DEMOCRAT MENENDEZ, SEXUAL PREDATOR OF UNDERAGE TEENS...

Still, I wonder what the tone of this thread would be if it were Mitch McConnell instead of Bob Menendez.

The phony hypocrisy....it is ok for Team Obama to repeatedly falsely accuse Romney of letting a woman die of cancer by denying her healthcare coverage ( a provable lie), but the right is to be condemned for speculating on the worse behavior of a Democrat ? A behavior that has video statements of escorts acknowledging sex with him ?

Where was your "innocent until proven guilty" then ?

Fucking phony left.

...

It could be true, it probably isn't, but until he is charged and convicted I thought we were all "innocent until proven guilty" or is that only Republicans and Libertarians? Dems are apparently guilty without evidence and until proven innocent, right? Originally Posted by austxjr

Or it was fair game to try and destroy a mans reputation with an unprovable 10 year old "Pubic hair on a coke can " remarks but Democrat Menendez ñeeds to be treated with the "innocent unroll Provence guilty standard "...

The phony hypocrisy....it is ok for Team Obama to repeatedly falsely accuse Romney of letting a woman die of cancer by denying her healthcare coverage ( a provable lie), but the right is to be condemned for speculating on the worse behavior of a Democrat ? A behavior that has video statements of escorts acknowledging sex with him ? Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Or it was fair game to try and destroy a mans reputation with an unprovable 10 year old "Pubic hair on a coke can " remarks but Democrat Menendez ñeeds to be treated with the "innocent unroll Provence guilty standard "... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Wow. Back-to-back cases of "Two wrongs DO make a right".

Other people make outrageous allegations based on crappy evidence against politicians you like, so it is OK for you to do the same to politicians you hate, is that it?

Congratulations.

BTW, I am not a leftie.

I don't care for Menendez.

He probably DID fuck hookers when in the Dominican Republic. And he probably fucks them right here is the good old USA, too.

That said, I still demand some standards of proof. And that "transcript" looks like either a complete falsification or a well-coached (even dictated) script.

Not af all like 2 wrings mahing a right....the Thomas and Romney attacks were clearly beyond the pale. Thomas being unprovable 10 year old he said she said....the Romney sd complete fiction and an fabrication of thetruth from the get go.

Not af all like 2 wrings mahing a right.... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

It appears WhirlyTurd has been hitting the bottle pretty hard tonight!

Not af all like 2 wrings mahing a right....the Thomas and Romney attacks were clearly beyond the pale. Thomas being unprovable 10 year old he said she said....the Romney sd complete fiction and an fabrication of thetruth from the get go. Originally Posted by Whirlaway

Also, I'm not sure what the Clarence Thomas hearings have to do with this.

Nobody knows for certain what transpired between Thomas and Anita Hill.

But at least Anita Hill made her statements under oath and we know who she is.

So we can judge for ourselves the truthfulness (or lack theroe) of her remarks. Her testimony wasn't blatantly false on its face the way the "transcript" you posted appears to be. Anita Hill's testimony did look coached or scripted - even if it wasn't true or was exaggerated.

Was a crude comment about a pubic hair on a Coke can really relevant to his knowledge of the law? No, it wasn't. Was if fair to bring it up 10 years later when he probably didn't even remembering making it? No it wasn't.

But that does relate to obvious and ridiculous falsity of her statements.

And, in case anyone has failed to notice, there is a WORLD of difference between spreading false accusations about non-criminal behavior against a Sup. Ct. nominee or presidential candidate on the one hand and spreading false accusations or false evidence about criminal behavior against an accused man on the other hand.

Thomas and Romney were never in danger of losing their liberty - only not getting jobs. Menendez is in danger of going to prison for years.

That is an order of magnitude worse.

There's a US law passed about 10 years ago that makes sex in foreign countries with underaged individuals by US citizens illegal. Doesn't make a difference if the country has legalized prostitution or not. The first big conviction under this law was a guy that went to the far east to engage with underaged boys even though prostitution and sex with minors was not illegal in the target country.

http://www.worldwideopen.org/uploads...ex_Tourist.pdf

There's a US law passed about 10 years ago that makes sex in foreign countries with underaged individuals by US citizens illegal. Originally Posted by gnadfly

I got interupted ....

