The disgusting witch hunt against Prince Andrew - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15051027
B0ycey wrote:Thanks for clarity Rich, but your thread accused Giuffre of lying whilst claiming Prince Andrew of ignorance. This isn't about age but consent. In other words Rape. Is 17 an age that is appropriate for that? :roll:

Indeed I did. I don't believe she was a slave. Now note saying she wasn't a slave, isn't the same thing as saying her and Epstein had an admirable relationship. Its like when I defend young college lads, against kangaroo courts and Islam-feminism, it doesn't mean that I think the boozie drug culture is something to be encouraged.

So as far as I'm concerned any serious attempt to improve our culture around sex and reduce harm must start with the recognition that not everything that is undesirable or unhealthy should be illegal, and not everything that is illegal is equally bad.

I feel lucky that I grew up at a time when men were men, women were women and small round furry things from Alpha Centauri were small round furry things from Alpha Centauri. Back then we referred to attractive 15 year olds as jail-bait. That didn't mean any of my mates were paedophiles. Much later I worked with a young guy who I'd say really was a paedophile, so I think I can spot the difference. One is normal male heterosexuality, the other is abnormal, in the same way that in western culture pederasty is abnormal, although its a lot more common amongst homosexual men than Liberals want to admit.
#15051033
Whatever Rich. Rape is rape whether you think it's just boys being boys or not. The simple matter is Andrew would have knew the score when he went into Maxwells house unless you seriously believe he was a complete dumbass that didn't know he was in a sex ring at the time.

What next? Weinstein was just misunderstood too? :roll:
#15051083
The OP calls it a disgusting witch hunt...right. :roll:

I have no pity for the royals. They can indulge and create scandal while us regular folks bleed and sweat to earn a living. This Prince Andrew character seems like a lazy, corrupt rich man who just had the misfortune to be associated with a notorious womanizer, abuser named Epstein because Epstein got into legal troubles and won a spot in the beloved media. No decent man would be caught socializing with Epstein. So this prince is indecent. He deserves whatever bad press he gets.

Yes, this post is dripping with sarcasm.
#15051094
skinster wrote:I understand a lot of men reading this wouldn't understand, unless they were raped.


Many of them are. For example, after voting for a landslide for their (for those men before this, against the Government after this) side, the Government still refuses to give in and claim that these people are brainwashed or incited by enemy force, without admitting that they are the ones at fault. Not to mention some people with questionale morality or mental capability around who constantly spreading the terminological inexactitude committed by the said Government.
#15051104
late wrote:You have an almost instinctual need to make excuses. Esp. where it makes no sense at all to apply them.

We're not all interested in being stirred into a mob frenzy by the latest moral outrage. It's more interesting to see how this applies to dirty politicians than anything else.



What's next for the political left, late? Are we going to ban Rock and Roll? Elvis the Pelvis my grandmother used to say... :lol:
#15051620
So why is it that with every single thread on this website, in the title, the interests of our western elites is defended ?

And never the common good.

Maduro is democratically elected in a very fair election and his country is frankly not even as far left as France or Sweden, yet everybody calls him dictator, because he's leftwing and controlling the country of the planet with the richest oil reserves.

While the most brutal dictators can be as disgusting as they want, like very sadistically murder people in their embassy in a foreign country, and yet they still get called "king" (well, in that specific case actually prince) and not dictator, because their brutal rule is in the interests of our elites.

Prince Andrew is very likely to be a rapist, and yet the thread title clearly acts as if that wasnt the case. Just riddiculous.


B0ycey wrote:There is a reason Epstein is dead and it wasn't sucide unless you are gullible as fuck.

Why yes, obviously.


blackjack21 wrote:[...] But you don't think the royals killed Epstein do you? The Clinton/DNC types are a much better bet, as they are pretty polished in wet work. [...]

Obviously we dont know what actually happened, and we might never find out - but I find your assumption that it was just a single party from the long list of Epsteins powerful and highly motivated enemies doing the deed quite unlikely.
#15051673
Negotiator wrote:Maduro is democratically elected in a very fair election and his country is frankly not even as far left as France or Sweden, yet everybody calls him dictator, because he's leftwing and controlling the country of the planet with the richest oil reserves.

He he he! :lol: Maduro has ruled by decree since 2015. Adolf Hitler also democratically elected in a very fair election.

Negotiator wrote:but I find your assumption that it was just a single party from the long list of Epsteins powerful and highly motivated enemies doing the deed quite unlikely.

A find a conspiracy among them to be less likely, because they all want deniability. Prison guards are generally unionized, and the guards for Epstein were irregular. So there had to be involvement of the prison administration. Even Barr covered for them, so I suspect it could well be the deep state itself.
#15051919
late wrote:What you're not interested in is Rule of Law.




There is rule of law, and rule by law. The difference is rule of law applies to everyone while rule by law is selectively applied by those with the power. The liberal left only applies calls for lawfulness against their previewed opponents. That is not rule of law. Hold Hillary Clinton to the rule of law standard, and then we can talk.



skinster wrote:The liberal-"left" are rightwing. :)



From time to time, we find a point or two on which to agree. ;)
#15051929
foxdemon wrote:
There is rule of law, and rule by law. The difference is rule of law applies to everyone while rule by law is selectively applied by those with the power. The liberal left only applies calls for lawfulness against their previewed opponents. That is not rule of law. Hold Hillary Clinton to the rule of law standard, and then we can talk.




The sheer amount of projection boiling off the far Right is amazing.

Sorry, I don't have sex with unicorns.
#15052032
foxdemon wrote:There is rule of law, and rule by law. The difference is rule of law applies to everyone while rule by law is selectively applied by those with the power. The liberal left only applies calls for lawfulness against their previewed opponents. That is not rule of law. Hold Hillary Clinton to the rule of law standard, and then we can talk.

