१३ मे, २०१८
"Maybe the question isn’t what happened to Alan Dershowitz. Maybe it’s what happened to everyone else."
I'm quoting the most obvious line in "‘What Happened to Alan Dershowitz?’/How a liberal Harvard professor became Trump’s most distinguished defender on TV, freaked out his friends and got the legal world up in arms" by Evan Mandery in Politico.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
२३७ टिप्पण्या:
237 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»Well, DUH! Rosanne said it best in Kimmel: "We haven't moved. The rest of you have gone so far left that no one supports you anymore."
Dershowitz proves the axiom of the French Revolution: the radicals of yesterday become the mainstream of today and will be the executed conservatives of tomorrow.
Liberalism, having no anchor of morality, just moved right on to extreme leftism. Everything is relative.
The ACLU helped Oliver North get his Iran-Contra conviction reversed.
Maybe they hate Trump so much because he's their worst impulses come to life.
He's Bill Clinton without the smooth jazz.
He's a bad liar. He sucks at it. They can't stand how bad his lies are.
I had a daughter's liberal friend who took umbrage at my comment that liberals don't believe in God. One could almost believe that a couple decades ago as Christianity was fashionable. But even he could not disagree today.
The angry left seems to get farther and farther into a fugue state that resembles The Terror, but so far without the Guillotine.
FODO's comment is right on.
FIDO
The latter half of the article becomes a trudge, just going around and around in circles. No, Mr. Neuborne, Dershowitz‘s position is not that the president is above the law but only that the president cannot break the law by performing his consitunionally sanctioned responsibilities.
Indeed, the critique ignores the meat of Dershowitz’s point, that the Special Prosecutor is a position designed to be above the law, and that this is wrong. There is no effective accountability, and they pretty much go to any length, however unlawful or even unconstitional, to get their man. Indeed it is not the Rule of Law, but the Rule of the Lawman. And the Lawman is above the Law.
Liberalism, having no anchor of morality, just moved right on to extreme leftism. Everything is relative.
That’s not liberalism. Dershowitz is a liberal, his critics are not. At the heart of liberalism is liberty, and when liberty involves justice, it requires that justice be blind. We don’t create one rule for Trump, and expect a different rule for everyone else. That is a differentiated justice, a corrupted justice.
The ACLU helped Oliver North get his Iran-Contra conviction reversed.
And the ACLU also sued to ensure the Nazis could mark in Skokie. I think it’s pretty clear that ACLU is dead, and should change its name. Maybe to AUCPLNCA, the “American Union of Civil and Positive Liberties for Non-Conservatives and Aliens”.
What has happened is pride. It’s what always happens when a society abandons shared principals and common virtues. The factors used used to answer the question “how am I doing?” shift from comparison against principles to comparison against other people. If more people are beneath you in the comparison, you feel you are succeeding, you feel you’re better, you feel you’re doing well. The problem with comparison against other people is that it creates enmity between you and others. That another person may be succeeding, that another person may be correct, that another person may come out of a discussion or argument with the better reasoning or position, threatens your own sense of well-being. Therefore all things warp to make sure others stay below you. Facts are ignored, Your own true beliefs or former positions or abandoned, you want other people to fail, you don’t care if you ruin society, before you are willing recognize that there may be someone else correct or above you in something.
In extreme cases it creates a scorched earth political philosophy. I may not be able to win but I’m gonna do everything to make sure they don’t win. It’s what destroys societies companies and families. Pride. Simple thing to describe. Difficult thing to admit in ourselves
The thought comes to mind that Dershowitz really is that most trustworthy man who followed a Higher Loyalty in DC, like Comey pretended to be. DJT could use him on the SCOTUS.
Classic liberals (Nat Hentoff (RIP), Camille Paglia, Ann Althouse, Alan Dershowitz) seek the truth wherever it leads them. Modern liberals seek rigid compliance to the latest progressive narrative.
I am old enough to remember when Joe Lieberman was a liberal
There is a big difference between a liberal and a leftist. A. Big. Difference.
