I wonder if Hug's will be as involved in the H Weinstein conviction when it happens?

I'm gonna go with no simply because if you look hard enough, you'll see that he's completely stayed out of the Kavanaugh threads.

There's a reason for that and we all know what it is.

(October 12, 2018 at 10:43 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: And here's the excerpt from Mayor of Castro Street dealng with Harvey Milk's relationship with Jack Galen McKinley, the most basis I could find for the "Harvey Milk is a Scumbag" narrative:

https://books.google.com/books?id=P_2f52...ey&f=false

And this is as much info as we're likely to get. Milk, McKinley, and biographer Shilts are all dead now, so there's not likely to be much more info coming out. That said, the fact that this was a relationship that lasted years (although tempestuous, due to McKinley's longstanding bipolar disorder and history of suicide attempts) seems to be a bit of a hole in the scumbag narrative.

Besides, it's a bit hard to treat this as a "seduction of the innocent" when the one of the first things he says to his lover is ""I came to New York so I could suck cock."

bold mine

Everyone involved is dead now. There's no way of asking what really happened. So I need to ask since you know, Huggy brought up Harvey Milk, were there any charges ever filed against Harvey Milk for the alleged sexual misconduct? If there were charges, was he brought to trial? If so, what was the outcome? If not, then I fail to see how Harvey Milk is even relevant to this topic other than Huggy just needed to, as it was already stated, use a strawman. 

This would be the usual route one takes when their point fails to be made, rather than deal with the fact that Cosby was found guilty for raping his accuser. Despite what Huggy wants to believe, it's not about race, which has been what he's hammered on about for pages now.

I also find it interesting how Huggy attempted to walk back his comments to Shell when called out on lumping all atheists together. Damn Huggy. You're so great at quote mining people but you fail miserably to understand that YOU brought up dbp's post about Harvey Milk, specifically lumping every single atheist in with your assumption that we all would support or defend the actions of Milk. When it was pointed out to you by several people that that was not the case, you ignored all of those posts. When Rev made two posts refuting your assumptions about Milk being a pedophile, you singled Rev out, changing your goal posts to "I was only talking about Rev. Rye's post". That is utter bullshit and you know it.

(October 12, 2018 at 11:20 pm)Joods Wrote: And this is as much info as we're likely to get. Milk, McKinley, and biographer Shilts are all dead now, so there's not likely to be much more info coming out. That said, the fact that this was a relationship that lasted years (although tempestuous, due to McKinley's longstanding bipolar disorder and history of suicide attempts) seems to be a bit of a hole in the scumbag narrative.

Besides, it's a bit hard to treat this as a "seduction of the innocent" when the one of the first things he says to his lover is ""I came to New York so I could suck cock."

bold mine

Everyone involved is dead now. There's no way of asking what really happened. So I need to ask since you know, Huggy brought up Harvey Milk, were there any charges ever filed against Harvey Milk for the alleged sexual misconduct? If there were charges, was he brought to trial? If so, what was the outcome? If not, then I fail to see how Harvey Milk is even relevant to this topic other than Huggy just needed to, as it was already stated, use a strawman. 
[/quote]

As far as I could find, there were no charges laid against Harvey Milk related to this or any other case. To be honest, I have been unable to find any sign Milk was ever in court over so much as a parking ticket. Once again, I could be wrong, but I have failed to find anything. The fact that the sexual relationship with McKinley started when he was 16 is, of course, not a good thing, and if he was tried for it, he’d probably end up in jail, but with all relevant parties dead, all this discussion about Harvey Milk is just historical wankery brought up possibly for Huggy Bear to claim we’re biased in favor of left leaning white guys at the expense of angels like Bill Cosby, who has been convicted of the one rape allegation (out of dozens) that didn’t actually fall outside the statute of limitations.

Moral of the story, if you’re going to question a rape accusation, do it because the evidence for the accusation is questionable, not because of some knee-jerk desire to protect someone you admire. Judge cases solely on their own merit.

(October 12, 2018 at 8:35 pm)wyzas Wrote: I wonder if Hug's will be as involved in the H Weinstein conviction when it happens?

I'm going to tell you right now, it ain't happening, or if it does he's not getting jail time.

They already dismissed a charge.

(October 13, 2018 at 1:27 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 12, 2018 at 8:35 pm)wyzas Wrote: I wonder if Hug's will be as involved in the H Weinstein conviction when it happens?

I'm going to tell you right now it ain't happening, or if it does he's not getting jail time.

They already dismissed a charge.

bold mine. 

Why? Because he's a white guy?

---

@Huggy; Oh, and as for that charge that was dropped....

