Gay Patriot Header Image

Two Harveys

Harvey Feirstein — the old, gravel voiced gay queen — is apparently being confused with Harvey Weinstein — the old, creepy, hetersexual predator. And he doesn’t like it.

That’s right! Be mad at Harvey, not HARVEY! Guys, We’re Mad @ Harvey WEINSTEIN, Not Harvey FIERSTEIN!

Here’s my thing though. Harvey Feirstein is fairly prominent in the Hollywood and New York theater circles, right? And he has been for several decades, right? And apparently, the fact that Harvey Weinstein was a creepy pervert who sexually abused women was well-known in ‘The Industry.’ But nobody in Hollywood said a word about it until after the rest of America found out. Now, they’re telling us how ‘mad’ they are. But for all of these years, Harvey Feirstein and the rest of ‘The Industry’ maintained a code of silence.

Apparently, exposing women to sexual abuse was a fair price to pay for protecting one’s career from a wealthy and powerful Hollywood executive. Right, Ashley Judd?

Truth to power my butt.

Share

82 Comments

  1. From the link:

    Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman and Gwyneth Paltrow, who have all won Oscars for starring in Weinstein films, have made no public comment
    Those three women have also been happy to provide interviewers and reporters profiling Weinstein with sound bites and quotes about their affinity for the exec

    Comment by V the K — October 7, 2017 @ 6:36 pm - October 7, 2017

  2. Has Bill Cosby commented on all of this? Gloria Allred must be ordering her new Lamborghini right about now.

    Comment by Ignatius — October 7, 2017 @ 6:42 pm - October 7, 2017

  3. Why would you slag Harvey Fierstein? Just to slag him?

    And Ashley Judd? Did you even read what she had to put up with him?

    This post is like saying the Catholic Church is rotten to the core because of the systematic way they allowed child abusers to go through and continue to molest.

    This whole post is a reach.

    By the way, Amber Tamblyn ripped James Woods a new one. You didn’t seem to report on that .

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 7, 2017 @ 6:42 pm - October 7, 2017

  4. Gloria Allred’s daughter was the lawyer defending Weinstein, until she quit.

    The rampant hypocrisy is so delicious it just has to be fattening.

    Comment by V the K — October 7, 2017 @ 6:43 pm - October 7, 2017

  5. Hmm, when did self-proclaimed “Nasty” feminist Ashley Judd put on her poossy hat and speak out against the sexual abuse of women by Harvey Weinstein.

    Was it never? Was never when that happened?

    If only Weinstein had been a Republican.

    Comment by V the K — October 7, 2017 @ 7:48 pm - October 7, 2017

  6. @CrayCrayPatriot:

    First off you’re lacking context in regards to nasty woman Judd.

    Second, your example with the Catholic Church is actually spot on. That’s what’s actually being said by the left, that the Catholic Church is rotten to the core.

    Your example is invalid.

    Comment by Nash Montana — October 7, 2017 @ 7:54 pm - October 7, 2017

  7. According to the Daily Mail: Meryl Streep, Nicole Kidman, Gwyneth Paltrow, Kate Hudson, Julianne Moore, Cate Blanchett, Renee Zellweger, Angelina Jolie, Salma Hayek, Penelope Cruz, Toni Collette, Minnie Driver and Uma Thurman have kept their mouths shut concerning the Harvey Weinstein brouhaha.

    That is as it should be. Hollyweird should be seen and heard on the screen doing Hollyweird stuff. Beyond that, every single one of them should STFU.

    But, but, but … they are people!!! Yes and so are prostitutes, line dancers, skate boarders, drug addicts and toll booth attendants.

    Someone should keep reminding Mr. Average Man that he was born free, divine, strong; uncrushable by fate, society, or hell itself; and that he is a child of God, equal heir to all the bounties of God; and that goodness is riches, kindness is power, and freedom is glory. Above all, every man is born with an inner capacity to take him as far as his imagination can dream or envision-providing he is free to dream and envision. – Frank Capra

    Hollyweird walked away from Frank Capra and mocked him. Now it tits, editing, gimmickry, explosions, snark, gratuitous slo-mo shattering of body parts, and anything but virtuous reality.

    Defend Hollyweird? Of course. It is like blaming Chicago deaths on guns. It is like blaming bankruptcy on slow printing presses at the treasury. It is like, you know, like …. tolerance.

    Comment by Heliorope — October 7, 2017 @ 8:14 pm - October 7, 2017

  8. @3 you do know that at the time of the great sexual abuse scandal in the catholic church, of the professions sexual abuse was lowest among catholic priests. it was much higher among school teachers, rampant among the Hollywood left, more frequent among the black clergy and liberal media people. but whether it is a scandal depends entirely on your political beliefs. at that time the church was considered an enemy of the left, the other groups were and are allies of the political left. and you do know that because I have pointed it out to you numerous times. but when does a liberal ever let the truth get in the way of a good political lie.

    Comment by salg — October 7, 2017 @ 8:23 pm - October 7, 2017

  9. That’s what’s actually being said by the left, that the Catholic Church is rotten to the core.

    Except, I’m not saying that.

    you do know that at the time of the great sexual abuse scandal in the catholic church, of the professions sexual abuse was lowest among catholic priests.

    Again, see comment above.

    However, I would like to see the stats. My understanding is the abuse was rampant among the ranks, high and low. But, if you have facts presenting the contrary, I’d like to see.

    But, again, Comment #3 is phrased in a manner that shows I don’t agree with it, just as I don’t agree with the way V the K is presenting his post.

    when did self-proclaimed “Nasty” feminist Ashley Judd put on her poossy hat and speak out against the sexual abuse of women by Harvey Weinstein.

    Um, she suffered abuse.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 7, 2017 @ 9:06 pm - October 7, 2017

  10. Hmm, when did self-proclaimed “Nasty” feminist Ashley Judd put on her poossy hat and speak out against the sexual abuse of women by Harvey Weinstein.

    Was it never? Was never when that happened?

    You do realise she agreed to be interviewed before this broke, right?

    By breaking her silence, she WAS speaking out against sexual abuse.

