IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags 2020 elections , joe biden , presidential candidates

Closed Thread
Old 18th May 2020, 04:13 PM   #3601
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,666
The following concerns only knowingly making false accusations... Honest confusion and defective memory are another matter.

If there are not already, there should be legal repercussions against anyone who would falsely accuse that are fully as onerous as for the crime being asserted.

If one falsely claims an injury for which the penalty is, say, 10-20 years in jail for the alleged perpetrator, then if such claim is found to be a deliberate lie the penalty for such should be the same punishment.

Otherwise, if a fixed penalty for false accusations is the sanction, the incentive exists for an even bigger lie. A too-light handling for a Big Lie only invites its invocation because of the potentially bigger payoff relative to the penalty.

I say this because in my ethical framework, to make a false accusation (to bear false witness, as one of the sensible Commandments puts it) is a terrible crime. One that enrages me. One that must be vigorously dealt with via sanctions as harsh as those meted out for the falsely claimed offense. This should go some way to curbing the instigation of such lies.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 04:19 PM   #3602
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,666
[Repeat post]

Last edited by Lurch; 18th May 2020 at 04:26 PM.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 04:21 PM   #3603
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,212
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
The following concerns only knowingly making false accusations... Honest confusion and defective memory are another matter.

If there are not already, there should be legal repercussions against anyone who would falsely accuse that are fully as onerous as for the crime being asserted.

If one falsely claims an injury for which the penalty is, say, 10-20 years in jail for the alleged perpetrator, then if such claim is found to be a deliberate lie the penalty for such should be the same punishment.

Otherwise, if a fixed penalty for false accusations is the sanction, the incentive exists for an even bigger lie. A too-light handling for a Big Lie only invites its invocation because of the potentially bigger payoff relative to the penalty.

I say this because in my ethical framework, to make a false accusation (to bear false witness, as one of the sensible Commandments puts it) is a terrible crime. One that enrages me. One that must be vigorously dealt with via sanctions as harsh as those meted out for the falsely claimed offense. This should go some way to curbing the instigation of such lies.
Or the falsely accused could file a civil defamation suit. It would be more difficult to prove BARD that the accuser was intentionally lying in a criminal case while a civil case would only require a preponderance of the evidence.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 04:22 PM   #3604
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 24,443
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
The following concerns only knowingly making false accusations... Honest confusion and defective memory are another matter.

If there are not already, there should be legal repercussions against anyone who would falsely accuse that are fully as onerous as for the crime being asserted.

If one falsely claims an injury for which the penalty is, say, 10-20 years in jail for the alleged perpetrator, then if such claim is found to be a deliberate lie the penalty for such should be the same punishment.

Otherwise, if a fixed penalty for false accusations is the sanction, the incentive exists for an even bigger lie. A too-light handling for a Big Lie only invites its invocation because of the potentially bigger payoff relative to the penalty.

I say this because in my ethical framework, to make a false accusation (to bear false witness, as one of the sensible Commandments puts it) is a terrible crime. One that enrages me. One that must be vigorously dealt with via sanctions as harsh as those meted out for the falsely claimed offense. This should go some way to curbing the instigation of such lies.
What quaint notions of truth. And imagine having an ethical framework.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 04:54 PM   #3605
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,305
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Do you score points every time you ignore objections to this mischaracterization of yours? We are assessing whether she is likely to be fabricating her story, and a history of fabricating similar stories is relevant no matter how much you personally want to ignore them.
What similar stories? If she has a documented history of making sexual assault allegations that aren’t true, that may be relevant. But I haven’t seen that. Have you?

A documented history doing that would be actual evidence.

Quote:
In the case of Wohl and Burkman you take their past actions as relevant to assessing their credibility. Why are you upset when others do the same for Reade?
Because W’s and B’s past actions are directly relevant and well-documented. They get people to lie about sexual assault.

Bad checks, alleged charity theft, etc are not directly related to whether or not Reade would make up a lie about sexual assault. They are mere character attacks to discredit her.
Quote:
Am I to take it that someone who falsely claims to be a victim of assault would be somehow physically or mentally unable to falsely claim to be the victim of sexual assault? Is there some sort of fundamental difference between the two? Or is this just someone being overly pedantic to muddy the waters?
Of course not. But a documented history of fabricating sexual assault claims is evidence that the person makes up such claims. We would need very strong evidence that it happened in order to take it seriously. In fact, we need good evidence either way. Take someone like Ford. There’s no evidence she makes up such claims but there’s very little evidence to support the claim in the first place so her “credibility” isn’t even a factor. Reade’s claim suffers from the exact same lack of evidence so why do we need to analyze her credibility?

In my view, Ford’s claims and Reade’s claims are the same as far as whether or not we should take them seriously enough for the relevant candidate to step down.

OTOH a history of ripping off charities, even if well-documented, has no bearing whatsoever in the matter.

