Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"

DP. There really is no difference. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in his rebuttal:
"To the extent she succeeds at all, it is in defending the ludicrously narrow contentions that feminists used the words “believe women” rather than “believe all women” and that some conservatives have erred about the precise wording. But by the op-ed’s end, she doesn’t get us an inch closer to the conclusion that there was an implied “some” in that slogan. Of course the point of it was to flip the presumption of innocence."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-believe-women-revisionism-from-feminists/

Ramesh Ponnuru doesn’t sound like she actually read the piece. Nor do you. Or perhaps you’re not capable of understanding it. It’s a toss up.

:lol: Too funny and so predictable. You don't like his opinion, so you try and dismiss it - and of course the opinion of anyone else who challenges you.

No, you just haven’t put forth a smart opinion yet. Just because you came up with it doesn’t mean it isn’t a stupid take.

Again: Ramesh Ponnuru wrote an excellent rebuttal to the Faludi piece. You just disagree. Doesn't mean his wasn't a smart opinion. I could just as easily say Faludi's was the stupid take.

Faludi had data: the number of tweets of "BelieveAllWomen" vs. "BelieveWomen" by Rep/Dem, compiled for her by a Harvard librarian.

Ponnuru's take was lame and half-hearted.

Even Ponnuru gives ground on this issue (Ponnuru says Faludi succeeds a bit and conservatives have erred). But then Ponnuru backs herself into a corner, and finds herself claiming that the phrase "Believe women" totally needs the word "some" to be clear. Or something. Which is a ludicrous straw man.

Here's Ponnuru. Try not to laugh at the verbal gymnastics.

To the extent she succeeds at all, it is in defending the ludicrously narrow contentions that feminists used the words “believe women” rather than “believe all women” and that some conservatives have erred about the precise wording. But by the op-ed’s end, she doesn’t get us an inch closer to the conclusion that there was an implied “some” in that slogan.

I agree with Ponnuru. “Believe Women” implies (very clearly) that we are to believe ALL women. There is absolutely no way you can deny that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So anyone sexual assault victim that has lied before deserves it? Is that the road you want to go down?

Surely even you can admit that she has "credibility" problems, right?

And even in criminal cases, jurors are instructed that if a witness lies about one thing, the jurors can decide not to believe any of the witness' testimony.

Good point. Top pp, do you believe Reade?

While you're at it, do you believe any of Trump's victims:

Anonymous wrote:So anyone sexual assault victim that has lied before deserves it? Is that the road you want to go down?

Surely even you can admit that she has "credibility" problems, right?

And even in criminal cases, jurors are instructed that if a witness lies about one thing, the jurors can decide not to believe any of the witness' testimony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"

DP. There really is no difference. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in his rebuttal:
"To the extent she succeeds at all, it is in defending the ludicrously narrow contentions that feminists used the words “believe women” rather than “believe all women” and that some conservatives have erred about the precise wording. But by the op-ed’s end, she doesn’t get us an inch closer to the conclusion that there was an implied “some” in that slogan. Of course the point of it was to flip the presumption of innocence."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-believe-women-revisionism-from-feminists/

Ramesh Ponnuru doesn’t sound like she actually read the piece. Nor do you. Or perhaps you’re not capable of understanding it. It’s a toss up.

:lol: Too funny and so predictable. You don't like his opinion, so you try and dismiss it - and of course the opinion of anyone else who challenges you.

No, you just haven’t put forth a smart opinion yet. Just because you came up with it doesn’t mean it isn’t a stupid take.

Again: Ramesh Ponnuru wrote an excellent rebuttal to the Faludi piece. You just disagree. Doesn't mean his wasn't a smart opinion. I could just as easily say Faludi's was the stupid take.

Faludi had data: the number of tweets of "BelieveAllWomen" vs. "BelieveWomen" by Rep/Dem, compiled for her by a Harvard librarian.

Ponnuru's take was lame and half-hearted.

Even Ponnuru gives ground on this issue (Ponnuru says Faludi succeeds a bit and conservatives have erred). But then Ponnuru backs herself into a corner, and finds herself claiming that the phrase "Believe women" totally needs the word "some" to be clear. Or something. Which is a ludicrous straw man.

Here's Ponnuru. Try not to laugh at the verbal gymnastics.

To the extent she succeeds at all, it is in defending the ludicrously narrow contentions that feminists used the words “believe women” rather than “believe all women” and that some conservatives have erred about the precise wording. But by the op-ed’s end, she doesn’t get us an inch closer to the conclusion that there was an implied “some” in that slogan.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So anyone sexual assault victim that has lied before deserves it? Is that the road you want to go down?

