Hookers LIE?....Who Knew?

[Pogo]

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.

"Hush money" is exactly it. Which eliminates your equation with 'sex' since "hushing" is not "sex".

And "hush money for what" is a pertinent question. Because the other party involved, Rump, declares there was no such event. No sex, no nuttin'.

If that's true, then there cannot be an NDA. You can't agree to not-disclose something that does not exist.

If however there *IS* an NDA, then that means there is also some event to write an NDA about.

--- which means Rump is either lying about there being no event, or lying about there being an NDA. Both cannot be true.

Yanno we can post this same corner Rump has hisself painted into 322 times, and it's not going to change. It's the same corner, every time.

 

[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".

Here are two facts that you can't deny:

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

Actually those are two claims you cannot prove.

Which is your responsibility as the claimant.

If they were "facts" ------ you could prove them. Simple as that.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

"Hush money" is exactly it. Which eliminates your equation with 'sex' since "hushing" is not "sex".

And "hush money for what" is a pertinent question. Because the other party involved, Rump, declares there was no such event. No sex, no nuttin'.

If that's true, then there cannot be an NDA. You can't agree to not-disclose something that does not exist.

If however there *IS* an NDA, then that means there is also some event to write an NDA about.

--- which means Rump is either lying about there being no event, or lying about there being an NDA. Both cannot be true.

Yanno we can post this same corner Rump has hisself painted into 322 times, and it's not going to change. It's the same corner, every time.

You're arguing a point that doesn't matter to anyone.

 

[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.

Actually those are two claims you cannot prove.

Which is your responsibility as the claimant.

If they were "facts" ------ you could prove them. Simple as that.

They are both indisputable.

 

[Pogo]

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.

"Hush money" is exactly it. Which eliminates your equation with 'sex' since "hushing" is not "sex".

And "hush money for what" is a pertinent question. Because the other party involved, Rump, declares there was no such event. No sex, no nuttin'.

If that's true, then there cannot be an NDA. You can't agree to not-disclose something that does not exist.

If however there *IS* an NDA, then that means there is also some event to write an NDA about.

--- which means Rump is either lying about there being no event, or lying about there being an NDA. Both cannot be true.

Yanno we can post this same corner Rump has hisself painted into 322 times, and it's not going to change. It's the same corner, every time.

You're arguing a point that doesn't matter to anyone.

I acknowledge your concession on the point. Whether it 'matters' has to be left up to the Federal Election Commission and the courts.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Actually those are two claims you cannot prove.

Which is your responsibility as the claimant.

If they were "facts" ------ you could prove them. Simple as that.

They are both indisputable.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. They are both myths you tell yourself as a Republican to make yourself feel better, to coin a phrase. In order for anybody to 'dispute' them YOU have to first prove that they even exist.

And you can't do that.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

"Hush money" is exactly it. Which eliminates your equation with 'sex' since "hushing" is not "sex".

And "hush money for what" is a pertinent question. Because the other party involved, Rump, declares there was no such event. No sex, no nuttin'.

If that's true, then there cannot be an NDA. You can't agree to not-disclose something that does not exist.

If however there *IS* an NDA, then that means there is also some event to write an NDA about.

--- which means Rump is either lying about there being no event, or lying about there being an NDA. Both cannot be true.

Yanno we can post this same corner Rump has hisself painted into 322 times, and it's not going to change. It's the same corner, every time.

You're arguing a point that doesn't matter to anyone.

I acknowledge your concession on the point. Whether it 'matters' has to be left up to the Federal Election Commission and the courts.

Since I haven't been trying to make any point, why should I care?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Actually those are two claims you cannot prove.

Which is your responsibility as the claimant.

If they were "facts" ------ you could prove them. Simple as that.

They are both indisputable.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. They are both myths you tell yourself as a Republican to make yourself feel better, to coin a phrase. In order for anybody to 'dispute' them YOU have to first prove that they even exist.

And you can't do that.

They obviously exist since that is what you are denying.

 

[Pogo]

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.

Actually those are two claims you cannot prove.

Which is your responsibility as the claimant.

If they were "facts" ------ you could prove them. Simple as that.

They are both indisputable.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. They are both myths you tell yourself as a Republican to make yourself feel better, to coin a phrase. In order for anybody to 'dispute' them YOU have to first prove that they even exist.

And you can't do that.

They obviously exist since that is what you are denying.

I can't 'deny' something that has not been shown to exist. Any more than you could sign an NDA about an event that never happened.

***YOU*** made the claim that these dynamics exist, therefore ***YOU*** get the burden of proof to substantiate them.

And you can't do it.

Which is what I just said.

 

[bripat9643]

Here are two facts that you can't deny:

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

Actually those are two claims you cannot prove.

Which is your responsibility as the claimant.

If they were "facts" ------ you could prove them. Simple as that.

They are both indisputable.

Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. They are both myths you tell yourself as a Republican to make yourself feel better, to coin a phrase. In order for anybody to 'dispute' them YOU have to first prove that they even exist.

And you can't do that.

They obviously exist since that is what you are denying.

I can't 'deny' something that has not been shown to exist. Any more than you could sign an NDA about an event that never happened.

***YOU*** made the claim that these dynamics exist, therefore ***YOU*** get the burden of proof to substantiate them.

And you can't do it.

Which is what I just said.

There's nothing to prove. You have already admitted they exist.

 

[Billo_Really]

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

No, Trumps prior's are crimes.

 

[Billo_Really]

I don’t do riddles

It's not a riddle; its reasoning.

 

[Pop23]

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 love ya dim Porn Stars!

Go with that.

You make me laugh

 

[Pop23]

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

No, Trumps prior's are crimes.

And then he’s in jail, right?

Or are you the king of some kangaroo court?

 

[Pop23]

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".

You sure type a whole lot of words to show how stupid you are

 

[Syriusly]

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 love ya dim Porn Stars!

Go with that.

You make me laugh

And you love big donkey dicks.

Go with that.

LOL

 

[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

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".

And you posted that garbage on my post and I didn’t write what you responded to!

 

[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".

And you posted that garbage on my post and I didn’t write what you responded to!

It's got your name on it.
Perhaps you have a security breach and elves are posting under your account.

 

[bripat9643]

I don’t do riddles

It's not a riddle; its reasoning.

 

[Billo_Really]

And then he’s in jail, right?

Or are you the king of some kangaroo court?

No, he's not in jail, because the right don't care if he is a criminal. For all their talk about the Constitution being the Supreme Law of the Land, they certainly don't follow it in practice.