HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » yurbud » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Sun Jul 11, 2004, 07:58 PM
Number of posts: 39,405

Journal Archives

Do you think Mueller is talking to Trump's rape & harassment victims?

I hope so.

I would like to hear that Mueller is paying a visit to Jeffrey Epstein too.

It could put stink on his brand, so rich and even middle class people wouldn't be caught dead at his resorts, golf clubs, or whatever, especially if any of the allegations from underage women pan out.

A tale of two photos: Is Franken accuser's photo shopped?

As someone who messes around with Photoshop quite a bit, I agree with the author of this post.

These are just a few snippets, but her detailed analysis is pretty persuasive.

The most convincing to me was the odd shape & darkness of the shadow on Al's face, and when she pulled up the brightness on the photo, you could see the angular rather than smooth edge of the woman's hair and light where it should be in the shadow.

This doesn't mean her accusation isn't true, but it does go to credibility.

But then thereís this photo, offered by Frankenís second accuser, Lindsay Menz, who went to CNN with the story, as evidence that Franken groped her rear at the Minnesota State Fair in 2010. According to CNN, Franken said he did not recall the photo-shoot, which is plausible considering that he would have had his photo taken with dozens if not hundreds of people at the event. Menz originally posted it on Facebook.


My opinion is that this was originally a picture of Franken alone against this same background, to which Menz was added in such a way to make them appear very close together. It would have been easy to do compared to the Tweeden one. Why? The background is simple (makes a huge difference), the dark figures contrast well against it (except in two places, about which more later, but also makes a huge difference), and the light is diffuse, so the shopper doesnít have to worry about placing shadows precisely.


What if we treated war criminals in our midst the way we are doing to sexual harassers?

I don't mean individual soldiers or CIA agents, hell not even generals.

I mean the politicians, think tank shills, and the bankers, oil company execs and the like actually ordered up the wars because leaders of other countries wouldn't make deals on their preferred terms (which are essentially unconditional economic surrender).

Do you think we would have very many more bullshit wars if everyone who sold and bought the war lies on Iraq, Libya, Syria, and on on were hounded from public life or at least reminded every time they open their mouth that their actions led to the deaths of thousands of our troops and over a million people in other countries?

Or those who backed or fomented coups against democratically elected governments to protect the business interests of that same handful of elites, whether neocons, neoliberals, who were lying about terrorists, spreading democracy, or R2P?

Or failed to use the same level of creativity to prosecute Wall Street for economic crimes that they have to hold some prisoners at Guantanamo Bay indefinitely for NO crimes?

I am glad we are flushing out those who thought they could sexually harass others with impunity.

I'd like to see the same methods used for bigger fish who have harmed far more people.

Why is it if we lie to Congress, we go to prison, but if they or president lie to us...

they have immunity?

BIG DONOR: "I told Pelosi and Schumer, if you attack the rich I'll cut you off!"

This deserves a response here.

This guy has a right to do what he wants with his money.

But the rest of us have a right to decide if this is the kind of veto power we want the party to give big donors.

https://twitter.com/RoseAnnDeMoro/status/928411303135215621?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 8, 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Go to Page: 1