>> ^NordlichReiter:
That's all fine so long as they do not break the law in the process. Justice is blind and blind for a reason.


While most of the staff said "everything here is confidential" ( which is a lie in this case), one person said to, at some future point, lie on a form. Then they ALL reported it to the FBI as soon as the guy left. Given the fact of the reporting, it's pretty hard to argue that even the fired staff person was actually attempting to conspire to break the law.

Sure she said something poorly, in order to protect the fictitious girls, but she did the functional right thing, give the guy reason to come back. It's pretty clear that PP has a legal, and moral policy to assist the FBI in these cases by building false relationships with people claiming to be involved in human trafficking, but one woman got fired(not charged with a crime, just fired) for lying the wrong way, which I think is absurd.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Gee - a video where some guy with an axe to grind portrays himself as an innocent victim and paints the other guy as Satan's toilet paper. This is a unique, never before seen thing on Videosift... :eyeroll:
Unlike many, I have a longer historical perspective. Back before Ted Kennedy ruined the American Health Care system with his forced HMO legislation, the U.S. had a truly 'private' system. Hospitals, doctors, and all related services were private, or funded by charitable donations like churches. There was a 'public' arm as well. If a person couldn't pay, they were sent to the COUNTY clinic. County clinics were much cheaper. Doctors & nurses at the county clinics were either still in residency, or were still in the educational process (college). The poor and needy could go to the local county clinic and get good service for a cut-rate price.
Everyone else negotiated with the doctor or hospital at a 1 to 1 level. Prices were affordable, because hospitals would not charge insane prices at the risk of having their customers go to some other doctor. Competition kept things honest. Insurance still existed, but it was CATASTROPHIC CARE insurance which only kicked in for major medical needs like surgeries and so forth. Because of this, insurance was very very cheap.
The solution is not a fake 'public' system like Canada where the government has its death panel to regulate what is covered and what isn't. The solution is not faux socialism that hides the costs, pretending they are 'free', by cramming it into ever-increasing taxation. The solution is total 100% privitization and the abolition of Ted Kennedy's moronic HMO monstrosity that screwed up the system in the first place.


Wow, you know, once in a great, great while, you make sense, and come off as someone who actually investigates things and comes up with their own view and opinion. Then invariably, as in your last paragraph, you end up talking out your ass.

Gee - a video where some guy with an axe to grind portrays himself as an innocent victim and paints the other guy as Satan's toilet paper. This is a unique, never before seen thing on Videosift... :eyeroll:

Unlike many, I have a longer historical perspective. Back before Ted Kennedy ruined the American Health Care system with his forced HMO legislation, the U.S. had a truly 'private' system. Hospitals, doctors, and all related services were private, or funded by charitable donations like churches. There was a 'public' arm as well. If a person couldn't pay, they were sent to the COUNTY clinic. County clinics were much cheaper. Doctors & nurses at the county clinics were either still in residency, or were still in the educational process (college). The poor and needy could go to the local county clinic and get good service for a cut-rate price.

Everyone else negotiated with the doctor or hospital at a 1 to 1 level. Prices were affordable, because hospitals would not charge insane prices at the risk of having their customers go to some other doctor. Competition kept things honest. Insurance still existed, but it was CATASTROPHIC CARE insurance which only kicked in for major medical needs like surgeries and so forth. Because of this, insurance was very very cheap.

The solution is not a fake 'public' system like Canada where the government has its death panel to regulate what is covered and what isn't. The solution is not faux socialism that hides the costs, pretending they are 'free', by cramming it into ever-increasing taxation. The solution is total 100% privitization and the abolition of Ted Kennedy's moronic HMO monstrosity that screwed up the system in the first place.

>> ^rougy:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
And too, remember, the man was not charged with rape. He was charged with deceit by rape. I assume those are two different crimes (If not, then that is bullshit and there needs to be two different laws.) So those who say a lie isn’t rape, Israel law agrees.
Think about aiding and abetting. “But I just intentionally lied to the police in order to allow the rapist to escape. How is that a crime? I mean I did not rape the woman…”

You meet a woman on an online dating site. You claimed you made between $50,000 to $100,000 on your profile, when in fact you averaged about $35k. You meet, you take her home, you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?
You meet a different woman on the same site. You claim to be white, but in fact you're 1/4th Hispanic (your mother's mother). You meet, you take her home, you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?
You meet another woman on the same site. You claim to be single, but in fact you're still involved in a long, messy, bitter separation. For any of a hundred reasons, you and your wife have agreed not to divorce, but you live your lives apart and basically do whatever you want as long as you don't bring it home. You don't tell your date. You take your new-found paramour home, and you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?


