(troika boika) wrote in
om:


I guess it would be asking too much for you to list links to genuine
articles that discuss the particulars of his pedophilic activities? A
good link, not to a bulletin board, but to a site of significance that
authoritatively discusses your claim.

Read my post again, and listen to the parts of hating evil. In true
liberal fashion, you completely ignore all aspects of the post, rather,
you focus on a tiny aspect that germinates in your mind. I have seen this
endlessly with liberals, one way to escape the truth is to find
shortcomings in one aspect of the discussion, then obsess about it,
usually by shouting and not giving the other person a chance to say
anything else.

Refer to Woody Allen

"Woody Allen may be a pervert and a pedophile, but he's also a comedic
genius (you could say the same for me" (sic)

"Like most Woody Allen films, MANHATTAN is a melange of relationships
gone wrong, only here there ... And it does expose Woody's charming
pedophile side so" (sic)

The above 2 sentences are from links easily gleaned by doing a search on
Google for Woody Allen Pedophile. Notice the affectionate way that the
sentences refer to Woody Allen's pedophilic proclivities. Woody is
readily accepted by the liberal community, therefore his perversities are
forgiven, no liberal cares to actually pursue prosecution of him for it.
If a conservative would become involved in such sick activities, the
media would make endless fanfare about it.

This is exactly what I described in my original post. Perverted liberals
are given the green light for their activities since no one expects
better of them anyway. On an odd note, the authorities in Florida are
trying to determine if they can prosecute Rush for his illegal drug
purchases, but routinely allow thousands to go through drug rehab without
the fear of prosecution. If they prosecute Rush, I would suggest that
they examine the databases at the drug rehab centers and prosecute ALL
people that were purchasing drugs illegally.

Martha Stewart is still undergoing scrutiny for her alleged misdoings in
securities, but Hillary received no significant attention for her alleged
misdoings in commodities.

http://www.thenewamerican.com/depart.../2000/vo16no09
_answers.htm

Q. When Hillary Clinton was making a killing in cattle futures what was
the typical profit that the average investor might have legally made in
that market?
- T.E., South Jordan, UT
A. The story of Mrs. Clinton's "investment" in cattle futures made major
news about six years ago. Somehow, though a rookie in the business, she
had turned $1,000 into $100,000. How this had happened was explained
variously as applying what she had read in the Wall Street Journal or, as
she once claimed, "I was lucky."
Only the terminally gullible believe that. One examination revealed the
odds of Hillary's making such a return were 24 chances in a million.
"There is no way that the commodity exchange or a broker would permit a
novice speculator to control $280,000 worth of cattle with a skimpy
investment of $1,000, " noted the New York Post. "Not, that is, unless a
friend, guardian or partner guaranteed her investment."

Martha Stewart: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...sp?ARTICLE_ID=
32924

"They don't care whether she broke laws, they're just delighted to take
her down a peg, or two, or more. How dare she have standards? (Yeah,
she's tough - and?)! How dare she enjoy doing homely tasks? How dare she
encourage women and children and, indeed, all family members to care
about grace and beauty in the home?" (Certainly not a charge to be
leveled at Hillary)


You have helped my to elucidate this issue, your post was greatly
appreciated.

Dr. Artaud


You do realize Robert Louis Stevenson was a pedophile, don't you?

troika boika