You is all a bunch of poofs!

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5044
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10801

Post by KiwiInOz »

screwtape wrote:
Driftless wrote: If you are going to breastfeed you can't wait a few days and then try, you have to start immediately. I think the issue is when do you acknowledge that it isn't working and switch to formula. Don't the formula makers give free samples to new mothers? If you start with that then you are stuck with that. I think that's another reason the breastfeeding advocates are in early and push hard to get breastfeeding started. Again, the issue is when do you admit defeat. Using your own beast milk is cheaper than formula, so if you are poor it is better to breastfeed if you can.

My girlfriend's former mother-in-law and sister-in-law never breastfed their children. They thought it was odd and a bit sexual. The sister-in-law even asked her if she was getting off on it. So there are multiple reasons to breastfeed or not.
Yes, you have to start immediately for well-understood hormonal reasons seated in the pituitary gland, and those who want to breastfeed are encouraged to do it. The problems arise with:
1. Those new mothers who do not wish to breastfeed. They are practically reported to CPS at birth. You HAVE to breast feed in today's hospitals, and will be shamed into it even if you don't want to start, and shamed into continuing even if your baby is starving, jaundiced and having the seizures of advanced kernicterus neonatorum (the Wikipedia page on that condition has been cleansed of any mention of dehydration or calorie insufficiency).
2. Yes, manufacturers of formula used to make free samples available - why wouldn't they, as profit-driven businesses? Most hospitals forbid free samples now, and the few that keep a stock of formula keep it under lock and key. The belief is that without the easy out of formula, all mothers will succeed and climb into the broad, sunlit uplands of breast-feeding glory. The fact remains that babies have always died of lactation failure. Just because we choose to remove choice from new mothers does not change the death rate from such lactation failure.
3. Sexual? Tell them not to be weird. How did our ancestors do it? It worked for most, and still does. The problem is it doesn't always work, and those babies can die. We used to allow formula feeds, but now even those babies must die in the cause of 'breast is best'.

I've seen babies born in an advanced western first world country that haven't regained their birthweight by three months of age - and if you know nothing of babies, the standard is to regain birthweight by one week of age. Fretful, irritable, crying 24/7 (or worse still, listless and silent as they no longer have the energy to cry and death is scarily imminent). The public health nurse and 'lactation consultant', along with the loons on the local Facebook page are all telling the mother to keep up the breast feeding. I suggest supplementing with formula, and for the first time in her life, the baby sleeps and is satisfied, starts to regain her weight and grow. And her IQ is going to be 20 points less than it could have been. Which would appear to me to be child abuse of the most serious kind.

Maternal, perinatal and infant mortality were the best ever seen in the world in some western countries recently. Some of those deaths cannot be prevented, no matter how hard we try, how skilled we are, or however much we spend. But now we see rising death rates for mothers and babies as a result of fashionable but uneducated idiots encouraging home delivery after multiple cæsarian sections, and babies are to starve to death because someone thinks that Big Formula is evil. Just as with vaccines, we quickly forget just how good we have it. Having forgotten, we take several romantic steps backwards and kill some mothers and a lot of babies. It's sad.

And why is breast feeding so revered? There are a few hard facts: the colostrum contains maternal antibodies and a baby consuming it will gain passive/temporary immunity to a few infections as a result of consuming it (certain). Mothers gain some small degree of protection against breast cancer (certain but very small), ovarian cancer (not certain), post-partum depression (highly questionable), and maybe they lose some of their pregnancy weight (not certain and kind of selfish if your baby becomes a waitress rather than an engineer). A certain fact that is touted more often than all others: Your baby will be smarter (certain, but small). A meta-analysis of 17 studies showed a 3.4 point gain from breast feeding, but worryingly showed that studies that controlled for maternal IQ only had a 2.6 point gain. The reason that is worrying is this - trigger warning: I am about to say things known and completely accepted in intelligence research communities, however offensive they may be to blank-slaters - one's IQ is genetically determined. When you are a zygote, you have potential in this respect as in others. Nothing that we know of can increase the theoretical maximum you can achieve, either in intelligence, or strength, or endurance, or whatever else you can think of. Lots of things can prevent you achieving your potential maximum. Some things can delay it, somethings can help it along. What we think of as perfect child-rearing (lots of love, proper nutrition, intellectual stimulation with Mozart, reading and books) will show up clearly as advantageous to pre-school kids when tested for IQ. And then biological reality comes along, and all those expensive and hard-won advantages shrink. The advantages allowed it to develop sooner, but not to blossom wider. By the time you are 30 years of age, your IQ will be roughly what the mean of your parents would suggest (allowing for some regression), no matter how they had brought you up. Yes, they could have made you an imbecile with poor nutrition, head injuries and social isolation, but if they did an average job, you will have the predicted IQ.
The other thing you need to know is about study design is this - how shall we say a child has a higher or lower IQ than 'expected'? From what I have just said, a study that would mean something ought to match subjects and controls (I'm assuming you understand 'match', 'subject' and 'control' here) for paternal IQ, maternal IQ, and, almost impossible, early childhood environment. If we could match thousands of subject breast-fed children with thousands of control formula-fed children, so that they all had both parents of the same IQ, same birth order, no pre-natal complications, no intra-partum difficulties, no neonatal illnesses, no serious infancy issues, and exactly the same amount of parental care and involvement, AND ignored all pre-school IQ tests and waited until we could see the final results at age 30, we might begin to get an idea of whether breast milk or formula made a difference. All we have are many studies that have not controlled for maternal IQ, none that have controlled for paternal IQ, and none that have controlled for any of the other variables of enormous importance (especially waiting for the final outcome of IQ as an adult) I have described above. If you bothered to read all that, I commiserate with your sense of depression. No one has done anything like it, nor is it likely anyone will - start today with the best of intentions, and publish in thirty-plus years, which doesn't sound attractive for career advancement, especially when objective intelligence research is considered disreputable. Combine all that with a sense of the imperfect accuracy of an IQ test, and you start to see 2 points as simply noise. I was not breast fed, nor much loved by my peculiar personality-disordered mother. If I lost two of my IQ points, I bet I'd still do the Times Cryptic in less than 10 minutes as I currently do each day. Two points mean very little at best, nothing otherwise. IQ tests are valid and meaningful, but are not an exact science.

So is there any justification in taking away valid choices from new mothers in the name of health and IQ benefits? I can't see any evidence worth believing, and I'd be delighted to find some. Currently, it seems to be done to make some people feel good, and better than the rest of us. Those that have enjoyed successful breast feeding (or home birth, or whatever else) seem to need to crow about it by enforcing the same risky choices on everyone else. And if we do it on (their) faith and some babies are damaged, and some babies die as a result? I believe that is legally defined as 'assault' and 'murder' respectively. As always, an extreme case proves the point. Let us imagine a new mother was saved from dying of breast cancer 50 years after her baby was born. In order to save herself, her baby had to die. What would our law say about someone who killed a baby for some personal gain, even one so small that it was not felt until 50 years later? And what if the baby died during an attempt to gain it a couple of completely theoretical IQ points? This is all shit. Utter shit. How dare anyone harm and kill babies to make themselves feel virtuous?

