Hookers LIE?....Who Knew?

[Pogo]

I have never been with a prostitute- so if that is what you do- well I acknowledge your greater experience.

But according to rumors- johns pay prostitutes for having sex with them.

Politicians pay prostitutes to keep quiet about that sex so that they can get elected.

I never been with a prostitute either however if a person has half a brain, you pay a prostitute for sex and to keep quiet so it doesn’t get back to your significant other. Are you really that dumb?

I don't think it works that way. If you pay a prostitute, it's for sex. That's it.
Plus, while I couldn't guess what the going rate is, I'm pretty sure no prostitute anywhere goes for $130,000.

I believe discretion would be part of the equation, if she blabbers about it I don’t think she’d have customers. Maybe I’m wrong but would you want a prostitute to go blabbing about you paying her for sex?

She worked for an escort agency, whether Trump hired her or not I wouldn’t know or care. I have as much interest in her as I did with Lewiensky

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Read your own link. Number one it's a "talent agency" not an "escort service".

And number two, what it says right there on your own link's page is, and I quote:

>> Stormy is only available for bookings listed on the right. If you are interested in booking Stormy, please contact us for details and schedule. <<
.
--- and the list on the right reads, in full:

• Feature Dancing
• Lite Fetish (Non Sex)
• Store Signings
• Event Hosting
• Mainstream Work
• Print Work, and Photo Shoots

You see anything about prostitution in there?

How 'bout the phrase "non sex"? See that?

YOUR OWN LINK.


And once AGAIN --- for the umpteenth time --- none of this is relevant anyway, as *NOBODY* is claiming Stormy and Rump engaged in prostitution anyway. Summa y'all can't even deflect right.

YOUR OWN LINK.

 

[Pogo]

I have never been with a prostitute- so if that is what you do- well I acknowledge your greater experience.

But according to rumors- johns pay prostitutes for having sex with them.

Politicians pay prostitutes to keep quiet about that sex so that they can get elected.

I never been with a prostitute either however if a person has half a brain, you pay a prostitute for sex and to keep quiet so it doesn’t get back to your significant other. Are you really that dumb?

I don't think it works that way. If you pay a prostitute, it's for sex. That's it.
Plus, while I couldn't guess what the going rate is, I'm pretty sure no prostitute anywhere goes for $130,000.

I believe discretion would be part of the equation, if she blabbers about it I don’t think she’d have customers. Maybe I’m wrong but would you want a prostitute to go blabbing about you paying her for sex?

She worked for an escort agency, whether Trump hired her or not I wouldn’t know or care. I have as much interest in her as I did with Lewiensky

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Fingerboy gives this a "Winner" because he didn't bother to read the link either.

Gotta wonder what's in the water.

 

[Papageorgio]

I never been with a prostitute either however if a person has half a brain, you pay a prostitute for sex and to keep quiet so it doesn’t get back to your significant other. Are you really that dumb?

I don't think it works that way. If you pay a prostitute, it's for sex. That's it.
Plus, while I couldn't guess what the going rate is, I'm pretty sure no prostitute anywhere goes for $130,000.

I believe discretion would be part of the equation, if she blabbers about it I don’t think she’d have customers. Maybe I’m wrong but would you want a prostitute to go blabbing about you paying her for sex?

She worked for an escort agency, whether Trump hired her or not I wouldn’t know or care. I have as much interest in her as I did with Lewiensky

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Read your own link. Number one it's a "talent agency" not an "escort service".

And number two, what it says right there on your own link's page is, and I quote:

>> Stormy is only available for bookings listed on the right. If you are interested in booking Stormy, please contact us for details and schedule. <<
.
--- and the list on the right reads, in full:

• Feature Dancing
• Lite Fetish (Non Sex)
• Store Signings
• Event Hosting
• Mainstream Work
• Print Work, and Photo Shoots

You see anything about prostitution in there?

How 'bout the phrase "non sex"? See that?

YOUR OWN LINK.


And once AGAIN --- for the umpteenth time --- none of this is relevant anyway, as *NOBODY* is claiming Stormy and Rump engaged in prostitution anyway. Summa y'all can't even deflect right.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Seriously? You are either dishonest or very stupid. If they advertised differently could they not be busted?

