Joe Biden and #MeToo

[CO. Hoosier]

The most pronounced characteristic you and Trump share is narcissism. The internets and social media are bloated with opinions. Your butthurt view on the Ignore function is one of a million. I’m not surprised in the least posters make a time-saving decision to declutter the threads with Ignore.

Btw, speaking of mischaracterizing, Marvin never bragged about anything here as far as I noticed.

And speaking of sinking to low levels, you sure seem to have ignored your own standards on ad hominem frequently in recent posts, including this one. Ad hominem isn’t necessarily overt and blatant. Sneaky just makes it covertly hostile.

I post occasional ad hominems. Never denied it. But I think I do so with much less frequency than you, for example. I think the one you picked out is my first directed to marv. Disagreements with him became much more difficult because he now often misstates what I say.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What did Trump do in February and early March? Well, except for bragging how smart he is and how stupid Obama is.

Link

Broken record time. Trump appointed the task force at the end of January. Fauci, a member, has said often that Trump has ordered every task force recommendation and Trump has never ordered something the task force rejected.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

And yet THAT is what you discussed in the post I responded to? So you post about Biden's "history", and then when I respond to demonstrate that Trump is a worse example of the conduct you Specifically posted about, you suddenly change your tune?

I don't really care who you vote for or why, but why even bring up your opinion of Biden's "conduct " and pretend like it matters? If you're going to admit that Trump's conduct is as bad, if not worse but you still support Trump, then why would you mention behavior as a qualification in the first place? We all know Trump's a slimeball- to some of us that matters, to you it (apparently) doesn't...

I will give you credit for at least responding. We all know that Van never will...

Well, I post about a lot of things that aren’t necessarily important to me, but are a popular topic of discussion. This whole “me too” business mostly falls in that category.

 

[TommyCracker]

Back on topic, when this came out my first reaction was 'f#$k'.

Waiting to see if the mainstream pick it up first to see if it's legit.

It it is, I agree with Marvin. Dems need to hold themselves to a higher standard and possibly go to a brokered convention.

 

[UncleMark]

Back on topic, when this came out my first reaction was 'f#$k'.

Waiting to see if the mainstream pick it up first to see if it's legit.

It it is, I agree with Marvin. Dems need to hold themselves to a higher standard and possibly go to a brokered convention.

I'm really torn. While I agree with you and Marv in principle, this accusation is so far beyond the pale that it seems to me it needs to be given special scrutiny. Yeah, Joe has probably been more handsy than he should have been, too "familiar", too prone to violate women's space. But this is nothing of the sort -- this is digital rape. Maybe I'm an awful person, but I'm having a hard time putting much credence in this. If this is all it takes to torpedo a frontrunner for the Presidency, what might the future hold?

 

[iuwclurker]

I post occasional ad hominems. Never denied it. But I think I do so with much less frequency than you, for example. I think the one you picked out is my first directed to marv. Disagreements with him became much more difficult because he now often misstates what I say.

No one knows what you post because you intentionally make vague or ambiguous posts. You oughta wanna congratulate him for trying.

My posts about you are rarely ad hominem. Truth isn’t ad hominem. Pointing out faulty logic isn’t ad hominem. Pointing out bad faith posting likewise isn’t.

 

[iuwclurker]

I'm really torn. While I agree with you and Marv in principle, this accusation is so far beyond the pale that it seems to me it needs to be given special scrutiny. Yeah, Joe has probably been more handsy than he should have been, too "familiar", too prone to violate women's space. But this is nothing of the sort -- this is digital rape. Maybe I'm an awful person, but I'm having a hard time putting much credence in this. If this is all it takes to torpedo a frontrunner for the Presidency, what might the future hold?

Off-topic but what’s the modern take on the Immaculate Conception? Drug rape by a man or rape by God?

 

[UncleMark]

Off-topic but what’s the modern take on the Immaculate Conception? Drug rape by a man or rape by God?

WTF???

