On 2024-01-15 11:20, RonB wrote:
> On 2024-01-15, RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>> On 2024-01-14 1:49 p.m., soup wrote:
>>> On 14/01/2024 13:47, RabidPedagog wrote:
>>>> On 2024-01-14 06:59, soup wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Ah right, so you "don't believe", that's me convinced.
>>>>
>>>> I'm saying that the allegations have been made but much like with
>>>> Clinton, no concrete proof has been offered. I'm not looking to
>>>> convince you anyway. Believe what you want.
>>>
>>> I do not believe anything I am of the wait and see persuasion.
>>> Rather than come onto newsgroups and state things as fact I would rather
>>> wait for proof.
>>>
>>> Ach well time will tell.
>>>      But at the moment I see a lot more about Clinton connected to
>>> Epstein than Trump.
>>
>> A mere few weeks ago, I would have agreed with you. I guess I'm slightly
>> biased because I enjoy listening to David Knight and he's very much
>> anti-Trump. On his show, he ran down the evidence against Trump and
>> determined that the guy was no more innocent than Bill Clinton was. He
>> made his conclusion based on what was said by Epstein's former victim in
>> her interview which is little more than a suggestion that Epstein and
>> Trump regularly hung out.
>
> When I was young and Reagan was running for president, some of the people I
> knew wouldn't vote for him because he had divorced and remarried. What Trump
> (and Clinton) did would have have immediately disqualified them in most
> people's minds at the time. It probably would have hurt Clinton's run for
> president also, if people had known about it. By the time Trump came along
> everyone was so jaded that it no longer mattered.

Back then, people still have some morality and saw nothing wrong with
judging would-be leaders for their lack of it. If society were still
like that, we wouldn't be questioning someone's gender, allowing faggots
to decide what's right and wrong in society and turning a blind eye to
actions like pulling down statues of significant people in history. Just
about everything nowadays is worse because we tolerated people who
should honestly be on the receiving end of serious beatdowns.

--
RabidPedagog
Catholic paleoconservative

RabidPedagog <rabid@pedag.og> wrote:
>On 2024-01-15 11:20, RonB wrote:
>>
>> When I was young and Reagan was running for president, some of the people I
>> knew wouldn't vote for him because he had divorced and remarried. What Trump
>> (and Clinton) did would have have immediately disqualified them in most
>> people's minds at the time. It probably would have hurt Clinton's run for
>> president also, if people had known about it. By the time Trump came along
>> everyone was so jaded that it no longer mattered.
>
>Back then, people still have some morality and saw nothing wrong with
>judging would-be leaders for their lack of it. If society were still
>like that, we wouldn't be questioning someone's gender, allowing faggots
>to decide what's right and wrong in society and turning a blind eye to
>actions like pulling down statues of significant people in history. Just
>about everything nowadays is worse because we tolerated people who
>should honestly be on the receiving end of serious beatdowns.

How is that different from Hitler's outlook, dude? Come on, just get
with the times, you're better than that, I think. I refuse to believe
you guys are really that racist. I hate white* people but I don't
spend time thinking about it, obsessing over it. Live and let live.

* not all Caucasians are part of this, though

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 15/01/2024 23:39, Joel wrote:

> How is that different from Hitler's outlook, dude? Come on, just get
> with the times, you're better than that, I think. I refuse to believe
> you guys are really that racist. I hate white* people but I don't
> spend time thinking about it, obsessing over it.

Call's others racist then comes out with lines like "I hate all white
people".

I thought you were better than that Joel despite your weird ideas about
not being a homo. when your shagging your "girlfriend" and your messiah
complex when stoned.

soup <invalid@invalid.com> wrote:

>> How is that different from Hitler's outlook, dude? Come on, just get
>> with the times, you're better than that, I think. I refuse to believe
>> you guys are really that racist. I hate white* people but I don't
>> spend time thinking about it, obsessing over it.
>
>Call's others racist then comes out with lines like "I hate all white
>people".
>
>I thought you were better than that Joel despite your weird ideas about
>not being a homo. when your shagging your "girlfriend" and your messiah
>complex when stoned.

I don't hate *all* white people, or even the majority, I'm pretty
sure.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On 2024-01-16 6:30 a.m., soup wrote:
> On 15/01/2024 23:39, Joel wrote:
>
>> How is that different from Hitler's outlook, dude?  Come on, just get
>> with the times, you're better than that, I think.  I refuse to believe
>> you guys are really that racist.  I hate white* people but I don't
>> spend time thinking about it, obsessing over it.
>
> Call's others racist then comes out with lines like "I hate all white
> people".

I refuse to like black people or others simply because I am told that I
must. Their reputation precedes them and they have to prove that they
don't fit the stereotype before I smile, shake their hands and consider
them friends. I don't care if half-wit half-men like Joel are displeased
about it.

< snip >

--
@RabidPedagog
Anti-Marxist

soup wrote:
> On 15/01/2024 23:39, Joel wrote:
>
>> How is that different from Hitler's outlook, dude?  Come on, just get
>> with the times, you're better than that, I think.  I refuse to believe
>> you guys are really that racist.  I hate white* people but I don't
>> spend time thinking about it, obsessing over it.
>
> Call's others racist then comes out with lines like "I hate all white
> people".
>
> I thought you were better than that Joel despite your weird ideas about
> not being a homo. when your shagging your "girlfriend" and your messiah
> complex when stoned.
>
what kind of soup