    Like, are you trolling atp? I can’t believe you’re this obtuse.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 7, 2017 @ 9:25 pm - October 7, 2017

  11. “By breaking her silence, she WAS speaking out against sexual abuse”

    Only after she got what she wanted.

    What about all the other people who knew?

    I mean the Obamas sent their daughter to this pig. They had to know. The Obamas loved the Hollywood elite. Just more Progressive whores. The DNC is donating only a small fraction of the money this pig donated.

    Are all Progressives whores?

    Still the local Progressive newspaper isn’t covering this story. They ran the Fox News sexual harassment scandal every day for weeks.

    Comment by tnnsne1 — October 7, 2017 @ 9:51 pm - October 7, 2017

  12. CrayCray, as I pointed out to you in a thread below, John Note reported:

    And even though, going all the way back to 1997, she believed Weinstein was a monstrous serial-harasser, Ashley Judd still worked with him in 2002’s Frida and 2009’s Crossing Over — still put on a pussy hat and lashed out against “sexist” President Trump before she ever went public with what she knew for a fact about Weinstein.

    You had no response.

    Well, better late than never. Or something.

    The Roman Catholic Church takes the high road on morality. If they fail, it is serious beyond the society pages.

    Hollyweird and liberals/Progressives take no high roads of any sort except hectoring those they can’t tolerate. There is no moral failure in Hollyweird or among DemonizingRats. There is no moral turpitude in Hollyweird because there are few community standards that are out of bounds.

    All of us on the right are worn out tired of you liberals trashing conservatives over moral turpitude which you do not apply to yourselves. It is a sucker game.

    So, when you come here as a liberal/Progressive pointing a finger at conservatives for what is business as usual among your pack, it is really disgusting.

    Ashley Judd played whore to Weinstein’s depravity. Now she is saggy and baggy and he is about to lose his power and she “bravely” steps forth to one-up him on his way down. Some example of rectitude Judd is. Nobody prays louder than a whore in church.

    Comment by Heliorope — October 7, 2017 @ 9:54 pm - October 7, 2017

  13. Helio,

    I engage with people here who actually read what I write. You’re more interested in critiquing who you think I am as a person, rather than what I actually express. That goes the same for the moron who posted before you. You really shouldn’t bother.

    And, you don’t know what it’s like to make your living as an actor and probably don’t even care, as you don’t take the profession very seriously anyway.

    Take Care,
    CCP

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 7, 2017 @ 10:02 pm - October 7, 2017

  14. Again:

    Why would you slag Harvey Fierstein?

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 7, 2017 @ 10:11 pm - October 7, 2017

  15. From the sounds of it, it doesn’t sound like there are a lot of people here who have had experience with being sexually abused/harassed/raped.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 7, 2017 @ 10:22 pm - October 7, 2017

  16. Ashley Judd played whore to Weinstein’s depravity. Now she is saggy and baggy and he is about to lose his power and she “bravely” steps forth to one-up him on his way down. Some example of rectitude Judd is.

    She knew about Weinstein but kept her silence for twenty years. Nasty woman.

    Hillary seems awfully cozy with sexual predators.

    mobile.twitter.com/NoahShachtman/status/916019402776236032

    Comment by V the K — October 7, 2017 @ 10:25 pm - October 7, 2017

  17. “And, you don’t know what it’s like to make your living as an actor”

    Why yes we do. You told us. You have to be either a sexual predator or a whore.

    So, now tell us why anyone should take anything these sexual predators and whores say seriously.

    That fact you call me a moron speaks volumes about you. You condone sexual predators in Hollywood, condemn sexual predators in the Catholic Church and then call me a moron. Maybe I am but my moral compass is not broken. We can’t say the same for yours. I’d rather be a moron then morally bankrupt.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 7, 2017 @ 10:26 pm - October 7, 2017

  18. “Why would you slag Harvey Fierstein?”

    I guess your moral compass is missing the part about hypocrisy. That is a very common Progressive trait.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 7, 2017 @ 10:36 pm - October 7, 2017

  19. @16
    Way to blame the victim. Damned if she does and damned if she doesn’t.

    You condone sexual predators in Hollywood

    And you straight up lie, moron, which makes you the morally bankrupt one.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 7, 2017 @ 10:37 pm - October 7, 2017

  20. I guess your moral compass is missing the part about hypocrisy.

    I guess you’re a f*cking idiot who can’t explain why Harvey Fierstein has to be dragged into this.

    Why? Because he’s an actor who works in the industry? You’re a loon.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 7, 2017 @ 10:39 pm - October 7, 2017

  21. “I guess you’re a f*cking idiot who can’t explain why Harvey Fierstein has to be dragged into this.”

    He put himself into the freak show. He know, he said nothing.

    No victim blaming either. Ms. Judd came forward only when she could no longer whore for him.

    And yes, your first statement was something like “that is just the way it works” is apologizing and condoning the abusive. You know just like moms told their married daughters in the 50’s after their husbands hit them. “Deal with it honey, just part of the marriage”

    The reason the Progressive news outlets are playing this down? Like you, they say, “just part of the system, honey. You want to see your name in lights, put out”. Now, any self respecting person would simply walk away and report the pig. It is not being covered because so many people simply looked the other way for dollars or fame.

    Now, why should we take any Progressive Hollywood types as a voice on anything serious?

    You also betray your so-called late to the game condemnation by bringing the Catholic Church into it. Deflection usually is an admission of guilt.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 7, 2017 @ 11:39 pm - October 7, 2017

  22. And let’s not even bother mentioning the role the NY Times played in all this.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 7, 2017 @ 11:39 pm - October 7, 2017

  23. @21 you’re spinning. Your spinning Judd’s words and you’re spinning mine.

    Judd came forward because someone in power was willing to tell her story, along with others. And we’re all better off for it now that it’s in the open.

    You’ve never been a victim of sexual abuse. What do you know?

    Nothing.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 7, 2017 @ 11:42 pm - October 7, 2017

  24. More Progressive niceness : Starting January 1, 2018, it will no longer be a major crime in California to knowingly expose a sexual partner to HIV without disclosing the infection. Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation on Friday that lowers the offense from a felony to a misdemeanor.

