I don't know how you people come up with that interpretation that she's sending kids to a party to be raped by Podesta and other various Democrats. And you keep reposting this evil slander. I'm thinking it's the shill camp that keeps harping on this.
What is the crux of your post? Are you saying that she wasn't sending the kids to the party to be raped by Democrats? What is the insinuation then? I destroy dumb-play specialists. It's my specialty.
If I had anything to say beyond what is stated and shown in the post, I would have added it. If you want to ask me if I personally believe Podesta raped a child in the pool, I have to admit I've never really thought it that far through, and it wouldn't matter what I think anyway. The only thing I'm concerned with is the evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, that points to strange and concerning language being used with regard to children. And finally in the post we have actual evidence of a link to solicitation of child porn, or was that lost on you? Recognizing child porn is not part of your specialty?
So you have no insinuation about why she's sending the kids to that party but you made a post about it? But then you say you picked up something "strange" in the language that she used but you become bashful about explaining what that is once I make my charge about what you are insinuating. Wouldn't you say you are at least implying some shenanigans were going on with those children and the adults at that party? If you admit that then I'm gonna ask you what kind of shenanigans so be careful.
This is another one of their shill tactics: debunk one detail while ignoring the context. He is trying very hard to make this about one issue. He will ignore every other questionable point you raised and try to discredit the whole thing based on one detail. Next he will try to accuse of profiteering somehow when that does not work it will be a threat for law suits. That it is illegial to accuse people like that.
It's clear Podesta has hired someone to defend him online. This one appears to be a lawyer. One who doesn't give a crap about the suffering and abuse of children, only cares about a paycheck for defending ALLEGED pedos.
view the rest of the comments →
The_Crux ago
I don't know how you people come up with that interpretation that she's sending kids to a party to be raped by Podesta and other various Democrats. And you keep reposting this evil slander. I'm thinking it's the shill camp that keeps harping on this.
V____Z ago
Exactly where in the world did this post say what you're quoting?
The_Crux ago
What is the crux of your post? Are you saying that she wasn't sending the kids to the party to be raped by Democrats? What is the insinuation then? I destroy dumb-play specialists. It's my specialty.
V____Z ago
If I had anything to say beyond what is stated and shown in the post, I would have added it. If you want to ask me if I personally believe Podesta raped a child in the pool, I have to admit I've never really thought it that far through, and it wouldn't matter what I think anyway. The only thing I'm concerned with is the evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, that points to strange and concerning language being used with regard to children. And finally in the post we have actual evidence of a link to solicitation of child porn, or was that lost on you? Recognizing child porn is not part of your specialty?
The_Crux ago
So you have no insinuation about why she's sending the kids to that party but you made a post about it? But then you say you picked up something "strange" in the language that she used but you become bashful about explaining what that is once I make my charge about what you are insinuating. Wouldn't you say you are at least implying some shenanigans were going on with those children and the adults at that party? If you admit that then I'm gonna ask you what kind of shenanigans so be careful.
V____Z ago
So you are ignoring my direct claim that this post has evidence of child prom solicitation? How do you defend this?
Forgetmenot ago
This is another one of their shill tactics: debunk one detail while ignoring the context. He is trying very hard to make this about one issue. He will ignore every other questionable point you raised and try to discredit the whole thing based on one detail. Next he will try to accuse of profiteering somehow when that does not work it will be a threat for law suits. That it is illegial to accuse people like that.
V____Z ago
It's clear Podesta has hired someone to defend him online. This one appears to be a lawyer. One who doesn't give a crap about the suffering and abuse of children, only cares about a paycheck for defending ALLEGED pedos.
PizzaGateTwiceRetard ago
Pizzagater tactics:
V____Z ago
If you only have one example, you should not use the plural of "tactic".