As depressing as all that human nature is, it is nice to get cross about something that doesn't involve a coronavirus. Let us all hope that the new science being fed to us about that virus is far more rational, reasonable and dispassionately accurate than the old, long-studied, and well-funded, yet politicized, science about breast feeding. Yeah, well.

Sorry, FT, for becoming a new provider of a wall of text!
Tl/dr Breasts.

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10802

Post by Driftless »

screwtape wrote:
Driftless wrote: If you are going to breastfeed you can't wait a few days and then try, you have to start immediately. I think the issue is when do you acknowledge that it isn't working and switch to formula. Don't the formula makers give free samples to new mothers? If you start with that then you are stuck with that. I think that's another reason the breastfeeding advocates are in early and push hard to get breastfeeding started. Again, the issue is when do you admit defeat. Using your own beast milk is cheaper than formula, so if you are poor it is better to breastfeed if you can.

My girlfriend's former mother-in-law and sister-in-law never breastfed their children. They thought it was odd and a bit sexual. The sister-in-law even asked her if she was getting off on it. So there are multiple reasons to breastfeed or not.
Yes, you have to start immediately for well-understood hormonal reasons seated in the pituitary gland, and those who want to breastfeed are encouraged to do it. The problems arise with:
1. Those new mothers who do not wish to breastfeed. They are practically reported to CPS at birth. You HAVE to breast feed in today's hospitals, and will be shamed into it even if you don't want to start, and shamed into continuing even if your baby is starving, jaundiced and having the seizures of advanced kernicterus neonatorum (the Wikipedia page on that condition has been cleansed of any mention of dehydration or calorie insufficiency).
2. Yes, manufacturers of formula used to make free samples available - why wouldn't they, as profit-driven businesses? Most hospitals forbid free samples now, and the few that keep a stock of formula keep it under lock and key. The belief is that without the easy out of formula, all mothers will succeed and climb into the broad, sunlit uplands of breast-feeding glory. The fact remains that babies have always died of lactation failure. Just because we choose to remove choice from new mothers does not change the death rate from such lactation failure.
3. Sexual? Tell them not to be weird. How did our ancestors do it? It worked for most, and still does. The problem is it doesn't always work, and those babies can die. We used to allow formula feeds, but now even those babies must die in the cause of 'breast is best'.

I've seen babies born in an advanced western first world country that haven't regained their birthweight by three months of age - and if you know nothing of babies, the standard is to regain birthweight by one week of age. Fretful, irritable, crying 24/7 (or worse still, listless and silent as they no longer have the energy to cry and death is scarily imminent). The public health nurse and 'lactation consultant', along with the loons on the local Facebook page are all telling the mother to keep up the breast feeding. I suggest supplementing with formula, and for the first time in her life, the baby sleeps and is satisfied, starts to regain her weight and grow. And her IQ is going to be 20 points less than it could have been. Which would appear to me to be child abuse of the most serious kind.

Maternal, perinatal and infant mortality were the best ever seen in the world in some western countries recently. Some of those deaths cannot be prevented, no matter how hard we try, how skilled we are, or however much we spend. But now we see rising death rates for mothers and babies as a result of fashionable but uneducated idiots encouraging home delivery after multiple cæsarian sections, and babies are to starve to death because someone thinks that Big Formula is evil. Just as with vaccines, we quickly forget just how good we have it. Having forgotten, we take several romantic steps backwards and kill some mothers and a lot of babies. It's sad.

And why is breast feeding so revered? There are a few hard facts: the colostrum contains maternal antibodies and a baby consuming it will gain passive/temporary immunity to a few infections as a result of consuming it (certain). Mothers gain some small degree of protection against breast cancer (certain but very small), ovarian cancer (not certain), post-partum depression (highly questionable), and maybe they lose some of their pregnancy weight (not certain and kind of selfish if your baby becomes a waitress rather than an engineer). A certain fact that is touted more often than all others: Your baby will be smarter (certain, but small). A meta-analysis of 17 studies showed a 3.4 point gain from breast feeding, but worryingly showed that studies that controlled for maternal IQ only had a 2.6 point gain. The reason that is worrying is this - trigger warning: I am about to say things known and completely accepted in intelligence research communities, however offensive they may be to blank-slaters - one's IQ is genetically determined. When you are a zygote, you have potential in this respect as in others. Nothing that we know of can increase the theoretical maximum you can achieve, either in intelligence, or strength, or endurance, or whatever else you can think of. Lots of things can prevent you achieving your potential maximum. Some things can delay it, somethings can help it along. What we think of as perfect child-rearing (lots of love, proper nutrition, intellectual stimulation with Mozart, reading and books) will show up clearly as advantageous to pre-school kids when tested for IQ. And then biological reality comes along, and all those expensive and hard-won advantages shrink. The advantages allowed it to develop sooner, but not to blossom wider. By the time you are 30 years of age, your IQ will be roughly what the mean of your parents would suggest (allowing for some regression), no matter how they had brought you up. Yes, they could have made you an imbecile with poor nutrition, head injuries and social isolation, but if they did an average job, you will have the predicted IQ.
The other thing you need to know is about study design is this - how shall we say a child has a higher or lower IQ than 'expected'? From what I have just said, a study that would mean something ought to match subjects and controls (I'm assuming you understand 'match', 'subject' and 'control' here) for paternal IQ, maternal IQ, and, almost impossible, early childhood environment. If we could match thousands of subject breast-fed children with thousands of control formula-fed children, so that they all had both parents of the same IQ, same birth order, no pre-natal complications, no intra-partum difficulties, no neonatal illnesses, no serious infancy issues, and exactly the same amount of parental care and involvement, AND ignored all pre-school IQ tests and waited until we could see the final results at age 30, we might begin to get an idea of whether breast milk or formula made a difference. All we have are many studies that have not controlled for maternal IQ, none that have controlled for paternal IQ, and none that have controlled for any of the other variables of enormous importance (especially waiting for the final outcome of IQ as an adult) I have described above. If you bothered to read all that, I commiserate with your sense of depression. No one has done anything like it, nor is it likely anyone will - start today with the best of intentions, and publish in thirty-plus years, which doesn't sound attractive for career advancement, especially when objective intelligence research is considered disreputable. Combine all that with a sense of the imperfect accuracy of an IQ test, and you start to see 2 points as simply noise. I was not breast fed, nor much loved by my peculiar personality-disordered mother. If I lost two of my IQ points, I bet I'd still do the Times Cryptic in less than 10 minutes as I currently do each day. Two points mean very little at best, nothing otherwise. IQ tests are valid and meaningful, but are not an exact science.

