Random News Items

[The Unknown Poster]

12 minutes ago, pigseye said:

I was referring to his reference of a smear job, that is all.

The crazy part is, his client was the victim of a set up by Trump supporter cops attempting to discredit her.  And just in the last week or so, we saw an attempted smear job of Mueller by people looking to pay women to claim sexual assault.  So while, on its face, it looks like a spin job by a prick, there is reason to not be so sure.

Two ex-wives have come forward to state that he was never abusive and never would be.   There is information out there that in L.A. the police are hyper-sensitive to domestic abuse claims and routinely air on the side of arresting the accused (that used to be standard practice everywhere under zero tolerance).

If Avanatti hit a woman, he's a piece of garbage and should get whats coming to him and then disappear from public life.  In the absence of a credible allegations (because we havent seen it) and only positive statements of support from women he was in relationships with, plus at least two smear jobs/set ups that we know from the alt right, its worth taking a wait and see approach.

[pigseye]

Interesting stats, 40% of California's forests are privately owned compared to 57% that are Federal

 http://forestunlimited.org/california-forest-statistics/

Yet, not a single privately owned forest is burning, even Gov Brown see's the connection with the recent fires and poor forest management

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/03/california-timber-firms-maybe-piece-of-the-puzzle-to-cut-fire-risk.html

But what are a few lives and towns when you can just sluff it off as the new abnormal and blame climate change. 

Edited November 15, 2018 by pigseye
because

[pigseye]

8 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

The crazy part is, his client was the victim of a set up by Trump supporter cops attempting to discredit her.  And just in the last week or so, we saw an attempted smear job of Mueller by people looking to pay women to claim sexual assault.  So while, on its face, it looks like a spin job by a prick, there is reason to not be so sure.

Two ex-wives have come forward to state that he was never abusive and never would be.   There is information out there that in L.A. the police are hyper-sensitive to domestic abuse claims and routinely air on the side of arresting the accused (that used to be standard practice everywhere under zero tolerance).

If Avanatti hit a woman, he's a piece of garbage and should get whats coming to him and then disappear from public life.  In the absence of a credible allegations (because we havent seen it) and only positive statements of support from women he was in relationships with, plus at least two smear jobs/set ups that we know from the alt right, its worth taking a wait and see approach.

Are you more apt to give him the benefit of the doubt that you never gave the Judge? Seem's a little pot and kettle, no? 

[The Unknown Poster]

4 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Are you more apt to give him the benefit of the doubt that you never gave the Judge? Seem's a little pot and kettle, no? 

I knew you'd say that and thought about providing the differences between the two in my last post but I was curious if you'd actually go there since the differences are so obvious.  But serious question, do you not see the differences in these two scenarios?

[pigseye]

1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said:

So women should always be believed when the target is a Democrat?  But when its a Republican, its all nonsense right? lol

You brought politics into it not me, suggesting that only one side is capable of crafting a smear job is pretty naive.

The same standard should apply to everyone not just who you like more. 

[The Unknown Poster]

2 minutes ago, pigseye said:

You brought politics into it not me, suggesting that only one side is capable of crafting a smear job is pretty naive.

The same standard should apply to everyone not just who you like more. 

You're last point is true which is why I dont understand your point.  Are you suggesting this Avanatti scenario is the same as Kavanaugh?  You dont see the differences?  You seem to be applying a false equivalency based on your personal like/dislike

Edited November 15, 2018 by The Unknown Poster

[pigseye]

2 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You're last point is true which is why I dont understand your point.  Are you suggesting this Avanatti scenario is the same as Kavanaugh?  You dont see the differences?  You seem to be applying a false equivalency based on your personal like/dislike

Both could have been smeared or both could be guilty, there is no reason to accept either man's side over that of the accuser at this time, is what I am saying. 

[The Unknown Poster]

6 minutes ago, pigseye said:

Both could have been smeared or both could be guilty, there is no reason to accept either man's side over that of the accuser at this time, is what I am saying. 

Interesting.  During discussion about Kav you took the opposite position suggesting that all Republicans were in trouble if anyone believed the allegation against him.  

Ofcourse, thats moot to the question I asked.  Which you wont answer after drawing the comparison between Kav and Avanatti...do you not see why they're different?

