Protecting Second Life From Hate Groups Hiding & Organizing Here

[FairreLilette]

3 hours ago, Vivienne Schell said:

I am with you on the impeachment issue.

It is going to happen as it is now thought the riot at the Capital on Jan. 6th was an assassination attempt, especially towards Nancy Pelosi (Democrat) whom I do not like either but for her to be put to death, of course not.  Being able to impeach parts of Congress should have been allowable for treason towards it's people rather than this "disorderly" reason listed below.  I thought members of Congress committed treason towards the American people and I am predominantly liberal leaning although; however, I have been with a party other than democrat before which was not republican at all.  However, my reasons for citing certain members of Congress as committing treason towards the American people have absolutely nothing to do with a "stolen" election whatsoever.  

Article I, Section 5, of the United States Constitution provides that "Each House [of Congress] may determine the Rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a member." Since 1789, the Senate has expelled only fifteen of its entire membership.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/jamie-raskin-assassination-party-of-trump-supporters-were-hunting-pelosi-during-capitol-siege/ar-BB1cPXU3?li=BBnb7Kz  

"There was an assassination party hunting for Nancy Pelosi,” Raskin told Jake Tapper Sunday morning. “So, this cannot be at the level of normal partisan push and pull and just kind of throwing rhetorical bricks back and forth. This was an attack on our country.”

"They built a gallows outside the Capitol of the United States," he added, saying protesters also wanted to “hang Mike Pence.”

Pro-Trump protesters stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6 after the president delivered a speech reiterating his belief that the presidential election was “stolen” from him.

Edited January 17, 2021 by FairreLilette

[Nalates Urriah]

On 1/15/2021 at 2:26 PM, Vivienne Schell said:

 

It´s not difficult at all. Otherwise I agree with much of what you noted regarding "corporate" american broadcasters, especially on TV. I personally watch CNN for the entertainment, not for getting NEWS.

But...

The moon did not explode. And because it didn´t, Dominion did not blow it up. When i look out of my window I still see that shiny moon spreading it´s light all over the wild romance of city backyards.

That was fake news.

What I wanna say is that to blame all the s*** on partisan, non-partisan or whatever media corporations is too easy. In the end the educated individual must decide what is news and what is fake news. You went straight into the trap and posted a not so bad essay on media corporations and news. But you missed that the darned moon simply didn´t explode.

Happens to me, too, unfortunately.

So what do you do with the under oath testimony made before the Georgia legislature, the conflicting statements from the Dominion and Smartmatic, the under oath demonstrations of how easily Dominion machines can be hacked, the testing results of court ordered confiscated Dominion machines, video, and the more than 1,000 people signing affidavits swearing they saw irregularities that would result in significant fraud?

You can't look out your window and see which group reporting on these items is lying. You have to get information from somewhere to make an informed decision. Corporate media is not providing it. Internet searches provide references to amazingly consistent stories from corporate media that nothing happened, no fraud. If you talk to cops and prosecutors you'll find that when they hear everyone's stories matching they suspect they got together and agreed on the story. Likely lies. Witnesses never agree. Nor do independent news sources. The alternative news says the opposite and they provide links to the court records, video of testimony. Who do you then believe? It takes some effort to sort the propaganda from actual news.

I'll stand by the idea it isn't easy to find the truth. It is relatively easy to tell when something isn't right. But what's wrong?

[Doc Carling]

34 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

1,000 people signing affidavits swearing they saw irregularities that would result in significant fraud?

Lets be realistic. Those people were selected by the Trump campaign. They are not objective. They would swear everything and don't risk anything. They should thank the courts which dismissed so many allegedly cases of fraud. Else they had perhaps to swear again in court. And that is something different. I'm not sure, if many of those "witnesses" would take over the risk to go a year or two in jail. I think you know that video. It says much, if the Trump campaign is relaying on those "witnesses".

