This s/b fun

4,644 Views | 94 Replies | Last: 1 yr ago by bearister
OneKeg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Column: Epstein sex trafficking charges could shine light on Clinton, Trump. Time for bipartisan revulsion. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-epstein-sex-charges-clinton-trump-huppke-20190708-gyr2bxudgjhrnnvbwcgmhoujdm-story.html
Yes, time for bipartisan revulsion. What office does Clinton hold again?
The embodiment of all things Democrat. The Democrat King. But if he ran today, he would be viewed as too conservative for dajo9.


Bill Clinton is the embodiment of all things Democrat? I had no idea.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?

I hope Jeffrey Epstein sings like a bird. And if some Democrats go down, so be it


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/09/jeffrey-epstein-sings-like-a-bird-and-if-some-democrats-go-down-so-be-it?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearForce2 said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Column: Epstein sex trafficking charges could shine light on Clinton, Trump. Time for bipartisan revulsion. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-epstein-sex-charges-clinton-trump-huppke-20190708-gyr2bxudgjhrnnvbwcgmhoujdm-story.html
Yes, time for bipartisan revulsion. What office does Clinton hold again?
The embodiment of all things Democrat. The Democrat King. But if he ran today, he would be viewed as too conservative for dajo9.


Obama is the Democratic King.
OneKeg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:


I hope Jeffrey Epstein sings like a bird. And if some Democrats go down, so be it


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/09/jeffrey-epstein-sings-like-a-bird-and-if-some-democrats-go-down-so-be-it?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other


Agree
sp4149
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kelly09 said:

Another Bear said:




If true, Trump needs to go now.
No, if he stay in office then Barr can shut down the US prosecution before it can record testimony linking Barr's president. Discrediting this victim, by the DOJ prosecutors ( to protect POTUS) would also save Epstein's bacon.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
kelly09 said:

Another Bear said:




If true, Trump needs to go now.
Oh, come on.
Won't this most certainly fall under the category of Fake News?
I'm not going to hold my breath.
I've already died a thousand deaths.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

BearForce2 said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Column: Epstein sex trafficking charges could shine light on Clinton, Trump. Time for bipartisan revulsion. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-epstein-sex-charges-clinton-trump-huppke-20190708-gyr2bxudgjhrnnvbwcgmhoujdm-story.html
Yes, time for bipartisan revulsion. What office does Clinton hold again?
The embodiment of all things Democrat. The Democrat King. But if he ran today, he would be viewed as too conservative for dajo9.


Obama is the Democratic King.
Name another DECENT person to have held high office recently.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

...Name another DECENT person to have held high office recently.


"Leon Edward Panetta (born June 28, 1938) is an American politician who has served in several different public office positions, including the Secretary of Defense, Director of the CIA, White House Chief of Staff, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and as a U.S. Representative from California." Wikipedia

Leon Panetta gave this Commencement speech to my son's law school class:

http://www.panettainstitute.org/about-us/pi-in-the-community/transcript-of-commencement-address/

Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

What a dishonest headline. Implicating people of sex crimes -- "may shine light on Clinton and Trump" -- based on nothing more than association with the guilty individual.

I have no idea how involved or not involved any of them were, but neither does that writer.

"So and so discovered to have buried dead bodies on property, may shine light on everybody who hung out there"
come now, don't you appreciate the audience. The responses and how they responded was just so predictable.
BearNakedLadies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Column: Epstein sex trafficking charges could shine light on Clinton, Trump. Time for bipartisan revulsion. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-epstein-sex-charges-clinton-trump-huppke-20190708-gyr2bxudgjhrnnvbwcgmhoujdm-story.html
Yes, time for bipartisan revulsion. What office does Clinton hold again?
Perhaps you should take Pelosi's warning a little more seriously.
Perhaps you're a hypocrite
BearNakedLadies
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:


I hope Jeffrey Epstein sings like a bird. And if some Democrats go down, so be it


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/09/jeffrey-epstein-sings-like-a-bird-and-if-some-democrats-go-down-so-be-it?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Unlike our Republican friends, I'm against all rapists and child molesters, not just the ones in the other party.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNakedLadies said:

bearister said:


I hope Jeffrey Epstein sings like a bird. And if some Democrats go down, so be it


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/09/jeffrey-epstein-sings-like-a-bird-and-if-some-democrats-go-down-so-be-it?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Unlike our Republican friends, I'm against all rapists and child molesters, not just the ones in the other party.
How novel!

