Is the Head of the IMF a Sex Criminal?

LOL and true however in Firefly world view women all women must be look upon as defenseless victims to any male no matter his age or condition.

Problem is that his thinking is as muddled as his prose.

He can't absorb new material--he fixates on one thing and just harps on it incessantly, ignoring anything, usually many things, that don't fit into his very narrow conception--and that's true no matter the topic. So he never corrects errors in his thinking, or learns anything new, because he can't allow anything to penetrate.

Those protesters at Cambridge were angry at DSK for good reason, and it's not just about Diallo, although they were clearly outraged that he wasn't prosecuted for assaulting her. The man's reputation is terrible in terms of his treatment of women--the Diallo case just blew the lid off of it so his other past actions received world wide publicity. So people are reacting and voicing their disapproval of him in no uncertain terms. And a lot of those angry protesters at Cambridge were men.

And, what's most significant, is that this sort of protest will affect DSK's ability to rehabilitate his image, because it continues to focus public attention on that aspect of his life, along with the prostitution ring investigation, and the upcoming pre-trial hearings in Diallo's civil suit. He's going to be haunted by his own past transgressions for a long time to come, and he knows it.

And BillRM can't understand any of it. He actively blocks out negative info about DSK--things DSK has done, and said, and admitted to--BillRM is absolutely unable to remember. He keeps asking for links when the links were previously posted in this thread. He doesn't want to remember, or have to consider, anything that suggests that this man ever did anything wrong.

I'm not sure I understand his blindly slavish adoration of this man, but I've repeatedly had the feeling he's jealous of Diallo. First he was clearly jealous of what he thought was her chance to get a big "payday" out of what happened to her. It seems BillRM would be willing to do anything for a lot of money, and he was just about salivating over what he thought Diallo's "windfall" would be. But more and more I think he's jealous that he missed the chance for a sexual encounter with DSK--he can't understand why Diallo would say, "No" or resist DSK, because he sure wouldn't. And that's why he keeps talking about DSK's penis, because talking about it is as close to it as he can get.

Given that you had never been the most trueful/honest person on this website your claims that such links had already been posted have near zero creditability.



Given the lack of evidence and the constant lying of the so call victim any prosecution not only would had surely been a waste of time and resources but also a miscarriage of justice.



My my what we do know for sure is that the maid had been willing to lied about one rape that never happen for her own benefits so there is zero reason to think that she would not do so again for a big payday.

No they were not. There were 62,261,850 (approx) citizens of the UK who hadn't thought fit to attend. And 108, 751 residents of Cambridge who took a similar view. I dare speculate that few of the 150 are residents of Cambridge and a significant number with no connection to the University. It was a staged event choreographed by a hard core of experienced activists who will take advantage of any situation to cause disruption and mayhem.

DSK is an innocent man. The New York system of justice, such as it is after a peremptory arrest of a leading world citizen, a disgraceful perp walk, equally disgraceful court hearings, ridiculous remand to a week in prison, fatuous bail conditions and leaks of false information, found, after weeks of heated consideration, that there was no case to bring before a jury and he was allowed to leave the US. The protesters had no right to find him guilty on the basis of selectively chosen reports selectively chosen to be read and to base a nasty and sordid disruption of the Queen's peace.

They were angry because they want to be angry. Any excuse would have served the same purpose. It's origin is probably their mums having allowed them to bang their baking spoons on an upturned jam pan all afternoon during infancy and, indeed smiled indulgently upon them doing so.

What was needed was a firehose. Not a very big one.

Does it not even give you pause for thought that they could only raise the paltry number of 150. Why is such a vast majority in both the UK and Cambridge not angry. There's at least 10 million laughing their socks off at this shameless parade of sexual hang-ups of which this performance is but a faint echo of in proportion to its distance from the epicentre.

I can think of many instances in those years to which the Leveson Enquiry is addressing itself where there is far more cause for outrage that prosecutions have not taken place. If all else fails I am sure there will be an aspect of our constitution which covers bringing the governing class into disrepute. There is such a clause in most organisations of note's constitution. And it's a serious offence as many sportsmen and their managers know only too well.

It's the sex. The jism splattering, the bruised fannies, the ripped tights and disarranged underclothes (a favourite phrase in the News of the World (now defunct due to circumstances we could have prevented) when it could not use the crude and distasteful banalities in common usage in our enlightened times. It's getting up close, vicariously, to the ambience conjured up by the Sapphic chanting of ritualistic imagery.

The cleverer girls are sending out faint signals to the lads sat in their rooms studying the physics or training for the Boat Race.

I'm not sure which is the most trivial. The event on the hotel carpet or any of the demos it has spawned, using the word advisedly, we are talking biology, or the Telegraph editor who thought fit to pump it up for circulation reasons. Possibly for private ones as well. Such as getting the young ladies in the office a second-hand version of what the young ladies at the demo were getting. Damp panties. And bringing it to the readers. Again. But even more watered down. Or we gallantly presume so.

