Scott75

No one made him solicit minors for sexual activity on these online chat forums. There's absolutely no evidence that he ever solicited any minor for sexual activity on an online chat forum or elsewhere. He chatted up some undercover cops -pretending- to be minors, sometimes. In the last case in 2009, the undercover cop even said they were over 18 in their profile. I went over this with DUI back in November, but I think he forgot or perhaps never even read the message in question. I know he never responded to it. Quoting from what I said back then: It's also important to remember that he testified that he never believed any of the undercover officers he chatted with were minors. There's a thing called role playing you may have heard of.

My current guess is that it was User and he's having a laugh at you believing him :-p. I'm not even American, I'm Canadian Mexican. Anyone who's known me online for a while probably knows that.

False. You are now making things up. No, that's what you'd done, which is why I'd implied that your assertions were false. I'm beginning to think that simply implying that what someone said is false is something I should do more often. Simply doing this got you to admit that your initial statements were false. Your new statement isn't quite right either, as I've seen absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ritter exposed himself to anyone in those stings, but it's at least closer to the truth. Here's what a New York Times article had to say about the 2 encounters in 2001: ** In fact, the police in Colonie, N.Y., encountered Ritter twice in 2001 — and quietly arrested him once — after he contacted cops posing as under-age girls in chat rooms. (Ritter was caught using the unsubtle screen name OnExhibit.) In both cases, Ritter agreed to meet the fictional teenagers in the parking lots of fast-food joints, with the intent of masturbating in front of them, only to be confronted by cops when he got there. [snip] ...the prosecutor dismissed the charges, on the condition that Ritter enter intensive counseling, and a local judge sealed the records. The timing of the revelations about Ritter’s two-year-old arrests, which somehow became public just as the administration was preparing to invade Iraq, certainly seemed to indicate that his political adversaries meant to destroy his credibility. ** Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/26/magazine/scott-ritter.html No, it's not fair to say that at all. For staters, I have seen absolutely no evidence that Mr. Ritter ever exposed himself to a teen girl. But more importantly, I've never even seen any evidence that he was -looking- for a teen girl. All the sources I've seen are that Mr. Ritter spent time in -adult- chat rooms. The last time he met an undercover police officer in a chat room, this was evidently clear. Quoting from a New York Times article on the matter: ** On a February afternoon in 2009, Ryan Venneman, one of only five full-time police officers in tiny Barrett Township, Pa., decided to spend some time hunting for sexual predators online. Venneman entered a Yahoo chat room, where the minimum legal age is supposed be 18, and passed himself off as a teenager named Emily. Before long, he was contacted by a man who said he was 44 and called himself delmarm4fun — a reference to Delmar, N.Y., an Albany suburb about three hours from where Venneman was sitting in the Poconos. ** The undercover officers would then target him there. What's more, Mr. Ritter has explicitly stated that he never believed that the undercover officers were minors. He was right, they weren't. Mr. Ritter testified to this, as the New York Times article I referenced earlier points out. Below he testifies on all 3 times he encountered police, starting with the last time, in 2009, and then getting to the 2 times in 2001: ** At trial, Ritter told the jury that he assumed Venneman was a housewife pretending to be 15, and that he had never for a moment believed he was talking to a minor, despite the fact that “Emily” repeatedly stated her age. When prosecutors were successful in moving to unseal his New York files and presented evidence from those arrests too, Ritter steadfastly maintained that he was aware, in both instances­, that he was talking to undercover cops. He knew his online activities needed to be stopped, Ritter said, so he arranged to meet the officers involved, playing along with the notion that they were teenage girls, so that he could get himself arrested and be forced to face his demons. ** Now I do think the author makes a good point just after the above, namely that if Mr. Ritter was so interested in being stopped, he wouldn't have jumped a curb once he realized he was probably going to get arrested. Quoting: ** This would have been a more persuasive defense, perhaps, had one of the arresting detectives not testified that Ritter, upon seeing the police lying in wait for him, tried to evade capture by slamming down the gas pedal and jumping a curb, T.J. Hooker-style. ** But while Mr. Ritter's testimony that he was just playing along to get himself arrested seems to stretch his credibility, at no point have I seen any evidence that he actually believed the people he was chatting with were actually minors. Again quoting from the time he encountered an undercover officer in 2009, even the chat he had with the officer itself suggests that Mr. Ritter never believed the officer was below 18. Again quoting from the New York Times article: ** “U know ur in a lot of trouble, don’t you,” Venneman typed. “Huh?” “I’m a undercover police officer. U need to call me A.S.A.P.” “Nah,” delmarm4fun wrote. “Your not 15. Yahoo is for 18 and over. It’s all fantasy. No crime.” ** I also remember another article wherein Mr. Ritter's lawyer pointed out that "Emily", the undercover officer's fictional persona, had said in "her" profile that "she" was 24, which certainly lends credence to Mr. Ritter's claim that he never believed that Emily was, in fact, a minor. Other then your adding the word "pervert" in your first sentence, at last you are speaking the truth. Had he simply accepted a plea bargain in the second case, he may well have avoided jail time altogether. On the contrary, Mr. Ritter has been doing quite heroic work in recent years, but his passport was indeed confiscated and his home was indeed raided. Unfortunately, there are sinister forces within the U.S. government that wish to shut down the good work he's been doing. Mr. Ritter wrote a good article on all of this back in August. It can be seen here: https://scheerpost.com/2024/08/17/scott-ritter-a-farewell-to-truth/