So is there any justification in taking away valid choices from new mothers in the name of health and IQ benefits? I can't see any evidence worth believing, and I'd be delighted to find some. Currently, it seems to be done to make some people feel good, and better than the rest of us. Those that have enjoyed successful breast feeding (or home birth, or whatever else) seem to need to crow about it by enforcing the same risky choices on everyone else. And if we do it on (their) faith and some babies are damaged, and some babies die as a result? I believe that is legally defined as 'assault' and 'murder' respectively. As always, an extreme case proves the point. Let us imagine a new mother was saved from dying of breast cancer 50 years after her baby was born. In order to save herself, her baby had to die. What would our law say about someone who killed a baby for some personal gain, even one so small that it was not felt until 50 years later? And what if the baby died during an attempt to gain it a couple of completely theoretical IQ points? This is all shit. Utter shit. How dare anyone harm and kill babies to make themselves feel virtuous?

As depressing as all that human nature is, it is nice to get cross about something that doesn't involve a coronavirus. Let us all hope that the new science being fed to us about that virus is far more rational, reasonable and dispassionately accurate than the old, long-studied, and well-funded, yet politicized, science about breast feeding. Yeah, well.

Sorry, FT, for becoming a new provider of a wall of text!
Obviously if your baby is not gaining weigh with breastfeeding then you need to use formula. Great explanation from someone who is closer to this than I am.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2016
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10803

Post by Keating »

Wouldn't the baby be the one who's closest?

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16955
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10804

Post by Brive1987 »


MarcusAu
.
.
Posts: 7242
Joined: Sun Jan 31, 2016 11:49 am
Location: Llareggub
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10805

Post by MarcusAu »

Keating wrote: Wouldn't the baby be the one who's closest?
If your baby does not drink cold milk - boil it.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2016
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10806

Post by Keating »

That would kill the baby? And you’d have no bathwater.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10807

Post by jugheadnaut »

Brive1987 wrote:
I was at a shawarma takeout yesterday and overheard a young, skinny woman ask that no mayonnaise be added to her wrap. The server asked, as they frequently do nowadays, whether she had an allergy, and she responded no, but her doctor recommended she avoid eggs. Most likely, she has a doctor that still thinks eating eggs is bad for your cholesterol levels, whereas the latest research is clear that eggs consistently raise HDL, and only mildly increase LDL in a minority of people.

It's amazing the number of doctors who make no effort keeping their nutritional knowledge up to date, to the point I would trust the average person in the street for nutritional advice ahead of the average doctor. At least the person in the street may be aware of their ignorance.

Pitchguest
.
.
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 3:44 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10808

Post by Pitchguest »

justinvacula wrote: New from Cathy Young:

Tara Reade’s Dubious Claims and Shifting Stories Show the Limits of #BelieveWomen

https://quillette.com/2020/05/14/tara-r ... ievewomen/
Ironically, 'believe' still supposes that there's a linger of doubt. If they wanted a truly unquestioning hashtag, it should have been #TrustWomen.

Or just adding a single word would do the trick. #BelieveWomenAnyway.

jugheadnaut
.
.
Posts: 1398
Joined: Tue May 20, 2014 9:09 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10809

Post by jugheadnaut »

AndrewV69 wrote:
As far as I am concerned you two are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...
Not really. While it's foolhardy to try to mind read from the video, one can come to quite confident conclusions on what is and isn't consistent with the actions in the video. For instance, it's clear from the video that Arbery performed a wide arc around the truck with an intercept course for the front left of the truck, consistent with the notion he was planning this attack from the moment he cut right. On the other hand, it is frankly inconsistent with the claim he was just trying to avoid being stopped and was ready to continue on his way, but then saw McMichael Jr. looming and made a sudden tactical decision to go back to his left.

The past few days have not been good for the McMichaels' case. I half expected a torrent of news about multiple robbery reports in the area over the preceeding months, but it appears the only reported robbery was of a gun stolen from a vehicle reported by McMichael Sr. himself. It also appears that the reason Arbery was repeatedly stopping at that address was there was a water source on the construction site. While Georgia's citizen's arrest laws are very broad, unless there's further information I doubt very much this will be concluded by any jury to be a valid citizen's arrest scenario. The question then becomes was the McMichaels ignorance of citizen's arrest law reckless enough to justify a manslaughter conviction. My suspicion at this point is that the grand jury will decline to indict on murder (although, who knows, since grand jury indictments are notoriously easy) but will indict on manslaughter.

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10810

Post by Driftless »

Keating wrote: Wouldn't the baby be the one who's closest?
The baby is closer but he ain't talkin'.

Driftless
.
.
Posts: 374
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2018 8:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10811

Post by Driftless »

jugheadnaut wrote:
AndrewV69 wrote:
As far as I am concerned you two are arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...
Not really. While it's foolhardy to try to mind read from the video, one can come to quite confident conclusions on what is and isn't consistent with the actions in the video. For instance, it's clear from the video that Arbery performed a wide arc around the truck with an intercept course for the front left of the truck, consistent with the notion he was planning this attack from the moment he cut right. On the other hand, it is frankly inconsistent with the claim he was just trying to avoid being stopped and was ready to continue on his way, but then saw McMichael Jr. looming and made a sudden tactical decision to go back to his left.

The past few days have not been good for the McMichaels' case. I half expected a torrent of news about multiple robbery reports in the area over the preceeding months, but it appears the only reported robbery was of a gun stolen from a vehicle reported by McMichael Sr. himself. It also appears that the reason Arbery was repeatedly stopping at that address was there was a water source on the construction site. While Georgia's citizen's arrest laws are very broad, unless there's further information I doubt very much this will be concluded by any jury to be a valid citizen's arrest scenario. The question then becomes was the McMichaels ignorance of citizen's arrest law reckless enough to justify a manslaughter conviction. My suspicion at this point is that the grand jury will decline to indict on murder (although, who knows, since grand jury indictments are notoriously easy) but will indict on manslaughter.
If nothing else he could have turned around and ran back the way he came if he thought he was being ambushed by the McMichaels.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10812

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

jugheadnaut wrote:

Not really. While it's foolhardy to try to mind read from the video, one can come to quite confident conclusions on what is and isn't consistent with the actions in the video. For instance, it's clear from the video that Arbery performed a wide arc around the truck with an intercept course for the front left of the truck, consistent with the notion he was planning this attack from the moment he cut right.
You're fucking right he was! Two bubbas had just screeched to a stop in front of him and jumped out of a pickup with guns, while a third was hootin' an' hollerin' behind him in another pickup. The guy knew what was coming - a lynching, 2020 style, with everything filmed for the education of all the little bubbas back at the homestead - and he decided to make a literal fight for his life.

Anyway, serious point being: IMHO as I keep saying, it's pitiful for where the US is that this is being argued about. It is absolutely consistent with Afghanistan, and not with a developed country.

