Consequences.
Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011
Video: David Vitter Confronted By Rape Victim Over His Pro-Rape Vote
November 2nd, 2009
96 Comments
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
David Vitter has the KBR logo on his diapers
The amendment passed the Senate. Obama opposes it and a Democrat is likely to strip the anti-rape part of the legislation. So why is this wacko yelling at Vitter?
The answer is she gets all her information from left-wing blogs that only tell you that 30 senators ‘voted for rape’.
Because she’s Vitter’s constituent, not Inouye’s, you enormous tool.
Vitter’s vote didn’t matter. And he’s not the one working to amend it or shelve it. He tried to explain it to her why he voted against it, the same reasons the White House, DOD and Inouye have problems with it. None of that matters on liberal blogs, obviously. All lib blogs want idiots like you to know, MH, is that Vitter wants women to be raped. Not Obama’s and no Dems’ culpability is to be questioned in the matter. No, some Repub Senator whose vote didn’t matter is the lib blog story and not one post here even questioning why. Pretty much sums up the sincerity of the average poster, here.
“Vitter’s vote didn’t matter.”
You read it here first. Priceless.
There’s classy, then there’s Dittohead Classy.
Obama never opposed it. He said he had concerns about it and wanted to make sure it was written so that it could be enforced.
Vitter lied about that.
Casually calling a rape victim a wacko? Nice.
I’m sorry she’s a victim of rape if she is, Ionya. But she’s a wacko for going after Vitter like that and then yelling at everyone who keeps her from following him out the door. He answered her questions. I’m just saying, what’s the point of yelling at Vitter? His vote meant nothing and like he said, it had nothing to do with his not wanting justice for Jamie Leigh Jones, but it certainly had nothing to do with this particular woman’s previous rape.
Dennis: I’m sorry she’s a victim of rape if she is
“If she is”??? What possible basis do you have to not believe her on that point other than you don’t like what she said and want to be able to call her a liar?
If you disagree with a position she takes then do so, but why the need to start your comment with an ad hominem attack?
Low, Dennis. Even for you.
Low, Dennis. Even for you.
Are you serious? That’s his go-to move.
I don’t know that particular woman’s case that was yelling at Vitter, and two times listening to her I couldn’t understand whether or not she got a conviction when she said she went to court. That’s why I said ‘if’. Do you have her name and the case available you could link, Sean D. Martin? If the men she accused were convicted I’ll stand corrected. I thought that was how liberals roll; you know, innocent until proven guilty.
I see. So you’re not actually a crime victim unless somebody gets convicted.
Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman weren’t actually murder victims.
That make sense to you, Dennis?
You’re being a nit-picking nerd, Sean.
The comment I made, the ‘if’ part anyway, means absolutely nothing to the topic of the thread, but you seem to think it’s important. Like I said, I don’t know the first thing about this lady or her case. She said she was raped, I’m sorry she was raped. You and fafaroo get these mundane and insignificant notions stuck in your craws and you can’t let go of them.
Bizarre.
Dennis: Like I said, I don’t know the first thing about this lady or her case. She said she was raped, I’m sorry she was raped.
Dennis: I’m sorry she’s a victim of rape if she is
Just pointing out the hypocrisy, Dennis. Sorry if you don’t like it.
You’re a geek, Sean. I made that comment yesterday mid afternoon; it’s still bugging you despite 16 new threads since I posted that. Get a freaking life, dude.
Juanita Broaddrick said she was raped by Bill Clinton. Are you sorry for her that she was a rape victim? Were you ever sorry for her?
“Get a freaking life, dude.”
Says the guy who wakes up before dawn to troll somebody elses site. Priceless.
Dennis: You’re a geek, Sean.
You say that as if it’s a bad thing. Or actually means anything.
I made that comment yesterday mid afternoon; it’s still bugging you despite 16 new threads since I posted that.
There’s a time limit now on posting replies? Oliver’s new format came with a “you can only post to the last dozen threads” rule?
Nah. I still get to point out your ongoing hypocrisies. Like your continuing to post in this particular thread to complain about my continuing to post in this particular thread.
