Members banned from this thread: evince and CFM


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 25

Thread: New report: Bill Clinton is a rapist, say 4 more women

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default New report: Bill Clinton is a rapist, say 4 more women



    ACTUALLY, SHE'S WEBB'S DAUGHTER, RIGHT?









    Bill Clinton is facing new accusations of sexual assault by four women while the former president was working with a billionaire playboy and flying on his private jet nicknamed Air Fuck One.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5090399/Bill-Clinton-accused-sexual-assault-four-women.html

  2. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    108,120
    Thanks
    60,501
    Thanked 35,051 Times in 26,519 Posts
    Groans
    47,393
    Groaned 4,742 Times in 4,521 Posts
    Blog Entries
    61

    Default

    .
    Last edited by cancel2 2022; 11-20-2017 at 12:20 PM.

  3. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Shape Shifter View Post
    For much of my life I have been a science writer. That means I eavesdrop on what’s going on in laboratories so I can tell interesting stories. It’s analogous to the way art critics write about art, but with a difference: we “science critics” rarely criticise. If we think a scientific paper is dumb, we just ignore it. There’s too much good stuff coming out of science to waste time knocking the bad stuff. Sure, we occasionally take a swipe at pseudoscience—homeopathy, astrology, claims that genetically modified food causes cancer, and so on. But the great thing about science is that it’s self-correcting. The good drives out the bad, because experiments get replicated and hypotheses put to the test. So a really bad idea cannot survive long in science. Or so I used to think. Now, thanks largely to climate science, I have changed my mind. It turns out bad ideas can persist in science for decades, and surrounded by myrmidons of furious defenders they can turn into intolerant dogmas. This should have been obvious to me. Lysenkoism, a pseudo-biological theory that plants (and people) could be trained to change their heritable natures, helped starve millions and yet persisted for decades in the Soviet Union, reaching its zenith under Nikita Khrushchev. The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly. What these two ideas have in common is that they had political support, which enabled them to monopolise debate. Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence. It’s tosh that scientists always try to disprove their own theories, as they sometimes claim, and nor should they. But they do try to disprove each other’s. Science has always been decentralised, so Professor Smith challenges Professor Jones’s claims, and that’s what keeps science honest. What went wrong with Lysenko and dietary fat was that in each case a monopoly was established. Lysenko’s opponents were imprisoned or killed. Nina Teicholz’s book The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keys’s dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press. Cheerleaders for alarm This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science. The “bad idea” in this case is not that climate changes, nor that human beings influence climate change; but that the impending change is sufficiently dangerous to require urgent policy responses. In the 1970s, when global temperatures were cooling, some scientists could not resist the lure of press attention by arguing that a new ice age was imminent. Others called this nonsense and the World Meteorological Organisation rightly refused to endorse the alarm. That’s science working as it should. In the 1980s, as temperatures began to rise again, some of the same scientists dusted off the greenhouse effect and began to argue that runaway warming was now likely. At first, the science establishment reacted sceptically and a diversity of views was aired. It’s hard to recall now just how much you were allowed to question the claims in those days. As Bernie Lewin reminds us in one chapter of a fascinating new book of essays called Climate Change: The Facts(hereafter The Facts), as late as 1995 when the second assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) came out with its last-minute additional claim of a “discernible human influence” on climate, Nature magazine warned scientists against overheating the debate. Since then, however, inch by inch, the huge green pressure groups have grown fat on a diet of constant but ever-changing alarm about the future. That these alarms—over population growth, pesticides, rain forests, acid rain, ozone holes, sperm counts, genetically modified crops—have often proved wildly exaggerated does not matter: the organisations that did the most exaggeration trousered the most money. In the case of climate, the alarm is always in the distant future, so can never be debunked. These huge green multinationals, with budgets in the hundreds of millions of dollars, have now systematically infiltrated science, as well as industry and media, with the result that many high-profile climate scientists and the journalists who cover them have become one-sided cheerleaders for alarm, while a hit squad of increasingly vicious bloggers polices the debate to ensure that anybody who steps out of line is punished. They insist on stamping out all mention of the heresy that climate change might not be lethally dangerous. Today’s climate science, as Ian Plimer points out in his chapter in The Facts, is based on a “pre-ordained conclusion, huge bodies of evidence are ignored and analytical procedures are treated as evidence”. Funds are not available to investigate alternative theories. Those who express even the mildest doubts about dangerous climate change are ostracised, accused of being in the pay of fossil-fuel interests or starved of funds; those who take money from green pressure groups and make wildly exaggerated statements are showered with rewards and treated by the media as neutral.
    Look what happened to a butterfly ecologist named Camille Parmesan when she published a paper on “ Climate and Species Range” that blamed climate change for threatening the Edith checkerspot butterfly with extinction in California by driving its range northward. The paper was cited more than 500 times, she was invited to speak at the White House and she was asked to contribute to the IPCC’s third assessment report. Unfortunately, a distinguished ecologist called Jim Steele found fault with her conclusion: there had been more local extinctions in the southern part of the butterfly’s range due to urban development than in the north, so only the statistical averages moved north, not the butterflies. There was no correlated local change in temperature anyway, and the butterflies have since recovered throughout their range. When Steele asked Parmesan for her data, she refused. Parmesan’s paper continues to be cited as evidence of climate change. Steele meanwhile is derided as a “denier”. No wonder a highly sceptical ecologist I know is very reluctant to break cover. Jim Hansen, recently retired as head of the Goddard Institute of Space Studies at NASA, won over a million dollars in lucrative green prizes, regularly joined protests against coal plants and got himself arrested while at the same time he was in charge of adjusting and homogenising one of the supposedly objective data sets on global surface temperature. How would he be likely to react if told of evidence that climate change is not such a big problem? Michael Oppenheimer, of Princeton University, who frequently testifies before Congress in favour of urgent action on climate change, was the Environmental Defense Fund’s senior scientist for nineteen years and continues to advise it. The EDF has assets of $209 million and since 2008 has had over $540 million from charitable foundations, plus $2.8 million in federal grants. In that time it has spent $11.3 million on lobbying, and has fifty-five people on thirty-two federal advisory committees. How likely is it that they or Oppenheimer would turn around and say global warming is not likely to be dangerous? Why is it acceptable, asks the blogger Donna Laframboise, for the IPCC to “put a man who has spent his career cashing cheques from both the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and Greenpeace in charge of its latest chapter on the world’s oceans?” She’s referring to the University of Queensland’s Ove Hoegh-Guldberg. These scientists and their guardians of the flame repeatedly insist that there are only two ways of thinking about climate change—that it’s real, man-made and dangerous (the right way), or that it’s not happening (the wrong way). But this is a false dichotomy. There is a third possibility: that it’s real, partly man-made and not dangerous. This is the “lukewarmer” school, and I am happy to put myself in this category. Lukewarmers do not think dangerous climate change is impossible; but they think it is unlikely.

