Discussion:
Cardinal George Pell will face trial on homosex-offense charges
(too old to reply)
Patrick B
2020-03-02 13:02:44 UTC
Permalink
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*, you dumb
apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
Liar. Every single time kiddie fiddling priests are mentioned, you leap
to their defence. You're an apologist for peadophile priests.
Not if they are guilty.
Load of garbage and then of course you defend the cover-ups
Abusing kids is wrong.
Cover up is wrong.
I defend no child abuse or any cover up.
Oh yes you do
I have never defended you.
Patrick B
2020-03-02 13:05:14 UTC
Permalink
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*, you dumb
apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
Liar. Every single time kiddie fiddling priests are mentioned, you leap
to their defence. You're an apologist for peadophile priests.
Not if they are guilty.
Liar. Pell has been found guilty and yet you are STILL defending him!
I don't believe he got a fair trial.
But then, I am merely an observer.
If he really did the things he is accused of, he should be punished to
the farthest extent of the law.
As for all the priests who were found guilty here in the USA, and were
sentenced to jail, I don't have any problem with this. Guilty people
who abuse children should be castrated, flogged, and left on an ant
hill.
news18
2020-03-02 14:51:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 15:28:15 -0800, Rudy Canoza
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*,
you dumb apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
Liar. Every single time kiddie fiddling priests are mentioned, you
leap to their defence. You're an apologist for peadophile priests.
Not if they are guilty.
Liar. Pell has been found guilty and yet you are STILL defending him!
I don't believe he got a fair trial.
then you've done no research.
Post by Patrick B
But then, I am merely an observer.
arse plucking is n observation.
Patrick B
2020-03-02 16:25:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by news18
Post by Patrick B
On Sat, 29 Feb 2020 15:28:15 -0800, Rudy Canoza
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*,
you dumb apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
Liar. Every single time kiddie fiddling priests are mentioned, you
leap to their defence. You're an apologist for peadophile priests.
Not if they are guilty.
Liar. Pell has been found guilty and yet you are STILL defending him!
I don't believe he got a fair trial.
then you've done no research.
My research shows me one accusaion over 20 years ago.
Patrick B
2020-03-02 13:05:48 UTC
Permalink
He is in prison where he belongs.  He should die there.
Well the process is not yet complete as Pell has lodged an appeal (as
he's entitled to do).
And that is all I have asked for.
A Fair trial.
He got it. He has spent more then a night in gaol
.
the case against Pell has been fraught with implausibility
Stop telling lies and defending a convicted paedophile.
I don't defend him. I merely question whether he received a fair
trial.
Patrick B
2020-03-02 13:06:31 UTC
Permalink
He is in prison where he belongs.  He should die there.
Well the process is not yet complete as Pell has lodged an appeal (as
he's entitled to do).
And that is all I have asked for.
No it's not all you've asked for. You've told lies. You said that Pell
did not get a fair trial.
Yes, that is what I claimed.
Patrick B
2020-03-02 13:06:58 UTC
Permalink
If he is guilty...
However, I have said for a few years now that Pell will not spend a
day in prison. I still stand by that claim.
Ha ha ha! HA HA HA HA HA!!!
"Cardinal Pell transferred to new maximum-security prison"
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-pell-transferred-to-new-maximum-security-prison-55469
You stupid lying apologist for rapist priests - shut the fuck up.
Pell was unjustly imprisoned,
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*, you dumb
apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
You fucking liar. You desperately wanted him to be found not guilty.
Nah. I wanted a fair trial.
Bullshit. You desperately wanted him found not guilty. He got a fair
trial, and he was convicted. Justice was done.
As the facts finally come out, reasonable people around the world are
now coming to see that at virtually every point in this tawdry
process, the justice system has failed Cardinal Pell, who freely
returned home to defend himself. That system has also failed
Australia. The cardinal’s attorneys will now appeal; the appellate
panel of judges can, and should, agree with the appeal’s claim that
the second jury could not have rationally reached a guilty verdict,
given the complete refutation of the prosecution’s case by the
defense. This was, in the technical terminology of Australian law, an
“unsafe verdict.” But the verdict was not “unsafe” for Cardinal George
Pell alone.
https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/02/the-pell-affair-australia-is-now-on-trial
If it is not reversed on appeal, that false verdict will constitute a
new indictment: the indictment of a legal system that could not bring
itself to render justice in the face of public hysteria, political
vendetta, and media aggression. Which means that Australia—or at least
the State of Victoria, where this travesty has played out—is a place
where no one is safe, citizen or visitor.
What hysterical drivel.....
Hey, I liked it.
Patrick B
2020-03-02 13:07:32 UTC
Permalink
If he is guilty...