    The California legislature passed SB 239 on September 11.
    The law previously punished people who knowingly exposed or infected others with HIV by up to eight years in prison. This new legislation will lower jail time to a maximum of six months.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 7, 2017 @ 11:46 pm - October 7, 2017

  25. “You’ve never been a victim of sexual abuse.”

    Thankfully I haven’t. Both of my adopted sons are sexual abuse survivors. All three of my foster sons were as well. I went through sexual counseling with all 5 of them. I volunteered hundreds of hours with juvenile sexual offenders.

    Ashley Judd came from a family of very successful women. She didn’t need the money. She wanted the fame. You are confusing sexual harassment with sexual abuse. Ashley Judd was asked to give a guy a massage and to watch him shower. Hardly sexual abuse. Shame on you.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 7, 2017 @ 11:57 pm - October 7, 2017

  26. The thing about that is… every single person I have ever met with HIV said they got infected from a partner who lied about his status.

    Comment by V the K — October 7, 2017 @ 11:58 pm - October 7, 2017

  27. Don’t pick on Harvey F. I don’t see him pontificating an awful lot compared to some of the other mentioned luminaries (dim bulbs). He’s an innocent bystander.

    CCP – one thing that really bothered me about the priest scandals, yet I seldom see mentioned, is the number of parents whose silence was bought by the church: the diocese paid money and sent the priest elsewhere.

    I’ve not sired any kids (duh) but if I had, and there was any smidgen of evidence of abuse of my kid, I can’t imagine selling my silence; we’d be headed to the police station and making a lot of noise.

    It seems to me that when there’s criminal misconduct, one reason for going to the po-po is to get the criminal off the streets.

    Ditto for people abused by the likes of Harvey W. A victim’s silence leaves the perp on the street to pursue the next victim. If Weinstein did abuse Judd, isn’t there an argument to be made that her silence contributed to later abuses of other women?

    Comment by KCRob — October 7, 2017 @ 11:59 pm - October 7, 2017

  28. It’s damned if you do, damned if you don’t, KCRobb.

    Most rape/sexual harassment goes unreported because the victims don’t want to have to go through the process of not being believed.

    You are confusing sexual harassment with sexual abuse.

    Ashley Judd has been a victim of rape and incest.

    And, you’re winging behind your keyboard why she didn’t IMMEDIATELY step forward about Weinstein.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 8, 2017 @ 12:53 am - October 8, 2017

  29. She did not accuse the Hollywood pig of rape.

    She did not disclose this incident of sexual harassment when she disclosed the details of her miserable childhood. Why?

    Where is the Progressive media coverage of this?

    Where is the condemnation of Progressive politician?

    Where is the condemnation of the Progressive Hollywood elite?

    Where is the condemnation of the Obamas?

    Progressives are certainly showing their lack of morality.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 8, 2017 @ 7:13 am - October 8, 2017

  30. Heliotrope posted this quote from Frank Capra, which I’ve formatted so that each thought can be appreciated.

    “Someone should keep reminding Mr. Average Man that he was born free, divine, strong; uncrushable by fate, society, or hell itself;

    and that he is a child of God, equal heir to all the bounties of God;

    and that goodness is riches, kindness is power, and freedom is glory.

    Above all, every man is born with an inner capacity to take him as far as his imagination can dream or envision

    — providing he is free to dream and envision.”

    I would only add,

    and providing he resists the distractions of trivial bs.

    Comment by apple betty — October 8, 2017 @ 7:48 am - October 8, 2017

  31. Nashley Judd kept quiet about Weinstein because it would have been bad for her career to speak out. She raged against Trump because she’s a partisan hack who loves attention. Simplest explanation.

    Comment by V the K — October 8, 2017 @ 8:53 am - October 8, 2017

  32. The two Harveys were made for each other

    Comment by James — October 8, 2017 @ 9:28 am - October 8, 2017

  33. CrayCray @ #13:

    I engage with people here who actually read what I write. You’re more interested in critiquing who you think I am as a person, rather than what I actually express. (…) You really shouldn’t bother.

    Au contraire! I actually read what you write. It is the reason for my comments. What you write could not be expressed by common sense conservatism. What you write is by and large, emotional liberal stuff.

    And, you don’t know what it’s like to make your living as an actor and probably don’t even care, as you don’t take the profession very seriously anyway.

    Oops. That is w-a-y off the mark.

    CrayCray, the Weinstein/Judd back and forth began on a different thread. There I wrote

    why the Great Flaming Hollyweird Feminists don’t chew him up and spit him out is the real question

    ….and you replied

    Because mostly men are still calling the shots in Hollywood. It’s not rocket science.

    and everything devolved from there.

    You tacitly blame the inequities, the depravities, the weirdness of Hollywood on: M-E-N and the fact that the male libido controls the “culture.”

    If that is true, then what, pray tell, is a “feminist” in Hollyweird?

    Apparently, it is a woman who lays to play according to the sexual gratification needs of the likes of Harvey, the Fat Greasy Pig, Weinstein. Feminism which sucks the powerful in order to get through the door is not the sort of feminism the played and laid actress emotes on the screen or screams on the Washington Mall. It is casting couch flopping and stripping for a script feminism. It is whores demanding more money or respect or playing a role for effect.

    But, you breeze right past that and defend poor little Ashley who proudly attacked Trump as the “NASTY” feminist. And you can not see the duplicity. You can not see that “feminist” Ashley Judd permits Hollyweird, but attacks Trump for doing what supposedly in every day fare in Hollyweird by M-E-N in power.

    And then there is Bill Clinton and sex is a private matter as he diddles a girl the age of his daughter with a cigar to the birth canal while trysting in the Oval Office. No offense. No foul. Just Bubba doing consenting adult stuff. Like Harvey and Ashley.

    I won’t go on, because you simply can not see the double standards, the amorality when convenient, the moral outrage when it involves someone you refuse to tolerate in your tolerance arena.

    CrayCray, you are the poster boy for liberal duplicity. You have the right personal credo for Hollyweird. Conservatives there are set upon by hounds.

    Acting is a profession. Good actors are a joy to watch. They can be quite bright or basket cases and dull as bricks. I have met very personable butchers, cesspool attendants, proctologists, athletes, and homeless folks. I can respect them. But their “profession” has nothing to do with it until they perform their trade with efficiency and successfully.