[pigseye]

So it turns out that Brown did veto the wildfire bill in Cali

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jerry-brown-veto-wildfire-bill/

and some believe it was due to corruption, he was bought and paid for by PG&E

https://www.consumerwatchdog.org/capitol-watchdog/gov-browns-culpability-spreading-wildfires

Should be some civil suites coming out of this. 

[pigseye]

1 minute ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Interesting.  During discussion about Kav you took the opposite position suggesting that all Republicans were in trouble if anyone believed the allegation against him.  

Ofcourse, thats moot to the question I asked.  Which you wont answer after drawing the comparison between Kav and Avanatti...do you not see why they're different?

I only took the opposite side because you and others had already convicted him in the court of public opinion despite no corroboration of the accusers allegations. I give Spin doctor Avanatti the same benefit of the doubt. 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

5 minutes ago, pigseye said:

So it turns out that Brown did veto the wildfire bill in Cali

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jerry-brown-veto-wildfire-bill/

and some believe it was due to corruption, he was bought and paid for by PG&E

https://www.consumerwatchdog.org/capitol-watchdog/gov-browns-culpability-spreading-wildfires

Should be some civil suites coming out of this. 

What's True

In September 2016, Governor Brown vetoed SB 1463, a bill in the California legislature which would have required the California Public Utilities Commission to prioritize areas at increased risk from overhead wires in their management of wildfires.

What's False

There is no evidence that Brown's veto contributed to or exacerbated the risk or prevalence of wildfires in California, and the California Public Utilities Commission provided details showing that it had already been engaged in work similar to the proposals contained in SB 1463.

[The Unknown Poster]

1 minute ago, pigseye said:

I only took the opposite side because you and others had already convicted him in the court of public opinion despite no corroboration of the accusers allegations. I give Spin doctor Avanatti the same benefit of the doubt. 

Wait...so your defense of Kav was you playing devil's advocate?? hahaha  

Dude...look, I know some people get on you hard here...I've never called you a troll.  But if you can't admit your position, if you know your perspective is that weak, dont even bother.  You're not fooling anyone.

You defended Kav and you called Avanatti's denial "spin" so you did the exact opposite of what you're claiming.  Tsk tsk tsk.

Since you wont stand up for your own convictions, Ill help you out.

The obvious differences....

Kav was a public figure up for a lifetime appointment to the highest court in the land, being voted on by publicly elected officials.  Avanatti is a private citizen.

Kav had several credible allegations publicly made by credible accusers.  Avanattie, thus far, has one allegations from a non-credible source (we dont know anything about her)

Kav's accusers were supported by numerous people who spoke to the culture of the school, the culture and behavior of Kav and his friends and about hearing of the acts in question.  Avanatti has been publicly supported by former partners and has no public statements from anyone suggesting he's violent.

Kav's main accuser was heavily vetted (passed lie detector tests and was dug into by media and Trump supporters).  Avanatti's accuser is unknown.

In Kav's case there was never a suggestion of a set up a scheme prior to the allegations coming forward.  In Avanatti's case his highest profile client WAS set up and schemed against by Trump supporting cops and we saw Mueller attempted to be set up for assault which was referred to the FBI.

I mean really.

[pigseye]

9 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

What's True

In September 2016, Governor Brown vetoed SB 1463, a bill in the California legislature which would have required the California Public Utilities Commission to prioritize areas at increased risk from overhead wires in their management of wildfires.

What's False

There is no evidence that Brown's veto contributed to or exacerbated the risk or prevalence of wildfires in California, and the California Public Utilities Commission provided details showing that it had already been engaged in work similar to the proposals contained in SB 1463.

You didn't read the second link did you 😒

[pigseye]

7 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Dude...look, I know some people get on you hard here...I've never called you a troll.  But if you can't admit your position, if you know your perspective is that weak, dont even bother.  You're not fooling anyone.

So which is it troll or nationalist, you should have me figured out by now.

9 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You defended Kav and you called Avanatti's denial "spin" so you did the exact opposite of what you're claiming.  Tsk tsk tsk.

Were the first words out of Kavs mouth it's a smear job? I honestly don't recall, he denied the allegations but I don't think he ever accused anyone directly of smearing him, did he?

10 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Since you wont stand up for your own convictions, Ill help you out.