If a situation causes deep emotion destruction and that can be proven, sure. It can't be minor, it can't be something completely subjective like lying initially about money (Since the woman is in no way entitled to your money from the start,) it must be palpable...

However, since I already brought up the argument about money *Like being a doctor instead of a nurse, i.e. money made through a profession* then please address that. If the money does not affect the person in a majorly significant way, then no, that is not rape. But if it does, (Say you are relying on the money to pay for your hospice grandmother's bills after enough of a relationship is developed that you would be entitled to said money and you find out that she will die alone an cold.) Laws about alimony and such are on the books, so again, I addressed this point adequately.

It took a lot of time to write those responses so please read them...

Your second example I will respond with this... Some people value skin color more than anything. If you can prove that her skin color caused mental damage and was 100% unknown to the layer, well, possibly. Of course that proof would be quite hard to obtain and unless it is documented that you are Arian Nation, KKK, or some such other organization that hates Hispanics, it would even be harder to prove that you hate hispanics enough to be scarred perminately.

You're last example, again, circumstances. Many women have murdered because of this cheating shit (Wife or stalkers.) Many more have committed suicide and guess what, it is only the women who had the emotional problems...yeah, blame, meet shift...

Overall, that is what the court it there for. I think any woman who alleges rape should be jailed for an equal time as a rapist so long as she is convicted of lying about said rape (If it did not really occur.) Same here; which would dissuade many from lying.

I think you have a right to your belief Roughy, it is understandable. I am a devil's advocate and hate lying about all else.

>> ^rottenseed:

Yea. Or let's say you put roofies in a girls drink, but you say you didn't. Then you take that girl home and you force your member into her limp, lifeless body. Did you rape her then?!
Yes?
Oh...I uh...I gotta go
>> ^rougy:
>> ^Lawdeedaw:
And too, remember, the man was not charged with rape. He was charged with deceit by rape. I assume those are two different crimes (If not, then that is bullshit and there needs to be two different laws.) So those who say a lie isn’t rape, Israel law agrees.
Think about aiding and abetting. “But I just intentionally lied to the police in order to allow the rapist to escape. How is that a crime? I mean I did not rape the woman…”

You meet a woman on an online dating site. You claimed you made between $50,000 to $100,000 on your profile, when in fact you averaged about $35k. You meet, you take her home, you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?
You meet a different woman on the same site. You claim to be white, but in fact you're 1/4th Hispanic (your mother's mother). You meet, you take her home, you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?
You meet another woman on the same site. You claim to be single, but in fact you're still involved in a long, messy, bitter separation. For any of a hundred reasons, you and your wife have agreed not to divorce, but you live your lives apart and basically do whatever you want as long as you don't bring it home. You don't tell your date. You take your new-found paramour home, and you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?



Animal...the thing I love about you is that I never fucking know if you're serious or not.

Yea. Or let's say you put roofies in a girls drink, but you say you didn't. Then you take that girl home and you force your member into her limp, lifeless body. Did you rape her then?!

Yes?

Oh...I uh...I gotta go
>> ^rougy:

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
And too, remember, the man was not charged with rape. He was charged with deceit by rape. I assume those are two different crimes (If not, then that is bullshit and there needs to be two different laws.) So those who say a lie isn’t rape, Israel law agrees.
Think about aiding and abetting. “But I just intentionally lied to the police in order to allow the rapist to escape. How is that a crime? I mean I did not rape the woman…”

You meet a woman on an online dating site. You claimed you made between $50,000 to $100,000 on your profile, when in fact you averaged about $35k. You meet, you take her home, you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?
You meet a different woman on the same site. You claim to be white, but in fact you're 1/4th Hispanic (your mother's mother). You meet, you take her home, you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?
You meet another woman on the same site. You claim to be single, but in fact you're still involved in a long, messy, bitter separation. For any of a hundred reasons, you and your wife have agreed not to divorce, but you live your lives apart and basically do whatever you want as long as you don't bring it home. You don't tell your date. You take your new-found paramour home, and you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?

