... and you have done so. It is still a deflection. Two more women have come forward. This reminds me of a creepy camp counselor from ~40 years back when I was too young to know anything at all. He took two kids on the camp sailboat unsupervised, and he was immediately fired after he returned that evening. Hopefully nothing actually happened then, but the creep factor was huge with him. That's Moore.

Is it a deflection also to note it is coming out that Congress has a slush fund for paying off victims of sexual assault or harassment by its members to its young female staffers? When is it ok to bring up other assholes? Or is it all just deflection?

Well, the title of this thread is "Even Moore sexual misconduct allegations". One can bring up whatever one wishes, but in the context of this thread, a continual push of Whataboutism is a threadjack.

Not a reply to anyone specifically, but this is now on Drudge:

http://www.kabc.com/...-senator-al-franken/

Point taken ;o) Although I dont think the discussion should be limited to just Roy Moore.

I don't understand why this is just coming out now, hasn't he been a Senator for a few years :)

When will these hatchet pieces stop?

I'll take you at your word...and say I agree. They are different but the same.

A guy I know dated Chelsea Clinton when she was at Stanford. There was a joke told on Saturday Night Live that went like this:

"Chelsea Clinton and her boyfriend, Stanford Swimmer Matt Pierce, went to church with President Clinton this past Sunday. Pierce allegedly told the President that he considered him his roll model. Clinton responded by saying he could no longer date his daughter..."

That joke kind of reminds me of Seth MacFarland's joke from the Oscars where he said, after reading the names of the 5 actresses for best actress “Congratulations, you five ladies no longer have to pretend to be attracted to Harvey Weinstein.”

The closest people came to attacking these guys were through jokes. I hope this has changed.

Agree with everything you said, Hannity completely fumbled the ball on this one. There were clear indications he was on the wrong side of opinion as a result of Moore's answers to his own questions. The guy should be completely cut off from the party. I also agree with the accusation of deflection, but sheesh, Hannity is partisan as hell and he is looking on the other side of the fence at guys like Weinstein, Bill Clinton, and (apparently) just about every single male actor in Hollywood. While Roy Moore is clearly a sleazeball, he is being dropped by the GOP like a hot potato. Compare that to the treatment by the Dems of all of the leftie perverts that have been exposed in the past two months. Bill Clinton had a successful career in politics right up to and including the Presidency even after his bad deeds were known.

Greg

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

The Clintons put themselves in the news. No help needed from the Right.

That said, I'd be interested to hear what Republican has a history as lurid as the legacy the Clintons have created.

I'm no fan of the Clintons and think the Clinton Foundation is a ruse and should have been shut down years ago. The entire use of "Foundations" in the U.S is corrupt with wealthy people setting them up for political purposes. Wealthy people use Foundations because the donors are shielded from public disclosure and they can support their favorite charity (*cough*special interest political group*cough*) while claiming to do good for mankind.

If you think the Clintons are the only ones who do this, you haven't been paying close attention to the dramatic increase in the use of Foundations over the past 20 years. The Right in particular, have used them to influence politics, pay off members of Congress to pass legislation etc. They may not be funded with the assistance of a former President, but there are a lot of wealthy individuals undermining the political system, and they are on the Right and Left.

I don't want to sound like I am defending Al Frankin, however, he isn't "groping" her in that picture. It looks to me like his hands aren't touching her at all.

That doesn't make it acceptable. If there's another photo that actually shows him groping her, they should publish that one instead.

---

How does Danny Hart sit down with balls that big?

This brings up something I was talking with my wife about. What do we do with all these guys now? And how do we sort them all out? It really is getting hard to keep it all straight and not just have things become background noise.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Are you talking about Dem politicians or the liberal media? Have either come out in support of Weinstein and other Hollywood actors accused of sexual assault? I think the media has covered the Cosby, Weinstein and other stories quite thoroughly so I'm not sure what you're criticizing here. Maybe you could argue the media has largely given Menendez a pass, but not entirely.

I think that most politicians are - thankfully - trying to avoid partisanship over the issue of sexual assault. Apparently though, there is a pervasive culture of sexual abuse in congress that has yet to be fully exposed. Interns are beginning to come out with stories. Watch this space...

Agree - I don't think the photo shows "groping" either. But the totality of the story doesn't paint Al in a good light. Will be interesting to see how this one plays out. He's a darling of the left and raises tons of money for the dems.

That is foolish and uninformed. Even the Clinton Foundation has done some amazing work around the world. Charitable deeds are rarely truly altruistic. So what. Don't throw out the baby with the bath water.

That is foolish and uninformed. Even the Clinton Foundation has done some amazing work around the world. Charitable deeds are rarely truly altruistic.

They can do altruistic work without getting involved in politics, lots of charities do it every day.