For comparison sake, much of Britain was wrecked by the Blitzkrieg. However, the British retaliated, and fought off the Nazis. What were they thinking?. Perhaps they should have just listened to you, took the knee and let the Germans conquer them, according to your bizarre takes. World War II started before Germany's attack on Britain. From what I understand, the official start was when it invaded Poland. There were some major differences between this event and Russia's military operation in Ukraine though: 1- Poland wasn't killing ethnic Germans and German speakers in some part of Poland for 8 years prior to Germany's invasion of the country. 2- Poland certainly hadn't agreed to not one, but 2 treaties stipulating that the ethnic Germans and German speakers residing therein were to be treated with respect. The last straw, ofcourse, was when Ukraine once again attacked the self proclaimed Donbass Republics in the Donbass region of Ukraine to kill yet more ethnic Russians and Russian speakers living there. I think Former Swiss Intelligence Officer captured Putin's predicament quite well in the days leading up to his decision to start a military operation in Ukraine: ** In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over. If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “ Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21. That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them. The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance. In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

False.

I'm going to assume you're claiming this of Scott Ritter. As I've mentioned in the past, I made a thread specifically to address any concerns you or others may have about Mr. Ritter. For the audience, I've responded in detail to DUI's claim in a new post I just made there. It can be seen here:

As I've mentioned numerous times in this thread, there has never been any evidence that Mr. Ritter is a pedophile. There -is- plenty of evidence that Mr. Ritter was targeted after he went against U.S. policy in regards to Iraq, starting with his 1999 book Endgame: Solving the Iraq Problem - Once and For All. Perhaps the final straw for the military war machine was his documentary In Shifting Sands: The Truth about Unscom and the Disarming of Iraq, which came out in 2001. It was also in that year that he became the subject of two law enforcement sting operations.

Fine. Here's the introduction to their article: ** When Russia invaded Ukraine nearly three years ago, President Joe Biden set three objectives for the U.S. response. Ukraine’s victory was never among them. The phrase the White House used to describe its mission at the time—supporting Ukraine “for as long as it takes”—was intentionally vague. It also raised the question: As long as it takes to do what? “We were deliberately not talking about the territorial parameters,” says Eric Green, who served on Biden’s National Security Council at the time, overseeing Russia policy. The U.S., in other words, made no promise to help Ukraine recover all of the land Russia had occupied, and certainly not the vast territories in eastern Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula taken in its initial invasion in 2014. The reason was simple, Green says: in the White House’s view, doing so was beyond Ukraine’s ability, even with robust help from the West. “That was not going to be a success story ultimately. The more important objective was for Ukraine to survive as a sovereign, democratic country free to pursue integration with the West.” That was one of the three objectives Biden set. He also wanted the U.S. and its allies to remain united, and he insisted on avoiding direct conflict between Russia and NATO. Looking back on his leadership during the war in Ukraine — certain to shape his legacy as a statesman — Biden has achieved those three objectives. But success on those limited terms provides little satisfaction even to some of his closest allies and advisers. “It’s unfortunately the kind of success where you don’t feel great about it,” Green says in an interview with TIME. “Because there is so much suffering for Ukraine and so much uncertainty about where it’s ultimately going to land.” ** Source: https://time.com/7207661/bidens-ukraine-win-zelensky-loss/ I think it's clear that Ukraine has already be thoroughly wrecked by this war, but the sad thing is, I'm pretty sure it will only get worse the longer it goes on. You gotta hand it to those times writers, though- saying "for as long as it takes" was "intentionally vague"? That's really something. More like "as long as it's politically expedient". That time is ending.