Melissa Carone testimony EMBARASSES Rudy Giuliani at his Michigan Hearings

Edited January 17, 2021 by Doc Carling

[Audiobuff007]

3 hours ago, Vivienne Schell said:

There is not any evidence for that hilarious "Antifa" nonsense so far. Heard of one investigation on one guy who was seemingly tied to something like that (something, because the real "Antifa" organisation is pretty much insignificant judged by the numbers, activists and activities in the US), but it obviously turned out that he is much more something like a lone wolf anarchist who sympathises with whatever brings down the "establishment" - in his opinion. If there WERE significant far left militant organisations in the US I´d be more concerned, remembering the Hitler-Stalin pact and the role of the communist party in Germany 1918-1933. But there are none existing, also Antifa isn´t even far left by definition.

Pakistan: The US spent about 11.7 billion dollars on military aid and 6.1 billion dollars on economical aid for Pakistan fom 2002 - 2018. That mostly was done in the context of fighting the Taliban and AQ and whatever muslim radicals. Such aid is necessary to gain and establish influence in countries like Pakistan (which also is a nuclear power) in order to help developing such border countries into stable platforms which support our efforts to - at least - contain muslim radicalism. The few millions you complain on are peanuts in that context, but almost any conservative in the US knows what they are good for.

That´s geoploitics. You  can, of course, claim that building a wall along the border is sufficient for defense. Unfortunately it isn´t. Airplanes crashing into sykscrapers do not mind border walls.

Not sure you understand the function of the border wall... do you? Certainly not for ICBM's being lobbed from North Korea, nope. Logically wouldn't be for air traffic, would it? Why do you put a fence around your yard or business with razor wire? Won't stop a 40mm round from being lobbed in will it? Why put a padlock on a locker, when with enough effort, anyone could find their way in, but maybeeee not with out notice. Is that enough deconstruction of your statement about the wall? The coyotes aren't flying in on SCUDS, they're moving via ground, on it and under it. It is a deterrent and a message, and gives authorities greater time to respond to any illegal entry. Enough about that. I'm familiar with military aid, I've handed many afghani/afn to families after damage to their home. This is not the time, during a national crisis to appropriate funds greater than our own, to foreign aid. I'm not talking politics, I'm taking basics. 

[Audiobuff007]

3 minutes ago, Doc Carling said:

Lets be realistic. Those people were selected by the Trump campain. They are not objective. They would swear everything and don't risk anything. They should thank the courts which dismissed so many allegedly cases of fraud. Else they had perhaps to swear agaom in court. And that is something different. I'm not sure, if many of those "witnesses" would take over the risk to ge a year or two in jail.

Rhetoric and speculation. That FACT is, there's enough probable cause in all the video capture presented to warrant federal investigation. Second FACT is they did sign legal bearing documents and were not selected. How many deceased individuals voting multiple times does it take to get you to admit there's a problem?  You should be more worried about the FBI hacks that refused to do their job, instead of remaining objective, they leaned to one side just happens to be the side that includes individuals not interested in upholding the Constitution. 

[Audiobuff007]

44 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

So what do you do with the under oath testimony made before the Georgia legislature, the conflicting statements from the Dominion and Smartmatic, the under oath demonstrations of how easily Dominion machines can be hacked, the testing results of court ordered confiscated Dominion machines, video, and the more than 1,000 people signing affidavits swearing they saw irregularities that would result in significant fraud?

You can't look out your window and see which group reporting on these items is lying. You have to get information from somewhere to make an informed decision. Corporate media is not providing it. Internet searches provide references to amazingly consistent stories from corporate media that nothing happened, no fraud. If you talk to cops and prosecutors you'll find that when they hear everyone's stories matching they suspect they got together and agreed on the story. Likely lies. Witnesses never agree. Nor do independent news sources. The alternative news says the opposite and they provide links to the court records, video of testimony. Who do you then believe? It takes some effort to sort the propaganda from actual news.

I'll stand by the idea it isn't easy to find the truth. It is relatively easy to tell when something isn't right. But what's wrong?

Common groups in society will tend to stay within that group's belief. It takes a stronger individual to think objectively "outside the box" and do a deeper investigation , and push further once an irregularity presents itself. 