Dershowitz nominated to SCOTUS would be a trifecta:a Jewish Justice replacing RBG, a free speech and religious liberty protector, and a good man. And I would love to watch the confirmation hearings as Dersh goes off on the Dem idiots.
"what happened to everyone else"
"Everyone" as in: all progs.
But what happened, exactly?
They always wanted power and more power. They always thought they were the anointed showing the way to deplorables.
So what changed?
History, it turned out, did not march in the right direction--as first Reagan and Gingrich and now Trump shows. That's annoying. At the same time, progs are still confident that they are on the side of HIstory--which means they can now cast aside opposition and dispense with respect for alternative views.
The deplorables were supposed to fall in line as proletarian beneficiaries of prog rule but turned out to be more benightedly deplorable than expected. Progs now bet on POC replacing the white proletariat.
Progs used to think of civil liberties as smoothing the path to power--free speech would empower the left. Now civil liberties and the "rule of law" empower the right--can't have that.
Dersh doesn't care about History and doggedly sticks to the old, actual liberal perspective. He is a traitor, and traitors are the worst.
The everyone else is women, and they're the same as always.
Pandering to them so much is new.
Quayle: what you said. Pride begets envy and anger, a real trifecta of deadly sins.
He is a traitor, and traitors are the worst.
One doesn't have to be black to know that leaving the plantation can get you killed.
The practical problem with nominating Alan Dershowitz to the Supreme Court is his age: he's 79.
Dershowitz has marched beyond the Berlin PC Wall. It was built to keep people from leaving.
The author of this article declares himself a guard. But he is shooting blanks behind the razor wire line.
I didn't like it when Dershowitz accused cops of lying when necessary during the OJ trial. Now we know he was right, certainly about the FBI, just not about the OJ cops.
It's high time the FBI recorded and preserved all interviews electronically and stop writing 302s from memory after the fact. Shoulda been done long ago.
That professor is a Jew and, therefore, a follower of THE LAW far beyond his education and profession in "the law". That induces and requires a commitment to TRUTH.
Included in that truth is the fact that the leadership of the Democratic (sic) Party have sunk into a state of "Submission" to Islam and have been passive or active supporters of (Pray forgive the redundancy) Islamist-violence.
Just in case you ask, I am not of the Jewish Faith nor do I have family, friends or investments in the State of Israel.
It is interesting that the positions taken by classical liberals are often today impugned as (and for) being conservative. I consider myself a classical liberal but I more often align with conservative policies.
In leftwing proggy lala land, the law only applies to left wing enemies.
Dershowitz has a vested interest in seeing what very wealthy and overly litigious clients can get away with, but Trump's presidential instincts are unprecedentedly fascist from any historical standpoint. There's a reason - esp. after WWII - we made it a point to avoid personality characteristics like his in such a powerful presidency as the one created in its wake.
A lawyer's got a right to defend whomever he wants but you'd think that after the O.J. debacle the guy would at least learn to be much more circumspect in his choice of would-be clients, scoundrels and scumbags. Apparently not. Nicole Brown and Ronald Goldman thank you, Dershie. A lonely nation turns its eyes away from you. Woo woo woo.
Whichever one (or many) of these idiots is proposing that the most powerful man in the world's attorney-client privilege and other lawyerly tricks should take precedence over separation of powers and any other working theory of constitutional law and justice is obviously just another opportunistic liar. To comfort the comfortable and afflict the afflicted might be the American conservative's prime directive, but it's nothing that liberalism or progressivism or the constitution was founded upon. These folks sound like John Adams when he asked to call the president "His Highness" and we all know how well that crap went over.
ritmo calls Trump a fascist without a hint of irony.
Forever outraged that people are sucessful to ritmo that means they're fascists.
Dershowitz and Kanye are waving back at those still self-imprisoned behind the Berlin PC Wall. They appear none the worse for wear. The prison guards are paper tigers shooting blanks and tossing bodily byproducts at those who show the Wall is easily breached. It is dirty work to deny others their God-given freedoms and the free exercise thereof.
Individual liberty. Less government control. These are noble objectives.
