Hookers LIE?....Who Knew?

[Syriusly]

To be fair --- you 'd be hard pressed to find anybody anywhere who doesn't have more cred than the current POTUS. Outside of a mental institution.

Sure I can. There are all the douchebag snowflakes on this forum, for example.

Yes but we weren't talking about you.

You're the snowflake, fudge packer.

LOL- stop projecting your fudge packing fantasies snowflake.

Believe me, I don't fantasies about that, but you do, don't you?

I have no fantasies about you at all- sorry to disappoint you.

I know exactly what a fucking moron you are.

 

[bripat9643]

The joker in the deck here is the "unprotected" sex. Trump is a wildly heralded germaphobe...who in their right mind would believe he'd go bareback with a notorious prostitute? Not only would he risk multiple STDs, but a pregnancy that could cost him million$ over the years......the whole scenario is ridiculous.

Except the porn industry has rigorous testing of performers on a monthly basis to assure that they don't have STD's... so banging a porn star is probably safer than banging a supermodel you met in Europe.

A porn star can have sex with dozens of people in a month. Testing doesn't gaurantee anything.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me grade the transgression here. Known playboy Trump is horny and hooks up with a porn star for a one night stand over a decade a go vs PRESIDENT Clinton gets blow jobs in the people's house with his wife and his baby daughter upstairs.

Guess who I think is the winning bastard here?

I figure you applaud both of them.

That is the new Republican 'family values'- applaud adultery and grabbing women by their pussies.

 

[Pogo]

The joker in the deck here is the "unprotected" sex. Trump is a wildly heralded germaphobe...who in their right mind would believe he'd go bareback with a notorious prostitute? Not only would he risk multiple STDs, but a pregnancy that could cost him million$ over the years......the whole scenario is ridiculous.

Except the porn industry has rigorous testing of performers on a monthly basis to assure that they don't have STD's... so banging a porn star is probably safer than banging a supermodel you met in Europe.

True. And Rump would have known that from uh previous experience.

Stormy was more at risk from Rump than the reverse. No doubt that's why she was concerned about it.

 

[bripat9643]

Sure I can. There are all the douchebag snowflakes on this forum, for example.

Yes but we weren't talking about you.

You're the snowflake, fudge packer.

LOL- stop projecting your fudge packing fantasies snowflake.

Believe me, I don't fantasies about that, but you do, don't you?

I have no fantasies about you at all- sorry to disappoint you.

I know exactly what a fucking moron you are.

I never claimed you did, asshole. Making things up is what you do.

 

[Syriusly]

BOTTOM LINE IS...Trump won a fair and democratic Constitutional election. GAME OVER...TIME EXPIRED...

Bottom line is the Trumpsters don't want anyone to talk about Trump 'morals'

 

[bripat9643]

Wrong, of course.

Well there we have it. The question being "if there's no event, what's the NDA for?" and the answer came in as:

"Wrong, of course".

Thanks for uh, clearing that one up.

Yes, your theory that she's telling the truth because of the existence of an NDA is fallacious.

You still can't answer the question.

*HOW* can you not-talk-about an event ------------------------ IF THERE IS NO EVENT TO NOT-TALK ABOUT?



Hm?



Fifth time now with no answer.

We sit, and we wait. Yum! Pretzels!

If you talk about it in the right context. 60 Minutes needed the rating. Truth or integrity was not an issue.

The question has absolute Zero to do with "60 Minutes". The question is simple logic: **HOW** can you establish a 'legal' agreement that says the other party won't describe an incident -------------------- while simultaneously claiming there was no such incident?

Can't do it. You cannot draw up an NDA and apply it to nonexisting events. If an NDA exists, then an event existed before it. PERIOD.

No one has posted the NDA, so how can you make any claims about what it says?

 

[saveliberty]

The question has absolute Zero to do with "60 Minutes". The question is simple logic: **HOW** can you establish a 'legal' agreement that says the other party won't describe an incident -------------------- while simultaneously claiming there was no such incident?

Can't do it. You cannot draw up an NDA and apply it to nonexisting events. If an NDA exists, then an event existed before it. PERIOD.

