Rape victim to Hillary: You lied about me.

a reply to: Xenogears

Actually, I agree with you on one point ... sexism, racism, homophobia, religious bigotry ... these are all deplorable no matter where (or when) they are found.

Presenting evidence in a trial is not "vilifying them in public." Subsequently, the legal system has evolved to provide some protection to rape and abuse victims, but these were not in place in 1975.

You seem to speak from a point of experience in defense trial law. Are you an attorney? Have you represented the accused in a trial?

We're not talking about the cultures and standards in other countries or across time. Red herring.

No one is spinning anything psychologically. No one is justifying sexual abuse or rape. Hillary Rodham did none of that.

Shame on you for implying that, frankly,. Pretty much invalidates any merits in your claim.

a reply to: Gryphon66

1. You don't? That's what you said. You stated, quite clearly (do I need to quote you) that your interpretation of Clinton's actions in this trial from 1975 clearly shows she's not interested in women's issues (for the next 40 years - implied) blatta blatta. You didn't mean what you said a few posts ago?

Untrue. Please go ahead and quote me, but you might want to re-read my words first. They falsify your above statement. I believe the case can legitimately raise questions about her commitment to women's issues, but I don't believe that the case proves she isn't committed to women's issues.

And I wrote:

Anything she's done since, for women, is more important in establishing her bona fides as an advocate for women.

So your above statement isn't correct.

"For you" ... fair enough. You have an opinion just as we all do. You're contradicting what you just said. You just told us you DON'T think that her actions from '75 take away from her decades long career of advocating for women and children, and now you're repeating the charge. Frankly, you seem confused in your "opinion."

Huh? I think you're confused. To clear up your confusion you might want to work at not reading into my words things that aren't actually there. Mistakes are likely to happen when you try and pigeon hole people.

3. The quotes I linked deal with the specific quotes and positions regarding abortions in the case of rape. You couldn't ask a woman to carry a child to term that was the product of rape, but you're tacitly supporting those that do.

As I've mentioned in another thread, a vote for a particular candidate isn't a endorsement of their every position, statement or action. There isn't anything "tacit" about it. I would openly vote for candidate who opposes abortion in the case of rape, even though I disagree with forcing a woman to carry a child of rape to term against her will, provided that I agreed with them on issues that I assign a higher priority to at this time and in the absence of my "perfect" candidate.

Look Gryphon, you made a statement about people on the right favoring rapists over the victim. I don't see things that way, but on the chance that I missed something, that there might be evidence I'm unaware of that would alter my opinion, I asked you how you reached that conclusion. You provided quotes about abortion in the case of rape. Two separate issues. I find your equation: opposition to abortion, even in the case of rape, equals favor towards rapists over the victim invalid.

The statement that the right wing favors the rapist over the victim is nothing more than an example of some of the lowest quality dialogue, thinking and falsehoods being thrown around during this election.

One of your quotes was something to the effect of a woman should just lay back and enjoy it. Repulsive. I'm sure you'd agree, but what you don't seem to see, or just aren't willing to acknowledge is, that your statement about the right wing favoring rapists over victims is just the flip side of the same coin. It's equally repulsive.

a reply to: imwilliam

Right. You believe that doing her legal duty in her first case 40 years ago somehow "brings into question" everything she's done since.

More weasel words.

I don't need to quote you ... you keep repeating and rephrasing it when you're called out on the contradictions.

I've stated previously that you seem confused, you're expressing a muddle here apparently in your own mind ... and you're still doing it here.

The person you are voting for is not the topic here. More muddling, more red herring.

You asked for examples that backed up my comment; I gave them. Republican positions on rape are not the topic here.

The "lowest quality dialogue"? That's deeply ironic. You're posting in a thread supporting the arguments that are dragging the sad story of the rape of a young girl into the public arena ONCE AGAIN for no other reason than to score political points against Clinton ... and you want to castigate me for the quality of the dialogue???

You've made weasling statements repeatedly here that try to claim that you're supporting Kathy, but are really merely circuitous attacks on Hillary Clinton.

Do I find that repulsive? You betcha.

(PS, if you want to discuss the history of the Republican approach to rape and women's issues, please start a thread, I'll be glad to respond to you ON TOPIC in it.)

a reply to: Gryphon66


Are you being purposely obtuse?

Right. You believe that doing her legal duty in her first case 40 years ago somehow "brings into question" everything she's done since.

No. In an argument about whether or not Hillary is genuinely a committed advocate for women's issues, I think her defense of a rapist could legitimately raise questions about said commitment. There's nothing illogical or biased about raising those questions. I can imagine many responses Hillary could put forward that would answer those questions satisfactorily. I don't see much value in this case, standing alone, for making a case that Hillary isn't a genuine advocate for women. And as I've stated before, in an argument about whether or not Hillary is a genuine advocate for women I'd assign a greater weight to her more recent positions/statements/actions than I do to the case in question.

Unlike you, I just don't believe that anyone; yes, even Hillary, who appears to be among your herd of scared cows, is above question or examination.

I don't need to quote you ... you keep repeating and rephrasing it when you're called out on the contradictions.

