Author Topic: Bill Clinton a pedophile (Read 5202 times)

Cera · « **Reply #15 on:** January 14, 2015, 05:24:14 PM »

Quote from: roscoe

Quote from: Cera
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
If this is true, any chances of Hilary getting anywhere near the White House next year are over.

It would be nice if the truth had anything to do with what is in the "news." Remember Juanita Broderick? She is the Clinton supporter who was violently sɛҳuąƖly assaulted by Bill Clinton. She had a black eye and other bruises, which she showed to her friends at the time. Because she was so credible, her Clinton experience was blacked out by the "news" media.

Bill Clinton never touched Juanita B. :detective:

Roscoe, please give your sources.
Check this out:
http://therightscoop.com/bill-clintons-war-on-women-1999-juanita-broaddrick-interview-with-dateline-nbc/

Cera · « **Reply #16 on:** January 14, 2015, 05:28:32 PM »

Quote from: PereJoseph

Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey
No matter what age. Rape is rape. It is a terrible crime and pure evil.

Yes. Unfortunately, that's not what we were talking about.

Unfortunately, that IS what we are talking about. What part of "child sex slave" do you not understand? Children who are forced into prostitution are being raped. Only someone who is fond of porn would fail to understand that.

Graham · « **Reply #17 on:** January 14, 2015, 06:50:31 PM »

Cera, he is questioning whether the word pedophile is being correctly used. It has a bearing on the nature and gravity of this case, but I suspect he raised the question mostly because clarification is generally desirable due to widespread misuse of the term. So you need to cool it. He isn't defending sex slavery; the very suggestion (among others that you lobbed) is sheer filth. For your reference, from the Encyclopedia Britannica:

Quote

Pedophilia, also spelled paedophilia , psychosɛҳuąƖ disorder in which an adult has sɛҳuąƖ fantasies about or engages in sɛҳuąƖ acts with a prepubescent child of the same or the opposite sex.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #18 on:** January 14, 2015, 09:18:17 PM »

Quote from: Cera

Quote from: PereJoseph
I think it's strange that people consider pubescent girls to be "children" simply because they haven't achieved the legal age of majority. Our Lady married St Joseph, who was perhaps in his thirties or late twenties, when she was fourteen.

Is there any evidence that these girls were prepubescent ? Now that would worse by magnitude, not that adultery and orgies and sex slavery and fornication aren't evil themselves, of course. But it seems rather sensational and melodramatic to call young women "children" simply because they haven't turned eighteen yet.

And your point is?

There seems to be a serious misunderstanding about the meaning and intention of what I wrote. Graham explained my meaning and intention perfectly. I encourage you to re-read my post in that light. Thank you.

PereJoseph · « **Reply #19 on:** January 14, 2015, 09:23:38 PM »

Quote from: Cera

Quote from: PereJoseph
Quote from: Viva Cristo Rey
No matter what age. Rape is rape. It is a terrible crime and pure evil.

Yes. Unfortunately, that's not what we were talking about.

Unfortunately, that IS what we are talking about. What part of "child sex slave" do you not understand? Children who are forced into prostitution are being raped. Only someone who is fond of porn would fail to understand that.

The discussion at hand revolves around the precise value and meaning of the word "paedophile" in relation to individuals who in former times were considered marriageable, that is, maids who have achieved sɛҳuąƖ maturity. It's a legal discussion. Any other meaning is contrary to what I intended and, I dare say, the plain meaning of the words I chose.

roscoe · « **Reply #20 on:** January 14, 2015, 11:11:35 PM »

Quote from: Cera

Quote from: roscoe
Quote from: Cera
Quote from: JezusDeKoning
If this is true, any chances of Hilary getting anywhere near the White House next year are over.

It would be nice if the truth had anything to do with what is in the "news." Remember Juanita Broderick? She is the Clinton supporter who was violently sɛҳuąƖly assaulted by Bill Clinton. She had a black eye and other bruises, which she showed to her friends at the time. Because she was so credible, her Clinton experience was blacked out by the "news" media.

Bill Clinton never touched Juanita B. :detective:

Roscoe, please give your sources.
Check this out:
http://therightscoop.com/bill-clintons-war-on-women-1999-juanita-broaddrick-interview-with-dateline-nbc/

One of his flings( DK Browning) from the early days was asked by G Putnam if 'Billy' ever used the nigerian word. She responded-- ' not only that, he used the "GD Nigerian word....:

BC never toouched J Broderick :cheers:

Cera · « **Reply #21 on:** January 15, 2015, 01:50:31 PM »

I see your point. It would be more accurate to say Clinton is a predator.

On the other issue raised, the primary group calling for lowering the age of consent is the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Other pedophile/ predator groups like the Rene Gunyon society also want to lower the age of consent. After all, their motto is "Sex before eight or it's too late."

Lowering the age of consent (which one poster here suggested) is pure evil. This evil is based on failing to understand that a teenage girl lacks the ability to consent. To a pervert, she may look like a woman; however according to the law, she lacks the maturity to understand the long-range ramifications of giving "consent."