Lol anybody here pro-rapist and child molesters ????
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?


Interestingly Acosta refers to the victims in the Epstein case as "child prostitutes"...but children of course can not consent to have sex by law. For a former U.S. Attorney, this is rather stupid or covering crap up. As a father of daughters saying that crap, someone should really break his face.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:



Interestingly Acosta refers to the victims in the Epstein case as "child prostitutes"...but children of course can not consent to have sex by law. For a former U.S. Attorney, this is rather stupid or covering crap up. As a father of daughters saying that crap, someone should really break his face.
In his next breath he'll tell you that 23 year old Monica Lewinsky was a victim
AunBear89
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

BearNakedLadies said:

bearister said:


I hope Jeffrey Epstein sings like a bird. And if some Democrats go down, so be it


https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/09/jeffrey-epstein-sings-like-a-bird-and-if-some-democrats-go-down-so-be-it?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other
Unlike our Republican friends, I'm against all rapists and child molesters, not just the ones in the other party.
How novel!

Lol anybody here pro-rapist and child molesters ????


Anyone that blindly supports Brother Donald would appear to be pro-rapist. So where does that put you?
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." -- Benjamin Disraeli, popularized by Mark Twain
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
The moral guidelines of minors having sex is not very coherent. Granted, it's a difficult concept to have a blanket-legal policy or moral framework that is perfectly coherent on this matter.

Think of our cultural attitudes and legal responses to it. A 15 yr old has sex with 16 yr old, nobody really cares or is outraged, and it's not pursued as a crime (although, to my knowledge, minors technically legally cannot consent to sex to anybody of any age...). But 15 yr old has sex with 30 yr old, the 15 yr old automatically becomes a "victim" and the 30 yr old a monster.

In theory, to me, that 15 yr old having sex is just the same (conceptually, not literally) in both cases. Simply put, I'd be bothered by my 15 yr old daughter having sex period. But I wouldn't care if my 15 yr old son was banging everything in sight (so to speak). I'd probably congratulate him (in so far as he was doing it ethically). Also, whether the "victim' is male or female drives the public's outrage.

I understand the over-arching necessity of restrictions placed on adults having sex with minors, but what's more important to me in assigning victimhood and culpability is consent and the existence, or absence of, manipulation, typically via one party holding a position of power or authority over the other consenting partner. I mean, in theory, a person who just turned 18 is having illegal consensual sex with a 16 yr old, when 24 hours prior it was both not a crime nor alarming moral issue.

(Yes this is different than 13-16 yr old paid sex slaves who may or may not be operating willfully)
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Typical hypocritical two-faced RWNJ bullsh*t rationalizing RAPE of children. Yeah baby...conservative family values! Same logic as bonespur chickenhawks. Now go eat your gun idiot.
GBear4Life
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

Typical hypocritical two-faced RWNJ bullsh*t rationalizing RAPE of children. Yeah baby...conservative family values! Same logic as bonespur chickenhawks. Now go eat your gun idiot.
LMAO
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BearNakedLadies said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Column: Epstein sex trafficking charges could shine light on Clinton, Trump. Time for bipartisan revulsion. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-epstein-sex-charges-clinton-trump-huppke-20190708-gyr2bxudgjhrnnvbwcgmhoujdm-story.html
Yes, time for bipartisan revulsion. What office does Clinton hold again?
Perhaps you should take Pelosi's warning a little more seriously.
Perhaps you're a hypocrite
My comment about this s/b fun was aimed at the posters on this board. You are predictable.
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

What a dishonest headline. Implicating people of sex crimes -- "may shine light on Clinton and Trump" -- based on nothing more than association with the guilty individual.

I have no idea how involved or not involved any of them were, but neither does that writer.

"So and so discovered to have buried dead bodies on property, may shine light on everybody who hung out there"
GB4LIFE is an associate, too.
GUILTY!
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:



Interestingly Acosta refers to the victims in the Epstein case as "child prostitutes"...but children of course can not consent to have sex by law. For a former U.S. Attorney, this is rather stupid or covering crap up. As a father of daughters saying that crap, someone should really break his face.
And now for the predictable idiot law posts (my apologies to those with intellectual disabilities to associate you with the above post) .

The age of consent and who can give consent is determined under state law. The women in the age groups at the "parties" could under many state laws provide consent in various situations, such as for example when the other party is a minor. Federal law doesn't even address consent.