 

[Rambunctious]

"talent agency" not an "escort service"

6 of one half dozen of the other.....

 

[Pogo]

Funny how Monica was a slut and Daniels is a hero.

No, what's funny is watching you guys who insisted a private affair with an intern was an impeachable offense now claiming that a corrupt payoff to a porn star is no big deal.

I never claimed that, that is what is funny, now if Trump lies under oath about the affair then we have an impeachable offense, otherwise you are a bunch of hypocritical old ladies gossiping over the fence

You left wing nuts want to make a big deal about an affair, while claiming Clinton’s affair is no big deal. Clinton when asked should have took the 5th or claimed it wasn’t anyone’s business, that is what he should have done.

Once AGAIN, the sex part here is irrelevant to anything. It's all about the hush money.

I believe that's what the words "corrupt payoff" in the post you quoted, mean. There isn't any way around that.

Oh, another deflection.

Now it’s not the credibility of someone who, as a profession, has sex for money, it’s something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

you crack me up!

You must be going for some kind of Guinness record for doubling down on Duh Stoopid.

Your task remains, as it has over the past dozen challenges over multiple days, to back up your ass-sertion that a profession involving sex somehow impacts "credibility". Presumably in a way that a profession that involves, say, fixing cars or playing sports or selling groceries, does not.

And you have FAILED to make that case. Every time. Which is, to be fair, understandable since you're floating a non sequitur.

Now back to you to continue FAILING. Take it away.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think it works that way. If you pay a prostitute, it's for sex. That's it.
Plus, while I couldn't guess what the going rate is, I'm pretty sure no prostitute anywhere goes for $130,000.

I believe discretion would be part of the equation, if she blabbers about it I don’t think she’d have customers. Maybe I’m wrong but would you want a prostitute to go blabbing about you paying her for sex?

She worked for an escort agency, whether Trump hired her or not I wouldn’t know or care. I have as much interest in her as I did with Lewiensky

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Read your own link. Number one it's a "talent agency" not an "escort service".

And number two, what it says right there on your own link's page is, and I quote:

>> Stormy is only available for bookings listed on the right. If you are interested in booking Stormy, please contact us for details and schedule. <<
.
--- and the list on the right reads, in full:

• Feature Dancing
• Lite Fetish (Non Sex)
• Store Signings
• Event Hosting
• Mainstream Work
• Print Work, and Photo Shoots

You see anything about prostitution in there?

How 'bout the phrase "non sex"? See that?

YOUR OWN LINK.


And once AGAIN --- for the umpteenth time --- none of this is relevant anyway, as *NOBODY* is claiming Stormy and Rump engaged in prostitution anyway. Summa y'all can't even deflect right.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Seriously? You are either dishonest or very stupid. If they advertised differently could they not be busted?

You're actually sitting here on the internets suggesting that the absence of 'prostitution' --- and the explicit exception stated --- mean the opposite of what they say?




YOUR OWN LINK. You should have read it before you dug yourself into a hole.

A hole that remains IRRELEVANT since this is not an allegation of prostitution anyway.

So let's sum up what you're saying here:

"Stormy Daniels didn't engage in prostitution but she's a prostitute, because here's a website saying she isn't".

-- and that means what?

 

[Pogo]

"talent agency" not an "escort service"

6 of one half dozen of the other.....

Ah yes, "alternative facts".

"I don't care what the words say or what they mean, I only know what I wish they would mean".

You run with that, Captain Wrongway.

 

[Rambunctious]

Ah yes, "alternative facts".

"I don't care what the words say or what they mean, I only know what I wish they would mean".

You run with that, Captain Wrongway

That's Gunnery Sargent....I work for a living....

 

[Papageorgio]

I never been with a prostitute either however if a person has half a brain, you pay a prostitute for sex and to keep quiet so it doesn’t get back to your significant other. Are you really that dumb?

I don't think it works that way. If you pay a prostitute, it's for sex. That's it.
Plus, while I couldn't guess what the going rate is, I'm pretty sure no prostitute anywhere goes for $130,000.