If a prospective employee has a documented history of embezzling from multiple employers, that’s evidence that the person shouldn’t be hired in a position of financial trust. Maybe they could be a good nurse, though.



Quote:
None of the rest was an attack on her character either, no more than using Wohl's history to asses how credible his claims are, or your prospective employee's criminal history and work ethic as told to you by his previous employers to determine if you should hire him is attacking these people's characters.
To be clear, I don’t ask previous employers about “work ethic.” I only confirm employment. There’s too much room for bias in asking about “work ethic” or “were they a good employee.” I also don’t discuss such things if I happen to be called.

Documented evidence, directly related to the matter at hand, is relevant and necessary to consider.

Allegations, rumors, innuendo and anything not related to the matter at hand is irrelevant and can be ignored.

Now, you’ve suggested that Reade has made false allegations before. Can you cite that?
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 06:12 PM   #3606
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Now, you’ve suggested that Reade has made false allegations before. Can you cite that?
I can point out that it's been discussed in this thread, as well as in several of the articles that you've been so critical of.
From this article:
Reade's husband divorced her in 1996. She accused him at the time of punching her in the arm and slamming furniture.

Years later that morphed into claims that he had punched her in the face and that she had visited the DA over it. None of that info was in the allegations of assault in the divorce. Reade also claimed her ex husband had become a person of interest in the murder of two of his ex girlfriends.

From a much discussed article posted here already
Two decades after he had divorced her, and had gone on to remarry and lived in another state, Reade was still trying to convince people that her ex husband stalked her at night and that she needed them to create a Go-Fund-Me account so she could afford to escape him.

Reade also accused her father of abuse. Oddly enough her new allegations against Biden closely resemble a passage from one of her father's books. It's been posted and discussed in this thread several times, but apparently you missed it.

Now, I predict that you will get pedantic and claim that these are merely allegations of assault (and being a murderer, and a stalker) and not allegations of sexual assault, but somehow will be unable to state a reason why they are fundamentally different.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 07:20 PM   #3607
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,212
From Wareyin's third link above, I found this. For some reason it seems so awfully familiar:
Quote:
Following the same pattern as the ‘mental decline’ narrative which went from ‘Biden has dementia’, to ‘well maybe not dementia but he’s old/frail/something’s not right’, to ‘people are talking about it, so maybe there’s something there’, to ‘it may not be true but he should just address it’, the Reade narrative is playing out just the same way.

It’s like a 12-step program for disinformation, the goal being to keep the narrative in the ether as long as possible even if it’s just to create doubt. Even if under the guise of being pro-active.
But just like the mental decline narrative, the Reade story has failed. Instead it’s backfiring on the few who are trying to give it new life. Like a hand grenade being desperately lobbied across the field and blowing up as the needle’s pulled every time. But this isn’t backfiring on Trump and the Republicans. It’s backfiring on *us*. It’s undermining our credibility on the left since ‘the calls are coming from inside the house’. The overwhelming memes and social media posts I see are from those purporting to be left.
(Looks around the thread and recognizes a few names....)
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 07:26 PM   #3608
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,305
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
I can point out that it's been discussed in this thread, as well as in several of the articles that you've been so critical of.
From this article:
Reade's husband divorced her in 1996. She accused him at the time of punching her in the arm and slamming furniture.

Years later that morphed into claims that he had punched her in the face and that she had visited the DA over it. None of that info was in the allegations of assault in the divorce. Reade also claimed her ex husband had become a person of interest in the murder of two of his ex girlfriends.

From a much discussed article posted here already
Two decades after he had divorced her, and had gone on to remarry and lived in another state, Reade was still trying to convince people that her ex husband stalked her at night and that she needed them to create a Go-Fund-Me account so she could afford to escape him.

Reade also accused her father of abuse. Oddly enough her new allegations against Biden closely resemble a passage from one of her father's books. It's been posted and discussed in this thread several times, but apparently you missed it.

Now, I predict that you will get pedantic and claim that these are merely allegations of assault (and being a murderer, and a stalker) and not allegations of sexual assault, but somehow will be unable to state a reason why they are fundamentally different.

That is indeed relevant and similar enough. I did miss it in all the other stuff.

It’s interesting. I think it could indeed make one think that perhaps she is capable of making up an accusation to suit her purposes. I don’t think it’s enough, if we are going to take the allegations seriously enough to dig stuff up, to dismiss her claim. It doesn’t make bad checks, charity shenanigans, etc suddenly relevant.

If anything, it does raise the level of evidence required to call for Biden to step down.

