That makes no sense. I was simply calling you on your attempt to switch terms in the middle of an argument.
Here they take out a huge ad in a paper with their names attached, and they do NOT believe the woman as they put their names to that ad?
LOL! You were talking about defendants in the lawsuit. The Gang of 88 were not named. Care to try again?
Your comment suggests that ALL liberals disbelieve what they write.
It suggests nothing of the sort. No more than yours suggests that liberals never knowingly lie.
The real danger with them, my friend, is that they fall under the heading of "true believers."
Why should I listen to anything said about the danger of liberal "true believers" from someone willing to carry their water?
Do you think the nurse did NOT see signs of unususal sex on/in the body of the stripper?
That is exactly what the record shows. The NC AG said there was no medical evidence to corroborate the accuser's story.
My turn, and please don't dodge this question: Do you have any evidence that the nurse DID see such signs - yes or no?
P-Marlowe, isn't it odd that you're now a bigot and I'm a liar?
At least he has the honesty to admit he is enabling left-wing racist corruption at Duke and Durham. Do you?
"If this "team" had NOT had the stripper/ho at their team party, would any of this have happened?"
No.
Now, I will ask again: what is the basis for your claim that the defendants believed the accuser's story?
From the article originally posted....the very first line.