Dozens of documents naming Jeffrey Epstein’s victims and associates to be made public in 2024

[youreavinalaff]

8 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

In the 22 years that he was 2nd in line to the throne a lot could have happened to the 2 above him and he would certainly have been groomed as the "spare" from an early age!

So, every Speaker of the Senate has nearly been President. 

 

No. They haven't.

[scottiejohn]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

That doesn't make hom "nearly king"

Since you are playing "Mr Pedantic" please explain what your definition of "nearly king" is if you consider being only two steps for 22 years from the throne or any other inheritance is not near enough?

The reason Harry's book was titled "Spare" is that royal families and most dynasties want to keep their lineage intact and ensure the have an "Heir and a Spare"!

[youreavinalaff]

Just now, scottiejohn said:

Since you are playing "Mr Pedantic" please explain what your definition of "nearly king" is if you consider being only two steps for 22 years from the throne or any other inheritance is not near enough?

The reason Harry's book was titled "Spare" is that royal families and most dynasties want to keep their lineage intact and ensure the have an "Heir and a Spare"!

As I said, I'm not being pedantic.

 

Andrew never has been "nearly king".

 

 

[scottiejohn]

2 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

So, every Speaker of the Senate has nearly been President. 

 

No. They haven't.

What a stupid analogy!

The president and Vice president never serve more than 8 years in office and if one dies or resigns a replacement is either voted in or found.  Look at Nixon, Agnew & Ford!  It is not a true line of hereditary succession!

[scottiejohn]

8 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Andrew never has been "nearly king".

So you refuse to answer my question of "what your definition of "nearly king" is"!

[youreavinalaff]

15 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

So you refuse to answer my question of "what your definition of "nearly king" is"!

I have answered. 

[youreavinalaff]

18 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

What a stupid analogy!

The president and Vice president never serve more than 8 years in office and if one dies or resigns a replacement is either voted in or found.  Look at Nixon, Agnew & Ford!  It is not a true line of hereditary succession!

Who said anything about hereditary?

 

Second in line is just that. It's either "nearly there" or it isn't.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

 

Second in line is just that. It's either "nearly there" or it isn't.

 

near·ly

/ˈnirlē/

adverb

1.

very close to; almost.

Source: Google

 

[youreavinalaff]

4 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

near·ly

/ˈnirlē/

adverb

1.

very close to; almost.

Source: Google

 

I rest my case.

 

Andrew has never nearly been King.

Edited December 26, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[JonnyF]

On 12/25/2023 at 7:40 AM, bendejo said:

Trafficking in kids, no decent justification for that. 

 

Totally agree. Although the likes of Virginia Giuffre were not kids, they were young sex workers who themselves helped to recruit others for sex. Of course, Guiffre painted herself as a naive victim once she saw the dollar signs (around 16 million of them I believe). 

 

On 12/25/2023 at 7:40 AM, bendejo said:

 

 

 

Stick with the livestock, they don't speak.  They'll stink up the private jet, though.

 

 

That's a bit harsh on Markle. Besides, she preferred working on the yachts (allegedly). 

[RayC]

14 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

I rest my case.

 

Andrew has never nearly been King.

 

George VI was, at one point, second-in-line for the throne. He became King. Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford were, at one point, second-in-line for US presidency. They both became President. Prince Andrew was, a long period of time, second-in-line for the throne. He didn't become King but he was only ever one "significant" event from succeeding to the throne.

 

I rest my case.

[Emdog]

On 12/21/2023 at 11:18 AM, Tug said:

Yea old bill got caught dead to rights on having relations with that legal age hottie doubt I could resist that one myself mistake on bills part but Monica was of age and I’m sure she was bragging to her gal pals about it lol 😂 

Bragging to her friend Linda Tripp was how the Monica services came to light "After Lewinsky revealed to Tripp that she had been in a physical relationship with Clinton, Tripp, acting on the advice of the literary agent Lucianne Goldberg, began secretly recording phone conversations with Lewinsky and encouraging Lewinsky to document details of her relationship with the president" Tripp was charged with illegal taping, but since she helped Ken Starr, case was dropped. See wikipedia for more info.

"He's making a list

he's checking it twice

Who's been naughty and

who's gonna flip...."