I’ve watched Dershowitz a lot, and my sense of it is this: nothing has happened to him in the way that people mean. He’s holding a position consistent with positions in the past when they were applied to different things. It’s essentially a libertarian position. However, what has happened to him in my view is that he has really dug in in the face of opposition and become somewhat wedded to a stance for its own sake. It’s made him seem partisan and intransigent at times, and made him less effective at communicating broadly as he did before.
FIDO said and quoted: Well, DUH! Rosanne said it best in Kimmel: "We haven't moved. The rest of you have gone so far left that no one supports you anymore."
Thank you for posting that. It sums it up in so few words. The truth.
The "left" has gone so far around the bend that many of them are unable to rationally discuss anything. Unhinged and even violent in many cases. You cannot talk to these people (many of whom are my own family and [former] friends). There is NO common ground. THIS is a very bad sign for the Country and hopefully not a precursor to a Civil War.
"...he has really dug in in the face of opposition... "
- the prison guard demanding surrender
How dare anybody hold a principled position that denies Leftist Collectivists power?
/snark
Shorter Ritmo: If you are rich and successful - you are a fascist. Unless you tow the leftwing lie. They you're all cool.
Dershowitz worked for a living before he went on TV. That's the difference.
“How dare anybody hold a principled position that denies Leftist Collectivists power?”
The “Leftist Collectivists” are not requiring Dershowitz to make sloppy and seemingly partisan mistakes like pinning things on Mueller he’s not responsible for. My whole point was that it’s slipped past a principled position and into a rigid position. Those are not necessarily the same things.
Shorter Ritmo: If you are rich and successful - you are a fascist. Unless you tow the leftwing lie. They you're all cool.
Shorter Bimbos-Dicker: There was no good legal case against O.J. Simpson! His wealth (and "success") played NO part in the outcome!
Go help O.J. find the "real killers" April Apple. You know, he's still looking for them.
Basically a right-winger says that some power metric (money, in America) means that some people are better than everyone else and should get away with things that ordinary people can't.
Left-wingers disagree with that, believe justice should be a matter of individual and equal rights, and the right-wingers scream and say, "nuh uh."
Right-wingers believe in making your rights available for purchase rather than a common good. They're dishonest enough to lie and make exceptions for the Clintons and some Jewish Holocaust survivor who identifies weaknesses in national currencies but other than that it's their basic philosophy.
The Notorious O.J. wrote a book called "If I Did It." Wonder how that weighs upon any conscience that Dershie might have had left.
O.J. and Trump both have something in common: They both like to act guilty as hell and then feign outrage that you would call them out on what their actions reveal. They both think that they're above the law and that justice should be available for sale to the highest bidder.
What the hell -- the right-wing agrees with them.
ritmo calls Trump a fascist without a hint of irony.
Forever outraged that people are sucessful to ritmo that means they're fascists.
How's Flint's drinking water, rusty trombone?
The Republicans cleaning up their messes yet or still selling the little guys out to the highest bidder?
I've discovered that clicking just to the right of you-know-who's comment, makes it disappear. Almost as good as a kill file.
Dershowitz is the one who ha not changed. It's interesting to see he kaleidoscope shift.
The Revolution eventually eats its own. Ask Danton about that.
Dershowitz walks outside the razor wire of the Berlin PC Wall. Snark yells "Halt. I will call you sloppy and seemingly partisan if you proceed any further."
Dershowitz walks past the guard towers. Snark has done her worst.
Blogger President Pee-Pee Tape said...
"Basically a right-winger says that some power metric (money, in America) means that some people are better than everyone else and should get away with things that ordinary people can't."
Nice try, but your "piss off the other side" rhetoric is getting old. You need to either (1) upgrade your game or (2) learn to construct arguments based on real facts and logic.
That could end up being a lot of comments to right-click on, Genius K. But whatever it takes to unburden your overburdened soul.
I think Michael K. should spend a night with his wife and O.J. and plenty of drinks. Maybe step outside for a bit and see if the flow of the lovely evening maintains.
Are conservatives just poor judges of character or dishonest? How much does anyone want to bet that Special K. would leave his wife or daughters unsupervised and anywhere near O.J. Simpson for ten minutes?