>> ^Lawdeedaw:

And too, remember, the man was not charged with rape. He was charged with deceit by rape. I assume those are two different crimes (If not, then that is bullshit and there needs to be two different laws.) So those who say a lie isn’t rape, Israel law agrees.
Think about aiding and abetting. “But I just intentionally lied to the police in order to allow the rapist to escape. How is that a crime? I mean I did not rape the woman…”


You meet a woman on an online dating site. You claimed you made between $50,000 to $100,000 on your profile, when in fact you averaged about $35k. You meet, you take her home, you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?

You meet a different woman on the same site. You claim to be white, but in fact you're 1/4th Hispanic (your mother's mother). You meet, you take her home, you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?

You meet another woman on the same site. You claim to be single, but in fact you're still involved in a long, messy, bitter separation. For any of a hundred reasons, you and your wife have agreed not to divorce, but you live your lives apart and basically do whatever you want as long as you don't bring it home. You don't tell your date. You take your new-found paramour home, and you have sex. You're a rapist, aren't you?

And too, remember, the man was not charged with rape. He was charged with deceit by rape. I assume those are two different crimes (If not, then that is bullshit and there needs to be two different laws.) So those who say a lie isn’t rape, Israel law agrees.

Think about aiding and abetting. “But I just intentionally lied to the police in order to allow the rapist to escape. How is that a crime? I mean I did not rape the woman…”

Upvote for this, because this G20 was a giant waste of money. All the "big" things they wanted to do got pushed back to Seoul. As for some Canadian law quick facts. In Canada the police can actually arrest you for twenty four hours without charging you. This has been around since I was a kid, and before, because the War Measures act circumvented this, holding people indefinitely. The Public Works Protection act (which has now turned out to be misled by police,) did the same thing in some ways, but people not charged were held to a max of twenty three hours, unless they were charged.

This is a good piece, with some great questions. Some uninformed facts, but a good piece.

OK, well, first of all..., I'm not defending him!
I agree that what he did was illegal. She was clearly a minor.
It doesn't matter what happened and passing the blame around in a case like this is mute. He was the adult and the responsibility for whatever transpired was his. He "IS" guilty for that offense.

And yes, as it is being reported, she came to him as an adult, claiming she would go public and wanting a payment to deal with "the Pain". She was not charged, in fact, he paid her and he did hope to move past the issue.

She has now come back a second time, $150,000 must not have been enough for her to get counseling. Hmmm....
It makes me wonder what her actual motives were. (again, yes she was the victim) but what does it take? Will she only be satisfied once he is destroyed? I don't know, I don't have those answers.

My only beef was really with the terminology. (Pedophile vs. Minor.)

I was only bringing up the extortion part as another fact in this story. It shows that this is not a one time incident, it is a continuing saga between the two of them.

This guy is a very good speaker. His gestures are.. He strikes me as a lie. A living lie.

I'm going to Godwin this now, there are other good speakers, and one that he reminds me of is Hitler.

US, plutocratic actions on Haiti, if true are deplorable.

Accusations of widespread human rights abuses

Human Rights Watch accused the Haitian police force under President Aristide, and his political supporters, of attacks on opposition rallies. They also said that the emergence of armed rebel groups seeking to overthrow Aristide reflected "the failure of the country’s democratic institutions and procedures."[27]

The OAS/UN International Civilian Mission in Haiti, known as MICIVIH (its French acronym) found that the human-rights situation in Haiti improved dramatically following Aristide's return to power in 1994. [28] Amnesty International reported that Haiti was "descending into a severe humanitarian and human rights crisis" after Aristide's departure in 2004.[29]
[edit] Accusations of drug trafficking

Drug trafficking was allegedly a major source of money. Canadian police arrested Oriel Jean, Aristide's security chief and one of the most trusted friends, for money laundering.[30] Beaudoin Ketant, a notorious international drug trafficker, Aristide's close partner, and his daughter's godfather, confessed that Aristide "turned the country into a narco-country. It's a one-man show. You either pay (Aristide) or you die." Aristide denied the allegation, and the U.S. has not charged him directly with involvment in the drug trade.[31]
[edit] Accusations of corruption