Get a freaking life, dude.
Juanita Broaddrick said she was raped by Bill Clinton. Are you sorry for her that she was a rape victim? Were you ever sorry for her?
I’ve expressed my sympathy for her than you have for the woman in the video above. I never claimed she hadn’t been raped, as you did for the woman in the video above.
If the men she accused were convicted I’ll stand corrected.
That’s really nice, Dennis. You admit you don’t know anything about the woman’s case, but you feel confident enough to say she “accused” some men? Why not just go for “She was askin’ for it!”
Quaker, I apologize to you for not including you along with Sean and fafaroo for being nit-picking nerds here.
She mentioned she had a court case and that she showed up in court every day. I assumed that since there was a case that she had accused someone of raping her. I didn’t hear what the result was and I don’t know. And I’ve never said anyone was ever ‘asking for it,’ Quaker- that’s a bullshit thing of you to say. Nothing I said implies that, either.
Are you sorry that Juanita Broaddrick was raped by Bill Clinton?
I made that comment yesterday mid afternoon; it’s still bugging you despite 16 new threads since I posted that.
Oh poor Dennis. Everyone’s picking on him again.
Picking never bothered me, fafaroo. Pick all you want. Sean and Qibs and you are nerdy nit-pickers. There’s a difference. One word, ‘if’, has Sean acting like someone just stole his lunch box right before lunchtime back in 3rd grade.
And strangely, this issue is bugging him so much but he can’t answer if he cared about Juanita Broaddrick’s rape. Neither can Quibs.
Are you sorry she was raped, fafaroo?
Dennis, you came right out and questioned the woman’s honesty.
Just own it and stop whining about being called on it.
No, I didn’t, fafaroo. I said I didn’t know anything about her or her case. Huge difference. And it’s funny for a guy who claims he’s not obsessed about me comes all the way down to this thread, out of 16 threads above me to choose from to comment on, to discuss my saying I feel bad for this woman if she was raped.
Do you feel bad for Juanita Broaddrick being raped, fafaroo?
Yes you did Dennis. Yes you did.
Dennis: If she was
fafaroo: you came right out and questioned the woman’s honesty
Dennis: No, I didn’t, fafaroo.
Yeah, ya did. And instead of admitting it you’re off “over there” with Juanita Broaddrick.
Y’know, if you just said “OK, I shouldn’t have done that.” I don’t think anyone would really hold it against you. You’d actually move up a notch in my eyes. But, no. You have to insist you didn’t do what you clearly did.
Dennis: And strangely, this issue is bugging him so much but he can’t answer if he cared about Juanita Broaddrick’s rape.
But, you really just insist on being wrong, don’t you?
And before you complain I didn’t answer fast enough, note that I’ve followed the one thread. You want to jump all over the place don’t expect me to follow you.
Alright, Sean, do you want to bicker over this for the next week, fine with me.
So you tell me, when you said:
You never told me you ever expressed sympathy for Broaddrick; whether you believed her or doubted her; or if you thought you needed more information; or if, like most liberals, there was never a court case because she never accused him until the statute of limitations expired, therefore that meant no rape likely occurred. Are you saying “Yes, Dennis, when she said she was a rape victim, I believed her and I felt sympathy for her. I didn’t doubt her. I immediately called Bill Clinton a rapist.”? Is that what you did back in 1999 when you first heard the accusation? Because unless you did, you have no claim to accuse me of not having sympathy for this woman that confronted Vitter.
I didn’t claim she hadn’t been raped. Parse it all you want, but I didn’t claim that. I said I didn’t know. I didn’t say I doubted her, and I don’t, but I didn’t claim she hadn’t been raped. You want to analyze my sentence till Kingdom Come,fine, but you make a wrongful charge here. If I wanted to cast aspersions on her honesty, when I wrote “I’m sorry she’s a victim of rape if she is, Ionya..”, I would’ve stressed the ‘if’ qualifier by italicizing it.
Dennis: Alright, Sean, do you want to bicker over this for the next week, fine with me.
