Good Riddance!

[KorbenDallas]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

I wasn't even aware of that.

Mostly I didn't get it because I'm not fighting any monsters. (When I've done that in the past, they've known about it. That's kinda the way I roll...)

I've been too busy making a case to elect a hero, Donald Trump, as president to fight monsters.  

Granted, I've been laughing at the monsters, Hillary, Huma, Weiner, Podesta, etc.  And they are a bunch of Bozos...  

Part of that quote means to beware of what they have done or what they do, their vices can be dangerous even if they don't become you.

I'm realizing this needs more context.

Any good psychologist will tell you that many law enforcement personnel are (or can become) negatively affected the monsters who they bring to justice.  I worked around law enforcement and prosecutors for a long time, and I saw some bad case evidence.  Most of the time the news doesn't report the really bad shit.  Personally I let law enforcement and prosecutors handle the details.

But yes, bring the monsters to justice. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

Any good psychologist will tell you that many law enforcement personnel are (or can become) negatively affected the monsters who they bring to justice.  I worked around law enforcement and prosecutors for a long time, and I saw some bad case evidence.  Most of the time the news doesn't report the really bad shit.

Korben,

I've actually seen this stuff up close in Brazil. You left out the law enforcement that works in collusion with the underworld. I knew a whole subculture of those folks. Oddly enough, they separated into the good guy side and the bad guy side. My natural inclination was toward the good guy side.

Let's just say, I have a lot of stories. Here's one just as an example. The people I knew dispensed "Brazilian justice" on pedophilic rapists (and other such creeps). It's not that hard to get a criminal off in Brazil on legal technicalities if you know the right folks on the inside. And when there were cases when a nasty rapist pedophile got off, he would meet some strangers a few blocks from the courthouse who would invite him to "have a little coffee with them." And he would never be heard from again. 

One of the people I knew lost his job as a cop because too many bad guys kept disappearing and turning up as dead bodies somewhere when he was around.  He didn't do that stuff anymore when we worked together, but not because he was repentant. It was just too much of a hassle because of his reputation. (Actually, I think he was getting religion toward the end, so he was not interested in continuing for that reason, too. )

Another guy I knew was a former bank robber. I had him in the studio playing guitar for me in a few recordings I produced. Because I didn't treat him as the violent bad guy he was but had him make music with me instead, he loved the ground I walked on.  He wasn't a bad guitarist, either. 

I knew a lot of people in this kind of world. (Some of the nasty bad guys, too--and I got screwed every time I got involved with them.) In fact, I did look into the face of the abyss--a deep dark abyss--at least two times and I walked away both times. I refused to become the abyss and took my lumps instead. They hurt, too, but I consider those to be two of the best decisions I've ever made. I know me. If I had allowed myself to cross a line, I would not have come back.

Anyway, enough of that. I'll be dreaming about these memories tonight as I sleep if I keep dredging them up.

Go Trump!

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

And OJ, and Hitler, Mao. Suicide bombers generally go unconvicted, too. So only God knows.

Good talk, thanks, Bob.

One can always state a deed one has witnessed first hand with one's own eyes.  

I have trouble with people who refer to The Bill as a Child Molester but never witnessed The Bill  molesting a child.  

Saying stuff like that is rumor mongering.

If one has witnessed an act and seen it clearly that establishes a fact.  It does not, legally speaking, establish guilt.

I am a stickler for making distinctions like this.  I don't like rumor mongering.  It is troublesome and it some times promotes untruth. 

[BaalChatzaf]

7 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

And don't forget child rapist, child mass murderer, Bill Clinton.

Joe,  did you see plainly see with you own eyes  Bill Clinton rape  or murder anyone?  

If so,  when and where? 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

27 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Joe,  did you see plainly see with you own eyes  Bill Clinton rape  or murder anyone?  

If so,  when and where? 

I can't resist.

I've got to go all Godwin's law on this one.

Did anyone ever plainly see with their own eyes Adolf Hitler rape or murder anyone?

If so, when and where?

 

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

21 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I can't resist.

I've got to go all Godwin's law on this one.

Did anyone ever plainly see with their own eyes Adolf Hitler rape or murder anyone?

If so, when and where?

 

Michael

Actually yes.  The SS men with him saw  him shoot SA people on The Night of the Long Knives.  

Mostly Hitler planned  foul deeds and ordered that they be carried out.  That was witnessed and brought out during the Nuremberg Trials. 

Had Hitler lived long enough to be tried there was enough eye-witness and circumstantial evidence to convict him in court.

No one ever said they saw Hitler rape anyone and it is doubtful that he did rape anyone.  That he conspired to murder  is supported 

by eyewitness and some collateral documentation.     But he never lived long enough to be convicted.  