ConcentratedH2O, OM
.
.
Posts: 6555
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2012 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10813

Post by ConcentratedH2O, OM »

Driftless wrote:

If nothing else he could have turned around and ran back the way he came if he thought he was being ambushed by the McMichaels.
Third bubba behind chasing him down. Escape route cut off. Fighting the only option.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10814

Post by Service Dog »

ConcentratedH2O, OM wrote:
....Two bubbas had just screeched to a stop in front of him and jumped out of a pickup with guns, while a third was hootin' an' hollerin' behind him in another pickup. The guy knew what was coming - a lynching, 2020 style, with everything filmed for the education of all the little bubbas back at the homestead....
If you're gonna apply this colorful rhetoric-- be consistent. Apply it all-around. Like,

'Two gun-totin' bubbas screeched to a stop. Then the nigra says to hisself "Ohhhh lawdy! Feets don't fail me now!!" His thievin' instinct dun switched to his sprinting instinct and then, inevitably, his chimping-out instinct.
as I keep saying, it's pitiful for where the US is
Don't worry. Your high-horse message is clear. No one missed it. All the appropriate parties are duly impressed & shamed.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10815

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Every animal breeder I know keeps tubs of powdered colostrum on hand.

Screwtape's posts are not prolix, but rather the right length given the loads of fascinating expert information and anecdotes contained therein. Well worth the read every time.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10816

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

justinvacula wrote: New from Cathy Young:

Tara Reade’s Dubious Claims and Shifting Stories Show the Limits of #BelieveWomen

https://quillette.com/2020/05/14/tara-r ... ievewomen/
Great article.

QFT:
Could Biden be a well-camouflaged rapist? Well, anything is possible. But it seems far more likely that Reade is a serial fabulist with a propensity to weave a thread of genuine bad experiences into a tissue of made-for-TV melodrama.
My guess is, Reade had a crush on Biden -- if you can develop a crush on Putin from afar, you can develop one working for Biden -- felt rejected/dismissed, and all that simmered and grew in her cuckoo mind over the decades.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10817

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Fri May 15, 2020 11:02 am
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote:
Thu May 14, 2020 12:52 pm
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
Russian interference as a major issue was invented as a pretext to go after Trump.
So you are saying that the Russians didn't try to interfere in the American election? Another democrat hoax like covid19?
Notice that I included the last line saying their is no evidence that Russia has worked to further the Biden (sex) allegation. It is certainly an odd coincidence that Reade writes fawning praise about Putin that sounds like romantic fiction and one of her lawyers was actually on Putin's payroll, but as the article notes there has been no evidence this current bimbo eruption was orchestrated by Putin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_i ... _elections
No, I didn't say they didn't try to interfere. They're always interfering. I said that Russian interference as a MAJOR issue was a creation to facilitate the neutralisation of Trump. Guy from Crowdstrike has admitted that there is no clear evidence that the Russians hacked any DNC servers. The people who did the study revealing the massive campaign of Russian trolling are known bullshit artists with something to sell. Russians seem to have assumed Clinton would win just as everyone else did. The Russia angle has been blown up out of all proportion. One of the real Russia scandals, which is really a US scandal, is that the Clinton campaign gave money to a company who then paid Christopher Steele to pay some people to say silly things about Trump. They then hawked said BS around without admitting where it came from. We now know that Clinton knew all about where it came from. The other scandal is that the FBI used this porn to spy on US citizens when they knew it was bogus, and contrary to the legal geniuses who assured us it was all conspiracy theories the FBI did lie to the FISA court. This is a real, serious problem for a democracy and asking where " Nancy touched you" or if it's a "Democrat hoax like covid19" doesn't negate it.
The Steele dossier was only released after the election. It was far from the only piece of information that was provided to the FISA court and it was revealed to the judges at the time to be campaign research. You are just repeating Trump disinformation.
A Dutch firm was able to link hacking activity to the IRS troll farm in St. Petersburg with a higher degree of certainty than Crowdstrike was able to.
Also:
https://time.com/5565991/russia-influen ... -election/
Another link:
https://www.wired.com/story/mueller-ind ... ancy-bear/
Maybe the Russians did the hack. The fact still remains that there was no evidence of collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia. The Russians are expected to meddle and it is up to the security services to deal with it as usual. The US has been crippled for 3 years by impeachment attempts with no real evidence behind them. The damage to the US wasn't done by Russians, it was done by politicians with their impeachment drives. I won't go into the whole FBI investigation because it is a tiresome rabbit hole, but suffice to say that the fact that they told multiple lies to the FISA court and knew Steele was BS when they used it suggests they didn't have sufficient real evidence.

The Flynn case was constructed from malice by people with a visceral hatred of Trump and his supporters, as evidenced by their communications. This concisely lays out the DOJ case and it's a clearcut legal one. The media would rather poison the well with attacks on Barr than approach those facts though..

Trump came into the Whitehouse as an outsider with a very small staff. He had to work with a lot of Obama holdovers who were quite openly hostile to him. Flynn was seen as a danger by some of them, correctly, to their continued careers, methods and plans to obstruct Trump. In my opinion we have a tale of a few dodgy peripheral characters in the Trump campaign being used as a pretext to try and shut him down and a Democratic establishment, along with some Republicans, who seized on that to ensure that they could neutralise him until the next election. I think that impeachment was never about actually impeaching Trump. That would have been a bonus. They were trying to stop him from derailing their their project by obstructionism. They are still doing it by tacking ideological bullshit onto stimulus bills. I think that Pelosi storming out of meetings with Trump was about making sure nothing got done.

Things need fixing in the US. I hope that whatever Durham comes up with, assuming Trump stays on, will be accepted on the evidence by both factions and properly addressed. Somehow I doubt it.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10605
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10818

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Another article on Tara Reade:
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/05/1 ... ces-260771
“This lack of money was hugely problematic for her, she was always on the ropes in that way.”

Reade had spoken highly of Biden, the former boss who employed her as a staff assistant from late 1992 to August 1993, and never mentioned assault or harassment, Wrye recalls. But what Wrye remembers most is that by the time Reade left their property and moved on, Wrye felt burned.

After her husband suffered a brain injury that forced the couple to sell the property, Wrye said, Reade turned on them.

“She became really difficult,” Wrye said. “She said, ‘You’re going to have to pay me to get me to leave.’”
She sounds less and less credible all the time. Neurotic and worse.

AndrewV69
.
.
Posts: 7981
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 7:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10819

Post by AndrewV69 »

Breaking news :

Cops Enlisted Arbery Killer Greg McMichael for Help Months Before Fatal Shooting: Text Message
In December, after English alerted Glynn County police to a potential break-in on the site, the local cops told him that Greg McMichael had offered to help keep an eye on the site. “Greg is retired Law Enforcement and also a Retired Investigator from the DA’s office,” Officer Robert Rash texted English on Dec. 20, according to the AJC report. “He said please call him day or night when you get action on your camera.”
Obligatory Tim Pool:



We are now closer to understanding the why and wherefore of the events?

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10605
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10820

Post by free thoughtpolice »

ThreeFlanged Javis:
The DOJ dropped the case claiming although Flynn lied to the FBI the lies weren't material to the investigation. This is widely disputed in the legal community, even if not by all youtube lawyers (Viva Frei).
https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-dep ... flynn-case
If as is now claimed, there was absolutely nothing wrong with Flynn and other Trump associates talking to the Russians why did they lie about it?
Flynn had to have known given his experience that it was a felony to lie to the FBI.
Why did he do it?

mordacious1
.
.
Posts: 943
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:33 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10821

Post by mordacious1 »

ThreeFlangedJavis said,

Trump came into the Whitehouse as an outsider with a very small staff.
He denies this.

