Celeb’s Hollywood Pedophilia Stunner Met With Media Whimper
Appearing in an interview on ABC's "Primetime Nightline" last week (Thu., 8/10/11), Hollywood actor Corey Feldman aired a truly brave and shocking claim:
"I can tell you that the No. 1 problem in Hollywood was and is and always will be pedophilia. That's the biggest problem for children in this industry ... It's the big secret."
It was not Feldman's only stomach-turning assertion. He also claimed that the "casting couch," the sick Hollywood legend by which roles are given in exchange for sex, even applies to children.
In addition to saying that he himself had been molested as a boy by "vultures" in show business, Feldman went on to claim that the demise of the late actor Corey Haim was precipitated by "a Hollywood mogul" abusing him as a boy. Feldman added:
"There was a circle of older men who surrounded themselves with this group of kids. And they all had either their own power or connections to great power in the entertainment industry …
"[T]here's a lot of good people in this industry, but there's also a lot of really, really sick, corrupt people. And there are people in this industry who have gotten away with it for so long that they feel they're above the law, and that's got to change. That's got to stop."
So here is a claim of massive abuse and cover-ups happening in Hollywood. Where is the major media on this?
Nearly a week after the episode aired, the response to Feldman's alarming claims has been almost non-existent in the major media. While the Boston Globe and the New York Times have hyperventilated over decades-old allegations of abuse by Catholic priests (many of which were all-too-true), neither paper dedicated even a drop of ink to Feldman's shocker.
Could it be that major media folks do not wish to dig too deep into this story and upset one of their largest sources of income?
The Catholic League uncovered exactly one newspaper in the entire United States that reported Feldman's claims: The International Business Times.
When it comes to the awful abuse of children, it sure seems like the media doesn't get too worked up unless the word Cardinal, bishop, or priest is in someone's job title.
-- Dave Pierre is the author of the book, Double Standard: Abuse Scandals and the Attack on the Catholic Church. Dave is also the creator of TheMediaReport.com and is a contributing writer to NewsBusters.
- Dave Pierre's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
its just an alternate
Submitted by TruthMonger on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 7:30pm.
its just an alternate lifestyle!
stop judging you hating pedophobes!
legalize ped marriage!
Congratulations Jimmy Carter!
Don't joke, normalizing
Submitted by moderncommentaries83 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:20pm.
Don't joke, normalizing pedophilia is the next cause du jour, and watch for the push to make "minor-attracted persons" a protected class:
If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.
The August 17 Baltimore conference is sponsored by B4U-ACT, a group of pro-pedophile mental health professionals and sympathetic activists. According to the conference brochure, the event will examine “ways in which minor-attracted persons [pedophiles] can be involved in the DSM 5 revision process” and how the popular perceptions of pedophiles can be reframed to encourage tolerance.
B4U-ACT has been active attacking the APA’s definition of pedophilia in the run up to the conference, denouncing its description of “minor-attracted persons” as “inaccurate” and “misleading” because the current DSM links pedophilia with criminality.
“It is based on data from prison studies, which completely ignore the existence of those who are law-abiding,” said Howard Kline, science director of B4U-ACT, in a July 25, 2011 press release. “The proposed new diagnostic criteria specify ages and frequencies with no scientific basis whatsoever.”
So just know that if you object to grown-ups fooling around with minors, you'll soon be called an intolerant bigot who just doesn't understand this "alternative sexuality" is really just love.
I've been saying this for years
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:27pm.
That's how homosexuality got taken off the list of mental disorders and became the "genetically predetermined" class of people we have now. Once pedophilia is "normalized" we can expect the same progression that homosexuals took. Look for many soft edged stories on the daytime trash talk shows with really, really nice pedophiles that only want a loving relationship.
On the legal side, look for legislation or court decisions to change the legal definition of the words "adult" and "consenting." After all, gay marriage is really only changing the legal definition of the word marriage.
The people working for all this really will never be satisfied with any victory. Even when (not if) it becomes legal to sacrifice live children (redefine post-term abortion) these people will never stop. This is nothing new. They've been around since the Old Testament days.
There is no place that
Submitted by Rowane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:44pm.
There is no place that PEDOPHILIA is actually legal, is there? I mean, in AMERICA? These scum buckets get "minor attraction" decriminalized and it's time to decriminalize pedo ventilation... As in. 45 cal.
You've got to stand for something, or you'll fall for anything. (Aaron Tippin)
but.....
Submitted by dmacleo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:43am.
we were assured this would never happen as we legalized same sex marriages and dropped DADT....
I have read gays
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:50am.
who "refuse" to engage in "pedo-bashing" in new forums since the 90s. They weren't going to bash somebody else's orientation when they didn't like their own being questioned. I have also read gays who have refused to engage in any sort of "gay pride" events because they protested the inclusion of NAMBLA in these events. And the suggestion that they should not be included was part of the "pedo-bashing".
Tolerance of this "alternative lifestyle" has been in the line-up.
First off, let me say that I
Submitted by Darth Dutch on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 7:44pm.
First off, let me say that I believe Feldman when he says what he says. I also believe that if it were another institution besides "Hollywood" at whom this claim was levelled, there would be much more investigation by the media, if only to see if it were true. And of course if it were a conservative or more "traditional" organization, they would be all over it.
However, it's hard for me to get up in arms when Feldman himself doesn't name names. He says elsewhere in the interview that I read that (paraphrasing here) "someone else besides me has to 'out' the Hollywood mogul's name". Why? Those who want to downplay this will say that Feldman is only making this claim in order to stay relevant and try and get some publicity. And his lack of naming the name or getting specific is only going to play into that hand and make it look like he doesn't want to offend. In my opinion if he were to have said "here is what happened and I don't care what happens to my career", it would lend more weight to what he said.
Perhaps he's trying to protect himself personally from some slander lawsuit. I'm not sure.
Darth Dutch
Hollywood gives Polanski an Oscar
Submitted by Marsh on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:05pm.
while his accuser was given the side eye in a documentary about the case. Feldman knows the score. If his molester is respected in the Hollywood community it's Feldman who will end up paying a price.
Pederasts In Hollywood??
Submitted by Samaritan01 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 7:53pm.
Wow, now there's a surprise!! Maybe that's how all those child actors discover that they were "born" gay.
These disgusting scum need to be outed.....now.
I don't know if this is a
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 7:50pm.
I don't know if this is a whimper. I've seen this covered lots of places. Until theres more corroboration, it probably won't get more coverage.
Pedophilia acceptance: the next objective <duct tape alert>
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:06pm.
If a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals have their way at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves could play a role in removing pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM),
MB*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:17pm.
I sent that article to drsamherman a few days ago. He is trying to get some updates and promised that he would be posting on this issue asap.
The part of this story that has me furious is that the radicals who are pressuring the APA are doing this for a specific reason. Without pedophilia as a "disorder",courts can now "release" those individuals on probation rather than prison sentences. This is important since there are no children in PRISONS!!!! They do not have to be forced into psychiatric supervision nor life time parole supervision. That is my interpretation of some of the implications of this THREAT to society. Drsamherman will no doubt give us a much better synopsis. He and I are aware that this effort by this group has been going on since 2006 in preparation for the release of the DSM V.
Here goes...forgive the length of the post, please.
Submitted by drsamherman on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:02pm.
From time to time, the American Psychiatric Association (with major input from other mental health/behavioral groups) updates a document known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM for short). The most current version, DSM-IV(TR), categorizes mental illnesses along five primary axes (as in plural for axis). Axis 1 includes the broadest category of treatable mental disorders: mood disorders (depression, anxiety, bipolar (formerly “manic depression”), panic disorder, PTSD); dissociative disorders (schizophrenia and subtypes); cognitive disorders (autism spectrum, ADHD, etc.); and others. Axis 2 consists of personality disorders which are not directly amenable to treatment (e.g. narcissism, attention-seeking, addictive, schizophreniform, etc.). Axis 2 also includes mental retardation in various forms. Axis 3 is all medical diagnoses associated with a parallel or collateral symptomatology. Axis 4 and 5 are contributing sociodemographic factors and clinician general impression respectively. The importance of DSM in its most current version is that it contains information on the structured clinical interview for diagnosis (SCID), a form of algorithm used to diagnose mental illness. The DSM categories have fundamental legal implications as well, as mental health professionals are required to produce a diagnosis to support competency declarations in court, determine criminal proceedings, etc. In essence, the influences of DSM are profound in the United States. Consequences for conviction of crimes, competency to practice professions and other fundamental issues revolve around the definitions and diagnoses in DSM. As with any other document defining diagnosis of illness, it is updated to reflect changes in practice, research and science.
The first pending serious issue is the probable removal of most Axis 2 diagnoses or their reclassifications for the upcoming version DSM-V to be preliminarily released sometime in 2012 pending final approval through the appropriate committees and bodies of APA. The pending removals/reclassifications could have profound impact on the way mental illness is treated, as removing any type of mental illness from DSM essentially creates huge problems for those patients currently under court order for anything ranging from domestic violence to other restraining orders if a psychiatric or mental health opinion was used in the court’s construction of that order. Additionally, most mental health professionals use personality disorders to benchmark patient diagnosis, treatment and prognosis of Axis 1 disorders in concomitant cases with common symptomatology. Personality disorders are often important explicit manifestations of undisclosed Axis 1 disorders and parallel progress in treating patients with both tells mental health practitioners and clinicians where we need to focus.
