# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  I Can Barely Contain My Fury

## Trinnity

> *Mark Levin: "I Can Barely Contain My Fury At What Is Going On"*
> 
> [I]t is just so damned infuriating to see the greatest country  on the face of the earth run by a bunch of lilliputians, who are  constantly attacking it from within.
> 
> No discussion on the news programs about an imperial president  exercising an authority he does not have under our constitution.  Nothing. No discussion about all the lives saved and all the people  protected as a result of the Second Amendment. Nothing. They continue to  perpetuate the lie, the big lie that somehow, some new regulation, some  new government fiat would have prevented what happened in Newtown,  Connecticut.  
> 
>  [T]he very same  people pushing for gun control against law-abiding American citizens  support radical left-wing judges who are soft on criminals, support  weakened sentencing rules, decriminalizing this and that. Since when was  Obama strong on fighting crime? Since when has Obama supported law  enforcement? But here he is, you know, 'we have to stop gun violence.'  No, we have to stop violent criminals.
> 
>    (_Mark Levin Show_, January 10, 2013)
> ...


We're losing everything to a Chicago Thug tyrant. This is real.

----------


## Calypso Jones

I know how he feels.

----------


## patrickt

I'm reminded of the murderer of a woman and her three-year old daughter who was released from prison on a decision by a judge that all the evidence, including his confessions, were improperly obtained and who proceeded when free to murder another woman. When asked if they felt any responsibility for the murder because they got him out of prison they said, "Absolutely none."

Norman Mailer had the same reaction when he got a murderer out of prison and within six weeks he'd murdered a college student. No, no remorse or responsibility.

A sense of shame requires a sense of responsibility that is lacking in liberals.

President Obama is quick to say America has failed. The only failure that President Obama has acknowledged was the failure to tell stories. But he's very proud that in 2011 he cut federal spending by $1,000,000,000,000.

----------


## Guest

> I'm reminded of the murderer of a woman and her three-year old daughter who was released from prison on a decision by a judge that all the evidence, including his confessions, were improperly obtained and who proceeded when free to murder another woman. When asked if they felt any responsibility for the murder because they got him out of prison they said, "Absolutely none."
> 
> Norman Mailer had the same reaction when he got a murderer out of prison and within six weeks he'd murdered a college student. No, no remorse or responsibility.
> 
> A sense of shame requires a sense of responsibility that is lacking in liberals.
> 
> President Obama is quick to say America has failed. The only failure that President Obama has acknowledged was the failure to tell stories. But he's very proud that in 2011 he cut federal spending by $1,000,000,000,000.


I hear you, Patrick.  I do.  But police need to understand that their job has great responsibility with it.  Most of the time they do, but when they cut corners, flat out lie, or over-charge because they don't like the individual in question they are also breaking the law.

There's this one cop over in Kings County whose shit is always tight.  There's no wiggle room to suppress evidence, no room to argue for procedural error, etc.  You have to attack the case full on or plea it down.  He does his job and makes it difficult for me to do mine.  That is how it is supposed to be.

It is not the fault of the defense attorney or even the judge that the murderer got off.  It is the job of the police and prosecutor who mismanaged their cases.

For the record, there are people who I do not want to defend.  When they show up I am not allowed to turn them down directly, so I jack up my rates to the max allowable by the firm that also stays within Laffey and ask for the entire retainer upfront.  I always pray in those cases that the cops did their job, that they didn't rough them up, that they didn't cut corners, etc.  Hell, I've had clients where I'm routing for the ADA to have his shit together because I think my client is a miserable piece of shit.

That said, I defend even the most miserable pieces of shit to the best of my ability because that is my job.  

Cops need to do their job and keep the emotions out of it.

----------

Trinnity (01-12-2013)

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I hear you, Patrick. I do. But police need to understand that their job has great responsibility with it. Most of the time they do, but when they cut corners, flat out lie, or over-charge because they don't like the individual in question they are also breaking the law.
> 
> There's this one cop over in Kings County whose shit is always tight. There's no wiggle room to suppress evidence, no room to argue for procedural error, etc. You have to attack the case full on or plea it down. He does his job and makes it difficult for me to do mine. That is how it is supposed to be.
> 
> It is not the fault of the defense attorney or even the judge that the murderer got off. It is the job of the police and prosecutor who mismanaged their cases.
> 
> For the record, there are people who I do not want to defend. When they show up I am not allowed to turn them down directly, so I jack up my rates to the max allowable by the firm that also stays within Laffey and ask for the entire retainer upfront. I always pray in those cases that the cops did their job, that they didn't rough them up, that they didn't cut corners, etc. Hell, I've had clients where I'm routing for the ADA to have his shit together because I think my client is a miserable piece of shit.
> 
> That said, I defend even the most miserable pieces of shit to the best of my ability because that is my job. 
> Cops need to do their job and keep the emotions out of it.


I don't think that public safety should be held hostage to the police performing flawlessly on every prosecution.  To err is human and it should be addressed when it happens. But it isn't the police and prosecutors who are being punished when a judge throws out all the evidence and looses a dangerous criminal on the streets, it's innocent civilians who suffer from it.  If the judge was inclined, he could have found a way to address any shortcomings in the prosecution without endangering society.  I think the problem with judges is that they all live in these gated communities and don't know and care even less how their idiotic decisions affect the rest of us.

----------


## Guest

> I don't think that public safety should be held hostage to the police performing flawlessly on every prosecution.  To err is human and it should be addressed when it happens. But it isn't the police and prosecutors who are being punished when a judge throws out all the evidence and looses a dangerous criminal on the streets, it's innocent civilians who suffer from it.  If the judge was inclined, he could have found a way to address any shortcomings in the prosecution without endangering society.  I think the problem with judges is that they all live in these gated communities and don't know and care even less how their idiotic decisions affect the rest of us.


There is a reason why we have procedures and adhere to them because once the line is crossed by one person and they get away with it, they will do it again and next time with less reason.

You live in fairy tale land with progressives, I swear.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> There is a reason why we have procedures and adhere to them because once the line is crossed by one person and they get away with it, they will do it again and next time with less reason.
> 
> You live in fairy tale land with progressives, I swear.


It's progressives that want more and more criminals on the streets.  Chicago, with their super high murder rate is a bastion on Leftism. Your analogy doesn't even begin to make sense.

----------


## Calypso Jones

There is a class of people that are always offending.  They don't stop...they don't learn....they continue ad infinitum.    Would you agree with that??     I'm not saying we shouldn't keep harrassing them with law and court and fines.....otherwise God only knows what they'll do next...and they often do those things.    We keep them poor and scrambling and fulfilling this class or probation or fine.  They are drama queens, ignorant, hypocritical but they never learn.

----------


## Guest

> It's progressives that want more and more criminals on the streets.  Chicago, with their super high murder rate is a bastion on Leftism. Your analogy doesn't even begin to make sense.


I have no idea what you are talking about.  On one hand you criticize "anarchy" or the lack of law and procedure and then say it's okay for police to bypass procedure like they are incorruptible and pure beings.  Chicago is the perfect example of corruption within the system and you want to give those police and judges the ability to break procedures to get a conviction. 

Great.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I have no idea what you are talking about. On one hand you criticize "anarchy" or the lack of law and procedure and then say it's okay for police to bypass procedure like they are incorruptible and pure beings.


  I said none of that. Stop lying, please.



> Chicago is the perfect example of corruption within the system and you want to give those police and judges the ability to break procedures to get a conviction.


  I never said that either.  Judges should use their discretionary powers to find a way to keep dangerous predators off the streets while still dealing with blemishes in the prosecution.  Judges can be quite imaginative when they choose to be.

----------


## Guest

> There is a class of people that are always offending.  They don't stop...they don't learn....they continue ad infinitum.    Would you agree with that??     I'm not saying we shouldn't keep harrassing them with law and court and fines.....otherwise God only knows what they'll do next...and they often do those things.    We keep them poor and scrambling and fulfilling this class or probation or fine.  They are drama queens, ignorant, hypocritical but they never learn.


The cost of our criminal and corrections system is prohibitive to the type of sentencing you'd like.  Nonviolent offenders make up the bulk of our prison populations.  I'd much rather put them to fines and labor programs than give them room and board on my dime.  Work off your offense, I say.

Prison (and torture) should be for pedophiles, rapists, and other violent offenders.  They ought to be in there for life, IMO.

----------


## Guest

> I said none of that. Stop lying, please.
>   I never said that either.  Judges should use their discretionary powers to find a way to keep dangerous predators off the streets while still dealing with blemishes in the prosecution.  Judges can be quite imaginative when they choose to be.


They already are, but they will not violate procedures.  Why?  Because innocent people already get wrongly convicted.  Allowing them to get away with violating procedures you'll see more innocent people locked up.

I think you are a nice man with a nice family and I'm glad you live in a nice place like Mayberry but you seem to have difficulty grasping what our justice system is really like.