How can you possibly know my convictions from over the net? You have special powers?

12 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

In Kav's case there was never a suggestion of a set up a scheme prior to the allegations coming forward.  In Avanatti's case his highest profile client WAS set up and schemed against by Trump supporting cops and we saw Mueller attempted to be set up for assault which was referred to the FBI.

Exactly what I referred to be before, given the gravitas of both situations, who has more to lose by smearing the other? I would say without doubt a right leaning judge on the SC is a lot more influential than anything Avanatti could spin up with a porn star, but you keep buying the kool-aide.  

[The Unknown Poster]

Quote

So which is it troll or nationalist, you should have me figured out by now.

You're clearly a supporter of the alt right and white nationalism.  As for being a troll, I hate the term but this post in particular speaks sadly in that direction.

 

Quote

Were the first words out of Kavs mouth it's a smear job? I honestly don't recall, he denied the allegations but I don't think he ever accused anyone directly of smearing him, did he?

What relevancy does that have?  You drew an equivalency between Kav and Avanatti.  You did so because you're a blind Trump supporter and you want to be critical of a Democrat.  You accused me of being more apt to believe Avanatti because he's a Democrat over Kav because he's a Republican.  The assertion is absurd since I'm a conservative and the point I clearly made repeatedly which you continue to try to avoid, is the stark differences between the scenarios.

The reality is, you're guilty of what you're trying to accuse others of.  You do this because criticism of Trump seems to personally wound you for some reason and have a propensity to interject with attacks, insults, distractions and obfuscations to move the narrative away from criticism of Trump and the Nationalists.  In the case of Kav, you immediately rejected the allegation.  In the case of Avanatti, you immediately called his denial a "spin".  You further tried to lend an air of impartiality to your opinion that Avanatti should not be believed by claiming you felt the same about Kav but that was not true.  When called on it, you laughingly claimed you were playing devil's advocate.

Dude...that's just weak sauce.  Im not trying to beat up on you, but if you want to play games, Im going to point it out every time.

 

Quote

How can you possibly know my convictions from over the net? You have special powers?

If you consider common sense & logic to be special, then yes.  Most people posses them without any special effort though.

 

Quote

Exactly what I referred to be before, given the gravitas of both situations, who has more to lose by smearing the other? I would say without doubt a right leaning judge on the SC is a lot more influential than anything Avanatti could spin up with a porn star, but you keep buying the kool-aide.

So you, moments ago, claimed you had no reason to believe either man over their accusers.  Moments ago you claimed your defense of Kav was playing devil's advocate.  And now, as if you forgot what you just posted, you launch a new defense of Kav to attack Avanatti.  And this is why I laid out some key and obvious difference (which you want to ignore).  And its clear you STILL dont believe thje allegations against Kav were credible. 

You further do what gross alt right people do which is to attack Stormy Daniels because of her job (guess you've never watched porn hahaha) as if that has anything to do with the veracity of her claims (which Trump no longer denies).   You minimize the very idea that anyone would want to smear small time Avanatti while ignoring the fact that Trump supporting cops did exactly that with a set up and wrongful arrest of her.  You conveniently dont even want to discuss the right wing set up attempt of Mueller and you sure dont want to talk about the multiple sexual assault complaints against your guy Trump (although to be fair, thats irrelevant to this specific discussion).

This is the kind of crap that gives conservatives a bad name.  And Ill expose it every time I see it.

No need to reply.  😉 

 

[pigseye]

25 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

You're clearly a supporter of the alt right and white nationalism.  As for being a troll, I hate the term but this post in particular speaks sadly in that direction.

lol, the boogieman is coming to get you, watch out! 

28 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

What relevancy does that have?

It's the only thing relevant in the entire discussion, the spin doctor started spinning even before they identified the accuser. What if it's Ruth Bader Ginsburg, would that change your view of it, maybe wait and see who the accuser is.

31 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said:

So you, moments ago, claimed you had no reason to believe either man over their accusers.  Moments ago you claimed your defense of Kav was playing devil's advocate.  And now, as if you forgot what you just posted, you launch a new defense of Kav to attack Avanatti.  And this is why I laid out some key and obvious difference (which you want to ignore).  And its clear you STILL dont believe thje allegations against Kav were credible. 