Maybe they can also hang out with that other conservative hero-icon, Bill Cosby. He can preach to your women-folk about the importance of black American youth keeping their pants pulled up.
Or I guess you'd let him do that before 2018, just not now that he lost a case. Because everyone knows that reality is decided in court rooms.
"That’s not liberalism. Dershowitz is a liberal, his critics are not. At the heart of liberalism is liberty, and when liberty involves justice, it requires that justice be blind. We don’t create one rule for Trump, and expect a different rule for everyone else. That is a differentiated justice, a corrupted justice."
Nicely stated.
It partly explains why I was once a liberal.
I don't much care if a person identifies as a liberal, libertarian or conservative. There are so many flavors that the labels do not matter. I am more interested in whether someone is intellectually honest and if they actually have any intellect.
"That’s not liberalism. Dershowitz is a liberal, his critics are not. At the heart of liberalism is liberty, and when liberty involves justice, it requires that justice be blind. We don’t create one rule for Trump, and expect a different rule for everyone else. That is a differentiated justice, a corrupted justice."
Nicely stated.
It partly explains why I was once a liberal.
I don't much care if a person identifies as a liberal, libertarian or conservative. There are so many flavors that the labels do not matter. I am more interested in whether someone is intellectually honest and if they actually have any intellect.
Truth hurts, Tommy Duncan?
You know you have no principles other than money and power. Your willingness to read great wisdom into any of the words trickling forth from O.J.'s lawyer sort of prove it. Maybe you're the one who should upgrade what you obviously see as a "game." A right-wing that uses arguments based on real facts (not "alternative facts") and logic is not something you're remotely interested in.
Blogger is acting up today.
At least Dershowitz shows some repect for the rule of jaw. Which is more than Obama ever and his minions ever did.
Blogger Tommy Duncan said...
Blogger President Pee-Pee Tape said...
"Basically a right-winger says that some power metric (money, in America) means that some people are better than everyone else and should get away with things that ordinary people can't."
Nice try, but your "piss off the other side" rhetoric is getting old. You need to either (1) upgrade your game or (2) learn to construct arguments based on real facts and logic."
It's intersting becuase you're viewing the opinion of someone who sees the world through basement windows. He must always look up.
At the heart of liberalism is liberty, and when liberty involves justice, it requires that justice be blind. We don’t create one rule for Trump, and expect a different rule for everyone else. That is a differentiated justice, a corrupted justice.
Oh FFS. How retarded are these people? Do they not understand that the president by simple virtue of his job description heading the executive branch is entitled to privileges and immunities that no other American (indeed, no one else in the world) is entitled to? This is why the legal arguments are unlike those that apply/pertain in any other case.
So strike down Francisco D. as another exemplar of the right-wing impulse toward fascism.
The power to pardon criminals. Yep... just like any other guy, legally speaking.
“Indeed, the critique ignores the meat of Dershowitz’s point, that the Special Prosecutor is a position designed to be above the law, and that this is wrong.“
So they misstate his point and wonder what’s wrong with him? That’s journalism today.
Y’all still feeding the troll(s).
With you Phil Bible Thumper I just gobble you right up directly!
MMMMmmmm... Fresh Evangelical. Yummy! Tastes so good.
Trump isn't threatening democracy, he is threatening the ascendant ruling coalition, which sees itself as entitled to rule and is, therefore, democracy. Just ask them.
Ritmo - OJ was guilty and his very good lawyers helped get him off. Helped to have a stupid racist jury.
Pee pee boy - If Dersh were towing the leftwing lie, you'd be fine with him.
Quayle : you nicely put in other words what Ayn Rand termed 'second hander" for those who haven't read or understand The Fountainhead.
Thanks.
What happened is that nothing happened. Same as it ever was.
When Stalin signed his compact with Hitler, the Left succumbed to cognitive dissonance. A truly bewildered Arthur Koestler penned a powerful essay entitled The Yogi and The Commissar that compared the politics of Stalin (the commissar) with those of Gandhi (the yogi).