InfraRedBucket
.
.
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:30 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10822

Post by InfraRedBucket »

Typical victim blaming :
MWSnap069 2020-05-16, 22_42_19.jpg
(27.67 KiB) Downloaded 184 times

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2016
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10823

Post by Keating »

free thoughtpolice wrote: The DOJ dropped the case claiming although Flynn lied to the FBI the lies weren't material to the investigation.
My reading from the handwritten note is that the FBI went into the discussion without anything on Flynn, but with the intention of catching him in a lie to get him fired and kick the whole thing off.
FBI wrote wrote:What’s our goal? Truth/admission or to get him to lie, so we can prosecute him or get him fired?
If as is now claimed, there was absolutely nothing wrong with Flynn and other Trump associates talking to the Russians why did they lie about it?
While the transcript of that discussion hasn't been released, it isn't clear that Flynn even lied, because he knew the FBI had a recording of his conversation with Kislyak, and referred the FBI to that recording when he couldn't remember exactly what he said. [url=https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/1 ... out-edits/]It also sounds like the FBI agents taking notes in that meeting rewrote the notes at least twice[/quote] to reframe what Flynn said to be a lie.
Flynn had to have known given his experience that it was a felony to lie to the FBI.
Why did he do it?
They wouldn't have got the interview at all if the administration wasn't so green, which Comey freely gloated about. They did also fail to notify him properly of his rights. The prosecution also threatened his son.

None of this is to say that Flynn was a good guy, simply to say that the Obama FBI acted unbelievably, and if the Trump administration tried something like this when it is outgoing, it would actually get the press this deserves.

Glenn Greenwald has a pretty good timeline with links to sources:
https://theintercept.com/2020/05/14/new ... tigations/

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2016
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10824

Post by Keating »

free thoughtpolice wrote: She sounds less and less credible all the time. Neurotic and worse.
I don't think the case was ever believable. The fun part is watching people who previously demanded "believe all women" suddenly discover due process. Biden is still unbelievable, though, as he seems to think due process only applies to him.

Sulman
.
.
Posts: 2009
Joined: Fri Aug 09, 2013 6:13 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10825

Post by Sulman »

In my increasing haste to be a grumpy old bastard, is there some sort of demand for young woman playing bitchy caricatures of themselves? It's incredibly dreary.



A dime a dozen on twitter. Soooo many.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10826

Post by Service Dog »

Sulman wrote: In my increasing haste to be a grumpy old bastard, is there some sort of demand for young woman playing bitchy caricatures of themselves? It's incredibly dreary.



A dime a dozen on twitter. Soooo many.

Un-snappy Answers to Nobody-asked Questions

...hang-on... i wonder... yep!

Al Jaffee is still alive at 99. And... He's on twitter!

So stick with the O.G. version!

https://twitter.com/og_aljaffee?lang=en

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10605
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10827

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Keating wrote:
Flynn had to have known given his experience that it was a felony to lie to the FBI.
Why did he do it?
They wouldn't have got the interview at all if the administration wasn't so green, which Comey freely gloated about. They did also fail to notify him properly of his rights. The prosecution also threatened his son.
Flynn wasn't green, he was in DC for a long time. Who cares if the administration was green? Flynn wasn't. Why did he lie? Explain that to me please.

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2016
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10828

Post by Keating »

free thoughtpolice wrote: Flynn wasn't green, he was in DC for a long time. Who cares if the administration was green? Flynn wasn't. Why did he lie? Explain that to me please.
I didn't say Flynn was green, I said the administration was. A more experienced administration would have cleared the discussion with their lawyers before allowing it to happen.

And, as I said, it isn't clear to me that he actually lied with the new revelations that have come out. He plead guilty to lying, but that isn't the same thing. To me, it looks to me like a likely possibility is that the FBI altered the notes taken in the meeting to make it appear that Flynn lied. Then, after using that to get him fired, the DOJ threatened his son. That, together with poor representation from his original lawyers, convinced him that agreeing to a plea deal would be the best way forward.

KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5044
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10829

Post by KiwiInOz »

Brive1987 wrote:
You'll have to pry my hot chips from my cold dead hands (unless the seagulls get them first).

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16955
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10830

Post by Brive1987 »

KiwiInOz wrote:
Brive1987 wrote:
You'll have to pry my hot chips from my cold dead hands (unless the seagulls get them first).
No matter how hard you try, an Antipodean can never even approximate RL American weird.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16955
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10831

Post by Brive1987 »

Oops.


Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16955
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10832

Post by Brive1987 »

Interesting new talk from Lustig - Professor emeritus of Pediatrics, Division of Endocrinology at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)

He’s the dude who got the sugar thing rolling in 2009 with “Bitter truth” - 10 million views.

Here he acknowledges the correlation between obesity and T2D but largely rejects the causal link. Instead he has completed a study supporting an alternative hypothesis...


KiwiInOz
.
.
Posts: 5044
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:28 pm
Location: Brisbane
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10833

Post by KiwiInOz »

Brive1987 wrote: Oops.

I have never had a weight problem, and have remained reasonably consistent between 83 - 88 kg since I was in my mid 20s (now 53). I did start putting on a spare tire when I was working in an office about a decade ago and having two flat whites a day, but that dropped when I got back into exercise (boxing at that point) and has stayed off since. I eat a shit tonne of chocolate, don't each much bread but put lots of butter on it when I do, and have moved to a more vegetarian/vegan diet because my wife wants to. Not big on alcohol, but enjoy a beer every now and then. But I still eat meat. But, for a lazy couch potato by inclination, I have always been active - rugby and touch rugby until mid 30s, Silat (and boxing) from mid 30s up until now, and mountain bike riding and kayaking over the last couple of years. I also do occasional kettle bells.

And I told my self early on that I was not going to be like my father and have a beer gut.

Here endeth my prescription.

screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10834

Post by screwtape »

Meanwhile in Terra Australis Incognita, the Not-Quite-Perfect Diet has been invented:



Now we know what caused the bushfires; silly galah probably farted near a flame.

Brive1987
.
.
Posts: 16955
Joined: Mon Aug 19, 2013 4:16 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10835

Post by Brive1987 »

KiwiInOz wrote:
Brive1987 wrote: Oops.

[img..][/img]
I have never had a weight problem, and have remained reasonably consistent between 83 - 88 kg since I was in my mid 20s (now 53). I did start putting on a spare tire when I was working in an office about a decade ago and having two flat whites a day, but that dropped when I got back into exercise (boxing at that point) and has stayed off since. I eat a shit tonne of chocolate, don't each much bread but put lots of butter on it when I do, and have moved to a more vegetarian/vegan diet because my wife wants to. Not big on alcohol, but enjoy a beer every now and then. But I still eat meat. But, for a lazy couch potato by inclination, I have always been active - rugby and touch rugby until mid 30s, Silat (and boxing) from mid 30s up until now, and mountain bike riding and kayaking over the last couple of years. I also do occasional kettle bells.

