HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » stupidicus » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »


Profile Information

Name: Jim
Gender: Male
Member since: Thu Apr 5, 2012, 07:33 PM
Number of posts: 1,932

Journal Archives

How the U.S. Concocted a Terror Threat to Justify Syria Strikes, and the Corporate Media Went Along

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/9/29/how_the_us_concocted_a_terror I think DemocracyNow and all of its personalities should be thrown under the bus and ran over a few times for a headline like that, no? They are obviously in cahoots with that villian Glenn "the chameleon" Greenwald.

MURTAZA HUSSAIN: So, in the days leading up to the attack, several anonymous sources suggested that an attack was imminent. They suggested that there were a threat against airliners using toothpaste bombs or flammable clothing. And they said that, like Barbara Starr mentioned, they were in the final stages of planning this attack. After the strikes were carried out, several U.S. officials started walking back that estimation quite far and saying that the definition of "imminent" is unclear, and when we’re saying is a strike about to happen, we’re not sure what that means exactly. So, in retrospect, this definition of a strike being imminent and this characterization of a threat coming from this group, which is very definable and very clear, became very unclear after the strikes, and they suggested through The New York Times the strikes were merely aspirational and there was no actual plot today existing against the United States. So, the actual justification for the strikes was completely negated after the strikes ended, which was something quite troubling.

AMY GOODMAN: Explain what you mean, negated right after the strikes began, right after the justification worked.

MURTAZA HUSSAIN: Right. So, after the strikes happened and there were statements saying that people were killed and the group had been scattered, James Comey and many others within the U.S. establishment started saying that, "Well, you know, we said the strikes were imminent from this group, but what does 'imminent' really mean? Could be six months, could be a year.’" And other anonymous officials started saying there was not any threat at all, there was not any plan in the works to attack the United States. And then, further it came to light that the Khorasan group itself, which we had been hearing about in the media was a new enemy and was a definable threat against the United States, did not really exist per se; it was simply a group of people whom the U.S. designated within a Syrian opposition faction as being ready to be struck. So, the entire narrative that had been developed, and within the media developed, was completely put to a lie after the strikes. And it was interesting that Ken Dilanian reported the story first in the Associated Press, saying that this was a new threat and a new group, and he was one of the first people to break the story afterwards saying that U.S. officials are now adding more "nuance," is the word he used, to their previous warnings about the group. So, it was kind of a really egregious case of media spin, whereby the media had taken up this narrative of a threat from a new terrorist, and then, after the strikes had been conducted which justified this group, they immediately took the opposite tack, saying that in fact there was no threat that was imminent and the group itself did not exist per se. So, it was really quite a failure of the media, which we’ve seen several times in the past, as well.

I suppose the doves turned into hawks due to the influence of that dastardly GG should be happy for this BHO failure http://dallasmorningviewsblog.dallasnews.com/2014/09/obama-justifying-syria-strikes-with-same-law-he-sought-to-repeal-in-january.html/ and the way he successfully brought the two parties together so as maybe they can be droned at the same wedding party some day. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CG0QFjAP&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.theguardian.com%2Fworld%2F2014%2Fsep%2F28%2Fisis-al-qaida-air-strikes-syria&ei=uCIrVJK6FsK3yASBxoDAAQ&usg=AFQjCNFcF28D42qTii-xG0iE0KyBf_OT6Q&bvm=bv.76477589,d.aWw

What's The Matter With The Democratic Party?

I think the majority of us here can answer that question, and think it's more about intentions and design than the happenstance some excuse it with.

Allow me to drop a single, disturbing data point on this march of science. You might recall that Democrats controlled the House of Representatives from the early 1930s until 1994 with only two brief Republican interludes. What ended all that was not an ill-advised swerve to the left, but the opposite: A long succession of moves toward what is called the “center,” culminating in the administration of New Democrat Bill Clinton, who (among other things) signed the Republicans’ NAFTA treaty into law. Taking economic matters off the table was thought to be the path of wisdom among expert-worshipping Washingtonians, but it had the unforeseen consequence of making culture that much more important for a large part of the population. Democrats were eventually swamped by all the crazy grievance campaigns of the right, which has splashed back and forth in the mud of the culture wars ever since. http://crooksandliars.com/2014/09/thomas-frank-whats-matter-democratic-party

The recent rise in rightwingnuttery imo, and most notably that of the Tea Party, has served this cause by pushing the already well off center ideological dividing line in DC further to the right, and increased the dread on both sides of that line over the alternative. The so-called centrist dem now looks more like a saint and savior than the sinner they often are in terms of lefty causes. That's the primary motivator so many balk at -- "Vote for us, or suffer through the alternative!!!".