Relevant here is not the means by which the two polar extremes seek to control their charges; rather that we should think in linear terms. The Yogi and the Commissar really stand back to back--the ultra right and the ultra left are closer in method and outlook than the two extremes are to the "center."
What has changed is OUR perspective; we have lived long enough to see beyond pretty faces and titillation. We are not looking at personalities anymore; but, a clearer vision of the mess about us that requires housekeeping.
Alan is a truth seeker; not an ideologue.
I got the PPPT fatigue. He, she, it sure loves to flaunt their idiocy on these pages, and it's not the slightest bit interesting or entertaining.
Dershowitz is a national treasure. Don't forget that his steadfast support for Israel (once a liberal project now a more conservative one) has also formed his thinking about how dishonest and volatile the activist Left can be.
The "Get Trump" Squad and its patrons are mostly rich, leftist assholes who can't win elections if they honestly promote what they believe (higher taxes, more government, open borders, no religion). But they are very good at lawfare, and have "sued" their way to several prominent victories.
Dersh is a major obstacle to these tactics, because he knows the criminal justice system and the Constitution so well, from actual practice. Compare him to the hysterical and emotional Larry Tribe.
These Ritmo-fests are tedious. It almost makes the comments unreadable. Which is the Troll Goal as usual.
Pee pee boy - If Dersh were towing the leftwing lie, you'd be fine with him.
And what lie is that?
We should keep our answers to each other concise because the non-contributing babies Larry Day and Mike are getting sad and teary-eyed.
[PPPT:] Basically a right-winger says that some power metric (money, in America) means that some people are better than everyone else and should get away with things that ordinary people can't.
Really?
How about linking to a right-winger saying that. Just one would be nice.
Dersh is a major obstacle to these tactics, because he knows the criminal justice system and the Constitution so well, from actual practice.
While it's true that prosecutors can be over-zealous let's have a little more perspective and accept the fact that going up against criminal (whether potential, alleged or real) lawbreaking at the of the executive branch is no easy task and one that should be evenly matched against the overwhelming powers that the executive branch and the office of the president can wield. The idea that Trump is a victim or has even been a victim in anything in life is farcical. He was born with a platinum spoon in his mouth and hired handmaidens to knit him a silk hairpiece. Give me a break. He's been a mobster since boarding school and has been gaming the system while bullying everyone in his way ever since. Only people who've never been to New York (or out of the flyover) don't seem to understand this.
How about Ritmo for SCOTUS. He would write some great Dissents. Long Dissents. Finally the other 8 would give up.
Just think of Ritmo Brasiliere/TTR/PeePee as a prison guard. He is firing blanks and doing Xis dead level best to scare people back inside the Wall.
But the Wall is fake. It exists only when we give people the power of which they are so desirous.
Most of is are unaffected by the Leftist Collectivist prattle. But keep in mind that many are cowed. Help those people see that the impotent prison guards like TTR/Ritmo are fools. Help them see that they have no power that is not freely given.
And quit giving any impotent commenter any direct feedback. Xe is a non-entity. Xer is too.
We should keep our answers to each other concise because the non-contributing babies Larry Day and Mike are getting sad and teary-eyed.
Throwing up all over the dining table doesn't constitute contributing to the dinner conversation.
It's obvious in your mindset, actions and priorities, Skipper. You do see society as a hierarchy, do you not?
And do you place Trump at the top of it, do you not?
If one rejects reason, purpose, progress, equality as right-wingers do, then they need an alternative and in other countries that's institutions.
But right-wingers in America are destructive by nature and do not believe in institutions - other than phony, temporary Ozzie & Harriet-type "social" institutions. So they embrace the power of something other than institutions and in this case it seems to be Trump's cult of personality.
It also seems they believe that fossil fuels are an institution to defend at all costs even though the only purpose of fossil fuels is to drive the energy of one's industrial economy - which does not care what the source of that energy is. We could find a fuel tomorrow out of cheap flubber but conservatives would reject it if it wasn't rare or excludable enough to come with extraction rights since the right-wingers think resources should be owned only by a select few who can charge what they want and charge any price. They believe in the power of money and aristocracy.
