• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Slick named in teen sex-slave/pleasure-island lawsuit

Ladewig said:
After I read the opening line in cited article:
This appears to be part of a pattern. That is, a real “war on women” – and girls – waged by the impeached and disbarred William Jefferson Clinton.]​

It struck me less as Goebbels and more like third grade taunts. "I know you are but what am I ?" "You're the one committing the war on women."
Click to expand...

That's part of the technique, you have to speak the language of the people who believe it.
 
I have to say that if a friend of mine was convicted of having sex with young girls, my friendship with them would certainly end rather abruptly too; so I'm not sure why Clinton's doing so is supposed to stand out as any kind of suspicious.
 
Reading the Daily Mail, it appears that Clinton didn't seem interested in the young women, and that the source for the story was "around 17" at the time she was having sex with the donor guy. Around 17 could be 18 (you know damn well that if she had been 16 or 17 the story would have said so).

Thin beer to crucify Bill on; thinner still to implicate Hillary. And I'm no fan of either of them.
 
Brainster said:
Reading the Daily Mail, it appears that Clinton didn't seem interested in the young women, and that the source for the story was "around 17" at the time she was having sex with the donor guy. Around 17 could be 18 (you know damn well that if she had been 16 or 17 the story would have said so).

Thin beer to crucify Bill on; thinner still to implicate Hillary. And I'm no fan of either of them.
Click to expand...

(a tip of the hat to ye)
 
Link to the court document please. It should be a matter of public record.
 
icebear said:
Mainly by living in a world which is a bit bigger than just jref and pseudoskepticism...
Click to expand...

You might expect that your claims won't be accepted here without evidence- such as a court document that's a matter of public record.

I am no fan at all of Bill Clinton's, by the way. I would be delighted if his reputation was permanently destroyed. So produce some evidence for your claims other than an unsourced blog. I hereby challenge you to put up or shut up.
 
icebear said:
That Hillary Clinton probably should not be in the white house. For starters...
Click to expand...


Hillary Clinton should not be president because her husband was allegedly on an island where sex slaves were once allegedly held according to a lawsuit that has has yet give to trial, and may not even exist.

Oh, and there's no evidence, even in the scant reporting in the alleged lawsuit, that her husband knew about or took advantage of any of the alleged slaves.

Riiiiiight.
 
Checkmite said:
I have to say that if a friend of mine was convicted of having sex with young girls, my friendship with them would certainly end rather abruptly too; so I'm not sure why Clinton's doing so is supposed to stand out as any kind of suspicious.
Click to expand...
"Everyone's your brother till the rent comes due."

That Clinton jumped ship only after it was obviously sinking is not a point in his favor.

I assume that if you suspected a friend of yours was trafficking in human beings, and exploiting that traffic to supply "entertainment" at parties you were attending, you'd probably start asking questions, and probably end the friendship well before convictions were handed down.

Brainster said:
Reading the Daily Mail, it appears that Clinton didn't seem interested in the young women, and that the source for the story was "around 17" at the time she was having sex with the donor guy. Around 17 could be 18 (you know damn well that if she had been 16 or 17 the story would have said so).

Thin beer to crucify Bill on; thinner still to implicate Hillary. And I'm no fan of either of them.
Click to expand...

I dunno. "That one girl that one time might have been of legal age" seems like a pretty weak protestation of innocence to me. Bill was at a party where "entertainment" was supplied by a human trafficker? "Plausible deniability" is probably the best he can hope for--and even then only with the help of his usual cohort of water carriers and useful idiots.

Whether or not Hillary knew? I've assumed for years that they were estranged all along. Whatever he did on his own time, she made it her business to know nothing about it.

ETA: I mean, come on! William Jefferson Clinton is, first and foremost, a politician. Why should we give him any more benefit of the doubt than, say, Chris Christie?
 
Last edited:
A'isha said:
A link to a GLP article that's a cut-and-paste of the FromTheTrenches article in the OP?

That's the evidentiary equivalent of multiplying zeroes.
Click to expand...
LOL!?

Someone explain to me, why do people post links to sites such as this (and WND) that are obvious rubbish? And then uncritically accept the rubbish as pure fact on the level of 1+1=2, on a skeptical forum no less.



 
varwoche said:
LOL!?

Someone explain to me, why do people post links to sites such as this (and WND) that are obvious rubbish? And then uncritically accept the rubbish as pure fact on the level of 1+1=2, on a skeptical forum no less.
Click to expand...

[wingnut]But, but, but... The article vaguely implies something very negative about a Democrat I don't like! It must be true! It must be![/wingnut]
 
varwoche said:
LOL!?

Someone explain to me, why do people post links to sites such as this (and WND) that are obvious rubbish? And then uncritically accept the rubbish as pure fact on the level of 1+1=2, on a skeptical forum no less.
Click to expand...

The people doing that are not necessarily trolling.

After all, let's remember B. Russell's observation
One of the painful things about our time is that those who feel certainty are stupid, and those with any imagination and understanding are filled with doubt and indecision.​

We have reached a point in which an entire American generation has been raised to think that Rush Limbaugh is an insightful, clever, and skilled political commentator.

........

Also, you are overestimating people's ability to spot rubbish and obvious rubbish.
 
Last edited:
icebear said:
Note that trying to claim Hillery didn't know about this
Click to expand...

If Hillary knew about all this then why isn't Jeffery Epstein's corpse wrapped in a rug out in a forest somewhere?

Check and mate, mate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom