Al Gore Accused of Attempted Rape

That's because the guy who forged the documents admitted it when CBS asked him. I don't think giving made up documents to a reporter is a felony although Bush could have sued in civil court for libel.

Back to Gore, if there is any Democrat who seems to meet your "love of country" standard, it would be Gore. Clean record, history of family service, didn't approve of Clinton's escapades, etc. (Actually, much better than Cheney who had numerous conflicts of interests.) Do you extend to him the benefit of the doubt you extended to Bush?

I think it is a felony to forge documents like that however, so why hasn't the guy been prosecuted, how about that question?

And it is also a felony to try to alter a federal election, and that is what Rather did when he reported false information, possibly knowingly.

engineer wrote:

Back to Gore, if there is any Democrat who seems to meet your "love of country" standard, it would be Gore. Clean record, history of family service, didn't approve of Clinton's escapades, etc. (Actually, much better than Cheney who had numerous conflicts of interests.) Do you extend to him the benefit of the doubt you extended to Bush?

I do believe Gore loves his country, however the man is seriously misguided and more than hung up on himself, and this should be more than evident when you consider his environmental whackoism and hypocrisy.

oralloy wrote:

It isn't unheard-of for a rape victim to not want to go through a trial.

And at the same time is both willing and eager to sell her story so it can be read by millions of people?

When you realise you have bigoted opinions then you would realise the term is correct. One who is blindly devoted to creed or party..Your blind devotion to the republican party has blinkered your views and colours your judgement. As has been pointed out Bush was accused of rape but for you it is irrelevant, without foundation but Al Gore gets accused and you assume guilt. Your bigoted rhetoric is evident.

BillRM wrote:

oralloy wrote:

It isn't unheard-of for a rape victim to not want to go through a trial.

And at the same time is both willing and eager to sell her story so it can be read by millions of people?

It's possible.

And that attitude is what makes you a dolt. Either you honestly believe that's what you're doing, which makes you a dolt, or you're being disingenuous, which makes you a dolt.

oralloy wrote:

Rather, I am criticizing people who want to give him (and any other Democratic leader) a pass without even considering the question of whether or not he is guilty.

Believe it or not, I did consider the possibility of it being true.

I read the entire police report, something I don't think you really did given your responses.

Like I said, I don't doubt something went on, but I don't buy her whole story as it just didn't ring true or credible to me.

So, do you want to rescind this statement in light of the fact that Bush was accused of rape?

Quote:

Vote for Republicans if you want to support a party that will not tolerate their leaders being rapists.

When I display blind adherence to a party, then you can make that claim. When I accuse bush of rape without criminal conviction , then you can call me bigoted...

oralloy wrote:

BillRM wrote:

oralloy wrote:

It isn't unheard-of for a rape victim to not want to go through a trial.

And at the same time is both willing and eager to sell her story so it can be read by millions of people?

It's possible.

Nearly anything is possible. The question is, is it likely? And the answer is no - it's extremely unlikely.

The police have stated that there is no basis to this and there will be no charges forthcoming,

so - I guess you're out of luck on this one.

Cycloptichorn

Nonsense. The police did not pursue charges because the alleged victim was not willing to cooperate with criminal charges. They did not say there was no basis to it.

Nope. I'm good. I even have my morals intact, seeing as I've never tried to lynch a woman for saying she was sexually assaulted.

I think Bush should have sued them for it, but being the gentleman and man dedicated to the job of president, he devoted his life to being president instead of the distractions of a lawsuit.

oralloy wrote:

Nonsense. The police did not pursue charges because the alleged victim was not willing to cooperate with criminal charges. They did not say there was no basis to it.

They effectively did say that.

If the victim is unwilling to cooperate, that's the first sign that the story is bullshit - and they know it.

oralloy wrote:

Nope. I'm good. I even have my morals intact, seeing as I've never tried to lynch a woman for saying she was sexually assaulted.

No, you just advocate murdering innocent Italian students on a daily basis.

You made a comment to someone a few pages back, about facing God and owning up to one's opinions; how exactly do you plan on explaining that one?

Cycloptichorn

I accuse you of bigoted rhetoric.

DrewDad wrote:

And that attitude is what makes you a dolt. Either you honestly believe that's what you're doing, which makes you a dolt, or you're being disingenuous, which makes you a dolt.

Or maybe I just don't think Democrats should have a free pass to rape people.

And your terms "murdering innocent" implies both that citizens of Italy can be innocent and that citizens of Italy count somehow as human beings.

I reject both propositions.

oralloy wrote:

DrewDad wrote:

And that attitude is what makes you a dolt. Either you honestly believe that's what you're doing, which makes you a dolt, or you're being disingenuous, which makes you a dolt.

Or maybe I just don't think Democrats should have a free pass to rape people.

Or maybe you should have just stopped that sentence after "think."

one can only hope if there is a god, he/she is italian, that would make for an interesting meeting when ol' moral oral dies