That's the kinda stuff enthusiasm is made of, ain't it?

The crazy things "racists" will say to cover their tracks

Moore praised Django Unchained, tweeting that the movie "is one of the best film satires ever. A rare American movie on slavery and the origins of our sick racist history." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Moore#cite_note-62

maybe it was simply an unintentional/undeliberate/oblivious acknowledgement of his awareness of the origins of his own deep rooted personal problem with racism that a single comment recently illuminated, no?

that's the first step towards his recovery, ain't it? I'd say he deserves some kudos for shining the spotlight on his kind http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCkQtwIwAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DbyiJ3pN86MM&ei=1NURVOD-JcW3yAT0lYGABg&usg=AFQjCNEpJ38Ar6QvzilfoHpqBVpXWCqVYA&bvm=bv.74894050,d.aWw even if has yet to finish all the steps necessary for his recovery or "evolving" on the issue, even though his recent comment evidently gives him at least vicarious ownership of all things racist, despite his clever ways of hiding it in the past.

He's fooled a lot of people http://www.blackbottom.com/watch.php?v=GpxPKORVC3D in the past in the past, but I guess the "truth" has finally prevailed with his finally being caught. Whatta figurative and literal Jekyll/Hyde the cad has been, no?

How sad. Just when you think you know a guy as a champion for the truth, justice, and the way America should be, that belief is shattered with a single utterance. It only goes to show you, only the shadow "knows"...

indeed, facts/reality are often uncomfortable

but that isn't the issue here.

The issue here is whether or not anything I posted could be reasonably construed as advocacy for pedophilia as I was charged with and punished for, and unless and until that can be shown, as far as I am concerned I was defamed first and foremost by the alerter in that case, and any and all jury members vicariously that voted to hide it on erroneous/fallacious grounds absent a showing of guilt for that charge. That doesn't show any guilt of anything other than my providing anectdotal/eye witness evidence of something occurring that isn't even reasonably disputable given the size of the underage prostitution in this country, and the alert itself claimed that I didn't even qualify my comments with the "age of consent" stuff, which was either a lie or an example of how little care (as I argued for in my post above) the alerter was willing to put into their effort for whatever other reason. Even the financial, etc, motive for their "choice" is not in dispute as should be obvious to anyone willing to look at those kinda issues objectively and in their entirety, as opposed to simply looking for someone to lash out at for daring to examine them thusly.

ANd given that I brought it to the attention of the admin who allowed that jury decision to stand, I have to ask myself why it is they allow "pedophilia advocates" to remain here as I obviously am. Maybe that can be added to the list of things the admin isn't "stamping out" sufficiently around here, like misogyny, no?

Fine, you understand the "issues" they had, but I'll dismiss them because I know had this issue been put in front of a real jury of my peers as a defamation suit, at least the alerter would have been totally deprived of the best affirmative defense in such matters, the truth. The only other "proof" that I am a "pedophile advocate" was that I failed to condemn that, sex slavery, underage prostitution, etc, like the presumption from the alerter is that everything someone posts about, and no matter how offensive morally, etc, the topic is, has to be qualified by and with statements of that kind, like you're a sex slavery/pedo advocate if you don't. And just because I support legalized prostitution hardly logically leads to my supporting tangentially related things of that kind, or things that legalized prostitution might "facilitate" to some degree like those things were being used as an argument against legalized prostitution. That was the whole point of my delving into what others had broached first in the OP all that was in response to. MY argument could be encapsulated thusly: the existence of underage prostitution, pedophilia, etc are not good arguments imo to make or keep prostitution illegal, given the costs that illegality of adult prostitution imposes on those working in that field, given that legal prostitution really doesn't give rise to either.

Now, try understanding why it is like the poster I initially responded to, that I might have concerns about a "whisper" campaign around here amongst all those all to willing to believe the worst first, and to the point where my egregious branding now as a "pedophile advocate" will color everything I post here, as well as potentially some jury members decisions that are privy to this garbage. A jury full of them could likely find cause to hide this post as well, and why shouldn't they given that I appear to be defending some of the remarks that lead to the hiding of a post in that instance, no?