The more recent proposal, which dates from 2003 at inception, is to remove and reclassify pedophilia as a form of paraphilia. A paraphilia is generally defined as a sexual or gender identity disorder and includes such things as bestiality, necrophilia, erotic asphyxiation, etc. DSM-IV(TR), the latest version of DSM, lists paraphilias as Axis 1 and therefore requiring treatment. The campaign to remove a number of paraphilias from Axis 1 or entirely from DSM-V is disturbing on many, many levels. With regard to pedophilia, the move could essentially decriminalize or at the very least minimize the sexual assault of children. By definition, children under the legal age of consent or not reaching majority age as defined by law are incapable of reaching an independent decision with respect to consent to sexual activity. Children, by legal definition and by most standards of mental health clinical practice, are not capable of making sexual decisions because they lack the emotional and experiential maturity to understand fully the impact that sexual behavior will have on them. I will not argue the age of consent issue as that is defined in law, but to say that many courts rely on opinions of mental health practitioners on patients convicted of sexual molestation of children to determine sentencing and other legal ramifications. If pedophilia is removed or re-categorized, it is entirely probable that there would be a literal flood of legal appeals and unintended consequences based on re-interpretations of existing statutes and case law. I am not a lawyer, but I have participated in enough court proceedings to know that any criminal lawyer would immediately file an appeal based on the flimsiest of excuses to get a client set free. The removal or reclassification of any paraphilia would also have profound implications on other cases in civil and criminal law, such as spousal rape, incest, bestiality and forms of sexual molestation defined under various state and federal laws. In my personal and professional opinion, to remove paraphilias (particularly pedophilia) from Axis 1 or a significant reclassification to another diagnostic axis would be disgusting and seen as sexualizing the most vulnerable members of society who by definition are not capable of defending themselves with emotional maturity or experience. It would also open a floodgate of other issues, particularly the very real possibility of spreading infectious diseases from multiple sources.
Most people are unaware of the effect that DSM-V may have on society. Governments at every level use mental health diagnoses to determine a wide variety of everyday issues like competence to vote, own property, manage one’s own business affairs and the consequences of criminal conviction. To make such a revision as removing pedophilia as a mental illness or to provide a medically-sanctioned basis for a serial rapist to be freed or to provide or enable forms of deviant activity with real, underlying public health and safety consequences repercussions is wholly repugnant in my personal and professional opinion. These prohibitions exist for a number of reasons, not the least of which is protection of society at large from the violent and negative aftermath of those with true mental illnesses.
I have made my opinions on the DSM-V known in multiple venues and in multiple ways. I am only one lone psychiatrist among a field of those who seek to preserve some semblance of decency and decorum in public life so we are not subjected to constant barrages of sexualization that are inappropriate, ill-considered and designed only to legitimize sexual deviance.
Sorry to be so long-winded, but this issue is very personal to me as I have treated too many victims of pedophilia and child sexual molestation in the past. I would never want to be placed in the position of having to tell the mother of a nine-year old child that his/her molester was acting “normally”. Won’t happen in my lifetime and I will stop practicing psychiatry if that happens.
Thanks to the board administrators for allowing this long post.
Thank you drsam*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:14pm.
You sure do keep your word...;-)
So well written that even liberals should be able to understand the incremental steps being taken in various avenues to totally remove boundaries in our society. This one should be obvious, as you indicate, the dangers ahead for the most vulnerable of our world, our children.
Great work
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:19pm.
Folks,
always figured as much
I had no idea
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:31pm.
Most people are unaware of the effect that DSM-V may have on society.
No kidding. I would amend that to 99.5% of people have no idea of what is happening in this regard. And I have to ask, what exactly is the official DHS stand on this reclassification, and its involvement?
I really think it would be appropriate, for you to give us permission to copy/paste your post, in toto, and for us to send it to our friends and legislators.
Thank you, and cajun, for bringing this issue to light. I truly had no idea until I read this thread.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Blonde
Submitted by Radical1979 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:38pm.
I won't repost docsam's reply without permission, but I'm going to send MB's link to a bunch of people. The idea that there is an effort to try to "normalize" pedophilia scares the you know what out of me.
thank you
Submitted by dmacleo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:46am.
for posting.
A good example of why
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:06pm.
there is no "Slippery Slope fallacy" in identity politics. Because telling a difference from case A to case B is argued to be the violation of "equal protection". For some who didn't know "telling a difference" is the literal meaning of "discrimination". Think about how indiscriminately "discrimination" is used.
MB & cajun
Submitted by Radical1979 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:11pm.
This is one of the most frightening things I've read in a long time.
It needs must more publicity. It also helps prove that homosexuality was removed from the DSM due to pressure from the homosexual community.
Dr. Laura was talking about
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:29pm.
Dr. Laura was talking about this on her radio show years ago!
It seemed that some psychiatrists wanted to treat pedophilia as other disorders were: if it didn't interfere with one's life, no problem.
IOW if the pedophile was comfortable in his skin, wasn't tormented by guilt, and could still function in society, live and let live. Only when the perpetrator had problems living with it, and it affected his life would it be considered a disorder.
So in true liberal thinking; it's not the act that's the problem, it's the feelings of guilt that it causes that's the problem.
Remove the guilt, remove the problem.
It's "gay rights" all over again.
And people laughed and said there was no "slippery slope."
Exactly MB*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:35pm.
Always feel compassion for the "minority group", deliver them from consequences. The definition of pedophilia means "sexually attracted to a child". No where in the liberal meme is compassion nor concern for the "child" part of this perverted relationship. Same people who scream for a woman's right to murder her unborn child. Never does their argument ever show the need to protect the children.
I have found that some of the most vocal anti-pedophilia
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 3:04pm.
alarms have been and continue to be sounded by what are generally regarded as "liberal" women's organizations.
Jer
Really Jer?*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:33pm.
Can you link me to those "liberal" women's groups?
Does NOW count, cajun?
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:26pm.
Shame on ABC and CBS for Validating Junk Science as Real Giving Alec Baldwin Credibility
Will Only Generate More Violence Against Women By Marcia Pappas, President NOW-NYS
Shame on ABC’s “The View” and CBS’s “Sixty Minutes“.
This week, both of these TV shows allowed actor Alec Baldwin to advertise his new book, and spew venom and lies about something called Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS). In fact, PAS is junk science that was trumped up by the late Richard Gardner, who also believed that society should accept that fact that parents have sex with their children. Shame, shame, on ABC and CBS for allowing this tripe to be sold as real science.
source
Jer
addendum:http://Gardner is an outspoken critic of certain aspects of the child protection system. Apparently, Gardner believes America is in the throes of mass hysteria over child sexual abuse. He writes that “sex-abuse hysteria is omnipresent” (1992, p. xxv). In his 1991 book titled Sex Abuse Hysteria: Salem Witch Trials Revisited, Gardner is harshly critical of an unspecified portion of the mental health professionals, investigators, and prosecutors trying to protect children. For example, Gardner accuses some prosecutors of gratifying their own sexual urges and sadistic tendencies through involvement in sexual abuse cases. Gardner goes so far as to say that “there is a bit of pedophilia in every one of us” (p. 118).
Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:14pm.
The article from NOW does not address sexual abuse of children. It addresses the allegation of Parental Alienation Syndrome which I agree is weird if not only junk science. Gardner, who preached this stuff ALSO preached about the "normalcy"of pedophilia but that part of Gardner's JUNK was not addressed by NOW, it was only mentioned at the end of the article that it was part of Gardners crazy.
On the contrary, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:52pm.
Gardner's bizarre view of pedophilia was addressed in THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH of the article penned by Ms. Pappas [the President of the NY chapter of NOW].
Jer
Sorry Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:03pm.
Having trouble with my computer tonight. Got kicked out of that link, then NB kicked me out had to log back in. Cant seem to get GameChannel to work either, course who cares, Braves are losing anyway. ...-(
I will try again tomorrow to read the thing if this stupid thing (or me) is working more efficiently. later cher
Oprah devoted an entire show to it.
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:51pm.
"I found out Oprah was at our family home, my stomach ached and it still hasn't gone away [sic]."
Word of the interview first broke earlier this week when TMZ released a series of photographs showing Oprah and her production crew at the Jackson's home in Encino, California, over the weekend.
Randy later added: "i can never forget when she had the show on pedophilia during the jury deliberation process in my brother's santa maria case . . . that was no coincidence . . . i know there are a lot of you out there upset and angry over this. i don't blame you . . . can you imagine how i feel. i'm angry 2 [sic]."
Jer
More info, cajun...
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:13pm.
Even so—and to the surprise of many commentators—one singularly interesting fact about the whole wretched matter was that the director and his fate generated little sympathy anywhere in the United States east of, say, Malibu. To the contrary, the Polanski case somehow succeeded in doing what no one actually trying has managed to do in years: uniting practically all Americans, liberal as well as conservative—in this case, against the hapless director.
It’s been a long time since the left in America has competed with the right for the high ground of a morals charge, but such was the weirdly intriguing scramble following Polanski’s arrest in Switzerland. One of the manifestos that helped catapult the case into a media frenzy—the bluntly titled “Reminder: Polanski Raped a Child”—appeared first in the left-leaning Salon, then went ricocheting around the blogosphere with the firm assent of many more socially conservative sites. The New York Times and the Washington Post, also untrue to form, found themselves editorializing about the case in phrases that the Washington Times or the Catholic League could have reprinted verbatim. And on the unaccustomed consensus went. “If the propriety of punishing child rapists were the only issue in the country,” conservative blogger Patterico noted at the height of cyberspace’s attention to the case, “I do believe we could hold hands with the left and sing Kumbayah.”