Every day there are people getting charged with resisting arrest for simply asking why the police want to see their identification.  We go to court, the judge says its bullshit because there is no originating criminal offense, and the taxpayers are out thousands of dollars because some cop was pissed off an individual asked them a question.

That is the reality of our system.

----------

The XL (01-12-2013)

----------


## patrickt

Just to get started, Rina, I'm sure you are aware the police charge no one. That's the district attorneys' job. It isn't about cutting corners. It's about perjury, police reports disappearing, evidence disappearing all at the direction of the district attorney. D.A. Nifong was not an isolated aberration. 

Ideally, the system should be intended to find some form of justice and not a matter of which attorney won and which lost.

I was involved in cases where obviously innocent people were prosecuted for political reasons. 

I was involved in cases where defense attorneys put on amazing performances to get people off when their performance had nothing to do with the law. For example, a police detective name Raymond Martinez was the lead investigator in the trial of a man hired by Mohamar Ghaddafi to assassinate a college student in our town. The student was shot in the head but survived. The attorney, Walter Gerash, had a fascinating defense in that his client, a mercenary, had been in the military, and thought the assassination for the CIA. Every time Gerash addressed Det. Martinez he called him Rudolph. When called on it the first time he said, "I get confused with Rudolph the Red...you know, the song." He continued throughout the trail to call Ray, Rudolph. 

I was asked to testify as an expert witness in the trial of an innocent man. The attorney sent me a check for an expert witness fee. I sent it back with a note saying, "I don't testify for a living. Please, give this money to Mr. Hilbert with instructions to take his wife out for New Years Eve, check into a nice hotel, and for one night, forget about the hell of the last year."

Two nights later the attorney called me and asked if I thought he should be doing the case pro bono. "How long have you been a defense attorney?" "Fourteen years." "How many innocent clients have you represented?" "Do you mean....?" "No, none of the lawyer crap. How many clients were innocent. Wrong guy. Weren't there. Not involved." After a pause he said, "This is the third." No lawyer could live representing innocent clients.

I needed legal advice once in a fight with the District Attorney's office. I called a friend and we met in a bar and discussed the case. He asked if the case proceeded I'd hire him. "Hell, no. The DAs office hates you even more than they hate me. They're have me killed to get to you." He nodded. He knew it was true.

In our present system, the victims of crimes have no representation. The exclusionary rule benefits no one but the criminal and punishes no one but the victims of crimes.

In forty-five years I did meet a defense attorney I trusted...once. He was actually an honest man.

----------

Trinnity (01-12-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Just to get started, Rina, I'm sure you are aware the police charge no one.


Yes, but you know what I meant.  You are brought in on a complaint based off police recommendations/citation/ticket/arrest statement from which the ADA creates your arraignment charges.  Arrangement charges (for those unaware) can be lessened or increased during grand jury phase.




> That's the district attorneys' job. It isn't about cutting corners. It's about perjury, police reports disappearing, evidence disappearing all at the direction of the district attorney. D.A. Nifong was not an isolated aberration.


It should not be, but sometimes it is.  Do you disagree?




> Ideally, the system should be intended to find some form of justice and not a matter of which attorney won and which lost.


Justice is about balance and restoration, not revenge which is what the gp usually wants.




> I was involved in cases where obviously innocent people were prosecuted for political reasons.


I agree, and guilty people go free for the same reasons.




> I was involved in cases where defense attorneys put on amazing performances to get people off when their performance had nothing to do with the law. For example, a police detective name Raymond Martinez was the lead investigator in the trial of a man hired by Mohamar Ghaddafi to assassinate a college student in our town. The student was shot in the head but survived. The attorney, Walter Gerash, had a fascinating defense in that his client, a mercenary, had been in the military, and thought the assassination for the CIA. Every time Gerash addressed Det. Martinez he called him Rudolph. When called on it the first time he said, "I get confused with Rudolph the Red...you know, the song." He continued throughout the trail to call Ray, Rudolph.


Yep, happens.




> I was asked to testify as an expert witness in the trial of an innocent man. The attorney sent me a check for an expert witness fee. I sent it back with a note saying, "I don't testify for a living. Please, give this money to Mr. Hilbert with instructions to take his wife out for New Years Eve, check into a nice hotel, and for one night, forget about the hell of the last year."
> 
> Two nights later the attorney called me and asked if I thought he should be doing the case pro bono. "How long have you been a defense attorney?" "Fourteen years." "How many innocent clients have you represented?" "Do you mean....?" "No, none of the lawyer crap. How many clients were innocent. Wrong guy. Weren't there. Not involved." After a pause he said, "This is the third." No lawyer could live representing innocent clients.
> 
> I needed legal advice once in a fight with the District Attorney's office. I called a friend and we met in a bar and discussed the case. He asked if the case proceeded I'd hire him. "Hell, no. The DAs office hates you even more than they hate me. They're have me killed to get to you." He nodded. He knew it was true.


I believe you.  Happens far too often.




> In our present system, the victims of crimes have no representation. The exclusionary rule benefits no one but the criminal and punishes no one but the victims of crimes.


I represent victims of crimes, as well.  We work with the police and ADA's office quite a bit, as well as, file civil suit when necessary.

I don't believe that all cops are bad, and I like a lot of the ADAs.  I also recognize that many defense attorneys are assholes.  It's a tightrope we all walk.

----------


## Guest

Actually, Pat...I appreciate your being so polite with me.  Our types usually have an adversarial relationship.  

Thanks a lot.

----------


## Trinnity

What about Levin's topic? Our gun rights and tyrant Obama's assault on them? At what point is our country gonna say NO to the dismantling of our rights and Liberty?

----------


## Paperback Writer

> What about Levin's topic? Our gun rights and tyrant Obama's assault on them? At what point is our country gonna say NO to the dismantling of our rights and Liberty?


Won't it work itself out?  Most of you have said you will not give up your guns, yeh?  You may get your revolution after all.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> They already are, but they will not violate procedures. Why? Because innocent people already get wrongly convicted. Allowing them to get away with violating procedures you'll see more innocent people locked up.


  We're not talking about people being wrongly convicted. Damning evidence improperly acquired is still damning evidence.  And again, I never said a judge should violate the law, so stop with that already!  We're talking about people who are dangerous to our society not being allowed back into that society on a fluke.  Apparently you don't seem to understand that the toll for doing that is human lives.




> I think you are a nice man with a nice family and I'm glad you live in a nice place like Mayberry but you seem to have difficulty grasping what our justice system is really like.


  Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.  You're in the justice system, but you seem to be intransigently fixed on a certain perspective of it, that the police, prosecutors, and judge are all in some evil conspiracy to put innocent people behind bars.  Being in that line of work doesn't, in my opinion, give you any greater insight than I have as an informed, educated citizen.




> Every day there are people getting charged with resisting arrest for simply asking why the police want to see their identification. We go to court, the judge says its bullshit because there is no originating criminal offense, and the taxpayers are out thousands of dollars because some cop was pissed off an individual asked them a question.


  Some state laws require people to carry identification in public and to produce it upon the demand of a peace officer.  Being asked to show ID is hardly the end of civil liberties as we know it.  I got no sympathy for people who land their asses in jail because they're being difficult and have an inflated view of what their rights are.

----------


## Guest

> Won't it work itself out?  Most of you have said you will not give up your guns, yeh?  You may get your revolution after all.


I'm afraid that this could happen.  I think they're talking tough now hoping that  if they talk tough and then relent (Hegelian Dialectic) people will give up the assault rifles to keep the other guns.  They will do it incrementally because they are afraid of a revolution.

Obama's foolish to bring the military home.  I think he over estimates their loyalty to the federal government.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> What about Levin's topic? Our gun rights and tyrant Obama's assault on them? At what point is our country gonna say NO to the dismantling of our rights and Liberty?


Ooh!  Did Zosiasmom take us off topic?  By her own definition she's "trolling" your thread.  The answer is that we're outnumbered.  We have a president who flagrantly violates civil liberties through the Patriot Act, forcing faith groups to violate their faith, ignoring civil rights violations when the defendents are black, and just being an overall asshole.  And he got re elected.  People don't care about civil liberties and by people I mean the majority.  We're outnumbered by the statists and the enablers of statism.  We don't want liberty, we want Ameritopia.

----------


## Guest

> We're not talking about people being wrongly convicted. Damning evidence improperly acquired is still damning evidence.  And again, I never said a judge should violate the law, so stop with that already!  We're talking about people who are dangerous to our society not being allowed back into that society on a fluke.  Apparently you don't seem to understand that the toll for doing that is human lives.


I do, but a judge can call the case in the middle, allowing the prosecutor to regroup and find additional evidence.  Besides, ask Pat, it's harder than ever to get evidence suppressed or a case thrown out for procedural error.

I don't know how many times someone will tell me: "The cops forgot to Mirandize me".  I'll say: "So?  They'll swear on a stack of Bibles they did.  Let's move along to the details of your case."

