Words are worth 13x more than sexual abuse

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

So then your position is that because Biden didn't rape Reade that she shouldn't pursue?

Are you saying Biden didn't rape Reade?

a reply to: quintessentone

At this point, no one is claiming he did.

Yet, that's not what I said. Here is what I said:

So then your position is that because Biden didn't rape Reade that she shouldn't pursue?

a reply to: network dude

Only if your name is E Jean Carroll.....these people are sick.

Let us not forget Clinton also....someone who lied to the American public point blank on TV and still nothing happened.

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

At this point, no one is claiming he did.

Yet, that's not what I said. Here is what I said:

So then your position is that because Biden didn't rape Reade that she shouldn't pursue?

Yes, someone here on your thread did claim Joey raped his aid. How quickly you forget what you want to forget. Hence the ensuing discussion rape vs sexual assault vs Joe vs Donald.

From Network Dude's quote a few pages back:

please do. So this is a one for one kind of thing with you? Because you believe Trump raped his wife, it's cool for Joey to rape his aid. Or did you mean something totally different and just aren't very good at communication?

And now I've been asking for proof as to where did this Reade woman claim rape?

originally posted by: matafuchs
Let us not forget Clinton also....someone who lied to the American public point blank on TV and still nothing happened.

Anyone else you can dig up -- to distract from Trump?

This is now -- today -- current.

a reply to: quintessentone

Yes, someone here on your thread did claim Joey raped his aid. How quickly you forget what you want to forget. Hence the ensuing discussion rape vs sexual assault vs Joe vs Donald.

Dude is a big enough man to defend himself and his comments. (If you can't see the irony placed upon you by him doing that, it's now doubly funny)

And now I've been asking for proof as to where did this Reade woman claim rape?

Point being is that there isn't any nor was that the claim. The claim is that Biden digitally penetrated Reade. Which by YOUR VERY OWN standards and pages of quotes is rape.....

So I ask yet again:

So then your position is that because Biden didn't rape Reade that she shouldn't pursue?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: matafuchs
Let us not forget Clinton also....someone who lied to the American public point blank on TV and still nothing happened.

Anyone else you can dig up -- to distract from Trump?

This is now -- today -- current.

So it's not about rape victims....

It's about your non existent emotional energy that you totally do not waste on Trump.

a reply to: JinMI

I responded to you saying that nobody was saying Reade was claiming rape, I provided you with proof somebody was and on your own thread too. Just check your bias at the door next time and we'll be good. Oh the irony.

I said the judge and the legal definition of rape includes digital penetration, the jury does not have to agree on definition.

So Reade can bring charges against Biden on whatever she wants, but the jury can decide otherwise. And she should if she feels she has been sexually assaulted. Did she file suit?

a reply to: quintessentone

I responded to you saying that nobody was saying Reade was claiming rape, I provided you with proof somebody was and on your own thread too. Just check your bias at the door next time and we'll be good. Oh the irony.

So you didn't get it. How awesome!

So Reade can bring charges against Biden on whatever she wants,

Fantastic, thank you.

But why is she being demonized?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

I responded to you saying that nobody was saying Reade was claiming rape, I provided you with proof somebody was and on your own thread too. Just check your bias at the door next time and we'll be good. Oh the irony.

So you didn't get it. How awesome!

So Reade can bring charges against Biden on whatever she wants,

Fantastic, thank you.

But why is she being demonized?

Wow your off-topic tangents are weird. Provide sources of this demonization and we can go from there.

a reply to: quintessentone

Sure.

Care to list some of those independent journalists so I can make sure to provide sources you agree with?

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Sure.

Care to list some of those independent journalists so I can make sure to provide sources you agree with?

My independent sources depend on the subject matter and I mostly see who they interview not from other journalists they borrowed their stories.

So you use your own sources and I'll see who they interviewed to get a handle on whether or not it is really independent.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Sure.

Care to list some of those independent journalists so I can make sure to provide sources you agree with?

My independent sources depend on the subject matter and I mostly see who they interview not from other journalists they borrowed their stories.