Of course it’s fine with you. For someone so supposedly opposed to discussing something you’re certainly quick and eager to continue the conversation.
Protest too much much?
I didn’t say I doubted her,
Yes, you did. “If she is [a rape victim]” You flat out questioned her claim and now you’re flat out claiming you didn’t do that.
Dance all you want, Dennis. You’re still a liar.
Obama opposes it, Dennis? What right-wing blog did you get that from?
Rape victim = wacko. Compassionate conservatism.
Stick to fudging quotes, Den. You’re on top of that.
I got it from this blog, Marco. Did you even watch the tape?
The tape meaning this video? Yes.I guess if this rape victim dressed up like she was headed for a tea party, you’d be fine.
Tell us what the White House said in regards to the DOD statement? Try not to clip the quote. You’ve proven it’s tricky to do for you, so.
Here the url, Marco. I’d give the link but I don’t know how to do it here yet.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/why-the-dod-and-the-white-house-opposed-the-franken-rape-amendment.php
You’re an idiot, Marco. You perform much better as a lurker than you do as a commenter.
Ouch, Dennis. That hurts my feelings.
So you’re able to link to an article with some quotes from a White House rep. I mentioned and you come up with President Barack Obama is pro rape?
And you’re calling me an idiot? Rich.
Dennis, you’re a better wingnut than a debate adversary, that’s for sure. You can quote me on that.
Oh, wait. You can’t. Sorry.
Marco,
Not only did you not even watch the tape until I told you to, you haven’t even read the blog post. If Vitter is pro-rape, or if his vote was pro-rape, then the Obama Administration being against the amendment is also pro-rape, no? Unless you have a better explanation. If you think OW is mistaken in calling his vote ‘pro-rape’ why don’t you tell him?
Your answer is in the article you posted or at least some of the quote. I know it’s a problem for you but try.
Ionya, your outrage meter might have some merit if this site hadn’t been calling certain war heros a wacko for the past 12 months.
Farris,
I think your moral relativism meter is far more sensitive than my so-called outrage meter. Each to his own I suppose but simple saying something isn’t nice doesn’t strike me as reflecting great umbrage.
As to calling war heros wackos, since I’ve never done any such thing here or anywhere else for that matter using someone elses alleged statements do not strike me as being particularly relevant to the merits of anything I said.
She didn’t sound at all wacko to me. And he sounded overbearing, the way he talked over her in his much louder much deeper voice. There are a lot of men who actually believe their opinions are more important because they have deeper voices.
He bravely turn and ran though. Gotta be tough to do with an XXL diaper on.
Vitter’s first mistake was scheduling a town hall meeting on the same day as an LSU home game.
According to the headline here, Barack Obama is pro-rape.
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/why-the-dod-and-the-white-house-opposed-the-franken-rape-amendment.php
Why Did The DoD, And The White House, Oppose The Franken Rape Amendment?
According to the headline here, Barack Obama is pro-rape.
And according to the article, as Rheinhard pointed out, not so much:
Did you even read the article, Dennis?
No. I am learning that above.
I did, fafaroo. So why is Vitter pro-rape, but thje White House is not. Why is Vitter pro-rape, but Daniel Inouye, who wants that language stripped from the bill?
Do some hard thinking and tell me how Vitter is different than the White House, the DOD and Daniel Inouye aside from the fact that he can’t do much more than what he’s already done, which was cast a vote for an oviously flawed amendment. His vote didn’t turn the amendment down. Obama, the DOD and Onouye are at this point far more influential than Vitter as to what ultimately comes out of Congress, but you wouldn’t know that from reading this blog post.
Why don’t you enlighten everyone, Mr. Deep Thinker.
So why is Vitter pro-rape, but thje White House is not. Why is Vitter pro-rape, but Daniel Inouye, who wants that language stripped from the bill?
Dennis, I don’t have a problem with calling anyone who opposes the bill “pro-rape.” You think I have some aversion to criticizing Obama? I’ve told you before, for my money, he isn’t socialist enough.
