Oh….so you were w-w-w-wrong about him not being mentioned? 😂 😂

😂 I’m certain you cannot admit that….in fact you are already making up lies about what’s in it to twist and turn away from admitting exactly that…but reality is you said he’s not mentioned and he is, prominently and repeatedly all throughout. 😂

Did I say there were accusations of Trump’s child molesting in the affidavits? No. I said that information came from his (Epstein’s) plane logs from 94-98 released long ago….
…but…
…there absolutely is stuff in there about Trump messing around with young girls you fucking tool. One of the affidavits was from the 13 year old girl that accused Dershowitz, Clinton, AND TRUMP OF RAPING HER. She since recanted, citing MAGA terrorists threatening her life and her family and her desire for safety overriding her desire for justice, but those accusations absolutely ARE in the information just released. She claimed there are tapes of all of it…including Trump. There may be more, but I know for certain that is part of the stuff just released.

The things I said about Epstein at Maralago came from the article I linked (and many many others written at the time).
Try again loser.

Fuck you love to make up paper tigers to put down….they’re the only kind you have a chance against. Try again, sucker. Trump continued his best friend relationship with Epstein for years and years and years after he was arrested for child rape/prostitution and he plead guilty. That did not end the relationship, they continued partying until months before Epstein surrendered for prison…LONG after he admitted running the child prostitution ring for people like Trump for the entire time he and Trump were partners in crime as THEY put it. “I’ve known Jeff for fifteen years. Terrific guy, he’s a lot of fun to be with. It is even said that he likes beautiful women as much as I do, and many of them are on the younger side.“. No clearer admission has ever been made. Trump was clear that he knew Epstein liked young girls (and we know how young), and Trump admitted he shared that trait with him, and that’s far from the only time he admitted it. They remained friends and party partners until 2008….and we all know exactly what kind of party Epstein was into and it wasn’t “dances with wives” kind of parties.
Never forget how Trump bragged about buying the Miss Teen USA pageant specifically so he could go into the dressing rooms of the 14 year old girls while they were naked and no one could force him out as the owner, and “joked” about his obligation to sleep with every contestant….this is on the record and publicly broadcast repeatedly on multiple live Howard Stern shows he was on. His pedophilia is not a question, it’s public knowledge you turn a blind eye towards.
Also never forget Dershowitz was a strong advocate for getting rid of statutory rape crimes altogether (legalizing child rape) or at a minimum making the age of consent 15…keep that in mind as he denies the reports of him on Child Rape Island.

I’m not your son, kid. You are so far below me intellectually you barely seem out of kindergarten most days, and your complete lack of a grasp of English backs that up constantly. Don’t ever be so delusionally disrespectful you call me “son” ever again, boy. You aren’t my son, if you were I would disown you then retroactively abort you.

Keep fighting those windmills, Don Quixote…cutting down your paper tigers like a hero. I hope it makes you feel like a big man, something impossible in reality so you live in a delusional fantasy.

While I doubt you’ll watch it, this has some revealing information…


Edit: You know who actually wasn’t mentioned at all….Joe Biden.

That’s a random non sequitur. What does that have to do with the blatant disgusting “not as I do” hypocrisy and total incompetence of Ziegler or the rape committed by her husband? Nothing.

Wanna finish your thought?
Or was that it…an incomplete thought/brain fart you just needed to get out? 🤦‍♂️

To be clear, your party absolutely believes being fired for being gay IS NOT WRONG. They fought hard and long to try to keep it legal to discriminate against citizens based on sexual orientation, and have not stopped trying since they lost that fight in the 80’s. You still fight constantly for the right to deny service based on sexual orientation. You yourself have equated homosexuality with active pedophilia and clearly it’s ok to fire someone for being a child sex abuser. Your logic and consistency are completely absent, because you don’t believe anything you say, you just need to spout nonsensical accusations constantly to feel better about yourself. 😂


I’m guessing you meant to say “being fired for having sex at work ISN’T.”? Do you think there’s anyone disagreeing? He was fired immediately without objections once discovered, what are you saying? More fighting paper tigers and windmills. Go Don Quixote!

Most conservatives just don't have the chops for comedy.

This humor genre is somewhere in the late '80s - early '90s. Dated. Like watching 'Friends'.

Putting that aside (like a used tissue) would have been helpful to know when (the date) these comments were taken. Hard to respond to it. It'd be like Bob saying 'landslide' before the election, and him claiming 'landslide' afterward (granted wrong both times, but the context could be scarier in the second).

There is evidence that the hearings are being heard by members of Dumb Quixote's* herd. So at least they'll have some idea why liar, liar, pants on fire is being prosecuted.

Overall, it's being five full days of powerful testimony. If anyone else's trial was preceding like this, their attorney would be spending hours upon hours trying to get a plea deal &/or getting the defendant to plea.

If this was a murder trial, their lawyer would be saying "plead guilty! throw yourself on the mercy of the court! at this point the best we can hope for is to have your body buried in secrecy - so your grave doesn't get violated!"**

may not get the deluded to become undeluded but the bells of truth are ringing and bringing a lot to church. while the rest are whistling through the graveyard.

JUDGEMENT: use crazy don's 🚽 file system for this vid.

*windmills, ya' see
**cited line from https://youtu.be/RCRqjJXHfQs

NO! Fake news. The public was endangering the kid. He had the right of way.

President Quixote was great president. Got his Polaroid in my wallet.

Lemme guess then, not even a reprimand for allowing, even encouraging his son to endanger the public by riding recklessly.