But the wealthy and powerful are setting up Foundations strictly for political purposes and only doing so to hide donors. With all the social justice warriors, companies and individuals don't want to be associated with things like special interest groups for oil companies, supporting the deregulation of the environment etc. So what do they do? Simple, set up a Foundation which can funnel money to these groups. They do it for anonymity and for tax breaks and it's nothing but a scam.

The government has to clamp down on this because hundreds of millions of dollars are lost with tax breaks for supporting political causes while a few crumbs are thrown at real charitable organizations.

You are completely correct. All I can conclude is that Hannity is much stupider than I thought. He comes across as soft on a kid molester. If you are going to have Roy Moore on your show, especially when you are a conservative partisan like Hannity, there is only one acceptable approach: be very aggressive, be critical, and make it clear that you are withholding your endorsement. Otherwise, you will be branded forever as the guy that supported the creep even after it was known he was a creep.

---

________
It doesn't really matter what Phil is saying, the music of his voice is the appropriate soundtrack for a bicycle race. HTupolev

The largest charitable organizations are schools, churches, large groups such as the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, Goodwill, ....

When you say "hundreds of millions of dollars are lost with tax breaks for supporting political causes while a few crumbs are thrown at real charitable organizations. " you are misstating the actual numbers.

Is this just a typical knee-jerk But, But, But... statement or do you actually believe this? Every "news" source I see from ET to Breitbart/HuffPo to Savage(across the spectrum) has done nothing but vilify Weinstein(and rightfully so as far as I can tell). Most of the others aren't even being given the benefit of the doubt now. It would seem to me that the Dems/Lefties/Snowflakes got this snowball rolling with the #metoo campaign and are simply letting it clear the trail of any undesirables.Proof in the fact that its hitting Hollywood first. Sure, some might get out of the way who deserve to be trampled(Clinton), but to say that Dems aren't doing something just seems like pure blindness.

Did you want to try again? But then you knew what you wrote was crap.

Banner story on HuffPo with the picture as the banner.

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/...inblnkushpmg00000009

Now that we are rightly going after Bill Clinton, is Clarence Thomas next?

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

---

Civilize the mind, but make savage the body.

- Chinese proverb

One of the funniest parts of Hannity last night was his bitching about the hypocrisy of Democrats defending people based on tribal politics a day after defending Moore because he is a Republican.

---

I'm beginning to think that we are much more fucked than I thought.

Female commentator today said "wonder if he is going to stick it out" referring to staying in race with rest of panelists open jawed.....this thing is getting out of hand:)

I never even mentioned the Clinton Foundation. But, since you have brought it up and are casting it as the sum total of the dark legacy I was referring to, I'll say that YOU haven't been playing close attention. The point I thought I made (apparently missed) was that the Clintons were able to climb up to the highest office in the country with a long, dark history of fraud, deceit, lies, sexual predation, arrogance, and unethical and illegal behaviour.

Here are some of the significant events that come to mind without even pulling out my Google Fu talents...

Rose Law firm fraud - Whitewater
Vince Foster 'suicide'
20-25 questionable deaths of people within their web of influence over 20 or so years
Rented out bedrooms in the White House for campaign contributions
Monica Lewinsky and all of the other women Bill groped, raped, took advantage of, etc.
Cozying up to the biggest sexual predator of modern times, Harvey Weinstein, and claiming they 'didn't know', right. Took tens of thousands in donations from him and more from other Hollywood sleazeballs.
Lying about getting shot at on a trip to some foreign country
Setting up an illegal private email server and trying to cover it up
Benghazi, never owned up to it although she was completely asleep at the switch and ignored numerous warnings

There is more. Google them yourself. Then, find some Republican with as nasty a background as these people. The fact that she ever won the nomination for the Presidency speaks volumes about the ethics and morals of the majority of the Democratic Party. Biden could have beat Trump easily. It was a shame he didn't run, but I am glad he didn't.

Greg

---

If you are a Canuck that engages in gratuitous bashing of the US, you are probably on my Iggy List. So, save your self a bunch of typing a response unless you also feel the need to gratuitously bash me. If so, have fun.
"Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f___ things up" - Barack Obama, 2020

The largest charitable organizations are schools, churches, large groups such as the Red Cross, Habitat for Humanity, Goodwill, ....

Yes, but they aren't the problem. I'm talking about the Dark Money groups where there are no disclosure requirements and no limits on contributions. They do a little charity work to maintain their status but the majority of work is as special interest groups. The "Freedom Partners" and the Koch brothers "Americans for Prosperity" are 2 examples of how wealthy people are manipulating the Tax Code and hiding behind the mask of doing charitable work to influence people in Congress.

My problem is that you said specifically "...a few crumbs are thrown at real charitable organizations." That is demonstrably false. Your concern about money in politics is quite valid, but your argument is weakened in an open forum when you vastly overstate your position.

I know, I know, I should just fully embrace the 21st century "binary" approach to all issues. Too old and slow for that....