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

Totally agree. Although the likes of Virginia Giuffre were not kids, they were young sex workers who themselves helped to recruit others for sex. Of course, Guiffre painted herself as a naive victim once she saw the dollar signs (around 16 million of them I believe). 

 

 

That's a bit harsh on Markle. Besides, she preferred working on the yachts (allegedly). 

 

Your willingness to vigorously support a man alleged to have been involved in the sex trafficking of children is as concerning as your obsession with Meghan Markle. 

[JonnyF]

52 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Your willingness to vigorously support a man alleged to have been involved in the sex trafficking of children is as concerning as your obsession with Meghan Markle. 

 

Nice try Bud .

 

I'm not supporting anything of the sort (as you well know). Having sex with a willing 17 year old in the UK is not even illegal (assuming he did, which is an unproven allegation).

 

https://lawstuff.org.uk/police-and-law/age-of-consent/

 

 

Guiffre was a prostitute who was a self confessed acquirer of children for sexual purposes herself, that's how 'innocent' she was. So by deliberately mis-characterising her as an innocent victim, it would appear it is YOU that is vigorously defending the sex trafficking of children, not me. 

[Mike Teavee]

On 12/26/2023 at 9:14 AM, scottiejohn said:

For 22 years! 1960. his DOB to 1982 the DOB of Prince William!.

What about Princess Anne? Does she not get a look-in? 

[RuamRudy]

31 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

Nice try Bud .

 

I'm not supporting anything of the sort (as you well know). Having sex with a willing 17 year old in the UK is not even illegal (assuming he did, which is an unproven allegation).

 

https://lawstuff.org.uk/police-and-law/age-of-consent/

 

 

Guiffre was a prostitute who was a self confessed acquirer of children for sexual purposes herself, that's how 'innocent' she was. So by deliberately mis-characterising her as an innocent victim, it would appear it is YOU that is vigorously defending the sex trafficking of children, not me. 

 

Normally you get pretty het up about adults coercing children into sexual situations where the power dynamic is massively one sided, or are you now suggesting that all these Muslim grooming gangs that plague England are actually just transactional, victimless affairs?

 

 

[JonnyF]

4 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

Normally you get pretty het up about adults coercing children into sexual situations where the power dynamic is massively one sided, or are you now suggesting that all these Muslim grooming gangs that plague England are actually just transactional, victimless affairs?

 

 

 

The Muslim gangs often have underaged girls coerced into sex against their will. Sometimes gang raped. 

 

Guiffre was of legal age and a willing participant in the alleged activity.

 

You'd have to have a fairly warped mind to equate the two.  

[RuamRudy]

6 minutes ago, JonnyF said:

 

The Muslim gangs often have underaged girls coerced into sex against their will. Sometimes gang raped. 

 

Guiffre was of legal age and a willing participant in the alleged activity.

 

You'd have to have a fairly warped mind to equate the two.  

 

You'd have to be sailing pretty close to the wind, morally, to suggest that a 16 year old, coerced into a world of power where, in her words, she was passed around internationally powerful people like a plate of meat, was master of her own fate. 

[JonnyF]

2 minutes ago, RuamRudy said:

 

You'd have to be sailing pretty close to the wind, morally, to suggest that a 16 year old, coerced into a world of power where, in her words, she was passed around internationally powerful people like a plate of meat, was master of her own fate. 

 

She was a prostitute who by her own admission acquired other girls for Maxwell.

 

If you want to criticize sex traffickers, start with her. 17 year olds (not 16 as you claim) know the difference between right and wrong as courts find every day. You keep making excuses for the sex trafficking prostitute though...

 

https://news.met.police.uk/news/three-teenagers-jailed-following-murder-investigation-477342

[youreavinalaff]

4 hours ago, RayC said:

 

George VI was, at one point, second-in-line for the throne. He became King. Lyndon Johnson and Gerald Ford were, at one point, second-in-line for US presidency. They both became President. Prince Andrew was, a long period of time, second-in-line for the throne. He didn't become King but he was only ever one "significant" event from succeeding to the throne.

 

I rest my case.

Two significant events. Unlikely and not nearly King. He was never even first inline. 

 

[scottiejohn]

1 hour ago, Mike Teavee said:

What about Princess Anne? Does she not get a look-in? 