Those who claim to support "the rule of law", without demanding the immediate release and compensation of Khalid Sheik Mohaamad should be treated with contempt. Now it is one of my repeated themes, that non absolute morality is still a valuable morality. The rule of law is still useful, even if there must always be some level of arbitrariness and must must always be implemented by human beings not disinterested idealised interpreters. However they needs to be a thorough going critique of the whole "rule of law" thing in both theory and practice.

"Innocent until proven guilty." Imprisonment is slavery,whether or not the imprisoned are doing useful work for those who imprison them. In this case the wider society. So some times people have to be imprisoned, even though they have not been "proven guilty." This compromise of "innocent until proven guilty" is inescapable. But surely if we were even half way serious about "innocent until proven guilty" then the conditions for prisoners on remand should as far as possible resemble those of say a three star hotel. We should make some kind of attempt to make sure that punishment of "innocent" but suspected citizens, while on remand is kept to a minimum.

The contempt I expressed at the beginning is part of my wider and fundamental contempt for libertarianism. "Rule of law" justice systems are expensive and utterly incompatible with minarchist government. "Rule of law" justice systems might have been cheap in the eighteenth century, but only because the full freedoms promised by these systems in practice were only gained by the Gentlemanly classes. in part this is the great problem of Liberalism, that the freedoms received by the Gentleman classes of 18th century North America could never just be given in full to the whole population.
#15052115
late wrote:The sheer amount of projection boiling off the far Right is amazing.

Sorry, I don't have sex with unicorns.



Ok, so for you, law is only to be applied to your opponents. Got it.


Rich wrote:Those who claim to support "the rule of law", without demanding the immediate release and compensation of Khalid Sheik Mohaamad should be treated with contempt. Now it is one of my repeated themes, that non absolute morality is still a valuable morality. The rule of law is still useful, even if there must always be some level of arbitrariness and must must always be implemented by human beings not disinterested idealised interpreters. However they needs to be a thorough going critique of the whole "rule of law" thing in both theory and practice.

"Innocent until proven guilty." Imprisonment is slavery,whether or not the imprisoned are doing useful work for those who imprison them. In this case the wider society. So some times people have to be imprisoned, even though they have not been "proven guilty." This compromise of "innocent until proven guilty" is inescapable. But surely if we were even half way serious about "innocent until proven guilty" then the conditions for prisoners on remand should as far as possible resemble those of say a three star hotel. We should make some kind of attempt to make sure that punishment of "innocent" but suspected citizens, while on remand is kept to a minimum.

The contempt I expressed at the beginning is part of my wider and fundamental contempt for libertarianism. "Rule of law" justice systems are expensive and utterly incompatible with minarchist government. "Rule of law" justice systems might have been cheap in the eighteenth century, but only because the full freedoms promised by these systems in practice were only gained by the Gentlemanly classes. in part this is the great problem of Liberalism, that the freedoms received by the Gentleman classes of 18th century North America could never just be given in full to the whole population.



The rule of law is simply the principle that the same law applies to everyone, including the sovereign.

The stuff you mention, innocent until proven guilty, is really English common law. Other principles are trial by open court (so anyone can see it was fair), judgement by a jury of peers, only tried once for a given charge. Perhaps what you are driving at is as tohow appropriate English common law is today.

I agree that these issues should be discussed. If nothing else, at least it will foster broader understanding. Your post was very thoughtful.
#15052136
How is prince Andrew a rapist?

As far as I can tell a woman has accused him of having sex with her when she was 17 in a country where the age of consent is 18.

If that's the case, then it's down to the police of the country concerned to arrest him for it.

The evidence is very thin, however. It's her word against his and 17 is hardly a child.
From the sound of it, she was very willing. There doesn't seem to be any question of him dragging her into a bedroom and forcing her.

It doesn't really sound like him. Even back in his Randy Andy days he was very careful of himself.
A bunch of girls he took to the Carribbean complained none of them got anywhere near the crown jewels.

This whole thing sounds like spite.

Surely, there's better evidence on other people?
#15052196
Prince Andrew is an attractive, virile war, hero. Prince Charles is a pathetic, whiny, hypocrite who wants to be King and a Social justice Warrior at the same time. He just wasn't man enough for Diana, which is why he went running off to Mummy Camilla. I guess that should be Nanny Camilla. Prince Charles, spiteful and vindicate as he is, has been waiting for this opportunity for nearly six decades. But there is also very practical considerations. Charles knows that if he is to survive as monarch, he needs an alliance with the Cultural Marxists.

The Wedding of Harry and Megan was a script made in heaven. The bad guy American White-trash Father, the Elegant Black mother, and Charles SJW, riding to the rescue and walking her down the Isle. However not all is well with the new "cool Britannia". Not everyone is appreciating Megan's climate guilt lecturing, despite Meghan's heroic war record fighting for social justice in the trenches of Hollywood. So I think a number of people within the British establishment have taken the conscious decision to sacrifice Andrew at this time.
Last edited by Rich on 02 Dec 2019 11:56, edited 1 time in total.
#15052661
I wish Prince Andrew had just been given the opportunity to explain what he meant when he referred to his “tendency to be too honourable”. I truly believe there is something in that statement.

It’s a shame he didn’t recognize the zeitgeist and understand he was obligated to explain what he meant.
Yakety Yak (don't talk back)

The rules "going in" included impeachme[…]

Trump has been impeached

There are "alleged" crimes and, consid[…]

10 best motorcycles

What's "a bit" in your book? The […]

Songs about nothing at all

https://p1.pxfuel.com/preview/298/73[…]