Federal law deals with prostitution of minors, as stated directly out of the statue. 18 U.S.C. 1591 et seq. The statutory elements of the crime literally requires prostitution, which is defined, again by statue, as causing to engage in a commercial sex act (something the guys on girls gone wild might want to think about the next time the offer a drunk coed money to give a blow job on camera). Section 1591 is called "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion." Most people think of "trafficking" as involving movement across state or international borders. However, Section 1591 does not require proof that either the defendant or victim crossed state or international lines. You just need to meet two elements basically, prostitution and minors.

This means a federal attorney general has to prove that minor prostitutes were involved in the commercial enterprise, and consent never even enters the picture. When the US Attorney actually calls the victims prostitutes, he actually is using a very specific legal term that is an element of the crime. To then extrapolate, this is rather stupid or a cover-up demonstrates an utter ignorance of the law. As a father of daughters, I hope your daughters never have to rely on you for legal advise. With respect to breaking peoples' faces I hope your daughters never have to rely on you for any advise.



concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:




Olive Oil?
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
GBear4Life said:

Another Bear said:

Typical hypocritical two-faced RWNJ bullsh*t rationalizing RAPE of children. Yeah baby...conservative family values! Same logic as bonespur chickenhawks. Now go eat your gun idiot.
LMAO

Thanks, but we really didn't need to know what you look like.
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:



Interestingly Acosta refers to the victims in the Epstein case as "child prostitutes"...but children of course can not consent to have sex by law. For a former U.S. Attorney, this is rather stupid or covering crap up. As a father of daughters saying that crap, someone should really break his face.
And now for the predictable idiot law posts (my apologies to those with intellectual disabilities to associate you with the above post) .

The age of consent and who can give consent is determined under state law. The women in the age groups at the "parties" could under many state laws provide consent in various situations, such as for example when the other party is a minor. Federal law doesn't even address consent.

Federal law deals with prostitution of minors, as stated directly out of the statue. 18 U.S.C. 1591 et seq. The statutory elements of the crime literally requires prostitution, which is defined, again by statue, as causing to engage in a commercial sex act (something the guys on girls gone wild might want to think about the next time the offer a drunk coed money to give a blow job on camera). Section 1591 is called "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion." Most people think of "trafficking" as involving movement across state or international borders. However, Section 1591 does not require proof that either the defendant or victim crossed state or international lines. You just need to meet two elements basically, prostitution and minors.

This means a federal attorney general has to prove that minor prostitutes were involved in the commercial enterprise, and consent never even enters the picture. When the US Attorney actually calls the victims prostitutes, he actually is using a very specific legal term that is an element of the crime. To then extrapolate, this is rather stupid or a cover-up demonstrates an utter ignorance of the law. As a father of daughters, I hope your daughters never have to rely on you for legal advise. With respect to breaking peoples' faces I hope your daughters never have to rely on you for any advise.




Good for you for being a lawyer, well not really.

Frankly, screw legalese. By sidling up to the Epstein mess and even stating this shows you've lost your humanity. I know, I know, very common in the legal profession...but in this case, it's you.

Your response is so cold and bureaucratic you remind me of Mike Dukakis. If I were a god-fearing man I'd pray for you, but I'm not. Seriously, you're going with this? And why the big emotion here? Must be a major beotch expressing emotion via legal mumbo-jumbo. I feel sorry for you.




Are we lawyers, or are we men? I think you made your answer clear.
wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Column: Epstein sex trafficking charges could shine light on Clinton, Trump. Time for bipartisan revulsion. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-epstein-sex-charges-clinton-trump-huppke-20190708-gyr2bxudgjhrnnvbwcgmhoujdm-story.html
Yes, time for bipartisan revulsion. What office does Clinton hold again?
Perhaps you should take Pelosi's warning a little more seriously.
If the public facts change then my comments will change
This is fun.

There are no public facts other than what is in the indictment. Everything else is innuendo, guilt by association, or accusations of those not named or relevant to the indictment.

THE INDICTMENT ONLY ALLEGES THAT THE GIRLS HAD SEX WITH EPSTeiN AND ONLY EPSTEIN. NOT CLINTON, NOT TRUMP, NOT EPSTEIN'S LAWYER'S, NOT ANY OTHR PERSON FROM ANY POLITICAL PARTY REFERENCED BY POSTERS HERE. NO ONE ELSE IS REFERENCED.