Of course I dare not use the "raping" analogy around here even in a connotative way lest I be found guilty of a lack of sensitivity, a diminishment of the crime, or somesuch, but I sure feel violated in ways I never expected to be by those who daily champion the ending of such violations -- for women anyway. I should just follow the lead established here, and charge all those whining about domestic violence against women with being women against men violence advocates and supporters, since that issue seems to be totally off of their radar. To even bring it up opens the door to the same illogic and BS -- an effort to diminish the substance of their pet peeve, when in reality it is simply the other side of the domestic violence coin. As a victim of ashtrays upside my head, etc, I can surely say that domestic violence problem in this country, and indeed, worldwide, hasn't been and likely won't be painted in it's entirety around here. That's the point I was agreeing with the other poster about -- the tactics/rhetoric/charges we've both been victimized by serve as nothing but a deterrent to the whole picture being painted on these issues, with so many at the ready to defame and humiliate in their zeal to thwart any and all wouldbe challenges to their script or deviations from it they aren't willing or prepared to confront or deal with. So fine, the issue for many around here seems to be isolated to violence against women, whereas with me it should rightly be domestic violence against anyone, not just who carries the bigger/heavier cross in that regard gender-wise. WHat's being created around here is an atmosphere wherein most males wouldn't dare make so much as even that point, which of course would leave the problem of domestic violence in its entirety unaddressed and devoid of necessary are at least incomplete solutions as a result.

In conclusion and in regards to the issue at bar here, I'll just resign myself to the fact that charging others with trifling and innocuous things like pedophilia advocacy simply doesn't rise to a level anyone should concern themselves with -- unless they or one of their pals are a victim of it. I've always been and operated as a lonewolf on the "internets", so losing popularity contests is something I'm no stranger to.

Feel free to tell me to "just get over it!"...lol

have someone else dummy it down for you


who knew HT and prostitution are the same thing?

only those who are definition-challenged I'd say.

That type usually doesn't get laid very often

It's time to decriminalize the buying and selling of sex

as the victimless crime that it is.

There are of course "invisible" victims of such business relationships, as there are other of the now legal and illegal kind. Take those victims the bartender never sees, or the local drug dealer for example. The former is no longer a crime, and the latters "victimless crime" designation applies ONLY to the participants in the deal, because it's mutually beneficial.

It's really as simple as doing a pro/con list on the matter. This of course requires objectivity that moral purists http://legalize-prostitution.com/benefits-of-legalizing-prostitution lack, who should be excluded from the discussion or debate if that's all they can bring to the table.

Imo the benefits of legalization outweigh the drawbacks of maintaining its illegality. Feel free to argue with the authors here http://www.liberator.net/articles/prostitution.html#effects http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/04/19/is-legalized-prostitution-safer/legalizing-prostitution-brings-protection-and-better-care http://www.liberator.net/articles/prostitution.html#effects for starters, and concluding with

The researchers warn that due to the clandestine nature of both trafficking and prostitution markets, their analysis had to rely on the best available existing data on reported human trafficking inflows. That legalised prostitution increases human trafficking inflows is likely, but cannot be proven with available evidence. The researchers also note that other reasons might speak against prohibiting prostitution despite its impact on human trafficking.

The article concludes: “The likely negative consequences of legalised prostitution on a country’s inflows of human trafficking might be seen to support those who argue in favour of banning prostitution, thereby reducing the flows of trafficking. However, such a line of argumentation overlooks potential benefits that the legalisation of prostitution might have on those employed in the industry. Working conditions could be substantially improved for prostitutes—at least those legally employed—if prostitution is legalised. Prohibiting prostitution also raises tricky “freedom of choice” issues concerning both the potential suppliers and clients of prostitution services.”


given that the increase in trafficking appears to be what seems to be of most concern to those not the simple moral purist who has trouble with sex outside of marriage period, whether paid for or not. Legalizing prostitution doesn't legalize human trafficking http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_trafficking much as legalizing alcohol as an intoxicant didn't legalize a host of other intoxicants or spare them from criminalization. It became legal again because the pro-list outgrew the con-list where the HT consideration resides in this controversy. HT and prostitution similarities begin and end with the sex that they share, other than the similar conditions that a pimp might subject his "victims" to that legalization would go a long way towards eliminating.