Sure you can. You have a discussion with a party and then realize that private information you shared may not be in your best interest to be public. Further, others might read something that didn't happen into the situation, so it is best to have a NDA. You do it for appearance sake and not because inappropriate things occurred. Why? Because you end up trying to prove a negative, much like liberals attempt to make others do all the time. Prove you didn't have sex with someone.

 

[Syriusly]

Let me grade the transgression here. Known playboy Trump is horny and hooks up with a porn star for a one night stand over a decade a go vs PRESIDENT Clinton gets blow jobs in the people's house with his wife and his baby daughter upstairs.

What I find amazing is the creative editing you indulged in

a) 2 years ago- Trump lawyer paid off a porn start to prevent her from talking about her affair with Trump. Known playboy and newly married and new father Donald Trump is married and- in the AIDS era- chooses to have unprotected sex with a porn star- and had his lawyer pay the porn star right before his Presidential , election to keep her quiet.
b) 20 years ago Known playboy and married and father President Clinton is horny and gets a blow job from a non-porn start in the White House- while his wife and 17 year old daughter are in the same building.

 

[Syriusly]

Well there we have it. The question being "if there's no event, what's the NDA for?" and the answer came in as:

"Wrong, of course".

Thanks for uh, clearing that one up.

Yes, your theory that she's telling the truth because of the existence of an NDA is fallacious.

You still can't answer the question.

*HOW* can you not-talk-about an event ------------------------ IF THERE IS NO EVENT TO NOT-TALK ABOUT?



Hm?



Fifth time now with no answer.

We sit, and we wait. Yum! Pretzels!

If you talk about it in the right context. 60 Minutes needed the rating. Truth or integrity was not an issue.

The question has absolute Zero to do with "60 Minutes". The question is simple logic: **HOW** can you establish a 'legal' agreement that says the other party won't describe an incident -------------------- while simultaneously claiming there was no such incident?

Can't do it. You cannot draw up an NDA and apply it to nonexisting events. If an NDA exists, then an event existed before it. PERIOD.

No one has posted the NDA, so how can you make any claims about what it says?

Again- I posted the link to it.

Non-moron's can go right to the NDA.

 

[Pogo]

The question has absolute Zero to do with "60 Minutes". The question is simple logic: **HOW** can you establish a 'legal' agreement that says the other party won't describe an incident -------------------- while simultaneously claiming there was no such incident?

Can't do it. You cannot draw up an NDA and apply it to nonexisting events. If an NDA exists, then an event existed before it. PERIOD.

Sure you can. You have a discussion with a party and then realize that private information you shared may not be in your best interest to be public. Further, others might read something that didn't happen into the situation, so it is best to have a NDA. You do it for appearance sake and not because inappropriate things occurred. Why? Because you end up trying to prove a negative, much like liberals attempt to make others do all the time. Prove you didn't have sex with someone.

And once AGAIN --- if you "have a discussion with a party" ---- that's the event. It happened, it exists in the past.

In this case however Rump is trying to claim simultaneously that (a) there's a nondisclosure document to keep an event quiet, AND (b) that no such event ever took place.

And that is patently impossible. If there's no event to not-disclose, then it is impossible to not-disclose that non-event.

On the other hand the existence of an NDA already tells us there IS an event. The NDA cannot exist without it. Which means, when Rump claims it never happened ---- he's lying.

 

[tinydancer]

Let me grade the transgression here. Known playboy Trump is horny and hooks up with a porn star for a one night stand over a decade a go vs PRESIDENT Clinton gets blow jobs in the people's house with his wife and his baby daughter upstairs.

Guess who I think is the winning bastard here?

I figure you applaud both of them.

That is the new Republican 'family values'- applaud adultery and grabbing women by their pussies.

I don't applaud jack shit asshole. I'm grading the worst of actions. It's a matter of barfing over adultery and a one night stand vs having your dick sucked off while your wife and daughter are sleeping upstairs.

Get a fucking grip. Clinton's actions are worthy of a bazooka barf vs dry heaving. Nice choice eh?