Haitian investigators claimed to have discovered extensive embezzlement and money laundering by Aristide's administration, in which millions of dollars of public funds were allegedly lost to sophisticated financial transactions.[32] Aristide has forcefully denied these accusations. [33] The Haitian government filed a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) lawsuit in the U.S. in Miami, Florida, in November of 2005, alleging that Aristide and his associates took hundreds of thousands of dollars in kickbacks from the long distance company IDT, and that IDT diverted into a secret offshore bank account controlled by Aristide payments that should have gone to the Haitian company Teleco. The lawsuit was suspended by the Haitian government on June 30, 2006. [34][35]
[edit] Accusations of embezzlement of telecom revenues

According to a report by Christopher Caldwell in the July 1994 American Spectator, Aristide stole Haiti's telecom revenues while in the United States. Caldwell claims that, between 1991 and 1994, Aristide ordered that the proceeds from Haiti's international phone traffic, handled by the Latin American division of AT&T, be moved to a numbered offshore bank account in Panama.[36]

Some officials have been indicted by an US court.[37] The companies which made deals with Aristide included IDT, Fusion Telecommunications, and Skytel; critics claim the two first companies had political links. AT&T reportedly declined to wire money to "Mont Salem".[38][39][40][41]

For those whom suffer from illness and chronic condition...
For those whom suffer for a long time (beyond 2-3 weeks)...
For those whom care, for their loved ones, whom suffer...

...the concept of health care reform and a public option, is very good news.

Mr. Winston here has never suffered nor cared dearly for someone who suffers. He has no concept, no real compassion, no real heart. A body without a soul.

The public option, would mean, more competition, not less. It would mean, companies now can not charge out ragous prices for health care. Nor remove those with long term illnesses or chronic conditions. As there will be a base line option. Companies will take these people on, and provide better then a goverment option, since it brings in money.

Right now, Winston, and you can look this up to your heart's content, consider the following. As its quite scary...

What if, the top 10 health insurance companies got together, and decided....they dont like you. Yes, they agree to make your insurance cost you MORE, then it did before. Oh sure, you would try shopping around, but in the end, find they all did the same thing. They dont like the products you buy, since its not THEIR products, or kick-backs they get from other companies for doing 'business to business' transactions. You do not live, where they want you to live. Oh, and the best one. You dont vote, EXACTLY the way they want you to vote.

Yes, companies in the health care industry can do this right now. It would be up to you, to prove conspiracy on their part. After all, there are no laws requiring health care companies not to collude.

Sounds like a story of conspiracy theory when I first heard of it. The more I thought about it, the more ghastly a concept it would be to perform. BUT, some of the thoughts in the health care reform RIGHT now, would eliminate that tactic before it started. The same stuff, you are trying hard to prevent from coming to reality.

So really Winston, one SHOULD examine your agenda and motives in this area. Since the only people against health care reform, and the public option, are the ones who stand to make a fortune, holding Americans over a barrel for health coverage.

As I stated above....you have to have a soul, to have compassion.

In reply to this comment by mxxcon:
i wasn't commenting so much on atrocities they've done but the fact that the whole organization from the very bottom to the very top is structured to encourage and cover up these crimes.
and the fact that US Gov't still support this organization
and the fact that there is no measurable public outcry against blackwater or gov't officials that are not acting stop this.

this country needs some of that sense of responsibility and shame that is so common in japan's society.
90% of our elected officials should commit public seppuku.

The whole organization from the very bottom to the top is structured to encourage and cover up these crimes? You mean like how the American government itself tries to cover up things like the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, or it's use of biological weapons in Korea (those brave few who protested were condemned were and persecuted: McCarthyism at its finest during the height of the cold war), or tried to cover up the whole Iran-Contra affair (Where the US sold Iran weapons and gave the funds to the Contra guerrillas in Nicaragua, who used American funded weapons to commit countless atrocities) or the army's use of torture in the current Iraqi war?