We all knew you have two accounts, trying to rationalise Russian assets like Scott Ritter, and others. I've never had two accounts here. I'm guessing your issue is that you can't seem to conceptualize a poster who leans left or progressive on some issues, and right or conservative on others. I think it makes perfect sense for many Americans to not want to finance a war on the other side of the world. I also think that Americans need to accept the new trends in gender identity. I don't need to have two accounts to have both of these views. As to Scott Ritter, I think he's had some very relevant things to say in regards to various wars, including the one in Ukraine. If you want to talk more about his personal life, you can always do so in the thread I made specifically for that subject: I think Russia's position makes sense, just as I think that the United States' position during the Cuban missile crisis made sense. No nation wants to have a clear threat right next to its border. Superpowers tend to go to great lengths to ensure that such threats are neutralized.

You use far left sources to validate your points. What "far left" source are you referring to? The opening post referenced an article from Scheerpost. Your -own- source said nothing about it being a "far left" source. Your source also said that it has a "consistent focus on progressive issues and critiques of capitalism and militarism" and -that- I can definitely agree with. Perhaps more importantly though, is that the article I referenced in the opening post was itself referring to an article from Time Magazine. Do you also believe that this is a "far left" source?

It wasn't completely obvious to me- even now, I have some doubts that he will follow through. But I always found him to be more realistic on the pros and cons of staying in that conflict than the democrats, so I definitely believed and continue to believe that the odds are greater that he pulls out of there sooner then if Kamala had been made President. If you actually legitimise Trump, than I am not sure you understand anything in regards to how the World works. I have no idea what you mean by 'legitimise Trump'. I've already said that I'm not one of his fans. I simply said that I think he's more likely to pull out of Ukraine sooner than Kamala would have been. I also think it was good that he recognized the stupidity of helping Ukraine bomb Russia: https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2024/trump-says-it-was-stupid-for-biden-to-let-ukraine-use-us-weapons-to-strike-deeper-into-russia/

First communist, now socialist, you certainly do ascribe a lot of labels to Scheerpost :-p. The funny thing is that when you actually quoted a source critiquing the site, it didn't say it was communist or socialist. Perhaps most importantly, the article I quoted in the opening post was referencing a Time magazine article. Do you think they are communist/socialist as well?

Nope, not really. (I am not a leftists) I don't frame my POV on some random website, I have never even heard of before off of some baseless assertion someone I have never heard of before wrote. Scheerpost was referencing a Time article. Surely you have heard of Time magazine?

Oh, snap! Some leftists' heads are gonna pop 🤣 Looks like the leftists here didn't even notice, or refuse to believe it. That, or they didn't care. I'm really hoping it's the former.

You may want to use a better source than a borderline Communist Independant news company: These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources. Overall, we rate ScheerPost as left-biased due to its consistent focus on progressive issues and critiques of capitalism and militarism. We also rate it Mixed in factual reporting due to the publication of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/scheerpost-bias-and-credibility/ For starters, since when has liberalism and the left wing been the same thing as communism? Scheerpost was launched by Robert Scheer in March 2020, but he's been an American journalist for a lot longer than that. From his Wikipedia page: ** Robert Scheer (born April 4, 1936) is an American left-wing journalist who has written for Ramparts, the Los Angeles Times, Playboy, Hustler Magazine, Truthdig, ScheerPost and other publications as well as having written many books. His column for Truthdig was nationally syndicated by Creators Syndicate in publications such as The Huffington Post and The Nation. He is a clinical professor of communications at the Annenberg School for Communication & Journalism at the University of Southern California. Scheer is the former editor in-chief for the Webby Award-winning[1] online magazine Truthdig.[2] For many years, he co-hosted the nationally syndicated political analysis radio program Left, Right & Center on National Public Radio (NPR), produced at public radio station KCRW in Santa Monica.[3] The Society of Professional Journalists awarded Scheer the 2011 Sigma Delta Chi Award for his column.[4] ** Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Scheer Furthermore, some of the writers that Scheerpost publishes are actually on the right wing. Patrick Lawerence is a good example. He's been pretty harsh with the Biden Administration: https://scheerpost.com/2024/12/06/patrick-lawrence-the-biden-family-of-liars/ That doesn't mean he lets Trump off the hook though: https://scheerpost.com/2025/01/27/patrick-lawrence-trumps-failures-americas-failures/

