[LSNN] Special Investigation: Democratic Party Candidate Richard Orosco Accused of Beating Ex-Girlfriend

[UTOPIA]

Username: damn bro they really did richy dirty 

Comment: this just a hit peace man come on how much did thay pey that chick to come out as gettin beaten around... seems corrupt ... coorindated hit peace i really dont even believe it at all like in brief i read this article over i scanned it over basically and i see this basic chain of events hapening right

 

1. richy and chick knock boots

2. richy dump that dirty chick

3. richy run for office

4. dirty chick makes claim she beat him right before the election date

5. ? basically im tellin you man its all propaganda news bull like use your minds ... chances are republicns gonna win either way (LOL i cant believe it) but this is just dirty politcal tactix 

6. think for your self.

7. meditate

8. Go to DataWars.com for Supplements that WILL help you open your mind and expand your capabilities to comprehend complex political plots.

 

 

 

#idontbelieveit #hedidntbeather #iknowhedidntbeather 

[Sammy]

Username: LittleMonster1234

Comment: Come on, guys! Let's get Chromatica to number one on US' ITunes! BUY CHROMATICA ON ITUNES #chromatica #ladygaga 

[bonk]

Username: אתה ממש קל להפחיד

Comment: 

 

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

User:  Juno

Comment:  For anyone who is confused and only wants to do good, let’s remember that in this country we don’t have trial-by-media.  The newsroom or printing press is not the defendant’s dock.  The defendant’s dock is inside a courtroom. That is where we scrutinize the accused, test the accuser’s account, convict them where they’re found to be have done wrong, and condemn them to a penalty.  That’s the fairest approach; it’s the best approach we have so far. The media might seem like a better fact-finder, and in some situations their investigations reveal more than what police investigators can muster on their own, but the media is never objective enough to convict and condemn an accused. That is truer of this report than of any other. All we see here are one-sided accounts; the journalist seems to have deliberately and selectively followed up only with Ms. Pierce’s contacts.

 

Mr. Orosco was never brought before a judge. To convict and ruin him in the media is to deprive of an objective assessment——something which we afford to every person who is accused of wrongdoing. That objective assessment is not at the hands of LSNN journalists in their newsroom or before their editorial board.  It is properly in a courtroom and before a judge. 

If we still believe in the presumption of innocence, it would be indecent to ruin him and deprive him of an opportunity to serve as a result of the untested allegations of a former intimate liaison. You and I benefit from the presumption of innocence; it protects us from false allegations of any kind, particularly those which carry serious implications. We expect this presumption for ourselves, and so we should also expect the same for Mr. Orosco.  
 

 

 

Edited September 21, 2020 by Midsummer Night's Dream

[Al-Malikah]

34 minutes ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

User:  Juno

Comment:  For anyone who is confused and only wants to do good, let’s remember that in this country we don’t have trial-by-media.  The newsroom or printing press is not the defendant’s dock.  The defendant’s dock is inside a courtroom. That is where we scrutinize the accused, test the accuser’s account, convict them where they’re found to be have done wrong, and condemn them to a penalty.  That’s the fairest approach; it’s the best approach we have so far. The media might seem like a better fact-finder, and in some situations their investigations reveal more than what police investigators can muster on their own, but the media is never objective enough to convict and condemn an accused. That is truer of this report than of any other. All we see here are one-sided accounts; the journalist seems to have deliberately and selectively followed up only with Ms. Pierce’s contacts.

 

Mr. Orosco was never brought before a judge. To convict and ruin him in the media is to deprive of an objective assessment——something which we afford to every person who is accused of wrongdoing. That objective assessment is not at the hands of LSNN journalists in their newsroom or before their editorial board.  It is properly in a courtroom and before a judge. 

If we still believe in the presumption of innocence, it would be indecent to ruin him and deprive him of an opportunity to serve as a result of the untested allegations of a former intimate liaison. You and I benefit from the presumption of innocence; it protects us from false allegations of any kind, particularly those which carry serious implications. We expect this presumption for ourselves, and so we should also expect the same for Mr. Orosco.  
 

 

 

Username: legalbeagle992

Comment: frankly, the legal system is not the arbiter of what is right and wrong. there are innocent men behind bars for crimes they did not commit and there are guilty men walking free.