I believe discretion would be part of the equation, if she blabbers about it I don’t think she’d have customers. Maybe I’m wrong but would you want a prostitute to go blabbing about you paying her for sex?

She worked for an escort agency, whether Trump hired her or not I wouldn’t know or care. I have as much interest in her as I did with Lewiensky

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Fingerboy gives this a "Winner" because he didn't bother to read the link either.

Gotta wonder what's in the water.

I read the link, I’m not going to play silly games, prostitution is illegal, and if you think she isn’t, then you are a really stupid. Talent agency, escort, massage therapist,

I believe discretion would be part of the equation, if she blabbers about it I don’t think she’d have customers. Maybe I’m wrong but would you want a prostitute to go blabbing about you paying her for sex?

She worked for an escort agency, whether Trump hired her or not I wouldn’t know or care. I have as much interest in her as I did with Lewiensky

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Read your own link. Number one it's a "talent agency" not an "escort service".

And number two, what it says right there on your own link's page is, and I quote:

>> Stormy is only available for bookings listed on the right. If you are interested in booking Stormy, please contact us for details and schedule. <<
.
--- and the list on the right reads, in full:

• Feature Dancing
• Lite Fetish (Non Sex)
• Store Signings
• Event Hosting
• Mainstream Work
• Print Work, and Photo Shoots

You see anything about prostitution in there?

How 'bout the phrase "non sex"? See that?

YOUR OWN LINK.


And once AGAIN --- for the umpteenth time --- none of this is relevant anyway, as *NOBODY* is claiming Stormy and Rump engaged in prostitution anyway. Summa y'all can't even deflect right.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Seriously? You are either dishonest or very stupid. If they advertised differently could they not be busted?

You're actually sitting here on the internets suggesting that the absence of 'prostitution' --- and the explicit exception stated --- mean the opposite of what they say?




YOUR OWN LINK. You should have read it before you dug yourself into a hole.

A hole that remains IRRELEVANT since this is not an allegation of prostitution anyway.

Okay you are dishonest, show that ad to anyone with a brain and they will tell you it is an ad for sex but you are going to believe what you need to believe because the truth would now make you look really, really stupid.

 

[Pogo]

I don't think it works that way. If you pay a prostitute, it's for sex. That's it.
Plus, while I couldn't guess what the going rate is, I'm pretty sure no prostitute anywhere goes for $130,000.

I believe discretion would be part of the equation, if she blabbers about it I don’t think she’d have customers. Maybe I’m wrong but would you want a prostitute to go blabbing about you paying her for sex?

She worked for an escort agency, whether Trump hired her or not I wouldn’t know or care. I have as much interest in her as I did with Lewiensky

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Fingerboy gives this a "Winner" because he didn't bother to read the link either.

Gotta wonder what's in the water.

I read the link, I’m not going to play silly games, prostitution is illegal, and if you think she isn’t, then you are a really stupid. Talent agency, escort, massage therapist,

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Read your own link. Number one it's a "talent agency" not an "escort service".

And number two, what it says right there on your own link's page is, and I quote:

>> Stormy is only available for bookings listed on the right. If you are interested in booking Stormy, please contact us for details and schedule. <<
.
--- and the list on the right reads, in full:

• Feature Dancing
• Lite Fetish (Non Sex)
• Store Signings
• Event Hosting
• Mainstream Work
• Print Work, and Photo Shoots

You see anything about prostitution in there?

How 'bout the phrase "non sex"? See that?

YOUR OWN LINK.


And once AGAIN --- for the umpteenth time --- none of this is relevant anyway, as *NOBODY* is claiming Stormy and Rump engaged in prostitution anyway. Summa y'all can't even deflect right.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Seriously? You are either dishonest or very stupid. If they advertised differently could they not be busted?

You're actually sitting here on the internets suggesting that the absence of 'prostitution' --- and the explicit exception stated --- mean the opposite of what they say?




YOUR OWN LINK. You should have read it before you dug yourself into a hole.

A hole that remains IRRELEVANT since this is not an allegation of prostitution anyway.