But the White House supports the bill’s intent and says it’s working on better language to make enforcing that intent easier and more effective.
That’s sort of different from shouting, as some conservatives have, that the government has no right to hold corporations and their employees accountable before the law, period.
You still conveniently didn’t answer the question, fafaroo. In fact, you conveniently dodged it. Obama not being socialist has nothing to do with his being pro-rape.
What is the difference between what Vitter did if he didn’t like certain aspects of the bill that makes him ‘pro-rape’ and what Obama, the DOD and Daniel Inouye have issues with the bill that make them not ‘pro-rape’?
Or, are you saying Obama is pro-rape?
That shouldn’t be a question that a deep thinker like you would try to avoid like you just did. Those are the kinds of questions objective and analytical deep thinkers love to tackle. Why the hesitancy? Surely you’ve given this considerable thought or you wouldn’t have even posted on this thread. And quite obviously people here were unaware of Obama’s, the DOD’s and Inouye’s pro-rape opposition to the bill, so maybe you could enlighten everyone here.
Dennis, if Obama vetoes the bill, you can call him pro-rape to your hearts content. Okay?
If Obama works to change the language of the bill such that it accomplishes its aim while satisfying his administration’s objections and signs it, you can’t. Fair enough?
In the meantime, anyone who’s already voted against the bill is pro-rape.
You’re now free to return to your regularly scheduled whining.
Not such deep thinking on your part, fafaroo. Vitter didn’t get to change anything about the bill; all he could do was vote yay or nay. Since he essentially agrees with the DOD’s and the White House’s position, he is in no less of a pro-rape stance than either the DOD or the White House, because he stated in no uncertain terms that….well, I’ll just quote him
Sounds like he agrees with the intent of the amendment, too.
You’re weaseling AND you’re phoning it in at the same time.
FAIL.
So, Deep Thinker fafaroo,
If Vitter had given the same bullshit reply that the White House gave, that he supported “the intent of the amendment,”, would that have made Vitter no longer ‘pro-rape’?
What is the difference betweeen Vitter’s response and the White House’s response that they were FOR “the intent of the amendment,” that would distinguish between being ‘pro-rape’ and ‘not pro-rape’, since you argue that Vitter is in favor of woman being raped and Obama is not.
Please clarify your position if you would.
This is a crazy thing I didn’t know. Why do they oppose? I don’t get it at all.
OK, I am now up to thrice today that this blog has eaten comments with BBcode in them. I think this needs fixing (and count this as a vote to go back to the old way including HTML markup – I’m not bothering to include links anymore until this is fixed).
But apparently Dennis is a little confused in his talking points”:
[i]
A White House spokesman said that the DoD opposition is overstated in the message sent to Congress. “We support the intent of the amendment, and we’re working with the conferees to make sure that it is enforceable,” said spokesman Tommy Vietor when asked about the DoD statement.
[/i]
Of course, voting against an amendment protecting American citizens from being forced to abrogate their fundamental constitutional and civil rights for arbitatration in private contracts no more makes one “pro-rape” than, say, voting against an meaningless sense resolution condemning a private advocacy group for placing a newspaper ad makes one “anti-American” or “anti-military”.
Oh, wait.
It’s completely appalling that Americans, anywhere, are turning against rape victims because of political grudges and people refusing to admit they were wrong. “Left-wing Blogs?” Seriously? That’s the problem here? The fact that there’s a debate on this topic is completely pathetic.
Rape victims asking their reps a question = “Uh Uh but…Obama.” and they’re labeled wackos to boot.
If Vitter is “pro-rape”, then that makes Obama “pro-abortion”.
No one is turning against rape victims…
Because it is apparently beyond the jurisdictional ken of any of the 535 people we laughingly refer to as “our representatives” to contrive a way to smite a company that would be so base, and unchivalrous as to allow their employees to be sexually assaulted, we call a stupid legislative measure which intends to make a very small tail wag a very large dog, “anti-rape”, which, of course , it is not.
Those who oppose this short-sighted, ill-conceived measure, are called “pro-rape”. THat is as stupid as it is unforgivable.