The problem is that there was never going to be real evidence in the first place. We didn’t need to know about that stuff in order to arrive at the same place I have been from the start. I’d err on the side of not discrediting accusers. But that’s just me.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 18th May 2020, 07:30 PM   #3609
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,212
From Wareyin's third link above, I found this. For some reason it seems so awfully familiar:
Quote:
Following the same pattern as the ‘mental decline’ narrative which went from ‘Biden has dementia’, to ‘well maybe not dementia but he’s old/frail/something’s not right’, to ‘people are talking about it, so maybe there’s something there’, to ‘it may not be true but he should just address it’, the Reade narrative is playing out just the same way.

It’s like a 12-step program for disinformation, the goal being to keep the narrative in the ether as long as possible even if it’s just to create doubt. Even if under the guise of being pro-active.
But just like the mental decline narrative, the Reade story has failed. Instead it’s backfiring on the few who are trying to give it new life. Like a hand grenade being desperately lobbied across the field and blowing up as the needle’s pulled every time. But this isn’t backfiring on Trump and the Republicans. It’s backfiring on *us*. It’s undermining our credibility on the left since ‘the calls are coming from inside the house’. The overwhelming memes and social media posts I see are from those purporting to be left.
(Looks around the thread and recognizes a few names....)
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 02:55 AM   #3610
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,374
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
there should be legal repercussions against anyone who would falsely accuse that are fully as onerous as for the crime being asserted.
I disagree. If a mentally disturbed person accuses their neighbor of being a serial murderer, should they receive the Death Penalty for it? Good police work should be able to weed out such cases without causing even more injustice.

Quote:
I say this because in my ethical framework, to make a false accusation (to bear false witness, as one of the sensible Commandments puts it) is a terrible crime. One that enrages me. One that must be vigorously dealt with via sanctions as harsh as those meted out for the falsely claimed offense. This should go some way to curbing the instigation of such lies.
I'll tell you what enrages me even more - a true accusation that is twisted by lies and corruption into looking like a lie, then the accuser being prosecuted and convicted for their 'false' claim. The potential for abusing your 'false witness' law is enormous, and bound to be used by the rich and powerful to get away with heinous crimes by making accusers even less likely to come forward.

Not being the vengeful type, I would be happy to simply see the Truth come out, and that alone be enough punishment for the false accuser (if they are). Only in cases where the lies are part of a 'shakedown' attempt should further charges be laid.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 03:08 AM   #3611
Roger Ramjets
Philosopher
 
Roger Ramjets's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 5,374
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
I’d err on the side of not discrediting accusers. But that’s just me.
I'd 'err' on the side of finding the truth, and accepting whatever it tells me. An accuser may be be discredited by it, or their credibility may be boosted. But it would be wrong to not investigate simply because you are afraid of discrediting the accuser.

The question of course is:- why do you take this stance now, when in a previous case you held the opposite view? The fact that one of the accused was a Republican nominee is... pure coincidence? And yet these 'coincidences' keep popping up again and again.
__________________
We don't want good, sound arguments. We want arguments that sound good.
Roger Ramjets is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 05:37 AM   #3612
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
That is indeed relevant and similar enough. I did miss it in all the other stuff.
Thank you.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
It’s interesting. I think it could indeed make one think that perhaps she is capable of making up an accusation to suit her purposes. I don’t think it’s enough, if we are going to take the allegations seriously enough to dig stuff up, to dismiss her claim. It doesn’t make bad checks, charity shenanigans, etc suddenly relevant.
It demonstrates that she is definitely capable of making up accusations to suit her purposes as she has done so already. No, this information is not enough that we should simply dismiss her claims with no investigations. Of course we should investigate, and thus far the investigations have found no physical location that would match her description, coworkers who dispute many aspects of her claims (Female aides not serving drinks, the reason she was fired, whether she reported anything, etc), and Reade having a history of making false allegations. The bad checks were only possibly relevant as evidence that her claim of quitting Biden's employ was false. Now that evidence shows they happened a year beforehand, they are no longer relevant. The charity shenanigans included her asking another volunteer to set up that GoFundMe in 2016 that you were unaware of, so they are relevant.

Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
If anything, it does raise the level of evidence required to call for Biden to step down.

The problem is that there was never going to be real evidence in the first place. We didn’t need to know about that stuff in order to arrive at the same place I have been from the start. I’d err on the side of not discrediting accusers. But that’s just me.
You are claiming that there was never going to be any evidence, but now we'd need better evidence to call for Biden to step down? Better than...the nothing you say is all we could have? That's helpful.

I'd rather than those on the right and those on the far left hadn't tried to use Reade like a cheap disposable tool, especially while pretending they actually cared about her or her feelings. But that's just me.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 07:09 AM   #3613
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
 
Sideroxylon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Aporia
Posts: 24,443
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
I'd 'err' on the side of finding the truth, and accepting whatever it tells me. An accuser may be be discredited by it, or their credibility may be boosted. But it would be wrong to not investigate simply because you are afraid of discrediting the accuser.