Okay you are dishonest, show that ad to anyone with a brain and they will tell you it is an ad for sex but you are going to believe what you need to believe because the truth would now make you look really, really stupid.

DOOD.

I just quoted YOUR OWN LINK back to you --- and you're gonna sit here and deny that it says what it says?
After you just regurgitated it up here to try to tell us it said something completely different?

Just because you wish it had said something different, therefore you're gonna sit here and pretend it does? Like some kind of four year old?

And then you want to claim you're "not going to play silly games"?

Dishonest HACK.

 

[jc456]

There are only two kinds of women in this world:

1. whores
2. lying whores

Which one are you?

When a woman (or man, whichever) accepts money for performing a sex act with another, then, by definition, they are a whore.

Does this really fly over anyone’s head?

Not mine

 

[Papageorgio]

I believe discretion would be part of the equation, if she blabbers about it I don’t think she’d have customers. Maybe I’m wrong but would you want a prostitute to go blabbing about you paying her for sex?

She worked for an escort agency, whether Trump hired her or not I wouldn’t know or care. I have as much interest in her as I did with Lewiensky

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Fingerboy gives this a "Winner" because he didn't bother to read the link either.

Gotta wonder what's in the water.

I read the link, I’m not going to play silly games, prostitution is illegal, and if you think she isn’t, then you are a really stupid. Talent agency, escort, massage therapist,

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Read your own link. Number one it's a "talent agency" not an "escort service".

And number two, what it says right there on your own link's page is, and I quote:

>> Stormy is only available for bookings listed on the right. If you are interested in booking Stormy, please contact us for details and schedule. <<
.
--- and the list on the right reads, in full:

• Feature Dancing
• Lite Fetish (Non Sex)
• Store Signings
• Event Hosting
• Mainstream Work
• Print Work, and Photo Shoots

You see anything about prostitution in there?

How 'bout the phrase "non sex"? See that?

YOUR OWN LINK.


And once AGAIN --- for the umpteenth time --- none of this is relevant anyway, as *NOBODY* is claiming Stormy and Rump engaged in prostitution anyway. Summa y'all can't even deflect right.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Seriously? You are either dishonest or very stupid. If they advertised differently could they not be busted?

You're actually sitting here on the internets suggesting that the absence of 'prostitution' --- and the explicit exception stated --- mean the opposite of what they say?




YOUR OWN LINK. You should have read it before you dug yourself into a hole.

A hole that remains IRRELEVANT since this is not an allegation of prostitution anyway.

Okay you are dishonest, show that ad to anyone with a brain and they will tell you it is an ad for sex but you are going to believe what you need to believe because the truth would now make you look really, really stupid.

DOOD.

I just quoted YOUR OWN LINK back to you --- and you're gonna sit here and deny that it says what it says?
After you just regurgitated it up here to try to tell us it said something completely different?

Just because you wish it had said something different, therefore you're gonna sit here and pretend it does? Like some kind of four year old?

And then you want to claim you're "not going to play silly games"?

Dishonest HACK.

Guy it says what it has to, to appear legal, if they mentioned sex they would be busted, take this to your local police station, go into the vice squad and they will tell you exactly what it is. Believe what you need to cupcake, it is just fun to see you defend your hooker.

 

[jc456]

I believe discretion would be part of the equation, if she blabbers about it I don’t think she’d have customers. Maybe I’m wrong but would you want a prostitute to go blabbing about you paying her for sex?

She worked for an escort agency, whether Trump hired her or not I wouldn’t know or care. I have as much interest in her as I did with Lewiensky

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Fingerboy gives this a "Winner" because he didn't bother to read the link either.

Gotta wonder what's in the water.

I read the link, I’m not going to play silly games, prostitution is illegal, and if you think she isn’t, then you are a really stupid. Talent agency, escort, massage therapist,

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Read your own link. Number one it's a "talent agency" not an "escort service".