    You painted Hollyweird as a male hierarchy and even said that it is not rocket science to know that. I agree. But there your argument totally collapses. You can’t explain why the Great Flaming Hollyweird Feminists don’t chew up the M-E-N and spit them out. But the answer is clear. It is a lousy career choice and so the “feminists” are flaming phonies when it comes to Hollyweird. Especially when their “causes” take big cash donations form the creepiest of the creeps.

    That, Cray,Cray is amorality, moral relevance, situation ethics, hypocrisy, duplicity, mendacity and fraud. Sort of the whole underlying structure of Hollyweird.

    Comment by Heliorope — October 8, 2017 @ 10:24 am - October 8, 2017

  34. Helio, by CCP own admission Hollywood is run by Progressive males and Progressive males treat women like chattel (sort of like Islam). Then CCP complains that Conservatives are calling Progressives out on their hypocrisy.

    Faced with an intellectual and moral dilemma, CCP completely collapses into a 4yo drama queen.

    Now, why is it the late night hosts are not ridiculing this Hollywood pig? Because the bosses at the big networks knew this was going on and turned a blind greedy eye to it. Because this is a yuuuuuge blemish on the DNC supporting Hollywood crowd. It would completely nullify the Progressive supporting Hollywood opinions.

    Has Mark Ruffalo weighed in on this? Nope. That speaks volumes about so-called feminists men.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 8, 2017 @ 11:29 am - October 8, 2017

  35. “Harvey Feirstein — the old, gravel voiced gay queen — is apparently being confused with Harvey Weinstein — the old, creepy, BISEXUAL predator.” FIFY

    Comment by rjligier — October 8, 2017 @ 11:53 am - October 8, 2017

  36. From Ann Coulter

    Ashley Judd to Trump voters. “You voted for a pussy grabber!” Ashley Judd to Harvey Weinstein: “You can grab my pussy if I win an Oscar.”

    Comment by V the K — October 8, 2017 @ 12:25 pm - October 8, 2017

  37. All these Hollywood Actresses claiming they were abused when they willingly traded sex for favors and kept quiet about it for decades to advance their careers.

    gimme a break
    they weren’t raped
    they were just whores

    OT:
    illegal in california: plastic bags
    legal in california: knowingly giving people aids

    Comment by Steve — October 8, 2017 @ 1:55 pm - October 8, 2017

  38. TnnsNe1 continues to lie, but he’s allowed to get away with it.

    You painted Hollyweird as a male hierarchy and even said that it is not rocket science to know that.

    You inferred an acceptance that didn’t exist in my words.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 8, 2017 @ 4:18 pm - October 8, 2017

  39. Sorry not my quote.

    Yes, you were trying to avoid having to explicitly condemn the behavior because the offender is a Progressive god.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 8, 2017 @ 4:26 pm - October 8, 2017

  40. I wasn’t responding to you in my post.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 8, 2017 @ 4:47 pm - October 8, 2017

  41. Helio,

    Just because I identified a corrupt system doesn’t mean I don’t want it to change. Again, you’re projecting beliefs on me that aren’t there in your quest for … to be right in your head? … I’m not really sure … but you’re only doing it for yourself and the two or three morons who actually believe you know what I intended better than I do.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 8, 2017 @ 4:49 pm - October 8, 2017

  42. That’s an excellent Capra quotation, Heliorope. Thank you for reminding me of this great director and fine human being.

    Capra’s films treat with the importance of qualities like integrity, character, decency, etc, which has led to his being maligned and ridiculed as a second-rater – when he’s not being overlooked completely.

    I am going to buy a biography today and settle in with it.

    Comment by Stephen Ippolito — October 8, 2017 @ 5:09 pm - October 8, 2017

  43. CCP, perhaps you should stop playing verbal games and state things more clearly.

    “What Harvey Weinstein did is despicable and he should be removed from all boards and positions.”

    Is much clearer than : “Because mostly men are still calling the shots in Hollywood. It’s not rocket science.”

    And

    “And, you don’t know what it’s like to make your living as an actor”

    Both statement imply consent.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 8, 2017 @ 5:12 pm - October 8, 2017

  44. You’re the one playing games.

    And you’re a shameless liar.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 8, 2017 @ 5:16 pm - October 8, 2017

  45. Does Hollywood have a higher-percentage of perverts* and creeps than corporate America in-general. Or, …it just seems that way.

    *- I include those known for hosting “pool parties”, free skiing weekends and mountain barbecues of eager and nubile twinks and frat-boy type ‘actors’ perfectly willing to put-out in almost any perversion. Being gay/bi isn’t a requirement, for some “boys’ being ‘straight’ is a marketing advantage.

    And yes, I’m embittered because I never got invited then…or now.

    Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 8, 2017 @ 5:31 pm - October 8, 2017

  46. CrayCray if you want the Hollyweird system to change to a moral one, you would not clutter us with comments which say anything but that. You would not be so sensitive and defensive. You would see it for what it is and speak openly about its flaws, failings and immorality.

    Perhaps, this is not intuitive for you. When one is wrapped up in situation ethics and moral relevance it is not intuitive to assess things in terms of right and wrong.

    Comment by Heliorope — October 8, 2017 @ 8:51 pm - October 8, 2017

  47. CrayCray if you want the Hollyweird system to change to a moral one, you would not clutter us with comments which say anything but that. You would not be so sensitive and defensive. You would see it for what it is and speak openly about its flaws, failings and immorality.

    Perhaps, this is not intuitive for you. When one is wrapped up in situation ethics and moral relevance it is not intuitive to assess things in terms of right and wrong.

    Comment by Heliorope — October 8, 2017 @ 8:51 pm - October 8, 2017

  48. But the real question is: Did Harvey “Grab em by the pu$$y?” Oh, I forgot -that was Don

    Comment by kyle — October 8, 2017 @ 9:09 pm - October 8, 2017

  49. CrayCray if you want the Hollyweird system to change to a moral one

    You can think whatever you want to think. But, it’s a reach.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 8, 2017 @ 10:18 pm - October 8, 2017

  50. Is lil letter kyle really lil letter mike?

    Or is he another morally bankrupt Progressive dog turd dropper?

    kyle meet mike.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 8, 2017 @ 10:23 pm - October 8, 2017

  51. Now, now, everyone, be nicer to CrayCray.

    What he’s admitting is that Ashley Judd and all these “feminists” really had no choice.