Just don't mention the facts about teenage, etc, prostitution, http://www.counterpunch.org/2008/08/02/teen-prostitution-in-america/ because one of them might mistake you for a participant in such, because as we know, to the dishonest and desperate merely noting the facts in this particular matter, as it has been in others, is tantamount to support, advocacy, if not being guilty of the crime of being involved in such. But quite frankly, I think all the issues involved are too many and complicated for that type to wrap their little minds around, so they too should be excluded from this "debate". What many of would consider common knowledge , like this

In some ways, it's simply part of a kid's natural journey toward independence. But child development experts say that physical and behavioral changes that would have been typical of teenagers decades ago are now common among "tweens" — kids ages 8 to 12.http://www.nbcnews.com/id/15905527/ns/health-childrens_health/t/new-kids-grow-faster/

they remain ignorant of. Once upon a time I had a particularly stupid person charge me with pedophilia advocacy for merely suggesting that this might lead to some confusion on the part of the non-pedophile as age limits define pedophilia legally, and who mighta thought they were merely soliciting an underage teenage girl. Both of these things are of course unacceptable, and are two slightly different things as well. How keeping prostitution of the "Pretty Woman" kind illegal is gonna end or deter pedophiles or human trafficking remains a mystery to me. It seems to me that freeing the police from the time consuming affair of chasing pimps and their prostitutes would give them more time to pursue the other separate and distinct crimes of pedophilia and human trafficking.

As far as I am concerned, the increased potential for catching and punishing those things alone is sufficient justification for leaving Ed AND Vivian alone.

Question submitted by stupidicus

The text of this question will be publicly available after it has been reviewed and answered by a DU Administrator. Please be aware that sometimes messages are not answered immediately. Thank you for your patience. --The DU Administrators

sure, there's no such thing as underage female prostitutes

that chose the profession and would be a willing host for such.

Teen Prostitution in America

David Rosen, CounterPunch, August 2 / 3, 2008


It points-out that “the vast majority of youth involved in prostitution are girls, although some service providers see an increase in the number of boys.” It notes that the average age most girls get involved in prostitution is at 14-years and the median age of involvement is 15.5-years. However, it reports child prostitutes being picked up by police at only 11 or 12-years and even 9-years of age. It stresses that child prostitutes come from throughout the country, inner-cities, suburbs and small-towns, and from all walks-of-life. But it notes, “larger cities are more likely to have a higher proportion of boys involved in prostitution”.

There is a second, and apparently growing, form of prostitution that is apparently “voluntary” and involves the exchange of “favors” like dope, money or other presents. A study by Jessica Edwards, of the Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation, found that an estimated 650,000 American teenagers exchange sex for favors. More surprising, more boys were likely to sell themselves than girls.blockquote]

What are you, 14?

I went to high school with more than one girl like that four and a half decades ago. Just because they aren't of age to "consent" to such, hence the statuatory rape charge, hardly means many haven't made that choice compelled by nothing but what the monetary gain would provide.

I'd bet any of my 8 sisters knew more of them than I did too, so go find a clue.

What's next, that type has a scarlet "P" branded on their forehead or something?

indeed, do run along

I can't help but think about the many in our prisons

far less deserving of living a life in one.

Sure, let's not be resentful or sanctimonious about who gets the get outta jail free card, or the related and equally damaging "the rule of law for thee, but no for me" speech. All the "under presssure" garbage may have some mitigating value in the sentencing phase, but serves as no defense for their guilt of the crime.

And given the "lawlessness" BHO is currently being sued for, one can't but wonder what kinda tune the repubs would be singing if this was his "crime" as well. Is it only notta "crime" when a white pres is in responsible charge of it, like real or imaginary excessive EO use?

From everything I've read I'm not sure that the depths of the dumbasshood to which he's sunk has been adequately plumbed, but please be on the ready for the next time he speaks out on the inequalities in our criminal justice system. He's decided for many reasons no doubt, that the lid on this Pandora's Box can be kept off and the evils unleashed tamed, and that Justice can be served in this case alone without the closure only prosecutions can bring.

It's a big butterfly with many a deleterious effect that time will inevitably reveal. I'd ask whether the failure to criminally prosecute Nixon made the madness of rightwingnuttery better or worse in this country, and what good we can expect outta decisions and rhetoric like this that only serve as far as I can tell, to embolden that enemy.

Mr "Nth dimensional chess player" in this case either has the foresight of an earthworm, or is in the service of that enemy. He's certainly no friend of the "rule of law" and the justice it provides. Obviously all that is just for us "little people".
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next »