Now, cue the leftie chorus of “You don’t care about rape victims!”
Rules about how companies that conduct business with the federal government are out of the purview of the federal government? Interesting.
Rules about how people behave should not be dependent upon, nor exempted because of, their status as government vendors. That is the problem right there : No, apparently, the government is unable to control its own vendors.
make that an hour.
Because it is apparently beyond the jurisdictional ken of any of the 535 people we laughingly refer to as “our representatives” to contrive a way to smite a company that would be so base, and unchivalrous as to allow their employees to be sexually assaulted, we call a stupid legislative measure which intends to make a very small tail wag a very large dog, “anti-rape”, which, of course , it is not.
Frank, for your sake and ours, please wait at least a half hour after you wake up from your nap before you start typing.
to contrive a way to smite a company that would be so base, and unchivalrous as to allow their employees to be sexually assaulted,
Except the issue is that the company actually went out of its way to protect said rapists. They destroyed evidence of said actions, they locked up the victim, and took away her right to sue them. The Republican senators that voted against this think that your tax dollars should go to subsidizing this behavior, rather than something that actually helps people.
If Vitter is “pro-rape”, then that makes Obama “pro-abortion”.
Even if this comparison made any sense, abortion is legal, rape is not.
This thread demonstrates why women are abandoning the GOP.
Maybe that explains why woman are not as in favor of Obama as they once were, too, since he’s against the amendment as it stands, too. And you guys thought it was because they decided to turn racist again after they voted for him last year.
Maybe women will get to buy their own rape kits, too.
Ooooh, burrrrn.
Marco, you are just as cutting edge as a brand new Gillete Fusion razor blade this morning.
I’d ask you what you know about that fallacious charge, too, but I’m sure it’s about as deep as what you knew about Franken’s anti-rape amendment.
Thanks Dennis. Your opinion of me means so much and I’ve learned so much about myself from your bizarre rants, ie. “Not only did you not even watch the tape until I told you to, you haven’t even read the blog post…”
Er, sure Dennis. If you say so.
What I’ve learned about you?
You are unable to quote anyone with any accuracy, Re: Chris Hitchens.
You don’t seem to read or comprehend what you link to here.
Congressional Republican votes don’t matter and when asked a direct question about their needless vote, it’s cool to point fingers at the President before bravely running away. That’s a defensible, sensible position for a sitting US senator.
Thanks, Den You rulz!
He talked to her longer than Alan Grayson talked to Griff Jenkins, Marco.
He answered her and she didn’t want to hear his answer, and she started getting emotional and then hysterical as he was walking away. It’s highly likely he could tell she was about to break, because she did start to break down when she went in to her ordeal. If you think he’s supposed to stand there in a crowded gym and fight to get his point across to a woman who is screaming at him that doesn’t know the first thing about the bill, then fine. If you think that, then I’m sure you have no problem with the any of the protesters at any of the tea parties or any of the town halls, either.
Am I correct on that assumption, that you are consistent in your views about how congressmen are supposed to act when confronted by irrational constituents?
No Dennis, I am with you. They should deflect and run away because after all their votes are meaningless.
Anything else you’d like to cover I’ve already mentioned?
Open question for anyone. What were the tea baggers a victim of?
That’s right. Being on the losing side of an election.
What fallacious charge?
We support the intent of the amendment, and we’re working with the conferees to make sure that it is enforceable,” said spokesman Tommy Vietor when asked about the DoD statement.
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/19/defense-department-
Oppose_n_326569.
Obama was not against the amendment as the WH spokesperson stated. Unlike the Bush Administration that dictated to the DOJ (remember fire the judges that don’t agree with our agenda, ie Roberto Gongalez.) , the Obama Administration understands that the White House needs to be separated from the legal decisions from the department.