    After all, Weinstein was bankrolling Meryl Streep, Hillary Clinton, Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren, Kirsten Gillibrand, and all the Democrat Party.

    Ashley Judd knew that if she complained, if she went to the press, these women would destroy her for cutting off their meal ticket. Look to what Hillary did to Bill’s victims and what Kamala Harris tried to do to the Planned Parenthood exposers.

    Women are chattel for Democrat political power. We should applaud CrayCray for once being honest and admit that the Women’s March, all these “strong women”, and the like are just lying, malicious hypocrites who will allow women to be raped if it gets them power. Everything Democrats and Hollywood say about their “respect for women” is an utter lie.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2017 @ 11:49 am - October 9, 2017

  52. Oh, and CraYCray and kyle, why do you think Kamala Harris used her power as California Attorney General to quash and block any and all complaints around Harvey weinstein’s behavior?

    I mean, it defies description that Kamala Harris would so clearly allow women to be raped — but then again, if she prosecuted rape in Hollywood, she would destroy her funding sources, and she’s a already trying to run as Black Jesus with Lady Parts in 2020.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 9, 2017 @ 11:54 am - October 9, 2017

  53. North Dallas Thirty, hopefully the Trump supporters with use this to completely discredit Ms. Harris. Establishment R’s would not have the guts to use this against an opponent. Trump, not so much.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 9, 2017 @ 12:15 pm - October 9, 2017

  54. The New York Times had a story about Harvey Weinstein’s abuse of women in 2004, but they spiked it. Don’t tell CCCP, he thinks the New York Times was brave for breaking the story.

    Comment by V the K — October 9, 2017 @ 1:55 pm - October 9, 2017

  55. Oh, sure, let’s give them zero credit because they finally told the story. Listen, it’s unfortunate the story got buried. It’s sad, pathetic, and infuriating, actually.

    But, the story finally did get out. Would you rather it hadn’t?

    Btw, that was a direct question that negates a yes/no answer.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 9, 2017 @ 7:31 pm - October 9, 2017

  56. “Oh, sure, let’s give them zero credit because they finally told the story.”

    Ask all the women who were abused from 2004 until 2017 how they feel about the story being hidden. Better late than never is a sorry excuse.

    One of my sons was sexually abused because the perp’s history was hidden by the perps connections. Once the perp was caught, it didn’t make his trauma any less. Stop trying to justify an evil industry filled with Progressives, Feminists and Climate Change Scare Mongers. Drain the Hollywood Swamp!!!

    All his income and all his Oscars should be confiscated. Isn’t that Progressive penalty for toxic masculinity and White Privilege?

    Comment by tnnsne1 — October 9, 2017 @ 8:24 pm - October 9, 2017

  57. She spoke up, like other women who went forward and spoke up. Some has to stand up, or the silence continues.

    And, I’m sorry about your son.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 10, 2017 @ 12:17 am - October 10, 2017

  58. But, the story finally did get out. Would you rather it hadn’t?

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 10, 2017 @ 12:18 am - October 10, 2017

  59. CCP you are still trying to justify the unjustifiable further diminishing your credibility.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 10, 2017 @ 8:17 am - October 10, 2017

  60. You can’t answer the question, can you? Sad.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 10, 2017 @ 1:10 pm - October 10, 2017

  61. “Hey, we could have told you 13 years ago that your baby-sitter was a paedophile, but we decided not to because it would have been bad for our career. We’re sorry he raped your kids, but aren’t you glad the story finally got out, or would you rather it hadn’t?”

    Comment by V the K — October 10, 2017 @ 7:06 pm - October 10, 2017

  62. Shorter Jimmy: “Best left covered up if it had not been exposed right away.”

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 10, 2017 @ 8:03 pm - October 10, 2017

  63. CCP, are you dense or are you trying to cover for the rapist and the Progressive Hollywood scum?

    Do I feel sympathy for Ashley Judd? Nope. You know why? She had options. By 1999, she had 20 acting credits. She had more money than most people will make in a lifetime. She could have walked away from Hollywood and exposed this pig for what he is. Instead, she chose to stay and live with pigs. She traded all my sympathy for fame. She wasn’t raped by this pig, she was sexually harassed. And yes, there are degrees of deplorable acts. I am hoping that you are not equating harassment with rape. I save my sympathy for the woman who does not have options.

    Now, we have other high profile Hollywood women saying they were harassed by this pig and they stayed silent. Men in Hollywood knew. Men who claim to be advocates of women’s rights and self proclaimed Male Feminists. They stayed silent as well. Pigs too.

    I know you are a fan of acting (most likely you had aspirations). Hollywood is a cesspool. According to this pig (and other sources), it has been a cesspool for decades. Not only is the sexual abuse and rape abhorrent, the hypocrisy is equally abhorrent.

    “I was shocked and appalled by the revelations about Harvey Weinstein,” Clinton said in a statement through her spokesman Nick Merrill. “The behavior described by women coming forward cannot be tolerated. Their courage and the support of others is critical in helping to stop this kind of behavior.” — Five days later.

    Do you think she didn’t know? How stupid is she? Her husband is a rapist, her best friend’s husband is a pedophile and one of her top supporters is a rapist. Isn’t there a saying about the company you keep?

    “Michelle and I have been disgusted by the recent reports about Harvey Weinstein,” the statement said. “Any man who demeans and degrades women in such fashion needs to be condemned and held accountable, regardless of wealth or status. We should celebrate the courage of women who have come forward to tell these painful stories. And we all need to build a culture — including by empowering our girls and teaching our boys decency and respect — so we can make such behavior less prevalent in the future.” Again, 5 days later and only after CNN (of all places) called him out on it.