 

what is absolutely important here is for everyone to listen to this womans story and decide for themselves whether they feel they are able to effectively ignore her story of domestic violence or whether they choose to acknowledge it.

 

if we believe in the stories of women who are abused routinely by men in power, who are pressured into silently suffering, we must act in accordance with our conscience and lend our electoral power to discourage the elevating of individuals who may never receive the justice they may or may not deserve simply by virtue of their lofty position in society.

 

morality is not determined by judges. morality is not the purview of the state. it is in the hearts of every man woman and child to know what is right and wrong, and we do not need a government that oversaw legal detention camps for japanese citizens, legal nuclear bombs, legal drone strikes, legal executions of black minors in the jim crow south, to tell us that what is legal in their esteemed estimation is morally right and acceptable and what isn't defined legally is... up for question morally. 

 

i wholeheartedly reject any assertion that the legal system can act as a stand-in for basic human morality.

Edited September 21, 2020 by Al-Malikah

[Gryphboi]

Username: [email protected]

Comment: NEVER HEARD OF RICHARD OROSCO BUT HE SEEMS LIKE A NICE GUY THESE FEMINISTS WANTED GENDER EQUALITY AND NOW THEY'RE GETTING IT VOTE OROSCO 2020

**IP's traced back to a local retirement home.**

Edited September 21, 2020 by Gryphboi

[liq]

Username: Real10-8

Comment: As you read this letter, you may feel confused at points. If you do, keep reading.

 

The rationale underlying Mr. Richie Orosco’s ramblings is confusing. Fortunately, as you read the superfluity of examples about how Orosco has been trying to cast grave accusations of treason at all of his admonishers, this letter will slowly begin to make sense. Consider this letter not as a monologue but rather as a joint effort between writer and reader. Together we shall enable adversaries to meet each other and establish direct personal bonds that contradict the stereotypes they rely upon to power their antihumanist remarks. Together we shall place blame where it belongs—in the hands of Orosco and his alabandical vassals. And together we shall embark on a new path towards change. Unfortunately, inerudite crybullies who devise self-satisfied scams to get money for nothing make no effort to contend with the inevitable consequences of that action. For all intents and purposes, I feel that Orosco has insulted everyone with even the slightest moral commitment. He obviously has none or he wouldn’t drive us into a state of apoplexy. Let’s look at the facts. First, his promise to change his ways has long since been proven insincere. Second, no sane person should accept his claim that five-crystal orgone generators can eliminate mind-control energies that are being radiated from secret, underground, government facilities. And finally, my fantasy is to immerse myself in the grandeur and greatness of the pre-Orosco world, a world in which it was unfathomable that anyone could desire to shift the Overton window to garner wide acceptance of Orosco’s malign, supercilious values. As you’ve no doubt gathered, realizing such a fantasy requires renewing those institutions of civil society—like families, schools, churches, and civic groups—that establish a truth commission whose charter is to investigate some of Orosco’s more audacious conceits. There are several valid and obvious reasons why I proclaim that. Perhaps the most important reason is that I have absolutely no idea why Orosco makes such a big fuss over vandalism. There are far more pressing issues that present themselves and that should be discussed, debated, and solved—issues such as war, famine, poverty, and homelessness. There is also the lesser issue that whenever Orosco is blamed for conspiring to require schoolchildren to be taught that you and I are objects for him to use then casually throw away and forget like old newsprint that’s performed its duty catching bird droppings, he blames his cringers. Doing so reinforces their passivity and obedience and increases their guilt, shame, terror, and conformity, thereby making them far more willing to help Orosco suppress our freedom.

 

Socrates was condemned to death by the city of Athens for his views. I hope I don’t receive the same treatment for saying that Orosco’s emotional involvement with opportunism obscures his ability to see things objectively. Try to say that too loudly or persistently, though, and watch how Orosco, as a self-described champion of free speech, handles your freedom of speech. I assure you it won’t be pleasant, but perhaps it will get people talking about how certain facts are clear. For instance, Orosco wants us to believe that his expostulations are Holy Writ. How stupid does he think we are? The answer is rather depressing, but I’ll tell you anyway. The answer begins with the observation that the key to sounding the tocsin for action lies in uniting civil rights and civil liberties leaders, scholars, journalists, and public intellectuals from across the political and ideological spectrum on behalf of individual rights, due process, freedom of expression, and rights of conscience.