LET ME REPEAT THAT: THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT ONLY EPSTEIN HAD SEX WITH THE MINOR GIRLS.

Yet with only one possible exception where some one said, wait a minute, on what basis do you have to accuse the people, everyone of you pointed fingers at someone in the other party based on some stupid article that basically said guilt by association. Since we can't hold a mirror up so you can see yourselves in action, let's just go with Nancy Pelosi's daughter, a past long time member of the Democratic National Committee, who publicly indicted many of her OWN party's members (query, is a dumb, unfounded tweet the public record?), even beating you guys in the all world let's just accuse someone of kiddie sex because, well, it's what we do here. It also doesn't help she made up quotes from Acosta, but hey, that would work just fine on this forum. Probably work in the current White House for that matter.

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Another Bear said:

wifeisafurd said:

Another Bear said:



Interestingly Acosta refers to the victims in the Epstein case as "child prostitutes"...but children of course can not consent to have sex by law. For a former U.S. Attorney, this is rather stupid or covering crap up. As a father of daughters saying that crap, someone should really break his face.
And now for the predictable idiot law posts (my apologies to those with intellectual disabilities to associate you with the above post) .

The age of consent and who can give consent is determined under state law. The women in the age groups at the "parties" could under many state laws provide consent in various situations, such as for example when the other party is a minor. Federal law doesn't even address consent.

Federal law deals with prostitution of minors, as stated directly out of the statue. 18 U.S.C. 1591 et seq. The statutory elements of the crime literally requires prostitution, which is defined, again by statue, as causing to engage in a commercial sex act (something the guys on girls gone wild might want to think about the next time the offer a drunk coed money to give a blow job on camera). Section 1591 is called "Sex trafficking of children or by force, fraud, or coercion." Most people think of "trafficking" as involving movement across state or international borders. However, Section 1591 does not require proof that either the defendant or victim crossed state or international lines. You just need to meet two elements basically, prostitution and minors.

This means a federal attorney general has to prove that minor prostitutes were involved in the commercial enterprise, and consent never even enters the picture. When the US Attorney actually calls the victims prostitutes, he actually is using a very specific legal term that is an element of the crime. To then extrapolate, this is rather stupid or a cover-up demonstrates an utter ignorance of the law. As a father of daughters, I hope your daughters never have to rely on you for legal advise. With respect to breaking peoples' faces I hope your daughters never have to rely on you for any advise.




Good for you for being a lawyer, well not really.

Frankly, screw legalese. By sidling up to the Epstein mess and even stating this shows you've lost your humanity. I know, I know, very common in the legal profession...but in this case, it's you.

Your response is so cold and bureaucratic you remind me of Mike Dukakis. If I were a god-fearing man I'd pray for you, but I'm not. Seriously, you're going with this? And why the big emotion here? Must be a major beotch expressing emotion via legal mumbo-jumbo. I feel sorry for you.




Are we lawyers, or are we men? I think you made your answer clear.

Seems like an appropriate response for this forum. I mean why focus on basically making up a bunch of BS to justify punching someone's face in. This is fun - I would look much more imposing in a tank than Mikey. BTW, good for Dukakis for not backing away from his principals in the face of an absurd question.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Column: Epstein sex trafficking charges could shine light on Clinton, Trump. Time for bipartisan revulsion. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-epstein-sex-charges-clinton-trump-huppke-20190708-gyr2bxudgjhrnnvbwcgmhoujdm-story.html
Yes, time for bipartisan revulsion. What office does Clinton hold again?
Perhaps you should take Pelosi's warning a little more seriously.
If the public facts change then my comments will change
This is fun.

There are no public facts other than what is in the indictment. Everything else is innuendo, guilt by association, or accusations of those not named or relevant to the indictment.

THE INDICTMENT ONLY ALLEGES THAT THE GIRLS HAD SEX WITH EPSTeiN AND ONLY EPSTEIN. NOT CLINTON, NOT TRUMP, NOT EPSTEIN'S LAWYER'S, NOT ANY OTHR PERSON FROM ANY POLITICAL PARTY REFERENCED BY POSTERS HERE. NO ONE ELSE IS REFERENCED.

LET ME REPEAT THAT: THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT ONLY EPSTEIN HAD SEX WITH THE MINOR GIRLS.