Yes you are in fact his fan No, I'm not. What "lies" do you think I'm "peddling"? As to the 2022 peace deal that Russia offered Ukraine, it would have been -far- better than what Ukraine will have to accept now. Russia had agreed to leave all the territory it had taken since the start of its military operation/war in Ukraine. That deal is off the table now. At this point, it's unlikely that Russia will cede back much if any of the land that it has taken. However, if Ukraine were to negotiate a peace deal now, it could at least have a good possibility of preventing Russia from taking yet more land. There's also another very important point here, which is that it was actually Ukraine that started hostilities in this war, by attacking eastern Ukraine about a week before Russia's military operation. It seems pretty clear to me that this was the final straw that got Russia to start its military operation. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud gets into the details in an article that he wrote shortly after Russia's military operation in Ukraine began. It can be seen here: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

I should probably point out that I've been for a peace deal from the start. I think it was terrible that Ukraine didn't sign the peace deal it was offered near the start of the war: The Lost Peace? | The Nation

It wasn't completely obvious to me- even now, I have some doubts that he will follow through. But I always found him to be more realistic on the pros and cons of staying in that conflict than the democrats, so I definitely believed and continue to believe that the odds are greater that he pulls out of there sooner then if Kamala had been made President.

You're right, the military aid hasn't stopped, but I think it's only a matter of time. The key will be to see if there is any -new- funding, as opposed to letting the current funding agreements continue. I believe Trump at one point said that Ukraine should conscript people as young as 18 (currently, conscription is just 25+). I remember Zelensky countering saying that he might do so if more weapons were sent- I believe there was no response from the Trump team. Like the democrats before them, Trump is perfectly willing to see Ukraine fight Russia "to the last Ukrainian", but he has much less of an appetite to finance their own destruction.

Not sure if this story is true in whole or in part, but I thought the story was really good regardless, in terms of a philosophy on how to live. Constructive feedback welcome...

I'm no fan of Trump, but I believe that abandoning Ukraine militarily is the right option. Trump has said some good things recently, such as his point that Zelensky passed on a very reasonable peace deal back in April 2022: https://scheerpost.com/2025/01/26/trump-zelensky-passed-on-deal-decided-to-fight/ What Trump -doesn't- mention is that he was encouraged to pass on it by western powers. From the article: ** When Zelensky was close to signing the deal, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Kiev where he pushed Zelensky to forgo diplomacy and attempt to drive the Russian forces from Ukraine. At the time, members of NATO promised to give Ukraine everything it needed to win the war. ** There's also the fact that Biden et al never expected Ukraine to win in its war with Russia, as the article in the opening post reveals. I think the oft quoted saying of "to the last Ukrainian" was always the underlying motto. Some realized this early on: https://scheerpost.com/2022/09/14/lee-camp-how-the-us-uk-stopped-peace-deal-in-ukraine/