This isn't Castle.




> Funny, I was thinking the same thing about you.  You're in the justice system, but you seem to be intransigently fixed on a certain perspective of it, that the police, prosecutors, and judge are all in some evil conspiracy to put innocent people behind bars.  Being in that line of work doesn't, in my opinion, give you any greater insight than I have as an informed, educated citizen.


I am not of that opinion.  I have "friends" who are in the district attorney's office.  I like those guys a lot and were it not, in my opinion, unethical I'd take them out for drinks.  It's a job.  I have said on this very message board that the types of guys who go into the FBI are like Captain America (presumably, that is good).  You may also ask Pat about my feelings in regards to small town police.  

My problem stems with the NYPD.  A great many of them are corrupt.  Google NYPD and violations.  There was one cop with 27 ethics violations that only got fired because he strangled a man to death for talking back to him.

I was telling Pat the other day that when my husband and I lived in VA the local sheriff's department there was just awesome.  I am not unable to see reason for law enforcement and my job actually makes me more sympathetic rather than less sympathetic to them.  I have to defend a lot of these dickheads so I know what they are dealing with.




> Some state laws require people to carry identification in public and to produce it upon the demand of a peace officer.  Being asked to show ID is hardly the end of civil liberties as we know it.  I got no sympathy for people who land their asses in jail because they're being difficult and have an inflated view of what their rights are.


They have an exactly correct view of what their rights are.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I do, but a judge can call the case in the middle, allowing the prosecutor to regroup and find additional evidence. Besides, ask Pat, it's harder than ever to get evidence suppressed or a case thrown out for procedural error.


  As well it should be.




> I don't know how many times someone will tell me: "The cops forgot to Mirandize me". I'll say: "So? They'll swear on a stack of Bibles they did. Let's move along to the details of your case."


  Plus they have all the motivation in the world to claim they weren't mirandized.  You probably believe that the cops routinely skip this step, but I believe the more probable senario that your clients are lying their asses off.




> I am not of that opinion. I have "friends" who are in the district attorney's office. I like those guys a lot and were it not, in my opinion, unethical I'd take them out for drinks. It's a job. I have said on this very message board that the types of guys who go into the FBI are like Captain America (presumably, that is good). You may also ask Pat about my feelings in regards to small town police.


  I can see why you get along with me no matter how adversarial I get toward you.  It makes you good at your job.




> My problem stems with the NYPD. A great many of them are corrupt. Google NYPD and violations. There was one cop with 27 ethics violations that only got fired because he strangled a man to death for talking back to him.


  I highly doubt that "a great many" NYPD officers are corrupt.  Again this goes to what I said before about your prescribed viewpoint.




> I was telling Pat the other day that when my husband and I lived in VA the local sheriff's department there was just awesome. I am not unable to see reason for law enforcement and my job actually makes me more sympathetic rather than less sympathetic to them. I have to defend a lot of these dickheads so I know what they are dealing with.


  Good.  Bear that in mind when pondering the "great many" number of them who you think are corrupt.

----------


## Guest

> As well it should be.


I don't disagree.  The system only works if everyone does their job.




> Plus they have all the motivation in the world to claim they weren't mirandized.  You probably believe that the cops routinely skip this step, but I believe the more probable senario that your clients are lying their asses off.


You won't believe me, so ask Pat.  They don't see it as a big deal anymore.  You can catch them on camera phone forgetting to do it.  I'm not sure it should be a big deal, but it is the law of the land.




> I can see why you get along with me no matter how adversarial I get toward you.  It makes you good at your job.


There are even cute ADAs who I have had chemistry with, BUT I also believe in holding myself to a high standard and would not want their job or their position to be compromised by any flirtation we may have.   :Wink: 

If you think that I want to see pedophiles loose on the streets you'd be mistaken.  I love it when the cops and ADAs work together to get these guys nailed down.  The whole reason I do my job is so that I can see equal justice applied.  I didn't see that growing up.  I saw kids on one side of town get one type of "justice" while kids on the other side a different one.




> I highly doubt that "a great many" NYPD officers are corrupt.  Again this goes to what I said before about your prescribed viewpoint.


I wish that were true.  It is a culture that comes from the top down.  The XL's dad was a cop in NYC and he will even tell you what it is like there.  I could hardly believe it.  I had talked shit about Detroit police for years, but...NYPD is filled with assholes.  The good ones will tell you the same thing.  Those are the guys that I feel bad for.  They're just trying to do their job and they can't because now people are too afraid to talk to cops.




> Good.  Bear that in mind when pondering the "great many" number of them who you think are corrupt.


It's not without reason.  I didn't come out of the box feeling this way about police in NYC.

----------


## The XL

My dad died a first class detective in early 09, I have multiple uncles and one aunt that were NY cops, along with other family members, and I 100% back up Rina here, NY cops are, for the most part, absolute dickheads, authoritarian douchebags with little dick syndrome.  

Some people with family and friends in the force always back them up, but I'm not like that, I keep it real.  They suck.  There are a few great cops, but they are few and far between.

----------


## Guest

> My dad died a first class detective in early 09, I have multiple uncles and one aunt that were NY cops, along with other family members, and I 100% back up Rina here, NY cops are, for the most part, absolute dickheads, authoritarian douchebags with little dick syndrome.  
> 
> Some people with family and friends in the force always back them up, but I'm not like that, I keep it real.  They suck.  There are a few great cops, but they are few and far between.


What bothers me the most is that there are some amazingly kind, good police officers and they catch hell from their other ones.  You got to clean out the bad ones so those guys have the "com".

It's not that I like getting bad people off.  I like getting good people off and so-so people a second chance.  I get paid either way.  So, it would be nice if they would do their jobs correctly, have the people in the communities look up to them again, turn to them again, etc.

What Mike's not getting is how bad cops encourage certain types of crimes.  People just don't feel like they can go to the cops for help anymore.  It's sad.

----------


## The XL

Cops are useless for the most part.  Back in spring 2004, I was playing basketball with my friends, mostly minorities.  One of my friends and some other guy were talking a little shit, which happens from time to time on the court.  But this kid took it personal, and came back with his older brother and his friends, I guess.  We were outnumbered probably 3 to 1, and they were all probably 18-26 years old, all adults, and we were 14-15 years old.  Needless to say, given that we were greatly outnumbered and going against adults, we got our asses kicked(we did manage to take 2 of them out, though.  Haha.)

Long story short, when my friend called the cops, he made the mistake of telling the cops that he was Hispanic and the attackers were white.  They must not have taken him seriously, because it took them about a half an hour to get there.  The park was on 68th and 1st in Manhattan, if I remember correctly, and the precinct was on 68th and Lex, I think.  It took those useless fuckers a half an hour to travel about 3 blocks.  And those bastards had the nerve to laugh at us when they got there.  

Useless fucks.  They get paid to be useless.

----------


## Guest

> Cops are useless for the most part.  Back in spring 2004, I was playing basketball with my friends, mostly minorities.  One of my friends and some other guy were talking a little shit, which happens from time to time on the court.  But this kid took it personal, and came back with his older brother and his friends, I guess.  We were outnumbered probably 3 to 1, and they were all probably 18-26 years old, all adults, and we were 14-15 years old.  Needless to say, given that we were greatly outnumbered and going against adults, we got our asses kicked(we did manage to take 2 of them out, though.  Haha.)
> 
> Long story short, when my friend called the cops, he made the mistake of telling the cops that he was Hispanic and the attackers were white.  They must not have taken him seriously, because it took them about a half an hour to get there.  The park was on 68th and 1st in Manhattan, if I remember correctly, and the precinct was on 68th and Lex, I think.  It took those useless fuckers a half an hour to travel about 3 blocks.  And those bastards had the nerve to laugh at us when they got there.  
> 
> Useless fucks.  They get paid to be useless.


Totally off topic, since according to Mike this is perfectly acceptable....

I wanna go to D&B tonight.  What are you doing?

----------


## The XL

> Totally off topic, since according to Mike this is perfectly acceptable....
> 
> I wanna go to D&B tonight.  What are you doing?


I have family over today.  Next Sat, perhaps?

Speaking of which, I might post my pic today so you know how I look, for when we hang out.  I just need to take one of myself, haha.

----------


## Guest

> I have family over today.  Next Sat, perhaps?
> 
> Speaking of which, I might post my pic today so you know how I look, for when we hang out.  I just need to take one of myself, haha.


And you've seen me so you know to look for Snow White in glasses.   :Big Grin:   Yes, next Saturday would work.  I want to shoot some zombies.  Which bring us back onto the topic of guns.

There's also a bullets shortage now.  Things are going to get real pretty quickly in the US.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> My dad died a first class detective in early 09, I have multiple uncles and one aunt that were NY cops, along with other family members, and I 100% back up Rina here, NY cops are, for the most part, absolute dickheads, authoritarian douchebags with little dick syndrome.  
> 
> Some people with family and friends in the force always back them up, but I'm not like that, I keep it real.  They suck.  There are a few great cops, but they are few and far between.