However, I have said for a few years now that Pell will not spend a
day in prison. I still stand by that claim.
Ha ha ha! HA HA HA HA HA!!!
"Cardinal Pell transferred to new maximum-security prison"
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-pell-transferred-to-new-maximum-security-prison-55469
You stupid lying apologist for rapist priests - shut the fuck up.
Pell was unjustly imprisoned,
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*, you dumb
apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
You fucking liar. You desperately wanted him to be found not guilty.
Nah. I wanted a fair trial.
Pell got a fair trial. Stop fantasising and defending a convicted
paedophile.
I do not defend Pell.
I merely claim he was not given a fair trial.
Dechucka
2020-03-02 13:31:59 UTC
Permalink
There were 2 accusers.  One relented.
No he didn't
The Australian judicial system, at least as applied to Cardinal George
Pell, is not comprehensible to Americans.
It's incomprehensible to *one* American: you. That's because you're a
stupid fat fuck.
In the penal colony, you are guilty if anyone makes a claim against
you from 20 years ago.
Weinstein in in the slammer isn't he
And especially if you are a catholic. Them
penal citizens like to imprison catholics.
Lots of Catholic priests in gaol in the US for historical sex abuse
Not lots.
lots
Dechucka
2020-03-02 13:33:59 UTC
Permalink
The Australian judicial system, at least as applied to Cardinal George
Pell, is not comprehensible to Americans. In this country, the accused
knows the identity of his accuser when charges are pressed.
Yep Pell knew that
Pell was denied this right.
No he wasn't
The alleged victims names were not released.
They were children so their names are not made public, one agreed for
his name to be released. HOWEVER that does not mean Pell didn't know his
victims
They were children 20 years ago.
They were also wine thieves who were sucking up the altar wine in the
sacristy.
Oh dear
Dechucka
2020-03-02 13:34:42 UTC
Permalink
There were 2 accusers.  One relented.
No he didn't
The Australian judicial system, at least as applied to Cardinal George
Pell, is not comprehensible to Americans.
You plagiarized that sentence and all the rest of your post. Why did you
post that bullshit without attributing it to the person who wrote it?
Why? Was there anything incorrect about the post?
Yes there was. Most of it was lies.
Pell and his defence team could challenge juror selection. Pell and his
defence team knew the identity of the accusers. The press suppression
order was to protect Pell from excessive media scrutiny. Victoria is
not a particularly 'liberal' State and is not anti-Catholic. Andrew
Bolt is not a credible reporter. Bolt's a hard right opinion mouthpiece
simiar to Hannity or Limbaugh.
sez the penal colony survivor who defends criminal justice.
She's not that old
Dechucka
2020-03-02 13:37:37 UTC
Permalink
If he is guilty...
However, I have said for a few years now that Pell will not spend a
day in prison. I still stand by that claim.
Ha ha ha! HA HA HA HA HA!!!
"Cardinal Pell transferred to new maximum-security prison"
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-pell-transferred-to-new-maximum-security-prison-55469
You stupid lying apologist for rapist priests - shut the fuck up.
Pell was unjustly imprisoned,
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*, you dumb
apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
If he was guilty, then so be it.
However, the trial was unfair.
And the penal colony won another round.
Patrick always defends the pedophiles even when convicted in court.
If he was guilty, then so be it.
You're still defending a child molester.
I do not defend the sinner or the sin.
You defend rapist priests. You like that they are shuffled around so they
can keep raping.
I have never defended you or your queer friends.
Why would homosexuals need defending?
Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term to describe the advocacy
of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual
orientations and relationships. The term refers to efforts to change
government policies and laws on LGBT rights-related issues.
Additionally, it has been used by social conservatives and others to
describe alleged goals of LGBT rights activists, such as recruiting
heterosexuals into what conservatives term a "homosexual lifestyle".
Any other questions?
Why are you crapping on about this supposed agenda?
Patrick B
2020-03-02 14:41:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
If he is guilty...
However, I have said for a few years now that Pell will not spend a
day in prison. I still stand by that claim.
Ha ha ha! HA HA HA HA HA!!!
"Cardinal Pell transferred to new maximum-security prison"
https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/cardinal-pell-transferred-to-new-maximum-security-prison-55469
You stupid lying apologist for rapist priests - shut the fuck up.
Pell was unjustly imprisoned,
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*, you dumb
apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
If he was guilty, then so be it.
However, the trial was unfair.
And the penal colony won another round.
Patrick always defends the pedophiles even when convicted in court.
If he was guilty, then so be it.
You're still defending a child molester.
I do not defend the sinner or the sin.
You defend rapist priests. You like that they are shuffled around so they
can keep raping.
I have never defended you or your queer friends.