And I told my self early on that I was not going to be like my father and have a beer gut.

Here endeth my prescription.
Sounds like a far more effective approach! I was fine till 2001 or so, stacked it on up to 87 kilos on a not exactly tall frame. And then held on to that for 18 years causing god knows what metabolic carnage.

Bugger. Now I’m applying myself as diligently the opposite direction. I’m finding the whole food debate hugely interesting. War tribes battering at each other with science trying, but still failing, to find objective truth.

Last night I watched a video declaring “sugar does not cause diabetes” and going all out against consuming animals. Then I checked out the carnivore landscape. Then Lustig with his anti fructose stance. It spins me out.

InfraRedBucket
.
.
Posts: 1471
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 4:30 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10836

Post by InfraRedBucket »

Belgium (population 11.5 million) currently has the worse mortality rate per million in the world (only tiny San Marino is worse).
I wonder if their Minister of Health practices what she preaches?
9f.jpg
(19.79 KiB) Downloaded 125 times

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10837

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

Much as I'd like the Wuhan Lab theory to be true, maybe the internet should back off long enough for the truth to put trousers on.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10605
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10838

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Keating wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: Flynn wasn't green, he was in DC for a long time. Who cares if the administration was green? Flynn wasn't. Why did he lie? Explain that to me please.
I didn't say Flynn was green, I said the administration was. A more experienced administration would have cleared the discussion with their lawyers before allowing it to happen.

And, as I said, it isn't clear to me that he actually lied with the new revelations that have come out. He plead guilty to lying, but that isn't the same thing. To me, it looks to me like a likely possibility is that the FBI altered the notes taken in the meeting to make it appear that Flynn lied. Then, after using that to get him fired, the DOJ threatened his son. That, together with poor representation from his original lawyers, convinced him that agreeing to a plea deal would be the best way forward.
Flynn said to the FBI that he hadn't talked to the Russians when he clearly had. They had the Phone records and the transcripts. If that isn't clearly lying than what is?
When he plead guilty he said he was lying several times when asked by the judge. If he didn't lie to the FBI then he perjured himself several times in open court.
You admit Flynn wasn't green so why would he need a lawyer to stop him from lying to the FBI?
You have a theory that the FBI faked their notes to make it look like Flynn was lying when he wasn't? Given they had phone records and more that they would have to fake that sounds like a real reach to me. Anything but admit that Flynn is a liar.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10839

Post by Service Dog »

Mayor Diblasio orders NYC beaches closed for Memorial Day weekend.

Great idea-- new yorkers fan-out to use other states' beaches. What could go wrong?

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10840

Post by Service Dog »

free thoughtpolice wrote: If he didn't lie to the FBI then he perjured himself several times in open court.
This makes you sound like someone who has never actually engaged with the US justice system.

If agreeing to accept punishment for charges-- to avoid a worse outcome-- was punishable as perjury/ regardless of actual innocence-- then every defense lawyer would be
disbarred for knowingly helping a client commit a crime.

mike150160
.
.
Posts: 141
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2012 1:17 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10841

Post by mike150160 »

Service Dog wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 8:46 am
free thoughtpolice wrote: If he didn't lie to the FBI then he perjured himself several times in open court.
This makes you sound like someone who has never actually engaged with the US justice system.

If agreeing to accept punishment for charges-- to avoid a worse outcome-- was punishable as perjury/ regardless of actual innocence-- then every defense lawyer would be
disbarred for knowingly helping a client commit a crime.
I'm not familiar with the American court system but that does sound like lying under oath

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10842

Post by Service Dog »

mike150160 wrote: I'm not familiar with the American court system but that does sound like lying under oath
True, but it's how the vast majority of cases are resolved.

Before trial, the state formulates a list of charges against a defendant. The defendant/defense lawyer decides whether to accept those charges or refuse. Refusal usually means several meaningless court dates-- postponing the case-- in hopes one side will give-in. The state may offer lesser charges, several times, in hopes of a deal. Only if no deal is made-- is there a trial. Which is rare. Flynn agreed to a deal before any trial occurred.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10843

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Sat May 16, 2020 11:00 am
ThreeFlanged Javis:
The DOJ dropped the case claiming although Flynn lied to the FBI the lies weren't material to the investigation. This is widely disputed in the legal community, even if not by all youtube lawyers (Viva Frei).
https://www.lawfareblog.com/justice-dep ... flynn-case
If as is now claimed, there was absolutely nothing wrong with Flynn and other Trump associates talking to the Russians why did they lie about it?
Flynn had to have known given his experience that it was a felony to lie to the FBI.
Why did he do it?
The agents who interviewed him weren't even sure that he had lied. He knew that they had transcripts of the calls and the agents knew that he knew. As far as he was concerned it was a chat with colleagues and he was guilty of saying that he wasn't sure what he had said. Flynn was perfectly entitled to talk to the Russian ambassador as part of the incoming administration and even considering the Logan act is an indication of malicious intent. If anything he said to the ambassador justified prosecution then they should have prosecuted him for it. What was the purpose of interviewing him other than to trick him into a lie? Why do you think FBI agent Priestap asked for clarification about what the purpose of the interview was, whether it was to trick him into lying and get him fired ? It was a perjury trap, plain and simple.

Did Flynn know he was being interviewed as part of an investigation, because if he didn't then I don't think he can be prosecuted for willingly telling a material lie to the FBI as part of an investigation. Obviously IANAL, but for lawfare to say that materiality is not an issue is surprising and just wrong. That is at the very least a contentious issue in law. The function of an FBI investigation is not to solicit a new offence, which is what they clearly did. If they weren't there for a clarificatory chat, then they were there to entrap him because they knew the answers to the questions they were asking, questions they had no need to ask otherwise. The question of whether he lied to anyone before is not relevant to the case. He was prosecuted for this one charge and it was clearly entrapment and it isn't at all clear that a court would even agree that he had lied.

It is also highly disingenuous to say that a guilty plea must be accepted as it ignores the possibility of prosecutorial mis-conduct and coercion. The new dickhead judge in the case upped the stakes an forced Flynn into retracting and I'm glad he did because the facts of the case would otherwise have been buried. Inviting 3rd parties to sling mud at Flynn with amicus briefs is an extraordinary thing to do.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10605
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10844

Post by free thoughtpolice »

Service Dog wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: If he didn't lie to the FBI then he perjured himself several times in open court.
This makes you sound like someone who has never actually engaged with the US justice system.