The question, of course, is why all this welcome unanimity? After all, it wasn’t very long ago that some enlightened folk took a considerably more relaxed view of the question of sex with youngsters, and they weren’t afraid to say so. From the 1970s through the 1990s, a number of trial balloons were floated that almost no one in America would dare release now. Some people, including celebrated novelists, asked outright whether sex with minors might be worth a cheer or two. Other sophisticated voices wondered aloud whether “intergenerational sex” was really as bad as all that, at least where boys were concerned. Still others staked a claim to what might be called “anti-anti-pedophilia.” This was the frequently expressed notion that the sexual abuse of children, although wrong, had given rise to something that also was wrong—a kind of national hysteria, an instantiation of Richard Hofstadter’s famed American “paranoid style.”
source
Jer
Ok Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:27pm.
Now that link was a good one. I admit never having visited that site before...;-)
There is a whole industry out there on the interwaves setting up websites to contradict and harass any and all websites that are designed to protect children. Especially protect and warn children of the methods of seducing children on social networking sites. Those same "radicals" are also associated with NAMBLA and with the groups that drsam talked about that are pushing APA to revise the DSM V.
Every argument I have encountered about rights, normalcy, re-defining perversions and the definition of "consensual" seems to be very organized and spout the same talking points. I found dozens of these sites in the last few weeks. Hope my "spyware" is working hard...LOL
Agree that this subject should never be about "rights" of consenting adults. It should always be about the children. Regardless of people like Gardner and NAMBLA and even Incestmo, we as liberals or conservatives should be united on this one. This boundary crossed will initiate the end of a humane society and return us to savagery.
Dru's Law: North Dakota
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:58pm.
gislation to become part of larger child protection bill
By Susanne Nadeau
Herald Staff Writer
After two years, two passes through the Senate and one abrupt halt at the House, North Dakota representatives are preparing for the passage of Dru's Law.
"It's been a long while since I wrote Dru's Law I wrote it after the murder of Dru Sjodin," said Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., in a telephone interview Thursday.
The law, named after 22-year-old UND student Dru Sjodin, would establish a national, public database on sex offenders and would require stronger monitoring and supervision requirement for sex offenders.
In November 2003, Sjodin disappeared from the Columbia Mall parking lot. Her body was discovered in rural Crookston six months later. Alfonso Rodriguez Jr., a convicted sex offender recently released from prison to his hometown of Crookston, has been charged with kidnapping Sjodin, leading to her death. He's pleaded not guilty.
Although the legislation has moved through the Senate a couple of times, it's been held up in the House, where it was introduced by Rep. Earl Pomeroy, D-N.D.
The bill has now become part of larger legislation that cracks down on sex offenders. According to Pomeroy's office, the Senate and the House will add Dru's Law to the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, which would require sex offenders to register where they work, live and go to school and would increase the maximum penalty of not registering to 10 years in prison.
The bill was passed by the Senate on Thursday evening and is expected to come up for a vote in the House sometime next week. President Bush is expected to sign it into law.
Both Dorgan and Pomeroy said the families of victims were instrumental in passing the legislation. Linda Walker, Sjodin's mother, has traveled to Washington several times to lobby.
"I've never met an advocate as effective," Pomeroy said of Walker.
Debate was tearful from the start as the Senate considered the larger bill named for Adam Walsh, the murdered son of "America's Most Wanted" host John Walsh. He watched from the gallery as senators thanked him for years of lobbying for the bill. July 27 is the 25th anniversary of the abduction of Adam, 6, and his subsequent murder.
With this legislation will come the creation of the Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Web site, which will enable communities everywhere to get information on sex offenders. Currently, the national sex offender database is accessible only to law enforcement, according to Pomeroy's office.
The legislation would also expand monitoring of sex offenders who are released from prison and would improve notification of state's attorney's so they have time to consider proceedings for commitment or treatment, according to Dorgan.
**************************************************************************
CHILD ADVOCATES HAVE CALLED THE BILL THE MOST SWEEPING SEX OFFENDER LEGISLATION TO TARGET PEDOPHILES IN YEARS. It would:
**************************************************************************
� Establish a comprehensive federal DNA database of material collected from convicted molesters, and procedures for the routine DNA collection and comparison to the database when someone has been convicted of such an offense.
� Provide federal funding for states to track pedophiles using global positioning devices.
� Allow victims of child abuse to sue their molesters.
� Impose a mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years for raping a child.
� Impose a mandatory 10-year penalty for sex trafficking offenses involving children and for coercing child prostitution.
� Increase minimum sentences for molesters who travel between states.
"I think it is going to save lives," Dorgan said. "If we are able to prevent a high-risk sex offender from being released, or if we can prevent them from being on the streets, or we know where these people are, we will save lives."
The bill is H.R. 4472.
Sorry
Submitted by Bob K on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:11pm.
but when he won't name names, and he states he knows them........ I will not buy his story until he does.
I know the names...
Submitted by dmacleo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:49am.
of the people who molested me as a child.
am I supposed to just shout them out to the world? maybe there is a legal reason he can't, we don't know.
Polanski
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:16pm.
Just shows why there is so much support for Roman Polanski in the Hollywood crowd.
We Are The 53%
Sexual abuse of children is
Submitted by moderncommentaries83 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:21pm.
Sexual abuse of children is okay if you're the right kind of Roman.
Mark my words: The day will come when the Catholic Church is not criticized for the abuse scandal, but attacked for doing something about it (namely removing men from the priesthood).
Pedophilia and, then, pedophilia "marriages" will certainly be next on the docket.
Simple Research
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:24pm.
MSNBC covered it on 8/11
EW, 8/12
US Weekly, 8/11
CNN, 8/12
ABC, 8/10
Newsbusters, 8/16
Who's in last?
Shhhhh! It was a whimper, OK?
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:39pm.
Shhhhh! It was a whimper, OK?
Oops
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:09pm.
I did it again. When will I learn?
You 2 clowns are unbelievable
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:19pm.
Newsbusters never covers a story, (pay attention) unless the media butchers it.
The circus is elsewhere, go join.
Rrrright...
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:38pm.
Rrrright...
Hey Bal, you just wasted 3 characters.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:44pm.
You may need those extra Rs for your next pithy post. Plan ahead, and stay lean.
Rs are easy to come by.
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:52pm.
Rs are easy to come by.
It's the D's
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:03pm.
That are hard to find
"I did it again. When will I learn?"
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:10pm.
LOL - Next time, point it in a different direction.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Hold on ...
Submitted by Dave Pierre on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:18pm.
The MSNBC, CNN, EW stories are on their blogs. ABC was the one that actually aired the story, so I don't even know why you list that.
I have yet to see anything about the networks you list (MSNBC, CNN) actually airing the story.
NYT? Boston Globe? USA Today? WaPo? CBS? Fox News? Nothing.
How about the Los Angeles Times, where Hollywood is in its backyard? Nothing.
Again, it seems only one newspaper in the entire country relayed the story.
In the end, I think it's still a whimper considering the magnitude of the claim.
How much attention are you
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:40pm.
How much attention are you supposed to give a story where someone makes an accusation but won't say who he's talking about?
So ...
Submitted by Dave Pierre on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:53pm.
I guess you're agreeing that it is a whimper, and that it is a whimper because Feldman did not name names.
If that's your opinion - fine. I have seen other commenters take issue with the fact that he did not name anybody.
I wouldn't call it a whimper,
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:13pm.
I wouldn't call it a whimper, but I'm not expecting it to get a lot of play on the networks at first.
A lot, apperently.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:59pm.
"How much attention are you supposed to give a story where someone makes an accusation but won't say who he's talking about?"
A lot, apparently, when it is about "some people in the [name any republican] administration." You know, like the "domestic spying" that some people in the Bush administration was supposedly carrying out even though not a single person in that administration could be named as a perpetrator. How many lines of text did the media devote to that? Or, as another example , the stories of "unnamed CIA agents" who tortured detainees when not a single name was mentioned as to who were the supposed perpetrators, yet another case of unnamed perpetrators receiving a LOT of media attention.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Well that's different. The
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:00pm.
Well that's different. The media had strict instructions to destroy Bush.
Yea, it's different, alright.
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:03pm.
Yea, it's different, alright. It's different standards being applied to similar situations, also known as "hypocrisy."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Not sure these two stories
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:07pm.
Not sure these two stories are the same thing.
Forget it, he's rolling.
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:11pm.
Forget it, he's rolling.
Not the same?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:15pm.
So, making allegations without naming perpetrators in the two Bush examples I gave you isn't the same as making allegations without naming perpetrators in this situation?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Double
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:06pm.
Double.
OK, I'll play, Zippers.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:45pm.
"Which one of these is not like the others?"
That's an interesting question
Submitted by JackandMarilyn on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:12pm.
You could start with ABC since they did the story in the first place.
Or US Weekly since they're a tabloid.
Or is EW a tabloid?
I have to say this isn't a very fun game.
And, like a brain-dead lib,
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:25pm.
Zippers is the first to answer. Bwahahahaha.
JackandMarilyn!!!
Submitted by NC Cop on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:47pm.
Is that the right answer? What did I win?
Even simpler research
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:55pm.
All your simple research, and yet you fail to note the mission statement of this website.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Simple research
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:26pm.
Also shows that it has received very little coverage.
Compare that to Bachmann being questioned about submissive.
We Are The 53%
J and M,
Submitted by texasborngranny on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:09am.
thanks for the information. Could you add the links to what I am sure are informative stories, please?
Thank you, thank you so much.