[Doc Carling]

1 hour ago, Audiobuff007 said:

Rhetoric and speculation.

Now that is funny. My reply is speculation and yours is fact? lol You know what the most important fact among others  in that fraud conspiracy drama is: the Trump campaign filed almost 60 lawsuits. All except one were dismissed by destrict courts, State courts and even by the US Supreme court. That allone counts for me.  Everything ielse is just rhetoric and speculation. To use your words.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Doc Carling

[Vivienne Schell]

Seas of ignorance, stupidity and paranoia. How could it come to this?

/me sighs

[Audiobuff007]

1 hour ago, Doc Carling said:

Now that is funny. My reply is speculation and yours is fact? lol You know what the most important fact among others  in that fraud conspiracy drama is: the Trump campaign filed almost 60 lawsuits. All except one were dismissed by destrict courts, State courts and even by the US Supreme court. That allone counts for me.  Everything ielse is just rhetoric and speculation. To use your words.

Those facts are not mine, they are facts. Do your own homework, you'll find the same information. You just stated those that signed affidavits, right? More than a decade as an investigator, it doesn't take even a moron to determine probable cause in the security footage. Ask your self why do you choose to not even ask a question as to why these things happened? Why would the team lead of election staff tell the observers required to be there to go home? Then why did they wait some nominal amount of time, restart the machines when they said they were done when legally they are not to continue with out observation? Where did those boxes come from under the table? Why were they not in plain view with all of the other ballots? Are you naïve to the probability that is was happening in more than one place? Instead, YouTube runs their own propaganda, long before ballots are finished counting identifying Biden as president elect, that's called pushing a narrative. You should be looking at the courts in speculation, they are not interpreting law but instead choosing a side. That alone is not Constitutional. 

[Nalates Urriah]

1 hour ago, Doc Carling said:

Lets be realistic. Those people were selected by the Trump campaign. They are not objective. They would swear everything and don't risk anything. They should thank the courts which dismissed so many allegedly cases of fraud. Else they had perhaps to swear again in court. And that is something different. I'm not sure, if many of those "witnesses" would take over the risk to go a year or two in jail. I think you know that video. It says much, if the Trump campaign is relaying on those "witnesses".

Melissa Carone testimony EMBARASSES Rudy Giuliani at his Michigan Hearings

Realistic. Fair enough.

Explain how you know these people are not objective? To me that sounds like opinion and confirmation bias on your part.

This is one person of 1,000+ that came forward voluntarily and signed affidavits. And that does not count the people testifying to various other facts in the election process. Also there are the election laws on the books that are widely known to have been violated.

The Trump/Giulliani team had no way to find all these people that knew about this stuff. Maybe some of them. Both Rudy and Sidney talk about the flood of people contacting them and offering testimony. They were then asked to prepare and sign affidavits and warned of possible perjury charges if they lied. What grounds, other than opinion, do you  have that these are not good patriotic Americans concerned for their country? They aren't even all Republican party members. Some are Democrat members. Do you have any proof otherwise?

The hearing didn't have time for all 1,000+ of them to testify. So obviously Trump's side picked the ones they thought would serve their purpose best to bring to the hearing. I don't see a problem with that in an adversarial legal system. It is the way it works. It is up to the State Representatives to sort through the cherry picking and decide whether to look for fire under the smoke. Do you have a link to where the legislature made a decision?

Christo Aivalis (video you linked to) has done the same thing with this video that you claim Giulliani did. He pumps out his opinions, picks one instance from 1,000's  and offers no counter proof, only an emotional response. He does a basic Alinsky 'attack the messenger' move. I don't consider that realistic, just opinion. We see both sides getting one extreme example and painting everyone on that side with the same brush. Thinkers know better.

Explain how a sworn affidavit or violating an oath before the legislature is different than being under oath in a court. Both carry the same penalties for perjuring one's self. These people are already suffering personal and in some cases violent attacks from the Left. How much more risk to they have to take before you think they are telling the truth?