I know what the men were there for ff. If you want to ascribe some nobler motive to them you should considered what Shakespeare had a man say about men.



I feel sure that DSK will learn, if he hasn't already, to enjoy being haunted by his own transgressions and the ability to turn dryasdust, academic economic discussions into events of great national significance.

Back to Bernard Shaw.

Firefly is in fact one of the most decent people on A2K, on another thread she's put in a lot of time and energy trying to convince a very depressed man that his life is worth living. A lot more time and energy than I can be bothered with in fact.

On the other hand you're just concerned with your own, rather disgusting, perversions. You're not only dishonest in the way you try to portray yourself on A2K, but you lie to yourself as well. You're the only one stupid enough to believe those lies.

Can you not see ff that you start from the position of thinking the things DSK has supposedly done, or admitted to doing, are "wrong" without actually explaining why they are wrong because you cannot say they were illegal as there are no convictions to cite. Nor can you say whether any events took place in the manner they have been portrayed as having done by the "bodice ripping" school of journalistic excellence which you are to be congratulated for studying with such rapt attention. It is that school of journalism I study. Especially when its experts are commanding the front pages. I know my Frank Harris. The inventor of the school. Kissing and fighting.

You are taking a Christian position actually. On what is wrong. Not a legal one. You now know that the legal position allows Hitler's rapes of pure German maidenhood in the interest of some mad idea he had got into his head, probably out of Darwin, to be not only not rapes but highly commendable submissions deserving of privileged positions in society for having child-bearing hips blonde hair and good teeth. You have no legal wrong. Merely the Christian wrong. Which has changed considerably since I first began looking at the world outside my immediate surroundings.

You need to address this circularity in your argument. You talk as if a prostitution ring exists for DSK's exclusive use and not for many others in similar circles that he mixes in. Presumably none of the participants think it wrong.

And had gallant little Britain submitted to Hitler, and many were in favour, they would possibly not be rapes now. There are slippery slopes all over the place on this subject.

It might be worth mentioning that those placards being waved about at the demo, which it is easy to not think much about, had to be made. 4 ft lengths of timber about 1 inch square in cross section had to be found or purchased. Similarly with the white cardboard. Then what to print on them had to be agreed. Then, when agreed, printed and fastened to the timber stake securely enough to allow for weather conditions. The inner circle probably were getting these things done early in the day and working themselves into a lather of righteous indignation intended to explode in an orgasm of release at the sight of DSK's silver locks and then the relief and the usual subsequent deflation which normally follows such organic sequences.

Firefly and those like her dont give a damn about that....they have a whole list of things they dont like and by God they mean to make sure that no one does them. Police state advocates wish to place the power to decide what people do with the state, not with the people.

Oh boo hoo, nasty Firefly won't let you set up death camps............Nazi.

But the trouble is hawk that there might be valid reasons for such a position. But they have allowed matters to drift in regard to morals to a state where people are becoming unsure of what is right or wrong.

I've seen a film of two young ladies performing blow jobs on 70 blokes in two queues claiming it to be a record and of Mr Jeremy emmceeing a prettiest pussy competition in the open air at which about 200 healthy young women showed up to be judged.

Both movies had Library of Congress reference numbers and copyright protection.

DSK is to be commended for sticking to loosely Christian ceremonials rather than the Pagan ones exhibited in those films imo.

Rider Haggard has Cleopatra say--

Yes spendius, there could be valid reasons to run over the individual, but since we can't talk honestly about either the erotic or power and for damn sure not the combination of the erotic and power there has never been a valid argument for handing control of our intimate relationships over to the state. The advocates for the police state make undocumented assertions, demonize all who don't agree and have the Gual to open our mouths, and whip the stupid into an emotional frenzy. It reminds me a lot of some cult gatherings that I have taken part in....feels just the same.

The last bolt-hole is Charm. Charm has been notable for its absence during the unfolding of this sorry tale. Did you ever see anything quite so devoid of Charm as this sordid story? The gutters and slime of Paris in the thirties was relieved at times by Miller's capacity to charm but there's not a spark of it here.

The high point of Charm was Stendhal. But it has to be admitted that some pretty uncharming things were common all around him.

What is perplexing is that to correct those inhumanities, and they were ghastly, we seem to have needed to lose the Charm. Some will say that it is worse than that. They will say that we have replaced one set of inhumanities with another set of inhumanities, of which this case is a minor example, and the Charm disappeared down the drain in the process.

But I don't think that. Our inhumanities, generally speaking and setting aside specific circumstances, are an improvement which I welcome.

Look how charming it was when those refined ladies in their finery fainted on hearing Darwin outline his dissertation in the asymptote of uncharmingness. Today they gaze in rapture, dressed like sacks of potatoes, at the likes of Professor Dawkins exhaling the same stale air over their pretty little heads.