There are people being prosecuted in this country for communicating with persons in this country who are not underage, but who are pretending to be underage, for the purpose of soliciting, even when the people have had no physical or in person contact with the adult pretending to be "underage" .. those people are getting 30, 40, 50, and 60 years ... TO DO ... with extended, if not life-time, intensive supervision as sex offenders.

I have good reason to believe that the Senator was at least present when the laws were voted upon, particularly the recent amendments that increased the mandatory minimums on the punishment levels, which are mandatorily stacked for each separate offense.

Do you and nut fly have first hand experience with this so you can testify?

@ExNyer....I am NOT trying to make a legal/criminal case against Menendez, but a moral/ethical case against this scumbag !

I will leave the criminal aspect up to the justice system, and the moral/ethical aspect to the court of public opinion.

And I was the first (and only one in this thread) to say Menendez should step up and tell his side of the events under oath......just like Anita Hill did.

You seem to be giving more respect to a 10-year old he said/she said allegation that is impossible to prove than to a recent allegation that could be easily proven to be true or false.

You over inflate Menendez's criminal exposure, especially if the allegations are bogus as you maintain, and possibly not even criminal at all as you opine.

Menendez is more likely to to be forced to step down; the same outcome that the Obama campaign hoped for against Romney and the left did against Thomas.

The Obama camp (and party Democrats) refused to disavow the false ad claiming Romney was responsible for a woman dying of cancer.......shameful leadership.....Obama is a piece of scum and he and the democrats deserve back what they dish out !

In the case against Menendez there is a set of contemporary facts and allegations on the table, a whole lot more than the Obama camp had in the 2001 phony lie about Romney and Ms. Soptic. A lie that the Obama camp knew was a lie but they proceeded to smear anyway !!!!!!!!! We don't know what the truth is regarding Menendez !

Also, I'm not sure what the Clarence Thomas hearings have to do with this.

Nobody knows for certain what transpired between Thomas and Anita Hill.

But at least Anita Hill made her statements under oath and we know who she is.

So we can judge for ourselves the truthfulness (or lack theroe) of her remarks. Her testimony wasn't blatantly false on its face the way the "transcript" you posted appears to be. Anita Hill's testimony did look coached or scripted - even if it wasn't true or was exaggerated.

Was a crude comment about a pubic hair on a Coke can really relevant to his knowledge of the law? No, it wasn't. Was if fair to bring it up 10 years later when he probably didn't even remembering making it? No it wasn't.

But that does relate to obvious and ridiculous falsity of her statements.

And, in case anyone has failed to notice, there is a WORLD of difference between spreading false accusations about non-criminal behavior against a Sup. Ct. nominee or presidential candidate on the one hand and spreading false accusations or false evidence about criminal behavior against an accused man on the other hand.

Thomas and Romney were never in danger of losing their liberty - only not getting jobs. Menendez is in danger of going to prison for years.

That is an order of magnitude worse. Originally Posted by ExNYer

You could make the argument that wrongfully sending Menendez to jail is less serious than preventing someone from becoming president. The damage done in one case is almost completely to an individual. The damage in the other case is arguably to the whole country. If Lincoln's character had been wrongfully defamed to such an extent that he lost his run for the presidency, the harm done by that lie would have been enormous.

If Romney was prevented from becoming president because of Obama's libelous ad campaign, the damage to the country may prove to be fatal.

If Romney was prevented from becoming president because of Obama's libelous ad campaign, the damage to the country may prove to be fatal. Originally Posted by joe bloe

It is not about the individual or the selected allegations, it is about the process and the system ... as it relates to the overall health of the country.

Irrespective of who or what Party is engaged in the activities.

Since the Senator makes decisions as to who gets punished for what ... his behavior is relevant to his position to make those decisions, one way or another (fore or against) ...

... irrespective if his behavior is technically a crime in this country or not.

It appears WhirlyTurd has been hitting the bottle pretty hard tonight! Originally Posted by bigtex

It's kinda hard to type (with accuracy) while at the same time maneuvering the yacht into the yacht club slip....