Virginia Giuffre's tell all memoir to be published on Oct 21st, detailing her time with Epstein and his "many friends"

IBDaMann said:
Calling you a moron is suggesting something.


Are you once again pretending that you speak for other people? Your king is tipped.

giphy.webp
Click to expand...
You flirted with 12b violation by calling her a sick-o and her wanting child porn to be released.

Damocles warned. You may persist at your own leisure. I won't miss you.
 
IBDaMann said:
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.
Click to expand...
How's this? You, as in the person going by IBDaMann, stop saying folks on this site are into child porn or "need" child porn so you won't be violating the rule.

Instead make it generic, not personal. Otherwise you will wind up banned for being stubborn and trying to negotiate when it is simpler to just follow the rule.

Let's practice...

"Democrats are the party that's into demanding the public release of child porn!" (good)

"<insert poster's name here>, you need child porn!" (bad)

Instead say, "You support Democrats who are demanding the public release of child porn!" (doesn't break the rules, makes your point).
 
LurchAddams said:
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.
Click to expand...
Why did you answer my question with the same question up there in part one? Asking again isn't answering anything.

Sorry but I don't think you have given this much thought other than hating Trump.
 
ULTRA MAGA said:
Why did you answer my question with the same question up there in part one? Asking again isn't answering anything.

Sorry but I don't think you have given this much thought other than hating Trump.
Click to expand...
I don't think you give ANYTHING much thought, my friend. But that's on YOU.
 
Damocles said:
How's this? You, as in the person going by IBDaMann, stop saying folks on this site are into child porn or "need" child porn so you won't be violating the rule.

Instead make it generic, not personal. Otherwise you will wind up banned for being stubborn and trying to negotiate when it is simpler to just follow the rule.

Let's practice...

"Democrats are the party that's into demanding the public release of child porn!" (good)

"<insert poster's name here>, you need child porn!" (bad)

Instead say, "You support Democrats who are demanding the public release of child porn!" (doesn't break the rules, makes your point).
Click to expand...

Piffft...I didn't get directions... :(
 
Damocles said:
How's this? You, as in the person going by IBDaMann, stop saying folks on this site are into child porn or "need" child porn so you won't be violating the rule.
Click to expand...
Great, don't answer my question for clarification. You are objectively wrong. You are obviously triggered over something and so you are refusing to be helpful. I have no idea how to avoid violating your "rule" in the future when all I have done is repeat back someone's position, which is a sick position, and you claim that the position she holds is fine, but my pointing it out is not. Obviously you can irrationally ban anyone you wish, without clarifying. That's a brilliant idea.

Damocles said:
Instead make it generic, not personal.
Click to expand...
Help me make this conversation generic, not personal:

Her: Release the Epstein file
Me: It's nothing more than porn videos (post Bondi clip)
Her: STOP BULLYING TRUMP INTO RELEASING THE EPSTEIN FILES HE PROMISED TO RELEASE!!!!
Me: You are demanding that child porn be released to the public
Her: Fuck you for claiming that I want child porn released to the public
Me: Fuck you, the file is full of child porn and you want it released to the public
You: I'm giving you a warning (to me)

How do we rewrite that conversation so that you become triggered at her instead of at me?

Another question: Upon re-reading my post, I find that I could have worded it more clearly. If I had written "I NEED CHILD PORN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC" would we still be having this conversation?
 
AProudLefty said:
You flirted with 12b violation by calling her a sick-o and her wanting child porn to be released.
Click to expand...
Too funny. You acknowledge that it was her position I was pointing out. You're a complete idiot.

AProudLefty said:
Damocles warned. You may persist at your own leisure. I won't miss you.
Click to expand...
Of course not. You're a leftist. You have zero ability to contribute constructively to any conversation. All you know how to do is to pursue the silencing of opposition. This is why your party considers assassination a viable political solution. This is why leftists all want censorship ... by other leftists, of course.

Hypothetically, if I were banned, I wouldn't miss you either. There is nothing to miss.
 
IBDaMann said:
Too funny. You acknowledge that it was her position I was pointing out. You're a complete idiot.


Of course not. You're a leftist. You have zero ability to contribute constructively to any conversation. All you know how to do is to pursue the silencing of opposition. This is why your party considers assassination a viable political solution. This is why leftists all want censorship ... by other leftists, of course.

Hypothetically, if I were banned, I wouldn't miss you either. There is nothing to miss.
Click to expand...
A cringeworthy post.
 
IBDaMann said:
Great, don't answer my question for clarification. You are objectively wrong. You are obviously triggered over something and so you are refusing to be helpful. I have no idea how to avoid violating your "rule" in the future when all I have done is repeat back someone's position, which is a sick position, and you claim that the position she holds is fine, but my pointing it out is not. Obviously you can irrationally ban anyone you wish, without clarifying. That's a brilliant idea.


Help me make this conversation generic, not personal:

Her: Release the Epstein file
Me: It's nothing more than porn videos (post Bondi clip)
Her: STOP BULLYING TRUMP INTO RELEASING THE EPSTEIN FILES HE PROMISED TO RELEASE!!!!
Me: You are demanding that child porn be released to the public
Her: Fuck you for claiming that I want child porn released to the public
Me: Fuck you, the file is full of child porn and you want it released to the public
You: I'm giving you a warning (to me)

How do we rewrite that conversation so that you become triggered at her instead of at me?

Another question: Upon re-reading my post, I find that I could have worded it more clearly. If I had written "I NEED CHILD PORN RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC" would we still be having this conversation?
Click to expand...
Poor guy. :palm:
 
The girls Trump and Epstein abused were never allowed to testify in public. They wanted to be heard. They were stopped, first by Acosta in Florida and after, in every single case.
When Acosta decided to let Jeffery escape, he did not tell the girls' lawyers as he was legally required to do. Trump thought so badly of that, that he put Acosta in his first administration.
 
Walt said:
You are saying that trump's business records are full of child pornography? That is a very disturbing allegation.
Click to expand...
Nope. The "Epstein File" is just a hoax that happens to contain hundreds of child porn videos that Democrats insist be released to the public.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top