And number two, what it says right there on your own link's page is, and I quote:

>> Stormy is only available for bookings listed on the right. If you are interested in booking Stormy, please contact us for details and schedule. <<
.
--- and the list on the right reads, in full:

• Feature Dancing
• Lite Fetish (Non Sex)
• Store Signings
• Event Hosting
• Mainstream Work
• Print Work, and Photo Shoots

You see anything about prostitution in there?

How 'bout the phrase "non sex"? See that?

YOUR OWN LINK.


And once AGAIN --- for the umpteenth time --- none of this is relevant anyway, as *NOBODY* is claiming Stormy and Rump engaged in prostitution anyway. Summa y'all can't even deflect right.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Seriously? You are either dishonest or very stupid. If they advertised differently could they not be busted?

You're actually sitting here on the internets suggesting that the absence of 'prostitution' --- and the explicit exception stated --- mean the opposite of what they say?




YOUR OWN LINK. You should have read it before you dug yourself into a hole.

A hole that remains IRRELEVANT since this is not an allegation of prostitution anyway.

Okay you are dishonest, show that ad to anyone with a brain and they will tell you it is an ad for sex but you are going to believe what you need to believe because the truth would now make you look really, really stupid.

DOOD.

I just quoted YOUR OWN LINK back to you --- and you're gonna sit here and deny that it says what it says?
After you just regurgitated it up here to try to tell us it said something completely different?

Just because you wish it had said something different, therefore you're gonna sit here and pretend it does? Like some kind of four year old?

And then you want to claim you're "not going to play silly games"?

Dishonest HACK.

Anything from you is but a silly game

 

[jc456]

I have often advocated for legal prostitution.

That does not, nor would it change the fact they would remain whores, and their credibility questionable

I'd trust a whore before I'd trust Trump. Trump doesn't even know what the truth is.

You do that. It gets you nothing

 

[jc456]

How is that an answer? Either it’s a crime or not. Which is it poindexter?

Of coarse its a crime. It's called assault, you hayseed dumbass!

So a women giving consent is still a crime to you? You are fked up

 

[jc456]

Why did I have to? The question was based on the two options

You can't figure it out that if I said I don't lie, then obviously, option #1 would be the answer? Do I have to talk to you like you are a 3rd grader? Wait, don't tell me, home school, right?

I don’t do riddles

 

[Pogo]

The prostitute in this scenario has no particular reason to discuss clients outside that client. It serves no purpose. Her client similarly has no reason to expect she would, for the same reason. Therefore there's no implicit NDA involved since it's simply not a factor. David Vitter for example wasn't exposed because some hooker brought it up --- his name appeared on a list of clients law enforcement got hold of. Obviously it doesn't serve either hooker or client to have that name come out --- it's bad for business. Vitter could have paid extra as hush money if he feared the exposure, but it would have served him no purpose since law enforcement would not be bound by it, and it isn't in the hooker service's interest to do so anyway.

That's a different situation from this though. Stormy isn't a hooker and the tryst was not a prostitution. It was simply consensual sexual encounter, not a purchase, public knowledge of which the male desired to keep quiet, enter the $130,000. Why that figure? Apparently he must have figured it was worth that to buy the silence.

So two completely different scenaria but only in the latter one is anyone "paid for silence". There's no reason to pay a hooker for "silence" when she has no incentive to the contrary. There is however reason to pay for silence if a politician thinks some story, whatever it is and whether legal or illegal, would work against his campaign. And that's what we have here. Not rocket surgery.

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Fingerboy gives this a "Winner" because he didn't bother to read the link either.

Gotta wonder what's in the water.

I read the link, I’m not going to play silly games, prostitution is illegal, and if you think she isn’t, then you are a really stupid. Talent agency, escort, massage therapist,

Read your own link. Number one it's a "talent agency" not an "escort service".

And number two, what it says right there on your own link's page is, and I quote:

>> Stormy is only available for bookings listed on the right. If you are interested in booking Stormy, please contact us for details and schedule. <<
.
--- and the list on the right reads, in full:

• Feature Dancing
• Lite Fetish (Non Sex)
• Store Signings
• Event Hosting
• Mainstream Work
• Print Work, and Photo Shoots

You see anything about prostitution in there?

How 'bout the phrase "non sex"? See that?