4 out of 5 criminals and anarchists agree with you.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> And you've seen me so you know to look for Snow White in glasses.    Yes, next Saturday would work.  I want to shoot some zombies.  Which bring us back onto the topic of guns.
> 
> There's also a bullets shortage now.  Things are going to get real pretty quickly in the US.


Only the unprepared suffer from shortages.

----------


## Guest

> Only the unprepared suffer from shortages.


Some people like to target shoot.  They'll probably not target shoot now.

----------


## The XL

> 4 out of 5 criminals and anarchists agree with you.


You know nothing of what goes on in NY.  You seem to be a cop apologist, so it's probably a waste of time to try to convince you otherwise.  

Plus, you consider a non violent drug user a criminal, so I wouldn't put too much stock in what you consider a criminal to be.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> You know nothing of what goes on in NY.  You seem to be a cop apologist, so it's probably a waste of time to try to convince you otherwise.  
> 
> Plus, you consider a non violent drug user a criminal, so I wouldn't put too much stock in what you consider a criminal to be.


I'm not a cop apologist, I'm a realist.  Both of your claims that "most" or "a great many" cops are corrupt are impossible and ignorant.  And drug users break the law, so by textbook they are criminals.

----------


## Guest

> I'm not a cop apologist, I'm a realist.  Both of your claims that "most" or "a great many" cops are corrupt are impossible and ignorant.  And drug users break the law, so by textbook they are criminals.


I referred to NYC cops whose track record is online for all to see.  I also said that the small town I lived in for awhile when married had GREAT cops.  I'm not unable to see the difference in two sets of police cultures.

Well, its drug users who break the law now, conservatives after gun control passes.   :Wink:

----------


## The XL

> I referred to NYC cops whose track record is online for all to see.  I also said that the small town I lived in for awhile when married had GREAT cops.  I'm not unable to see the difference in two sets of police cultures.
> *
> Well, its drug users who break the law now, conservatives after gun control passes*.


Lol, now let's wait for him to say it's different, citing the 2nd amendment, while totally ignoring the fact that drug use is covered by the 9th amendment.

----------


## Guest

> Lol, now let's wait for him to say it's different, citing the 2nd amendment, while totally ignoring the fact that drug use is covered by the 9th amendment.


I do wonder what will happen when gun control legislation passes.  At first they were talking banning the _sales_ of rifles like the AR-15, now they are saying to actively confiscate them.  Wonder what the $$ will be that people get when the government takes their legally purchased weapons?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I referred to NYC cops whose track record is online for all to see. I also said that the small town I lived in for awhile when married had GREAT cops. I'm not unable to see the difference in two sets of police cultures.
> 
> Well, its drug users who break the law now, conservatives after gun control passes.


I have a constitutional right to have a gun. You don't have a constitutional right to get high.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Lol, now let's wait for him to say it's different, citing the 2nd amendment, while totally ignoring the fact that drug use is covered by the 9th amendment.


I just checked the 9th Ammendment. No protections for drug use.  Who knew?

----------


## Guest

> I just checked the 9th Ammendment. No protections for drug use.  Who knew?


Reread it.  It also allows you to buy a mastiff, eat cake even if you have diabetes, go downhill mountain biking, rock climb without ropes, and all sorts of things called liberty without the government infringing upon the sanctity of your body and home.

----------

The XL (01-12-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Reread it.  It also allows you to buy a mastiff, eat cake even if you have diabetes, go downhill mountain biking, rock climb without ropes, and all sorts of things called liberty without the government infringing upon the sanctity of your body and home.


Lol this.  I was waiting for Mike to come in and fail to back his assertion that the 9th Amendment doesn't cover drug use, and as I expected, he failed exceptionally well.

----------


## Guest

> Lol this.  I was waiting for Mike to come in and fail to back his assertion that the 9th Amendment doesn't cover drug use, and as I expected, he failed exceptionally well.


This is not subject to Fair Use as it is for the purpose of those who are attempting a pro se bid or legal professionals to review case law by the courts:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment09/

*Ninth Amendment - Unenumerated Rights*he enumeration in the Constitution, of certain  rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by  the people. *9th Amendment Annotations* *Rights Retained by the People* 

  Aside from contending that a bill of rights was unnecessary, the  Federalists responded to those opposing ratification of the Constitution  because of the lack of a declaration of fundamental rights by arguing  that inasmuch as it would be impossible to list all rights it would be  dangerous to list some because there would be those who would seize on  the absence of the omitted rights to assert that government was  unrestrained as to those. 1  Madison adverted to this argument in presenting his proposed  amendments to the House of Representatives. ''It has been objected also  against a bill of rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to  the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not  placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that  those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned  into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently  insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard  against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I  conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as  gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth  resolution.'' 2  It is clear from its text and from Madison's statement that the  Amendment states but a rule of construction, making clear that a Bill of  Rights might not by implication be taken to increase the powers of the  national government in areas   not enumerated, and that it does not  contain within itself any guarantee of a right or a proscription of an  infringement. 3  Recently, however, the Amendment has been construed to be positive  affirmation of the existence of rights which are not enumerated but  which are nonetheless protected by other provisions.
  The Ninth Amendment had been mentioned infrequently in decisions of the Supreme Court 4  until it became the subject of some exegesis by several of the Justices in Griswold v. Connecticut. 5  There a statute prohibiting use of contraceptives was voided as an  infringement of the right of marital privacy. Justice Douglas, writing  the opinion of the Court, asserted that the ''specific guarantees in the  Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those  guarantees that help give them life and substance.'' 6  Thus, while privacy is nowhere mentioned, it is one of the values served and protected by the First Amendment, through its protection of associational rights, and by the Third, the Fourth, and the Fifth Amendments  as well. The Justice recurred to the text of the Ninth Amendment,  apparently to support the thought that these penumbral rights are  protected by one Amendment or a complex of Amendments despite the  absence of a specific reference. Justice Goldberg, concurring, devoted  several pages to the Amendment.
  ''The language and history of the Ninth Amendment reveal that the  Framers of the Constitution believed that there are additional  fundamental rights, protected from governmental infringement, which  exist alongside those fundamental rights specifically mentioned in the  first eight constitutional amendments. . . . To hold that a right so  basic and fundamental and so deep-rooted in our society as the right of  privacy in marriage may be infringed because that right is not  guaranteed in so many words by the first eight amendments to the  Constitution is to ignore the Ninth   Amendment and to give it no effect  whatsoever. Moreover, a judicial construction that this fundamental  right is not protected by the Constitution because it is not mentioned  in explicit terms by one of the first eight amendments or elsewhere in  the Constitution would violate the Ninth Amendment. . . . Nor do I mean  to state that the Ninth Amendment constitutes an independent source of  right protected from infringement by either the States or the Federal  Government. Rather, the Ninth Amendment shows a belief of the  Constitution's authors that fundamental rights exist that are not  expressly enumerated in the first eight amendments and an intent that  the list of rights included there not be deemed exhaustive.''

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I said none of that. Stop lying, please.


Not lying. Just preferring to mis-characterize.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I just checked the 9th Ammendment. No protections for drug use.  Who knew?


So what does it protect, exactly?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

I would love to take Levin seriously, as I used to be a huge fan, but after a certain personal encounter with him, I simply can't. He's a fraud, selling a faux constitutionalist viewpoint that he himself does not hold.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I would love to take Levin seriously, as I used to be a huge fan, but after a certain personal encounter with him, I simply can't. He's a fraud, selling a faux constitutionalist viewpoint that he himself does not hold.


That's why I don't call in because I don't want a personal encounter that would turn me off to him.  Like Michael Savage, he often takes an adversarial approach to somebody, thinking they are opposing him and not understanding that they're trying to agree with him.  He interrupts and muscles his way in so that you can't clarify what you're saying.  I often listen to a caller who he's raked over the coals and lament that the caller was actually a conservative that fell prey to friendly fire.  So I never call in to these shows.  The only show I'll call into is Rush Limbaugh because he never does this and he actually allows people to speak and I've never seen him misunderstand anyone.  But getting on his show is like trying to win the lottery.

----------


## Guest

> That's why I don't call in because I don't want a personal encounter that would turn me off to him.  Like Michael Savage, he often takes an adversarial approach to somebody, thinking they are opposing him and not understanding that they're trying to agree with him.  He interrupts and muscles his way in so that you can't clarify what you're saying.  I often listen to a caller who he's raked over the coals and lament that the caller was actually a conservative that fell prey to friendly fire.  So I never call in to these shows.  The only show I'll call into is Rush Limbaugh because he never does this and he actually allows people to speak and I've never seen him misunderstand anyone.  But getting on his show is like trying to win the lottery.