The question of course is:- why do you take this stance now, when in a previous case you held the opposite view? The fact that one of the accused was a Republican nominee is... pure coincidence? And yet these 'coincidences' keep popping up again and again.
You wont.
Sideroxylon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 08:43 AM   #3614
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,305
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
I'd 'err' on the side of finding the truth, and accepting whatever it tells me. An accuser may be be discredited by it, or their credibility may be boosted. But it would be wrong to not investigate simply because you are afraid of discrediting the accuser.
What do you base the truth on? Actual evidence relating to the accusation? Then it has nothing to do with credibility. It has to do with: it happened or it didn't. The truth does not depend on the credibility of either party.

Quote:
The question of course is:- why do you take this stance now, when in a previous case you held the opposite view? The fact that one of the accused was a Republican nominee is... pure coincidence? And yet these 'coincidences' keep popping up again and again.
You'll have to remind me.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 09:15 AM   #3615
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,305
Originally Posted by wareyin View Post
Thank you.



It demonstrates that she is definitely capable of making up accusations to suit her purposes as she has done so already. No, this information is not enough that we should simply dismiss her claims with no investigations. Of course we should investigate, and thus far the investigations have found no physical location that would match her description, coworkers who dispute many aspects of her claims (Female aides not serving drinks, the reason she was fired, whether she reported anything, etc), and Reade having a history of making false allegations.
Ok, I don't totally disagree with that. Progress.
Quote:
The bad checks were only possibly relevant as evidence that her claim of quitting Biden's employ was false.
If Biden's camp had said, "She was fired because of fraud charges, not becaue of sexual harassment accusations," then maybe you'd be right. But literally no one has said that's why she was fired. It was always just an insinuation based on a virtually detailless screenshot.
Quote:
Now that evidence shows they happened a year beforehand, they are no longer relevant. The charity shenanigans included her asking another volunteer to set up that GoFundMe in 2016 that you were unaware of, so they are relevant.
The GoFundMe may be relevant, somewhat, but the allegedly shady horse trading is not.
Quote:
You are claiming that there was never going to be any evidence, but now we'd need better evidence to call for Biden to step down? Better than...the nothing you say is all we could have? That's helpful.
Remember my position: There is no evidence (and no possibility of obtaining evidence at this late date) so there is no need to investigate further. In such cases, we give the accused the presumption of innocence. Case closed.

If the accuser has a documented past of fabricating allegations, the evidence for the allegation has to be strong. So even if there was a little evidence (Biden was known to be flirtatious with her, she filed a report, etc) it wouldn't be enough. We would need stronger evidence than that (she knows the time and place it happened and this is corroborated by other people she told, the report reflects the same facts, she has contemporaneolus* journal entries detailing the attack, she was fired suddenly after making the report, etc).

But in the end, the evidence is king. We need some shred of evidence to investigate, not just a bald accusation.

Quote:
I'd rather than those on the right and those on the far left hadn't tried to use Reade like a cheap disposable tool, especially while pretending they actually cared about her or her feelings. But that's just me.
Here we agree.


*I was going to edit this typo, but I like it too much.
__________________
Hello.

Last edited by xjx388; 19th May 2020 at 09:16 AM.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 11:59 AM   #3616
Lurch
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 1,666
Originally Posted by Roger Ramjets View Post
I disagree. If a mentally disturbed person accuses their neighbor of being a serial murderer, should they receive the Death Penalty for it? Good police work should be able to weed out such cases without causing even more injustice.

I'll tell you what enrages me even more - a true accusation that is twisted by lies and corruption into looking like a lie, then the accuser being prosecuted and convicted for their 'false' claim. The potential for abusing your 'false witness' law is enormous, and bound to be used by the rich and powerful to get away with heinous crimes by making accusers even less likely to come forward.

Not being the vengeful type, I would be happy to simply see the Truth come out, and that alone be enough punishment for the false accuser (if they are). Only in cases where the lies are part of a 'shakedown' attempt should further charges be laid.
I did indicate that the sanctions would be for instances of deliberate intent. More specifically, now, with malice aforethought, fully cognizant of the lie as such. Certainly, accusations arising from mental defect are not in the same class. It would be absurd to not factor in the vagaries of the human condition. But where shown to be so, conscious misrepresentation is a vile act.

Relying on the outing of truth to be a sufficient deterrence overlooks the phenomenon in which for some people infamy IS fame.
Lurch is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 01:21 PM   #3617
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,628
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
Relying on the outing of truth to be a sufficient deterrence overlooks the phenomenon in which for some people infamy IS fame.
Infamous is when you're more than famous.
YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 03:45 PM   #3618
wareyin
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 8,561
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I did indicate that the sanctions would be for instances of deliberate intent. More specifically, now, with malice aforethought, fully cognizant of the lie as such. Certainly, accusations arising from mental defect are not in the same class. It would be absurd to not factor in the vagaries of the human condition. But where shown to be so, conscious misrepresentation is a vile act.

