MovieChat Forums > Confirmation (2016) Discussion > Suspicious Timing !

Suspicious Timing !

posted 9 years ago by johnnypepper
94 replies | jump to latest

It's unusual that comments are made about a movie not yet seen, but knowing the agenda of HBO, i'm pretty sure of the direction this movie will be taking. 24 years later and Clarence Thomas still has to defend himself against unproven allegations. However a new generation of millenniums must be indoctrinated to liberal lies before the coming elections.
However when Eileen Wellstone, Juanita Broadderick, Carolyn Moffet, Elizabeth Ward, Paula Corbin, Sandra Allen James, Christy Zercher and Kathleen Willey fire the same accusations at Bill Clinton, they were relegated to tramp status by the press. It would seem that after seducing an intern in the Oval Office, one would suspect these allegations to lean toward the truth. However as we all know, Bill Clinton is still treated with rock star status, sexual harassment be damned.
I won't watch this movie because it will not be filmed with an objective point of view, nor with any deep concern about women's struggle against sexual harassment on the part of HBO, only an agenda of political activism.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DaliParton 8 years ago

False equivalency is false.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DaliParton 8 years ago

name one such "joan of arc" who did not decide on their own to speak out

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DaliParton 8 years ago

> I was referring to some individuals who put the alleged victim's name,
> usually without their knowledge or consent, as a rallying cry for more rights.

Yes, I understood what you were referring to. I asked you for an example of that.

For it to be anywhere near a true equivalency there must be dozens, if not hundreds or even thousands of examples. I think you will struggle to find even one.

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] 8 years ago

[deleted]

[–] DaliParton 8 years ago

For some reason you wrote to me in private with this non-example:
----------------------
An example of what I was talking about happened several years ago. In '98, on the cover of Macleans, a Canadian magazine similar to Time in the States, a girl was on the cover saying she was raped by a fellow sailor in the military. The link is below:

http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/rape-in-the-military/

Much of the reaction to the story around the base when the story broke was that she was a slut who made up stories or that she had it coming. A small group of people wanted to make her a cause celebre, so to speak.

Me personally, I believed the story, knowing how some people are. I was merely making an observation on people's behavior.
---------------------

To which I responded:

Why are you sending that to me in private?

While I don't have the time to read the entire article, it does not seem to be an example of what you claim. She literally posed for the cover of the magazine. That was her choice.

So she got support for her decision to publicize what happened and that makes the people who supported her into the equivalent of people who claimed she deserved it?

False equivalency.
----------------------

So, you have literally no examples of terrible people using a rape victim's name without their knowledge or consent to "crusade" for more rights.

[–] Jack_Brock 8 years ago

False equivalency.

Nope.