Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: "O'Keefe takes his case against John Doe to U.S. Supreme Court" 30
I guess our favorite Pavlovian degenerate will claim this is just a stunt, there's no "there" there, and it doesn't matter until certiorari is granted.
What's the difference between a mallard with bird flu and a Wisconsin Lefty?
Oh, and I guess the WSJ urging SCOTUS to take the case is just an example of conservative media bias, or something.
Oh there's plenty of bias (Score:1)
These people don't give a damn about 'John Doe' until they become a target. I don't sympathize with them any more than any other victim of this abuse, but anything (or anybody) that can get the law overturned can be seen as a good thing.
Re: (Score:2)
people don't give a damn about 'John Doe' until they become a target
So you seem to imply that there is substantial "there" about which to give a damn?
Instapundit likes to link about prosecutorial abuse in general, but I haven't seen much other than WI where they run around like loose cannons and muzzle the targets.
Were those prosecutors conservatives operating against liberals, mind you, the Codpiece Media would be wall-to-wall with reporting about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Were those prosecutors conservatives operating against liberals...?
Who the fuck cares?? Abuse is abuse.
Re: (Score:2)
Who the fuck cares?? Abuse is abuse.
So, just a Mellencamp [youtube.com] tune, then?
Re: (Score:1)
Yeah, whatever. I just don't see this case as anything special. The solution is to change the law, otherwise expect more of the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I guess the law I'd change is tenure in these positions.
You control tenure with your vote. There is no need to change that law. Besides term limits are useless against the incumbent institutional party that grooms the cyclical replacements and campaign seasons that never end. The law that needs changing is in the US Code, and you gotta vote for people who will do it without mucking it up with all that religious craziness and bigotry. That's if you actually want to get anything done in a positive fashion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Because we already know that it hasn't helped the presidency one little bit. The institutional party is still running the circus, just like in Mexico. The individual will follow party policy or will not receive any support. This makes term limits nothing more than a pacification measure. It is a *feel good* law. It is the voters' responsibility to oversee their politicians and vote them out when they screw up. Every problem we have with the system lies squarely on their shoulders. When they reelect corrupt
Re: (Score:2)
The institutional party is still running the circus
and then follow immediately with
It is the voters' responsibility to oversee their politicians and vote them out when they screw up.
Are you arguing that this government is a closed loop, or that it is not a closed loop?
My contention is that it is a "mostly closed" loop, and that recycling all of the bums, while insufficient, is a useful component of an overall solution.
People cash out of real involvement because they feel government is a closed loop. You go swapping out the bastards more frequently, and two things are likely to occur:
* Greater involvement in
Re: (Score:1)
The voters had abdicated...They have been convinced they are helpless, that a conscientious vote is a wasted voted. That is why the party rules. The power is handed to it on a silver platter. To see if there is an iron fist inside that velvet glove, people have to push back a little.
Re: (Score:1)
Oops! Second reply again:
No, term limits will not work. Different names under the same party accomplishes nothing. We know this. The individual politician is totally and completely irrelevant. He will follow his marching orders, or go nowhere. The voters must take it upon themselves to improve their ability to delegate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you've resolved the contradiction.
Re: (Score:1)
It was their choice. There is nothing to stop them from reversing it.
Re: (Score:1)
You are asserting there is a break in tradition.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The institutional party is still running the circus
so, clearly, there is something stopping the voters from reversing the situation. Or am I missing something?
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, you are missing something...
Re: (Score:1)
Inflection, adaptation, but not direction... That has not changed. The human animal remains an animal. Evolution will determine how that goes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
...the individual is not the group.
Oh back to that again, eh? Tell me then, what is the group without the individual? Is this your basis for evasion of responsibility?
Re: (Score:2)
Tell me then, what is the group without the individual?
Um, a symbol pointing to a null set? The evaluation of AVERAGE({0})?
Is this your basis for evasion of responsibility?
Clearly it's your launching point for the Non Sequitur Of The Day.
Re: (Score:1)
No non sequitur from me. It all ties in. I am still very fascinated by all your excuses though.
Re: (Score:2)
BTW (Score:1)
BTW, from just seeing your side of the conversation I'd have to guess that you were talking with fustawhatever. Because while DR tries to confound and confuse Conservatives by saying everything that's up is down and vice-versa, fusta's trademarked tactic against Righties as I recall is to pelt with accusations (none of which s/he can hold up, of course). I guess the idea is to take you off your game and from thinking clearly about the issues to thinking about how on earth someone could accuse you of such
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Well summed-up. The only nuance that might be missing is what they have in common (besides being a waste of time, that is). And that is, whether or not fusta is an equal opportunity troller (across the political spectrum) or only targets Conservatives like DR.
Re: (Score:2)