Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: So here's a good WI test for you 63
If pockets as deep as Rush Limbaugh are calling you out by name for your perfidy in the Wisconsin John Doe prosecutions, he's pretty confident that even the smartest shark in the tank isn't going to get Ol' Rush To Judgement convicted for libel, no?
A big fat whale like Rush would be sooooo tasty for the Left. They'd probably pour the kind of resources into taking Rush down that they did in trying to unseat Scott Walker, if they didn't know Rush was dealing that thing which to the Left is like sunlight to a vampire: the truth.
The usual suspects may now vaporize the messenger.
A big fat whale like Rush would be sooooo tasty for the Left. They'd probably pour the kind of resources into taking Rush down that they did in trying to unseat Scott Walker, if they didn't know Rush was dealing that thing which to the Left is like sunlight to a vampire: the truth.
The usual suspects may now vaporize the messenger.
Where is the value in this meta-regurgitation? (Score:2)
But go ahead, tell us your latest conspiracy attached to this. I'm sure you have somehow already connected this in your mind to President Lawnchair (or someone else has already handed you a
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If there was some other point in your JE, please let me know. All I saw was you trying to claim that because a hype-master got excited about an article from a conservative "news" so
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But I can't force you to acknowledge reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm enjoying a full-on guffaw at your desperate attempts to do anything to talk about what a bunch of fascists the senior WI Democrats are.
Is there an error in that statement?
But we can run with this. Show me, how are senior Democrats in Wisconsin connected to this? If it were going the other way, with republicans being alleged of "going after" democrats, you would say they were "rogue agents" or "bad actors". You have already convinced yourself that these are party officials, and I'm still waiting for you to connect it to President Lawnchair.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got the links. Show yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
Show me, how are senior Democrats in Wisconsin connected to this?
You've got the links. Show yourself.
It would appear then that the term "senior Democrats" has a different meaning to you than it does to me, then. Also interesting how much different your application of "senior" is when the party in question is Democrat rather than Republican.
It really is overwhelming to try to keep up with how rapidly you change the English language at your whim.
Re: (Score:2)
how rapidly you change the English language at your whim.
Didn't happen, but keep plucking that chicken. Also, note that Democrats Of Age in Wisconsin are dirty scoundrels.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think Rush Limbaugh is a good source of anything except advice on "how to abuse pain killers." However, I did some searching, because where there's smoke, sometimes there's fire.
I did a search for "gregory peterson wisconson john doe subpoenas" (Gregory Peterson was the judge who quashed the subpoenas). The wall street journal reported it more than a year ago. Further searching leads to this court filing [netdna-cdn.com].
To check the court docket, go to here [wicourts.gov], click on "I Agree", and enter Eric O'Keefe as the n
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's that government officials improperly took it upon themselves to use their positions to harass perceived opponents with no legal basis. That's why judge Peterson struck the subpoenas down. I'm sure there are plenty of times (from all parties) that overly-zealous supports take actions that the people they're supporting would have a sh*t hemorrhage if they knew about it.
The two reasons I did the "research" are (1) it sounded plausible, if a little bit "out there," and (2) if there's some substa
Re: (Score:2)
How are you ever going to master Arguing In Bad Faith, at this rate?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's that government officials improperly took it upon themselves to use their positions to harass perceived opponents with no legal basis.
That is the allegation so far. This is why there will be a court hearing, to determine how much of a gap exists between reality and perception.
The two reasons I did the "research" are (1) it sounded plausible, if a little bit "out there," and (2) if there's some substance to it, it shouldn't be all that hard to find. And it wasn't hard - several articles mention that a judge named Peterson had quashed the subpoenas, we had the name of the Wisconsin Growth Club, and a bit of digging yielded O'Keefe's name and the judicial district.
One thing I find interesting in this is the timing. If this really happened that long ago (in political time) why did they wait this long to start screaming about it? This seems like another "October surprise".
Re: (Score:2)
why did they wait this long to start screaming about it? This seems like another "October surprise".
Ummm. . . the gag orders in place?
It has the effect of underscoring the depth of the Democrat swamp through which Scott Walker has successfully (so far) waded. These Wisconsin Dems would have been perfectly comfortable in any Old World fascist regime of the last century, I reckon.
Re: (Score:2)
why did they wait this long to start screaming about it? This seems like another "October surprise".
Ummm. . . the gag orders in place?