    Now, you can’t tell me the leader of the Free world for 8 years who had 100’s of Hollywood connections didn’t know what was going on? You can’t possibly be that naive. Progressives from news media, the film industry and politics covered this up and turned a blind eye for $$$$$$$$$$. In my book, that is called being a whore.

    Your new darling, Kamila Harris must have known as well.

    If she didn’t, she is unfit to serve in any public office. She should resign. Her bid for the Presidency should be ended by this. If not, Progressives have fewer morals then I thought. And I don’t think they have many.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 10, 2017 @ 10:26 pm - October 10, 2017

  64. Judd was raped as a child. Would it have been better had she said nothing when the NY Times went to her? Sure, she has money. And, yeah, it would have been great if she spoke up back when it happened. But, look what happened to Anita Bryant when she spoke up in the early 1990s. THE MEDIA RIPPED HER TO SHREDS.

    I am hoping that you are not equating harassment with rape. I save my sympathy for the woman who does not have options.

    I’ve acknowledged the differences several times. And, yes, I also have greater sympathy for women (and men) who don’t have the convenience of money and fame.

    But, I’m not about to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Nope. This needed to come out and I’m glad they did. And I applaud and support every woman who finally came forward, including one man, Terry Crewes, who has also spoken up.

    Pigs too.

    I agree.

    But, I don’t believe that EVERYONE knew exactly what he was doing. I believe MOST people knew he was varying degrees of creep. I’m not about to assume that EVERYONE KNEW he forced himself on women in exchange for movie roles. Or that he settled out of court. There are celebrities who say “everyone knew.” Well, not everyone operates in the same circles and has the same power/access. It’s bullsh!t to say “Everyone knew.”

    Hollywood is a cesspool.

    There are a good proportion of creeps and rapists who use their power to abuse others, yes. There are also GENUINE people who are passionate about filmmaking, including many with talent who employ their abilities to make great art. I’m not going to turn my back on a medium that make great art, just because a portion of it is filled with vile creatures.

    As far as Hillary: she said something. She should also donate everything she contributed to her campaign to charity, if she knows what’s good for her. And, no, Kamala Harris isn’t perfect. But, why would she know about Weinstein necessarily. And Obama as well. I mean wtf? That’s like saying Trump knew about Bill O’Reilly and Roger Ailes. Many people in Harvey’s company knew exactly what was going on. Many women who were assaulted by him and had no agency knew what was going on. A lot of people in the industry knew he was a creep. I follow movies, as you know, and I had no idea. He always gave me a creepy vibe, for certain. And I heard one rumour a long time ago. But, I can’t judge a person based on “a vibe” and a rumour. Just like, as a child, I didn’t steer clear of my priest because he gave me a creepy vibe. Sometimes, looks are deceiving. And my instincts aren’t always correct.

    I know you are a fan of acting (most likely you had aspirations).

    I appreciate you writing this, because it’s the truth, and it’s one of the kindest things you said to me (that breathing thing from a while back was another; don’t think I have forgotten). I’m not as liberal as you think I am. And I wish we could just get passed whatever sh!t is between us and move on.

    But, again, Anita Bryant spoke up and look what happened to her.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 10, 2017 @ 11:42 pm - October 10, 2017

  65. Sorry, that was a typo. I meant Anita Hill.

    She was raked over the coals.

    And you ask why Ashley Judd didn’t speak up back in the 1990s? Huh?

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 11, 2017 @ 1:03 am - October 11, 2017

  66. SURE WOULD LOVE YOUR THOUGHTS ON ASHLEY JUDD IN THE CONTEXT OF ANITA HILL, MATE!

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 11, 2017 @ 8:42 am - October 11, 2017

  67. Look what happened to Anita Hill when she spoke up in the early 1990s. THE MEDIA RIPPED HER TO SHREDS.

    False.

    Even though Anita Hill’s story utterly lacked credibility, and was refuted by multiple other women who worked with Clarence Thomas, the media actively promoted her story and elevated her to the status of feminist icon. They even made a hagiographic movie about her that treated her dubious claims with absolute credulity. It was nominated for multiple industry award.

    The only person who got ripped to shreds was Clarence Thomas, who is still falsely portrayed on the left as a sexual harasser despite zero evidence.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2017 @ 9:10 am - October 11, 2017

  68. Um, no, true. You’re reinventing history.

    And, look at you.

    You’re taking Ashley Judd to task for not speaking up sooner, but you’re dragging Anita Hill and accusing her of lying. She was telling the f*cking truth.

    See, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. You set a bar that no one can reach.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 11, 2017 @ 3:55 pm - October 11, 2017

  69. Anita Hill:

    “I expected to be able to give my testimony, for them to ask probing questions because I really wanted people to understand exactly what had happened. But I didn’t think that all of the outside campaigning that was done against my testimony, by the people who were supposed to be determining what the truth was, was appropriate.” …

    The questions, too, were unfair, according to Hill. “They were ill-informed questions,” she said. “They were drawing on myths and things that had not been proven, that no one had sworn to. Statements that I don’t even know they are accurate statements. Sen. [Alan] Simpson said he had letters and faxes, but when asked to present them, he refused to present them. I don’t even know if those things were, in fact, true.”

    Since testifying, Hill said she has seen changes. “The Civil Rights Law passed in 1991. For the first time women when they proved their claims were able to fully recover the damages, the losses they had suffered. That was monumental. But, you know, as important as the women running for Congress and the greater attention that we had with women going forward and filing complaints, were the public conversations and the private conversations that people had with their own family members, stories that they had never shared before. And our ability to talk about the issue as a society has moved because of those conversations.”

    Hill said her life has changed in “so many ways” since she testified. “Because of the attention it brought, because of the thousands of letters that I have from people around, talking about what the experiences meant to them in their workplaces. … Since 1991, we’ve come to terms with the fact that, yes, sexual harassment is wrong and it does matter and it exists, it’s prevalent, but we still haven’t figured out exactly what to do about it. And so, in addition to my career as a professor and as educator and as a lawyer, I’ve been able to go out and try to help people understand how we can move forward and what we do need to do about it.”

    Anita Hill spoke up. GP calls her a liar.