 

I guess I really can’t blame Orosco for wanting to offer hatred with a pseudo-intellectual gloss. After all, we could opt to sit back and let him provide treacherous conspiracies with the necessary asylum to take root and spread. Most people, however, would argue that the cost in people’s lives and self-esteem is an extremely high price to pay for such inaction on our part. Few people know this, but ever since he decided to smear and defame me, his consistent, unvarying line has been that he can achieve his goals by friendly and moral conduct. It behooves us to remember that he interprets everything I say as being pro-priggism. That’s not because what I say has anything to do with priggism but rather because such accusations reliably convince foul schemers that dissolute stupes are the most oppressed people in our society.

 

Obviously, you shouldn’t automatically believe all the allegations I’ve been making, so let me elaborate a bit. Everything I’ve said so far is by way of introduction to the key point I want to make in this letter. My key point is that if you spend much time listening to Orosco’s trash talk you’ll inevitably hear the term counterestablishment thrown around. Usually Orosco hurls that word as an epithet, a way of accusing someone of expressing concern about his conduct or of doing something else of which Orosco disapproves. More accepted usage of the word, however, is to describe the manner in which if a cogent, logical argument entered Orosco’s brain, no doubt a concussion would result.

 

Maybe Orosco just can’t handle harsh reality. One has to wonder how Orosco’s hatchet men can advocate for devastating vast acres of precious farmland while simultaneously opposing all of my attempts to allay the concerns of the many people who have been harmed by Orosco. I would have expected their heads to explode from the cognitive dissonance brought on by those two opposing concepts. Perhaps what protects them is ignorance of how Orosco expects us to behave like passive sheep. The only choice he believes we should be allowed to make for ourselves is whether to head towards his slaughterhouse at a trot or at a gallop. Orosco unequivocally doesn’t want us choosing to tell everyone around that he has been influencing the legislative process so that public policy reflects the interests of the privileged few and not the needs of the general population. Such utter contempt for the autonomy and free agency of others is the hallmark of negativism and has no place in a free society. In a free society people can state, without fear of retribution, that I have been brave enough to banish intolerance. The sarcasm of some and jeers of others that I’ve heard in response show only to what extent courage has become a rare commodity. Although the sarcasm and jeers originate primarily from the most self-seeking, frowsy humanity-haters there are, even if scientific evidence established that Orosco is a protective bulwark against the advancing tyranny of repulsive gilly-gaupuses, it would still be the case that his vainglorious shenanigans give a filip to those who seek to control your bank account, your employment, your personal safety, and your mind. We can therefore conclude that I don’t always have time to refine and polish my remarks before sending off these sorts of letters. I apologize if my haste sometimes leads to misunderstandings. As a specific example, when I wrote in my last letter that most law-abiding citizens disapprove of Orosco’s methods, what I probably should have written is that as a personal endeavor I contacted some of Orosco’s emissaries to see if we could find common ground. It turns out there exists no common ground. These people won’t even acknowledge that a bunch of materialistic, jaded vocabularians have recently been accused of crushing the remaining vestiges of democracy throughout the world. Orosco’s fingerprints are all over that operation. Even if it turns out that he is not ultimately responsible for instigating it, the sheer amount of his involvement demands answers. For instance, why does Orosco associate with myopic, brutish momes who are bent on stealing our birthrights? Having long ago made up my mind on this subject, I have no hesitation in saying that I wouldn’t judge Orosco’s underlings too harshly. They’re just cannon fodder for Orosco’s plot to rescue scapegoatism from the rubbish heap of history, dust it off, slap on a coat of cheap sophistry, and market it as new and improved.

 

Orosco belongs to the axis of evil. This means, in particular, that Orosco likes to argue that his shills are not fatuitous; the System is fatuitous. Whatever you say, Orosco. The reality is that we mustn’t be content to patch and darn, to piece and cobble at the worn and rotten fabric of Orosco’s liberticidal, fastidious sottises. Instead we must communicate to people that my current plan is to put the fear of God into him. Yes, Orosco will draw upon the most powerful fires of Hell to tear that plan asunder, but a reporter recently observed him destroying any resistance by channeling it into ineffective paths. That’s just Orosco being Orosco, of course. It says nothing about how I, speaking as someone who is not a galactically morally reprehensible nupson, think that his flights of fancy are totally lacking in empirical support. You probably think that too. But Orosco does not think that. Orosco thinks that mediocrity is a worthwhile goal.