Also, my understanding from the DOJ’s reason for not supporting the amendment was that “enforcement would be problematic” and “It may be more effective to seek a statutory prohibition in all business transactions”. In other words, the reading of the amendment must set the statues on setting a standards instead of merely providing factors that need to be considered. The issue for the DOJ seemed to be in how the amendment was stated. Perhaps Franklin, who I love and have worked with in the past, not being a lawyer, missed something in the amendment that can be challenged by the higher courts in appeals. The statue must be narrowly constructed, so that it will not contain constitutional exemptions. Most importantly laws that will hold up to appeal.
I EMPHASIZE that PERSONALLY I am THRILLED that Franklin’s amendment was passed, and it may have to go through some challenges in court and tweaked, but I don’t think that the DOJ’s motivation is as sinister as Corker’s and Vitter’s in being against the amendment.
The problem is he voted against a bill that would have allowed that to happen.
I guess the thread is over. A shame. It was so wingnut logic-eriffic.
No, I didn’t, fafaroo.
Yes, you did Dennis. She said she was raped. You wrote if she was.
Do you want to get into a discussion of what the meaning of “if” is? That would be very Clintonian of you, Dennis.
And it’s funny for a guy who claims he’s not obsessed about me comes all the way down to this thread …
Jesus, Dennis. Will you stop with the whining? “Leave me alone! Stop stalking me!” What a baby.
fafaroo,
I welcome any and all attacks on me no matter how picayune and paltry. As often as you like, bring it on. But you have a thousand things to discuss on this blog and you still focus on a statement I made in which someone accused me of not caring about this woman. She said she was raped and she went to court over it. I didn’t know the verdict so I said ‘if she was raped’. I didn’t put a whole lot of thought into it to try to cast her as someone who made a bogus accusation; I was just trying to be accurate and not make a conclusion on something I knew nothing about.
And it’s not a diversionary tactic to ask you and Quibs and Sean D. Martin if you cared about Juanita Broaddrick being raped? She said she was raped by Bill Clinton, that he was violent with her and even bit her lip. And that Hillary was aware of what took place. Bill Clinton never addressed her. Bill Clinton treated Juanita Braddrick after the revelation became public knowledge far worse than Vitter treated this woman. Far worse, fafaroo. Do you care about her that she was raped?
So you’re going with what the meaning of “if” is. Check.
And fafaroo, you are transferring your obsessive nature that previously drove you to an addictive state on to me, for some strange reason. I am fine with that, but I’m just calling a spade a spade. I don’t think less of you or anyone that has gone through what you’ve gone through and I wish you all the best, but transference is transference, and it’s just a substitute. Maybe not as harmful as your previous addiction, but not the best substitute, either. No matter to me- if your sponsor tells you it’s ok and it is a net-net benefit, then that’s ok by me- I’ll gladly play along. But if it hurts you, I don’t want to be a part of that. Not with you and not with anyone.
… and now back to your regularly scheduled whining.
Weasel.
Does your sponsor give you his blessing on this, fafaroo?
Not a day goes by that I post here that I don’t wonder if CS Strowbridge or News Ref aren’t sitting in their apartments babbling and drooling all over themselves after going crazy trying to best me and losing badly at it. Indeed/ Mr. ed took a three month hiatus- he managed to come back, under a different identity, but he still knows he’s no match. Jaim had a meltdown on here and gave us all a TMI personal history of why he couldn’t cope or hack it here in America, as if we didn’t already know what he ended up telling us. That was painful for me to witness and I derived no satisfaction out of it- that is the truth.
I don’t want to drive you back to something harmful. It’s just not my nature.
Ten bucks says you acknowledge and/or reply to this comment.
I never claimed she hadn’t been raped, I said I didn’t know the first thing about her or the first thing about her case, except that she said she had a case that went to trial. If the result had been that it was determined that she hadn’t been raped, then I didn’t want to accuse a possibly innocent person of being a rapist. I just simply didn’t know, Sean. Try to understand that. I don’t know if Bill Clinton raped Juanita Broaddrick, either. But there is absolutely no sympathy for her from the liberal community. None. If you believe she was raped, does it not gall you that he later went on to become our president, and that his wife who was aware and covered for him, if that report of Broaddrick’s is also true, is now our current Secretary of State, who almost became president, too?