I wonder if "Resident Pee-Pee is Tiny" has ever entertained an original thought, much less one that didn't adhere to the left's marching orders?
Throwing up all over the dining table doesn't constitute contributing to the dinner conversation.
Well, Trump (and the knee-jerk defenses of and odes of praise to him) do tend to have that effect on people.
I wonder if "Resident Unknown if He Has Genitals" has ever entertained an original thought, much less one that didn't adhere to the right's marching orders.
[PPPT:] Basically a right-winger says that some power metric (money, in America) means that some people are better than everyone else and should get away with things that ordinary people can't.
Really?
How about linking to a right-winger saying that. Just one would be nice.
No, it has not.
If you said it outright, Skipper, then it would blow your game. But intelligent people read between the lines.
The fact that you want to play a game you refuse to end by simply saying what you believe is basically an admission that I'm right. But go on repeating yourself over and over and ignoring the response. It shows you believe in stubbornness and obstinacy for their own sake (might makes right) and remaining impervious to any answer.
So you basically prove my point.
The name may change, the song remains the same. A failure in life, resentful, angry, childish. A decade of the same old thing.While all commenters here have increased their wealth, wisdom and knowledge over the years, one stagnant poor soul is now, and ever will be, mired in mediocrity. Have pity, for there but for fortune...
Ritmo Brasileiro said...
It's good to know that the stupidest threads are just ripe for the threadjacking. I'll be sure to leave a trail of turds on every one of the brain droppings here that suit my fancy.
10/16/10, 10:28 AM
I've always liked him because he is consistent.
These comments are Althouse's lab notes for the great abnormal psych experiment called the First Trump Administration. Dershowitz is one of the controls.
"The ACLU helped Oliver North get his Iran-Contra conviction reversed."
-- And stood up for free speech in Skokie -- even for people no one liked.
FullMoon would make a great accountant, if he could only figure out how to:
1. Go to school
2. Get licensed
3. Get a client who hates him slightly less than all the folks who find his dishonest contracting jobs to be shit.
Now install that toilet!
"It's high time the FBI recorded and preserved all interviews electronically and stop writing 302s from memory after the fact. Shoulda been done long ago."
-- This always shocks me, because almost no other organization does it this way, save for things like internal meeting minutes.
If Trump firing Comey for lying to him, but letting the investigation continue, is fascist, what was it when Obama fired an IG for being denied documents to investigate Obama and quashed the investigation, while spreading a rumor the IG was mentally impaired due to senility?
[PPPT:] Basically a right-winger says that some power metric (money, in America) means that some people are better than everyone else and should get away with things that ordinary people can't.
Really?
How about linking to a right-winger saying that. Just one would be nice.
Given your repeated evasions, I'm starting to think you are making it all up. Lying, in other words.
"The Notorious O.J. wrote a book called "If I Did It." Wonder how that weighs upon any conscience that Dershie might have had left."
-- Actually, in this case, the state *screwed up.* Our legal system is designed to protect the rights of the accused -- even the guilty accused. The police and prosecutors that took on OJ were incompetent and unethical. They lost the case, not on the merits, but because they wanted to flex the power of the state more than they wanted to do the right thing.
It is a shame a guilty man went free, but it is a bigger shame that who knows how many poor defendants who were innocent WERE trapped by their unethical, incompetent practice.
"Whichever one (or many) of these idiots is proposing that the most powerful man in the world's attorney-client privilege and other lawyerly tricks should take precedence over separation of powers and any other working theory of constitutional law and justice is obviously just another opportunistic liar."
-- You realize that this isn't a separation of powers issue, right? The only separation of power issue with Mueller's investigation is Rosenstein refusing the documents request from Congress. Mueller is part of the Executive Branch... of which Trump is also.
The police and prosecutors that took on OJ were incompetent and unethical.
I don't think the cops were. The prosecutors were pitiful. I watched the afternoon sessions of the trial as I was in New Hampshire getting another degree and the satellite dish had just come out. I would watch the afternoon sessions that began at 5 PM EST.
I was not sure OJ was guilty, based on what I saw.
It was Petrocelli in the civil trial who showed he was guilty.