Also, why are you channeling President Quixote in your answer?

Yes, this is Gilliam's windmill. The story's changed a few times from his original idea, but he hasn't given up in his quest.

Of course, now that it's in the can one of the old producers is claiming he holds the rights and is blocking the release, but every story needs a dramatic climax... let's just hope Terry survives it.

*related https://videosift.com/video/Terry-Gilliams-Cursed-Don-Quixote-Movie-Lost-in-La-Mancha

Your video, The Man Who Killed Don Quixote Trailer (2018), has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

And thus, the great-great-great-great-great-grandson of Don Quixote finished the job.

Don Quixote is also hilarious and the metaness quite disorienting. If you can't concentrate on the book then I can recommend the BBC radio adaptation : https://archive.org/details/DonQuixotePart2Of2BBC1980

Aww shucks, I'm honoured you deigned to comment to me directly rather than out here... /eyeroll

ps. "sook"

To sulk, crack a sad and act like a big fat baby when you don't get your own way.

An Australian slang term used to indicate another person is soft, easily upset, or just a plain pussy.

Somewhat appropriate methinks.

edit: Have included the "private" comment to my profile. Newt, if you think you're so justified surely you don't have to post backdoor snipes at people when they're standing right in front of you... =)

BWWWAAAAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!! Really?!? Too funny.


When you 3-4 repeatedly (intentionally, or from lack of comprehension ability) COMPLETELY misread what I wrote because of your being triggered, yes, it's you.

Tell me when 'Feminism' has worked AGAINST women or FOR men in it's 'sexual equality' mission. You can't. You just whine. 'No no no no no no no....you're wrong'.

Yes, it's you 3-4 who got upset and started misreading from the first post and being insulting because of your failure....it was not 'everyone else in the thread', it was the few who remained in the discussion because they were triggered and/or didn't comprehend.

Well, you completely misunderstood the "bold", and apparently still can't grasp the concept even after being corrected about the meaning, so, yeah, reading comprehension, not your strong point........I have been tested, and I read and comprehend better than 99% of Americans. Again, how did YOU score? EDIT:...or is it my fault for writing at above an 8th grade level?


This ridiculous BS with you triggered 'feminists' is SOOO not worth my completely worthless time. There's absolutely no point conversing with someone who simply can't comprehend something they think they disagree with, or who misreads over and over and fights phantom red herrings like Don Quixote with a windmill.

Thank you, come again.

PS OK, I'll go back and downvote, since you decided to call me a "little sook", whatever the hell that is (it's not English), I'm pretty certain it's MEANT to be an insult....so you're wish is my command, downvoteing the ad hom.

Oh yeah, I'm not a feminist. /grin

He's definitely got a quixotic bent. Doesn't mean his goals aren't worth pursuing, but I have very little hope his methods will work.

Also, this is comparable to the documentary about Gilliam's failed Don Quixote movie.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. This isn't up for discussion. If you have a problem with me or my girl, take it up with admin.

In reply to this comment by Fletch:
>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Just stop the sexist bullshit. The rest I couldn't care less about.

I really don't know what you are talking about. I'm starting to wonder if you do. Is "Sugartits" sexist? Is that what you are talking about? That's where you get "misogynist harassment"? Because it's a name Mel Gibson called a female cop once?!? A word I used after her "dipshit" comment (and, previously, after other put-downs and name-calling on my profile)? Are you fucking kidding me?!

If "sugartits" is all that has got your panties in a bunch, then you can piss the fuck off, Quixote. There are no giants here.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Just stop the sexist bullshit. The rest I couldn't care less about.

I really don't know what you are talking about. I'm starting to wonder if you do. Is "Sugartits" sexist? Is that what you are talking about? That's where you get "misogynist harassment"? Because it's a name Mel Gibson called a female cop once?!? A word I used after her "dipshit" comment (and, previously, after other put-downs and name-calling on my profile)? Are you fucking kidding me?!

If "sugartits" is all that has got your panties in a bunch, then you can piss the fuck off, Quixote. There are no giants here.

>> ^rottenseed:

The problem with religion, though—as our friend Tim Minchin says—it teaches us to externalize blame. What I mean is, religion paints a very binary portrait of the world—of what's right and wrong. It doesn't teach relativity or tolerance. I think it's ok to assume that if we eliminate religion, the basis for that ignorance will lose power.

See, while I don't agree with everything Hedges said here, I think this is the kind of talk that he's referring to. That statement you made just painted all religions in one broad stroke and set it up as if it is "us," the intelligent and tolerant people, versus "them," the ignorant and intolerant masses. It's that kind of rhetoric that he (and I for that matter) find divisive and counterproductive. Religious people--many of them Christians--who would have agreed with you that it is wrong to deny basic human rights to people (such as the right to marry) on the basis of their sexuality are now painted as your opponents instead.

Furthermore, while certainly some forms of religion as practiced by certain peoples in certain countries at certain times do in fact fit your description of religion quite well, "religion" as a concept does not. There's nothing about religion per se that requires a binary worldview nor does it require a lack of relativity or tolerance. I'd definitely agree with you that some instantiations of religion, though, have turned out that way.

I said it in the Greta Christina Sift that I linked to above, but I'll say it more clearly now: I think attacking "religion" is Don Quixotic. Time is better spent attacking specific features of specific religions in specific contexts that result in suffering, such as the denial of marriage to homosexuals on religions grounds, female genital mutilation, and so forth. These kinds of things anger both theists and atheists and we should all work together to eliminate them rather than squabble with each other over our individual preference to believe or not believe in a particular religion.