She lies about everything, therefore everyone’s assuming that she’s lying about the “sexual assault.” The place where she said it took place literally doesn’t exist. There’s been copious vetting of her “story,” which keeps changing, in the links over the last few pages. And now even her Trump donor lawyer has quit. Give it up.

Oh, the irony. The utter hypocrisy!

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it time to close this thread and create a 3rd 80 plus page one?

Maybe. Or, just close it and stop with it.

The Con attempts to frame Biden have failed thoroughly.

Eva Murry was lying.

Reade was lying, plus she has a terrible history of lying for most of her life.

But now that Reade's been exposed for what she is, do we need to keep going? She'll likely be punished IRL by the people she's defrauded. She's probably going to lose her law degree (for entering law school under the false pretenses of having an undergraduate degree). I don't even know what the penalty is for perjuring yourself in court as a supposed expert witness.

You are desperate to close this thread, aren't you? Can you prove that Biden is innocent? Nope. And so we'll continue to discuss this. If it upsets you, don't click on it.

Can't prove a negative. But the evidence amounts to he said/she said where the "she" has more than one hole in her story plus may have committed fraud and perjury.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So anyone sexual assault victim that has lied before deserves it? Is that the road you want to go down?

The only one going down that road is you, and it sounds like you're just chomping at the bit to do it.

DP. I agree with the PP. Just wait until we have someone with a sketchy background, perhaps a history of lying, accuse a prominent Republican (again, I should say). You will be first in line claiming her background should have *nothing* to do with the assault accusation. It'll be fun trotting out all of these posts, won't it?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is it time to close this thread and create a 3rd 80 plus page one?

Maybe. Or, just close it and stop with it.

The Con attempts to frame Biden have failed thoroughly.

Eva Murry was lying.

Reade was lying, plus she has a terrible history of lying for most of her life.

But now that Reade's been exposed for what she is, do we need to keep going? She'll likely be punished IRL by the people she's defrauded. She's probably going to lose her law degree (for entering law school under the false pretenses of having an undergraduate degree). I don't even know what the penalty is for perjuring yourself in court as a supposed expert witness.

You are desperate to close this thread, aren't you? Can you prove that Biden is innocent? Nope. And so we'll continue to discuss this. If it upsets you, don't click on it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reade got into law school by lying about having an undergraduate degree. From the Politico piece.

Reade declined to comment for this story and instead texted a screenshot from a previously published article where she claimed she obtained an undergraduate degree under a special arrangement with a former chancellor of the university, Toni Murdock.

However, university officials conferred with Murdock, an Antioch official told POLITICO, and confirmed that no special arrangement existed.

Seattle University School of Law confirmed that Reade graduated from there in 2004. According to a 2009 article in the law school’s alumni magazine, Reade entered law school under an alternative admission program.

In a follow-up question about whether students in that program can be admitted without a bachelor’s degree, a spokesman pointed to current requirements, which require an undergraduate degree.

You don't get into law school by lying about your undergraduate degree. The undergraduate school supplies transcripts, etc. Maybe there are current requirements that weren't in place when she was admitted. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that she was, indeed, admitted and graduated from Seattle University School of Law?

The article says Seattle’s requirements were the same then as they are now. Maybe she forged a transcript? Who knows. But it’s pretty clear she didn’t get a BA at that college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

What is the substantive difference between "Believe Women" and "Believe All Women?"

DP. There really is no difference. As Ramesh Ponnuru writes in his rebuttal:
"To the extent she succeeds at all, it is in defending the ludicrously narrow contentions that feminists used the words “believe women” rather than “believe all women” and that some conservatives have erred about the precise wording. But by the op-ed’s end, she doesn’t get us an inch closer to the conclusion that there was an implied “some” in that slogan. Of course the point of it was to flip the presumption of innocence."
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/more-believe-women-revisionism-from-feminists/

Ramesh Ponnuru doesn’t sound like she actually read the piece. Nor do you. Or perhaps you’re not capable of understanding it. It’s a toss up.

:lol: Too funny and so predictable. You don't like his opinion, so you try and dismiss it - and of course the opinion of anyone else who challenges you.

No, you just haven’t put forth a smart opinion yet. Just because you came up with it doesn’t mean it isn’t a stupid take.

Again: Ramesh Ponnuru wrote an excellent rebuttal to the Faludi piece. You just disagree. Doesn't mean his wasn't a smart opinion. I could just as easily say Faludi's was the stupid take.

Anonymous wrote:Reade got into law school by lying about having an undergraduate degree. From the Politico piece.

Reade declined to comment for this story and instead texted a screenshot from a previously published article where she claimed she obtained an undergraduate degree under a special arrangement with a former chancellor of the university, Toni Murdock.