Really, back to square one. There are no differences when it comes to the rights of the accusers. There are obvious differences when it comes to their credibility and corroboration of their accounts. Although, you seem to think that Kav was guilty despite that and that Avantti has obviously been smeared, even though, we don't know who his accuser is, lol. 

[The Unknown Poster]

Just now, pigseye said:

lol, the boogieman is coming to get you, watch out! 

It's the only thing relevant in the entire discussion, the spin doctor started spinning even before they identified the accuser. What if it's Ruth Bader Ginsburg, would that change your view of it, maybe wait and see who the accuser is.

Really, back to square one. There are no differences when it comes to the rights of the accusers. There are obvious differences when it comes to their credibility and corroboration of their accounts. Although, you seem to think that Kav was guilty despite that and that Avantti has obviously been smeared, even though, we don't know who his accuser is, lol. 

 You might think mocking the idea that people think you support White Nationalism is funny but if you actually didnt supoort that, you'd be upset that people think it.   Not sure what a boogieman coming for me means, but believe me, if a guy embracing those "values" came after me, I wouldnt sweat it in the least.

Again, you lie and dance around to try and change the narrative.  I wont let you.  This isnt about MY reaction to the allegation, its about YOURS.  I was quite clear in my opinion.  YOU attacked ME over Kav vs Avanatti, accusing me of supporting the Democrat.  And thus, we go down the rabbit hole.  YOU attacked Avanatti.  YOU defended Kav.  Thats the fact, Jack.  End of story.  I didnt defend Avanatti at all.  I merely pointed out that the exact thing he claims actually occured recently, making it far less far-fetched than one might otherwise think.  (I know, you dont even want to mention the Mueller smear attempt or Stormy's false arrest because they're examples of right wing smears),.

Your last point is what every right wing person did in the wake of Kav...pretend that ONLY Kav was subject to allegations and judgement and NEVER is any liberal (which is absurd).  

I NEVER, EVER said Avanatti had "obviously been smeared".  You're a liar because you lack the courage of your convictions.  Its that simple.  If you believed in your position, you would not resort to lying about my words or opinions.

And I certainly dont ever recall saying Kav "is guilty" (although the available evidence certainly lends itself to HIS account being BS which lends itself to HER's being more likely).  

You're trying to play Trump's game of making up lies out of thin air, painting people you dont like with those lies and then claiming they're lying when they point out your lies.  Just stop.  If you cant engage in discussion without having a Trump-love agenda, then dont bother at all.  Its old.  

[The Unknown Poster]

He’s going to look awfully bad if he’s lying.  The fact “Surefire” was trying to take credit is....interesting. 

 

[FrostyWinnipeg]

https://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2018/11/16/canada-post-strike-international-shipments_a_23591724/

[FrostyWinnipeg]

https://abc7.com/saudi-crown-prince-ordered-killing-of-journalist-us-intel-says/4703363/

[The Unknown Poster]

 

[The Unknown Poster]

 

[The Unknown Poster]

Imagine being an organization that thinks guns are cool but losing their **** over two girls kissing.  If it was two boys kissing these guys’ heads would have imploded  

 

[The Unknown Poster]

 

[Mark F]

Things heating up in the Ukraine/Russia standoff.

France 24

MARIUPOL (UKRAINE) (AFP) - 

Seagulls whirl over the docks of Ukraine's port of Mariupol on the Sea of Azov as huge cranes once used to unload ships' cargoes stand idle.

The uncharacteristic quiet is the product of rising tensions in the small sea, the waters of which Russia and Ukraine agreed to share more than a decade ago, but is now the latest theatre in the bitter conflict between the two nations.

Russia's annexation of the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine in 2014 means ships must now pass through a narrow strait bordered by Russian-controlled territory on both sides, while Kremlin-backed rebel regions of eastern Ukraine are uncomfortably close to Mariupol.

In a growing crisis, Kiev and the West accuse Russia of deliberately blocking ships from entering the sea.

"The whole time I've worked here, I've never seen anything like it," said Sergiy Kostyrko, a tanned foreman who has worked at the Mariupol docks for 23 years. "Ships have become very rare visitors to our port."

today.....

https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-navy-says-its-artillery-ship-was-hit-russian-fire-1230317

Let's see who Trump sides with here.