If agreeing to accept punishment for charges-- to avoid a worse outcome-- was punishable as perjury/ regardless of actual innocence-- then every defense lawyer would be
disbarred for knowingly helping a client commit a crime.
The DOJ when dismissing the case didn't conclude that the FBI coerced Flynn into lying but that the lie wasn't a felony because it wasn't material to a crime being committed. If his original lawyers fucked up,(I don't think they did) it had nothing to do with telling their client to lie to get a plea deal, but because they should have argued the lies weren't material therefore not a crime.
Are you arguing that Flynn told the truth to the FBI? They asked him if he had talked to Russians and he originally said no, then when confronted with phone records and transcripts admitted the truth. Unless you are saying the FBI fabricated the evidence which was later admitted into evidence then Flynn clearly lied.


free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10605
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10846

Post by free thoughtpolice »

ThreeFlangedJavis:
Why did Flynn lie to the FBI? I have never heard a good reason why he did that, especially as merely talking to the Russians wasn't illegal in and of itself.
Why did he lie? His defenders never seem to come up with a good answer to that.

Matt Cavanaugh
.
.
Posts: 12769
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2013 12:38 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10847

Post by Matt Cavanaugh »

Service Dog wrote: Mayor Diblasio orders NYC beaches closed for Memorial Day weekend.

Great idea-- new yorkers fan-out to use other states' beaches. What could go wrong?
On Summer weekends, there'd be a stream of cars with NY and NJ plates through my town, all headed for Compo Beach just down the road. Place got super crowded and the vibe transformed. I'll never forget being there once and observing your traditional Puerto Rican family domino game abruptly turn into your traditional Puerto Rican family kick over the card table knife fight.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10605
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10848

Post by free thoughtpolice »

From Taibbi's article:
The acts at issue are calls Flynn made to Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak on December 29th, 2016 in which he told the Russians not to overreact to sanctions. That’s it
Why did he lie about it and say it didn't happen? Taibbi doesn't answer that and seems to want to blame it on Democrat's anti democratic sensibilities even though most of the agents in charge of the investigation were registered Republicans, he was fired by Trump for lying to Pence (both Republicans).
Anybody here that is trying to defend Flynn that can answer why he lied to begin with?


ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10850

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 8:36 am
Keating wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: Flynn wasn't green, he was in DC for a long time. Who cares if the administration was green? Flynn wasn't. Why did he lie? Explain that to me please.
I didn't say Flynn was green, I said the administration was. A more experienced administration would have cleared the discussion with their lawyers before allowing it to happen.

And, as I said, it isn't clear to me that he actually lied with the new revelations that have come out. He plead guilty to lying, but that isn't the same thing. To me, it looks to me like a likely possibility is that the FBI altered the notes taken in the meeting to make it appear that Flynn lied. Then, after using that to get him fired, the DOJ threatened his son. That, together with poor representation from his original lawyers, convinced him that agreeing to a plea deal would be the best way forward.
Flynn said to the FBI that he hadn't talked to the Russians when he clearly had. They had the Phone records and the transcripts. If that isn't clearly lying than what is?
When he plead guilty he said he was lying several times when asked by the judge. If he didn't lie to the FBI then he perjured himself several times in open court.
You admit Flynn wasn't green so why would he need a lawyer to stop him from lying to the FBI?
You have a theory that the FBI faked their notes to make it look like Flynn was lying when he wasn't? Given they had phone records and more that they would have to fake that sounds like a real reach to me. Anything but admit that Flynn is a liar.
Quite frankly I'm not so sure about the case now. It does look as if there is more substance to the charges than I had been led to believe. There's a lot of bullshit to wade through before finding anything close to what was actually said and done, and one can neverbe sure of what anyone says, however authoritative. Assuming that Flynn did overtly lie, the question remains as to why. Perhaps it is true that he was actually a conduit in his communication with Kislyak and he was sacrificing himself.

That said the FBI does need looking at. Released communications from Sztrok have shown a clear bias against Trump, even disgust with his supporters. FBI lying to the FISA court should also be a worry. Doctoring an email from the CIA to show the opposite of what it actually said is not just a mistake. I believe that is one of the bigger issues Durham is looking at, amidst allegations that the intelligence services have been routinely abused to spy on political opponents.

The judge's court meltdown in this case was just weird.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10851

Post by Service Dog »

Matt Cavanaugh wrote:
Service Dog wrote: Mayor Diblasio orders NYC beaches closed for Memorial Day weekend.

Great idea-- new yorkers fan-out to use other states' beaches. What could go wrong?
On Summer weekends, there'd be a stream of cars with NY and NJ plates through my town, all headed for Compo Beach just down the road. Place got super crowded and the vibe transformed. I'll never forget being there once and observing your traditional Puerto Rican family domino game abruptly turn into your traditional Puerto Rican family kick over the card table knife fight.
Years ago, at the Puerto Rican Day Parade, a group of guys roamed-around Central Park, pulling-off women' bikini tops.

Chris Rock said "Next year the Puerto Rican Day Parade oughta be held in Puerto Rico."
That line always stuck in my head.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10852

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 10:13 am
From Taibbi's article:
The acts at issue are calls Flynn made to Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak on December 29th, 2016 in which he told the Russians not to overreact to sanctions. That’s it
Why did he lie about it and say it didn't happen? Taibbi doesn't answer that and seems to want to blame it on Democrat's anti democratic sensibilities even though most of the agents in charge of the investigation were registered Republicans, he was fired by Trump for lying to Pence (both Republicans).
Anybody here that is trying to defend Flynn that can answer why he lied to begin with?
Only he, and anyone who might have told him to lie, can tell you that. That isn't really an issue. The legal question is whether he was entitled to talk to the Russian ambassador, which he was, and the circumstances under which Flynn was being interviewed. If I were an American this is what would concern me. If his phone calls had been prosecutable then the FBI would have a clear case against him. They gave him an opportunity to commit a new offence and then claimed that offence made him open to blackmail. IOW they deliberately constructed a felony. There are so many layers to his thing it gets confusing. I think it is legitimate to point out that Flynn did not commit an offence and then the FBI interviewed him over that non-offence to construct one. Legal or not, it's dirty.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10853

Post by Service Dog »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Service Dog wrote:
free thoughtpolice wrote: If he didn't lie to the FBI then he perjured himself several times in open court.
This makes you sound like someone who has never actually engaged with the US justice system.

If agreeing to accept punishment for charges-- to avoid a worse outcome-- was punishable as perjury/ regardless of actual innocence-- then every defense lawyer would be
disbarred for knowingly helping a client commit a crime.
The DOJ when dismissing the case didn't conclude that the FBI coerced Flynn into lying but that the lie wasn't a felony because it wasn't material to a crime being committed. If his original lawyers fucked up,(I don't think they did) it had nothing to do with telling their client to lie to get a plea deal, but because they should have argued the lies weren't material therefore not a crime.
Are you arguing that Flynn told the truth to the FBI? They asked him if he had talked to Russians and he originally said no, then when confronted with phone records and transcripts admitted the truth. Unless you are saying the FBI fabricated the evidence which was later admitted into evidence then Flynn clearly lied.
I'm not going to pretend I know the Flynn case well-enough to say whether your interpretation is accurate.