So you did re-read my comments and realized they falsified your statements about those comments. Nice part about a board like this, where people can rather easily look back and see if someone actually said something there accused of saying, is that it throws a wrench into the whole straw man tactic, a tactic that is clearly one of your favs.

The person you are voting for is not the topic here. More muddling, more red herring.

Well, actually, you took it in that direction. I understand you don't like the direction it ended up going in and so now want to call a foul, not very intellectually honest, but understandable.

You asked for examples that backed up my comment; I gave them. .

You put forward examples that don't prove your point, that frankly aren't even valid evidence for your statement. Again, a strong anti abortion stance does not equal favor towards the rapist over the victim.

Republican positions on rape are not the topic here

You mean now that your statement about the right wing favoring the rapists over the victims has been show for what it is and demolished? I mean you are the one that brought it up and you seemed willing enough to discuss it, you know, up until it became obvious you weren't going to be able to defend it.

The "lowest quality dialogue"? That's deeply ironic. You're posting in a thread supporting the arguments that are dragging the sad story of the rape of a young girl into the public arena ONCE AGAIN for no other reason than to score political points against Clinton ... and you want to castigate me for the quality of the dialogue???

There's nothing ironic in pointing out that someone is engaging in the same sort of thinking/dialogue that they're condemning others for. The irony is in their engagement in that behavior.

Some might consider pointing out the weaknesses of thinking, logic and etc. as a favor. Clearly you don't like having your shortcomings pointed out. That's ok, public forums aren't for everyone. You might be more comfortable writing a blog, you know, with the comments bit turned off.

You've made weasling statements repeatedly here that try to claim that you're supporting Kathy, but are really merely circuitous attacks on Hillary Clinton.

No, I'm just able to maintain some level of objectivity on the matter and to see things as something that is most truthfully addressed outside of an over simplified binary framework.

More weasel words.

lol. Well, I haven't changed my position here, though I have elaborated in an attempt to help you understand something you're obviously struggling with. But I'll take your repeated straw men, off topic pleas and now name calling as you conceding defeat.

Better luck next time, Gryphon

I listened to the tapes dozens of times, not the Breitbart inspired drivel that was posted. Are you going to pull up Whitewater after this? Frightening that this is still being peddled like this.

a reply to: imwilliam

In an argument about whether or not Hillary is genuinely a committed advocate for women's issues, I think her defense of a rapist could legitimately raise questions about said commitment.

I think it shows her commitment to the Constitution, "innocent until proven guilty", "everyone is entitled to a defense, to confront their accusers and to legal representation". Gender doesn't "trump" those rights. Women's issues don't "trump" the constitution.

a reply to: imwilliam

Wow, that's a lot of words to say "I'm right and you're wrong."

LOL.

I find those that have to declare victory for themselves ... are usually the ones losing.

Best.

originally posted by: SmashnGrab
a reply to: NerdGoddess

There was plenty of words after that first sentence to give you an idea about what I was asking. Lol

I'm sorry did I ask you a question or something?

I don't see any of my posts directed at you maybe I missed something?

-Alee

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Realtruth


No facts. No counter argument. Nothing. Let me know if you want to debate the issues.

The reason that I personally will not ever respond to you, after this post, is because you lack proper debating skills. You constantly attack ATS members with ad hominem attacks, which are the epitome of valid debate responses.

Good luck to you

a reply to: Gryphon66

I will ignore your ad hom attacks, and post further evidence
that Hillary Rodham chose to take this case, she chose
to malign the young girl. And please, stop with your horrific
use of the victims name, which was not widely known
until she decided to go public with her accusations against HR.

In Rodhams first recorded commentary, she talks candidly about taking
the case voluntarily as a favor for a friend.

In Clinton’s first recorded commentary on the case, she said she took the case as a favor for a local prosecutor. In taped conversations that took place in the early 1980s, Clinton told reporter Roy Reed that she was approached by a prosecutor who told her the rapist wanted to be defended by a female lawyer.

“A prosecutor called me years ago, said that he had a guy who was accused of rape and the guy wanted a woman lawyer—would I do it as a favor to him?” said Clinton in audio first released by the Washington Free Beacon in 2014.
freebeacon.com...

You can listen to the audio here:
freebeacon.com...

And here:



She took the case intentionally, and then determined to malign
the victim to win. Part of the maligning was her sworn affidavit
accusing the victim of wanting to be raped.

Her actions were reprehensible, and should be looked upon
as intentional, she is a sick enabler of violence against women.

Furthermore, she her law license was suspended afterwards,
as she failed to maintain her required education, and failed
to submit proof of such.

Clinton was suspended from the Arkansas bar in March of 2002 for failing to keep up with continuing legal education requirements, according to Arkansas judicial records. freebeacon.com...

attorneyinfo.aoc.arkansas.gov...

a reply to: justneo

It's what is real.
You seem intent on making assumptions based on false facts.
What you are doing is not evaluating a candidate. You are perpetuating rape culture by blaming women for the perpetration of a crime. In this case you are trying to make claims about Clinton, that she is a perpetrator. She had nothing to do with perpetrating this crime.
If you want to see where she stands on women's rights, you should evaluate her based on her voting record. The link is not to some biased website. It lists the facts of her votes on each law.
That's not spam. It is a rebuttal to the tripe you are pedaling.
If you want to psychoanalyze Clinton, do it based on her record as a politician when she was an elected representative.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Xenogears

Actually, I agree with you on one point ... sexism, racism, homophobia, religious bigotry ... these are all deplorable no matter where (or when) they are found.