    Read more: http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog...o-science.aspx
    Is this Deshian word salad in the right thread?

  4. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I might be movin to Montana
    Posts
    24,947
    Thanks
    7,072
    Thanked 10,611 Times in 7,328 Posts
    Groans
    68
    Groaned 1,966 Times in 1,782 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God bless America View Post


    ACTUALLY, SHE'S WEBB'S DAUGHTER, RIGHT?

    Bill Clinton is facing new accusations of sexual assault by four women while the former president was working with a billionaire playboy and flying on his private jet nicknamed Air Fuck One.


    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5090399/Bill-Clinton-accused-sexual-assault-four-women.html

    More hypocritical "whataboutism" from another Trump Troll.
    What kind of country have we become?

    One in which federal prosecutors can take “evidence” before a “grand jury,”

    and that grand jury can “vote to indict” a former president for 91 alleged “crimes”?

  5. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Are you denying these women's allegations, Zappacrite?

    I'll understand if you dance around the question.

    Now, dance!

    Dance to my tune.

  6. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I might be movin to Montana
    Posts
    24,947
    Thanks
    7,072
    Thanked 10,611 Times in 7,328 Posts
    Groans
    68
    Groaned 1,966 Times in 1,782 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by God bless America View Post
    Are you denying these women's allegations, Zappacrite?

    I'll understand if you dance around the question.

    Now, dance!

    Dance to my tune.
    WHOOPSIE!!

    Caught with your double standard showing, eh?

    Everyone understands.

    You ignore Trump's accusers while taking the word of Clinton's.
    What kind of country have we become?

    One in which federal prosecutors can take “evidence” before a “grand jury,”

    and that grand jury can “vote to indict” a former president for 91 alleged “crimes”?