Not to defend these guys, but they are capitalists and they have to "sell".  If you agree with them its a hug fest and that's not exciting to anyone.  People love to fight--well, people whose personality trends in the direction of politics.

If TRAT and I weren't here...you'd be bored and vice versa.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Lol this.  I was waiting for Mike to come in and fail to back his assertion that the 9th Amendment doesn't cover drug use, and as I expected, he failed exceptionally well.


I have a family to attend to so you'll excuse me if I don't spend all day here.  But for the sake of argument, I just checked the 9th Ammendment again just to be sure I wasn't missing something and it really was about peoples right to get high.  I still couldn't find it.  You see, the 9th Ammendment separates the enumerated powers of government outlined in the Constitution from those not mentioned and therefore categorically are retained by the people.  The OP in my War on Drugs thread laid out a strong case for the constitutionality of the prohibition of drugs along with specific references and exegesis, so the 9th Ammendment doesn't apply because controlling dangerous substances is well within the purview of federal power under the Constitution.  So you can throw the 9th Ammendment at me all day long, it doesn't affect me.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Not to defend these guys, but they are capitalists and they have to "sell".  If you agree with them its a hug fest and that's not exciting to anyone.  People love to fight--well, people whose personality trends in the direction of politics.
> 
> If TRAT and I weren't here...you'd be bored and vice versa.


Thank you for being here.

----------



----------


## The XL

> I have a family to attend to so you'll excuse me if I don't spend all day here.  But for the sake of argument, I just checked the 9th Ammendment again just to be sure I wasn't missing something and it really was about peoples right to get high.  I still couldn't find it.  You see, the 9th Ammendment separates the enumerated powers of government outlined in the Constitution from those not mentioned and therefore categorically are retained by the people.  The OP in my War on Drugs thread laid out a strong case for the constitutionality of the prohibition of drugs along with specific references and exegesis, so the 9th Ammendment doesn't apply because controlling dangerous substances is well within the purview of federal power under the Constitution.  So you can throw the 9th Ammendment at me all day long, it doesn't affect me.


Your OP in that thread is garbage, was exposed, and even giving you the benefit of the doubt, wouldn't apply to users and local sellers, only the people bringing the drugs in, and would have no legal case for prosecuting sellers or users with regards to drugs made or grown in the country.

You fail, again.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Your OP in that thread is garbage, was exposed, and even giving you the benefit of the doubt, wouldn't apply to users and local sellers, only the people bringing the drugs in, and would have no legal case for prosecuting sellers or users with regards to drugs made or grown in the country.
> 
> You fail, again.


Incorrect. I never fail and you fail nearly every time you post, just to set the record straight.  The Constitution authorizes Congress to pass laws consistant with its enumerated powers and duties. So if federal law restricts the import of illegal drugs, which it can do, then it can also pass laws making those substances illegal in the states so that they aren't restricting these imports at loggerheads with states making the imports legal.  My constitutional case has proven airtight amidst multiple assailants, many much better than you, on 3 different forums.  Nobody has broken my argument.  But feel free to keep thinking that I'M the one failing.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> That's why I don't call in because I don't want a personal encounter that would turn me off to him.  Like Michael Savage, he often takes an adversarial approach to somebody, thinking they are opposing him and not understanding that they're trying to agree with him.  He interrupts and muscles his way in so that you can't clarify what you're saying.  I often listen to a caller who he's raked over the coals and lament that the caller was actually a conservative that fell prey to friendly fire.  So I never call in to these shows.  The only show I'll call into is Rush Limbaugh because he never does this and he actually allows people to speak and I've never seen him misunderstand anyone.  But getting on his show is like trying to win the lottery.


No, that's not what my personal experience was.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> No, that's not what my personal experience was.


I'm wondering how many personal experiences a 20 year old can have with Mark Levin.

----------


## The XL

> Incorrect. I never fail and you fail nearly every time you post, just to set the record straight.  The Constitution authorizes Congress to pass laws consistant with its enumerated powers and duties. So if federal law restricts the import of illegal drugs, which it can do, then it can also pass laws making those substances illegal in the states so that they aren't restricting these imports at loggerheads with states making the imports legal.  My constitutional case has proven airtight amidst multiple assailants, many much better than you, on 3 different forums.  Nobody has broken my argument.  But feel free to keep thinking that I'M the one failing.


Airtight, in your mind only.  If the drugs are made or grown within the country, it has nothing to do with commerce between countries.  Going by that logic, they can make whatever good they want illegal.  It contradicts with the 9th Amendment anyway.  Going by your logic, they could make guns illegal as well.  No difference, both guns and drug use are protected by the 2nd and 9th Amendment.   If someone grows pot or makes crystal meth, it has absolutely nothing to do with commerce between countries, or even states.  The only case you have are against people getting caught crossing over with the substance, not the actual selling or use of it.  

But keep clinging to this to justify your overwhelming need of big government.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I'm wondering how many personal experiences a 20 year old can have with Mark Levin.


Is there an age limit on conversations with Mark Levin?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Is there an age limit on conversations with Mark Levin?


I'm just saying there isn't a large window of opportunity for you to have a bad experience with Mark Levin.  10 years ago I was in the Army in Fort Jackson, SC.  10 years ago, you weren't even growing body hair.  What was your "negative experience" with the Great One?

----------

birddog (01-13-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I'm just saying there isn't a large window of opportunity for you to have a bad experience with Mark Levin.  10 years ago I was in the Army in Fort Jackson, SC.  10 years ago, you weren't even growing body hair.  What was your "negative experience" with the Great One?


He was talking about Ron Paul and libertarians. I responded back politely that I think he misunderstood, that he and libertarians were on the same side. I was hung up on. The next day, I found a similar message I had posted on his status reiterating the same thing deleted and I was prevented from posting. I watched the status almost the whole day, and found the same thing happening to others who gave polite defenses of Paul and libertarianism.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> He was talking about Ron Paul and libertarians. I responded back politely that I think he misunderstood, that he and libertarians were on the same side. I was hung up on. The next day, I found a similar message I had posted on his status reiterating the same thing deleted and I was prevented from posting. I watched the status almost the whole day, and found the same thing happening to others who gave polite defenses of Paul and libertarianism.


He doesn't suffer fools gladly. I hardly consider that a mark against him.  You should probably understand that whenever Ron Paul is criticized, thousands, hoardes of you show up to defend him.  Aside from the cult like following that no Republican has ever had, I'm sure that there are just some conservatives that don't want to deal with you and the many many like you.  By the way, I think I remember hearing you on his show.

----------

birddog (01-13-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> He doesn't suffer fools gladly. I hardly consider that a mark against him.  You should probably understand that whenever Ron Paul is criticized, thousands, hoardes of you show up to defend him.  Aside from the cult like following that no Republican has ever had, I'm sure that there are just some conservatives that don't want to deal with you and the many many like you.  By the way, I think I remember hearing you on his show.


What did the person you're thinking of say?

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> What did the person you're thinking of say?


The person was complaining about alleged dirty schemes by Republican delegates to sandbag Ron Paul.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The person was complaining about alleged dirty schemes by Republican delegates to sandbag Ron Paul.


Nope, that wasn't me.

----------


## pollycy

> Nope, that wasn't me.


I respect a lot of Levin's commentary, and his viewpoint on many things, but I don't know that I've ever quite understood the acclamation of his status as "The Great One".  

Like many other gifted philosophers and commentators on the Right, Levin accurately describes the disastrous practices and policies of hyperliberal Left-wing "Progressive" politicians.  All well and good.  But, collectively, we on the Right are losing the war against Socialists like Comrade Obama because we have developed a lethal blindside concerning women, and "entitlements".

Like all the other talking-heads on the Right, Levin snipes continually at abortion-rights and EARNED entitlements -- primarily Social Security.  Roe v Wade has been the law of the land for FORTY YEARS!  The Social Security System has also been the law of the land, for nearly EIGHTY YEARS!  

How does it help the Conservative cause, or increase our ranks when we alienate enormous numbers of women who recoil furiously at the mere suggestion that we on the Right want to take away womens' rights and put them, barefoot and pregnant, back in the kitchen and nursery?!  The hyperlib Socialists have nearly convinced a lot of them that Conservative white males would really like to take away their right to vote, too -- so why do we continually "pour gasoline on a grass fire"?  In our lifetimes (at least), Roe v Wade will NOT be overturned, so why are Conservatives, like "Crusader Rick" Santorum destroying themselves over it...?

Similarly, all the Right-wing commentators rail and rant about "entitlements", with dire warnings about what this is doing to "the children and the grandchildren".  The fatal flaw is that they FAIL to differentiate between EARNED entitlements and UNEARNED handout welfare!  There is all the difference in the world between these two, but nobody on the Right -- not Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin, or anybody else, GETS the fact that when people are *forced* to pay into government systems all their lives they damn well expect to be paid what they are due!  Moreover, NONE of today's "children and grandchildren" have paid a dime into any of these systems!  So, even Right-wing Conservative Baby Boomers, me included, feel so alienated when we hear all this imprecise blather about "cutting entitlements", when it's clear that neither Levin, nor any of the other pundits, have taken the trouble to separate what has been EARNED from what is UNEARNED.  