Yet with only one possible exception where some one said, wait a minute, on what basis do you have to accuse the people, everyone of you pointed fingers at someone in the other party based on some stupid article that basically said guilt by association. Since we can't hold a mirror up so you can see yourselves in action, let's just go with Nancy Pelosi's daughter, a past long time member of the Democratic National Committee, who publicly indicted many of her OWN party's members (query, is a dumb, unfounded tweet the public record?), even beating you guys in the all world let's just accuse someone of kiddie sex because, well, it's what we do here. It also doesn't help she made up quotes from Acosta, but hey, that would work just fine on this forum. Probably work in the current White House for that matter.




There is a world outside the indictment.

A woman claims she was 13 when Trump raped her at an Epstein residence.

Dershowitz has also been accused by a woman. Dershowitz is a democrat.

There are also Epstein victims who accuse Acosta of violating their rights as victims.

Those are the names I named. Regardless of party - did I miss anyone?

wifeisafurd
How long do you want to ignore this user?
dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Column: Epstein sex trafficking charges could shine light on Clinton, Trump. Time for bipartisan revulsion. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-epstein-sex-charges-clinton-trump-huppke-20190708-gyr2bxudgjhrnnvbwcgmhoujdm-story.html
Yes, time for bipartisan revulsion. What office does Clinton hold again?
Perhaps you should take Pelosi's warning a little more seriously.
If the public facts change then my comments will change
This is fun.

There are no public facts other than what is in the indictment. Everything else is innuendo, guilt by association, or accusations of those not named or relevant to the indictment.

THE INDICTMENT ONLY ALLEGES THAT THE GIRLS HAD SEX WITH EPSTeiN AND ONLY EPSTEIN. NOT CLINTON, NOT TRUMP, NOT EPSTEIN'S LAWYER'S, NOT ANY OTHR PERSON FROM ANY POLITICAL PARTY REFERENCED BY POSTERS HERE. NO ONE ELSE IS REFERENCED.

LET ME REPEAT THAT: THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT ONLY EPSTEIN HAD SEX WITH THE MINOR GIRLS.

Yet with only one possible exception where some one said, wait a minute, on what basis do you have to accuse the people, everyone of you pointed fingers at someone in the other party based on some stupid article that basically said guilt by association. Since we can't hold a mirror up so you can see yourselves in action, let's just go with Nancy Pelosi's daughter, a past long time member of the Democratic National Committee, who publicly indicted many of her OWN party's members (query, is a dumb, unfounded tweet the public record?), even beating you guys in the all world let's just accuse someone of kiddie sex because, well, it's what we do here. It also doesn't help she made up quotes from Acosta, but hey, that would work just fine on this forum. Probably work in the current White House for that matter.




There is a world outside the indictment.

A woman claims she was 13 when Trump raped her at an Epstein residence.

Dershowitz has also been accused by a woman. Dershowitz is a democrat.

There are also Epstein victims who accuse Acosta of violating their rights as victims.

Those are the names I named. Regardless of party - did I miss anyone?


Oh, so this is your bipartisan revulsion. Nothing to do with the actual accusations against Epstein. So anyone accused of anything that knew Epstein is fair game. How rule of law of you.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Column: Epstein sex trafficking charges could shine light on Clinton, Trump. Time for bipartisan revulsion. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-epstein-sex-charges-clinton-trump-huppke-20190708-gyr2bxudgjhrnnvbwcgmhoujdm-story.html
Yes, time for bipartisan revulsion. What office does Clinton hold again?
Perhaps you should take Pelosi's warning a little more seriously.
If the public facts change then my comments will change
This is fun.

There are no public facts other than what is in the indictment. Everything else is innuendo, guilt by association, or accusations of those not named or relevant to the indictment.

THE INDICTMENT ONLY ALLEGES THAT THE GIRLS HAD SEX WITH EPSTeiN AND ONLY EPSTEIN. NOT CLINTON, NOT TRUMP, NOT EPSTEIN'S LAWYER'S, NOT ANY OTHR PERSON FROM ANY POLITICAL PARTY REFERENCED BY POSTERS HERE. NO ONE ELSE IS REFERENCED.

LET ME REPEAT THAT: THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT ONLY EPSTEIN HAD SEX WITH THE MINOR GIRLS.