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to ZappasGuitar For This Post:

    evince (11-20-2017)

  8. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZappasGuitar View Post
    WHOOPSIE!! Caught with your double standard showing, eh? Everyone understands. You ignore Trump's accusers while taking the word of Clinton's.
    I predicted you'd dance at my command, and I was correct, Zappacrite.

    Perhaps you can point out anything I said that indicated I ignored "Trump's accusers while taking the word of Clinton's".

    I'll understand if you can't, and just dance some more.

    Now, dance!

    Dance, I said.

    Dance to my tune.

    Dance!

  9. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    12,526
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 8,341 Times in 5,714 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 374 Times in 355 Posts

    Default

    Does Zappa lose every argument he enters, or is it just a coincidence it is every one I happen by
    This just In::: Trump indicted for living in liberals heads and not paying RENT

    C̶N̶N̶ SNN.... Shithole News Network

    Trump Is Coming back to a White House Near you

  10. The Following User Says Thank You to Getin the ring For This Post:

    Truth Detector (11-20-2017)

  11. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Getin the ring View Post
    Does Zappa lose every argument he enters, or is it just a coincidence it is every one I happen by
    He seems reluctant to address the allegations against Bill, doesn't he?

    Hilariously, he claims that he threadbans me because I won't stay on topic.


  12. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    26,547
    Thanks
    9,553
    Thanked 11,903 Times in 7,963 Posts
    Groans
    2,333
    Groaned 1,669 Times in 1,547 Posts

    Default

    So are these new accusers being paid by the same right-wing scumbags Paula Jones and the rest were paid by?
    https://i.postimg.cc/PqVCnGks/gojoe1.jpg
    C'MON MAN!!!!

  13. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    I might be movin to Montana
    Posts
    24,947
    Thanks
    7,072
    Thanked 10,611 Times in 7,328 Posts
    Groans
    68
    Groaned 1,966 Times in 1,782 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nomad View Post
    So are these new accusers being paid by the same right-wing scumbags Paula Jones and the rest were paid by?
    It's more of the same unfounded hearsay.

    You know, the same kind that Trumpkins like GBA ignore so they won't have to acknowledge their hypocrisy?
    What kind of country have we become?

    One in which federal prosecutors can take “evidence” before a “grand jury,”

    and that grand jury can “vote to indict” a former president for 91 alleged “crimes”?

  14. The Following User Says Thank You to ZappasGuitar For This Post:

    Nomad (11-20-2017)

  15. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2016
    Posts
    41,958
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 22,036 Times in 13,846 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 3,042 Times in 2,838 Posts

    Default

    They just love their anything Clinton obsession

    Given that the right has its' own parade of abusers it seems rather hypocritical to attempt to portray it as a partisan issue

  16. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Posts
    12,526
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 8,341 Times in 5,714 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 374 Times in 355 Posts

    Default

    yea, like your obsession that Trump colluded with Russia to overthrow the beast's attempt at rule

    When your party stands for something, ANYTHING, besides obstruction come back and see us, until then stfu, you just keep embarrassing yourself
    This just In::: Trump indicted for living in liberals heads and not paying RENT

    C̶N̶N̶ SNN.... Shithole News Network

    Trump Is Coming back to a White House Near you

  17. The Following User Says Thank You to Getin the ring For This Post:

    Truth Detector (11-20-2017)

  18. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Somad View Post
    So are these new accusers being paid by the same right-wing scumbags Paula Jones and the rest were paid by?
    Think so?

    Have you got some evidence that Paula Jones was actually paid to lie?

  19. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    20,584
    Thanks
    5,584
    Thanked 2,435 Times in 2,073 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 172 Times in 170 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ZappasGuitar View Post
    It's more of the same unfounded hearsay. You know, the same kind that Trumpkins like GBA ignore so they won't have to acknowledge their hypocrisy?
    Since I started this thread and have expressed no opinion on the matter, and I have participated in many others regarding allegations made against Franken, Moore, Weinstein and Clinton, how am I ignoring the subject, Zappacrite?

    What "hypocrisy" have I displayed, Zappacrite?

    I'll understand if you dance around those questions, Zappacrite.

    Now, dance!

    Dance to my tune.

Similar Threads

  1. Duterte says bill clinton is a rapist
    By tsuke in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 05-31-2017, 11:55 AM
  2. Replies: 23
    Last Post: 03-09-2017, 08:28 PM
  3. Women that Bill Clinton says he did not have sex with........
    By TheDonald in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 05-11-2016, 04:41 AM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-20-2016, 08:45 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 02-12-2016, 11:25 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •