Posted on 11/18/2019 12:35:12 PM PST by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
“You keep demanding evidence...”
No, really just for you to back up the one claim I originally asked you about, or admit that you can’t. It’s that simple.
We both know you can’t produce that evidence that you claimed to have, and we both know that you probably will never admit that. So you’re going to keep trying to tapdance around the issue, and I’m going to keep holding your feet to the fire, until you get sick of posting to me.
“You know that the evidence is REAL...”
If it’s real, then you should take it to the police. Otherwise you are an accessory after the fact to these crimes you keep talking about.
“Yet you keep making farcical statements about taking evidence to the local police.”
There’s nothing “farcical” about the laws regarding withholding evidence of criminal activities from law enforcement. If you actually have evidence, you are legally obligated to take it to the police. I think we both know you don’t have any real evidence, but since you won’t admit that, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and leave open the possibility that you really do have some evidence. In which case you either take it to the police or you’re an accessory. Your choice.
So now you’re trying the Adam Schiff tactic of just making up lies and putting them in someone’s else’s mouth because you don’t have the evidence that you claimed to have?
“Your dispensing of legal advice...”
Not dispensing legal advice, just stating commonly known legal facts. We both know you don’t actually have any real evidence, but if you want to insist that you do, you are obviously implicating yourself as an accessory after the fact. That’s pretty basic stuff.
“Not dispensing legal advice, just stating commonly known legal facts.”
The irony is just too thick.
I have been providing publicly available information myself.
“So now you’re trying the Adam Schiff tactic of just making up lies and putting them in someone’s else’s mouth because you don’t have the evidence that you claimed to have?”
I’ll admit the quotes are not actual. But I’ve given you endless opportunities to denounce your support of the Clintons and Podestas, and for some odd reason you just keep defending them.
There is a big difference between skepticism and cynicism.
You did not come on this thread saying you are unconvinced of their involvement with these particular crimes. Instead, you came here mocking the evidence and falling for the disinformation campaign trying to make out the wikileaks evidence as just some kooky conspiracy theory. You mocked those who have been through the kinds of abuse under discussion.
A person who has mocked a victim of human trafficking deserves to be endlessly and ruthlessly mocked and have his reputation destroyed.
“I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt”
Oh, how generous of you!
“you either take it to the police or you’re an accessory. Your choice.”
Sounds like legal advice. What’s your license number? And which state bar are you a member of? I need to report you before someone is harmed by following your faulty legal advice. It’s malpractice and the bar needs to be informed.
“you are an accessory after the fact to these crimes you keep talking about.”
If you are not a lawyer, you should turn yourself in, as you are practicing law without a license. Or just call 911. Help is available.
“Sounds like legal advice.”
Nope, that’s legal information. I can’t help it if you don’t understand the difference.
“I’ll admit the quotes are not actual.”
Right, and “not actual” quotes are called “lies”.
“Instead, you came here mocking the evidence...”
What evidence? You still won’t show this supposed evidence.
Where are the emails that say what you claimed they say?
“A person who has mocked a victim of human trafficking...”
You’re talking about me calling Cathy O’Brien a lunatic? Well, I was actually being charitable to her, since the alternative is that she is just a liar. If she knows what she is saying is BS, she’s a liar, if she actually believes it, she’s a lunatic. That’s not “mockery”, it’s just an honest assessment.
Now, as for calling her a “victim of human trafficking”, who has been convicted of “trafficking” her? Are we supposed to all just “believe the victim” like the MeToo movement says?
Why should we believe her and not, say, Christine Blasey Ford?
They are the essence of our conversation.
You are a Podesta / Clinton defender.
Boogieman: John Podesta-upstanding, trustworthy guy; Cathy O’Brien-lunatic:
https://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/3794770/posts?page=63#63
What’s interesting is the many hours documenting O’Brien’s story and history. But you instantly label her a lunatic. Makes me wonder how much you already know about her history and why you are so obsessed with “debunking” the massive criminal conspiracy involving the sexual abuse of children across the globe. Either you know enough to know better, or you simply refuse to look into the matter so you dismiss everything you don’t want to believe out of hand.
I’ve met and talked with victims of SRA. I’ve been in the home of a lesbian lawyer who worked for Houston’s lesbian mayor, and I saw first-hand the terror she instilled in her “wife” and son that she owned like a piece of property. I’ve met with leaders of churches and exposed homosexual pedophiles who were operating in their churches to groom vulnerable children. I know the abuse and mind-splintering effects of the ritual abuse. Some people can’t handle the reality of these things existing because it overwhelms them. But there are others who are more sinister, and know they exist while constantly spreading subterfuge, like the false-memory-syndrome folks. Yes, people can have false memories. It’s a known fact that any attorney that’s seen the inside of a courtroom can attest to. But that does not change the fact that there are also diabolical people in the world who are literally capable of any psychopathic behavior—including unspeakable horrors that make grown men weep just learning about. Every once in a while, some of it leaks out, but most of it is swept under the rug.
I’m just curious what makes you think the Podestas / Clinton are such upstanding models of morality. Is it their support of homosexuals adopting children, transexual men sharing the private places of females (like locker rooms), or Planned Parenthood dismembering and selling the body parts of children that make your favored dynamic duo such excellent role models and can count on you as a personal reference for babysitting gigs?
You seem to have something to prove... but in this case I think it is more of something to disprove.
There is literally NOTHING that would cause you to admit the Clintons and Podestas are involved in child abuse. There is not just one or two things that seem to hint at it. There is mountains of evidence. It’s bigger than the evidence that Hillary ran an illegal email server, other than that receiving an “inquiry” designed to dismiss allegations in time for her election, which failed to materialize. Anyone who researches the global pandemic of child sexploitation and SRA will eventually recognize the global cabal behind it, and how the Clintons and their entourage are involved up to their eyeballs.
For anyone to be skeptical is a reasonable response when not having researched the matter. But for those who have, denying it is beyond cynical. I have to question the motives of someone obsessed with defending these perpetrators. Just the things that these people OPENLY support should be enough evidence to question whether allegations of what they do in secret are credible.
“I can’t help it if you don’t understand the difference.”
And I can’t help that all proof and evidence, including public knowledge, of crimes is something you think everyone is obligated to carry down to their local police department.
If you don’t believe that, then stop LYING with your childish and ridiculous demands and assertions.
If you really do believe what you keep repeating, seek psychiatric help.
“Why should we believe her and not, say, Christine Blasey Ford?”
There is a mountain of evidence that Ford planned her attacks years in advance to try to derail any conservative justice nomination. Her whole career is government intelligence. She’s a radical leftist.
Cathy O’Brien does not have a personal political agenda. She sought to escape being a human trafficking and ritual-sex-abuse victim. She is one of many victims who have corroborated these activities. Some of them go back to Communist destabilization tactics. Some go back to Operation Paperclip / MKUltra. Some go back to Aleister Crowley and, yes, Thelema. Ted Gunderson, FBI investigator, documented his experience and findings in trying to take down this cartel many years ago. It’s only gotten worse. A pastor met with me and discussed his personal knowledge of the Boy’s Town connection to this child-sex trafficking. He had mistakenly thought that institution could help a troubled boy in his church, but instead the boy was raped and abused in other ways. There is a criminal enterprise that uses these sexual perversions to place and then control politicians.
I’ve been targeted for stirring things up. People like the homosexual pedophile I exposed in the church don’t like it when their efforts get thwarted. And snide comments on a forum aren’t going to make me run away with my tail between my legs. I’ve seen enough firsthand to know that this is THE single largest organized criminal enterprise on the planet. It’s not drugs. It’s not illegal arms sales. It’s not robbery and theft. It’s selling kids for sex. And large numbers of people in high places are compromised and , therefore, controlled by it. Republican. Democrat. Legislators. Federal. State. Local. Judiciary. Corporate. Education. Religious leadership. Finance.
It’s not a conspiracy theory. It’s a global criminal conspiracy.
“What’s interesting is the many hours documenting O’Brien’s story and history.”
Lmao. Sure, they documented George Bush turning into a lizard in front of her. No wait, she later realized that sounded too insane so she changed it to just a “hologram” of turning into a lizard. That’s not the ravings of a lunatic at all.
So, where are those emails that say what you claim they say?
“including public knowledge”
If it’s public knowledge, then where are those emails that say what you claim they say? Just cough them up already.
“Cathy O’Brien does not have a personal political agenda.”
How would you know? Also, people tell false stories for all sorts of reasons besides having a “political agenda”. One of them is, of course, that they are simply mentally ill, which seems like the most likely scenario for O’Brien, since she herself claims to have serious mental disorders.
But anyway, if that’s the best reason you can come up with, then I think it just shows that you aren’t really exercising any critical thinking on these matters. You’ll agree with any accuser that accuses people who are your ideological opponents, simply because that’s what you want to believe, and you base your judgements on emotion, not reason.
Some adult prostitutes are trafficked. Even in part of Nevada where prostitution is legal, some of those prostitutes are trafficked. Incredibly disillusioning.
“How would you know?”
And how would you?
As I’ve pointed out, I have some first-hand experience with the subject matter. I don’t know O’Brien, but I am more than familiar with SRA.
As I’ve pointed out already, there is a difference between healthy skepticism and cynicism.
I don’t know why you choose to mock people who have experienced SRA. Perhaps you don’t believe it exists. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with how it affects victims, particularly in terms of fragmenting personalities. Or, perhaps you do know and wish to intentionally obfuscate the subject.
Regardless, we are at an impasse. Remain in your ignorance and cynicism, and receive all that goes with it.
“If it’s public knowledge, then where are those emails that say what you claim they say? Just cough them up already.”
Stop asking questions I’ve already answered repeatedly.
Wikileaks.
News: Hillary wipes illegal email server.
Have you not heard about this?
What was she trying to hide?
This is what public knowledge is. Don’t pretend to be that stupid.
“Stop asking questions I’ve already answered repeatedly.
Wikileaks.”
There are tens of thousands of emails on wikileaks. Which ones say what you claimed they said? Post the link. Unless you can’t, because they don’t exist. You could just admit that instead.
“And how would you?”
I’m not the one claiming to know her political agenda, or lack thereof. You are.
“I don’t know O’Brien”
Yet you believe her story, despite her offering zero evidence to back up her ridiculous claims. Seems legit. Nothing at all like the lefties who believed Blasey-Ford despite her offering zero evidence to back up her ridiculous claims. There is absolutely no reason to believe you might be taking O’Brien’s story on faith simply because she accuses people who you are already ideologically opposed to.
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.