Skip to comments.FRAUDS: Salon Removes Old Articles That Tried to Justify Pedophilia
Posted on 02/21/2017 6:23:10 PM PST by blueyon
I wrote a couple articles about Salon and their attempted justification of pedophilia. They ran posts from a guy named Todd Nickerson that tried to put a happy face on the depravity. Well, guess what? Now those articles have been removed. This is why you should always archive controversial articles from the mainstream media.
(Excerpt) Read more at theralphretort.com ...
Oh, man, is there a word that implies hypocrisy to the 9th degree? And, please, please, someone, hunt down their words!
I am surprised Salon would bother.
When they ran those articles none of the people registered to post there were opposed to the message.
The noose is tightening. They’re starting to run.
Check the Internet “wayback machine”. Sometimes stuff like that gets captured there. I suspect that various private individuals have also captured those articles; stuff like that is too valuable for throwing back in Leftists’ faces to let them fall into the memory hole.
I highly doubt they advocated pedophilia(which is an attraction to pre-pubescent children).
Having an attraction to post pubescent teenagers (15-20) is not pedophilia. It’s actually quite normal for men to be attracted to any woman that is developed regardless of if they are 18 or not.
If they did advocate sex with children between the ages of 1-12 then I would say they are some sick buggers. But I doubt it.
Putting aside the hypocrisy of Salon and personal costs to Milo, it seems something positive has come in that the left has slowed down on their pushing to normalize pedophilia.
What does Salon’s staff makeup primarily consist of? LGBT deviants which you can easily surmise contains a heavy sprinkling of sodomites because that’s just the way their kind rolls. They can deny it all they want but anyone that has observed their behavior over time will come to the same conclusion; they’re kind are hypersexual and attracted to children because they’re easy targets that are defenseless.
Many high-profile people are scrambling to cover their tracks on the issue of pedophilia, and the fear is almost palpable. One might think something big looms over the horizon. Could this be driving much of the anti-Trump hysteria among the Deep State’s ruling elite?
Why are people on our side defending Milo? I don’t get it. The guy is poison to our cause. Always has been.
It should be floating around somewhere and documented. Way Back Machine?
Having an attraction to post pubescent teenagers (15-20) is not pedophilia.
Umm, big difference between 15 and 20. The fact that you put them in the same category is disturbing.
If anyone thinks its ok to have sex with an underage girl (18) when they're a grown man then they don't belong on this forum and they are not a conservative.
The Salon article referenced here, which was removed, was indeed written by an avowed pedophile named Nickerson who went on and on about his obsessive thoughts of having sex with prepubescent children, but he can’t help it so don’t judge him.
There could be a “Milo effect” at work here, for which even Milo’s detractors may end up being grateful: namely, a lot of perverts may run, not walk, back into their closets.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.