Pedophilia and Hollywood are as inseparable as white from rice
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:03pm.
And once this practice is legalized in Europe (the lefites are working on it now) they will start pushing it here, too.
Pedophilia is, after all, the last taboo, and the lefties cannot wait to change that.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Pedophilia in the arts
Submitted by MominMD on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:41pm.
As an actress, I saw what Mr. Feldman asserts, all to frequently. Young boys being seduced by older gay men. Now, young women were seduced by straight men too. There is a very nasty underbelly to the theatre life, and I assume it has only gotten worse. Actors and actresses have been thought of as amoral for centuries. It is not psychology, it is just lust and power. Rampant.
Now, I am VERY observant about who teaches my boys (yes, especially art/music/theatre teachers). NOT a good thing for gays/lesbians to be teaching. The teacher has a power role, and I have seen too many times that has been abused.
Go Cory Feldman for voicing what has been kept secret too long!
Why didn't you speak up?
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:55pm.
Why didn't you speak up?
...advice on children from the incest defender. Unbelievable.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:03pm.
Hey freak, you already put in 12 hours here today and sodomized a number of threads to your heart's content. Go to bed now.
Suddenly Incestmo cares about perverted behavior
Submitted by Unsane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:09pm.
As if you care. After all, incest is a wonderful thing to you.
"CONSUMED DEMOCRACY RETURNS A SOCIALIST REGIME" - Slayer, "Fictional Reality", from Divine Intervention (1994)
Idiot Incestmo*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:37pm.
Why didn't you speak up?
What part of POWER did you not get. Victims of sexual abuse and assault are unable to speak up when the abuser is one in a position of POWER! In particular, an environment where all those in power condone the perverted assault of children.
Your post shows just how insensitive, callous, perverted and ignorant you are.
It is disturbing to me that this thread will attract all the perverts that fly by NB.
She didn't say she was a
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:47pm.
She didn't say she was a victim. She said she saw younger boys being seduced by older gay men. Learn to read.
Idiot Incestmo*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:00pm.
WHAT PART OF POWER did you miss in my post?
You know a great deal of child sexual abuse but your point of view is quite obvious...STHU
I think Satchmo is asking why
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:04pm.
I think Satchmo is asking why the mom didn't speak up if she, as an adult, saw this going on, not the child.
Well, there you go again, thinking.
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:10pm.
She didn't indicate what her age was when she observed the goings-on that have been hinted at, from time to time, in Sodom on the Pacific, or on the East Coast. Perhaps, she was also a child when she observed the things she said she saw.
But, you and your buddy, incestmo, wouldn't give that a thought, would you?
Good grief! Keep your shirt
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:12pm.
Good grief! Keep your shirt on tough guy.
I think he's running low on "Incest is Best, Put Your Sister...
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:05pm.
...to the Test" tees.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
LOL
Submitted by bkeyser on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:11pm.
!
bk,
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:26pm.
And why is it I think he has matching pillowcases?
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Please, learn to read before
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:33pm.
Please, learn to read before you call anyone an idiot.
Lamest damn retort in your arsenal, SatchelMouth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:41pm.
and you use it over and over and over and over and over.
Idiot, indeed.
MD
Why,
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:44pm.
Never stopped you?
Ok Incestmo*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:02pm.
Please LEARN then you won't sound so much like an idiot.
We will start here since it is so simple
Try this one
Try this one
Another one
How many don't tell and why
And show some concern for the victims
There is a lot more out there to understand about the "secrecy" involved with sexual abuse of minors, the number of non-reported cases, the degree of trauma to the victim, the criminal court system is not designed for children as "material witnesses"...and dozens of other reasons. This issue is as complex as building a 20 story high rise which is why drsamherman is a licensed psychiatrist.
So any comments you make on this subject will only further prove your idiocy.
This is almost as bad as your
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:26pm.
This is almost as bad as your trying to turn the 24-year old daughter in the incest story into a physically handicapped, mentally disturbed, Down Syndrome straw man.
go ahead Incestmo*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:34pm.
You can try as you will to distort my posts on that Huffpo thread but all here at NB know the point I was making using examples for the idiot Incestmo to more easily grasp the issue of "victim of incest". Your response to my post was......I did not read your post, there was no value in doing so.....And yet you mention it again.....hmmmm
Oh yeah, Caj
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:41pm.
He did it again the other day on the OT...
Opening Question: Who won the debate?
INCESTMO: Ron Paul!!!!!!!! Absoldamnlutely.
(Another poster): Well what did you think about.....
INCESTMO: I actually didn't watch the debate as it was a waste of time.
What a doofus. Proclaims to know all, yet never sees, hears nor reads anything related to the subject at hand. I can find the link if anyone's interested, IIRC, it was on Saturdays OT.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I said I didn't watch the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:00am.
I said I didn't watch the debate. I didn't say I didn't follow it or that I didn't read a transcript.
Keep spinning, Pervmo
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:08am.
So sorry. Here is your post:
You: (Title is the first couple of words): Nonsense? How many candidates said they would pull American troops out of both Afghanistan and Iraq, or anywhere else and bring them home where they can defend our borders?
I didn't watch the "debate," because it would have been a waste of time. Who cares if someone criticized Obama? Paul is, though, critical of our foreign policy of interfering. Why is it okay to question domestic policy but it is verboten to question our foreign policy?
Paul's accomplishments are upholding Constitutional principles and never voting for anything that is unconstitutional. He has been a voice of fiscal responsibility and a voice for liberty.
Me: PERFECT!
I didn't watch the "debate," because it would have been a waste of time.
Yet in your first post on this thread, answering the opening topic of "Who Won", you categorically state RON PAUL!
You declare a winner of the debate without having seen the debate! Galactic stupidity, thy name is Incestmo!
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I'm not distorting any of
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:54pm.
I'm not distorting any of your posts nor am I trying to. The 24-year old in the incest story was a consenting adult. When I stated that a 24-year old is not a child, you responded with, "A 24 yr old Downs Syndrome, physically handicapped, mentally disturbed are not "children" but are defenseless." The 24-year old was not physically handicapped, was not mentally disturbed, and did not have Down Syndrome. Yes, when I read your opening sentence, I read no farther. There was absolutely no value in doing so because it had nothing to do with the topic.
Now here we have a woman who stated she saw young boys being seduced by older gay men, and then finished by thanking Feldman for voicing the secret. So I asked the natural question of why didn't she speak up. You then went off on an unrelated tangent about victims and power and being unable to speak up, and then you stuck by it twice when the woman was talking about something she saw and not something that happened to her.
Good grief.
What she didn't say, Skeevmo
Submitted by Blonde on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:11am.
...but which you inferred, was WHEN she saw this.
And until she answers, you're flapping your gums with no knowledge of anything.
Cajun's response, per usual, was spot-on. There is a power discrepancy in that situation. But you refuse to address the salient point, and yet again fall back on your contention (never proven, BTW) that the incestuous sex in the infamous PERVMO thread was consensual.
Facts. Not. In. Evidence. In. Either. Instance.
I can't type any more slowly than that, and you obviously can't comprehend anything at any speed.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
I didn't infer anything nor
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:25am.
I didn't infer anything nor am I adding any information or making any assumptions, unlike the two of you. She said she saw it happen, I asked why she didn't speak up. It's very simple and you're trying to make it complicated.
As for the other, the article stated it was consensual. At the time, all we had to go on was what was reported in the article.
You're doing it again.
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:32am.
You asked her why she didn't "speak up," which is an assumption on your part. There's no way for you to know whether she spoke to people about this or not. You just assumed that she didn't.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
"Go Cory Feldman for voicing
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:37am.
"Go Cory Feldman for voicing what has been kept secret too long!"
I agree with her statement
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:45am.
I agree her statement. It's time the victims spoke out. But I fail to see what that has to do with your assumption that she didn't speak up to other people about what SHE saw. Are you claiming that this statement implies that she was the one keeping secrets? If so, how did you determine that?
She talked about what she saw. She never talked about what she did. Therefor, based upon her statements, it's impossible to determine whether she did something or not, unless you make assumptions as to her actions, which is exactly what you're doing.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
There you go again*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:13am.
A 24 year old adult/child involved in familial incest can NEVER be a "consenting adult" as I tried to compare that situation to the same as a mentally or physically handicapped child. A child groomed for sexual abusive relationship can NEVER be considered consensual. If you ever consider the trauma of such abuse from the "victim's" view instead of the perpetrator, you may then begin to understand the content of my posts.
Why didnt you speak up? is another example of your lack of understanding of the issues involving child sexual abuse, Whether she was a victim or a child witness or even an adult, you fail to grasp the trauma and the "secrecy" involved in pedophilia.
My numerous links on that post was for the express purpose of informing you of the myriad legal and psychological reasons for failure to report and the statistical support for those reasons.
Your perverted views of people and society are clear in each of your posts and I will point them out every time and expose your idiocy for the world of NB...
Yes, I read your nonsensical,
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:36am.
Yes, I read your nonsensical, irrational arguments the first time.
How typical
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:38am.
Satchmo accusing others of making illogical, irrational arguments when being confronted by reasoned, informed, and logical arguments. How typical!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
The more SatchelMouth posts---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:44am.
the dumber his replies.
I would have thought that impossible.
He has shown, though, that he does indeed have the ability to allow his brain to decompose at a faster than normal rate.
MD
Everyone enjoying the satchmo troll again?
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:09am.
Nothing like coming here and reading a deliberately inflaming troll, huh? Yippee! Read user comments and watch your blood boil! WooWeeeeeeeee.
