Snuck vs Sneaked (Page 6 of 8)

The quotes I used are intact (as written). I may have been selective upon which quotes I included within any particular reply, but that's only as you have also done within your replies throughout this entire thread.

I'm not sure upon the mis-quote to use here; the one about the goose and the gander or 'The lady he doth protest too much, methinks"

Anyway, I've never claimed that I'm not a bad person. I've certainly never claimed that I'm a good one. You identified me as a twat early on in the proceedings. I don't contest your appraisal of me. You label me a twat, you get a twat.

The sad thing is that from within your xenophobic, sexist, racist diatribe, your arrogance blinds you from your own   
supercilious behaviour and self-righteous attitude. That is what makes you a bad person.

Is it? IS IT?

What a complete moron!!!

"OPPORTUNITIES?"? Really, njc?

Female bodies are NOT opportunities. That opportunity does not exist. I don't care what she's wearing, how she smiles at you, or how quickly your moron paycheck makes you think your penis grows. Keep your hands to yourself unless she says VERY PLAINLY that you may proceed. It's no more difficult to do that than it is to NOT steal the diamond bracelet in the display case because the jeweler turned her back and you were therefore TEMPTED.

A murderer, a child molester, or a thief couldn't possibly get away with such a defense. Yet it remains a steadfast excuse for the theft of the female body, in 2016.

A woman of a self-identified undecided's Fox focus group stood up and actually said that any man who would say those things even in private is wrong. That is what I mean. A kind of thought-control policing. This is a minority opinion, but one held within all sectors of information transmission media: education, news & entertainment, government. That is where Liberalism has grown from its English-Enlightenment roots and starts with Locke and his precept that government's function is to reach for virtue. The distinction in natural-rights theory from Hobbes to Locke was that Hobbes was concerned about behavior in Civil Society and Locke was concerned about the perfection of Civil Society.

At which point, by action, the braggadocio, then and only then, becomes relevant.  But through the last 40 years of Trump's life, no such accusation ever came forward until three weeks before a Presidential election (and uncorroborated) - unlike for Bill Clinton, and, by the way, for Bill Cosby where all along through decades there had been some accusations of indecent conduct.

You've transitioned from mischievous internet trolling to pathologic internet trolling when you deny facts already demonstrated. You deleted the line to which I responded and alleged that I must have been responding to something else.  And, of course, you omitted it here again.

re:

Charles, you are funny. A real wit.

And I know the role that you crave is to play supercilious ring-master to a circus full of sycophantic minions.

But it isn't going to happen mate. Not here.

However, please understand that I am not contesting or challenging you for the alpha-narcissist role upon this site.

Calm down. You are safe. The title is yours and rightly so. There is no threat.

Now we will see how well he holds up under the ordeal. It is the price one pays for locker room talk.

The assertion that nothing has shown up over the past 40 years until the current round being decried as politically motivated is simply incorrect as any reasonably competent research would show. But even if that were not the case, the fact remains that most if not all the current allegations were told to others at the time and thus not made up now simply to harm Trump's candidacy for president. Furthermore, the only proven allegations against Bill Clinton were with consenting partners, a big difference from what Trump admits to on tape. There is no "locker room" defense as Trump was no where near a locker room and in fact was in a business setting. Additionally, this so-called normal locker room banter is unheard of in locker rooms. Not a single person has come forward to authenticate such locker room banter admitting sexual assault, though several prominent athletes have come forward to challenge it. There is no defense for Trump or those who support him on this count. Take care. Vern

There's a vast difference between the often bewildering map of consensual romance, and this. That you would conflate the allegations against Trump with romance is highly disturbing. You referenced his power (money) as a viable excuse for such allegations? (Have you also rationalized this?)

(Actually, I had a whole long post written out in response to your remarks above, but I've just deleted it. Why am I even engaging with you on this topic? Anyone with honor knows exactly what I meant.)

Keep fighting the good fight, njc. Peace in the form of "not clanging the bell lest it gong", and the right to freely grope. Good stuff.

US law recognizes that an employer is in a position of power over the employee, and creates a much higher hurdle to demonstrate that the consent was free.  Surely that hurdle must be even higher when the employer occupies an executive office of government.

Corra, even dance clubs would cease to function under strict verbal affirmative consent.

Mainly because there is no reason to believe these allegations are true, and losing the votes of such women is irrelevant.

Actually, he has done what he can do and that's all. Any accuser is immunized from libel laws because of his candidacy.  There is no sense to believe any of the allegations from those who cannot suffer consequences for lying. Through the last 40 years of Trump's life, no such accusation ever came forward until three weeks before a Presidential election against one who cannot sue for slander.

Dill Carver wrote: