Hookers LIE?....Who Knew?

[Pogo]

Papageorgio could do that job.

Not convincingly, but that wouldn't stop him.

Poor thing, you still defending your hooker friends. I wouldn’t defend Trump, not interested in defending him, he slept with a hooker, I really don’t care.

At least I know I’m on the right track when you start complaining to others about me.

Actually I don't have any hooker friends, nor are there any 'hookers' involved in this story, nor would it be relevant if there were.

But you keep tryin' little fella.

​

Enjoy your dishonesty. Maybe it'll pay off some day when reality no longer exists.

Play stupid, there is not many people right or left that haven’t figured out that she is a prostitute.

And yet --- you can't prove it. Even trotted in a link that specifically excludes it. Maybe you should have read it before you dug deeper.

You must be on an extra-short bus to keep trying to prove a point that not only has nothing to substantiate it, but wouldn't have anywhere to go even if you could prove it. Once AGAIN --- ****NOBODY**** claims this was a prostitution event. NOBODY.

How you figure? She said on national tv she thought she was getting a tv role! Quid pro quo!

Prostitution

That wouldn't be "prostitution". That would be "the world of male-dominated business".

If you're going to misdefine "prostitution" that loosely just to fit a square peg in a round hole, then you're going to also have to include "marriage" in there.

So are you saying Melania is a "prostitute" then?

Then you can go on to "dinner and a movie". Quid pro quo indeed.

 

[jc456]

Poor thing, you still defending your hooker friends. I wouldn’t defend Trump, not interested in defending him, he slept with a hooker, I really don’t care.

At least I know I’m on the right track when you start complaining to others about me.

Actually I don't have any hooker friends, nor are there any 'hookers' involved in this story, nor would it be relevant if there were.

But you keep tryin' little fella.

​

Enjoy your dishonesty. Maybe it'll pay off some day when reality no longer exists.

Play stupid, there is not many people right or left that haven’t figured out that she is a prostitute.

And yet --- you can't prove it. Even trotted in a link that specifically excludes it. Maybe you should have read it before you dug deeper.

You must be on an extra-short bus to keep trying to prove a point that not only has nothing to substantiate it, but wouldn't have anywhere to go even if you could prove it. Once AGAIN --- ****NOBODY**** claims this was a prostitution event. NOBODY.

How you figure? She said on national tv she thought she was getting a tv role! Quid pro quo!

Prostitution

That wouldn't be "prostitution". That would be "the world of male-dominated business".

If you're going to misdefine "prostitution" that loosely just to fit a square peg in a round hole, then you're going to also have to include "marriage" in there.

So are you saying Melania is a "prostitute" then?

Then you can go on to "dinner and a movie". Quid pro quo indeed.

Then explain the sex!

 

[Pogo]

Actually I don't have any hooker friends, nor are there any 'hookers' involved in this story, nor would it be relevant if there were.

But you keep tryin' little fella.

​

Enjoy your dishonesty. Maybe it'll pay off some day when reality no longer exists.

Play stupid, there is not many people right or left that haven’t figured out that she is a prostitute.

And yet --- you can't prove it. Even trotted in a link that specifically excludes it. Maybe you should have read it before you dug deeper.

You must be on an extra-short bus to keep trying to prove a point that not only has nothing to substantiate it, but wouldn't have anywhere to go even if you could prove it. Once AGAIN --- ****NOBODY**** claims this was a prostitution event. NOBODY.

How you figure? She said on national tv she thought she was getting a tv role! Quid pro quo!

Prostitution

That wouldn't be "prostitution". That would be "the world of male-dominated business".

If you're going to misdefine "prostitution" that loosely just to fit a square peg in a round hole, then you're going to also have to include "marriage" in there.

So are you saying Melania is a "prostitute" then?

Then you can go on to "dinner and a movie". Quid pro quo indeed.

Then explain the sex!

You want me to explain sex to you over a message board.

Best deflection yet.

 

[Pop23]

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.

The record belongs to the great Pogo.

Never to be broken.

Keep deflecting and defending the integrity of a Porn Star!

Real smart Einstein.

 

[Pop23]

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,
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?

Hookers, unless your talking about those who bait hooks, have sex for money.

You knew that, right?

 

[Syriusly]

Why should anyone believe a thing she says? Is Trump guilty before he proves his innocence?

He already admitted to grabbing pussies.

The problem is, you fuckers on the right don't care if he is a criminal.

Since when is grabbing pussies a crime? Those poor prostitutes

So you think that all of the pussies that Trump grabbed were prostitutes?

Fascinating that you think Trump was bragging about all of the prostitutes he could just walk up to and kiss without even waiting.

 

[Syriusly]

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.

The record belongs to the great Pogo.

Never to be broken.

Keep deflecting and defending the integrity of a Porn Star!

Real smart Einstein.

As I have pointed out- if we compare the integrity of the Reality TV star to the Porn Star- the Reality TV Star has a long and documented record of lying, and cheating.

The Porn Star? Not so much.

 

[bripat9643]

You realize you took a giant leap, right?

Not really. Every day, Sarah Sanders gets outthere and tells us that Trump really didn't mean what he just said.

Papageorgio could do that job.

Not convincingly, but that wouldn't stop him.

Poor thing, you still defending your hooker friends. I wouldn’t defend Trump, not interested in defending him, he slept with a hooker, I really don’t care.

At least I know I’m on the right track when you start complaining to others about me.

Actually I don't have any hooker friends, nor are there any 'hookers' involved in this story, nor would it be relevant if there were.

But you keep tryin' little fella.

​

Enjoy your dishonesty. Maybe it'll pay off some day when reality no longer exists.

Play stupid, there is not many people right or left that haven’t figured out that she is a prostitute, but ignorance is bliss which explains why you are so happy about this.

Deny, deny, deny . . . . . . . That's what snowflakes do.

 

[bripat9643]

Why should anyone believe a thing she says? Is Trump guilty before he proves his innocence?

He already admitted to grabbing pussies.

The problem is, you fuckers on the right don't care if he is a criminal.

Since when is grabbing pussies a crime? Those poor prostitutes

So you think that all of the pussies that Trump grabbed were prostitutes?

Fascinating that you think Trump was bragging about all of the prostitutes he could just walk up to and kiss without even waiting.

Nobody thinks that, you fucking dumbass. I've come across tree stumps with better logic skills than you.

Your post is a perfect example of why it's pointless to argue with the leftwingers in this forum.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

The record belongs to the great Pogo.

Never to be broken.

Keep deflecting and defending the integrity of a Porn Star!

Real smart Einstein.

As I have pointed out- if we compare the integrity of the Reality TV star to the Porn Star- the Reality TV Star has a long and documented record of lying, and cheating.

The Porn Star? Not so much.

You don't know a thing about the gold digging whore. One thing is clear: she will do literally anything for cash, and she's probably been offered plent to smear Trump.

 

[Pogo]

You don't know a thing about the gold digging whore.

In a single short sentence Fingerboy commits the same sin of which he trips over himself to accuse somebody else. Can't write this shit.

 

[jc456]

Play stupid, there is not many people right or left that haven’t figured out that she is a prostitute.

And yet --- you can't prove it. Even trotted in a link that specifically excludes it. Maybe you should have read it before you dug deeper.

You must be on an extra-short bus to keep trying to prove a point that not only has nothing to substantiate it, but wouldn't have anywhere to go even if you could prove it. Once AGAIN --- ****NOBODY**** claims this was a prostitution event. NOBODY.

How you figure? She said on national tv she thought she was getting a tv role! Quid pro quo!

Prostitution

That wouldn't be "prostitution". That would be "the world of male-dominated business".

If you're going to misdefine "prostitution" that loosely just to fit a square peg in a round hole, then you're going to also have to include "marriage" in there.

So are you saying Melania is a "prostitute" then?

Then you can go on to "dinner and a movie". Quid pro quo indeed.

Then explain the sex!

You want me to explain sex to you over a message board.

Best deflection yet.

You’re the one that doesn’t understand sex it’s obvious! She expected something for her sex. She chose 130k. That makes it prostitution . Doesn’t matter when the transaction occurs

 

[jc456]

Why should anyone believe a thing she says? Is Trump guilty before he proves his innocence?

He already admitted to grabbing pussies.

The problem is, you fuckers on the right don't care if he is a criminal.

Since when is grabbing pussies a crime? Those poor prostitutes

So you think that all of the pussies that Trump grabbed were prostitutes?

Fascinating that you think Trump was bragging about all of the prostitutes he could just walk up to and kiss without even waiting.

He was in Hollywood

 

[jc456]

You don't know a thing about the gold digging whore.

In a single short sentence Fingerboy commits the same sin of which he trips over himself to accuse somebody else. Can't write this shit.

Except when it’s accurate

 

[jc456]

Not really. Every day, Sarah Sanders gets outthere and tells us that Trump really didn't mean what he just said.

Papageorgio could do that job.

Not convincingly, but that wouldn't stop him.

Poor thing, you still defending your hooker friends. I wouldn’t defend Trump, not interested in defending him, he slept with a hooker, I really don’t care.

At least I know I’m on the right track when you start complaining to others about me.

Actually I don't have any hooker friends, nor are there any 'hookers' involved in this story, nor would it be relevant if there were.

But you keep tryin' little fella.

​

Enjoy your dishonesty. Maybe it'll pay off some day when reality no longer exists.

Play stupid, there is not many people right or left that haven’t figured out that she is a prostitute, but ignorance is bliss which explains why you are so happy about this.

Deny, deny, deny . . . . . . . That's what snowflakes do.

Deflection is their game

 

[Pogo]

And yet --- you can't prove it. Even trotted in a link that specifically excludes it. Maybe you should have read it before you dug deeper.

You must be on an extra-short bus to keep trying to prove a point that not only has nothing to substantiate it, but wouldn't have anywhere to go even if you could prove it. Once AGAIN --- ****NOBODY**** claims this was a prostitution event. NOBODY.

How you figure? She said on national tv she thought she was getting a tv role! Quid pro quo!

Prostitution

That wouldn't be "prostitution". That would be "the world of male-dominated business".