But, Levin and the others will go on "preaching to the choir", with no change in their liturgy.  And, over time, it will be clear that Democrats will become even more deeply entrenched in power, and that Republicans will go on losing one election after another.  At the rate they're going, after 2014, I seriously doubt that Republicans will control even the House of Representatives any longer.  And guys like Levin will rant and rave about all the things that are wrong with this country without ever realizing that they were the ones who shot themselves in the foot by ignoring REALITY....

----------

Paperback Writer (01-21-2013)

----------


## patrickt

Pollycy, does that mean we also have to believe in PMS as a defense for murder? Just trying to get straight here.

For forty years I've been trying to find that right to have an abortion at will in the Constitution but it seems to be another one of those code word thingies because it certainly isn't in the Constitution. You are aware that for 100 years slavery was the LAW of the land for 100 YEARS. Racial segregation was the LAW for almost a hundred years. The Supreme Court even said President Roosevelt had a Constitutional right to put AMERICANS of Japanese descent in concentration camps for no reason. Not Germans or Italians, though. Just AMERICANS of Japanese descent.

I think our position of pedophilia alienates some people, too. Pedophiles and leftists don't like that. For them, pedophilia is just another life choice. I'm sure Whoopie Goldberg and Woody Allen made leftist hearts beat fast with their defense of obvious and admitted pedophile Roman Polanski.

Pollycy, your position seems to be the same as President Obama's. He'd be happy to welcome us into his world as soon as we accept his positions. Until them we need to be totally destroyed. Some people are too stupid to realize that regardless, the goal is to destroy us because if the right agrees to unrestrained abortions, unrestrained spending, keeping minorities in the lowest tier of the economy, support organized crime in the form of unions, and denying minorities the ability to get a reasonable education  then we will be destroyed. When we agree to life on the dole for anyone who wants it, we are Barack Obama and no longer are conservatives.

----------


## pollycy

> Pollycy, does that mean we also have to believe in PMS as a defense for murder? Just trying to get straight here.
> 
> For forty years I've been trying to find that right to have an abortion at will in the Constitution but it seems to be another one of those code word thingies because it certainly isn't in the Constitution. You are aware that for 100 years slavery was the LAW of the land for 100 YEARS. Racial segregation was the LAW for almost a hundred years. The Supreme Court even said President Roosevelt had a Constitutional right to put AMERICANS of Japanese descent in concentration camps for no reason. Not Germans or Italians, though. Just AMERICANS of Japanese descent.
> 
> I think our position of pedophilia alienates some people, too. Pedophiles and leftists don't like that. For them, pedophilia is just another life choice. I'm sure Whoopie Goldberg and Woody Allen made leftist hearts beat fast with their defense of obvious and admitted pedophile Roman Polanski.
> 
> Pollycy, your position seems to be the same as President Obama's. He'd be happy to welcome us into his world as soon as we accept his positions. Until them we need to be totally destroyed. Some people are too stupid to realize that regardless, the goal is to destroy us because if the right agrees to unrestrained abortions, unrestrained spending, keeping minorities in the lowest tier of the economy, support organized crime in the form of unions, and denying minorities the ability to get a reasonable education  then we will be destroyed. When we agree to life on the dole for anyone who wants it, we are Barack Obama and no longer are conservatives.


Look, I spoke about two "Achilles' heels" that we on the Right have: war on Roe v Wade, and, war on EARNED entitlements.  I try to avoid all the peripheral "woulda, coulda, shoulda" hypothetical things because the "rightness" or the "wrongness" of them notwithstanding, we have to win elections based on what the majority of people WANT instead of losing elections based on what people FEAR.  

We've amended the Constitution, legally, on a number of occasions, to correct things that needed to be fixed, and we always have that option, going forward.  But, at this point, it is _stoopid_ to drive off millions of women voters by ranting against Roe v Wade when, frankly, the majority of women want to have the right to decide this for themselves!  It's been the law of the land for 40 years, as I said, and in another 40 people may decide to ban it again.  Hell, I don't know -- but that time is not now!  All this does is hand millions and millions of women voters over to the Socialists without any concessions on their part at all!

Same thing with Social Security.  People who have been forced by law to pay into it all their working lives are NOT going to sit still for "Crusader Rick" Santorum and other big-name Republicans blowing around about how we need to cut Social Security benefits to people who have EARNED them!  Did you miss that?  Here 'tis: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1190527.html   There are EIGHTY MILLION BABY BOOMERS... reflect on that for a minute.  And so, while trying to champion cuts to balance the Federal budget, the primary thing that Republicans focus on to cut are the EARNED entitlement benefits for people who are too old now to find work even if they wanted to?  That is practical insanity and political suicide!

I know people who despise Obama and every one of these hyperliberal, socialist sons-of-bitches in Washington D. C., BUT, they will not support anyone or any political party that thinks the only way we can balance the budget is to cheat people out of a benefit they have EARNED!  We may love the country, the Constitution, the private enterprise system, etc., but, those things don't pay the damn bills when you're old!

Why aren't Republicans raising hell to change the U. S. Tax Code, eliminate all the loopholes and shelters, and make everyone pay their fair share?  Why aren't Republicans raising hell to make cuts in handout welfare, instead of our earned entitlements?  I'm the most fiscally, genuinely Conservative person I know, and I tell you in all sincerity that if we on the Right continue to follow the senseless, idiotic track we're on, we are going to lose the House in 2014, and then disappear into third-party obscurity after that....

----------

Paperback Writer (01-21-2013),Trinnity (01-20-2013)

----------


## patrickt

You just don't get it. Of course, the Constitution can be amended but not to correct things that need to be fixed. We've done it largely to keep in step with the changing times. But, Roe vs. Wade had nothing to do with an amendment because the leftists knew that they didn't have the votes. They also knew it wasn't in the Constitution but ever the pragmatics, they had the votes on the Supreme Court. Now, an amendment is needed to correct a blatant fraud.

If most white people want to kill their neighbors who have crabgrass does that mean we're compelled to support them? Lordy, we wouldn't want to alienate them would we? That's a big voting bloc. No more than we'd want to alienate women who want the right to have a late-term abortion. Are we alienating women by not endorsing the position on the left for post-natal abortions?

So, to not alienate voting blocks conservatives should support pedophilia, all abortions at will including post-natal abortions, deadbeats having welfare on demand, absolutely unrestrained borrowing, never ending regulations against business and private individuals, spending, and taxing. But, then we would be left-wing nuts and not conservatives. But, maybe we should support SWAT teams raiding dairy farms looking for milk.

----------


## Trinnity

> So, to not alienate voting blocks conservatives should support pedophilia, all abortions at will including post-natal abortions, deadbeats having welfare on demand, absolutely unrestrained borrowing, never ending regulations against business and private individuals, spending, and taxing. But, then we would be left-wing nuts and not conservatives. But, maybe we should support SWAT teams raiding dairy farms looking for milk.


I don't think he meant that at all.

----------


## Guest

> The person was complaining about alleged dirty schemes by Republican delegates to sandbag Ron Paul.


Did he or she mention the many court cases still under scrutiny?

----------


## pollycy

> You just don't get it. Of course, the Constitution can be amended but not to correct things that need to be fixed. We've done it largely to keep in step with the changing times. But, Roe vs. Wade had nothing to do with an amendment because the leftists knew that they didn't have the votes. They also knew it wasn't in the Constitution but ever the pragmatics, they had the votes on the Supreme Court. Now, an amendment is needed to correct a blatant fraud.
> 
> If most white people want to kill their neighbors who have crabgrass does that mean we're compelled to support them? Lordy, we wouldn't want to alienate them would we? That's a big voting bloc. No more than we'd want to alienate women who want the right to have a late-term abortion. Are we alienating women by not endorsing the position on the left for post-natal abortions?
> 
> So, to not alienate voting blocks conservatives should support pedophilia, all abortions at will including post-natal abortions, deadbeats having welfare on demand, absolutely unrestrained borrowing, never ending regulations against business and private individuals, spending, and taxing. But, then we would be left-wing nuts and not conservatives. But, maybe we should support SWAT teams raiding dairy farms looking for milk.


I am a pragmatist; I try to focus on reality, patrick.  In our time, Roe v Wade is the law, and has been for 40 years!  I hate the whole idea of abortion, especially late-term abortion, which is tantamount to murder -- but the right to do it is what at least 50% of American voters (women) want.  We could amend the Constitution tomorrow to make abortion illegal (just like we did slavery 150 years ago), but that is not going to happen anytime soon, patrick.  And if we Conservatives continue to rant, rave, and raise hell about it, all we're going to do is lose the House of Representatives, along with everything else.  