Not enough of telling us to get rid of abortion and incest laws and insisteing no one can talk about pedophilia unless that have a CRIME REPORT IN THEIR HAND. You hear it. You cannot say anything EVAH about crimes unless and until YOU HAVE REPORTED EVERY CRIME evah. Yippeeeeee. Yay! Fun trolls!
Not enough to get your blood boiling?
How about saying 9/11 was our fault. Yay!
9/11 is a result of interventionism.
9/11 was your fault because YOU DID NOT REPORT THE INTERVENTIONALISMATINGS.
Any attack on Americans or American military units IS YOUR DAMN FAULT MONKEYMEN! YAY!
I just don't think we should intervene militarily unless there is a direct threat to America ... Clearly what we've been doing for at least the past 60 years is not working.
Sixty years. All the attacks. YOUR FAULT!
The NAZI's were YOUR FAULT TOO!
I'm saying that if the U.S./Wilson had not taunted Germany into attacking us then there likely wouldn't have been a Nazi Party or WWII.
All of it. YOU. IT IS YOUR FAULT! YOU DID NOT REPORT THE INTEVENTABULATING SO IT IS YOU DAMN FALUT MONKEYMAN!
World War II. YOUR FAULT! Where is the crime report? Nothing. THEN YOUR FAULT!
Which would never have happened had Roosevelt not gotten actively involved in aiding the British. Another example of interventionism.
Civil War? YOU FAULT. It not for the pesky Union folks FAILING TO SURRENDER, there would have been no Civil War! Monkeybuttman!
In fairness, the attack only occurred after the Union garrison refused to surrender.
All you idiots out there wanting this troll banned. Shame on you! HE HAS A RIGHT TO TROLL!
9/11 was YOUR FAULT for not reporting the interventionalismo's. 9/11 was YOUR FAULT.
Enjoy your troll.
Her use of and insistence
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 7:51am.
Her use of and insistence upon the word never and her insistence to depict a 24-year old adult as a child is irrational. As improbable as it may seem, one has to allow that two adults, whether it's father/daughter, mother/son, or brother/sister, can be consenting. She continues to state that coercion or force is involved in every incestuous relationship, and that is simply not rational.
To quote the Wrathful One*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:49am.
~ Pegged
Sissy to English Translation ----
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:14am.
--- I, sissyboy satchmo, have been grooming my daughter for the last 18 years to begin our sexual relationship upon her reaching a legal age. I make sure I tell her every single day that she will be daddy's lover on her18th birther day. I make sure I tell he several times a day. Nothing like molding a child's mind to accept the fact she has to be daddy's lover when she turns 18.
ENJOY YOUR TROLL EVERYONE. NOTHING LIKE A FATHER USING HIS AUTHORITY AS A FATHER TO BRAINWASH AND TWIST A CHILDS MIND ALL THROUGHOUT HER CHILDHOOD.
ENJOY YOUR TROLL.
CHANGE THE LAWS SO SATCHMO CAN BRAINWASH HIS DAUGHTER EVERY SINGLE DAY UNTIL SHE ACCEPTS THAT IN FACT SHE IS VOLUNTARILY ENTERING A SEXUAL RELATIONSHIP AND SAY NO COERCION OR FORCE WAS INVOLVED.
CHANGE THE LAW NOW. SISSY SATCHMO HAS CHILDREN TO BRAINWASH.
You are one mentally deranged
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:03pm.
You are one mentally deranged person.
You go Sissyboy Satchmo.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:07pm.
Brainwash your daughter until she reaches the legal age. It is what you advocate.
You're the incest lover
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:39pm.
Cajun merely wiped the floor with you, yet again, by presenting facts and cites, whereas YOU merely blow smoke and hot air.
In case you haven't figured it out, the harder you fight this issue, the more pervy you are. And we all know you are.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
Sissyy to English translation ---
Submitted by The Vet on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:44pm.
--- Dang. Next time call me so I can join the fun.
How do you know that she didn't?
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:27pm.
"Why didn't you speak up?"
How do you know that she didn't? Isn't that an assumption on your part?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
MominMD, Same can be said for the music world
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:06pm.
...which I was a part of from before my early teens until well into my mid twenties.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
And those Duke lacrosse
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 8:54pm.
And those Duke lacrosse players are rapists!
Figures
Submitted by Denny Crane on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:13pm.
A troll like you would try to make that connection.
Polanski is innocent?
We Are The 53%
Who said anything about
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:56pm.
Who said anything about Polanski? I was making a comparison to another accusatory claim that had many people rush to judgment and which turned out to be false.
Golly Gee
Submitted by Blonde on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:43pm.
That's why there are these things called investigations.
Where's the investigation w/this allegation, eh?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
And that's just what everyone belived
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:11pm.
"And those Duke lacrosse players are rapists!"
And that's just what almost everyone believed, thanks to the unending media coverage and their portrayal of the "victim" as a "poor black woman" and the alleged perps as a bunch of "rich white guys," who were "out of control," remember? At first, no names of perpetrators were mentioned in THAT sexual assault allegation ether. But that didn't prevent the MSM from going crazy with their coverage, did it?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Feldman's claim is more parallel
Submitted by Quasi-socialist on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:18pm.
to "There are guys on the Duke lacrosse team that have raped exotic dancers" so there would be no specific charges that could be brought.
You're talking about specific people and a specific incident. And nobody ever alleged that the number #1 problem with the Duke Lacrosse team is raping dancers, either. So it's not even widely enough dispersed to equal how naming Haim as a victim of a particular mogul doesn't narrow down the cases.
"Celeb’s Hollywood Pedophilia
Submitted by Pinetree3 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:14pm.
"Celeb’s Hollywood Pedophilia Stunner Met With Media Whimper"
Because for the most part the media approves of pedophilia.
Really?
Submitted by balboa on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:38pm.
Really?
feldman spoke about this on
Submitted by loshonhora on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 9:14pm.
feldman spoke about this on the howard stern show years ago and the media ignored it then. sadly, nothing has changed since it doesn't fit their viewpoint.
How is it that
Submitted by UpNorth on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 10:06pm.
Air Forceone 888 managed to get banned in one day, and incestmo is still hanging on here?
You mean I just wasted ten minutes of my life replying
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:06pm.
to a black hole in cyberspace?
Someday maybe somebody will take the time to review the TOE at this website. Right now they are so haphazardly applied, they are virtually meaningless.
Jer
If you add them all up,
Submitted by Boudin on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:11pm.
Id bet there are years worth of useless post from you?
Just a guess tho
Probably so....
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:18pm.
Which makes it all the more interesting that you took the time to respond to almost all of them.
Jer
Yea,
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:57am.
Thats why I think you should pay my therapy bill
As are most liberal posts, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:12pm.
on a conservative site. :o)
MD
Was 888 a lib?
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:21pm.
I hardly knew he was here, and then 'poof' he was gone.
Jer
Sorta
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:58am.
I think he was a Paul supporter?
~C'mon, Jer
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:20pm.
I could throw a cat through that opening.
Keep your cats to yourself...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:29pm.
"No paws allowed" on my space.
Jer
~Pervmo was banned
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:16pm.
for several weeks, until he sucked up to the admins enough to be allowed back in.
Interesting, W B...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:24pm.
Along with a recap of the TOE, an addendum outlining the procedure for "sucking up" would also be useful.
Jer
Can't resist
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:31pm.
"an addendum outlining the procedure for "sucking up" would also be useful."
The Story of O comes to mind.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Control those thoughts, Cobra...
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:46pm.
You're pushing the boundaries just by thinking about it.
Jer
Come on, you read it too
Submitted by CobraMan on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:49pm.
You can't deny that you read that novel too. What better material to mention in a thread that deals with allegations of sexual perversion is there?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Well I can deny that I read it every year like Wrathful Bru
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:56pm.
and "War and Peace". Well, except for the parts I've marked with a yellow highlighter.
Jer
War and Peace
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:05am.
I never did finish War and Peace. How did it end? (Old joke, I know.)
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I wasn't aware
Submitted by NevadanConservative on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:55am.
that you had developed telepathic powers, Jer, that you can tell what people are thinking.
Such a capability would be hazardous to disclose, especially to your fellow statists. They'd not know whether to enslave you and exploit it, or get rid of you so no one else could have it.
NVCon
You're not very good at recognizing friendly sarcasm, are
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:50am.
you Nevadan Conservative?
Jer
~I resent that!
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:09am.
.
~Simple
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:32pm.
Flash pictures of the Intolerance Bogeyman and apply a liberal smear (I do love a good double entendre) of flattery.
I never was, nor did I suck
Submitted by Satchmo on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:31pm.
I never was, nor did I suck up to anyone, but I know how important it is for you to believe I was banned.
Your account said "Access Denied"----
Submitted by matthewdean on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:34pm.
explain that.
MD
yes MD*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:41pm.
And after we verified the ACCESS DENIED on his account, I believe there was a big party that ensued.
~Flashback
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:44pm.
H/T SoL.
Just curious, W B....
Submitted by Jer on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:51pm.
Why is the print greatly magnified when clicking on your links...assuming that it is for others too.
Jer
It's for you Jer*
Submitted by cajun2 on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:58pm.
The NB server is designed to recognize a liberal poster. As soon as you "click" on a link, the print magnifies so that even a liberal can read the FACTS....;-)
Hmm...I wonder if a version of that technology could be made
Submitted by Jer on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:08am.
pants adaptable.
Jer
Jer
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 3:36am.