If that were the case, then why would the gag order be lifted now when the trial doesn't begin until September? And if the gag order was lifted, then why did they only go to a deeply partisan "news" source, rather than using a respectable source? I understand that all conservatives are under orders from on high to trash the NYT at every possible opportunity, but there are respectable news sources that lean conservative.
fascist regime
You use that term, but you don't know what it actually means. The context in which y
Re: (Score:2)
You use that term, but you don't know what it actually means. The context in which you used it demonstrates that quite clearly.
See, now, that's a gorgeous argument. You can refute anything with that, irrespective of validity of the usage.
This is why I stand in awe of your powers of crapfloodery.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Replace 'capacity' with desire. It's not there. Never was, you're being taken in as much as d_r with his democrats. They have to serve their sponsors like all the rest, or campaign funds dry up as they seek out more compliant candidates. This includes the ones you idolize the most, who would be more suited wearing a clown suit than pin stripe. But... you don't want to hear that.. so, a wave of the hand and, poof, dismissed. Just another day in the life...
Re: (Score:2)
This includes the ones you idolize the most, who would be more suited wearing a clown suit than pin stripe. But... you don't want to hear that.. so, a wave of the hand and, poof, dismissed. Just another day in the life...
And then you just have to get all stabby, bless your heart.
Oh baby! Light my fire! (Score:1)
You are so appealing to my hormones... stir my flesh, burn baby burn [youtube.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
How do you expect people to react when you throw all this corruption porn around? You really get those juices flowing. I had no idea you were so kinky. Just think about it, in 30 years when you become a minority (the great apocalypse), you can get all horny crying about racism, persecution, all that stuff that's just hormones.
Really? (Score:2)
in 30 years when you become a minority (the great apocalypse)
All this, and eschatology, too? Your awesomeness is boundless, sir.
Re: (Score:1)
And your denials are awesome!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Yourself!
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you shocked? (Score:1)
They're just following Saul Alinsky's Rules.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
That's all he's doing when he continually moves the goal posts.
I'm also not a fan of cowardly little cyber-bullies, which is all he is.
Look below -- this creepy little bastard has been obsessed with me for years -- I finally give him an opportunity to meet me and
He's a completely useless tool. Not worth an
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You wanna see me in person?
That's a strange question. Why would I want that?
Re: (Score:1)
I'll repeat. Do you want to see me in person?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Bottom line: You wouldn't lie about me to my face the way you do on slashdot.
I however, would still tell the truth about you to your face the way I do on slashdot.
Don't believe me? Let's meet up and find out.
Re: (Score:2)
How typical for a cyber-bully
How exactly am I able to be a "cyber-bully" to you when you don't allow me to comment in your journal entries? For that matter, nobody forces you to read anything I write, ever. You are free to ignore everything I have ever written.
online stalker
I am not aware of any interaction we have ever had online that was not on slashdot, ever. Furthermore there is a feature on slashdot that you can use to receive a message any time anyone on your friends list posts a JE. Hence your "stalker" allegation falls completely flat.
contrast (Score:1)
"that thing which to the Left is like sunlight to a vampire: the truth."
What Conservatives hate the most in political discussion is when the other side lies about them. What Leftists hate the most is when the other side tells the truth about them.
(And it's not inherently this way, as the Left *could* try with honest persuasion to compete in the arena of ideas. And therefore someone telling the truth about them wouldn't be a liability.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Only when it comes to God's morality. For example, downplaying the truth that it's much better for children to be raised in a two-parent household of both sexes. But when it comes to their man-made morality, there is no unwavering in for example their belief that it's a truism that more "fairness" = more betterness, ad infinitum.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well, it's not the space cadets in academia who sit around and ponder how everything is relative that I'm worried about. It's the more pragmatic Lefties who have delusions that everything in society can be equalized (given the application of sufficient coercive power).
And yes, it's about all those things, to amass enough political power to install Progressively greater levels of "fairness"*. But it's not about burning the culture just to have an orgy or something. It's because our culture was based on a
Re: (Score:2)
Lefties who have delusions that everything in society can be equalized
I don't think they're deluded in the slightest.
1. It's a plausible sounding sales pitch.
2. It's a bait-and-switch to get the hook set, ensnare people, and use them for political ends.
Re: (Score:1)
But the political ends *is* the installment of fairnesses. (There's no morally higher pursuit.) And we're gonna hafta disagree on being able to equalize everything in life as sounding plausible.
Re: (Score:2)
I'll venture it's grace you crave.