YOUR OWN LINK.


And once AGAIN --- for the umpteenth time --- none of this is relevant anyway, as *NOBODY* is claiming Stormy and Rump engaged in prostitution anyway. Summa y'all can't even deflect right.

YOUR OWN LINK.

Seriously? You are either dishonest or very stupid. If they advertised differently could they not be busted?

You're actually sitting here on the internets suggesting that the absence of 'prostitution' --- and the explicit exception stated --- mean the opposite of what they say?




YOUR OWN LINK. You should have read it before you dug yourself into a hole.

A hole that remains IRRELEVANT since this is not an allegation of prostitution anyway.

Okay you are dishonest, show that ad to anyone with a brain and they will tell you it is an ad for sex but you are going to believe what you need to believe because the truth would now make you look really, really stupid.

DOOD.

I just quoted YOUR OWN LINK back to you --- and you're gonna sit here and deny that it says what it says?
After you just regurgitated it up here to try to tell us it said something completely different?

Just because you wish it had said something different, therefore you're gonna sit here and pretend it does? Like some kind of four year old?

And then you want to claim you're "not going to play silly games"?

Dishonest HACK.

Guy it says what it has to, to appear legal, if they mentioned sex they would be busted, take this to your local police station, go into the vice squad and they will tell you exactly what it is. Believe what you need to cupcake, it is just fun to see you defend your hooker.

You must be literally a Mongoloid Idiot.

Me: "Prove your claim"
You: "Okay, here's a link"
Me: "Your link doesn't say what you claimed at all. Matter of fact it specifically says the opposite"
Then I quote your own post, verbatim, PROVING exactly that.
You: "ummm... .ummm.... it means the opposite of what it says, because 'everybody knows' and shit.
Yeah that's it. That's the ticket. "

You FAILED dood. I asked for a link proving an irrelevant point, and you gave one that not only doesn't prove it -- it specifically rules it out.

And here you are desperately flailing around with "it really means something else -- when they say "no sex" they mean "sex".

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to "prove" a claim that NOBODY ANYWHERE says is even involved here. Meaning even if you *could* prove it, it would have nowhere to go anyway. And then in that pointless quest you trotted out a link that specifically refutes that irrelevant claim.

Posters LIE?....Who Knew?

This is where dishonest hackery takes you. Into a hole.

 

[Papageorgio]

So working for an escort service is not being a hooker?

Stormy Daniels » Nexxxt Level Talent Agency

Fingerboy gives this a "Winner" because he didn't bother to read the link either.

Gotta wonder what's in the water.

I read the link, I’m not going to play silly games, prostitution is illegal, and if you think she isn’t, then you are a really stupid. Talent agency, escort, massage therapist,

Seriously? You are either dishonest or very stupid. If they advertised differently could they not be busted?

You're actually sitting here on the internets suggesting that the absence of 'prostitution' --- and the explicit exception stated --- mean the opposite of what they say?




YOUR OWN LINK. You should have read it before you dug yourself into a hole.

A hole that remains IRRELEVANT since this is not an allegation of prostitution anyway.

Okay you are dishonest, show that ad to anyone with a brain and they will tell you it is an ad for sex but you are going to believe what you need to believe because the truth would now make you look really, really stupid.

DOOD.

I just quoted YOUR OWN LINK back to you --- and you're gonna sit here and deny that it says what it says?
After you just regurgitated it up here to try to tell us it said something completely different?

Just because you wish it had said something different, therefore you're gonna sit here and pretend it does? Like some kind of four year old?

And then you want to claim you're "not going to play silly games"?

Dishonest HACK.

Guy it says what it has to, to appear legal, if they mentioned sex they would be busted, take this to your local police station, go into the vice squad and they will tell you exactly what it is. Believe what you need to cupcake, it is just fun to see you defend your hooker.

You must be literally a Mongoloid Idiot.

Me: "Prove your claim"
You: "Okay, here's a link"
Me: "Your link doesn't say what you claimed at all. Matter of fact it specifically says the opposite"
Then I quote your own post, verbatim, PROVING exactly that.
You: "ummm... .ummm.... it means the opposite of what it says, because 'everybody knows' and shit.
Yeah that's it. That's the ticket. "

You FAILED dood. I asked for a link proving an irrelevant point, and you gave one that not only doesn't prove it -- it specifically rules it out.