Relying on the outing of truth to be a sufficient deterrence overlooks the phenomenon in which for some people infamy IS fame.
I don't agree with your proposal. I think it would have too much of a chilling effect on legitimate accusations. I think we need a middle ground between theprestige and xjx388's ignore-all-accusations-unless-the-act-was-videotaped and women who have been sexually assaulted having to worry that by merely accusing their attacker the woman risks jail time.
wareyin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 04:40 PM   #3619
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,212
It seems Tara Reade's story has even more variations:
Quote:
As Tara Reade was leaving her job at Joe Biden's Senate office in 1993, she told a close colleague that she believed she was being let go for an unfair reason -- that she was being terminated because of a medical issue she had been dealing with.
The former colleague, Ben Savage, described this decades-old alleged exchange with Reade in an interview with CNN. He declined to be quoted on the specific medical condition that he said Reade shared with him around that time.
Quote:
Savage recently reached out to reporters at media outlets, including CNN, after Reade alleged she was assaulted by Biden. The accusation left him in "disbelief and shock," Savage said. And Reade's claim now that she was fired in 1993 as retaliation for complaining about sexual harassment is not what he witnessed, he said.
Reade was overwhelmed by some of her duties at work, which included helping to sort and respond to constituent mail, Savage said. He recalled that some of Reade's tasks were taken away from her, and said his understanding at the time was that she was terminated because of performance issues.
(Savage had the desk next to Reade in the basement office they shared)

Quote:
In the course of multiple phone interviews with CNN in recent weeks, Reade confirmed some biographical details that appear on her now archived website. She has described an idyllic-sounding childhood of running around on a farm in northern Wisconsin. She said she was immersed in nature and fell in love with horseback riding.
(Reade has also claimed she had an emotionally and physically abusive father)

Quote:
Reade told CNN that she received a bachelor of arts degree from Antioch University in Seattle under the auspices of a "protected program," personally working with the former president of the school to ensure her identity was protected while she obtained credits for her degree. She also said that she was a visiting professor at the school, on and off for five years.
Presented with this, Karen Hamilton, an Antioch University spokesperson, told CNN that "Alexandra McCabe attended but did not graduate from Antioch University. She was never a faculty member. She did provide several hours of administrative work."
An Antioch University official told CNN that such a "protected program" does not exist and never has.
Quote:
Stacey Lentz, who worked as a receptionist for then-Sen. Kent Conrad in the early '90s and lived in Reade's dorm, said Reade was "the kind of girl, once she's wherever she is, you know her."
CNN reached out to Lentz because Reade described her repeatedly as one of her closest confidants during her time in Washington, and somebody she may have confided in about the alleged sexual harassment and assault. But Lentz, who now operates a modeling agency in Fargo, North Dakota, said while she and Reade were close, she had not remembered which lawmaker Reade had worked for until she saw recent news reports. She also did not recall Reade confiding in her about sexual harassment or assault

Asked whether she remembered Reade complaining about work, Lentz said the reporter's question triggered a memory. "There was drama with her work. I can see flashes of her talking to me," Lentz said. "She wasn't having a great time at work."
("Drama" going on but no mention to a close friend of harassment, much less assault.)

Quote:
Reade's own writings offer yet other reasons for why she left Biden's office -- and ultimately Washington. In one deleted Medium post, she said she "resigned" to pursue acting and writing, and also because she was tired of the US government's "deception and xenophobia." In another since deleted post, Reade wrote that she left Washington and returned to the Midwest so her then-boyfriend could manage a congressman's campaign.
Quote:
In more recent years, Reade has praised Biden on social media on numerous occasions.
The praise, according to some of Reade's acquaintances, happened in private, too. Reade pet sat for Margie Estberg's cats in December 2017 in Aptos, California, Estberg told CNN. She said that around this time, Reade brought up the fact that she had once worked for Biden.
"I said, 'Is he a good guy?' Because I'm just curious to know," Estberg recalled. "And she said, 'Oh yeah, he is.' I said, 'Oh good, I'm glad to hear that.'"

Estberg said Reade also described having had a lot of fun while working for Biden.
(The guy who sexually assaulted her was "was a good guy"?)

Quote:
Reade described to CNN a meeting in which Biden stood behind her and put his hand on her shoulder and massaged her neck under her hair. Her close friend also told CNN that Reade described to her a staff meeting in which Biden rubbed her neck and swirled her hair around his finger in front of interns.But in interviews with CNN, multiple former Biden aides said this stood out because Biden rarely interacted with junior staff.

Melissa Lefko, who, like Reade, was a staff assistant in Biden's office in the early 1990s, said staff assistants and interns were among those who worked in Biden's so-called "front office" in the Russell Senate office building. That office was located down the hall from -- and separated in between by then-Sen. Strom Thurmond's office -- the room where Biden and some of his senior aides worked. This meant Lefko and her junior colleagues in the front office rarely had face time with Biden, she said. Several other confirmed this physical configuration of Biden's personal Senate office.
"I've been searching my memory and I really think he stepped into the front office once the entire time I worked there," Lefko told CNN.