Presenting evidence in a trial is not "vilifying them in public." Subsequently, the legal system has evolved to provide some protection to rape and abuse victims, but these were not in place in 1975.

You seem to speak from a point of experience in defense trial law. Are you an attorney? Have you represented the accused in a trial?

We're not talking about the cultures and standards in other countries or across time. Red herring.

No one is spinning anything psychologically. No one is justifying sexual abuse or rape. Hillary Rodham did none of that.

Shame on you for implying that, frankly,. Pretty much invalidates any merits in your claim.

I didn't imply that just comparing, and showing how saying something's legal or their job does not excuse it. Oh it was just rome the boy enjoyed their teachers actions. Uhmmm, doesn't excuse it, and if a roman was alive today we wouldn't give him a free pass.

There's a reason why everyone jokes about hating lawyers, and you should know why.

a reply to: burntheships

You can ignore ad hominem "attacks' only when I make them, until then you're merely continuing the same dishonesty your posts have displayed the entire time. Parroting another poster's victim stance won't do much for your argument.

Neither will cycling back through the tired arguments and Youtube video that have already been posted five or six times.

Clinton's statements about the case have been verified by the Prosecutor in the case. She was asked to take the case on, she took it on, discovered what a crap show it was, asked to be released, had the judge deny that request ... so, she did her job.

I've listened to the audio and the video repeatedly. I've read the transcript. I know what it says.

And I know what you're saying which is the same thing you've chanted over and over.

Her licence to PRACTICE IN ARKANSAS was suspended in 2002. Let's see ... what else was happened in 2002 ... oh THAT's right, she was in the second year of her term as a United States Senator from New York ... in Washington DC.

Keep throwing silly pointless "issues" up until something sticks, eh? Problem is, it's just sliding down the wall.

#tragic

a reply to: Realtruth

Sorry you feel that way, but, no, I haven't attacked you, I've attacked your arguments. I don't know you. It seems rather than actually making arguments, you'd rather talk about making them.

The facts in this case are pointedly clear. If you choose not to deal with the facts, and instead, want to offer spurious opinions of what debate is ... I can only say that I'll look forward to silence.

IF, however, you want to address the issue here, factually, I'm here for your argument ABOUT THE ISSUE.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: imwilliam

In an argument about whether or not Hillary is genuinely a committed advocate for women's issues, I think her defense of a rapist could legitimately raise questions about said commitment.

I think it shows her commitment to the Constitution, "innocent until proven guilty", "everyone is entitled to a defense, to confront their accusers and to legal representation". Gender doesn't "trump" those rights. Women's issues don't "trump" the constitution.

No. her foreign donations, her gun policies and her lying under oath

Shows her commitment to the constitution

a reply to: Gryphon66

More hypocrisy. You literally used every ad hominem in the book in the fist 4 pages to defend the defense of a 12 yr old child rapist.

a reply to: Xenogears

The fact that it is a defense attorney's job to represent their client doesn't "excuse it"? well, then, you're against the American system of justice, because it's a fundamental right of the accused to receive the best defense possible.

That's what Clinton's job was; that's what she did.

originally posted by: ssenerawa
a reply to: Gryphon66

More hypocrisy. You literally used every ad hominem in the book in the fist 4 pages to defend the defense of a 12 yr old child rapist.

Why are you chiming in to talk about me? I'm not the topic.

I presented the facts, a point which seems totally lost on most here.

As does basic syntax.

I'll be glad to go through the facts again for you.

Clinton was appointed to defend Taylor.

When Clinton discovered the status of the case, she desperately tried to be removed from representing Taylor. The Judge refused.

Clinton is not the one that destroyed vital evidence, that was the police investigators.

Clinton is not the one that pushed for the plea deal to be accepted, that was Kathy's mother, who was embarrassed by the whole thing.

Clinton is not the one that commuted the agreed upon sentence on the lesser charge from five years to time served, that was the judge in the case.

Clinton did her job as a defense attorney. That's the beginning and end of the story ...

Oh, except for those who want to use the story of Kathy Shelton for political gain. That's a special kind of deplorable.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

Clinton's statements about the case have been verified by the Prosecutor in the case. She was asked to take the case on, she took it on, discovered what a crap show it was, asked to be released, had the judge deny that request

I'll be glad to go through the facts again for you.

Clinton was appointed to defend Taylor.

When Clinton discovered the status of the case, she desperately tried to be removed from representing Taylor. The Judge refused.

Could you make up your mind? Was she asked or was she appointed?

a reply to: Bone75

It is my understanding that ...

She was asked by the judge to take the case on.

She agreed, at which point, the judge appointed her as replacement counsel.

She then, after finding out the details of the case, requested that the judge excuse her from this service.

The judge didn't.

Glad to clear that up for you.