Could you change the title to match the actual article title, not all clients show the original and editorialised titles are against the rules.
And it’s not even chronoligically correct. He accepted the invitation to visit, he hasn’t visited yet.
okay… spoil my fun :)
No, you don’t understand, the author of the post is a genius.
deleted by creator
Just having fun with it, if you want to know what I think about it. I don’t think he should be hosted or welcomed at all, and I’m also very much a republican.
That is why the elite want us to gear up our baby production efforts.
It’s actually a child rapist visiting the brother of another child rapist…
Woah, woah, woah! The US believes in innocent until proven guilty. The alleged child rapist should get the benefit of the doubt. After all, does that sound like the behavior of a 34 time felon, confirmed adult rapist, insurrectionist, twice impeached, traitor like Donald J. Trump?
Tap for spoiler
/s, I really hope this is obvious though
Actually, he did have a case against him raping an underage girl as well.
I don’t remember him being convicted, so the alleged part still works there.
Settlement
- It was sarcasm
- A settlement is not a conviction
- I actually checked before posting and found no evidence of even a settlement. If you have something that shows otherwise, please share it.
- It was sarcasm (adding this again since you seemed to miss it)
Maybe should have also noted that Princess Di was 16 and Charlie was 28 when he met her.
Shocking. Royals are basically all pedophiles.
Shocking. Rich and powerful are all pedos. There is a 0.1% rounding error
See, I feel like that’s a generalization. But then I think about the rich and powerful people, and realize that most of them are rather horrible. I think that like 95% are really terrible people, at least 50% pedophiles and abusers.
After you have a certain level of wealth it’s impossible to have not stepped on/crushed people to reach that point. So even saying 95% are wastes of oxygen is extremely generous to them.
While it probably isn’t 100% that are pedos it is still the overwhelming majority of them that are. Otherwise someone would’ve have named names at this point. It is a part of the institution of being rich and powerful to be a pedo.
Look into Lord Mountbatten…
He would have liked that.
It is becoming clear that rich and powerful people are into raping poor people children.
We can’t tell if it is west specific or global.
Also explains why Catholic church mostly got away with it. With some punishment in EU but really just drop in the bucket. Maybe at least crime rate has been reduced from closer scrutiny.
Isn’t that the guy the IRA assassinated and everyone fucking wept over?
Oh my. 8-12 year old boys? Mentor to King Charles? Hmmm… that can’t be good at all.
How could I forget, Prince Andrews brother was also best mates with Jimmy Saville.
Just saying.
great family to represent your state.
So was the Queen and Margaret Thatcher, does that mean they’re also paedophiles?
It means they were evil fuckers who enabled one of the worst peados of the last century.
I’m not saying Charlies a nonce, just that he pursued a 16 year old when he was 28 and was best mates with one of the worst nonces ever.
All I’m saying, and it’s all true.
You are implying that he’s a paedophile because he knows a paedophile. Am I a wife beater because I know someone who beat their wife?
Mate if you hung about with somebody you knew was a wife beater, yes I’d have questions about you.
Queen elizabeth and margaret thatcher are not held in the highest regard so this isn’t a super gotcha. I wouldn’t say that “means” they’re paedophiles but it doesn’t make me think they’re not
There’s any number of reasons to not like either of them but just having an association with a paedophile doesn’t automatically make you also a paedophile which is what OP is claiming.
Sure, in the same way that using 4chan doesn’t make you a racist. But neither of these things fill me with confidence.
I find it exceptionally unnerving that I feel like an outlier because I don’t want to fuck kids. Is it the power that brings on these feelings, or is it those with the feelings to do so seek power to make it easier for them to do so?
The only thing I can gather is pushing whatever possible boundaries exist once they’ve won capitalism, including the diddling. Either that, or they realize once one acquires a certain level of immunity, they can carry out their sick fantasies. I dunno, burn them all.
think of it this way. do you want power over someone else? because i don’t. i want to live my life in peace and enjoy the company of people i love and who love me. the powerful though? they’re addicted to power. and they want to experience power during sex to enhance the feeling of their orgasm. they are at the most powerful when the person they are fucking is a child.
does that make sense?
Does it make sense? Not at all, but I get what you’re saying. It will never make sense to me though.
deleted by creator