Consider that America's mail-in voting is the most unrestricted system on the planet and wide open to fraud. The rest of the world, even with CoVid, severally restrict mail-in voting because of the risk of abuse. And there are many that simply disallow it. If you want to check that out, the Independent Sentinel of Wyoming did a piece on it quoting several reputable sources that also quote more sources and studies. (Ref) Or you can research it yourself.

Knowing that this election used high risk processes why would anyone object to investigating the election? As it is now, the election has been decided. There is no legal way to turn that round. As much as I dislike it, Biden is the President. The US Constitution gives the decision making power to the people via their state legislatures. Not Congress, not the Supreme Court, not the President nor Vice President. It is done. The decision is made. Swearing in Biden is just a formality.

The most the Supreme Court can do is decide that a State did or did not follow their election laws. If they were to find they didn't, it gets kinky. The State has to find some way to rectify the mistake. But, a State cannot over turn a Federal decision. The Feds have accepted and certified Biden was chosen. The Congress has no way to change its decision. That would require new election law at a Federal level and Congressional law cannot change the Constitution so it looks like nothing can change what is done. It is done. It appears the most a State can do is change its election laws before the next election and ensure they will be followed. Thus the demand for an investigation that would either way eliminate this drama at the next election.

At this point protecting SL and the country are pretty much the same thing. If elections are fixed, we essentially get dictators. Pack the court like Hugo did in Venezuela and we are done and that means SL too.

[Nalates Urriah]

1 hour ago, Audiobuff007 said:

Common groups in society will tend to stay within that group's belief. It takes a stronger individual to think objectively "outside the box" and do a deeper investigation , and push further once an irregularity presents itself. 

I'll disagree that it takes a "stronger" person. I think only curiosity and intellectual honesty is needed. With all the claims of 'fake' news how can one not question everything?

As Cancel Culture moves forward it may soon take a strong person...

You speak of groups as if they were a conscious entity. Groups are people. People form groups of like minded people to work together. I think it is a problem when a group becomes an authority.

How does on find 'irregularities' if diversity of opinions and thought are not tolerated?  Big Tech is snuffing out diversity with their intolerance. Twitter has now silenced all the major conservative voices on their platform and about 70k of those following them. But, Ali Khamenei remains on Twitter and continues to call for genocide and the annihilation of the West and specifically Israel and America.

They have essentially made an echo chamber for the Left. What happens when SL doesn't fit their agenda?

[Mollymews]

7 hours ago, JanuarySwan said:

They are probably a mixed economy.  Most economies are mixed in today's modern world; many simply will not admit, however.  

As far as the fed funds rate at zero interest, it is somewhat set through 2022, however, the article I read said the money will be tight and only go to it's most prime borrowers, most likely so I don't understand the rest of your post as far as more money/less money.  Banks with negative interest most likely will not be able to weather the coronavirus economic fallout.  America banks the article said will be barely hanging in there.

However, there is no way to solve all this on a message board.  If banks collapse, that's what's going to happen.

that's true about mixed economies. All countries economies are to one degree or other

we might not be able to ourselves solve the problems of the world on a message board, but we can talk about it. And when something piques our interest then we often go off and look into it further, which can lead us to  taking actions beyond just talking about it

so talking more about it

banks get into difficulty in two ways

the first is when few people need or want to borrow money. Borrowing for either personal use or to start/support a business enterprise. When few people have a need to borrow then there is not enough lending business to sustain the banks as viable businesses. In which case some of the banks either close their doors completely, or get bought out and merged with some other business

this is Japan's problem. Not only do they have fewer borrowers they also have fewer spenders to sustain economic growth. Economic growth is the engine of the consumer society. Fewer borrowers and fewer spenders is the affluent consumer society problem. When people have everything they want then they stop buying stuff even when they have lots of money. No matter how low prices go, people still don't buy stuff. Economic growth stalls or goes into decline

the second is when borrowers can't pay back their loans and the bank has not set aside sufficient reserves (prudent management) of its own to cover this

the bank goes bust/bankrupt when the bank can't find another entity to cover their losses - either by buy out, loan or grant/investment funding

public policy is that the government is the buyer, lender or funder of last resort: welfare

