That is a BINGO!
You can look it up on google.Cannonpointer » 21 Jul 2025, 10:17 am » wrote: ↑ That is a BINGO!
Is that how you say it - that's a bingo?
What I find difficult to conceive is that people are STILL yapping about Epstein, when in Spain this very month, a man was gored and several more were injured during the San Fermin Fesival ("Running of the Bulls").
I did.
I should have never doubted you.Cannonpointer » 21 Jul 2025, 10:22 am » wrote: ↑ I did.
Ya just say bingo.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wJSZqSfloEE
One of the commenters guessed it could be Natanyahu is one of those who Trump is protecting.
Help me to understand why the fact that they will defend themselves means they should not be prosecuted.*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Jul 2025, 12:54 pm » wrote: ↑ One of the commenters guessed it could be Natanyahu is one of those who Trump is protecting.
I do believe this is the worst case of NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS" that I ever saw..
A possible alibi that potential defendants could use is that the video shows an exact "double"...[an imposter] instead of the defendant.
Who said they shouldn't be prosecuted...?Cannonpointer » 21 Jul 2025, 9:14 pm » wrote: ↑ Help me to understand why the fact that they will defend themselves means they should not be prosecuted.
Do you feel the same way about murderers and bank robbers? They can say it was a body double on the film.
You always seem to be against due process. For anyone swept up in an ice dragnet, not due process. For anyone raping babies, no due process. But it's a very, very different level of removing due process. In the case of the baby rapers, you want to steal due process from the victims.
You are defending the decision to not prosecute them.*GHETTOBLASTER » 21 Jul 2025, 9:39 pm » wrote: ↑ Who said they shouldn't be prosecuted...?
I point out how difficult it could be to get convictions and you some how jump to the conclusion that I don't want to see these cases prosecuted.
If lying over and over about what I've said is the best you can do, then I am done wasting my time playing "wack a mole" with you.Cannonpointer » 21 Jul 2025, 9:53 pm » wrote: ↑ You are defending the decision to not prosecute them.
That's how I ended on the idea that you don't want them prosecuted. And you're consistently predicting they can never be convicted, just because the prosecutor has them doing it on video.
Maybe if you want them prosecuted, you shouldn't confuse people by arguing that they should not be prosecuted, that it's not gonna work, that they have magnificent defenses like "it's a body double," that they shouldnot even be NAMED, much less prosecuted...
If you haven't figured it out, it how narcissists roll. They ALWAYS twist your words into something that is now YOUR FAULT for not saying what you didn't say.*GHETTOBLASTER » 22 Jul 2025, 5:25 am » wrote: ↑ If lying over and over about what I've said is the best you can do, then I am done wasting my time playing "wack a mole" with you.
Suddenly it's MY fault you defend the indefensible...*GHETTOBLASTER » 22 Jul 2025, 5:25 am » wrote: ↑ If lying over and over about what I've said is the best you can do, then I am done wasting my time playing "wack a mole" with you.
When twisting someone's words is all you have in order to feed your egomaniacal demands, you already lost.Cannonpointer » 22 Jul 2025, 7:58 am » wrote: ↑ Suddenly it's MY fault you defend the indefensible...
Hey, ya got beekeeper. You're doin good...
Cannonpointer » 22 Jul 2025, 7:58 am » wrote: ↑ Suddenly it's MY fault you defend the indefensible...
Hey, ya got beekeeper. You're doin good...
Now that's just nasty, fruitcake.*Beekeeper » 22 Jul 2025, 9:33 am » wrote: ↑ You've got my ****** yeasty and I'm gonna put my boyfriend on you.