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I'm really torn. While I agree with you and Marv in principle, this accusation is so far beyond the pale that it seems to me it needs to be given special scrutiny. Yeah, Joe has probably been more handsy than he should have been, too "familiar", too prone to violate women's space. But this is nothing of the sort -- this is digital rape. Maybe I'm an awful person, but I'm having a hard time putting much credence in this. If this is all it takes to torpedo a frontrunner for the Presidency, what might the future hold?

There are some very serious discrepancies between her two stories. Explaining those discrepancies will go a long way to figuring out whether or not this rings true.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

WTF???

Like most, he apparently doesn't know what the Immaculate Conception actually is.

 

[iuwclurker]

WTF???

Hey, don’t ask me. I just type what my mind generates.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Like most, he apparently doesn't know what the Immaculate Conception actually is.

What does Franco Harris' touchdown have to do with it?

 

[iuwclurker]

Like most, he apparently doesn't know what the Immaculate Conception actually is.

Probably not. I ignorantly assume it means God somehow created (“conceived”) Jesus in her womb...

Even now I’m not going tp google it. But I’ll Read your explanation if you post it.

 

[iuwclurker]

WTF???

I mean, there’s usually some factual history to most legends and stories, right? So...how did she really conceive?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Probably not. I ignorantly assume it means God somehow created (“conceived”) Jesus in her womb...

Even now I’m not going tp google it. But I’ll Read your explanation if you post it.

The Immaculate Conception is the name for the special grace God granted to Mary at her own conception, so that she would be born without the stain of sin, on account of the role she would play as the bearer of Christ.

 

[UncleMark]

There are some very serious discrepancies between her two stories. Explaining those discrepancies will go a long way to figuring out whether or not this rings true.

Thanks. I don't feel so awful now.

 

[iuwclurker]

The Immaculate Conception is the name for the special grace God granted to Mary at her own conception, so that she would be born without the stain of sin, on account of the role she would play as the bearer of Christ.

What stain of sin? For having had sex? For giving birth?

 

[meridian]

No one knows what you post because you intentionally make vague or ambiguous posts. You oughta wanna congratulate him for trying.

My posts about you are rarely ad hominem. Truth isn’t ad hominem. Pointing out faulty logic isn’t ad hominem. Pointing out bad faith posting likewise isn’t.

Give him a break! Maybe CO is a vague and ambiguous person.

 

[iuwclurker]

Give him a break! Maybe CO is a vague and ambiguous person.

True enough, living in Colorado Rocky Mountain High. Break granted.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

What stain of sin? For having had sex? For giving birth?

All sin.

 

[iuwclurker]

All sin.

Oh wait, I just noticed her own conception. In other words, we’re all born with original sin ( whatever that is...) but she wasn’t. Shit, is that stupid. What’s that got to do with Jesus?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Oh wait, I just noticed her own conception. In other words, we’re all born with original sin ( whatever that is...) but she wasn’t. Shit, is that stupid. What’s that got to do with Jesus?

It was his merit as her son that earned her this special grace.

(Remember, God exists outside of time, so there are no time travel paradoxes.)

 

[i'vegotwinners]

A year ago, it was common to read about women complaining that Biden was creepy. He did things, touching, sniffing, etc., that made women uncomfortable. One of the women who complained about him has come back into the public eye. Her story now is quite different than it was last year (according to her, she did not feel safe coming forward with this particular allegation at the time), as she now accuses him of flat out Trump-style sexual assault (trigger warning: it's fairly graphic). According to The Intercept, she has been denied support from Time's Up Legal Defense Fund on the grounds that, as a candidate for federal office, funding accusations against him could threaten the fund's non-profit status, according to the National Women's Law Center, which organized the fund.

I don't remember much about the story last year. I really wasn't paying any specific attention to Biden, since he wasn't a candidate at the time, and there was a whole army of creepy men to talk about. Apparently, she didn't do herself any favors by making some pro-Putin comments.

Still, you have to wonder if Biden's statements last fall are going to cause him some grief now.

Hunter Biden, the big banks, big telecom/media, and credit card companies, say vote Joe, and don't believe anything other than Joe is wonderful.

 

[dbmhoosier]