I think that not all the modifications have been added to older threads. Do you have stylish installed on your browser? Turn it on or off and it changes the size.
We Are The 53%
Already did.
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:13am.
Already did.
~Sure
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:35pm.
That whole "Access Denied" thing was a spontaneous mass hallucination. There's no three week gap in your comments, either.
I've explained it once
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:20am.
I've explained it once before. I had trouble logging into my account, and I used the contact form (subject login/password problem) to find out what was wrong. They sent me a link to reset my password, but the link didn't work. I contacted them again and exchanged emails with a moderator/blogger who said the person who handles those problems was on vacation. At no point during the back and forth conversation did he say I had been banned, and he apologized that it took so long to be fixed. Now, like I said, I know it's very important for you to believe I was banned, so by all means, stick to that.
Well, SatchelMouth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:29am.
that actually sounds pretty reasonable, but then again, many psychotics come across as normal people some of the time; and proven liars and incest promoters such as yourself really shouldn't expect to be believed on any subject.
Whatsoever.
MD
Hmmmm, let's see
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 3:47am.
The ban hammer comes down. The person wielding the hammer goes on vacation. You get in touch with someone that sends you the link to reset your password, you reset your password and it doesn't work because your account had been BANNED.
Then you get ahold of someone that didn't know you were BANNED, and that person being a good customer service person jumps through hoops and gets the code on your account removed, not realizing that the code was placed there because you were BANNED. Meanwhile nobody else had problems logging in at the time....
But if it makes you feel better, by all means think that it was just a technical mistake.
We Are The 53%
I first received a response
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:27am.
I first received a response from the person on vacation. So two bloggers/admins/moderators, and neither one said I had been banned. No one jumped through any hoops nor was anyone asked to.
In case you missed it, I was curious how you reconcile your "just plain nuts" in regards to Iran but then in the same thread you took the opposite position.
BS Satchmo
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:00pm.
Parts of Pauls policies are just plain nuts.
Explain how I took the opposite position on Iran getting Nukes.
We Are The 53%
Gladly. When I asked you
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:10pm.
Gladly.
When I asked you which of Paul's positions were "just plain nuts," among those you listed was:
"Let Iran get nukes."
Yet in response to AirForceOne888's desire for America to topple dictators everywhere since they shouldn't be allowed to be in power, and it's laziness that we haven't done so, you said:
"Since when is the US the ultimate authority in the world on who can run sovereign countries?"
So in regards to the former, since when is the US the ultimate authority (or any authority) on what other sovereign countries can or can't do?
What are you talking about???
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:16pm.
Saying that the United States should not allow a country to possess nuclear weapons is not the same as saying the United States should topple dictatorships.
One is a direct threat to the United States and her allies: Nukes
The other is disagreeing with the way a government runs its business.
I realize that you will never understand the difference and I am actually kind of thankful.
Seek help.
Oh, we don't have the
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:38pm.
Oh, we don't have the authority to say who can run a country, but we do in saying how the country is run. I see.
I'll type nice and slow so
Submitted by NC Cop on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:46pm.
I'll type nice and slow so you can keep up, satch.
We have the right to keep a country like Iran from obtaining nukes due to our right of self preservation. For you, the time to act would be a mushroom cloud over a major American city. Frankly, I don't care if you understand it or approve of it, but you will not be able to peddle your lies without being challenged.
As I said before if fools like you ran this country, it would cease to exist
Here's what fools like you
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:25pm.
Here's what fools like you have done:
overthrow a Constitutional monarch
install a dictator in his place
continue to prop up and support the oppressive dictator
when dictator is overthrown, provide haven for him in our country
supply arms and support to the state's enemy
go to war with said enemy a few years later
go to war again with said enemy some years later
act surprised that state is intervening against us in said war and insist our prior actions have nothing to do with it
from ally to enemy, from ally to enemy, thousands of lives ended and American treasure wasted, and the lust for perpetual war continues in fools like you
The argument that has no answer.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:25am.
You did something bad in the past that involved me. Therefore anything I do after that, no matter the time limit is your fault. Everything. Are the people involved in that bad thing 60 years ago dead? No matter. Your fault.
It is an argument only a Paultard can make. Too bad the Paultards don't talk about slavery as well. The United States used to engage in slavery. It stoppped. Every bad thing that happens to or is done by a black man is now the fault of the United States that used to engage in slavery.
Rape. Murder. Mayhem. Excused. The black man is no longer responsible for his actions because some bad thing happened to his long dead ancestors on the part of the United States.
Rape. Murder. Mayhem. Excused. Iran is no longer responsible for its actions because some bad thing happened to its long dead ancestors on the part of the United States.
Rape. Murder. Mayhem. Excused. ANY COUNTRY IN THE MIDDLE EAST is no longer responsible for its actions because some bad thing happened to its long dead ancestors on the part of the United States.
RONTARD PAULBOT LOGIC: Rape. Murder. Mayhem. Excused. Country X is no longer responsible for its actions because some bad thing happened to its long dead ancestors on the part of the United States.
We have engaged in bad actions against - Japan, Germany, Spain, England, Cuba, Philippines, Korea, Vietnam, Hawaii, Indians, China, Italy, Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan, Panama, Mexico, Haiti, Granada.
All are allowed to kill United States citizens AT WILL because a bad thing was done to them at some point in the past and ALL PAULBOTS are allowed to absolve them of any responsibility.
All hait King Paultard and his holy priests paulbot rontards that can absolve sin.
The Shah's oppression, the
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 7:46am.
The Shah's oppression, the Islamic Revolution, and our aiding Iraq against Iran did not happen 60 years ago.
Piss off troll.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 9:11am.
I ain't looking it up. Sometime in the 50's was when we supposedly helped install the Shah. That was the event I was referring to. That was around 60 years. So piss off.
As usual, you get your ass handed to you in a basket, the best response you got is some feeble attempt at minutiae.
LOL. Go lick your wounds.
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:31am.
LOL.
Go lick your wounds.
Whatever.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:03pm.
As usual, act like you got something again. Sissyboy that can't name one single lie I said about you after months of whining that I did.
There's no doubt that this
Submitted by NC Cop on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 9:23am.
There's no doubt that this country has made some mistakes and backed some real losers. However, it is nothing that destroyed this country like your ignorance would have done.
As comfortable as you are with your head in the sand, it doesn't make real problems go away.
Apples and carrots Satchmo
Submitted by Denny Crane on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:08pm.
NC cop already answered correctly but here's some more.
The reason that we have the obligation to stop Iran from getting Nuclear weapons dates back to 1970.
The Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty. We have signed and ratified it as well as Iran.
Article II
Each non-nuclear-weapon State Party to the Treaty undertakes not to receive the transfer from any transferor whatsoever of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices or of control over such weapons or explosive devices directly, or indirectly; not to manufacture or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices; and not to seek or receive any assistance in the manufacture of nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices.
Iran
Main articles: Iran and weapons of mass destruction and Nuclear program of Iran
Iran is a party to the NPT but was found in non-compliance with its NPT safeguards agreement and the status of its nuclear program remains in dispute. In November 2003 IAEA Director General Mohamed ElBaradei reported that Iran had repeatedly and over an extended period failed to meet its safeguards obligations, including by failing to declare its uranium enrichment program.[17] After about two years of EU3-led diplomatic efforts and Iran temporarily suspending its enrichment program,[55] the IAEA Board of Governors, acting under Article XII.C of the IAEA Statute, found in a rare non-consensus decision with 12 abstentions that these failures constituted non-compliance with the IAEA safeguards agreement.[18] This was reported to the UN Security Council in 2006,[56] after which the Security Council passed a resolution demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment.[57] Instead, Iran resumed its enrichment program.[58]
So yes I stand by my position that Ron Paul thinking Iran getting Nukes is AOK is just plain nuts.
We Are The 53%
That is the thinnest of
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:30pm.
That is the thinnest of arguments. We're discussing sovereignty, not a treaty, which does not obligate us to stop Iran.
Sissy to English translator ---
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:28am.
--- You only discuss what I wish to discuss. You only talk like I talk. I only talk like Ron Paul. Sniff. Sniff. Did Ron Paul just fart? Gotta go.
You are a fool
Submitted by Denny Crane on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 10:49pm.
How a country is run and who is running it are two different things. Iran getting the bomb effects the entire region and is a threat to other sovereign nations. Civil wars are internal and we are not obligated to intervene on either side.
And yes the treaty does obligate us to stop Iran.
We Are The 53%
Not in this argument they
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:38pm.
Not in this argument they aren't. You're trying to have your cake and eat it, too. You cannot hold a belief that we have the authority to prevent any country from gaining weapons (we don't) and simultaneously hold the belief that we do not have the authority to overthrow dictators. What do you think our reaction would be if some other country decided they have the authority to deny us the pursuit of a weapon, and acted on it through cyberattacks, assassination, black ops, etc.?
Nowhere in "the entire region" will you find the borders of the United States. It is immaterial if one country is a threat to another. It is not our affair, and it is for the other country to assess that threat and to act on it or not.
Comprehension is not your strong point.
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 12:14am.
I was curious how you reconcile your "just plain nuts" in regards to Iran but then in the same thread you took the opposite position ~ Satchmo
Explain how I took the opposite position on Iran getting Nukes ~ me
When I asked you which of Paul's positions were "just plain nuts," among those you listed was:
"Let Iran get nukes." VS "Since when is the US the ultimate authority in the world on who can run sovereign countries?"
These are two completely different issues, yet you think they are the same.
As I stated Iran has signed on to the NPT as well as 190 other nations.