Why would homosexuals need defending?
Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term to describe the advocacy
of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual
orientations and relationships. The term refers to efforts to change
government policies and laws on LGBT rights-related issues.
Additionally, it has been used by social conservatives and others to
describe alleged goals of LGBT rights activists, such as recruiting
heterosexuals into what conservatives term a "homosexual lifestyle".
Any other questions?
Why are you crapping on about this supposed agenda?
cuz one o youse guys asked.
Dechucka
2020-03-02 13:39:12 UTC
Permalink
snip
<Yawn>
The RCC isn't to blame for the shortcomings of all men.
Only its' men
Why?
Because they allowed these perverts to keep abusing
Some ignored the problem, hoping it would go away.
They were wrong to do it.
They actively covered it up around the world and allowed the pervs to
keep abusing
Patrick B
2020-03-02 14:42:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dechucka
snip
<Yawn>
The RCC isn't to blame for the shortcomings of all men.
Only its' men
Why?
Because they allowed these perverts to keep abusing
Some ignored the problem, hoping it would go away.
They were wrong to do it.
They actively covered it up around the world and allowed the pervs to
keep abusing
It is a human trait to defend your friends.
Didn't you know this?
Dechucka
2020-03-02 13:40:03 UTC
Permalink
Homosexual agenda (or gay agenda) is a term introduced by sectors of the Christian religious right (primarily in the United States) as a disparaging way to describe the advocacy of cultural acceptance and normalization of non-heterosexual orientations and relationships. The term refers to efforts to change government policies and laws on LGBT rights-related issues. Additionally, it has been used by social conservatives and others to describe alleged goals of LGBT rights activists, such as recruiting heterosexuals into what conservatives term a "homosexual lifestyle".
Contents
1 Origins and usage
1.1 Contemporary usage and meaning
1.2 Usage by religious critics
1.3 Other usages
2 Responses
2.1 Satire
3 See also
4 Notes
5 Bibliography
6 References
7 External links
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*, you dumb
apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
Liar. Every single time kiddie fiddling priests are mentioned, you leap
to their defence. You're an apologist for peadophile priests.
Not if they are guilty.
Load of garbage and then of course you defend the cover-ups
Abusing kids is wrong.
Cover up is wrong.
I defend no child abuse or any cover up.
Yes you do. You're doing it now with Pell even though Pell's been found
guilty.
Doesn't mean he actually was guilty.
If he really was guilty, then: NO FOUL.
Cool no foul
Dechucka
2020-03-02 13:40:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*, you dumb
apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
Liar. Every single time kiddie fiddling priests are mentioned, you leap
to their defence. You're an apologist for peadophile priests.
Not if they are guilty.
Load of garbage and then of course you defend the cover-ups
Abusing kids is wrong.
Cover up is wrong.
I defend no child abuse or any cover up.
Oh yes you do
I have never defended you.
What?
d***@cox.net
2020-03-02 13:46:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*, you dumb
apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
Liar. Every single time kiddie fiddling priests are mentioned, you leap
to their defence. You're an apologist for peadophile priests.
Not if they are guilty.
Load of garbage and then of course you defend the cover-ups
Abusing kids is wrong.
Cover up is wrong.
I defend no child abuse or any cover up.
Oh yes you do
I have never defended you.
What?
Heeheehee.
the dukester, American-American
Patrick B
2020-03-02 14:43:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*, you dumb
apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
Liar. Every single time kiddie fiddling priests are mentioned, you leap
to their defence. You're an apologist for peadophile priests.
Not if they are guilty.
Load of garbage and then of course you defend the cover-ups
Abusing kids is wrong.
Cover up is wrong.
I defend no child abuse or any cover up.
Oh yes you do
I have never defended you.
What?
I have never defended you.
Mattb
2020-03-02 17:55:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Patrick B
No, he wasn't. The case against him was ironclad. He's *GUILTY*, you dumb
apologist for rapists.
Hey, I don't care one way or the other.
Liar. Every single time kiddie fiddling priests are mentioned, you leap
to their defence. You're an apologist for peadophile priests.
Not if they are guilty.
Load of garbage and then of course you defend the cover-ups
Abusing kids is wrong.
Cover up is wrong.
I defend no child abuse or any cover up.
Oh yes you do
I have never defended you.
What?
This is just what Patrick Barker does. If you get him cornered in
his defense of pedophilia or the cover up he will suggest you are
yourself a pedophile. Be glad you are so far away his next step is to
threaten to come visit you with his weapons skills and then your kids
if that doesn't work.

Patrick Barker and Duke/Earl Weber also join forces in there defense
of pedophilia within the RCC and it's cover up.

Next they will blame the victim/child.
Loading...