IBDaMann
Well-known member
Had you any semblance of comprehension, you'd have learned by now that you don't speak for anyone but yourself.
Virginia Giuffre's tell all memoir to be published on Oct 21st, detailing her time with Epstein and his "many friends"
- Thread starter ziggy
- Start date
AProudLefty
The remora of JPP
If you had followed the conversation, you'd comprehend that she wasn't blaming Stone.
You truly are poor at this.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Subjunctive error. I followed the conversation. Obviously you lack any sense of formal logic.
Not to mention the one later killed in jail
ThatOwlWoman
Not Nice
I wonder how long it will take the #PhilanderingFascistFatass to sue her for mentioning him?
I think we need more of a release of his health files. I think he may be suffering from congestive heart failure, the amount of swelling I see is disturbing. If so, and if he doesn't change his diet and activity levels, we may have a President JD Vance earlier than we thought.
I think this may be to distract from the health scare they saw earlier. Notice how often he's behind a desk when addressing folks nowadays. They're hiding his swelling.
This is just one person's opinion, but it is based on information not ignorance.
I think this may be to distract from the health scare they saw earlier. Notice how often he's behind a desk when addressing folks nowadays. They're hiding his swelling.
This is just one person's opinion, but it is based on information not ignorance.
I want him out, but not due to a stroke.
That said, he is obese, almost 80, poor diet, little exercise, and appears to often be on stimulants.
Yah... If you thought Jarod's stuff was a violation, then you did this... you would know it was a violation too.
Everybody gets a warning. This one is yours. Hold on to this warning, if you post something suggesting a member here is a pedophile or loves them some child porn, you will spend some time away from the site like any other.
Yes, and after Blanche threatened her with the same fate, she complied with everything she was asked to do. And she was rewarded for her cooperation. You are just too fucking stupid to see.
You're in a far orbit pal. Trump's circle didn't do the killing. People way richer did.
And trump has made sure we'll never find out who the people "richer than he" are!
So why do you suppose? Assuming Trump himself isn't a perp. I know you don't like the idea but just say for the sake of this. What's in it for Trump as an 80 years old lame duck POTUS?
Tell me something that makes sense other than Orange Man Bad and I'll consider it.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
So how do we handle a situation such as this?
* I tell person X "the file is full of child porn"
* Person X nonetheless demands the file be released to the public
* I remind person X that she is demanding child porn be released to the public
* I ask person X why she wants child porn released to the public
* Person X continues to demand the child-porn-filled file be released to the public
Do the rules prohibit me from simply continuing this conversation, applying basic logic, etc?
Do the rules require me to report person X?
You gave me a warning, but I haven't the vaguest idea how I am somehow violating any rules by simply engaging in conversation. Perhaps you confused me with the person who is demanding that child porn be released to the public, because that was not me. I was explaining that child porn would not be released to the public.
Question: Isn't the reason you have that rule because you really object to people seeking kiddie porn? I noticed that you didn't jump in and shut down calls for the file to be released to the public. Why not? You know it's just a shitload of kiddie porn videos. You didn't say anything to ANY of the people demanding that kiddie porn be released to the public. Why are you warning me?
Why do you suppose trump with his thugs have engaged in a "nothing to see here" campaign. How do you explain trump's personal defense attorney, masquerading as doing DOJ business to interview a convict? It was to warn her to shut the fuck up about trump and Epstein or even better lie like she's been doing. How do you explain her being moved to a cushy prison afterwards?
Because trump knows his association with Epstein is problematic - not only for him politically, but potentially legally - also, his loss of support would cause the bunch of jackals in the Republican party to turn on him - they all think they're going to be the next president.
I just did. Accept it or don't.
T. A. Gardner
Thread Killer
Soon to be on the bargain table for $5 at your nearest bookstore or on Amazon...
Virginia Giuffre is to publish a memoir from beyond the grave in weeks
The self-penned autobiography called 'Nobody's Girl: A Memoir of Surviving Abuse and Fighting for Justice' is expected to hit the shelves on October 21.www.dailymail.co.uk
You respond without saying that the person you are responding to "needs" child porn. Do not make it personal and you will not wind up violating the rule.
If I were you I would talk about how the Democrats want to release child porn, not the specific person.... Again, it doesn't make it personal and does not violate the rule.
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Please notice that I had everything in quotes, because I was paraphrasing her position, i.e. what she wrote. If I am to be warned for pointing out her demand that kiddie porn be released to the public, then I hope she was treated appropriately for having demanded that child-porn be released to the public.
It was her position. She wrote it. We were discussing it. I mentioned that the file was full of child porn. I posted Bondi's video explaining such. It was all part of the discussion.
How about this, you attach Pam Bondi's video clip to the 12B rule and warn everyone that demanding the "Epstein file" be "released to the public" is a blatant call for kiddie porn to be released to the public, and that you won't stand for it.
Otherwise, you have a 12B rule that is now being used to protect people who are demanding kiddie porn be released to the public, by punishing those who point out the posters who are demanding that kiddie porn be released to the public. I'm guessing that wasn't the original intent of the 12B rule.
I did that, and pointed out that she was therefore calling for child porn to be released to the public. Her response was "Fuck You" and reitereated her demand for the kidie-porn's release. Obviously she's a sick-o, and you didn't say anything ... but you did warn me when I paraphrased her own stated position.
So how did she somehow not violate the rule? If she did not violate the rule, then I can't possibly have violated the rule by simply having stated (paraphrased) her position accurately. After all, it's her position that I paraphrased and nothing more. I didn't add anything.