increasingly over time (since 1928) the government (more exactly the taxpayer) has become the lender/buyer/funder of first resort for the banks and other business enterprises. In 2008, enterprises in trouble (because insufficient reserves - imprudent management) went to the government for bailouts. Happened again in 2020

in a free market the government would not do this. It would let these enterprises go bankrupt. Capital and labor repurposed toward enterprises with prudent management. Prudent management is undervalued by the market when the government keeps bailing out imprudent business managers. Imprudent managers giving loans to people who can't pay it back. Making stuff that nobody wants to buy. Providing a service that nobody can use even if they could/wanted to buy it, etc

when we hear the term "free market" what this means from a public policy pov is free of government support and governance. No government of any kind is going to abdicate support and governance of the market. So there is never a free market - free economy - in the true sense, as you say. There is always government welfare underpinning the market

the political division is who gets it - the welfare money. Left of centre governments tend toward giving welfare money directly to the citizens and let them choose/decide what to do with it (consumer choice economic theory - freedom to choose). Right of centre governments tend toward giving welfare money to enterprise owners (trickle down economic theory - freedom to receive)

latest example of this in the USA. COVID bailouts. Nancy Pelosi (Democrat) prefers to give a large proportion of welfare money (personal checks) directly to the citizens (consumer choice). Mitch McConnell (Republican) prefers to give the large proportion of welfare money to enterprise owners (trickle down)

and to be fair to Donald Trump (setting aside everything else for the moment) he preferred to give a large proportion of welfare  checks directly to the citizens also. Not that Mr Trump was big on economic theory, just that he intuitively understood that people ordinarily see 'freedom to choose' as actual freedom, and 'freedom to receive' is not freedom at all. Something that Joe Biden understands also

 

Edited January 17, 2021 by Mollymews
economies

[Qie Niangao]

40 minutes ago, Audiobuff007 said:

Where did those boxes come from under the table? 

ARE YOU KIDDING? This has been debunked ages ago. Just stop. Or do a tiny smattering of research before you spout this garbage and embarrass yourself. And no, I'm not going to help. Do it yourself. Good lord.

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Audiobuff007 said:

Common groups in society will tend to stay within that group's belief. It takes a stronger individual to think objectively "outside the box" and do a deeper investigation , and push further once an irregularity presents itself. 

 

[Luna Bliss]

The problem with these poor souls who lost the election:

 

[Luna Bliss]

Good article: The Internet Is A Crime Scene

The disinformation business is very profitable.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2021/01/14/us-capitol-disinformation-online-qanon-trump-insurrection-459505

[Luna Bliss]

2 hours ago, Doc Carling said:

the Trump campaign filed almost 60 lawsuits. All except one were dismissed by destrict courts, State courts and even by the US Supreme court.

We're very lucky that these judges, many conservative and even chosen by Trump, followed the constitution and upheld the rule of law, refusing to go along with the attempted manipulations of a wannabe dictator.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/judges-trump-election-lawsuits/2020/12/12/e3a57224-3a72-11eb-98c4-25dc9f4987e8_story.html

[Luna Bliss]

I found a good source for understanding these hate groups better, someone who has studied and written about them for years - Cynthia Miller-Idriss.  Not sure I'll get the recent book but there are quite a few presentations found on YouTube:

 

[Rowan Amore]

1 hour ago, Audiobuff007 said:

Those facts are not mine, they are facts. Do your own homework, you'll find the same information. You just stated those that signed affidavits, right? More than a decade as an investigator, it doesn't take even a moron to determine probable cause in the security footage. Ask your self why do you choose to not even ask a question as to why these things happened? Why would the team lead of election staff tell the observers required to be there to go home? Then why did they wait some nominal amount of time, restart the machines when they said they were done when legally they are not to continue with out observation? Where did those boxes come from under the table? Why were they not in plain view with all of the other ballots? Are you naïve to the probability that is was happening in more than one place? Instead, YouTube runs their own propaganda, long before ballots are finished counting identifying Biden as president elect, that's called pushing a narrative. You should be looking at the courts in speculation, they are not interpreting law but instead choosing a side. That alone is not Constitutional. 