Graham · « **Reply #22 on:** January 15, 2015, 07:32:41 PM »

Quote from: Cera

I see your point. It would be more accurate to say Clinton is a predator.

When was he convicted?

Quote from: Cera

On the other issue raised, the primary group calling for lowering the age of consent is the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Other pedophile/ predator groups like the Rene Gunyon society also want to lower the age of consent. After all, their motto is "Sex before eight or it's too late."

Lowering the age of consent (which one poster here suggested) is pure evil. This evil is based on failing to understand that a teenage girl lacks the ability to consent. To a pervert, she may look like a woman; however according to the law, she lacks the maturity to understand the long-range ramifications of giving "consent."

The poster in question specifically disavowed suggesting any legal changes:

Quote from: PereJoseph

I'm not necessarily suggesting any policy changes, either.

Among Catholics, by the way, we would be discussing the marriageable age, rather than the age of consent to fornication. A 15 year old girl being chastely courted with a view to marriage is obviously not comparable to sɛҳuąƖ predation.

Your insistence on current US law as the arbiter of good and evil is, to say the least, inexplicably provincial. To speak only of the Church, and not of varying civil laws: prior to 1917, Church law gave 12 as the marriageable age; in the 1917 Code, the age was raised to 14 for girls and 16 for boys. I believe these ages still obtain in the "new code." Would you say that the Church's law is pure evil?

BTNYC · « **Reply #23 on:** January 16, 2015, 07:51:14 AM »

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Cera
I see your point. It would be more accurate to say Clinton is a predator.

When was he convicted?

Quote from: Cera
On the other issue raised, the primary group calling for lowering the age of consent is the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Other pedophile/ predator groups like the Rene Gunyon society also want to lower the age of consent. After all, their motto is "Sex before eight or it's too late."

Lowering the age of consent (which one poster here suggested) is pure evil. This evil is based on failing to understand that a teenage girl lacks the ability to consent. To a pervert, she may look like a woman; however according to the law, she lacks the maturity to understand the long-range ramifications of giving "consent."

The poster in question specifically disavowed suggesting any legal changes:

Quote from: PereJoseph
I'm not necessarily suggesting any policy changes, either.

Among Catholics, by the way, we would be discussing the marriageable age, rather than the age of consent to fornication. A 15 year old girl being chastely courted with a view to marriage is obviously not comparable to sɛҳuąƖ predation.

Your insistence on current US law as the arbiter of good and evil is, to say the least, inexplicably provincial. To speak only of the Church, and not of varying civil laws: prior to 1917, Church law gave 12 as the marriageable age; in the 1917 Code, the age was raised to 14 for girls and 16 for boys. I believe these ages still obtain in the "new code." Would you say that the Church's law is pure evil?

I can add nothing to this, apart from thanking PereJoseph and Graham for defending a rational, Catholic assessment of the matter in the face of muddleheaded, panicky emotionalism.

Croix de Fer · « **Reply #24 on:** January 16, 2015, 10:20:19 AM »

Legal age for marriage in Alabama is 14, if I'm not mistaken.

Cera · « **Reply #25 on:** January 16, 2015, 01:38:01 PM »

Quote from: Graham

Quote from: Cera
I see your point. It would be more accurate to say Clinton is a predator.

When was he convicted?

Quote from: Cera
On the other issue raised, the primary group calling for lowering the age of consent is the North American Man-Boy Love Association. Other pedophile/ predator groups like the Rene Gunyon society also want to lower the age of consent. After all, their motto is "Sex before eight or it's too late."

Lowering the age of consent (which one poster here suggested) is pure evil. This evil is based on failing to understand that a teenage girl lacks the ability to consent. To a pervert, she may look like a woman; however according to the law, she lacks the maturity to understand the long-range ramifications of giving "consent."

The poster in question specifically disavowed suggesting any legal changes:

Quote from: PereJoseph
I'm not necessarily suggesting any policy changes, either.

Among Catholics, by the way, we would be discussing the marriageable age, rather than the age of consent to fornication. A 15 year old girl being chastely courted with a view to marriage is obviously not comparable to sɛҳuąƖ predation.

Your insistence on current US law as the arbiter of good and evil is, to say the least, inexplicably provincial. To speak only of the Church, and not of varying civil laws: prior to 1917, Church law gave 12 as the marriageable age; in the 1917 Code, the age was raised to 14 for girls and 16 for boys. I believe these ages still obtain in the "new code." Would you say that the Church's law is pure evil?

The fact that the corrupt AK governor was not even charged is about government corruption, not about him being innocent. btw did you watch the Juanita Broderick video?

In 1917, lowering the age of consent to benefit pedophiles, pederasts, and other assorted predators was not on anyone's radar screen.

Viva Cristo Rey · « **Reply #26 on:** January 18, 2015, 05:22:16 AM »

Hollywood and politics are full of pedophiles and perverts.
Pedophilia and sɛҳuąƖ perversion is why the Church is in a state of apostacy.