And sense of shame and responsibility that is common in Japan's society? You mean like how the doctors of Unit 731 who performed live vivisection on prisoners and civilians with no anesthesia, who viewed non-japanese civilians as nothing better than "logs" to test on, and how these doctors were not charged with war crimes and went back into Japanese society and lead successful careers afterward? And how so many Japanese people, including influential politicians are vocal deniers of war crimes committed by the Japanese army (that whole section was censored out of Japanese school curriculum)? Or like how Issei Sagawa, who murdered and ate Renee Hartevelt, a Dutch exchange student in Paris, is a celebrity and a free man in Japan, and makes a living from his infamy? Shame and denial are not mutually exclusive.

I'm saying this kind of corruption and coverup, and this kind of public apathy, is hardly unique to America, and is hardly a new phenomenon. It's ubiquitous. Seriously, Blackwater is one of the least things to be ashamed about in our history.

If you're like me, you might be wondering what the hell the charge was. I found it here:

http://www.newspapertree.com/news/3705-officer-in-abc-7-arrest-placed-on-desk-duty-station-will-file-complaint

Mears said that Hunt, who NPT initially reported was detained, actually technically was arrested, but not charged. The initial charge was interference with the duties of a public servant.

John Ziegler responds:

. . . there is a lot more to say about this situation, largely because there has been so much misinformation, so many irresponsible accusations, and so much blatant hypocrisy in the general reaction to the remarkable videotape.

Now, one would think that there wouldn’t be much confusion about a situation that was videotaped in its entirety by not one but two cameras who were acting largely independently of the primary actors (we have posted a nearly real-time version of the entire affair at http://www.HowObamaGotElected.com), but unfortunately that is clearly the case. I would like to try to address some of these issues here.

First, one of the ways that those on the left have used to try to avoid having to hold their nose and support the free speech rights of a rabble-rousing “conservative,” is that USC is a “private” school and therefore they had the right to kick me out for no purpose. I even saw one prominent blog with the headline “Ziegler Arrested for Trespassing on Private Property,” which is just laughably false.

While USC is indeed a “private” school, this does not in any way legally make their property like that of a private residence. First, they take federal tax money, and second it has a very “open” campus and the area I was in has direct access from a public street without even a gate blocking the way. At any given moment there are many people walking on the sidewalks where I was arrested who are neither students, faculty nor invited guests of the University. I had every right to be there (outside the building where the award ceremony took place) and I did nothing to provoke or warrant being handcuffed, arrested or removed from the property. It is very clear the only reason that happened was because of my previously expressed political opinion on what was going on that day. In short, I was targeted for different treatment because of my beliefs.

The next tactic many have tried, in order to avoid facing their own politically induced hypocrisy on free speech, is to minimize the incident by saying that I was not “arrested” and that what happened was not a big deal.

While in the end I was not charged (I was told that I would indeed be booked at LAPD headquarters), that was only because higher authorities saw that the campus police “arrest” was clearly problematic if not completely bogus. After I was already “arrested,” they shifted gears and told me that I basically had two choices: leave the premises or be charged along with the two photographers who did not work for me and who in no way bargained for such a situation. Not wanting to put them in jeopardy and seeing that I could not possibly do anything further to achieve my original goal of educating those attending the awards, I decided, under threat of prosecution, to leave the grounds.

But make no mistake, I was arrested. I was handcuffed and detained against my will for an extended period of time with my microphone and blackberry taken from me. The photographers were also told to stop shooting under threat of arrest themselves. And, as the video clearly shows, my wrists were significantly bruised by the handcuffs that I had rightly complained were put on way too tight.

All of this happened obviously not because of my actions but because of my political view on the proceedings. In effect, I was being punished, repressed, and physically harmed as a form of prior restraint because they anticipated that I might do something to disrupt the proceedings based on my prior writings and commentary on the event (in which I never claimed I would do anything more than exactly what I tried to; give away copies of my film as an educational exercise). No matter how hard liberals try to rationalize it, this makes this a very obvious case of a blatant free speech violation.

Another way that commentators (including some on the right) have attempted to ignore the very serious First Amendment implications of this case, is to say that I set this up as some sort of publicity stunt to promote my film.

First of all, this could not be more irrelevant to the constitutional issues involved . . .

the rest:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=1dd_1240370084