Savage said he could not recall a single meeting in the years that he worked in Biden's office that was attended by junior staff, interns and Biden.
"He didn't deal with junior staff, ever," said one former longtime aide to Biden, who asked not to be named.
(No other staffer has claimed to have seen the incident Reade described or to ever have seen him behave that way.)
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/19/polit...ion/index.html
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 04:58 PM   #3620
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 50,565
LOL. Isn't it time for you to remind us that Biden is still senile?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 19th May 2020, 05:36 PM   #3621
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,212
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
LOL. Isn't it time for you to remind us that Biden is still senile?
You seem to have me confused with SuburbanTurkey, Sideroxylon, et al. You might want to refresh your memory by perusing the beginning of this thread.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 07:49 AM   #3622
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,119
Originally Posted by Lurch View Post
I did indicate that the sanctions would be for instances of deliberate intent. More specifically, now, with malice aforethought, fully cognizant of the lie as such. Certainly, accusations arising from mental defect are not in the same class. It would be absurd to not factor in the vagaries of the human condition. But where shown to be so, conscious misrepresentation is a vile act.

Relying on the outing of truth to be a sufficient deterrence overlooks the phenomenon in which for some people infamy IS fame.
Filing a false police report is already illegal. Perjury/false swearing is already illegal. This is how it should be, but...


This sort of law when aggressively enforced backfires way more than it works as intended. Even beyond discouraging a person from rightly making an allegation against a rich/powerful person.

When someone makes a wrongful allegation it is almost always an issue of it being an emotionally charged situation or because that person feels they are being coerced. This isn't a time where they are thinking in terms of the penalty for doing so, even assuming they are aware of the penalty. The deterrent effect of harsher penalties is minimal at best.

Once things cool down, or they feel like they aren't in danger if they don't make that accusation, or for that matter have a guilty conscience, they are in a position to coolly analyze their criminal exposure and be deterred from doing the right thing. So they wind up testifying consistent with their earlier statement or don't come forward years later to correct an injustice.

Both of which are a disaster for the wrongfully accused.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:00 AM   #3623
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,628
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
Once things cool down, or they feel like they aren't in danger if they don't make that accusation, or for that matter have a guilty conscience, they are in a position to coolly analyze their criminal exposure and be deterred from doing the right thing. So they wind up testifying consistent with their earlier statement or don't come forward years later to correct an injustice.

Both of which are a disaster for the wrongfully accused.
That's a good reason to be lenient to those who voluntarily confess. But we should definitely still punish those whose lies are uncovered independently, both to incentivize people to not lie in the first place but also to encourage people who did lie to fess up early.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:37 AM   #3624
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
 
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,409
How do you differentiate a purposeful lie from a genuinely mistaken belief?

I don't have a lot of faith in the discretion of police and prosecutors to use such tools fairly or equitably.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:45 AM   #3625
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,305
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
It seems Tara Reade's story has even more variations:



(Savage had the desk next to Reade in the basement office they shared)
Savage has said two different things: She said was being fired for an undisclosed medical reason and he thinks she was fired because of work performance issues. So he doesn't actually know why she was fired, he only has an understanding of such. Not much help. She could very well have actually been fired because she made a sexual harassment allegation, told him that she thought it was becaue of medical issues and the staff was left with an "understanding" that her firing was for performance issues.
Quote:
(Reade has also claimed she had an emotionally and physically abusive father)
Why can't it be both?
Quote:
("Drama" going on but no mention to a close friend of harassment, much less assault.)
And? Women often tell no one because they are afraid of not being believed.
Quote:
(The guy who sexually assaulted her was "was a good guy"?)
Women often have complicated views of their assaulters, especially when that assaulter is someone they look up to and respect for other reasons.
Quote:
(No other staffer has claimed to have seen the incident Reade described or to ever have seen him behave that way.)
Which means nothing. No one saw Ford and Kavanaugh, but you probably think it actually happened despite that.

I engaged with this only to illustrate how murky the issues can be when "assessing credibility." The same information has many interpretations and insisting that one particular interpretation is likely correct is not a good practice. This is why "assessing credibility" is a fools errand. We can only rely on evidence, of which there is none. Case closed.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:46 AM   #3626
shuttlt
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 7,314
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
How do you differentiate a purposeful lie from a genuinely mistaken belief?