 

Stalin's orders to confiscate food from the Ukraiian kulaks is documented and witnessed.  But he was never tried for that and there was no legal authority in the world that could try him anyway. 

[Jon Letendre]

30 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

I can't resist.

I've got to go all Godwin's law on this one.

Did anyone ever plainly see with their own eyes Adolf Hitler rape or murder anyone?

If so, when and where?

 

Michael

Can't say I have, no.

I have the seen the pictorial evidence of his excellent rapport with dogs, however, That we can have confidence about.

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

One can always state a deed one has witnessed first hand with one's own eyes.  

I have trouble with people who refer to The Bill as a Child Molester but never witnessed The Bill  molesting a child.  

Saying stuff like that is rumor mongering.

If one has witnessed an act and seen it clearly that establishes a fact.  It does not, legally speaking, establish guilt.

I am a stickler for making distinctions like this.  I don't like rumor mongering.  It is troublesome and it some times promotes untruth. 

I can agree with that if the subject deserves a degree of presumption of decency.

But Bill is a scumbag of the first order, and we could go all week about the evidence to that conclusion. Scumbags get less from me, that's just how it is. Based on what I have seen mentioned by many people from many sources, I do believe that he (and Hillary) enjoy sex with young children.

Google Lolita Express Bill's trips, Epstein Virgin Islands.

Read Podesta's emails. He is Hillary's campaign manager. He was Bill's chief of Staff. No casual acquaintance, they are intimate, they go back decades together.

You can hold back as though you're the sentencing judge and there hasn't even been a conviction yet(!)

I'll go on calling what I see.

[william.scherk]

It is a question of how crimes are proven, and what evidence there is of a crime.  In the case of Stalin, do we need 'evidence' that he was a mass-murderer?  Do we need evidence that his direct dictatorial actions led to the Ukrainian terror famine?

Yes.

In the case of the Final Solution, do we need evidence that it occurred? 

Yes.

In the case of Hitler, do we need evidence that he presided over the Final Solution?

Yes.

-- Ba'al, you kind of have the Scottish Verdict wrong.  There are three verdicts in Scottish criminal law:  guilty, not guilty and not proven.

I would like to see the best evidence that Bill Clinton raped a child. On the opening topic, it is common for some people to exult over the death of an opponent or enemy or murderous beast.  See, eg, Ceaucescu of Romania and his wife Cankles.  They received rough justice, and were shot to death after a rushed an legally-empty trial.

Did the Romanian people need evidence that Nikolai and Canklevita were shot to death? 

Yes, and the suddenly-in-power coup plotters (revolutionaries) broadcast images of their dead bodies.  It was a happy Xmas in Romania.

[Jon Letendre]

9 minutes ago, william.scherk said:

I would like to see the best evidence that Bill Clinton raped a child.

I think you will get your wish soon if she wins tomorrow.

[Brant Gaede]

13 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Janet Reno has died at age 78.  

Good Riddance!

I truly wanted to murder her.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

11 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

David Koresh was as much to blame  and the government guys.

She was a "government" guy.

I think you meant "as" instead of "and."

Regardless, your statement is 88.6% crap.

--Brant

 

[Brant Gaede]

10 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

And don't forget child rapist, child mass murderer, Bill Clinton.

Child rapist?

--Brant

not established

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

No. No one suffers penalties until convicted.

They become guilty, filthy scum the moment they commit the rapes and order the murders.

 

6 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

No. No one suffers penalties until convicted.

They become guilty, filthy scum the moment they commit the rapes and order the murders.

True. 100% true.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Legally speaking   guilt = conviction.   In Scotland when the Jury acquits the accused the verdict is stated as  Not Convicted.  

Only God knows if the accused is guilty or innocent.  All the Jury knows is convicted or not-convicted. 

So I guess the Bill is non-convicted of those terrible things you mentioned.  but then again, so am I  and so are you.

Stop. Legal guilt and moral guilt don't necessarily coincide. Moral guilt cover everything and legal guilt is a sub-category of moral guilt, assuming no miscarriage of justice.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Jon Letendre said:

Based on what I have seen mentioned by many people from many sources, I do believe that he (and Hillary) enjoy sex with young children.

Google Lolita Express Bill's trips, Epstein Virgin Islands.

Read Podesta's emails. He is Hillary's campaign manager. He was Bill's chief of Staff. No casual acquaintance, they are intimate, they go back decades together.

Jon,

Believe it or not, Podesta's brother even has a dungeon in his house in Washington. A literal subterranean dungeon he had custom-built and the press has known about it since 2004 (see here from The Guardian: 'It's a Form of Addiction'). According to the article, the Podestas use it for "difficult art."

