Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
The context was to get people to DO SOMETHING about child exploitation. I don't buy in to PN's conspiracy theories, but I also know that kids are sold and abused every day in the USA because this world is full of people attracted to powerlessness. I know one mom whose daughter was kidnapped, and she can't get the county prosecutors to do jack about it. People like to stick their heads in the sand.

---

Quote:

---

...and failed to report potentially criminal acts involving a minor

---

Quote:

---

Hero is, apparently, a prosecutor. His career is built on putting men in cages. Is it reasonable to expect him to react a different way? These guys routinely deal with the dregs of society and that has to have an effect on his view of his fellow man. Again, isn't it reasonable for him to assume the worst?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
"Call the FCC."

Oh, NOT the FBI ? Doesn't that seem like a double standard to you?

For soneone who likes to portray himself as savvy, you sure act awful stoopid.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Isn't it also interesting that the same pictures have been posted in other threads here before and nobody felt compelled to call the G-men? Am I the only one who noticed that? This wasn't an isolated incident. But, now and suddenly, we have to bring in the feds...

---

Quote:

---

assuming he/she isn't busy taking names for future reservations at Gitmo

---

Quote:

---

wouldn't he be just as guilty as the Republican leadership in not reporting Foley's potential crimes? Funny, how one Republican doing the right thing shows how the House leadership did the wrong thing...

---

Quote:

---

His career is built on putting men in cages. Is it reasonable to expect him to react a different way? These guys routinely deal with the dregs of society and that has to have an effect on his view of his fellow man. Again, isn't it reasonable for him to assume the worst?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
He doesn't know the meaning of the phrase "even-handed".

---

Quote:

---

BTW Hero, I noticed you got awfully quiet when I brought up the DOJ. You don't like the shoe being on the other foot, do you? Not to worry- altho my point was true, my contacts with the DOJ are in the distant past. You can breathe easy now. But like any bully, you back down as soon as confronted.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
How are we to read this?

For one, opportunism. Look Boss! Look what I did! Pant pant pant slobber lick.

---

Quote:

---

For another, egoism. See everyone here ! I'M important ! Look what I know! Look what I can do to any one of you ! If you can't LIKE me then you will FEAR me !

---

Quote:

---

How are we to read this?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Quote:

---

...and failed to report potentially criminal acts involving a minor

---

These pictures would be from a case that's about 15 years old by now. If this was a recent picture, I sure as hell would want him to report it! But the "context" of the picture, as I understand it, is it was posted by the mom because it shows her son who was abducted many many year ago and she was trying to revive interest in his case.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:
If that's true, why didn't you say something? If you look at the original thread, you'll notice that I express dismay that people were not already speaking out against it. Its dismay I still feel. As for me, I saw, I reported, I made my fuss, I did my part. If someone else wants to drop the ball, thats their business. But I don't want to be the one that lets this kind of thing pass by. Thats not something I could live with.

---

Quote:

---

We don't send these kind of folk to Gitmo (with its good food and sunny climate). They go to County at best or state prison at worst and, lets just say justice gets served.

---

Quote:

---

I've found, despite the bluster...

---

Quote:

---

Except the liberal long haired hippy types and anybody who has a 'John Kerry' bumper sticker...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
What the--? Am I the only one who doesn't see any "child porn" going on in those pictures? Jeez, there's a difference between sex and violence. Put your fantasies aside and take a look at what's happening in the pictures. I see fully clothed children bound and gagged, and visibly terrified. One boy doesn't have a shirt and there seems to be evidence of a star branded on his shoulder. They're disturbing images, heartbreaking, but any sex is in the eyes of the beholder. PN tells us about a child sex ring and shows us these pictures. If he were talking about a simple kidnapping and showed these pictures, they would arouse nothing but sympathy. But because PN says the children in the pictures were sexually abused, that somehow changes the pictures? No.

It disturbs me that so many folks believe that pictures that show the unambiguous suffering of children should be censored--makes me wonder if they'd really rather not know about it. I know that's not particularly fair, but the invisibility of child abuse is one of its most insidious characteristics. PN is not sexualizing these children, he's politicizing them.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BigDamnNobody:
Thanks for being the voice of reason Succatash.
I found the picture offensive and so did Haken or a mod.