I don't have a lot of faith in the discretion of police and prosecutors to use such tools fairly or equitably.
The FBI can answer that question.
shuttlt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:46 AM   #3627
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,119
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
That's a good reason to be lenient to those who voluntarily confess. But we should definitely still punish those whose lies are uncovered independently, both to incentivize people to not lie in the first place but also to encourage people who did lie to fess up early.
Sure, but I'd limit it to pretty extreme and blatant circumstances, especially when the case is years old. I'd still want to be lenient to someone whose admission is a result of someone independently showing that their statement/testimony was highly suspect.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:49 AM   #3628
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 9,305
Originally Posted by Suddenly View Post
Sure, but I'd limit it to pretty extreme and blatant circumstances, especially when the case is years old. I'd still want to be lenient to someone whose admission is a result of someone independently showing that their statement/testimony was highly suspect.
We already have a way to punish people for making false allegations of a heinous crime: Defamation torts. Seems like Biden has a pretty good case given all the people who are willing to publicly say there's no way he did this because of X, Y and Z. Sue her ass.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 08:56 AM   #3629
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,628
Originally Posted by Delphic Oracle View Post
How do you differentiate a purposeful lie from a genuinely mistaken belief?

I don't have a lot of faith in the discretion of police and prosecutors to use such tools fairly or equitably.
Yes, it can be hard to distinguish between a purposeful lie and a genuine mistake. I don't think that's too much of a problem, though. Prosecutors are generally reluctant to prosecute cases they can't win in court, and the standards of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it's a lie and not a mistake mean that you're more likely to not prosecute someone who is lying than wrongfully prosecute someone who is genuinely mistaken.

Furthermore, with something like sexual assault or rape, it's pretty easy to determine that an accusation is a lie if the assault or rape provably never happened to begin with. Genuine mistakes are more likely of the form where an actual crime occurred but the victim misidentified the culprit. This has happened, and I don't think the police go after the victims in such cases.

I think deliberate false accusations are overwhelmingly of the form where the crime didn't happen (though that may not be provable), since there's little incentive for an actual victim to lie about the perpetrator. And if you have reason to falsely accuse someone, why bother actually being victimized?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 09:03 AM   #3630
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,655
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
We already have a way to punish people for making false allegations of a heinous crime: Defamation torts. Seems like Biden has a pretty good case given all the people who are willing to publicly say there's no way he did this because of X, Y and Z. Sue her ass.
Filing a lawsuit would keep the story in the news, and it is likely to fade away as it becomes more and more obvious that there is little chance that the allegation is true. It would be interesting, however, to hear what her ex-neighbor, the only person who is known to have stated that she was told of an "assault", would say when testifying under oath given that she's said several things which raise doubts about whether she actually remembered.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 12:44 PM   #3631
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 19,082
So there are some new Ukraine leaks (in Ukraine) in form of tapes that seem to have been recorded by President Porky himself of his "conversations" (i.e. him being pressured to do all kinds of stuff against the interest of the Ukraine) with Biden. I have only read German analyses so far, but here is a short assessment in English which contains embedded audio of the recordings (which are of course also in English).

Quote:
Biden Is Being Thrown to the Wolves, Not Poroshenko

For some reason, it is expected that Poroshenko will be jailed after talks between him and Biden were published. But it is not a blow to Poroshenko – no one needs him, no one is afraid of him, even in Ukraine, and he also will not be jailed (the Americans keep such persons for the future, like in the case of Saakashvili).

The target of this leak is Biden, Trump’s rival in the upcoming US presidential election. It is said that confidence in Donald in recent days has started to drop, as well as people’s support for him, because of the huge mortality rate during the pandemic. This tape could give him another reason to accuse Biden of committing financial fraud in Ukraine using American taxpayer money. This, along with new attacks on China, should seemingly improve Trump’s approval rating.

I want to assume that it is nationalist forces that attack globalists, but it’s unlikely. Zelensky is managed exactly the same way – only now through other curators in Washington (Pompeo) and using Kolomoisky‘s capital. Dirty and vile games on the territory of southern Russian land, which has turned into a garbage dump.

By the way, the talks should be listened to completely – it is simply the anthem of the self-humiliation in front of the “white master”. You can imagine the scornful-tired face of Biden, forced to get into the details of this monkey business of “non-brothers” [brainwashed Ukrainians consider themselves to be unrelated to Russians – ed], while billions from the pockets of Euro-Ukrainians are transferred to his accounts.
__________________
If they want the pandemic to end, they just have to stop testing. Then people will die of the flu again, like they did before - Wolfgang Wodarg

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 20th May 2020 at 12:46 PM.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 12:56 PM   #3632
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 17,328
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
We already have a way to punish people for making false allegations of a heinous crime: Defamation torts. Seems like Biden has a pretty good case given all the people who are willing to publicly say there's no way he did this because of X, Y and Z. Sue her ass.
There are 2 problems with a person like Biden using defamation torts...

1) as a public figure, there is a much higher bar to win the case (compared to a 'nobody' who happens to get slandered/libeled.)