It would be contradictory to say it's OK for another country to build nukes while stopping Iran. 90% of the countries in the world are run by dictators, it's not our responsibility to go in a remove all of them from power.
You cannot hold a belief that we have the authority to prevent any country from gaining NUCLEAR weapons (we don't) and simultaneously hold the belief that we do not have the authority to overthrow dictators.
Big difference that one word makes. And yes I most certainly can since they are 2 different things.
I have shown you why we have the authority to stop countries from getting nukes. Now you show me where it says we must overthrow sovereign regimes. If you can do that, I might except your premise.
We Are The 53%
The position is not Iran
Submitted by Satchmo on Fri, 08/19/2011 - 8:22am.
The position is not Iran getting nukes, but the U.S. having any authority over a sovereign nation. There is no getting around this; this is what the argument is distilled to - it is the very essence of the argument.
On the one hand you say we don't, but on the other you say we do. You can try to muddy the issue and say that the word "nuclear" makes a big difference, when in fact it doesn't make any difference at all.
If we do not have any authority or any right to overthrow the leader of another sovereign nation, then we do not have any authority or right to dictate what they can or can't do, including pursuing a weapon. You didn't even acknowledge the scenario I gave of some other nation doing the same thing to us.
And no, that treaty does not give us the authority to stop other countries from getting nukes. If that treaty gave us the authority, then there was no need for Bush to make a case for going to war against Iraq to the UN, the world, and importantly to us. It is the absolute thinnest of arguments you could make. It is nothing but rationalization in order to mollify your cognitive dissonance.
This is why Paulbots will lose
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:25am.
This is why a Libertarian like Paul will not get the GOP nomination. Him and his supporters like you do not understand the difference between the two. They are not the same.
But let me clarify something, we do not hold the ultimate authority on enforcing international treaties unless so stated in the treaty, but as a member of the treaty and the UN, it is part of our responsibility to uphold the agreements agreed upon.
We Are The 53%
Denny
Submitted by bkeyser on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 12:28am.
click "satchmo"
BK
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:18am.
THANK YOU!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA
We Are The 53%
Furthermore...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 1:54am.
We now know that "stirring the pot" officially violates the TOE of NewsBusters.
Jer
Stirring the pot?
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:23am.
Doesn't a comment like that belong on the O'donnell thread? ;-)
We Are The 53%
Yep...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 2:49am.
a great spot for pot. Even better would be a forum outlining what is OK and not OK @ NB. As it stands now, it's guesswork.
Jer
Dude.
Submitted by The Vet on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 3:03am.
You are confused about this one? Creating intense hostility in the community, not just a few posters here and there, creating intense hostility in the community itself is reason enough for any website. And constant nonstop unending lie after lie will do that. Nonstop lies coming from a troll that has no shame because he cares not about his identity as it is completely anonymous.
You and I, yes we are anonymous, but our online identity is just as protected as our name in meatspace. We take pains to protect it as though it was our identity in real life. See? We still see and understand the social contract with our fellow humans. The only thing that has changed is many aspects of our real life a hidden. We did not get a new identity, we just don't disclose certain details is all. You with me?
Now a troll like Satchmo, no, the social contract is discarded. A new identity is established, a completely new identity that can be used and discarded at will. Since there is no social contract, there is no shame in lying. Get caught in a lie, so what, it ain't your real name after all. So there is no shame. And since there is no shame, it is pretty much all open in the way of underhanded things to do.
It is not guesswork really. Here. See more.
Vet....Don't misunderstand.
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 3:19am.
I'm NOT objecting to Satch's banning. However, I do find the "too much pot stirring" rationale a bit strange. This place thrives on pot stirring. And I still don't know what is permissible post content and what is not.
Jer
"This place thrives"---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 5:16am.
on calling out liberal bias in the media.
Key word - liberal.
Therefore, anything said or cited that is less than complimentary to liberals, is going to be seen as 'pot stirring'.
Most especially by liberals.
MD
Not my point at all, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 5:31am.
I wasn't making this into a lib/conservative issue at all--only that the very nature of a political blog consists of a great deal of "stirring the pot". And that would still be true even if it were only conservatives posting here. That's borne out by the divergent opinions among conservatives regarding O'Donnell and the multitude of varying views among social conservatives, fiscal conservatives and libertarians re candidates and issues.
Jer
So where, then, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 5:47am.
despite an excellent description of differences between those of the conservative side, does your phrase - "too" much pot-stirring - fit into the equation?
Is that quantifiable as a determining factor in supporting your claim?
MD
Elementary, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 6:24am.
When I checked the thread where Mr. Sheffield bounced Satch, I noticed that his explanation was "too" much pot-stirring. In the interest of accuracy, I likewise added the quantifier.
Jer
edit. So, I guess "too much" is the point at which normal pot-stirring crosses the line. But, imo, that's a hard point to define at a website where a heck of a lot of pot-stirring takes place.
Unsure, exactly, Jer---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 9:35pm.
whether a liberal's comment actually qualifies as "in the interest of accuracy" when posted on a conservative site.
One thing for sure - "Too much" pot-stirring means whatever the guy running the place says it means.
MD
~Toney
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:30am.
Just goes to show how little attention the admins give the comments. Anyone with even a cursory knowledge of what's going on wouldn't have reinstated Pervmo.
"Just goes to show how little
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:44am.
"Just goes to show how little attention the admins give the comments."
Agreed.
~What, you only agree with the first part?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:54am.
I'm shocked.
ENJOY YOUR TROLL EVERYONE!
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:17am.
We just got to read a sentence by Wrathful Brunette 2 and a half times.
ENJOY YOUR TROLL.
~There are worse fates
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:21am.
.
:-D
~"Nor did I suck"
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:19am.
Pervmo's best subject line, yet.
LOL
Submitted by SickofLibs on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 11:27am.
.
Whoopi's 'rape-rape'.
Submitted by Slyrr on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:06pm.
Just drag in Whoopi Goldberg to give the pedophiles in Hollywood their excuses.
'Well - it's just pedophelia. Not pedophelia-pedophelia.'
Is Feldman serious?
Submitted by apodoca on Tue, 08/16/2011 - 11:57pm.
If Corey Feldman were serious about the problem, he'd name names. He'd go to the Feds and bring the bastards down.
If he went to the feds...
Submitted by CobraMan on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:19am.
If he went to the feds, they'd ask him NOT to "name names" in public until after the investigation was over and charges are filed, correct?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Just Another Step In A Long History Of Decaying Psychiatry
Submitted by Avitar on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:05am.
As a grade school student I started out to study Psychiatry. By the time I hit sixteen in nineteen seventy-one I realized that the profession as a whole had no drive to make things better. That it was filled with people who only wanted to manipulate their fellow citizens. It is only the drug therapies that help anyone who seeks treatment from today's psychiatry.
History Repeats
Submitted by LaVallette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 5:26am.
You may recall that one of the early steps in the development of the gay agenda was the successful drive to get the American Psychiatric Association’s to remove homsosexuality from its bible of mental illnesses — the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
A similar path has now been started towards the eventual legalization of pedepohilia with a small group of psychiatrists and other mental health professionals at a conference this week, pedophiles themselves concerning " the removal of pedophilia from the American Psychiatric Association’s the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM)" which is set to undergo a significant revision by 2013. Critics warn that their success could lead to the decriminalization of pedophilia.
http://dailycaller.com/2011/08/15/conference-aims-to-normalize-pedophilia/
Couple of Comments: The Catholic Church,like everyone in society for hundreds of years, always regarded homosexuality as a "disordered" and not a "normal" human condition,
still does and is publicly and culturally excoriated for it.
The Catholic Church is currently being ecoriated for the way it handled cases of child abuse by members of its clergy, who acted compeletely contrary its
core teachings regarding sexual behaviour since its fioundation, particularly towards children (based on Matthew 18.6, Luke 17.2 and Mark 4.14,
"But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned
into the depths of the sea"
The Question: Will we yet see, even within our lifetime, the Catholic Church being excoriated for its continuing opposition to legalised pedophilia?
Hey maybe the social liberals calling themselves fiscal
Submitted by gmaniac1 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 5:28am.
conservatives can take this up as an issue of tolerance all the while playing the facade of being economically responsible. If it goes to court you can be sure the ACLU will be there promoting social justice!
I guess I'm
Submitted by misterbee241 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:48pm.
the type of person that expects the worst in people until or if their better nature is revealed. Having said that, I'm not the least bit surprised at this accusation. What surprises me is it took this long for it to come out. And yes, i do believe there will come a day when pedophilia is made a legitimate and legal lifestyle. But then I'm a pessimist.
Wow pedophiles getting a pass..
Submitted by Redrowan2000 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 12:53pm.
From the MSM unless you are a catholic priest. In 2002:
"According to a draft report commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education, in compliance with the 2002 "No Child Left Behind" act signed into law by President Bush, between 6 percent and 10 percent of public school children across the country have been sexually abused or harassed by school employees and teachers."
Didn't get much play, and I'm not diminishing the church scandal, just the selectivity of the MSM. Don't hold your breath waiting for the MSM to investigate Hollywood, they are brothers in arms no matter the crime.
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2004/4/5/01552.shtml
"Don't let the bastards grind you down."
Madame's Place
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:15pm.
There was a syndicated TV show in the early 1980's called Madame's Place, starring "Madame" - a puppet whose puppeteer was Wayland Flowers. If Wayland wasn't gay, then no one in Hollywood is. A very young Cory Feldman appeared in the first 15 or so episodes.