It saddens me that certain member's of this site would try to defend PN simply because it was Hero who raised the red flag. IMHO, posting that picture somehow vindicates the picture taker, their sickness is being spread for all to see. PN's posts should stand on merit alone, why the need to 'shock and awe' with highly questionable pictures? I guess if the substance is lacking, flashing lights and pictures are the way to go.

And the not so subtle hint that a certain member 'enjoyed' the pic is irresponsible as well, IMHO.

Hero is a lawyer. If he thinks the picture is illegal I will have to bow to his greater understanding of the applicable laws.

Now go back to defending PN in this thread while castigating Foley in the other.

Posting to stir stuff up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, in general, this is what I find interesting.

Alleged republican pedophilia is in the news.

In less than a week Zero blows PN into the FBI on a possible 'pedophilia' technicality. Not for earlier postings that are borderline hate speech. Not for postings that may or may not call for violence against the government. But for an out of context photo trying to get action on an unsolved real-life case.

How are we to read this?


Zero is just flaming mad because what is happening in the new right now gives crediblity to what we've been posting for months..and that pisses him off, one of our so called tin hat foil theorys is actually looking like there is something to it and he can't stand it!! Thats the point of this whole thing!!


For one, opportunism. Look Boss! Look what I did! Pant pant pant slobber lick.

For another, egoism. See everyone here ! I'M important ! Look what I know! Look what I can do to any one of you ! If you can't LIKE me then you will FEAR me !

Cowardice. What else was I to do ?? Whine, cringe. I had no options !

sigh ...

Do you wonder why I call him Zero?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
So anyway, in general, this is what I find interesting.

Alleged republican pedophilia is in the news.

In less than a week Zero blows PN into the FBI on a possible 'pedophilia' technicality. Not for earlier postings that are borderline hate speech. Not for postings that may or may not call for violence against the government. But for an out of context photo trying to get action on an unsolved real-life case.

How are we to read this?




For one, opportunism. Look Boss! Look what I did! Pant pant pant slobber lick.

For another, egoism. See everyone here ! I'M important ! Look what I know! Look what I can do to any one of you ! If you can't LIKE me then you will FEAR me !

Cowardice. What else was I to do ?? Whine, cringe. I had no options !

sigh ...

Do you wonder why I call him Zero?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Given all that, Zero took ONE photo in ONE post out of context and felt 'compelled' to notify the FBI. That wasn't an anti-porn action. It was simply to make trouble for someone he disagrees with.

---

So child porn is ok with you if the pictures are limited in number, and you understand the context, and you agree with the person posting it.

You claim that I was "compelled" by politics to take action. In the very first post on this thread I cite the Federal law that provides the basis for my legal duty to report child porn. I also cite the potential liability for this site. In other words I did what I HAD to do. Perhaps you would prefer me to ignor my legal duties because of my political leanings...somehow I think that would be wrong.

Quote:

---

Do you now trust Zero to NOT do that to you? To NOT find some pretext to get you into legal trouble just because he doesn't agree with you? Do you now feel as free to express your opinions? Or to share whatever information you may have?

---

So for you child porn is ok. But our political differences are the real evil. Thats why you liberals are so dangerous. A civil discussion is more dangerous to you then pictures of the violent abuse of children. I think you should run on that platform in 2008 and see how far it gets you.

If PN was a Republican, then you'd be upset, not that he posted child porn, but that he's a Republican. I think you allow your Republican Rage to overshadow your reason. Knock it off.

H

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Oh, it's true. I didn't speak out because I didn't consider it porn.

---

Quote:

---

you cast the child pornographers down amongst the sodomites.

---

Quote:

---

Yeah, I've suspected for several weeks that a good deal of what you post is just to see how quickly you can piss off all the lefties.

---

Quote:

---

Guess I best not speed through your jurisdiction...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by piratejenny:
You can find something offensive, but that doesn't classify it as kiddie porn..

