It's kinda hard to type (with accuracy) while at the same time maneuvering the yacht into the yacht club slip.... Originally Posted by WhirlawayIf under power you have no excuses ... on the other hand if under sail you do.
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 ņeeds to be treated with the "innocent unroll Provence guilty standard "... Originally Posted by WhirlawayA major difference is that "the pubic guy" had 5 witness against him, the primary witness passed a lie detctor, Thomas refused to take a test. The "underage guy" hasn't said anything.
@ExNyer....I am NOT trying to make a legal/criminal case against Menendez, but a moral/ethical case against this scumbag !Since Clarence Thomas refused to take a lie detector test, he used his 5th amendment right.
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.So wtf are you implying here? One was an accuser and one is an accused. In one case, we're waiting for an accuser to come forward. In the other case, the accused refused a lie detector that could prove he wasn't lying.
Have you figured out why you were the only person to say what you 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.
There were 4 other witnesses to confirm her story. She passed a lie detector test.
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 ! Originally Posted by Whirlaway
Since Clarence Thomas refused to take a lie detector test, he used his 5th amendment right. Originally Posted by MunchmastermanClarence Thomas understands how unreliable polygraphs are. Anybody who takes one doesn't have a clue....or watches too much TV. But the uneducated conclusion when one doesn't take one is that they are guilty, along with asserting one's 5th amendment rights. It's like the phrase ... "lawyered up" ... means to the ignorant, they are guilty.