However, university officials conferred with Murdock, an Antioch official told POLITICO, and confirmed that no special arrangement existed.

Seattle University School of Law confirmed that Reade graduated from there in 2004. According to a 2009 article in the law school’s alumni magazine, Reade entered law school under an alternative admission program.

In a follow-up question about whether students in that program can be admitted without a bachelor’s degree, a spokesman pointed to current requirements, which require an undergraduate degree.

You don't get into law school by lying about your undergraduate degree. The undergraduate school supplies transcripts, etc. Maybe there are current requirements that weren't in place when she was admitted. Otherwise, how do you explain the fact that she was, indeed, admitted and graduated from Seattle University School of Law?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just like to send certain readers into a tizzy by pointing out that on Feb 7, 2018 NPR tweeted out “‘Believe all women’ has been the rallying cry of the #metoo movement....”
So unless we’re willing to chalk NOR up to a right-wing group now, maybe it’s time to retire the “Believe all women” was made up by conservatives nonsense?

+ 1 million
Anyone who’s not a left-wing partisan hypocrite knows this is true.

You two obviously haven’t read the Faludi piece. It says “believe all women” started on the right, who beat that drum relentlessly to the point where it seeped into the occasional MSM mention. The whole point of the Faludi piece is right-wing insertion of foreign DNA (“all”) into the slogan.

It’s pathetic that you have one NPR cite. How long did it take your puppet masters to dig that up? But there are zillions more from NPR and other MSM saying “believe women” or “listen to women”. The Faludi piece did the legwork to prove it.

Hilarious that this is probably the same PP who posted "This was never a thing. Show me ONE place where 'Believe All Women' was stated before Tara Reade story broke. Go ahead. I'll wait."
And then someone names a source. NPR no less! A VERY reliably liberal source.
And now it's "that's pathetic"..."How long did it take you?"
:roll:

What's your new goalpost today?

+1,000,000
It's (almost) funny how, when called on something and proved wrong, they do indeed continue to move the goalposts.

Anonymous wrote:So anyone sexual assault victim that has lied before deserves it? Is that the road you want to go down?

Very bad logic. You draw the wrong conclusions. No, it means that anyone, including a sexual assault victim with a history of lying, deceit and dishonesty is not themselves a credible source. So anything that such a victim says needs to be corroborated and confirmed by outside information: 3rd parties who can confirm, external data like reports filed, etc.

In the case of Reade, dozens of people have been interviewed, including many that she herself identified as being able to confirm or corroborate her claims. The vast majority have no knowledge of her claims, have no recollection of anything similar to whats she contends and believe that what she claims did not happen. She has 2 people who she told that will confirm that she told them that it happened. She keeps changing her story of documentation. She claimed that she filed a report about sexual assault, then when questioned, said that it was only a report about sexual harassment. When no such documentation could not be found, she changed it to a report about being made to feel uncomfortable and even that could not be found. She claims that a completely vague recording of a woman from 1993 confirms that she told her mother about being assaulted, but her mother has passed and the comment from the unidentified woman is so completely vague it could be made to construe about anything she wants it to be. She got fired and it could be that she told her mother that she was angry about being fired and it would fit the quote. She has a history that shows she has no compunction against lying as it conveniently suits her and she had no problems playing with details and facts and spinning stories to be completely different. So, why would she have any credibility as a victim. You need a lot more than that to destroy an accuser's career and reputation.

Anonymous wrote:So anyone sexual assault victim that has lied before deserves it? Is that the road you want to go down?

No, idiot. Now you’re just trolling. Or maybe you really are an idiot.

Sexual assault victims who have a LONG TRACK RECORD of lying for money and other reasons, and whose own story keeps changing, and whose witnesses keep changing their stories...need to be dealt with “cautiously,” as even Tucker says.

When other witnesses, who were there at the time, indicate HER ASSAULT STORY IS A LIE by poking holes in it, then yeah. So other witnesses have pointed out that she was fired for incompetence from Biden’s office (contradicting her story about being let go because of an alleged assault), that there aren’t any “niches” in that Senate basement hall (contradicting her story that she was raped in one), and that she wouldn’t have been asked to serve drinks at a fundraiser (as she claimed) because that would have been illegal.

Anonymous wrote:So anyone sexual assault victim that has lied before deserves it? Is that the road you want to go down?

She lies about everything, therefore everyone’s assuming that she’s lying about the “sexual assault.” The place where she said it took place literally doesn’t exist. There’s been copious vetting of her “story,” which keeps changing, in the links over the last few pages. And now even her Trump donor lawyer has quit. Give it up.