---

Quote:

---

For the purposes of this chapter, the term—
(1) “minor” means any person under the age of eighteen years;
(2)
(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(B) For purposes of subsection 8(B) of this section, “sexually explicit conduct” means—
(i) graphic sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex, or lascivious simulated sexual intercourse where the genitals, breast, or pubic area of any person is exhibited;
(ii) graphic or lascivious simulated;
(I) bestiality;
(II) masturbation; or
(III) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(iii) graphic or simulated lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;
(3) “producing” means producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing, or advertising;
(4) “organization” means a person other than an individual;
(5) “visual depiction” includes undeveloped film and videotape, and data stored on computer disk or by electronic means which is capable of conversion into a visual image;
(6) “computer” has the meaning given that term in section 1030 of this title;
(7) “custody or control” includes temporary supervision over or responsibility for a minor whether legally or illegally obtained;
(8) “child pornography” means any visual depiction, including any photograph, film, video, picture, or computer or computer-generated image or picture, whether made or produced by electronic, mechanical, or other means, of sexually explicit conduct, where—
(A) the production of such visual depiction involves the use of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct;
(B) such visual depiction is a digital image, computer image, or computer-generated image that is, or is indistinguishable from, that of a minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
(C) such visual depiction has been created, adapted, or modified to appear that an identifiable minor is engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
(9) “identifiable minor”—
(A) means a person—
(i)
(I) who was a minor at the time the visual depiction was created, adapted, or modified; or
(II) whose image as a minor was used in creating, adapting, or modifying the visual depiction; and
(ii) who is recognizable as an actual person by the person’s face, likeness, or other distinguishing characteristic, such as a unique birthmark or other recognizable feature; and
(B) shall not be construed to require proof of the actual identity of the identifiable minor.
(10) “graphic”, when used with respect to a depiction of sexually explicit conduct, means that a viewer can observe any part of the genitals or pubic area of any depicted person or animal during any part of the time that the sexually explicit conduct is being depicted; and
(11) the term “indistinguishable” used with respect to a depiction, means virtually indistinguishable, in that the depiction is such that an ordinary person viewing the depiction would conclude that the depiction is of an actual minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. This definition does not apply to depictions that are drawings, cartoons, sculptures, or paintings depicting minors or adults.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hero:

The law classifies it as child porn. Pictures of children bound and gagged and in distress meet the legal definition provided by the US Code.

If you don't believe me, your incapable of that much faith, look it up, I cited the code section earlier.

---

Quote:

---

maf54: so are you single now

maf54: no ties that bind

Ty1066: the divorce should be final in the next two weeks.

Ty1066: why do you ask?

maf54: cool

maf54: cause

Ty1066: you lookin' for a boyfriend?

maf54: yup

Ty1066: are you ever gonna come out or are you happy in the closet?

maf54: with a nice ... (expletive deleted)

maf54: i love the closet like you do

www.knoxnews.com/kns/politics/article/0,1406,KNS_356_5045606,00.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FellowTraveler:
Yeah, I've suspected for several weeks that a good deal of what you post is just to see how quickly you can piss off all the lefties.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by citizen:
Kinda like borderline sociopathy.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
playing out as rage, fear and need towards women, and deep insecurity.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Even the freeway killer has a wife.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:




Didn't see that post, so I can't discuss as to what was posted. However 1 question I do have....

Why does a Dem Congressman ( Gerry Studds ) admit to having sex w/ a 17 yr old male page,

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Huh. Well, since Rainman didn't see the picture everything he says is irrelevamt.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
Wow, looky what I missed. Child porn, posters sticking up for PN, Ruse's venomous drivel. What a week you freaks have had. RWers, you should be very proud, you have outdone your selves. If it looks like child porn, smells like child porn...It can probably be found in rue's purse. I don't recall the photos, but I would think it's better to be safe than sorry. Hero did what he thought was right. It's nice to see someone with conviction on this board. Why defend child porn just because Hero pointed it out? You sick crooked pecker retards, you disgust me. Well, it's true......

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Canker sore-

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kaneman:
Wow, looky what I missed. Child porn, posters sticking up for PN, Ruse's venomous drivel. What a week you freaks have had. RWers, you should be very proud, you have outdone your selves. If it looks like child porn, smells like child porn...It can probably be found in rue's purse. I don't recall the photos, but I would think it's better to be safe than sorry. Hero did what he thought was right. It's nice to see someone with conviction on this board. Why defend child porn just because Hero pointed it out? You sick crooked pecker retards, you disgust me. Well, it's true......

