@*kazumi* wrote:
No dilemma at all. Bill Clinton had number of affairs, they have all been with women his age, except Monica, but she was very well developed and mature for her age; she was NOT by any means prepubescent looking nymph, which is what paedophiles like, and there is no evidence Bill does. But even if Bill did visit the island, you know, people can use their properties for orgy one weekend and perfectly decent party the next. There were photo of some other famous people with their wives and kids in the grounds of Epstein's villa on that island. "In March 2006, before Epstein was charged with unlawful sexual activity with a minor, Stephen Hawking visited the island with a group of particle physicists, cosmologists and theorists, including three Nobel laureates and experts on gravity, dark matter and string theory.[15][16] All had been invited to attend a conference funded by Epstein.[15] A March 2006 photograph on Little St. James shows Hawking, David Gross and Lisa Randall at a barbecue during the conference.[16][11] Other visitors have included Gerard 't Hooft, Frank Wilczek, Lawrence Krauss and Martin Nowak.[11] Krauss said most of the conference took place on the neighbouring island of St. Thomas, but Epstein had thrown a party on Little St. James." According to you, I assume, they are all paedophiles?
According to me?? Kazumi, I hope that I haven't given you the impression that I think all visitors to the island were engaged in the activities that Maxwell and Epstein oversaw. I don't! The rape, perversion and degradation of human beings there did take place but not everyone knew about it. . I certainly don't believe that a visit to the island is guilty. No way!
@*kazumi* wrote:
Your opinion is formed by reading the gossip gutter rags and social media, which are not valid sources to support your opinion. I suggest that you watch the Murdoch saga just screened on the ABC; you can catch it on iview:
https://iview.abc.net.au/show/rise-of-the-murdoch-dynasty/series/1/video/ZW2447A002S00
.
Respectfully Kazumi, I say to you that my opinion of Clinton is not formed by those above reasons you have suggested. Yes with others it may be. There's no doubt some are eager to jump on the band wagon to attack the left just as there are that do the same with the right. It may interest you that some years ago there was a documentary on the ABC and people gave accounts of Clinton's corruption and there were mentions of him and the Narcotics trade. He was accused of being a drug dealer by a couple of people in the doc. . I thought, "Wow, am I really hearing this?" This is also reflected in the documentary, The Clinton Chronicles
Clinton also was responsible for technology that could be used in war against the West given to China. Then there's the pardoning of drug dealers.
My opinion of Clinton is not only because of him bold faced lying. It is because of what I have seen and read from credible sources other than the cheap bargain-bin ones you mentioned. My opinion of Clinton is the same as it is with Bush I, Bush II, (possibly Obama) and Trump.
I believe that Kennedy (Yes I am aware of his adultery) had some strong morals and did want to make positive change. I also believe that Nixon despite of some terrible things he did, had some morals. The same can be said for Jimmy Carter. I believe that Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders are men who have integrity. I remember seeing an article in a magazine years ago, Time or Newsweek and it looked at the possibility of Andrew Young being the first African American president of the U.S. I was hopeful that one day this would be a reality, but back then it would have been impossible. I believe he is a decent man and he was right there in the thick of it back in the day with Dr. Martin Luther King, Jnr.
BTW: I didn't mention Reagan as .... what was he? lol.
nG!!nU~$(KGrHgoOKi8EjlLm(rUzBKcZn2z!7Q~~_7.JPG "*kazumi*"){kind=avatar}