Interesting article from Kit Klarenberg published today on Scheerpost. Quoting the introduction and conclusion of the article: ** On January 19th, TIME magazine published an astonishing article, amply confirming what dissident, anti-war academics, activists, journalists and researchers have argued for a decade. The US always intended to abandon Ukraine after setting up the country for proxy war with Russia, and never had any desire or intention to assist Kiev in defeating Moscow in the conflict, let alone achieving its maximalist aims of regaining Crimea and restoring the country’s 1991 borders. To have a major mainstream outlet finally corroborate this indubitable reality is a seismic development. The TIME article’s brief first paragraph alone is rife with explosive revelations. It notes when the proxy war erupted in February 2022, then-President Joe Biden “set three objectives for the US response” – and “Ukraine’s victory was never among them.” Moreover, the phrase oft-repeated by White House apparatchiks, that Washington would support Kiev “for as long as it takes”, was never meant to be taken literally. Instead, it was just “intentionally vague” newspeak, with no implied timeframe or even desired outcome in mind. Eric Green, a member of Biden’s National Security Council who oversaw Russia policy, states the US “deliberately…made no promise” to President Volodymyr Zelensky to “recover all of the land Russia had occupied” since the conflict’s inception, “and certainly not” Crimea or the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. He said the White House believed “doing so was beyond Ukraine’s ability, even with robust help from the West.” It was well-understood such efforts were “not going to be a success story ultimately” for Kiev, if tried. According to TIME, the Biden administration’s three key objectives in Ukraine were all “achieved”. Nonetheless, “success” on these fronts “provides little satisfaction” to some of the former President’s “closest allies and advisers.” Green was quoted as saying Washington’s purported victory in Ukraine was “unfortunately the kind of success where you don’t feel great about it,” due to Kiev’s “suffering”, and “so much uncertainty about where it’s ultimately going to land.” [snip] Markedly, Zelensky was not present at Trump’s inauguration. In a January 6th interview with Newsweek, the Ukrainian President – typically never one to shy away from international jollies – said he “would like to [attend], of course”, but had received no invitation. In a rambling response, he said he was “not sure it’s proper to come,” particularly “during the war.” Sources close to Trump have claimed that on the contrary, Zelensky repeatedly asked to attend, but was rebuffed. For Berlin, Kiev, London, Paris, and NATO more widely, the writing couldn’t be on the wall any more plainly. Whatever reveries they may have of maintaining the proxy war any longer – Britain recently signed a 100-year-long partnership with Ukraine, under which London will “explore” building military bases on Kiev’s soil – they all ultimately remain imperial vassals, wholly dependent on US financial and military support to exist. Save for a major false flag incident, Trump’s message can only be received among the military alliance. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2025/01/27/its-official-us-abandoning-ukraine/

Biologically it is absolutely a binary. One sex carries the egg, the other sex carries the sperm. When it comes to mammals that's basically it. You're mistaken. There are rare cases where humans have both sperm and eggs. They're a subcategory of people who are intersex. That being said, having both makes it difficult to conceive: ** Do you have both male and female reproductive organs? Some intersex people have both testes and ovaries. You may be able to get pregnant on your own, if you also have a uterus. However, if you have testes, they may be releasing more testosterone than would be optimal for conception and pregnancy. If you have both testes and ovaries and are having trouble becoming pregnant, we may remove the testicular tissue. We may also recommend hormone therapy to increase your chances of ovulating and becoming pregnant. ** Source: https://www.ocfertility.com/blog/im-intersex-can-i-have-a-baby

Not vast but it exists, it's biologically based and there's an anthropological reason for it. We agree on this. Your reasoning sounds good. Could you give me an example of the above happening? I saw your video. I will say that while I don't always agree with Jordan Peterson, I certainly have at times. As an example, I know he wrote an article on the Ukraine war a few months after it started, where I certainly agreed with some of his points. I would say the same with the video above. But the video you posted doesn't get into that many details, so I think that's as far as we can go with this. I skimmed your article. I'll quote the conclusion: ** She wants critics to understand that her positions were considered radically progressive only a decade ago, and that, when responsible guardrails are in place, medical transitions can be profoundly beneficial to authentic transsexuals. Before transitioning, Wu’s dysphoria “broke (her) as a person,” fuelling addiction issues, she told me. Now, she is a successful business owner and a proud taxpayer who has been happily married to a man for 16 years. Wu said she doesn’t need anyone to believe “some esoteric argument about me truly being a woman” and just wants people to “let me have autonomy over my own body and to make decisions with my healthcare provider.” Not every trans activist needs to be like her, but if more adopted her approach, maybe the gender culture war could simmer down. ** So she's clearly for transitioning for authentic transsexuals. I'm alright with that. She also states she doesn't need anyone to believe "some esoteric argument about me truly being a woman"- which I think we can all agree with as well. I think the real issue is, what would be best? I personally think that it would be best if we allow people to define their gender as the one they identify with and I -suspect- that Wu would agree.

But... you do think minors should be told that boys can be girls and all it takes for a girl to be a boy or vice versa is for them to say they are. No, I've never said that either. I do believe that boys and girls should be allowed to claim whatever gender they wish, but that's not the same thing as saying that a boy or a girl can simply transform into the opposite sex. No, I think I've told you multiple times that I am -not- in favour of kids getting gender-affirming care. I've even gone to say that I don't think kids should even be allowed to get it, at least any of the hormones/hormone blockers and surgery part of it. Furthermore, I even have reservations when it comes to adults getting gender-affirming care, though I do think they should be allowed to get it. I just learned that voice and communication therapy is also a part of gender-affirming care- that part might be alright. If you'd like to know more about all the aspects of gender-affirming care, you can take a look at the following link: https://www.webmd.com/sex/gender-affirming-care