I'll let everyone else do their own math . . .
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Good one Free*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 1:22pm.
You certainly made a possible connection rather quickly. Just think what an "investigative reporter" could learn if they made an effort. In fact, there is enough information already to connect with the high incidence of suicides, drug and alcohol abusers in Hollywood to make a very lengthy documentary.
Ah. So anyone who's gay in
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 2:42pm.
Ah. So anyone who's gay in Hollywood and was anywhere near Corey Feldman, they're a pedophile.
That is some solid math...
Right bal*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 2:49pm.
Sorry about the math. The trauma suffered by the victims should be secondary. Exposing the true perverts should be third...../sarc
What in the world are you
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 3:10pm.
What in the world are you talking about.
We're talking about assuming that just because Feldman was on the Madame show and Wayland Flowers was gay, that then Feldman was molested by Flowers.
That's a fair assessment? In what stupid world?
Is that too much like
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 3:31pm.
Is that too much like profiling for ya ?
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
I'd like a little more
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 3:46pm.
I'd like a little more evidence to back it up other than, "Hey, gay guy, he worked on the show with a gay guy, gay guy must be a pedophile."
Well, that should be enough
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:34pm.
Well, that should be enough for an INVESTIGATIVE REPORTER to follow up on. And we may just learn that Feldman is just trying to get attention. Or we may learn otherwise.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Which is true, and a
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:46pm.
Which is true, and a seemingly different sentiment from "do the math," which seems to already have passed judgement.
"seems" and "seemingly" are
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:57pm.
"seems" and "seemingly" are subjective . . . Just saying.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
do the math, or put 2 and 2
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:04pm.
do the math, or put 2 and 2 together, or add it up, whichever you choose, all imply that there is a specific conclusion to be reached.
Sissy to English translation ---
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 2:29pm.
--- I, say let me borrow the S2ET, even I am having problems making sense of that one. Ron Paul!
"seems" and "seemingly" are
Submitted by Free Stinker on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 4:58pm.
"seems" and "seemingly" are subjective . . . Just saying.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Try again Bal*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 5:22pm.
That was sarcasm in my post. Study the links I posted for Incestmo. Then read about the lives of good friends Corey Feldman and Cory Haim. Both were 12 yr old actors who were being "mentored" by Michael Jackson. They all had a history of drug abuse, domestic problems and difficulties with relationships and their families. Two of them are dead. They are not the only young actors and actresses that have died from drug abuse or suicide.
They show the same symptoms of trauma as other sexually abused children. There is more than enough information for an investigation into his allegations.
In 2009, a very popular priest in Boston died. Immediately, a number of young people, now adults, came forward and reported having been abused by this priest while serving as alter boys. NO one questioned these young people's veracity even though they did not reveal the abuse until he died.
Why is it so difficult to understand Feldman's revelation? McKenzie Phillips finally revealed that she was sexually abused by her father, John Phillips, and he got her started on drugs. She did not reveal the cause of her troubles until after her father died. Another young actress, whose name I cannot recall, several years ago jumped out a hotel window. Reports were she suffered from depression, abused drugs, that she too was abused as a child.
Are you beginning to understand the connection? If a person was going to lie just to garner attention, a victim of sexual abuse already carries a great deal of shame and part of their trauma symptoms is the basis of the "secrecy" involving sexual abuse and I doubt would want to draw attention to "that " part of their life.
This I heard from hundreds of victims. Though medical exams show semen present and physical damage, the child would deny being abused and say "I fell off my bike". When the child would finally reveal the abuse, they would admit to denying the abuse because the perpetrator threatened to harm her or her family members.
The traumatic effects of sexual assault on minors is a complex issue and every victim of abuse should immediately receive psychiatric counseling. Unfortunately, because of the "secrecy" involved, a victim usually does not seek help until their adult lives become too dysfunctional and intervention is usually how they enter treatment programs.
Sorry for the rant. Having dealt with "victims" who lied and those who have suffered severe trauma, and having met hundreds of perpetrators, I feel a compulsion to correct any misinterpretations of this serious problem in our society today. The number of sexual abuse victims is in a continuous rise but we also know that only about 40% of all child sexual abuse is actually reported and investigated.
There is the math.
I'm not saying that it's not
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 6:11pm.
I'm not saying that it's not possible that Feldman was a victim of pedophilia, or that he's lying. Im saying it's a little much to assume that since Flowers was gay, he molested Feldman, as it appeared Free Stinker was doing.
Free was profiling*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 7:16pm.
Which is possible. If you read Feldmans comments and some of his history, his introduction to this harmful environment was well before the age of 12 but was the time period Free is referencing. However, I added the information for Free and others, that Mr Feldman also acknowledges that Michael Jackson often "mentored" young actors and performers who all had a history of troubles and difficult relationships with families. According to Mr Feldman, Michael Jackson become "bored" with these troubled youngsters and "abandon" them which was difficult and painful for that group resulting in very conflicting emotions regarding Michael Jackson.
Mr Feldman made these remarks about Michael Jackson shortly after his death. Some of his comments do resemble the sort of relationship with a pedophile and its subsequent emotional damage. Since that time, this may have provided Mr Feldman with a sense of relief and over this period of time has "mentioned" the corrupt Hollywood environment in several other interviews. These revelations may be providing him with the confidence to finally come forward with all of his dark secrets. If he is provided the support and encouragement he will require, he may eventually reveal the names of those responsible. My only hope is that he does it through law enforcement first then let lose with the media. Once the media can "Casey Anthony" this story, it will make headlines as long as well known celebrities are among those named.
If Mr Feldman is slowly revealing the true underworld of Hollywood, then you have no idea the struggle this young man has been through. He should be encouraged and applauded. If he has nefarious goals, that too shall be revealed upon further investigation. Which leads us right back to the exchange between Free and I.
I didn't even mention
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 7:20pm.
I didn't even mention Jackson, for one thing and again, I'm NOT saying it's impossible he was molested.
I mentioned Michael Jackson*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 7:53pm.
For the reason that Michael Jackson has long been suspected of being a pedophile and was also known as a drug abuser. Don't forget that Michael Jackson also revealed that he was sexually abused as a child. It is known that an abused child has a high degree of probability of becoming an abuser. They usually prey on those troubled neglected youth who are in need of attention. The relationship with Michael Jackson was revealed by Mr Feldman in other interviews and clearly indicates a very conflicting relationship. To me, Mr Feldman's open discussion of his relationship with Jackson and Mr Feldman's other problems in his life give credence to his allegations.
Ah. So we're having two
Submitted by balboa on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 8:03pm.
Ah. So we're having two different conversations at the same time. :-)
That's what happens whenever
Submitted by Satchmo on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:12pm.
That's what happens whenever cajun gets involved.
~Hi there
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:22pm.
I think we've met. Talk smack on cajun, and I'll burn you down and bag your ashes.
Have a nice day.
Are you really this
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:27pm.
stupid in real life, or do you just play stupid here?
Satchmo
Submitted by Prisondog1776 on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 11:29pm.
you have been burned in just about every post you type, but i will give you a 1/2 ounce of respect. You keep coming back for more.
They call it multi-tasking
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:28pm.
It's not for everyone
LOL guys*
Submitted by cajun2 on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 10:50pm.
Incestmo's ashes wouldn't even placed anywhere near my rose bushes......rofl
Totally worthless even as ashes.
ADD: well, maybe these roses
Oh look. The cop killer lover is demanding evidence.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 08/17/2011 - 9:54pm.
balboa the cryptodummy: I'd like a little more evidence to back it up....
Yeah, the cop killer lover did not need any evidence to tell us to let two convicted cop killers our of prison. The cop killer lover went into full on insult mode when we asked he bring the tiniest shred of evidence even.
You go cop killer lover. Make yourself so worthless so as to barely be seen.
Hey everybody! Boy, has it
Submitted by arkansaszippers on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 12:26am.
Hey everybody! Boy, has it been a long time - what did I miss?!?
The fool, Zippers, is back---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:24am.
so maybe he can answer a three part question for me.
(1) - Is the picture shown on your profile you, and if so, (2) - is your mouth always in that position, and if it is, (3) - do you make money with it shaped like that?
MD
Ha, there it is - I'm glad to
Submitted by arkansaszippers on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:52pm.
Ha, there it is - I'm glad to see nothing's changed!
Oh look boys and girls.
Submitted by The Vet on Thu, 08/18/2011 - 3:37am.
Dead Zippers finished his sentence. That is two strikes now. You got to stop buggering miniature donkeys. One more strike and they will lock you up for good.
You know I've got to hand it
Submitted by arkansaszippers on Sat, 08/20/2011 - 10:57pm.
You know I've got to hand it to you - I always have to google your insults to decipher them. One grows tired of the same old comments, but you take pride in your work. The mark of a true artist, indeed!
So, Zippers---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 12:28am.
how do you manage to get re-instated here?
Damn sure ain't on your good looks.
MD
Hmmm, MD
Submitted by Denny Crane on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 8:46am.
I find it very interesting that AKzippers decides to show up after what? 38 weeks? Right after Satchmo gets the wonderful "access denied" status.
We Are The 53%
Denny---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 8:11pm.
Hard to decide whether to give credit to Zippers for having nads the size of boulders for applying again with the same username as before; or shrug it off as someone asleep at the wheel in Admin.
What, exactly, is the point of using the ban hammer if said ban has an expiration date?
MD
Hey, how about for kicks
Submitted by Boudin on Sun, 08/21/2011 - 12:42am.
You change your M.O to someone who is Sane? Your old mo sucks