You all seem to assume everyone who worked there was a Democrat.  And they did explain that mail in ballots are.stored in this way until ready to be counted.  Don't you think that the Republican workers at the polling sites would have said something right then and would have tried to stop anything illegal.

Your whole argument is based in faulty logic.  To think ALL workers at ANY ONE location were from ONE party is frankly, asinine.  Someone would have said something THEN AND THERE.  I would have.

[Rowan Amore]

28 minutes ago, Qie Niangao said:

ARE YOU KIDDING? This has been debunked ages ago. Just stop. Or do a tiny smattering of research before you spout this garbage and embarrass yourself. And no, I'm not going to help. Do it yourself. Good lord.

I posted the actual facts on this pages ago.

[Theresa Tennyson]

54 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

Explain how a sworn affidavit or violating an oath before the legislature is different than being under oath in a court. Both carry the same penalties for perjuring one's self. These people are already suffering personal and in some cases violent attacks from the Left. How much more risk to they have to take before you think they are telling the truth?

An affidavit isn't subject to cross-examination or a judge's determination of admissibility. Also, it's only perjury if the person knows what they're saying is false, which is difficult to prove. An affidavit can be laughably inaccurate but it isn't perjury if the person thinks it's correct.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/politics/2020/12/04/evidence-hearsay-voter-fraud-claims-in-affidavits-explained/

[Nalates Urriah]

55 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

An affidavit isn't subject to cross-examination or a judge's determination of admissibility. Also, it's only perjury if the person knows what they're saying is false, which is difficult to prove. An affidavit can be laughably inaccurate but it isn't perjury if the person thinks it's correct.

https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/politics/2020/12/04/evidence-hearsay-voter-fraud-claims-in-affidavits-explained/

You should probably read up on what an affidavit is and how the legal system sees it.

If you get away from what corporate news says and spins, you'll find an affidavit is sworn testimony according to all the law sites and and universities. Simply said sworn testimony is sworn testimony.

Try Legal Zoom for a start. Swearing an affidavit is the same as swearing and sitting on the stand in a court room. The Detroit attorney you reference fails to point out that the one swearing must state what is opinion or belief to avoid perjury charges just as they do in the courtroom. Most states prefer in-person testimony subject to cross examination. But, they all make clear in several situations the affidavit must be accepted as testimony. (2009 California Code of Civil Procedure - Section 2009-2015.6 :: Article 2. Affidavits)

This spin started because someone thinks affidavits are some lesser form of sworn testimony, as you seem to think. Even the Detroit attorney you reference says they are the same as courtroom testimony.

In both cases witnesses can be wrong, confused, misunderstanding, lying, and on and on. But 1,000+ people giving testimony is a lot of smoke. Do you really think they are all wrong or lying? And no one has challenged their testimony. They are just doing their best to stonewall and ignore it.

[Theresa Tennyson]

11 minutes ago, Nalates Urriah said:

But 1,000+ people giving testimony is a lot of smoke. Do you really think they are all wrong or lying?

Yes; wrong, mostly, if we're talking about how election administration works. Do you really believe that at least that many legally-empowered election officials are wrong or lying?

Edited January 18, 2021 by Theresa Tennyson

[Axel UwU]

I think we should do to reeducate many of those people in those groups.

I think many of them been radicalized by listening to fake news stories and we should try to educate them on the true stories.

I feel though those sites like Amazon have the right to refuse people service. I suspect the FBI has info on some people from before Parler shut down. I heard they had to sign for the service using their credit card,real life info address and such.

But the ones who won't change, we should avoid them and kick them out. There is no room for hate in this world.

[Vivienne Schell]

9 minutes ago, Theresa Tennyson said:

Yes; wrong, mostly, if we're talking about how election administration works. Do you really believe that at least that many legally-empowered election officials are wrong or lying?

These freaks apparently believe in anything their leader and his enablers tell them. If he´d claim that the world is a plywood cube  they´d call it a triumph of science.

Scary.