Yet with only one possible exception where some one said, wait a minute, on what basis do you have to accuse the people, everyone of you pointed fingers at someone in the other party based on some stupid article that basically said guilt by association. Since we can't hold a mirror up so you can see yourselves in action, let's just go with Nancy Pelosi's daughter, a past long time member of the Democratic National Committee, who publicly indicted many of her OWN party's members (query, is a dumb, unfounded tweet the public record?), even beating you guys in the all world let's just accuse someone of kiddie sex because, well, it's what we do here. It also doesn't help she made up quotes from Acosta, but hey, that would work just fine on this forum. Probably work in the current White House for that matter.




There is a world outside the indictment.

A woman claims she was 13 when Trump raped her at an Epstein residence.

Dershowitz has also been accused by a woman. Dershowitz is a democrat.

There are also Epstein victims who accuse Acosta of violating their rights as victims.

Those are the names I named. Regardless of party - did I miss anyone?


Oh, so this is your bipartisan revulsion. Noting to do with the actual accusations against Epstein. So anyone accuses of anything that knew Epstein is fair game. How rule of law of you.
Not quite anyone, but accused by a potential Epstein victim, then, yes.

Yes, fair game for a lawful investigation and judgment for anyone known to associate with Epstein and who has been accused by a potential Epstein victim. Fair game even for discussion by us plebs that there may be unlawful activity that should be looked into. Yes, that is all fair game.

So, did I leave anybody out? Prince Andrew I guess - not sure his political persuasion. Anybody else.
dajo9
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Looks like Acosta resigned.

Weird. He wasn't accused by the indictment.
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Randy Andy should have stayed with Koo Stark.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
concordtom
How long do you want to ignore this user?
bearister said:






Is that Trump getting stabbed?
bearister
How long do you want to ignore this user?
concordtom said:

bearister said:






Is that Trump getting stabbed?


Epstein in prison so he shuts his gob.
Cancel my subscription to the Resurrection
Send my credentials to the House of Detention
I got some friends inside
Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

dajo9 said:

wifeisafurd said:

Column: Epstein sex trafficking charges could shine light on Clinton, Trump. Time for bipartisan revulsion. https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/rex-huppke/ct-epstein-sex-charges-clinton-trump-huppke-20190708-gyr2bxudgjhrnnvbwcgmhoujdm-story.html
Yes, time for bipartisan revulsion. What office does Clinton hold again?
Perhaps you should take Pelosi's warning a little more seriously.
If the public facts change then my comments will change
This is fun.

There are no public facts other than what is in the indictment. Everything else is innuendo, guilt by association, or accusations of those not named or relevant to the indictment.

THE INDICTMENT ONLY ALLEGES THAT THE GIRLS HAD SEX WITH EPSTeiN AND ONLY EPSTEIN. NOT CLINTON, NOT TRUMP, NOT EPSTEIN'S LAWYER'S, NOT ANY OTHR PERSON FROM ANY POLITICAL PARTY REFERENCED BY POSTERS HERE. NO ONE ELSE IS REFERENCED.

LET ME REPEAT THAT: THE INDICTMENT ALLEGES THAT ONLY EPSTEIN HAD SEX WITH THE MINOR GIRLS.

Yet with only one possible exception where some one said, wait a minute, on what basis do you have to accuse the people, everyone of you pointed fingers at someone in the other party based on some stupid article that basically said guilt by association. Since we can't hold a mirror up so you can see yourselves in action, let's just go with Nancy Pelosi's daughter, a past long time member of the Democratic National Committee, who publicly indicted many of her OWN party's members (query, is a dumb, unfounded tweet the public record?), even beating you guys in the all world let's just accuse someone of kiddie sex because, well, it's what we do here. It also doesn't help she made up quotes from Acosta, but hey, that would work just fine on this forum. Probably work in the current White House for that matter.


Frankly I don't fine talking about raping 13 y.o.'s much fun. You can try and make this about politics but at its core it's about humanity, crime and a simple lack of respect for girls and young women. If you find it fun, well then we'll just call you Wife is Dukakis. See, now I think that's fun...because you're not a 13 y.o. girl, although your emotional response to a legal definition of child prostitute might suggest otherwise. In any case, defending Epstein is morallly bankrupt. Good luck with that.

Another Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
More fun for you Wife...

Jeffrey Epstein had help operating sex trafficking ring from women he allegedly coerced



These are Epstein's pimps who got the fun started. They look like nice socialites, don't they.
Page 2 of 3
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.