When Charles Andrew Anne etc were born the law in the UK then was male sons first then the females so when she was born after Charles she was third in line and slipped down the order as her other brothers were born.  She is now 17th in line.  The law has since changed so that it is now the first born irrespective of sex who inherit..

[RuamRudy]

2 hours ago, JonnyF said:

 

She was a prostitute who by her own admission acquired other girls for Maxwell.

 

If you want to criticize sex traffickers, start with her. 17 year olds (not 16 as you claim) know the difference between right and wrong as courts find every day. You keep making excuses for the sex trafficking prostitute though...

 

https://news.met.police.uk/news/three-teenagers-jailed-following-murder-investigation-477342

 

The thing is, the law recognises that 17 year olds are not sufficiently mature enough to make the right choices in life. That is why 18 or even 21 is the age of majority in most countries. Furthermore, I refuse to believe that even the sassiest, most streetwise 17 year old child is sufficiently sophisticated to be able to make rational decisions whilst under pressure from billionaire bankers or paedophile children of the queen of England. To suggest that she was an equal partner in Andrew's having sex with a trafficked child is beyond comprehensible, but you keep siding with the nonces if you wish. 

[RayC]

2 hours ago, youreavinalaff said:

Two significant events. Unlikely and not nearly King. He was never even first inline. 

 

 

Any event, between 19 February 1960 and 20 June 1982 (both dates inclusive) which would have caused Charles to renounce his (future) claim to the throne would have resulted in Andrew becoming first-in-line and this would have meant that he would now be King.

 

So, yes strictly speaking, two significant events: An event affecting Charles' right to succeed AND the death of the Queen would have both been necessary for Andrew to become King. 

 

But you knew that is what I meant. There really isn't any limit to your pedantry, is there?

 

(Cue reply about how neither of us can know what the other is thinking or some sarky remark about having no idea how my mind works).

[youreavinalaff]

1 minute ago, RayC said:

 

Any event, between 19 February 1960 and 20 June 1982 (both dates inclusive) which would have caused Charles to renounce his (future) claim to the throne would have resulted in Andrew becoming first-in-line and this would have meant that he would now be King.

 

So, yes strictly speaking, two significant events: An event affecting Charles' right to succeed AND the death of the Queen would have both been necessary for Andrew to become King. 

 

But you knew that is what I meant. There really isn't any limit to your pedantry, is there?

 

(Cue reply about how neither of us can know what the other is thinking or some sarky remark about having no idea how my mind works).

No need for sarky remarks or pedantry.

 

You agree with me.

 

Great. Time to move on.

[Chris Daley]

Spoke to the girl in Seven Eleven.  Trafficking.  Sneezed in the same room as a woman.  Trafficking.  Draw a picture of Marilyn Monroe on a windy day.  Dead celebrity picture trafficking.

[scottiejohn]

23 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

Great. Time to move on.

That is exactly what you should do and stop hijacking this thread. 

You are totally inaccurate with your posts about the second in line to the throne!

Edited December 27, 2023 by scottiejohn

[scottiejohn]

24 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

No need for sarky remarks or pedantry.

So why do you make them so often?

Edited December 27, 2023 by scottiejohn

[youreavinalaff]

10 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

That is exactly what you should do and stop hijacking this thread. 

You are totally inaccurate with your posts about the second in line to the throne!

 

6 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

So why do you make them so often?

I don't and I'm not hijacking the thread. I'm having conversations with others who engage.

 

Andrew was never "nearly king".

 

Prior to William being born, had the queen died and Charles (never would have done) ummed and arred about being King and for a time erred on the side of NO, it could be said Andrew nearly became king. 

 

However, as we know, neither of those happened. 

 

Hence, Andrew was never even close to being King.

Edited December 27, 2023 by youreavinalaff

[scottiejohn]

8 minutes ago, youreavinalaff said:

don't and I'm not hijacking the thread. I'm having conversations with others who engage.

I have a question for you!

If you are standing in queue at a counter/checkout etc of 6 or more people and you are second in that queue (from the front/the counter) are you second in line to get to the front of that queue or not?

Edited December 27, 2023 by scottiejohn

[youreavinalaff]

7 minutes ago, scottiejohn said:

I have a question for you!

If you are standing in queue at a counter/checkout etc of 6 or more people and you are second in that queue (from the front/the counter) are you second in line to get to the front of that queue or not?

Yes.