Archive by Author

Jesse James Now What????

28 May

After Sandra said how supportive her husband has been during her Oscar speech she finds out her was cheating on her with tattoo strippers. Now he is ‘sick of people thinking he is a monster’

Apparently he broke down in tears in an interview talking about failed marriages and abuse as a child.

Is this interview proving he’s human or is he trying to get off the most hated list.



Were Confederate soldiers terrorists?

11 Apr

Credit to: CNN

By Roland S. Martin, CNN Political Analyst


-Roland Martin says defenders of Confederate soldiers say they were protecting their homeland

-He says the Civil War was fought over slavery, an indefensible institution

-Martin says modern terrorists also say they are defending their homeland

-He says Confederates should not be honored but should be considered “domestic terrorists”

Editor’s note: Roland S. Martin, a CNN political analyst, is a nationally syndicated columnist and author of “Listening to the Spirit Within: 50 Perspectives on Faith,” and the new book, “The First: President Barack Obama’s Road to the White House.” He is a commentator for TV One Cable Network and host of a Sunday morning news show.

(CNN) — Based on the hundreds of e-mails, Facebook comments and Tweets I’ve read in response to my denunciation of Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell’s decision to honor Confederates for their involvement in the Civil War — which was based on the desire to continue slavery — the one consistent thing that supporters of the proclamation offer up as a defense is that these individuals were fighting for what they believed in and defending their homeland.

In criticizing me for saying that celebrating the Confederates was akin to honoring Nazi soldiers for killing of Jews during the Holocaust, Rob Wagner said, “I am simply defending the honor and dignity of men who were given no choice other than to fight, some as young as thirteen.”

Sherry Callahan said that supporting the Confederacy is “our history. Not hate; it’s about heritage and history.”

Javier Ramirez called slavery evil, but prefaced his remarks by saying that “Confederate soldiers were never seen as terrorists by [President Abraham] Lincoln or U.S. generals on the battlefield. They were accorded POW status, they were never tried for war crimes. Not once did Confederate soldiers do any damage to civilians or their property in their invasion of the north. The same is not true of Union soldiers.”

Realskirkland sent me a Tweet saying, “Slavery is appalling, but was not the only reason for the CW [Civil War]. Those men, while misguided on some fronts stood up for what they felt was right. They embodied that American ideal that the states have a right to govern themselves. THAT is what a confederate soldier stood for.”

If you take all of these comments, don’t they sound eerily similar to what we hear today from Muslim extremists who have pledged their lives to defend the honor of Allah and to defeat the infidels in the West?

When you make the argument that the South was angry with the North for “invading” its “homeland,” Osama bin Laden has said the same about U.S. soldiers being on Arab soil. He has objected to our bases in Saudi Arabia, and that’s one of the reasons he has launched his jihad against us. Is there really that much of a difference between him and the Confederates? Same language; same cause; same effect.

If a Confederate soldier was merely doing his job in defending his homeland, honor and heritage, what are we to say about young Muslim radicals who say the exact same thing as their rationale for strapping bombs on their bodies and blowing up cafes and buildings?

If the Sons of Confederate Veterans use as a talking point the vicious manner in which people in the South were treated by the North, doesn’t that sound exactly like the Taliban saying they want to kill Americans for the slaughter of innocent people in Afghanistan?

Defenders of the Confederacy say that innocent people were killed in the Civil War; hasn’t the same argument been presented by Muslim radicals in Iraq, Afghanistan and other places where the U.S. has tangled with terrorists?

We can’t on the one hand justify the actions of Confederates as being their duty as valiant men of the South, and then condemn the Muslim extremists who want to see Americans die a brutal death. These men are held up as honorable by their brethren, so why do Americans see them as different from our homegrown terrorists?

The fundamental problem with extremism is that when you’re on the side that is fanatical, all of your actions make sense to you, and you are fluent in trying to justify every action. Every position of those you oppose is a personal affront that calls for you to do what you think is necessary to protect yourself and your family.

Just as radical Muslims have a warped sense of religion, Confederate supporters have a delusional view of what is honorable. The terrorists are willing to kill their own to prove their point, and the Confederates were just as willing in the Civil War to take up arms against their fellow Americans to justify their point.

Even if you’re a relative of one of the 9/11 hijackers, that man was an out-and-out terrorist, and nothing you can say will change that. And if your great-great-great-granddaddy was a Confederate who stood up for Southern ideals, he too was a terrorist.

They are the same.