How about some fun in the "torture chamber," for example?

Podesta family has torture chamber, what do they do there? https://t.co/A9R9A2MA5B pic.twitter.com/EYsBbr7Xjn

— Mike Cernovich ?? (@Cernovich) November 8, 2016

I have a theory about what Assange is doing. We all know that Jeff Epstein filmed everybody. I suspect Assange has copies of Bill and Hillary doing some really funky stuff.

Assange has already said two things:

1. He is going to keep publishing up to about Christmas. He said that on the night he punked off everyone in the wee hours of the morning.

2. He has said he doesn't believe the power structures are going to let Trump win.

If he truly believes that and he wants to fuck up the system well fucked-up, what better way than to let Clinton get elected, then show her on video in an explicit pedophilac act before she is sworn in?

Think of the mess that would cause.

At this point, I think Trump is going to win, so Assange will just have to content himself with screwing the Clintons and the political ruling class, not screwing America.

 

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Was The Bill ever indicted?  Was he tried?  Was he convicted  all in a court of law operating under strict rules of evidence?   If not, The Bill is as innocent of those charges as  you are....

In America no one is guilty unless convicted in a court of law. 

Bullshit!

Innocent of charges isn't innocent of an act.

Have you no moral sense or sensibility at all?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Legally speaking   guilt = conviction.   In Scotland when the Jury acquits the accused the verdict is stated as  Not Convicted.  

Only God knows if the accused is guilty or innocent.  All the Jury knows is convicted or not-convicted. 

So I guess the Bill is non-convicted of those terrible things you mentioned.  but then again, so am I  and so are you.

Hitler is "non-convicted."

Ugh.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

One can always state a deed one has witnessed first hand with one's own eyes.  

I have trouble with people who refer to The Bill as a Child Molester but never witnessed The Bill  molesting a child.  

Saying stuff like that is rumor mongering.

If one has witnessed an act and seen it clearly that establishes a fact.  It does not, legally speaking, establish guilt.

I am a stickler for making distinctions like this.  I don't like rumor mongering.  It is troublesome and it some times promotes untruth. 

True enough. The molester part seems way too far--so far.

--Brant

[Jon Letendre]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Child rapist?

--Brant

not established

It is not established. I should say that also. I will going forward.

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

I can agree with that if the subject deserves a degree of presumption of decency.

But Bill is a scumbag of the first order, and we could go all week about the evidence to that conclusion. Scumbags get less from me, that's just how it is. Based on what I have seen mentioned by many people from many sources, I do believe that he (and Hillary) enjoy sex with young children.

Google Lolita Express Bill's trips, Epstein Virgin Islands.

Read Podesta's emails. He is Hillary's campaign manager. He was Bill's chief of Staff. No casual acquaintance, they are intimate, they go back decades together.

You can hold back as though you're the sentencing judge and there hasn't even been a conviction yet(!)

I'll go on calling what I see.

You see a rumor feed.  And apparently you believe what you see and read.  What you are seeing and reading does not meet legal standards of evidence.

It might be true or it might not.  Legal standards of evidence are such that vetted legally admissible testimony has a reasonable chance of being true (no absolute guarantee though).

[Jon Letendre]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

You see a rumor feed.  And apparently you believe what you see and read.  What you are seeing and reading does not meet legal standards of evidence.

It might be true or it might not.  Legal standards of evidence are such that vetted legally admissible testimony has a reasonable chance of being true (no absolute guarantee though).

To be clear Bob, I do understand what you are saying. But it's not quite correct, Podesta's emails are not rumors. His relationship to the Clintons is not ginned up. Don't smear as "rumors" everything not yet established. There are FACTS to be considered here, (just not enough of them to be conclusive.) Rejecting it all until it's airtight doesn't work either, that cognitive error is as serious as the one you warn me to watch for.

Please read some of this. Updated very often, just click the red box "New Leaks"...

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

 

[Jon Letendre]

 

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, Jon Letendre said:

To be clear Bob, I do understand what you are saying. But it's not quite correct, Podesta's emails are not rumors. His relationship to the Clintons is not ginned up. Don't smear as "rumors" everything not yet established. There are FACTS to be considered here, (just not enough of them to be conclusive.) Rejecting it all until it's airtight doesn't work either, that cognitive error is as serious as the one you warn me to watch for.

Please read some of this. Updated very often, just click the red box "New Leaks"...

http://www.mostdamagingwikileaks.com/

 

Would your assertions be admissible as evidence in court with regard to a case?  

How have your assertions been vetted?  

I am sure you believe everything you have asserted.  Now what makes them fact? Are they witnessed.  Are they recorded in a court recognized storage mode.  Are they listed in a court recognized document of record?