If you're going to misdefine "prostitution" that loosely just to fit a square peg in a round hole, then you're going to also have to include "marriage" in there.

So are you saying Melania is a "prostitute" then?

Then you can go on to "dinner and a movie". Quid pro quo indeed.

Then explain the sex!

You want me to explain sex to you over a message board.

Best deflection yet.

You’re the one that doesn’t understand sex it’s obvious! She expected something for her sex. She chose 130k. That makes it prostitution . Doesn’t matter when the transaction occurs

Once again --- the $130k was not in any way "for sex". It was to not-talk. BIG difference.

Think about it --- if the $130k had been for sex --- there would be no alleged proscription on discussing it. The sex was already done.

Duh??

 

[bripat9643]

And yet --- you can't prove it. Even trotted in a link that specifically excludes it. Maybe you should have read it before you dug deeper.

You must be on an extra-short bus to keep trying to prove a point that not only has nothing to substantiate it, but wouldn't have anywhere to go even if you could prove it. Once AGAIN --- ****NOBODY**** claims this was a prostitution event. NOBODY.

How you figure? She said on national tv she thought she was getting a tv role! Quid pro quo!

Prostitution

That wouldn't be "prostitution". That would be "the world of male-dominated business".

If you're going to misdefine "prostitution" that loosely just to fit a square peg in a round hole, then you're going to also have to include "marriage" in there.

So are you saying Melania is a "prostitute" then?

Then you can go on to "dinner and a movie". Quid pro quo indeed.

Then explain the sex!

You want me to explain sex to you over a message board.

Best deflection yet.

You’re the one that doesn’t understand sex it’s obvious! She expected something for her sex. She chose 130k. That makes it prostitution . Doesn’t matter when the transaction occurs

There's no evidence whatsoever that they had sex.

 

[jc456]

How you figure? She said on national tv she thought she was getting a tv role! Quid pro quo!

Prostitution

That wouldn't be "prostitution". That would be "the world of male-dominated business".

If you're going to misdefine "prostitution" that loosely just to fit a square peg in a round hole, then you're going to also have to include "marriage" in there.

So are you saying Melania is a "prostitute" then?

Then you can go on to "dinner and a movie". Quid pro quo indeed.

Then explain the sex!

You want me to explain sex to you over a message board.

Best deflection yet.

You’re the one that doesn’t understand sex it’s obvious! She expected something for her sex. She chose 130k. That makes it prostitution . Doesn’t matter when the transaction occurs

Once again --- the $130k was not in any way "for sex". It was to not-talk. BIG difference.

Think about it --- if the $130k had been for sex --- there would be no alleged proscription on discussing it. The sex was already done.

Duh??

If it wasn’t for sex, why’d she get it? And don’t say hush money. Cause then you have to answer, hush money for what? Oh sex! See, it’s payment for sex.

 

[Pogo]

You don't know a thing about the gold digging whore.

In a single short sentence Fingerboy commits the same sin of which he trips over himself to accuse somebody else. Can't write this shit.

Except when it’s accurate

THAT flew over your head too? I actually need to essplain this?

OK here's Fingeboy's entire sentence as quoted:

"You don't know a thing about the gold digging whore."​

Let's proceed to break this down into nice bite-size morsels.

"You don't know a thing about" is challenging the other person's basis to characterize what follows, the "object". He's saying the other person is not qualified to opine on the object's characteristics as he doesn't know her.

Still with us? Need a break?

OK let's move on to the rest of this short sentence. Ready?

".... the gold digging whore"​

Here we have Finger-Boy --- in the same sentence he just set up claiming another person didn't have a basis of knowledge to characterize the object ---- claiming to have a basis of knowledge to characterize the object. The exact same thing he just whined at the other person for.

Fun stuff huh?

The irony on top of irony in this irony sandwich is that this characterization is one he's already made, been called out to substantiate, and completely failed to substantiate it.

We call this "hoist with his own petard".

 

[bripat9643]

You don't know a thing about the gold digging whore.

In a single short sentence Fingerboy commits the same sin of which he trips over himself to accuse somebody else. Can't write this shit.

Except when it’s accurate

THAT flew over your head too? I actually need to essplain this?

OK here's Fingeboy's entire sentence as quoted:

"You don't know a thing about the gold digging whore."​

Let's proceed to break this down into nice bite-size morsels.

"You don't know a thing about" is challenging the other person's basis to characterize what follows, the "object". He's saying the other person is not qualified to opine on the object's characteristics as he doesn't know her.

Still with us? Need a break?

OK let's move on to the rest of this short sentence. Ready?

".... the gold digging whore"​

Here we have Finger-Boy --- in the same sentence he just set up claiming another person didn't have a basis of knowledge to characterize the object ---- claiming to have a basis of knowledge to characterize the object. The exact same thing he just whined at the other person for.

Fun stuff huh?

The irony on top of irony in this irony sandwich is that this characterization is one he's already made, been called out to substantiate, and completely failed to substantiate it.

We call this "hoist with his own petard".

Here are two facts that you can't deny:

1. She's trying to get gold out of Trump
2. She's a whore.