No wonder why you didn't feel like including a link. The charge (count six) that was dropped was ultimately dropped because:

Quote:Goldberg said the prosecution “jumped ship” and “ultimately she was caught between the middle of a feud between the NYPD and the DA’s office.”

Quote:Goldberg added that despite District Attorney Cy Vance not opposing the motion to dismiss the charge against Weinstein, her client’s claims remain and this “does speak to a system desperate in need of reform.”

“People always ask why don’t sexual assault survivors come forward, this is why. Today is why,” Goldberg said. Goldberg detailed how prosecutors used Evans for months and “put her through needless torture.”

(October 13, 2018 at 1:29 am)Joods Wrote:

(October 13, 2018 at 1:27 am)Huggy74 Wrote: I'm going to tell you right now it ain't happening, or if it does he's not getting jail time.

They already dismissed a charge.

bold mine. 

Why? Because he's a white guy?

---

@Huggy; Oh, and as for that charge that was dropped....

No wonder why you didn't feel like including a link. The charge (count six) that was dropped was ultimately dropped because:

Quote:Goldberg said the prosecution “jumped ship” and “ultimately she was caught between the middle of a feud between the NYPD and the DA’s office.”

Quote:Goldberg added that despite District Attorney Cy Vance not opposing the motion to dismiss the charge against Weinstein, her client’s claims remain and this “does speak to a system desperate in need of reform.”

“People always ask why don’t sexual assault survivors come forward, this is why. Today is why,” Goldberg said. Goldberg detailed how prosecutors used Evans for months and “put her through needless torture.”

Did you even read the article? It says:

Quote:The reason that count was dropped today was due, in part, to a newly unsealed letter that prosecutor Joan Illuzzi-Orbon sent to defense counsel Benjamin Brafman in September.

It cites alleged inconsistencies in Evans’ story.

Didn't I show where Constand has like 10 different contradictions in her testimony?

Didn't I show where a key witness was caught lying on the stand?

Yet Weinstein gets a charge dropped for inconsistent testimony?

Why don't YOU tell me why you think that's the case?

All I knew about Harvey Milk was that he was famously gay. I knew nothing of the claims of sexual abuse, which don't seem to be supported by a conviction.

Huggy on the other hand goes out of his way to excuse a convicted rapist. This seem to be a trend of American Christians lately and I though I'd point it out.

Huggy does go on these strange non-sequesters when defending his bizarre stances.

(October 13, 2018 at 5:06 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: All I knew about Harvey Milk was that he was famously gay. I knew nothing of the claims of sexual abuse, which don't seem to be supported by a conviction.

Huggy on the other hand goes out of his way to excuse a convicted rapist. This seem to be a trend of American Christians lately and I though I'd point it out.

Huggy does go on these strange non-sequesters when defending his bizarre stances.

I see you're back copping pleas, it seems you're too much of a coward to address me directly.

I'm still going give you that work...

If all you knew about Harvey Milk was that he was gay, why did you link to an article speaking on him being a sexual predator?
Or did you not read past the headline?

Which means you're eithier stupid or a liar...

Harvey Milk had a 16 year old lover, THAT FACT IS INDISPUTABLE.

I mean, damn, Rev. Rye just linked to a book detailing this.

If it is indisputable that he had a 16 year old lover then it is also indisputable that he was guilty of statutory rape.

Your denial of those facts is very telling.

(October 13, 2018 at 5:26 am)Huggy74 Wrote:

(October 13, 2018 at 5:06 am)downbeatplumb Wrote: All I knew about Harvey Milk was that he was famously gay. I knew nothing of the claims of sexual abuse, which don't seem to be supported by a conviction.

Huggy on the other hand goes out of his way to excuse a convicted rapist. This seem to be a trend of American Christians lately and I though I'd point it out.

Huggy does go on these strange non-sequesters when defending his bizarre stances.

If all you knew about Harvey Milk was that he was gay, why did you link to an article speaking on him being a sexual predator?
Or did you not read past the headline?

Which means you're eithier stupid or a liar...

Harvey Milk had a 16 year old lover, THAT FACT IS INDISPUTABLE.

I mean, damn, Rev. Rye just linked to a book detailing this.

If it is indisputable that he had a 16 year old lover then it is also indisputable that he was guilty of statutory rape.

Your denial of those facts is very telling.

So Harvey had a sixteen year old lover. Sixteen is the age of consent here so I don't have an issue with that. 
He wasn't convicted of being a sexual predator and his Wikipedia page says nothing about it. 
This seems to be more about your shock at men having sex with men and defending using drugs to rape women, which you seem to be fine with.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvey_Milk 

This is where I know Milk from.





In summation your attitudes and opinions are full of misogyny and homophobia, a typical US Christian.