MovieChat Forums > Bill Clinton Discussion > Juanita Broaddrick's Book about Alleged...

Juanita Broaddrick's Book about Alleged Clinton Rape Disappears from Amazon

posted 6 years ago by Satan2016 (25572)
15 replies | jump to latest

https://pjmedia.com/trending/exclusive-juanita-broaddricks-book-about-alleged-clinton-rape-disappears-from-amazon/
https://www.amazon.com/Youd-Better-Put-Some-That-ebook/dp/B078R9FBT9/pjmedia-20

Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who claims that Bill Clinton raped her in 1978, has written a book about the event. Published on Amazon, Kindle and print versions of the book have sold briskly. Now, however, Amazon has halted sales of the Kindle version of the book after five months of problem-free sales, and Broaddrick is sounding the alarm.

Those new statements from Bill Clinton were reported by the New York Post on June 11, taking the Internet by storm, for obvious reasons: "Norms have changed for what you can do to somebody against their will," Clinton said in an interview.

It's quite a coincidence, as Broaddrick points out, that several times recently her book has mysteriously been lost by Amazon when something more aligned with the liberal agenda takes precedence in the news cycle.

[–] Destinata (3397) 6 years ago

Well, they're a private company. They can do what they want. I hope someone else picks it up and has some nice, brisk sales with it.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

"Well, they're a private company" -- I'm getting so sick of this response to the many forms of censorship that have become acceptable over the last ten years. Companies that practice censorship should be boycotted. If money is going to determine who gets to have free speech and who doesn't, take the money away from the people abusing their power.

[–] Destinata (3397) 6 years ago

I'm highly sympathetic to you. I don't like it, but they do have that right...as do consumers to boycott them into the ground.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

So then Alex Jones should be required to sell "What Happened" by Hillary Clinton.

Unfortunately all you'll find is anti-Democrat books at his Infowars store, because he practices censorship.

Right?

Am I making sense of your inanity yet?

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

Oh Froggie, you need a refresher on logical fallacies.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

No, you need a working definition of censorship.... unless irony was your intent, if course.

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

When is the phone company going to cut off service to black people for using the N word too much?

[–] Destinata (3397) 6 years ago

No, he gets to choose what he sells because he's a private company. He has the right to sell nothing but anti-Democrat books.

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

Yes that's the point of my post, congratulations!

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

No they aren't a private company and no they don't have this right. That's why the cake bakers in Oregon lost their business for refusing service to a lesbian. Amazon is required to serve Juanita Broderick.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

God you're so incredibly ignorant and sound like a commie. Of course they're a private company and have that right.

The Oregon bakers lost their store because of boycotts, they could no longer afford the rent. They still run their business out of their house though. In a more conservative community they wouldn't have gotten boycotted and would still be baking away.

People that run private businesses have the right to run it however they want. If the public doesn't like how they run it, it's their right to boycott it until it goes belly up, like they did in Oregon. Like Destinata was saying, if you don't like Amazon not selling Broderick's book, then you have the right to boycott it. So what's your point?

[–] Thrillhouse (1509) 6 years ago

You're re-writing history. You're one of those people who insisted that if the cake bakers didn't want to serve "the public", they shouldn't have opened their doors to the public. "They should have started a private club instead of a public business". "Private buisiness" has not been added to your lexicon yet, NPC.

It was a mom and pop shop, not a national chain. San Fransisco had no power to boycott them. That's not why they lost their business. They had an outrageous court judgement against them and ran out of dontations to cover legal expenses.

[–] eYeDEF (5050) 6 years ago

WTF are you even talking about?

They didn't close their shop until the year after they had already paid their judgement. In fact, they profited off the whole stunt because the court judgement was only 135k and they were able to crowdsource 450k from sympathetic supporters online. Some of that 365k leftover obviously went to pay attorney costs. They couldn't afford to keep their store open because people in Oregon refused to go to their store. That's what a boycott is.

Your NPC brain has you thinking we should live in a society where people are forced to buy cakes from bakers they don't want to buy cakes from. That's not a free society. What does San Francisco have to do with anything? If you cracked your skull open, would there be a brain inside?

[–] Destinata (3397) 6 years ago

The cake bakers in Oregon didn't refuse service to a lesbian. They had many gay customers, and were happy to make cakes for them celebrating any occasion except weddings, which their religion forbid them to do. Freedom of religion is allowed in the US. Why, a judge just today said that practicing female mutilation is now a protected right, since some -- not all -- Muslims believe in it. But these people were known as Christian, and the couple singled them out just so they could go after them.

They actually lost their business because of harassment and because Oregon has gone bat guano crazy and lost all common sense. If Muslims are protected in the practice of female mutilation -- something that causes actual harm to a person -- but cake bakers can't say, no, I'm sorry, but my religion forbids me from baking that cake, then America as a whole has gone truly mad.

[–] Bosdog6777 (817) 6 years ago

[deleted]