As a matter of conscience, I will not justify, understand or accept the atrocious view of Muslim terrorists that their actions represent a just war. They are reprehensible, and their actions a sin against humanity.

And I will never, under any circumstances, cast Confederates as heroic figures who should be honored and revered. No — they were, and forever will be, domestic terrorists.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of Roland Martin.


1 Mar

Haha so the funnything is I haven’t introduced myself I am juicystar07. (Shelby) I actually made this account before the famous juicystar07 made hers. I was brwosing through my spam and apparently you excepted my author request 🙂

thanks for the request.


Italian court convicts Google execs over video

24 Feb

In a case that could have broad implications for Internet use around the world, an Italian court convicted three Google Inc. executives Wednesday of criminal charges for failing to quickly remove an uploaded video.

Officials at the Mountain View company pledged to appeal, saying if the verdict is allowed to stand, “the Web as we know it will cease to exist.”

Legal experts agreed the case raises troubling questions for all U.S. Internet companies that do business globally.

“It absolutely is a threat,” said Danny O’Brien, international outreach coordinator for the Electronic Frontier Foundation of San Francisco.

“If intermediaries like Google or the person who hosts your Web site can be thrown in jail in any country for the acts of other people and suddenly have a legal obligation to prescreen everything anyone says on their Web site before putting it online, the tools for free speech that everyone uses on the Net would grind to a halt.”

Judge Oscar Magi found three of Google’s executives – global privacy counsel Peter Fleischer, chief legal officer David Drummond and retired Chief Financial Officer George Reyes – guilty of violating Italian privacy laws.

In absentia, the executives were handed six-month suspended sentences, although the judge also cleared them, along with a fourth executive, of defamation charges.

The case revolves around a video uploaded to Google Video in 2006 showing an autistic boy in Turin being pummeled and insulted by teenage bullies at school. The video was uploaded before Google bought the more popular YouTube.

The video drew 5,500 views in the two months before Google Italy pulled it dowwn two hours after being notified by police. The boy’s father and an advocacy group for people with Down syndrome complained the video violated privacy protection laws.

Prosecutor Alfredo Robledo told the Associated Press the verdict upheld privacy principles and put the rights of individuals ahead of those of businesses. He said the case will force Google and other firms to be held accountable for screening videos hosted on their sites.

“This is the big principal affirmed by this verdict,” Robledo said. “It is fundamental, because identity is a primary good. If we give that up, anything can happen, and that is not OK.”

Internet principles

In a company blog post, Google vice president and deputy general counsel Matt Sucherman called the ruling “astonishing” because “none of the four Googlers charged had anything to do with this video.”

The verdict “attacks the very principles of freedom on which the Internet is built,” he wrote.

The benefits of the Web could disappear if “sites like Blogger, YouTube and indeed every social network and any community bulletin board are held responsible for every single piece of content that is uploaded to them,” he said.

Support for Google

A host of U.S. technology associations jumped to Google’s defense.

“Most troubling, what happens in Italy is unlikely to stay in Italy,” said Leslie Harris, president of the Center for Democracy and Technology. “The Italian court’s actions today will surely embolden authoritarian regimes and be used to justify their own efforts to suppress Internet freedom.”

Ed Black, chief executive of the Computer and Communications Industry, said he believes the ruling will be found inconsistent with European Union laws governing Internet content.

But, he added, “this is an example of a bird in the tunnel telling us how easily it could get way out of control. This is not the only instance of countries or governments lashing out rather clumsily with blunt instruments about things they don’t like on the Internet.”

Local distinctions

Indeed, firms large enough to have an Internet presence in other countries have faced numerous skirmishes over local distinctions of laws such as copyright and intellectual property. Recently, Google has become embroiled in a dispute with China, saying it will stop censoring search results in that country after attacks on the Gmail accounts of human rights advocates there.

For those firms, there are no easy answers, said James Burger, an intellectual property attorney with the Washington, D.C., law firm Dow Lohnes.

“I could see Italy arguing we should adopt their law in this instance,” Burger said. “There is a larger problem, which is: How do we deal with U.S. companies being slammed abroad for acts that are legal in the United States?”

Pressure on Italy

Jason Schultz, director of the Samuelson Law, Technology and Public Policy Clinic at UC Berkeley, said it’s unclear whether Italian officials will try to apply the ruling more broadly.

“There will be a lot of pressure on the Italian government to rethink this shortsighted approach once the Italian citizenry realizes how limiting it will be to only have access to government-approved media,” Schultz said.