    Ashley Judd spoke up. GP calls her a hypocrite for not speaking up sooner.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 11, 2017 @ 4:27 pm - October 11, 2017

  70. Radio silence from TnnsNe1. Sad.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 11, 2017 @ 7:09 pm - October 11, 2017

  71. IOW Anita Hill was *not* torn to shreds by the media.

    Comment by V the K — October 11, 2017 @ 8:36 pm - October 11, 2017

  72. Um, yes, she was torn to shreds.

    DO YOU EVEN WATCH THE HEARINGS?

    She was vilified and not seen as a hero at the time on American television sets. The media was eating up the sensationalist aspects while what people saw in the hearing was a woman who stood up and spoke the truth and was met with character assassination.

    You certainly love to make up sh!t. And, you get away with it on here, because most everyone here doesn’t care/agrees with your politics. Must be nice.

    Wikipedia:

    Doubts about the veracity of Hill’s 1991 testimony persisted long after Thomas took his seat on the Court. They were furthered by American Spectator writer David Brock in his 1993 book The Real Anita Hill, though he later recanted the claims he had made, described in his book as “character assassination,” and apologized to Hill

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 11, 2017 @ 9:17 pm - October 11, 2017

  73. CrayCray, sorry, but no cigar. Anita Hill was LIONIZED by the Media. Her testimony nearly destroyed the chances of Clarence Thomas in his Supreme Court nomination hearings in the Senate.

    However, if your education is from the movies and the Hollyweird version of history, then you are likely regurgitating the total bullshite put forth in the HBO movie Confirmation scripted by leftiest writer Susannah Gate of Erin Brockovich fame. Hollyweird is always Johnny-on-the-spot with revisionist history, because liberals know that legend overtakes fact. (Bonnie and Clyde were just lovable folks who slipped and got too deep into their mistakes, don’t you know.)

    I believe that Clarence Thomas is on the Supreme Court only because his own words put him there. He faced the Democrats in the Senate Colossium:

    “This is a circus. It’s a national disgrace. And from my standpoint as a black American, as far as I’m concerned, it is a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves, to do for themselves, to have different ideas. And it is a message that unless you kowtow to an old order, this is what will happen to you. You will be lynched, destroyed, caricatured by a committee of the U.S. — U.S. Senate, rather than hung from a tree.”

    Teddy Kennedy, in particular was brought up short by those words. He had successfully killed the nomination of Robert Bork and established the precedent that Supreme Court Justices could legitimately be rejected for their ideology and political views.

    Teddy Kennedy aide Ricki Seidman, former legal director of People for the American Way and James Brudney, an aide to Judiciary Committee member Howard Metzenbaum called Anita Hill about a tip they had received of her sexual harassment by Thomas. The FBI investigated the charges. Then someone on the Senate staff leaked Hill’s affidavit, forcing her to support her claims on the threat of perjury. At that point, Thomas was effectively put on trial by the senate inquiry and confirmation committee.

    Kennedy, Metzenbaum and Biden lost control of the narrative and the confirmation “hearing” became a sort of a “reverse” criminal trial in which Thomas had to prove his innocence. But it turned out that “the presumption of innocence” standard was so strong, that the manipulated show trial fell flat on its face. The atmosphere within the committee was poisonous. Democrats knew that the first course for the Republicans would be to shred Anita Hill’s past, her character and her association with Democrat staffers who might have helped her make her story more dramatic and juicer.

    It was Teddy Kennedy who saw the future in losing the narrative and he began to signal surrender within the committee. (He was well acquainted with scandals, lies and investigations.)

    Even the Washington Post figured out and editorialized how the “increasingly symbiotic relationship between committee staffers, liberal interest groups and the news media” had subverted the process.

    Anita Hill slinked away because the DemonizingRats used her for all they could and then abandoned her like yesterday’s one night stand. She was the center piece in a game of politics which backfired on the crusaders.

    The liberal who entered this drama rooting for the girl on the basis of gender justice, got creamed by trying to Lynch the uppity black.

    I think it is touching that you equate Anita Hill with Ashley Judd. I am less touched by the other half of the equation and that is comparing Clarence Thomas to Harvey Weinstein.

    Only Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill know the truth about pubic hairs on Coke cans, Long Dong Silver and other high crimes and misdemeanors in the harassment saga which was shut down by those who launched it.

    Now, Hollyweird and the MSM have pretty much written and promoted their version of reality. The NYT, the New Yorker, Salon, Progressive, Rolling Stone, Mother Jones, the Boston Globe, the HuffingtonPost, Vanity Fair, The Atlantic and others have supported the revisionist view. The sad fact for liberals is that the transcripts, the video tapes and records of the whole confirmation gone wildly political are in the archives for honest minds to research and review.

    Harassment has become a stand-by charge for stoking up the social justice warrior types. In most cases, it is “he-said; she-said” and neither evidence nor probability are available.

    Liberals loved Anita Hill then and they still think she is top stuff now. They also think Clarence Thomas is dumb as a brick. They also think any black conservative is an Oreo and the fact that Mrs. Thomas is white is just icing-on-the-cake proof that uppity Clarence hates his skin.

    Comment by Heliorope — October 11, 2017 @ 11:50 pm - October 11, 2017

  74. I watched the hearings. They assassinated her character. You obviously missed that.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 12, 2017 @ 12:11 am - October 12, 2017

  75. CrayCray, you obviously bought Hill’s claims. You obviously did not like the reality of how a defense in such murky stuff is conducted.

    This is what you wrote:

    She was vilified and not seen as a hero at the time on American television sets. The media was eating up the sensationalist aspects while what people saw in the hearing was a woman who stood up and spoke the truth and was met with character assassination.

    The media reporting from the time is quite available. They were pushing the story that Hill was sexually harassed by Thomas who was her superior.

    The hearings were decidedly going against Thomas until Kennedy realized that the Republicans were going to rip Hill to shreds.

    The Republicans were tracking down leads about Hill. “Untrustworthy,” “selfish,” “bitter,” “militantly anti-male,” “holier-than-thou,” “obsessively concerned with race and gender issues,” “subject to wild mood swings,” “a full-fledged campus radical,” “obsessed with oral sex” and “the world’s kinkiest law professor.” The way of politics is to give the opponents a view of what awaits them if they do not defer.