2) as a politician, he may be hesitant to sue someone (even if someone has made provably false allegations against him) because it may seem to part of the electorate that he is "beating up" some poor person. You want to appear magnanimous, so people could make up false claims against you with the knowledge you would be less likely to respond.
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot

Last edited by Segnosaur; 20th May 2020 at 12:59 PM.
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 01:09 PM   #3633
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,655
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
(Savage had the desk next to Reade in the basement office they shared)
I'm not giving a whole lot of weight to Mr. Savage's claims right now. So far, it's just 1 person making claims without supporting evidence. We can't rule out that he either is defensive of Biden or didn't get along with Reade when they worked together (or both).
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan


TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 01:15 PM   #3634
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Canada, eh?
Posts: 17,328
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
Quote:
(The guy who sexually assaulted her was "was a good guy"?)
Women often have complicated views of their assaulters, especially when that assaulter is someone they look up to and respect for other reasons.
You are right... there are cases where victims have praised or in other ways remained on good terms with their supposed attackers. (Here in Canada, o have Jian Ghomeshi as an example.)

If Reade's praise of Biden after the assault were the only evidence to suggest she were lying, then that would be one thing. But it was her praise of Biden, AS WELL AS her changing testimony, AS WELL AS the lack of others coming forward with similar accusations, AS WELL AS the questionable state collaborating testimony (for example from her brother/neighbor).
__________________
Trust me, I know what I'm doing. - Sledgehammer

I'm Mary Poppin's Y'all! - Yondu

We are Groot - Groot
Segnosaur is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 01:15 PM   #3635
Suddenly
No Punting
 
Suddenly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Not In Follansbee
Posts: 4,119
Originally Posted by Segnosaur View Post
There are 2 problems with a person like Biden using defamation torts...

1) as a public figure, there is a much higher bar to win the case (compared to a 'nobody' who happens to get slandered/libeled.)

2) as a politician, he may be hesitant to sue someone (even if someone has made provably false allegations against him) because it may seem to part of the electorate that he is "beating up" some poor person. You want to appear magnanimous, so people could make up false claims against you with the knowledge you would be less likely to respond.
3) Exposing himself to discovery. If this is a concerted enough intentional effort to smear him then she's almost certain to hire a lawyer (more like a team of lawyers) who just happen to have connections with the federalist society. At best it would be a tedious nightmare.
Suddenly is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 03:07 PM   #3636
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,212
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
I'm not giving a whole lot of weight to Mr. Savage's claims right now. So far, it's just 1 person making claims without supporting evidence. We can't rule out that he either is defensive of Biden or didn't get along with Reade when they worked together (or both).
You could make the same claim about any of the staffers Reade worked with who contradicted her remarks. Or any of the people who have come forward or been contacted.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 03:10 PM   #3637
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,212
I agree that it would be foolish for Biden to bring any action against Reade. Much lost, nothing gained.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 06:16 PM   #3638
TellyKNeasuss
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,655
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
You could make the same claim about any of the staffers Reade worked with who contradicted her remarks. Or any of the people who have come forward or been contacted.
I think that the other claims by former Biden employees (no knowledge of any sort of harassment, no knowledge of any complaints, her sometimes inappropriate attire, the unlikelihood that she was asked to serve drinks, that Biden spent almost no time with junior employees who worked in a separate suite and therefore would have been unlikely to have done his neck-and-hair thing multiple times or have noticed her legs) were made independently by multiple people.
__________________
"Facts are stupid things."
Ronald Reagan



Last edited by TellyKNeasuss; 20th May 2020 at 06:27 PM.
TellyKNeasuss is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 06:37 PM   #3639
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
 
Stacyhs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Location: United States
Posts: 18,212
Originally Posted by TellyKNeasuss View Post
I think that the other claims by former Biden employees (no knowledge of any sort of harassment, no knowledge of any complaints, her sometimes inappropriate attire, the unlikelihood that she was asked to serve drinks, that Biden spent almost no time with junior employees who worked in a separate suite and therefore would have been unlikely to have done his neck-and-hair thing multiple times or have noticed her legs) were made independently by multiple people.
We do know that Reade was removed from her supervisory role over other interns. Ted Kaufman, a Biden senior aide, told her she 'was not a good fit for the office" and gave he a month to find another job according to Reade. If this was done as retaliation for filing a sexual harassment claim, I doubt she would have been given a month to find another job. This is speculation, but I suspect that Reade's chronic financial problems likely arose from her inability to keep a job.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Old 20th May 2020, 07:06 PM   #3640
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 19,082
It's breathtaking how sure the parrots are that they can safely ignore evidence as long as it doesn't happen in the mighty Wurlitzer. Mainly because they are right.
__________________
If they want the pandemic to end, they just have to stop testing. Then people will die of the flu again, like they did before - Wolfgang Wodarg

Last edited by Childlike Empress; 20th May 2020 at 07:08 PM.
Childlike Empress is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Back to Top
Closed Thread

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:55 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.