accusation ? Why can't we be privy to some of the purported evidence ? That way we [the public at large] could ponder both.

Or....IMO better yet...we hear of / be privy too, none of it, until AFTER the trial !?
Click to expand...
At this point YOU need not "ponder" anything. That is the charter and duty of the grand juries and juries. Your job is to merely be informed of the allegation. Beyond that you are free to go about your business. Dismissed!
 
AZ Jim said:
At this point YOU need not "ponder" anything. That is the charter and duty of the grand juries and juries. Your job is to merely be informed of the allegation. Beyond that you are free to go about your business. Dismissed!
Click to expand...

"Saying" that there is evidence...does not prove that there truly IS evidence. As I have said...I firmly believe we should be informed of what sort OF evidence there may be.

They have stripped this man of his freedom to move about !!...on merely accusation alone. They have required ONE MILLION dollars cash on bond from this man on finger-pointing alone. This is nothing more than a witch hunt propelled by the "Me-Too" group !

Dismissed !!
 
rgp said:
"Saying" that there is evidence...does not prove that there truly IS evidence. As I have said...I firmly believe we should be informed of what sort OF evidence there may be.

They have stripped this man of his freedom to move about !!...on merely accusation alone. They have required ONE MILLION dollars cash on bond from this man on finger-pointing alone. This is nothing more than a witch hunt propelled by the "Me-Too" group !

Dismissed !!
Click to expand...
You are impossible. I give up.
 
I have no doubt but that the guy is a slime-ball that took full advantage of his casting couch. But, we are not talking about my opinion of him, we are talking about guilt/innocence under the law.
 
One of our finest actors. Morgan Freeman has just lost his job based on mere accusation. The case has come no where near a court of law.

Sad ! We have returned to the days of lynch mob mentality. Guilty until proven innocent.
 
About the Harvey Weinstein scandal, I have to wonder why the general public is assumed to be that interested in the wheels of justice turning against a sexual predator who happened to be a big shot movie executive. At least in the case of famous actors, most of us recognize the name and might have some genuine emotional reaction to the story. But how many of us had even heard of Harvey Weinstein before? Why should anyone care?
 
Sunny said:
About the Harvey Weinstein scandal, I have to wonder why the general public is assumed to be that interested in the wheels of justice turning against a sexual predator who happened to be a big shot movie executive. At least in the case of famous actors, most of us recognize the name and might have some genuine emotional reaction to the story. But how many of us had even heard of Harvey Weinstein before? Why should anyone care?
Click to expand...


Because we here in the U.S believe in justice. When anyone is convicted on the mere say-so of someone else, with no physical proof, especially of a crime which may have happened decades ago, justice is in doubt.

Harvey Weinstein may very well be a slimy slug. But without all the evidence (ie physical proof) we can never know if he has been railroaded just for the fame and money.

In the case of Stormy Daniels, a XXX hard-core porn star, she has spent more time on her knees than 50 crawling infants. How in the world could she possibly be harmed ?
 
Excuse me, but being a porn star does not preclude having feelings. I am appalled at the idea that because she was an adult film star she somehow can be perceived as having abrogated her right to choose whether or not she engages in sexual acts. Or, that she is now immune to trauma. Not so, many porn stars come from abusive backgrounds which have left them traumatised.
 
Shalimar said:
Excuse me, but being a porn star does not preclude having feelings. I am appalled at the idea that because she was an adult film star she somehow can be perceived as having abrogated her right to choose whether or not she engages in sexual acts. Or, that she is now immune to trauma. Not so, many porn stars come from abusive backgrounds which have left them traumatised.
Click to expand...
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You are, of course, entitled to think what you will. I, however, think differently.
As long as the money was flowing, Stormy Daniels was more than willing to do anything. And, I mean ANYTHING, with 3, 4, 5 or 6 men at once. She's had more things stuck into her than a pin cushion. Now she wants sympathy? It's laughable.

It's about the MONEY and it always will be.
 
In the case of Stormy Daniels, a XXX hard-core porn star, she has spent more time on her knees than 50 crawling infants.
Click to expand...
Stormy Daniels was more than willing to do anything. And, I mean ANYTHING, with 3, 4, 5 or 6 men at once. She's had more things stuck into her than a pin cushion.
Click to expand...

Wow, Traveler, you're really enjoying yourself with all this sanctimonious smut-flinging, aren't you? Well, this may require you to call for your Victorian smelling salts, but Stormy has quite a following by now, and it has
nothing to do with her former trade as a porn star. She has commanded enormous respect for her courage in speaking out. You sound like a 12-year-old whispering secrets behind the barn.

So she was a porn star. The thing is, nobody cares. And if you want to focus on her former "profession," the other half of the question is: was she participating in all of these (shocking!) activities by herself? And if not,
with whom? ;)
 
I think the Stormy Daniels discussion needs to be nipped or it's going to turn political. (And she probably has a "following" for that very reason.) :eek:nthego:
 
Ruthanne said:
Usually they have to have evidence to charge someone so there must be some. I watch all the detective shows on tv, the true ones and that's how I know they have to have evidence to arrest someone on a charge.
Click to expand...


Me too... it's quite educational to watch true crime documentaries.

But media information about a crime is often slanted one way or another.
The only people who get to know the whole story and all the evidence
are the judge/jury who will ultimately decide the verdict.

.
 
C'est Moi said:
I think the Stormy Daniels discussion needs to be nipped or it's going to turn political.
Click to expand...


When I came here, I assumed "political" meant posts about specific political candidates/parties.
And that makes sense. But with a wide definition of "political"... any subject might be considered
by someone ot be "political" in nature, especially when government is now involved in most areas
of society and culture.

.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top