Nem accuses Bill Clinton of Rape..? - New England Patriots Forums

***QuiGon*** · 07-24-2006, 11:26 AM

I have taken Nem's logic and applied it to the Juanita Brodderick accusation of rape against Bill Clinton and concluded that, logically speaking, Nem has agreed with the accusation by proxy. How so..? Well, let me explain:

A woman named Juanita Brodderick publicly accused Bill Clinton of rape.

Now, according to Nem, if you weren't physically present then you are in no position to say her allegations are untrue. So none of us can call her a liar - right Nem...? After all, you weren't there.

Also, according to Nem, if Clinton hasn't sued her for slander, then her statements must be true. Because, after all, if it were untrue, he would sue for slander... right Nem...?

So I have logically concluded that Nem agrees with me when I say Bill Clinton committed rape again Brodderick on that fateful afternoon. And he can't disagree with any of the above logic unless he wants to admit being a complete hypocrite.

***Harry Boy*** · 07-24-2006, 01:53 PM

The big problem here is, Billy Blue Dress is a well loved Left Wing Liberal Dip ***** Democrat, they as we all know are incapable of such acts and if by any chance he did "rape her" surely she must have asked for it.

Why did all those women "pick on our Bill".

Billy Blue Dress appointed Jessie Jackoff as the official White House Spiritual Advisor, they "prayed together"

"Our Father Who Art In Heaven" send us some Ho's.

***QuiGon*** · 07-24-2006, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

One question. If it were true, why didnt she prosecute? I dont really know, do you? You see, in a case that you just described, it is up to the accuser to prove something is true, or not.

Well there you have it ladies and gentleman. Any woman that doesn't prosecute must therefore not have been raped.

Nemmy, my boy, you better hope the feminists don't read what you just said.

wistahpatsfan · 07-24-2006, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by NEM

One question. If it were true, why didnt she prosecute? I dont really know, do you? You see, in a case that you just described, it is up to the accuser to prove something is true, or not.

This would be the same thing in the Jane Fonda situation, it is up to the government to prosecute for treason, if in fact there was treason.

Same here, it is up to the state government, the prosecutor to prosecute if, in case there was rape.

Now, as I said. I dont know if she was raped, and I dont know if Jane Fonda committed Treason.... in both cases, the prosecution didnt prosecute...

I always thought there was a Broderick / Fonda connection!

07-25-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote from NEM:

Quote:

One question. If it were true, why didnt she prosecute? I dont really know, do you?

I dont know...maybe she heard what happened to Kathleen Willeys cat, if Willey had testified.

***DarrylS*** · 07-25-2006, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by QuiGon

I have taken Nem's logic and applied it to the Juanita Brodderick accusation of rape against Bill Clinton and concluded that, logically speaking, Nem has agreed with the accusation by proxy. How so..? Well, let me explain:

A woman named Juanita Brodderick publicly accused Bill Clinton of rape.

Now, according to Nem, if you weren't physically present then you are in no position to say her allegations are untrue. So none of us can call her a liar - right Nem...? After all, you weren't there.

Also, according to Nem, if Clinton hasn't sued her for slander, then her statements must be true. Because, after all, if it were untrue, he would sue for slander... right Nem...?

So I have logically concluded that Nem agrees with me when I say Bill Clinton committed rape again Brodderick on that fateful afternoon. And he can't disagree with any of the above logic unless he wants to admit being a complete hypocrite.

This sounds like Rush Limbaugh logic, did you take your dittohead pill today???