Tropic of Cancer for example was a deliberately exaggerated exercise in charmlessness as much as to say "take a look at the Naked Lunch" and do something about it. And it was banned.

Take a look at Mr and Mrs Cameron's arrival in the USA. If they all had squinted one might have thought it was in China. Mr Cameron escorted his lovely wife, who was wearing trousers, having been briefed about customs in the US, right round a very long motor car made of battleship hull steel, as if to open the door for her and the uniformed officer escort at that side actually performed the ritual. He then walked back round to his own side where he had another officer open the door for him. That's modern charm. I'll not comment about the Union Jack being upside down on the first attempt because it might have been a jest. If so it isn't at all that original.

The feminists consider charm to be a female survival method in the male dominated culture....the disappearance of charm from females represents victory, it is no longer required.

And what is then done with the victory to prevent it turning to ashes for the grand-daughters?

Feminism is like evolution promotion. Stumped when asked to describe what results from victory.

I think that feminism is fundamentally mistaken.

It's an ideology and like all ideologies it results from increasing social pressures. Traditionally Americans have been far freer from social pressure than Europeans. de Tocqueville wrote an essay entitled "Why the Americans Have Never Been so Eager as the French for General Ideas in Political Affairs"

A low density of population in an unexploited land with Industrial Revolutions to draw from is going to be relatively free from social pressures and a man gets to do what a man's got to do with only the most basic restrictions and even those difficult to enforce.

It is another mistake to imagine that such freedom from ideology was a communal wisdom demonstrating moderation and maturity. However flattering such a thought is the actual cause is sociological, and any population in similar circumstance would have come to the same position. It is not an indication of Americans being uniquely wonderful but a product of social conditions and the general suspicion of ideology turned into a national belief system should not automatically follow despite the obvious temptation. It is the effect of a specific cause.

So the growth of ideology in the US is a sign of increased social pressure except that now there is no new frontier to relieve such pressure for the intrepid spirit. As choices become less and less in this modern industrial situation the search for something ultimate in social and political life has only ideology to turn to for relief. As I pointed out yesterday there was "relief" in the Cambridge pavement crowd. A rage slightly depressurised.

But the cause of the pressure has actually been increased by the demo. Only a tiny fraction of course. The cause is our sense that we ourselves are becoming objects, or even just functions, of large impersonal forces which we hardly understand and cannot control.

The passion of ideology is that of people with their backs to the wall.

Feminism is unable to attack the cause of such pressure. It needs the agents of the pressure to promote itself.

So it attacks what it fondly thinks is misogyny. It is a very easy target especially when a single trivial incident can be blown out of all proportion and generalisations about men, if not specifically stated to be derived from DSK, are unconsciously felt to be by repetition and emphasis.

And the pressures causing such an ideology as feminism don't simply apply to women. They apply to men.

By dividing men and women as feminism does the forces causing the social pressures are thereby strengthened and thus the pressures increase and the ideology becomes more and more strident.

And men who join the misogyny chorus, possibly due to their personal characteristics not being very attractive to women and this form of ingratiation has to be called upon to try to fill the gap, which it never will in the eyes of healthy intelligent women, are the pits of the earth and the most dangerous enemy women have. Their sheer easy plausibility gives them away. As does their complacent self-approval as rescuers of what they must believe is the weaker sex. Wankers all.

Between the little dears they wrung the neck of the Head of the IMF for ****'s sake. And a long list of others stretching right back into antiquity. They only run the economy.

That's why Vance should resign. For so easily succumbing to the temptation to ingratiate himself with women with so little to go on as he eventually had to admit. And most of it bullshit. He's unAmerican.

It's actually what the election is about. The idea that Mr Santorum is a misogynist is ludicrous. Why does providing all the women with free artifical birth control tricks decrease pressure on women. It's bound to increase it because it removes their fall back position--fear of pregnancy. Shyness and chaste reticence has to become being awkward and uncoperative. They are then just like men. Seeking only sexual relief in the moment when their reproductive system is geared by evolution, or Divine technology, to a 2 year long biological process ending in weaning. And it causes them problems in the long run as do all frustrations of biological processes.

Feminists, in attacking men, are attacking the wrong target and are making the real target that much more difficult to attack.

And DSK is not a sex criminal and it is a libel to say he is.

You don't say? Wow, I'd never have guessed.

It was the text of the post.

Have you ever tried to justify the validity of it? It's no use just asserting it. Assertions count for nothing and persuade nobody. The justification might.

What was your justification izzy?

Don't start going all Reasoning Logic on me, you understand irony, so stop pretending not to. If your gran had said that to you, you'd have nodded sheepishly and accepted another sherry.

These three are actually quite funny. If any of them had a sense of humor they might be able to appreciate why their posts generate laughs more than anything else.