    I watched the hearings. I researched the players. I read the reports. I will stop there, because none of this depends upon a claim to expertise. You are welcome to your recollections, but they do not accord with fact. It would be very easy for you to read the Time and Newsweek cover stories, to get the reporting from the WaPo and NYT and even get the tapes from the Newsmuseum of the television reporting. Anita Hill got tremendous support from media.

    However, polling showed that America was disgusted with the hearings and favored putting Thomas on the court by 2 to 1.

    Howie Kurtz asked at the time following the hearings: “Is it possible for a book that rewrites the national psychodrama over Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill to receive a dispassionate hearing? Or must such a work inevitably be sucked into the ideological maelstrom that swirled around the 1991 hearings, reflexively championed by Thomas supporters and denounced by Hill sympathizers?”

    You are clearly a Hill sympathizer. Your mind is made up.

    The DemonizingRats decided to focus on Hill until it dawned on them that they were destroying her and their cause at the same time.

    This whole thread is chocked full of your verbal dyspepsia. I, for one, am satisfied that your view is set in stone and nothing and no one can shine any light that you will accept.

    Now go light a candle to Anita. Or, not.

    Comment by Heliorope — October 12, 2017 @ 3:40 am - October 12, 2017

  76. Anita Hill did not come out of the hearings looking good after they finished. Thomas got appointed to the Supreme Court.

    You need to update your prescription.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 12, 2017 @ 9:21 am - October 12, 2017

  77. CrayCray first claimed:

    (1.) She was vilified and not seen as a hero at the time on American television sets. (2.) The media was eating up the sensationalist aspects (3.) while what people saw in the hearing was a woman who stood up and spoke the truth and was met with character assassination.

    #1. claims Hill was not seen as a hero at the time by the people watching TV; and, #3 says the people saw a woman speaking the truth and her character was assassinated for it. Yet, #2 says the media was “eating up” the sensational aspects. She was “vilified” and the media was “eating up” the sensational aspects” and people saw the “character assassination of Hill, who spoke the truth.

    Then @ #76, CrayCray concludes:

    Anita Hill did not come out of the hearings looking good after they finished. Thomas got appointed to the Supreme Court.

    Fact: The DemonizingRats set Hill up and then abandoned her. Big Time. They read the tea leaves and they discovered that among the hoi polloi the “presumption of innocence” far outweighed salacious gossip. The disgust was aimed at Biden, Kennedy, Metzenbaum and all the furies who circled around Hill and tried to Lynch the conservative Oreo black trash. Liberalism took a major hit.

    Within hours of the confirmation, the work began on the left to elevate Anita Hill to some sort of social justice icon. And, today, Hill is the Rosa Parks of sexual harassment.

    For some, she will always be the scorned truth teller who was vilified by evil supporters of the “dumbest” country clod, albeit black, who ever got on the Supreme Court. And, worse, he plopped his black ass down in St. Thurgood Marshall’s seat.

    Kennedy and Biden, two of great DemonizingRat sexual harassers nearly pulled it off. I would not be the least bit surprised if each of them got valuable information concerning their own problems. You know the scene. The horse head in the bed bleeding all over the place.

    The problem with dirty laundry politics at the Senate level is that innuendo is just an Italian suppository. If you ain’t got the goods, check your own foundations. Ask Gary Hart, John Kerry, John Edwards, et al. Otherwise, you know how the game is played and you have a war room, a bimbo eruption squad, a mouthpiece flak and you hold lots of chits. Colorful, ain’t it. Oh, those Kennedy boys! Boys will be boys! But only if they are Kennedys. Anita, meet Teddy. He will screw you either way you play the game.

    Comment by Heliorope — October 12, 2017 @ 1:45 pm - October 12, 2017

  78. Hill didn’t start getting vindicated until years later. Just ask David Brock from the American Spectator.

    And what an odd call for Thomas’ wife to make, demanding she apologise and then spinning it as offering an olive branch.

    Sure, hun. Keep spinning. Hill told the truth and ReThuglicans made her out to be a liar.

    Just like GP would have had Ashley Judd come forward in the 1990s. Or any woman for that matter.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 12, 2017 @ 5:23 pm - October 12, 2017

  79. What would Ashley Judd have lost if she came forward?

    Is the answer “her career”? If so, you are telling us the every single producer in Hollywood is a pig. Thank you. There is no other logical answer.

    She wasn’t risky her livelihood. At that time she had more money than most Americans.

    n 1999, the news media was decidedly Liberal and Feminist. You are telling us that the news media was also filled with sexist pigs. Thank you.

    What you don’t seem to understand is that your insistence that Ms. Judd is the hallmark of courage only solidifies the argument that Hollywood and the news media are filled with sexist perverted pigs. You have just undercut most of the Progressive movement. You can be sure that the DNC/Mrs. Clinton put massive amounts of pressure on the Nothing But Clinton Network to NOT run the story in August 2016. Therefore, the DNC and Mrs. Clinton are pigs.

    Ironically, the real hero of this episode is a man, Ronan Farrow.

    Comment by TnnsNe1 — October 13, 2017 @ 2:15 pm - October 13, 2017

  80. Look at what Hill lost initially when she came forward … she became a pariah.

    Again, Judd didn’t have to say anything. But, I agree with you that Farrow has done us and society a huge service, no question.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 13, 2017 @ 4:07 pm - October 13, 2017

  81. ” Judd didn’t have to say anything”

    She had zero to lose. It wouldn’t have been members of the Right that went after her. It would have been members of your believed Hollywood and the Progressives that would have gone after her.

    Don’t you realize what you are saying? Then you keep trying to come up with false equivalencies to justify the abhorrent behavior of those your idolize. Sad. If you hadn’t dug your high heels into the ground, I might actually feel badly for you.

    Comment by tnnsne1 — October 13, 2017 @ 5:27 pm - October 13, 2017

  82. I know exactly what I’m saying. But, it’s you who anonymously says this crap on the internet because you can’t say it in public. Probably because you unconsciously realise you’re just a disgruntled troll who can’t see straight.

    Comment by CrayCrayPatriot — October 14, 2017 @ 4:30 pm - October 14, 2017

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.