So you use your own sources and I'll see who they interviewed to get a handle on whether or not it is really independent.

YES!

I go straight to the source -- who ever authors the article. AND THEN -- I research that writer's history for bias.

Almost all sites pull from the same sources -- and then put their spin on it.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Sure.

Care to list some of those independent journalists so I can make sure to provide sources you agree with?

My independent sources depend on the subject matter and I mostly see who they interview not from other journalists they borrowed their stories.

So you use your own sources and I'll see who they interviewed to get a handle on whether or not it is really independent.

YES!

I go straight to the source -- who ever authors the article. AND THEN -- I research that writer's history for bias.

Almost all sites pull from the same sources -- and then put their spin on it.

This is something many here on ATS still need to learn obviously.

a reply to: quintessentone

I'll use a lefty source.

Thanks again for declining to back up your claims and assertions.


I'm really having a great time and to see Annee lapping it all up is just icing on the cake.

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Sure.

Care to list some of those independent journalists so I can make sure to provide sources you agree with?

My independent sources depend on the subject matter and I mostly see who they interview not from other journalists they borrowed their stories.

So you use your own sources and I'll see who they interviewed to get a handle on whether or not it is really independent.

YES!

I go straight to the source -- who ever authors the article. AND THEN -- I research that writer's history for bias.

Almost all sites pull from the same sources -- and then put their spin on it.

This is something many here on ATS still need to learn obviously.

Obviously!!!

But then -- also -- there are those who see in "creative technicolor" when it's factually black and white.

And those -- who are never wrong -- so they move the goalposts.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Sure.

Care to list some of those independent journalists so I can make sure to provide sources you agree with?

My independent sources depend on the subject matter and I mostly see who they interview not from other journalists they borrowed their stories.

So you use your own sources and I'll see who they interviewed to get a handle on whether or not it is really independent.

YES!

I go straight to the source -- who ever authors the article. AND THEN -- I research that writer's history for bias.

Almost all sites pull from the same sources -- and then put their spin on it.

This is something many here on ATS still need to learn obviously.

Obviously!!!

But then -- also -- there are those who see in "creative technicolor" when it's factually black and white.

And those -- who are never wrong -- so they move the goalposts.

I think that is "creative bias technicolor starring Donald Trump playing the role of the saviour".

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Sure.

Care to list some of those independent journalists so I can make sure to provide sources you agree with?

My independent sources depend on the subject matter and I mostly see who they interview not from other journalists they borrowed their stories.

So you use your own sources and I'll see who they interviewed to get a handle on whether or not it is really independent.

YES!

I go straight to the source -- who ever authors the article. AND THEN -- I research that writer's history for bias.

Almost all sites pull from the same sources -- and then put their spin on it.

This is something many here on ATS still need to learn obviously.

Obviously!!!

But then -- also -- there are those who see in "creative technicolor" when it's factually black and white.

And those -- who are never wrong -- so they move the goalposts.

I think that is "creative bias technicolor starring Donald Trump playing the role of the saviour".

Uses a lot of hair gel to keep that tarnished halo in place and glowing for the gullible.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: quintessentone

originally posted by: JinMI
a reply to: quintessentone

Sure.

Care to list some of those independent journalists so I can make sure to provide sources you agree with?

My independent sources depend on the subject matter and I mostly see who they interview not from other journalists they borrowed their stories.

So you use your own sources and I'll see who they interviewed to get a handle on whether or not it is really independent.

YES!

I go straight to the source -- who ever authors the article. AND THEN -- I research that writer's history for bias.

Almost all sites pull from the same sources -- and then put their spin on it.

This is something many here on ATS still need to learn obviously.

Obviously!!!

But then -- also -- there are those who see in "creative technicolor" when it's factually black and white.

And those -- who are never wrong -- so they move the goalposts.

I think that is "creative bias technicolor starring Donald Trump playing the role of the saviour".

Uses a lot of hair gel to keep that tarnished halo in place and glowing for the gullible.

There are none so blinded by that halo as those who do not want to see the truth. Shiny things. Look here not there.