On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:08:33AM -0300, Punk-BatSoup-Stasi 2.0 wrote:
>
> >
> > Soros is globalist, and willing to destroy nations to affect his agenda,
> > e.g. Ukraine.
>
>
> soros is a jew-US nazi. Ukraine was one of the latest targets of the
> pentagon. Oops. The jew soros is an agent of the pentagon. Who would have
> though that...
>
> also, as a jew-pentagon-US nazi, soros is the best friend of trump and
> accomplices
>
>
> >
> > The "pound me too" #metoo was indeed a farce, at least after it died, yet
> > it was a powerful and effective tool for a time period, causing many to
> > suffer/ lose their jobs etc, unjustly.
>
> hollywood is a key pentagon propaganda outlet, and the WHORES who want
> to 'work' there know it. So it's a double farce. WHORES whining because they
> are treated according to their nature, and pretending to have any 'moral high
> ground' when they actually are pentagon...whores.
>
>
> > One thing Soros is strongly opposed to is the USA's "anti sex-trafficking"
> > laws.
>
> bullshit
Ahah! Finally a little blunt honesty in your position. Well done and excuse
my condescension - previously it appeared that you had completely misread the
quote which you quoted, now rather than appearing to misread that quote, you
are challenging it.
Challenging a quote is an obviously more constructive approach to responding to
that quote as though you have misread that quote, which is what you did. A
simple ACK can go a long way to more constructive communication and for the
hope to actually achieve the outcomes you profess to want.
Your change from initially saying "Soros is a feminazi, anti-sex cunt. Exactly
like you" to now saying that "Soros does NOT oppose the USA's "anti
sex-trafficking" laws", is now not what we can label as "a shift of ground",
since now you are consistent in your position, which is more useful to
constructive communication.
Now that we got _that_ confusion cleaned up, we may usefully continue:
You appear to me to be one LAZY ARSED N.GGER, Juan :) Let me explain: I
originally posted a 'tube vid AND an article link to OAN, the One America News
network, and I quoted FROM THAT video:
"Open Society Foundations opposed US federal prostitution and sex
trafficking laws"
Those double quote chars at both the start and end of that quote, should have
been the give away that this was a quote from the previously linked article.
In the face of this quote from OAN, and in the face of the mixup of what was
quoted/ written and clarified since then, you turn around with your pithy
"bullshit" non-reply.
How lazy is that!
You failed to do even a cursory Yandex search to see if there was any substance
to OAN's quote, and instead take the "bold" (actually bloody lazy) approach of
"total dismissal" of OAN's quote, as though that settles it. Which of course
does not settle the issue, nor did you add anything to the substance of the
discussion except to highlight what a lazy arsed muffa you just were.
So I had the assumption in the OP that OAN are NOT such lazy arsed muffas and
that they value their reputation AND their funding (adverts, sponsorship or
whatever they get) sufficiently high enough that they would fact check such an
amazing claim made in these highly turbulent times against such a polarising
and controversial figure as George Soros! In the face of the fake news media
including CNN, NYT, MSNBC, ABC, etc etc, it is perhaps unwise to make such
assumptions, cest la vie.
Since you laid down the gauntlet ("bullshit") thus implicitly asking me to
provide verification beyond "it's a quote from OAN", and we've come this far,
and I'm feeling an extraordinarily massive bout of humility, I shall do the
immense task of a quick Yoogle search for us all:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=soros+opposition+to+usa+%22sex+trafficking%22+laws
https://khn.org/morning-breakout/dr00032746/
Open Society Institute Files Lawsuit Against USAID Challenging Policy
Requiring Pledge Against Commercial Sex Work
The Open Society Institute, which was founded by billionaire financier
George Soros, on Friday filed a lawsuit against USAID over a U.S. policy
requiring that recipients of federal HIV/AIDS service grants pledge to oppose
commercial sex work, the Wall Street Journal reports (Harwood, Wall Street
Journal, 9/23). The Bush administration in June notified U.S. organizations
providing HIV/AIDS-related services in other countries that they must sign a
pledge opposing commercial sex work and sex trafficking to be considered for
federal funding. ...
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322192478_Decriminalization_of_Prostitution_The_Soros_Effect
Decriminalization of Prostitution: The Soros Effect
https://www.theepochtimes.com/soros-charity-should-have-to-oppose-prostitution-to-receive-us-grants-supreme-court-told_3339879.html
Soros Charity Should Have to Oppose Prostitution to Receive US Grants,
Supreme Court Told
The Trump administration urged the Supreme Court May 5 to leave in place a
legal provision that requires foreign organizations receiving U.S. government
grants to oppose prostitution and sex trafficking.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-supreme-court
Oral arguments were heard by the high court telephonically for the second
time in history in the case cited as USAID v. Alliance for Open Society
International Inc. (AOSI). Chief Justice John Roberts announced at the outset
of the hearing that Justice Elena Kagan recused herself and wouldn’t be
participating.
... “Criminalization of sex work compromises sex workers’ health and safety
by driving sex work underground,” the OSF website states.
https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/explainers/understanding-sex-work-open-society
... Congress imposed a funding condition that requires recipients of grants
under the statute “to have a policy opposing prostitution and sex trafficking,
which Congress found are coercive practices that spread HIV/AIDS and degrade
women and girls.”
https://humanumreview.com/articles/prostituted-people-are-the-walking-dead-so-why-does-amnesty-international-advocate-for-the-sex-industry
Prostituted People are the Walking Dead: So Why Does Amnesty International
Advocate for the Sex Industry?