 

Those of you who thought that Orosco was finally going to leave us alone are in for a big surprise because Orosco recently announced his plans to incite and provoke. Although the Battle of Waterloo may have been won on the playing fields of Eton I nevertheless think that an impressive segment of the population shares my anxieties about Orosco’s temperamental, snappish platitudes yet remains ostensibly tranquil. To these patient but determined individuals I say that you might be interested in the following scientific law, which has been verified by extensive empirical observation. The law states that jaundiced menaces are more likely to cast the world into nuclear holocaust than they are to keep the faith. The implication of this law is that despite Orosco’s piteous laments, Orosco’s cocky missives are lunacy unlimited. There are several logical contradictions in his position on this matter. For example, I want to speak in the strongest possible terms against Orosco’s catch-phrases. Now I could go off on that point alone, but when I say that his initiatives are conceited, I mean it. I don’t mean that they remind me of something conceited or that they have one or two conceited characteristics. I mean that they are conceited. In fact, the most conceited thing about them is the way that they prevent people from seeing that many people are wondering, Just how furciferous can Orosco get? I wish people would stop asking that question; Orosco is apparently taking it as a challenge. Perhaps that’s because time cannot change his behavior. Time merely enlarges the field in which Orosco can, with ever-increasing intensity and thoroughness, create an Orosco-centric society in which horny, iracund loafers dictate the populace’s values and myths, its traditions and archetypes.

I am not going to go into too great a detail about swinish lamebrains, but be assured that Orosco claims that there exists a slave colony on Mars that is populated by kidnapped children. With all due credit to Orosco’s fertile imagination, this claim makes no concession to the facts. The truth is that Orosco’s cause is not glorious. It is not wonderful. It is not good. Yes, Orosco may have some superficial charm, but he has a massive superiority complex. There is only one possible conclusion one can draw from that: Orosco’s minions have the gall to accuse me of casting the world into nuclear holocaust. Were these imperious adulterers born without a self-awareness gene? The answer to that question has broad implications. For example, I’d like very much to respond to Orosco’s claim that it’s okay for him to indulge his every whim and lust without regard for anyone else or for society as a whole. Unfortunately, taking into account Orosco’s background, education, and intelligence, I am quite sure that Orosco would not be able to understand my response. Hence, let me say simply this: Orosco’s ebullitions manifest themselves in two phases. Phase one: leach integrity and honor from our souls. Phase two: condone universal oppression.

 

What’s scary is that support for Orosco’s Pecksniffian epigrams is spreading like a prairie fire among unfriendly, oppressive blusterers. I don’t know why that is, but I do know that we should criticize the obvious incongruities presented by Orosco and his fans. (Goodness knows, our elected officials aren’t going to.) Before you declare me dysfunctional, let me assert that Orosco operates on an international scale to encourage individuals to disregard other people, to become fully self-absorbed. It is only fitting, therefore, that we, too, work on an international scale but to take advantage of a rare opportunity to challenge Orosco’s outlandish premises and dubious motives. Inevitably, there will be those who think our efforts do not go far enough and those who believe they go too far. In either case, it is hardly surprising that Orosco wants to create some untoward, pseudo-psychological profile of me to discredit my opinions. After all, this is the same overbearing dunderhead whose volage-brained prattle informed us that he can bring about peace and prosperity for the whole of humanity through violence, deception, oppression, exploitation, graft, and theft.

 

Wouldn’t it be wonderful if we lived in a world without intransigent, cullionly chowderheads? At the risk of belaboring the obvious, the first thing we need to do is to get Orosco to admit that he has a problem. He should be counseled to recite the following:

 

I, Mr. Richie Orosco, am a contemptible crypto-fascist.

 

I have been a participant in a giant scheme to nail people to trees.

 

I hereby admit my addiction to paternalism. I ask for the strength and wisdom to fight this addiction.

 

Once Orosco realizes that he has a problem, maybe then he’ll see that people tell me that he regards himself as both omniscient and omnicompetent, fully qualified to put any intellectual discipline in the world in its place. And the people who tell me this are correct, of course. So, sorry for being so long-winded in this letter, but Mr. Richie Orosco’s demands are a syncretism of delirious McCarthyism and rotten tammanyism.

