XPost: talk.politics.guns, alt.rush-limbaugh, talk.politics.misc   
   XPost: alt.politics.republicans   
   From: me4guns@removethis.this2.spam.centurylink.net   
      
   "Governor Swill"  wrote in message   
   news:2nop0dlb4k3l44uk3jdct3pc63mvbl6nbq@4ax.com...   
   > On Tue, 14 Nov 2017 00:23:08 -0500, "Scout"   
   >  wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>"Governor Swill"  wrote in message   
   >>news:a8qk0dtg1dboochmhi63sm5gvi63p8cph3@4ax.com...   
   >>> On Thu, 9 Nov 2017 23:54:55 -0500, "Scout"   
   >>>  wrote:   
   >>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>   
   >>>>"Bradley K. Sherman"  wrote in message   
   >>>>news:ou3296$pm2$1@reader2.panix.com...   
   >>>>> Scout  wrote:   
   >>>>>> ...   
   >>>>>>Agreed. Why is it that it seems like all sorts of crimes now have no   
   >>>>>>statute   
   >>>>>>of limitations on them?   
   >>>>>> ...   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Another right-wing nutjob supporting child molestation.   
   >>>>   
   >>>>No, explain to me why for 7 long years this fully legal adult said   
   >>>>NOTHING.....   
   >>>   
   >>> For the same reasons child sexual abuse is not reported.  The victims   
   >>> aren't usually believed and the agony they endure going through a   
   >>> trial process, which usually acquits the perpetrator, aren't worth it.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>Well, then, they shouldn't be expected to be listened too after waiting   
   >>even   
   >>longer......   
   >>   
   >>If you wouldn't speak up then.....your creditability factor is a whole lot   
   >>less now unless you have PHYSICAL evidence to support your claim.   
   >>   
   >>Say a sealed letter you wrote at the time, or some other sort of   
   >>substantive   
   >>support for the claim. Oh, and someone else alleging to support the   
   >>allegations is just piling more assertions on top of another assertion.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >   
   > Yup.  Piling on, hoping for a bit of revenge against the perp.   
      
   Ah, so you can prove that he's guilty then?   
      
   ....or are we simply accepting unsupported accusations of events from   
   decades ago, that magically appeared just weeks before the election?   
      
   Hmmm....   
      
   But tell me, if he decides to sue them for damages, and this impacted his   
   professional standing and as such he doesn't have to show monetary loses, do   
   you think they would enjoy having to pay him for the rest of their lives   
   because they couldn't back up their accusations in court?   
      
      
      
   > Not   
   > that it'll keep him out of office, but it can sure mess up his day and   
   > sidetrack his campaign.   
      
   And tell me why you think that objective wouldn't be worth a few people   
   telling lies to make happen?   
      
   Oh, that's right, we're suppose to believe everyone, except the person being   
   accused.   
      
      
   > But this is the deep south.  Cousins marrying cousins is no big deal   
   > (which may affect how they vote down there) so no reason to condemn a   
   > man for hitting on teenage girls, right?   
      
   Sorry, but despite your bigotry it certainly is a big deal.   
      
   So, now that we've exposed you as a bigot, tell me again why anyone should   
   believe you, or your support of others who make unsupported accusations?   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)