Even worse is the enigma of the Republican approach to "entitlements" -- especially when they are almost completely silent about the crying need to completely overhaul the U. S. Tax Code to get rid of all the loopholes, shelters, and exemptions that allow many of the "the rich" to pay little or nothing in taxes!  Oh, but Republicans think it's perfectly permissible to pursue cheating people out of EARNED Social Security benefits they've been forced to pay into all their lives?!  So, they'd cheat valid, truly entitled retirees, but "go along to get along" with Libocrats to shovel out hundreds of billions of dollars in UNEARNED handout welfare -- right?  I tell you with the greatest sincerity: even staunchly Conservative Baby Boomers are NOT going to support a Republican Party that is out to screw them and "change the deal" on them AFTER they've worked a lifetime for the benefits.

Look, we've already lost the Presidency, the Senate, and, thanks to turncoat RINO bastard "Justice" John Roberts, the Supreme Court is now also completely in Obama's pocket, too.  Obama's already contaminated the SCOTUS with Sotomayor and Kagan -- and he'll probably put more Constitution-hating Socialists in there during his second term.  Would you have us lose the House, too?  Then we'll be pushed into the outer political darkness, with the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the American Nazi Party, etc., etc.  

This is an evil time, indeed.  We on the Right are fractured and fragmented, fighting over things that don't make sense and sap our strength, while the hyperliberal Socialists are just as happy as pigs in shit -- in loving solidarity and union with each other.  Nothing good will come of this until we on the Right wake up and stop fighting ourselves!

----------

Paperback Writer (01-21-2013)

----------


## Paperback Writer

> I am a pragmatist; I try to focus on reality, patrick.  In our time, Roe v Wade is the law, and has been for 40 years!  I hate the whole idea of abortion, especially late-term abortion, which is tantamount to murder -- but the right to do it is what at least 50% of American voters (women) want.  We could amend the Constitution tomorrow to make abortion illegal (just like we did slavery 150 years ago), but that is not going to happen anytime soon, patrick.  And if we Conservatives continue to rant, rave, and raise hell about it, all we're going to do is lose the House of Representatives, along with everything else.  
> 
> Even worse is the enigma of the Republican approach to "entitlements" -- especially when they are almost completely silent about the crying need to completely overhaul the U. S. Tax Code to get rid of all the loopholes, shelters, and exemptions that allow many of the "the rich" to pay little or nothing in taxes!  Oh, but Republicans think it's perfectly permissible to pursue cheating people out of EARNED Social Security benefits they've been forced to pay into all their lives?!  So, they'd cheat valid, truly entitled retirees, but "go along to get along" with Libocrats to shovel out hundreds of billions of dollars in UNEARNED handout welfare -- right?  I tell you with the greatest sincerity: even staunchly Conservative Baby Boomers are NOT going to support a Republican Party that is out to screw them and "change the deal" on them AFTER they've worked a lifetime for the benefits.
> 
> Look, we've already lost the Presidency, the Senate, and, thanks to turncoat RINO bastard "Justice" John Roberts, the Supreme Court is now also completely in Obama's pocket, too.  Obama's already contaminated the SCOTUS with Sotomayor and Kagan -- and he'll probably put more Constitution-hating Socialists in there during his second term.  Would you have us lose the House, too?  Then we'll be pushed into the outer political darkness, with the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, the American Nazi Party, etc., etc.  
> 
> This is an evil time, indeed.  We on the Right are fractured and fragmented, fighting over things that don't make sense and sap our strength, while the hyperliberal Socialists are just as happy as pigs in shit -- in loving solidarity and union with each other.  Nothing good will come of this until we on the Right wake up and stop fighting ourselves!



If we were in the same city I'd suggest we sit down at the pub and have a pint.  You're one of the only conservatives that I've heard that makes any rational sense--aside from Trinnity, naturally.

----------


## Annette

> Did he or she mention the many court cases still under scrutiny?


Anyone can file lawsuits, it doesn't mean anything.  The conduct of the Paul campaign was for me confirmation of my first instincts, that they lack maturity and aren't ready yet to lead the country.  Let them see for themselves the fecklessness of such tactics, which saintmike calls a temper tantrum and I agree, and maybe they'll come to the humble conclusion that their ideas were simply rejected by voters.  

But even as I criticize, I am rooting for them to do better and become a viable political force because we have a status quo of 2 parties that both spend too much and have no fiscal restraint.  At least the Republicans are proposing balanced budget ammendments whereas the Democrats don't even pretend to want to eliminate our debt.  But those Republicans pushing for such a measure are too few and far between.  I hope that Ron Paul supporters don't give up getting the message out that we need to seriously cut back government excess and return to following the constitution like we're supposed to.  Even if they never get into office, if they can make themselves heard, they've done this country a great service.

----------


## Annette

> Did he or she mention the many court cases still under scrutiny?


Anyone can file lawsuits, it doesn't mean anything. The conduct of the Paul campaign was for me confirmation of my first instincts, that they lack maturity and aren't ready yet to lead the country. Let them see for themselves the fecklessness of such tactics, which saintmike calls a temper tantrum and I agree, and maybe they'll come to the humble conclusion that their ideas were simply rejected by voters. 

But even as I criticize, I am rooting for them to do better and become a viable political force because we have a status quo of 2 parties that both spend too much and have no fiscal restraint. At least the Republicans are proposing balanced budget ammendments whereas the Democrats don't even pretend to want to eliminate our debt. But those Republicans pushing for such a measure are too few and far between. I hope that Ron Paul supporters don't give up getting the message out that we need to seriously cut back government excess and return to following the constitution like we're supposed to. Even if they never get into office, if they can make themselves heard, they've done this country a great service.

----------


## Network

Paul supporters are tired of GOP zombies.  _Mature_ is booing the golden rule, changing the rules at your convention, bullshitting the Iowa results for a month after having establishment blowhards attempt to torpedo his campaign in the state and stating that if he won, it would _look badly_ for the state, colluding against the Paul campaign in multiple counties.

You may like being continuously hoodwinked by people who have wrecked the nation, sorry we don't like being nice to the majority idiocrats.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> Paul supporters are tired of GOP zombies. Mature is booing the golden rule, changing the rules at your convention, bullshitting the Iowa results for a month after having establishment blowhards attempt to torpedo his campaign in the state and stating that if he won, it would look badly for the state, colluding against the Paul campaign in multiple counties.
>  You may like being continuously hoodwinked by people who have wrecked the nation, sorry we don't like being nice to the majority idiocrats.


And the whiny, temper tantrums just keep on going.  You guys are the Energizer Bunny of pouting.

----------


## Network

> And the whiny, temper tantrums just keep on going.  You guys are the Energizer Bunny of pouting.



_She started it.

_Maybe she didn't know about the immaturity and outright fraud of the GOP.  I'm sure she wouldn't hear it from you. 

There was enough of it for a book.

*Swindled: How the GOP Cheated Ron Paul and Lost Themselves the Election*http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AWT86GE/...6X1X9ZEJF38PW0

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> _She started it.
> 
> _Maybe she didn't know about the immaturity and outright fraud of the GOP.  I'm sure she wouldn't hear it from you. 
> 
> There was enough of it for a book.
> 
> *Swindled: How the GOP Cheated Ron Paul and Lost Themselves the Election*
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00AWT86GE/...6X1X9ZEJF38PW0


Wow, if that didn't just make the case for me!  My wife is hard to convince on anything and she wasn't convinced by Ron Paul.  She's an example of why you all lost, it isn't because you weren't heard, it's because independent thinkers like my wife gave you a fair hearing and rejected your ideas.  You'll never improve until you accept the simple fact that you weren't cheated, you were rejected.

----------

Annette (01-21-2013)

----------


## Network

> Wow, if that didn't just make the case for me!  My wife is hard to convince on anything and she wasn't convinced by Ron Paul.  She's an example of why you all lost, it isn't because you weren't heard, it's because independent thinkers like my wife gave you a fair hearing and rejected your ideas.  You'll never improve until you accept the simple fact that you weren't cheated, you were rejected.



I'm sorry that the majority of the GOP voted for an empty-suit crony plastic man without a quotable line in his entire history.  A shell with no philosophy and no answers.  Must be tough aligning yourself with people like that.  

I think democracy is a ridiculous idea.  It's confirmed on a daily basis.

----------



----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I'm sorry that the majority of the GOP voted for an empty-suit crony plastic man without a quotable line in his entire history.  A shell with no philosophy and no answers.  Must be tough aligning yourself with people like that.  
> 
> I think democracy is a ridiculous idea.  It's confirmed on a daily basis.


Part of me hopes that you people remain stuck on stupid.  You're doing a swell job of it so far.

----------


## Network

FURY!

