UJRefugees.net

Biker wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:05 am

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:02 am

Biker wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:54 am

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:53 am

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 12:38 am Still doesn't answer the one question that sticks out like a high powered light in the darkness. In all of my examples, from Cosby to Nassar, to Weinstien, etc. all of this raping, sexual abuse, abuse of power over years/decades. Hundreds and hundreds of "victims". and yet not one single example of anyone even taking the simple step of going by their local police station and filing a criminal complaint. Not a fucking one. That speaks volumes along with the flurry of lawsuits involving millions. BS.

There is literally video of Nasser molesting little girls taken from his own computer porn stash, you fucking moron.

Huh, child molester with a porn stash. Weird

Right. Like the one thing missing from the Sandusky case. Weird.

We do need to give Hammy a break. He doesn’t know anything about the case other than what he’s Googled and Wikied. He deserves at least an A for participation

It's true, all I know are the facts in the established record. Care to finally share your conspiracy truther sources?

A talk show host, yeah that's kinda unsurprising

I think showering with minors without at least parental approval should be illegal on its own. Invading personal space while "teaching hygiene" definitely sounds like it should be discouraged. Apparently its not in PA.

Biker wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:21 am

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:17 am A talk show host, yeah that's kinda unsurprising

Documentary film maker and journalist

Yeah, he also did one on a 9/11 film that he claims the clintons blocked from wide release and one about how a media conspiracy got obama elected, fucking dupe

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you weren't taken in by those though, conspiracy dupes tend to be strangely selective. That's why WTC stands out for blanket exoneration all sex pests rather than just the one that it makes you feel smart and special to recognise as really a great guy you'd leave your kids with.

Once again, Biker looks like a fucking idiot.

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:28 am

Biker wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:21 am

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:17 am A talk show host, yeah that's kinda unsurprising

Documentary film maker and journalist

Yeah, he also did one on a 9/11 film that he claims the clintons blocked from wide release and one about how a media conspiracy got obama elected, fucking dupe

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you weren't taken in by those though, conspiracy dupes tend to be strangely selective. That's why WTC stands out for blanket exoneration all sex pests rather than just the one that it makes you feel smart and special to recognise as really a great guy you'd leave your kids with.

Anyone one you want to nominate your kids for in particular? I would suggest the latest fashion- Biggest bank account= deepest pockets. And don't forget kids- not a word to the local police. Your local sympathetic courts will sway with the media hype.

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:38 am

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:28 am

Biker wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:21 am

analhamster wrote: ↑Wed Feb 20, 2019 1:17 am A talk show host, yeah that's kinda unsurprising

Documentary film maker and journalist

Yeah, he also did one on a 9/11 film that he claims the clintons blocked from wide release and one about how a media conspiracy got obama elected, fucking dupe

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you weren't taken in by those though, conspiracy dupes tend to be strangely selective. That's why WTC stands out for blanket exoneration all sex pests rather than just the one that it makes you feel smart and special to recognise as really a great guy you'd leave your kids with.

Anyone one you want to nominate your kids for in particular? I would suggest the latest fashion- Biggest bank account= deepest pockets. And don't forget kids- not a word to the local police. Your local sympathetic courts will sway with the media hype.

Try reading it again when you're sober I guess.

Fuck it. Jared is innocent. Prove me wrong.

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:57 pm

So, B. What's the story on this?

WestTexasCrude wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 10:24 pm

Biker wrote: ↑Thu Feb 21, 2019 8:57 pm

So, B. What's the story on this?

Ask asshamster... he's the resident expert.

"The state Supreme Court ruled it will not take up Graham Spanier's appeal of the misdemeanor conviction related to Spanier's handling of a 2001 complaint about Sandusky showering with a boy in the football team locker room."

"No one is above the law, and my office will continue to pursue anyone who looks the other way in the face of child sexual abuse," Attorney General Josh Shapiro said in a statement. "There are consequences for failing to protect children in Pennsylvania."

Spanier's lawyers have said that for the relevant provision of the state's statute of limitations to apply, prosecutors would have needed to prove the boy in the shower in 2001 was less than 14 years and 11 days old. Referred to as "Victim 2" in court records and testimony, the boy's identity has been disputed, with prosecutors saying they are not sure who he is.

Didn't this whole thing hinge on victim 2? And prosecution doesn't even know who that is!? Wtf

https://www.wtae.com/article/former-pen ... d/26452919

The post above yours seems to have a picture of the guy.

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:27 am The post above yours seems to have a picture of the guy.

That's victim 5. Victim 2 is the supposed shower victim that started it all..

JackRabbit_Slim wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 2:00 am

Wut wrote: ↑Fri Feb 22, 2019 1:27 am The post above yours seems to have a picture of the guy.

That's victim 5. Victim 2 is the supposed shower victim that started it all..

Your post says he was convicted of failing to protect a never identified victim and the post above says he was convicted of failing to protect that identified victim.

Ugh...

Okay.. the reasoning is that because he allegedly failed to protect victim 2, he's culpable for all other victims.