And here you are desperately flailing around with "it really means something else -- when they say "no sex" they mean "sex".

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to "prove" a claim that NOBODY ANYWHERE says is even involved here. Meaning even if you *could* prove it, it would have nowhere to go anyway. And then in that pointless quest you trotted out a link that specifically refutes that irrelevant claim.

This is where dishonest hackery takes you. Into a hole.

Lol! Continue to support the hookers, the left loves exploiting women to serve their end.

 

[Pogo]

Fingerboy gives this a "Winner" because he didn't bother to read the link either.

Gotta wonder what's in the water.

I read the link, I’m not going to play silly games, prostitution is illegal, and if you think she isn’t, then you are a really stupid. Talent agency, escort, massage therapist,

You're actually sitting here on the internets suggesting that the absence of 'prostitution' --- and the explicit exception stated --- mean the opposite of what they say?




YOUR OWN LINK. You should have read it before you dug yourself into a hole.

A hole that remains IRRELEVANT since this is not an allegation of prostitution anyway.

Okay you are dishonest, show that ad to anyone with a brain and they will tell you it is an ad for sex but you are going to believe what you need to believe because the truth would now make you look really, really stupid.

DOOD.

I just quoted YOUR OWN LINK back to you --- and you're gonna sit here and deny that it says what it says?
After you just regurgitated it up here to try to tell us it said something completely different?

Just because you wish it had said something different, therefore you're gonna sit here and pretend it does? Like some kind of four year old?

And then you want to claim you're "not going to play silly games"?

Dishonest HACK.

Guy it says what it has to, to appear legal, if they mentioned sex they would be busted, take this to your local police station, go into the vice squad and they will tell you exactly what it is. Believe what you need to cupcake, it is just fun to see you defend your hooker.

You must be literally a Mongoloid Idiot.

Me: "Prove your claim"
You: "Okay, here's a link"
Me: "Your link doesn't say what you claimed at all. Matter of fact it specifically says the opposite"
Then I quote your own post, verbatim, PROVING exactly that.
You: "ummm... .ummm.... it means the opposite of what it says, because 'everybody knows' and shit.
Yeah that's it. That's the ticket. "

You FAILED dood. I asked for a link proving an irrelevant point, and you gave one that not only doesn't prove it -- it specifically rules it out.

And here you are desperately flailing around with "it really means something else -- when they say "no sex" they mean "sex".

You're twisting yourself into a pretzel to try to "prove" a claim that NOBODY ANYWHERE says is even involved here. Meaning even if you *could* prove it, it would have nowhere to go anyway. And then in that pointless quest you trotted out a link that specifically refutes that irrelevant claim.

This is where dishonest hackery takes you. Into a hole.

Lol! Continue to support the hookers, the left loves exploiting women to serve their end.

I'm not aware of any "hookers" here. This is where we started --- the challenge was to prove their existence among the characters. You were the latest to try to strap that on, and you FAILED. No such "hookers" have been documented AT ALL.

Prove me wrong.

And when I say "prove" I don't mean "trot out a talent agency web page and claim it means the opposite of what it says". K?

 

[Pogo]

And then there's this klown:

Stormy is a prostitute

Link?

Yeah right...I'm gonna link you to a porn site and get banned? I was born at night but it wasn't last night, fool.

No, you're gonna link me to evidence that she's a "prostitute". Which is what you posted.

Either that, or by failing to do so you're going to admit you're a liar.

She admitted it on 60Min.... WOW you really are desperate..

Since Klownboy ran away from my challenge, I took the liberty to track down a transcript of the entire 60 Minutes interview (with everybody) and read the entire thing.

Not there. Not even a hint thereof.

Not even a denial of it that PG can run around claiming it means the "opposite of what it says".

Nothing. ZERO.

Fuggin' dishonest hacks think they can just float myths and nobody's gonna bust them wide open.
Boggles the mind.