I'm glad Paul's not president.  It's going to hurt undoing the damage done by repubs and dems.  Seems we should probably just let nature take its course on the USSA.  Just another failed statist nation for the pages of history.

----------

The XL (01-21-2013)

----------


## pollycy

> I'm sorry that the majority of the GOP voted for an empty-suit crony plastic man without a quotable line in his entire history.  A shell with no philosophy and no answers.  Must be tough aligning yourself with people like that.  
> 
> I think democracy is a ridiculous idea.  It's confirmed on a daily basis.


Ah, Romney!  A rather unspectacular man who merely made a multi-million dollar fortune by his hard work, applied experience, and ability to work collaboratively with others.  A rather plain, honest, straight-forward man who saved the scandal-ravaged Winter Olympics in 2002 by being willing to take the reins of leadership and get all power-brokers to work with each other, creating success instead of disaster.  

Yes, Romney -- who speaks the plain English of investment, work, and reward, as well as family and country.  Nowhere in his utterances will you find the facile duplicity of the polished, autocratic "Pied Piper" who entertains the easily-entertained with political advertising slogans and "television talk".  

Naw, we didn't need anybody like Romney! So, instead, we get _President Handpuppet_, the charming, handsome entertainer and spokesman for the international banking cartels who really set and enforce economic policy, here and abroad.  Yeah, most contemporary Americans would prefer that, because it requires so little effort.  All hail *Ben Bernanke*, the real leader of this hopelessly lost, colossally _ignorant_ generation!  There's the man we really need, hidden behind the curtain, pulling all the levers and throwing all the switches, and telling Comrade Obama everything to say and do....

----------

birddog (01-22-2013),Irascible Crusader (01-22-2013)

----------


## Paperback Writer

> Ah, Romney!  A rather unspectacular man who merely made a multi-million dollar fortune by his hard work, applied experience, and ability to work collaboratively with others.


I don't mean to injure you with this query, but weren't he also the lad whose family was rich, his father was a governor with contacts, his college was paid for by his rich family, and he used a trust fund and his father's connections to start a business?  Or it could be another yank I'm thinking of who ran for president.  Hard working self-made men prolly resent the comparison, is all.

So nows the time where I have to criticise Obama or a short will blow in the fuse of conservatives.  I think Obama is a megalomaniac.

----------


## Irascible Crusader

> I don't mean to injure you with this query, but weren't he also the lad whose family was rich, his father was a governor with contacts, his college was paid for by his rich family, and he used a trust fund and his father's connections to start a business?  Or it could be another yank I'm thinking of who ran for president.  Hard working self-made men prolly resent the comparison, is all.
> 
> So nows the time where I have to criticise Obama or a short will blow in the fuse of conservatives.  I think Obama is a megalomaniac.


I'm not sure if you're just floating the assumption that somebody who grows up in a well connected family doesn't actually work for his money and success or that he just had the road paved for him.  Either assumption is assinine.

----------

Coolwalker (01-22-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I'm not sure if you're just floating the assumption that somebody who grows up in a well connected family doesn't actually work for his money and success or that he just had the road paved for him.  Either assumption is assinine.


Meh.  I had ZERO help.  None.  Zip. Nada.  I am "self made".  I didn't get any leg up because I was white and didn't qualify for AA.  I didn't have extended family to help me or connections.  I did everything for myself.  All I had was a loving family.

I am offended when people who had all the assistance in the world act like they are exceptional.  They don't get pats on the back from me.  They should be ashamed if they DON'T succeed.

----------


## Annette

> Meh. I had ZERO help. None. Zip. Nada. I am "self made". I didn't get any leg up because I was white and didn't qualify for AA. I didn't have extended family to help me or connections. I did everything for myself. All I had was a loving family.
> 
> I am offended when people who had all the assistance in the world act like they are exceptional. They don't get pats on the back from me. They should be ashamed if they DON'T succeed.


I agree.  I think that children of successful parents become successful largely because they were taught how to do it and why shouldn't they?  Learning what made your parents succeed and imitating their path to success isn't an ill-gotten advantage.  But I hear people characterize others as 'advantaged' as if being white somehow means that everything comes easy to you.  I watch my husband work hard for everything we have.  Though he's Indian, he hates government handouts and has never taken them.  I'm white and the daughter of millionaire parents who are very affluent and yes, very liberal too which should be added.  We do have certain advantages because of that.  Because my parents are such large donors to the Catholic Church, our kids get to go to school there at a discounted rate.  They also made a generous down payment on our home, but we still pay the mortgage ourselves for the remainder.  I don't see this as wrong in any way. If I were in their shoes, I would want to help my daughter in any way I could as well.  But even with these footholds, we still work hard to make our own way in the future.  My parents have charities in their will, not their children, so there isn't a hunk of money coming my way at any time, but that's ok.  Saintmike and I will do just fine because we don't have a sense of entitlement and know that it's up to us to be successful.

----------

Irascible Crusader (01-22-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I agree.  I think that children of successful parents become successful largely because they were taught how to do it and why shouldn't they?  Learning what made your parents succeed and imitating their path to success isn't an ill-gotten advantage.  But I hear people characterize others as 'advantaged' as if being white somehow means that everything comes easy to you.  I watch my husband work hard for everything we have.  Though he's Indian, he hates government handouts and has never taken them.  I'm white and the daughter of millionaire parents who are very affluent and yes, very liberal too which should be added.  We do have certain advantages because of that.  Because my parents are such large donors to the Catholic Church, our kids get to go to school there at a discounted rate.  They also made a generous down payment on our home, but we still pay the mortgage ourselves for the remainder.  I don't see this as wrong in any way. If I were in their shoes, I would want to help my daughter in any way I could as well.  But even with these footholds, we still work hard to make our own way in the future.  My parents have charities in their will, not their children, so there isn't a hunk of money coming my way at any time, but that's ok.  Saintmike and I will do just fine because we don't have a sense of entitlement and know that it's up to us to be successful.



To whom much is given much is expected.  I am not going to applaud the individual born on third who makes it to home in the same way I would applaud someone who hit the ball into the stands.

There were days when it felt so hopeless that I literally cried, but I picked myself up and kept going.  Through the sounds of gunfire ripping through my neighborhood, through daily beatings from the assholes on my block, through bitter cold in that stupid uniform where the wind felt like razors on my legs as I walked to my Catholic school, through eating cheese sandwiches for a month.  I was tired at 14, tired like no 14 year old should feel.

Sorry, I expect people like Mitt Romney to do what he did exactly because of the advantages he had.  He should have been publicly shamed if he did not for all the people like me who scrapped their way through life.  I'm not picking on Mitt Romney, either.  There are a lot of people in his same shoes who got where they were because of the opportunities they had that others did not.  I'm glad they didn't turn into assholes like Paris Hilton, but I'm not going to bow down and praise them because I worked my ass off to get where I am today.

----------

The XL (01-22-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Ah, Romney!  A rather unspectacular man who merely made a multi-million dollar fortune by his hard work, applied experience, and ability to work collaboratively with others.  A rather plain, honest, straight-forward man who saved the scandal-ravaged Winter Olympics in 2002 by being willing to take the reins of leadership and get all power-brokers to work with each other, creating success instead of disaster.  
> 
> Yes, Romney -- who speaks the plain English of investment, work, and reward, as well as family and country.  Nowhere in his utterances will you find the facile duplicity of the polished, autocratic "Pied Piper" who entertains the easily-entertained with political advertising slogans and "television talk".

----------


## pollycy

> I don't mean to injure you with this query, but weren't he also the lad whose family was rich, his father was a governor with contacts, his college was paid for by his rich family, and he used a trust fund and his father's connections to start a business?  Or it could be another yank I'm thinking of who ran for president.  Hard working self-made men prolly resent the comparison, is all.
> 
> So nows the time where I have to criticise Obama or a short will blow in the fuse of conservatives.  I think Obama is a megalomaniac.


No injury taken, mate, and you're right -- Romney came from a wealthy background, and made many multiples of that wealth on his own.  Wealth making wealth!  What a concept!  It's what we used to do rather _routinely_ in this country, but it's becoming a lost art.  

I suppose that on the day he graduated from college, Romney could have said, "Hey, man, I've got enough money to last me the rest of my life, so I'm not busting my ass to make any more of it!"  But he did.

He didn't have to get involved in saving the Olympics, slug it out in the dog-eat-dog competitive, corporate world, or dive into the diseased septic tank of Massachusetts politics... he could have just kicked back and enjoyed life (like I probably would have done if *I* had been born with enough to live comfortably for life).  I'm not trying to say that he's the embodiment of old Horatio Alger stories necessarily, but actually, he kind of *is*... especially compared with a cheesy, jive-ass product of the nauseating ongoing era of reverse discrimination, like _Barack Obama_.... 

I'd love to have that pint, or four!  If you're ever going to be in Denver, let me know.  And/or, the next time I'm in London, I'll send you a PM....

----------

birddog (01-22-2013)

----------