But I do know-- the assertions you're making could be said of MILLIONS of cases-- if you simply ignore the normal workings of the system & seize on irrelevant details, treating them as-if they were anomalies.

Much-like the Mueller report saying no evidence of collusion was found-- to-which trump-derangement-syndrome-sufferers declared "A-ha! nothing was FOUND!"

This is the entirety of my position: you aren't making a compelling case.

free thoughtpolice
.
.
Posts: 10605
Joined: Wed Oct 24, 2012 4:27 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10854

Post by free thoughtpolice »

ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
That said the FBI does need looking at. Released communications from Sztrok have shown a clear bias against Trump, even disgust with his supporters. FBI lying to the FISA court should also be a worry. Doctoring an email from the CIA to show the opposite of what it actually said is not just a mistake. I believe that is one of the bigger issues Durham is looking at, amidst allegations that the intelligence services have been routinely abused to spy on political opponents
We can agree that the FBI needs oversight to make sure they aren't being political tools of either side.
Trump has elevated Strzok and Page as evil adulterers and trying to pull off a palace coup. In short I don't buy that. The fact they hated Trump and were and may have been Dem voters doesn't matter unless there is real wrongdoing. If they wanted a coup they could have easily leaked the fact that Trump and co. were being investigated before the election. They didn't and it nobody else leaked it either. An IG report looked into other agents sharing emails found many agents that were as critical of Clinton than S and P were of Trump.By the way none of these agents were named and it wasn't disclosed if any of them worked on the investigations of Clinton or other dems nor were the specific content of these emails divulged. Kind of different from the way S and P were treated.
FBI employees are allowed to hold political opinions and even belong to political parties. I think it's safe to say most FBI are conservative and Republicans or at least were until Trump came along. Agents aren't required to step down from an investigation because they are investigating someone with a different political view or the same one for that matter.
One could ask why Comey, a Republican at the time went against protocol and announced the reopening of the Clinton investigation just before the election. Especially because it turned out Clinton had no part in the Wiener emails being investigated as it later turned out.

ThreeFlangedJavis
.
.
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:13 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10855

Post by ThreeFlangedJavis »

free thoughtpolice wrote:
Sun May 17, 2020 12:07 pm
ThreeFlangedJavis wrote:
That said the FBI does need looking at. Released communications from Sztrok have shown a clear bias against Trump, even disgust with his supporters. FBI lying to the FISA court should also be a worry. Doctoring an email from the CIA to show the opposite of what it actually said is not just a mistake. I believe that is one of the bigger issues Durham is looking at, amidst allegations that the intelligence services have been routinely abused to spy on political opponents
We can agree that the FBI needs oversight to make sure they aren't being political tools of either side.
Trump has elevated Strzok and Page as evil adulterers and trying to pull off a palace coup. In short I don't buy that. The fact they hated Trump and were and may have been Dem voters doesn't matter unless there is real wrongdoing. If they wanted a coup they could have easily leaked the fact that Trump and co. were being investigated before the election. They didn't and it nobody else leaked it either. An IG report looked into other agents sharing emails found many agents that were as critical of Clinton than S and P were of Trump.By the way none of these agents were named and it wasn't disclosed if any of them worked on the investigations of Clinton or other dems nor were the specific content of these emails divulged. Kind of different from the way S and P were treated.
FBI employees are allowed to hold political opinions and even belong to political parties. I think it's safe to say most FBI are conservative and Republicans or at least were until Trump came along. Agents aren't required to step down from an investigation because they are investigating someone with a different political view or the same one for that matter.
One could ask why Comey, a Republican at the time went against protocol and announced the reopening of the Clinton investigation just before the election. Especially because it turned out Clinton had no part in the Wiener emails being investigated as it later turned out.
That level of Trump hatred shared between 2 FBI officials is concerning. The lying to the FISA court is not hearsay, it was reported by Horowitz. There were something like 17 "errors and omissions" in the Carter Paige FISA documents. The FBI held off on the FISA application until the Steele dossier appeared.
Horowitz concluded that the Steele dossier played:
"a central and essential role in the decision by FBI [Office of General Counsel] to support the request for FISA surveillance targeting Carter Page, as well as the FBI's ultimate decision to seek the FISA order,"
The report also said
the FBI "drew almost entirely" from the Steele dossier to prove a “well-developed conspiracy” between Russians and the Trump campaign. The IG found that FBI agents were “unable to corroborate any of the specific substantive allegations against Carter Page” in the Steele dossier.
The report also found that the FBI had lied by claiming that Steele's prior work had been used in Justice Dept criminal proceedings and they also declined to mention that the CIA knew the dossier was bullshit. They also found that the FBI forgot to mention that a Justice Dept official had warned of the possible DNC origins of the dossier.

Add that all to the fact that an email from the CIA confirming that Carter Page was one of their sources was edited to say he wasn't and you have a serious FBI misconduct and an indication that Steele was instrumental.

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10856

Post by Service Dog »

Have any of you encountered this guy?


screwtape
.
.
Posts: 2459
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 7:15 am
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10857

Post by screwtape »

I acquired a Québeçois Snickers bar today. Somehow, it reminds me of an alt.tasteless 'grogan':

grogan.jpg
(87.78 KiB) Downloaded 71 times

Service Dog
.
.
Posts: 4830
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 2:52 pm
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10858

Post by Service Dog »

screwtape wrote: I acquired a Québeçois Snickers bar today. Somehow, it reminds me of an alt.tasteless 'grogan':
I like that it says 'friandise'. A 'delicacy'

Keating
.
.
Posts: 2016
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2015 3:18 pm
Location: South of anteater guy
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10859

Post by Keating »

Page 8 and 9 of the relevant defence filing:
https://sidneypowell.com/wp-content/upl ... -Flynn.pdf
According to the FBI agents’ recollections, when asked if Mr. Flynn recalled any conversation in which he encouraged Kislyak not to “escalate the situation” in its response to American sanctions, Mr. Flynn responded uncertainly, stating, “Not really. I don’t remember. It wasn’t, ‘Don’t do anything.’” Mr. Flynn also stated that although it was possible, he did not recall any conversation in which the ambassador stated that Russia would moderate its response due to Mr. Flynn’s request. He stated that he did not have a long conversation with Mr. Kislyak to “don’t do something.”
After the interview, the FBI agents expressed uncertainty as to whether Mr. Flynn had lied. FBI agents reported to their leadership that Mr. Flynn exhibited a “very sure demeanor” and “did not give any indicators of deception.” Both of the agents “had the impression at the time that Flynn was not lying or did not think he was lying.”

Lsuoma
Fascist Tit
Posts: 10785
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2012 5:58 pm
Location: Punggye-ri
Contact:

Re: You is all a bunch of poofs!

#10860

Post by Lsuoma »

Service Dog wrote:
screwtape wrote: I acquired a Québeçois Snickers bar today. Somehow, it reminds me of an alt.tasteless 'grogan':
I like that it says 'friandise'. A 'delicacy'
You know that the preferred anagram of our own beautiful (and venerable) franc hoggle is felch grogan, right?

Post Reply