---

This is SOOoo off-track it's hilarious! Do you have any more? Well, it's true ..

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SoupCatcher:
I've found that even scrolling or page downing through PN's posts, I've seen far more than I ever wanted to see.

---

I guess my eyes are worse than I thought. There is no way I could see anything unless I took the time to focus on it. I'm impressed you can see stuff simply going past it. You'd probably be wicked in a raquet sport.

---

Quote:

---

"There is also much focus on the relationship between House Speaker Dennis Hastert and his chief of staff, 56-year old Scott Palmer. Hastert and Palmer, Hastert's longtime unmarried adviser, live together in a DC townhouse along with Hastert's Deputy Chief of Staff, Mike Stokke, while Hastert's wife Jean lives in Yorkville, Illinois and stays at a hotel when she visits Washington. WMR's State Department sources have also reported that the visits of Hastert and other congressional leaders and staff members to certain Southeast Asian nations and the Northern Marianas should come under the scrutiny of the House Ethics Committee, now officially investigating "Pagegate." The Northern Marianas became infamous in the scandals involving Tom DeLay and Jack Abramoff because of the presence in the US slave labor territory of Asian children being used as prostitutes. Conveniently, Foley co-chaired the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, which would have had authority to investigate charges of child prostitution in the Northern Marianas. Our State Department sources report that it is no secret that a number of U.S. Foreign Service officers working out of the U.S. embassies in Bangkok, Phnom Penh, Hanoi, and Manila have been involved with underage nationals of the host countries where they are assigned. In fact, many have rotated their assignments between countries that look sideways at child prostitution and sex between adults and minors. In fact, John Mark Karr, as previously reported by WMR, was quickly whisked out of Bangkok after his arrest on pedophilia charges. The U.S. Embassy in Bangkok, working with the CIA and Department of Homeland Security, arranged for Karr's quick departure from Bangkok on a business class flight to the United States, where all charges, including those stemming from Karr's 'admission' that he killed JonBenet Ramsey and child porn charges, were later dropped. WMR has learned that Karr may have been aware of the identities of top U.S. officials in the child sex trade in Thailand and that he was sprung from Thai authorities to prevent him from testifying in a Thai courtroom. Hastert visited Vietnam, along with Palmer, in April of this year and spent three days in the country. Hastert, along with Illinois GOP Rep. Ray LaHood, canceled a visit to Thailand and Vietnam in January 2006. Hastert was also in Thailand in January 2002."
-Wayne Madsen (National Security Agency), www.WayneMadsenReport.com, October 9, 2006

JonBenet Ramsey: CIA's Electroshocked Mind-Controlled Sex Slave
http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=801019
75&blogID=160906152

---

Quote:

---

"A notarized statement by Daniel Ellsberg, released to The News-Sentinel Saturday night by James Earl Ray's attorney, Mark Lane, states flatly that an aide to UN Ambassador Andrew Young told Ellsberg, 'We know there was a conspiracy (to kill Dr. Martin Luther King) and we know who did it.' Ellsberg's affidavit claims he was told there was definitely FBI involvement in the murder."
-John Moulton, Knoxville News-Sentinel, Ellsberg ties FBI to King shooting, Nov 12, 1978, page 1 banner headline

"It seems to me like Justice was stood on its head. In Boston, we had a group of FBI agents who decided to throw the rules out the window. They let a lying witness send innocent men to death row and life in prison. They had a group of mob informants committing murders with impunity. They tipped of killers so they could flee before being arrested. They interfered with local investigations of drug dealing and arms smuggling. We had a bunch of criminals running around killing people under virtual FBI protection. The FBI let innocent men die in prison. We cannot have the FBI winking and looking the other way when their informants go on a crime spree. As the people's representatives, we have an obligation to find out why it happened, and to make sure it never happens again."
—Chairman Dan Burton, Senate Committee on Government Reform, US Congress, February 14, 2002

---