[Al-Malikah]

1 minute ago, liq said:

Username: Real10-8

Comment: As you read this letter, you may feel confused at points. If you do, keep reading.

... 

 

Username: legalbeagle992

Comment:

[Midsummer Night's Dream]

1 hour ago, Al-Malikah said:

Username: legalbeagle992

Comment: frankly, the legal system is not the arbiter of what is right and wrong. there are innocent men behind bars for crimes they did not commit and there are guilty men walking free.

 

what is absolutely important here is for everyone to listen to this womans story and decide for themselves whether they feel they are able to effectively ignore her story of domestic violence or whether they choose to acknowledge it.

 

if we believe in the stories of women who are abused routinely by men in power, who are pressured into silently suffering, we must act in accordance with our conscience and lend our electoral power to discourage the elevating of individuals who may never receive the justice they may or may not deserve simply by virtue of their lofty position in society.

 

morality is not determined by judges. morality is not the purview of the state. it is in the hearts of every man woman and child to know what is right and wrong, and we do not need a government that oversaw legal detention camps for japanese citizens, legal nuclear bombs, legal drone strikes, legal executions of black minors in the jim crow south, to tell us that what is legal in their esteemed estimation is morally right and acceptable and what isn't defined legally is... up for question morally. 

 

i wholeheartedly reject any assertion that the legal system can act as a stand-in for basic human morality.

 

User: Juno 

Comment: @LegalBeagle992:  My comment doesn't say anything about the wrongness of domestic violence. Of course it's wrong. So I don't understand why you're talking about the morality surrounding domestic violence. 

 

My comment was about the expectation, out of decency if not anything else, to presume Mr. Orosco's innocence. That is all. This presumption is afforded to everyone, regardless of the accusation against them—regardless of how atrocious it is. This itself is a moral position we've generally and long accepted; in fact, it is so important it remains in our highest law. If you want to talk about morality, look at the morality of convicting someone in the media without rigorously testing the allegations.

[Al-Malikah]

1 minute ago, Midsummer Night's Dream said:

 

User: Juno 

Comment: @LegalBeagle992:  My comment doesn't say anything about the wrongness of domestic violence. Of course it's wrong. So I don't understand why you're talking about the morality surrounding domestic violence. 

 

My comment was about the expectation, out of decency if not anything else, to presume Mr. Orosco's innocence. That is all. This presumption is afforded to everyone, regardless of the accusation against them—regardless of how atrocious it is. This itself is a moral position we've generally and long accepted; in fact, it is so important it remains in our highest law. If you want to talk about morality, look at the morality of convicting someone in the media without rigorously testing the allegations.

Username: legalbeagle992

Comment: I am remarking on the morality of calling a woman insane, hysterical, a liar, and a lunatic because she dares speak out on domestic violence she experienced. I am more specifically remarking on the immorality inherent in a campaign to dismiss a survivor of domestic violence in the interest of political expediency without any consideration of the monumentous hurdles women face when actually trying to speak out against their abusers, especially abusers who are members of law enforcement and then political upper crusts. 

I see so much deep and heartfelt sympathy for Mr. Orosco from well established gentlemen and ladies of high society in fear of him losing some sort of crown he was supposed to be coronated with yet not one ounce of consideration for woman whose experience is something very few of us would survive with the level of decorum and strength she has. There is no tear shed for her. She is the pariah that stalks the party, the devil that seeks to disturb a carefully planned and plotted election, the noise-maker. The only remark she seems deserving of by those in party or party to those in power is a dismissive wave and a silencing shush. It would be disappointing or sad if this story hasn't been repeated over and over again. From Lewinsky who was demonized and dragged through the dirt, to Juania Broaderick, to Anita HIll. It's a tired old tale and yet it seems there's no shortage of actors to fill all the damned roles over and over again.

The only small comfort these women can enjoy is the knowledge that somewhere out there they are believed by other women and that as much as their voices may be crushed and subdued by those in power the unfortunate truth is that there will always be Christine Blasey Fords, Anita Hills, and Dianna Pierces who will carry the torch and bravely speak out on behalf of their own hurt, trauma, and pain despite the stature of their abusers moving forward.