Do you not feel the least bit ashamed that that doesn’t bother you but my qualifiying a statement with ‘if’ for something I don’t know the facts of has got you all freaked out, apparently?
That’s why you’re a geek, Sean. Certifiable.
Dennis: That’s why you’re a geek, Sean. Certifiable.
You keep saying that as it it’s a bad thing or had any meaning.
You’re a peg board, Dennis.
Huh? What the fuck did that mean?
Just as much as “you’re a geek”.
Dennis: Alright, Sean, do you want to bicker over this for the next week, fine with me.
Of course it’s fine with you. For someone so supposedly opposed to discussing something you’re certainly quick and eager to continue the conversation.
Protest too much much?
I didn’t say I doubted her
Yes, you did. “If she is [a rape victim].” You flat out questioned her claim and now you’re flat out claiming you didn’t do that.
Dance all you want, Dennis. You’re still a liar.
Saying I didn’t know her case is not saying I doubted her. That is not a lie.
This, however, was a bald-faced lie when you said:
Please show me where I claimed the woman in the video hadn’t been raped.
Even if you don’t believe me when I said I doubted her, that’s a big leap to go from that assumption by you to your saying that I claimed she hadn’t been raped.
Sean, that is a lie, my friend. Pure and simple.
“Nice touch by Capra casting Mr. Potter in a wheelchair in a lame attempt to make him appear even more evil and scary.”
What’s your problem with that, obsessed boy? Stereotyping handicapped people is not cool.
Maybe it is with you if you but it’s not with me.
What kind of a cretin are you anyway, Indeed? You probably laughed at John McCain’s injuries he suffered at the Hanoi Hilton, too, didn’t you?
Self-righteous and Self-absorbed Troll still can’t admit a mistake. Any mistake. No matter how plainly it’s spelled out. (Hint, go back to the original thread.)
You probably laughed at John McCain’s injuries he suffered at the Hanoi Hilton, too, didn’t you?
Strong words. You have a shred of evidence for that? Did the very sound journalist David Weigel say I did? Did the sound writer Ta-Nehisi mention something?
Stereotyping handicapped people is not cool.
Except that Lionel Barrymore was handicapped and appeared in more than 40 films after 1938 in a wheelchair.
Don’t give an inch Dennis! Deny, deny, deny!!!
And you keep avoiding anything to do with Broaddrick. Did you doubt her at first? Whether you did or didn’t, you had some information right off the bat to go from. I had none from this woman in the video that I could tell other than she said she was a rape victim.
Not all women who claim to be rape victims are rape victims, Sean. I have sympathy for all rape victims, and that’s what I should have said, not if she was raped I have sympathy for her, because that did open up a can of worms I wasted too much time of my life explaining to nitwits who just want to nitpick needlessly.
Self-absorbed Persecution Complex Troll feels the need to explain how misunderstood he is and how deeply he cares. Again. (”I never said…”)
That’s exactly why I don’t give an inch here on anything, Indeed. Because obsessed cretin assholes like you with nothing better to do lurk around until the right opportunity to chime in.
You prove every day how you’re exactly like the Aqualung character in the Jethro Till song.
Self-absorbed Dittohead Troll believes that never admitting a mistake will bolster his already suspect credibility.
That’s exactly why I don’t give an inch here on anything, Indeed. Because obsessed cretin assholes like you with nothing better to do lurk around until the right opportunity to chime in.
And all this means something terribly serious to you, why?
Jesus, Dennis, your self-esteem must be hanging by a thread.
Because obsessed cretin assholes like you with nothing better to do lurk around until the right opportunity to chime in.
As opposed to obsessed immature assholes like you who don’t even hesitate that much to comment.
Now I feel bad. I had no idea that beneath the Tuff-Guy persona that Dennis likes to project–frequently and anonymously–in blog comments, that Dennis was in reality a delicate flower, emotionally on the brink at any given moment. I just hope I can resist the urge to mock him when he writes something incredibly shit-all wingnut stupid and self-absorbed a few minutes from now.