Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Ken Starr and Baylor

...

what morons like you don't understand is your assertions without any factual evidence are pure speculation. Starr could be completely innocent or he could be the guy that ran he cover-up - we dont know. ...

well, guess you'll have to retract this one.

it's okay to be wrong sometimes. we expect this from you. you are still learning how the world works. no shame in that, even at your age; some people never get it.
 
The CEO gets canned when a company is cooking the books even if the CEO wasn't directing accounting to do it ....

So Starr sits atop a horrible scandal where the victims are kids but he should be exonerated because he himself didn't actually commit assault??

nonsense. And the guy's a perv ...he got off on the sexual innuendo and investigation of Clinton
 
...

nonsense. And the guy's a perv ...he got off on the sexual innuendo and investigation of Clinton

read in creepy pervert voice: "Ms. Lewinsky... will you please... *awkward pause* ... eh... DESCRIBE... *swallows hard* ... the president's... penis for ...*another awkward pause with heavy breathing*... this committee?"
 
Ironically, Starr and B. Clinton offer similar defenses when confronted about rape.
 
Last edited:
well, guess you'll have to retract this one.

it's okay to be wrong sometimes. we expect this from you. you are still learning how the world works. no shame in that, even at your age; some people never get it.

what do I have to retract? I never said Starr was innocent - I wasn't wrong, I just haven't rush to judgement - and I'm still not rushing to judgement since the link you posted isn't anything close to the smoking gun you think it is. There's a big difference.
 
Last edited:
The CEO gets canned when a company is cooking the books even if the CEO wasn't directing accounting to do it ....

So Starr sits atop a horrible scandal where the victims are kids but he should be exonerated because he himself didn't actually commit assault??

nonsense. And the guy's a perv ...he got off on the sexual innuendo and investigation of Clinton

while it's true CEOs get fired for thing they didn't do, or no evidence links them to it anyway, the fact that it happens doesn't mean they're guilty of anything or that they SHOULD be fired. I'm not saying it's always the case - many of them deserve to get sacked and more, but just because something happens on their watch, doesn't make them guilty.
 
Back
Top