 

[Pogo]

Well there we have it. The question being "if there's no event, what's the NDA for?" and the answer came in as:

"Wrong, of course".

Thanks for uh, clearing that one up.

Yes, your theory that she's telling the truth because of the existence of an NDA is fallacious.

You still can't answer the question.

*HOW* can you not-talk-about an event ------------------------ IF THERE IS NO EVENT TO NOT-TALK ABOUT?



Hm?



Fifth time now with no answer.

We sit, and we wait. Yum! Pretzels!

If you talk about it in the right context. 60 Minutes needed the rating. Truth or integrity was not an issue.

The question has absolute Zero to do with "60 Minutes". The question is simple logic: **HOW** can you establish a 'legal' agreement that says the other party won't describe an incident -------------------- while simultaneously claiming there was no such incident?

Can't do it. You cannot draw up an NDA and apply it to nonexisting events. If an NDA exists, then an event existed before it. PERIOD.

No one has posted the NDA, so how can you make any claims about what it says?

We don't even need to KNOW "what it says". All we need to know is that it EXISTS.

If it EXISTS, then by definition it must REFER to some event. That would be the material protected from disclosure.

Yet here's Rump claiming there was no such event.

Whelp --- an NDA cannot exist without a referenced event. So which is it?

 

[Syriusly]

Let me grade the transgression here. Known playboy Trump is horny and hooks up with a porn star for a one night stand over a decade a go vs PRESIDENT Clinton gets blow jobs in the people's house with his wife and his baby daughter upstairs.

Guess who I think is the winning bastard here?

I figure you applaud both of them.

That is the new Republican 'family values'- applaud adultery and grabbing women by their pussies.

I don't applaud jack shit asshole. I'm grading the worst of actions. It's a matter of barfing over adultery and a one night stand vs having your dick sucked off while your wife and daughter are sleeping upstairs.

Get a fucking grip. Clinton's actions are worthy of a bazooka barf vs dry heaving. Nice choice eh?

Because Clinton is Clinton- and Trump is Trump.

We get your choice.

 

[Syriusly]

Yes, your theory that she's telling the truth because of the existence of an NDA is fallacious.

You still can't answer the question.

*HOW* can you not-talk-about an event ------------------------ IF THERE IS NO EVENT TO NOT-TALK ABOUT?



Hm?



Fifth time now with no answer.

We sit, and we wait. Yum! Pretzels!

If you talk about it in the right context. 60 Minutes needed the rating. Truth or integrity was not an issue.

The question has absolute Zero to do with "60 Minutes". The question is simple logic: **HOW** can you establish a 'legal' agreement that says the other party won't describe an incident -------------------- while simultaneously claiming there was no such incident?

Can't do it. You cannot draw up an NDA and apply it to nonexisting events. If an NDA exists, then an event existed before it. PERIOD.

No one has posted the NDA, so how can you make any claims about what it says?

We don't even need to KNOW "what it says". All we need to know is that it EXISTS.

If it EXISTS, then by definition it must REFER to some event. That would be the material protected from disclosure.

Yet here's Rump claiming there was no such event.

Whelp --- an NDA cannot exist without a referenced event. So which is it?

We know it exists- I have posted a link to it- and Trump's lawyers are suing to enforce it.

Can't enforce an agreement that doesn't exist.

 

[Bush92]

The question has absolute Zero to do with "60 Minutes". The question is simple logic: **HOW** can you establish a 'legal' agreement that says the other party won't describe an incident -------------------- while simultaneously claiming there was no such incident?

Can't do it. You cannot draw up an NDA and apply it to nonexisting events. If an NDA exists, then an event existed before it. PERIOD.

Sure you can. You have a discussion with a party and then realize that private information you shared may not be in your best interest to be public. Further, others might read something that didn't happen into the situation, so it is best to have a NDA. You do it for appearance sake and not because inappropriate things occurred. Why? Because you end up trying to prove a negative, much like liberals attempt to make others do all the time. Prove you didn't have sex with someone.

Bingo! Back,back,back...it’s gonnnnnne...home run!