Few public policy issues have been as quickly and as universally
acknowledged as the criminal phenomenon of human trafficking. Twenty years ago,
there was no international legal definition of the problem. Then in 2000, the
United Nations (UN) and the United States (US) adopted, respectively, a
comprehensive convention and a landmark law against sexual exploitation, forced
labor, and contemporary slavery. Harrowing accounts of abuse reported by
faith-based and feminist organizations were the main motivation compelling
these new rules in both the UN and the US.
An insane twist has entered the politics of human trafficking, though:
Despite massive education on its harm and criminality, prostitution, which
openly commodifies women, is today promoted by organizations such as Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, and other groups within the United Nations
System. The emergence of a lobby to normalize and legalize the buying and
selling of human beings—the basic transaction at work in prostitution—
demonstrates how the Left’s obsession with sexual libertinism (its ultimate
yardstick of personal freedom) rationalizes the denial of human dignity to
others, including the poor, homeless, displaced, addicted, coerced, vulnerable
majority who comprise the greater part of prostituted people. ...
https://catwinternational.org/press/catw-ed-responds-to-the-new-york-times-article-on-soros/
On Oct. 17, The New York Times published “George Soros Transfers Billions to
Open Society Foundations.” The article neglected to highlight OSF’s position on
full decriminalization of the sex trade. In response, our executive director
wrote a letter to the editor that remains unpublished by the newspaper. The
full text of the letter follows below.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/business/george-soros-open-society-foundations.html
Dear Editor:
While George Soros claims to combat “dark forces,” (“George Soros Transfers
Billions to Open Society Foundations,” Oct. 17, 2017), his footprint promoting
commercial sexual exploitation, including prostitution, is transparent. From
Amnesty International to Black Lives Matter, from Colombia to South Africa,
Soros heavily funds groups advocating for the decriminalization of the sex
trade, including pimping and brothel-owning. Conversely, women’s rights
organizations and survivors are pushing to pass laws worldwide that solely
decriminalize prostituted individuals and provide them services.
[----THIS position sounds at least superficially rational.----]
It is illogical for Soros to contend that governments can protect the
exploited by decriminalizing their exploiters. Vibrant democracies rest on
governments’ political will to uphold all individuals’ dignity and equality.
Soros should understand that buying sexual access to women’s bodies is an
unfettered exercise of violent power and control exercised by those who have
choices over those who have few or none. If Soros succeeds in efforts to shield
the multi-billion dollar sex industry, fueled by sex traffickers and sex
buyers, generations of the most disenfranchised — overwhelmingly women of color
— won’t stand a chance at enjoying their human rights or the promise of
democracy.
Taina Bien-Aimé
Executive Director
And the following I reflexively closed the browser tab on, since it shows Soros
in a good light, before realising that ignoring the positives is biased in a
way which would be self-defeating to the truly "conscientious for positive
change":
https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/april-web-only/dont-make-george-soros-oppose-prostitution.html
Don't Make George Soros Oppose Prostitution
The government's ideology requirement at question in USAID v. Open Society
International is dangerous.
Stanley Carlson-ThiesApril 17, 2013
George Soros, founder of the Alliance for Open Society, wants to help
prostitutes and other sex workers. The thing he won't accept is a government
gag order when it comes to free speech and conscience rights. And he shouldn't.
This is what is at stake in USAID v. Alliance for Open Society, which is
slated for oral argument at the U.S. Supreme Court on April 22. The case is
complicated, but concerned Christians and religious groups should take note
of—and support—Soros' counterintuitive position, even if they disagree with his
stance on prostitution. The ramifications for faith-based organizations whose
views diverge from the current popular consensus are huge.
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/agency-for-international-development-v-alliance-for-open-society-international-inc/
The messy case involves the Leadership Act of 2003, which provides funding
for the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the federal
government's massive, George W. Bush-initiated commitment to fight HIV/AIDS.
The Act takes a comprehensive approach, seeking to reduce risky sexual
behavior. Accordingly, Congress required organizations seeking funding for HIV
prevention services overseas to have a policy "explicitly opposing prostitution
and sex trafficking."
http://www.pepfar.gov/
http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/12-10-Petition.pdf
Organizations like Soros's Alliance for Open Society long have regarded the
requirement to be counterproductive, making it more difficult for them to reach
prostitutes, who are both particularly vulnerable and disproportionately likely
to spread the disease. They argued that the government overreached by requiring
them to affirm a particular commitment (rather than just be silent) and for
that commitment to be required for the entire organization and not just for the
program of services funded by the government.
> > - There may actually be real problems which actual humans face, and which
> > Soros profits from, and which the USA's "anti sex-trafficking" laws attempt
> > to handle.
>
>
> lawl - Have you and Jim Bell already liberated iran and cuba? Don't
> forget to bring your super quantum super secret ray, your bible, and coca
> cola!
>
>
> >
> > - More superficially, to oppose "anti sex-trafficking" laws, at least to
> > do so "with no nuance or specificity", is surely unlikely to gain the
> > needed widespread support for such a proposed change ?
>
>
> what proposed change
You're the one opposing the USA's "anti sex-trafficking" laws. However,
although I won't hold you to a position completely free of nuance and
apparently free of much at all in the way of thought, perhaps the obvious
encouragement is "let's lift our game"...