 

[tinydancer]

Let me grade the transgression here. Known playboy Trump is horny and hooks up with a porn star for a one night stand over a decade a go vs PRESIDENT Clinton gets blow jobs in the people's house with his wife and his baby daughter upstairs.

Guess who I think is the winning bastard here?

I figure you applaud both of them.

That is the new Republican 'family values'- applaud adultery and grabbing women by their pussies.

I don't applaud jack shit asshole. I'm grading the worst of actions. It's a matter of barfing over adultery and a one night stand vs having your dick sucked off while your wife and daughter are sleeping upstairs.

Get a fucking grip. Clinton's actions are worthy of a bazooka barf vs dry heaving. Nice choice eh?

Because Clinton is Clinton- and Trump is Trump.

We get your choice.

No you don't. Not at all. I admire President Clinton and always will. This man, his human failings aside knew how to work with the other branches of government to achieve both desired goals. He was the closest of them all to reaching an Israeli and Palestinian peace agreement. I fail him only on a few policies. One he allowed Benazir Bhutto fund the Taliban. Second listening to Albright on NK. A few others but I can be very specific about them.

All in all his Presidency was an excellent example of a moderate who managed to navigate between extremes.

 

[bripat9643]

Yes, your theory that she's telling the truth because of the existence of an NDA is fallacious.

You still can't answer the question.

*HOW* can you not-talk-about an event ------------------------ IF THERE IS NO EVENT TO NOT-TALK ABOUT?



Hm?



Fifth time now with no answer.

We sit, and we wait. Yum! Pretzels!

If you talk about it in the right context. 60 Minutes needed the rating. Truth or integrity was not an issue.

The question has absolute Zero to do with "60 Minutes". The question is simple logic: **HOW** can you establish a 'legal' agreement that says the other party won't describe an incident -------------------- while simultaneously claiming there was no such incident?

Can't do it. You cannot draw up an NDA and apply it to nonexisting events. If an NDA exists, then an event existed before it. PERIOD.

No one has posted the NDA, so how can you make any claims about what it says?

Again- I posted the link to it.

Non-moron's can go right to the NDA.

You posted a link to the lawsuit, not the NDA, dumbass.

 

[bripat9643]

You still can't answer the question.

*HOW* can you not-talk-about an event ------------------------ IF THERE IS NO EVENT TO NOT-TALK ABOUT?



Hm?



Fifth time now with no answer.

We sit, and we wait. Yum! Pretzels!

If you talk about it in the right context. 60 Minutes needed the rating. Truth or integrity was not an issue.

The question has absolute Zero to do with "60 Minutes". The question is simple logic: **HOW** can you establish a 'legal' agreement that says the other party won't describe an incident -------------------- while simultaneously claiming there was no such incident?

Can't do it. You cannot draw up an NDA and apply it to nonexisting events. If an NDA exists, then an event existed before it. PERIOD.

No one has posted the NDA, so how can you make any claims about what it says?

We don't even need to KNOW "what it says". All we need to know is that it EXISTS.

If it EXISTS, then by definition it must REFER to some event. That would be the material protected from disclosure.

Yet here's Rump claiming there was no such event.

Whelp --- an NDA cannot exist without a referenced event. So which is it?

We know it exists- I have posted a link to it- and Trump's lawyers are suing to enforce it.

Can't enforce an agreement that doesn't exist.

No one said it doesn't exist. What it says is another issue. If you posted a link to it previously, then where is this post? I'm not going to spend hours hunting it down.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

She's a whore.

Again -------------- link?

C'mon. Be the first.

Does she get paid to fuck?

Not by the fuckee, no.

Don't be sad. I challenged the OP to do the same thing. He couldn't do it either. That's him over in the corner making whimpering noises. Kind of annoying too. But then he shouldn't have gone there, should he have.

So if my buddy pays a woman to fuck me on my 50th birthday she's not a whore because someone else paid her?

Gtfo

If you are married with a small child and decide to hook up with a porn star- does that make her a whore- or you?

Lol nice try. It may make me a failure as a husband and father but she is STILL A WHORE lol