Skipper shows how ignorance works. Ignore the answer, repeat the question. "But why, Daddy? Why? Why? Why?"
He's a great example of the three-year old's political philosophy.
Dershowitz has principles.
Dershowitz is the usual case of people who have divided loyalties now forced into a conflict between them.
The subtext of this article is that he is seen to have betrayed his social caste. The argument is never just about the argument, and in this case more so than usual.
Goofy PissMop is the Maxine Waters of commenters,, with neither her wit nor humor. Repetitive.
-- You realize that this isn't a separation of powers issue, right?
Only if you think Trump should have total control over the justice department, including whether or not he's accountable to the law.
His party in Congress is spineless. Some people think the only remedy for presidential lawbreaking should be impeachment and trial through the Congress, but as with Emperor Palpatine, he owns their asses.
So again, the question comes down to what check or balance you have on whatever it is you find so compelling about his particular cult of personality.
Either way, he'll fall eventually. As I said many times, he's the Republican Bill Clinton. And when it happens he'll bring his party down with him.
That's what narcissists do. Human psychology precedes politics and its laws.
"Only if you think Trump should have total control over the justice department, including whether or not he's accountable to the law."
-- If you're going to use words to mean things they don't mean, you can understand when I don't find it worth engaging you, since you could just magic up a different definition for terms everyone else already is using to mean something else.
FIDO +1
What a fine day for fishing.
CUL8r
John Henry
Maybe the police weren't unethical in the "deliberately sabotaged/planted evidence" vein, but they were unethical in the "sloppy and careless" vein. Someone carried a blood sample around for a day or so in their pocket! Of *course* that's going to get challenged as potentially contaminated at best, deliberately planted at worst!
[PPPT:] Basically a right-winger says that some power metric (money, in America) means that some people are better than everyone else and should get away with things that ordinary people can't.
Really?
How about linking to a right-winger saying that. Just one would be nice.
Given your repeated evasions, I'm starting to think you are making it all up. Lying, in other words.
“Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes the truth”
Joseph Goebbels.
Note the repetitions at 9:47, 10:03, 10:18, and now 10:35 AM.
Someone thinks he's a prosecutor and obviously too good for basic civil discourse. Instead of discussing something with an American with whom he disagrees, he pretends as if he's put them on trial.
Just more evidence of a right-winger not respecting the citizens and thinking he's better than others.
And, oh yeah, not understanding something and thinking persistent ignorance is persuasive.
As long as he convinced himself. In the right-wing world, other people don't really exist.
My impression has always been that Dershowitz is a centrist or moderate conservative that conservatives like to patronize for being a "good liberal."
I'm starting to think you are making it all up.
A lie!
He doesn't think, and doesn't intend to "start" thinking, either.
He just wants to stay stuck in his autistic, never-ending self-contained logic loop. Facts are not allowed in!
Although his Blogger profile interests include "Lance Armstrong wannabe..." IOW - A LIAR! A guy who competed with steroids.
Look at how he repeats his lie yet again at 10:38.
It's like a mantra for right-wing nonsense.
OK, we officially have a Pee-Pee thread.
This was an interesting post that should have produced an enlightening conversation. Instead we get drivel one of the usual suspects.
Lawn work beckons.
Oh, Dershowitz is certainly a liberal, and was one in the manner of his formative days.
His positions in his old age - he is a very old man - are not in step with that of his caste in its present state.
Rather than focusing on tearing down Trump, how about promoting a decent alternative. This simple concept is lost on the left.
At least Dershowitz shows some repect for the rule of jaw.
Just want to admire that for a second!
President Pee-Pee Tape said...
Actually, should have said...I'm an Anti-Fa troll ("Trump's presidential instincts are unprecedentedly fascist from any historical standpoint") trying to do my level best to trash this comments section by carpet bombing it with an avalanche of left-wing identity politics posts.
At last count 25 of 99 -- a smidge over 25% of ALL THE POSTS.
This is unacceptable behavior and calls for action by the moderator.
Matthew Sablan, if you think separation of powers means that Trump should not allow for any independence on the part of the FBI to carry out criminal investigations, no matter how close to him or his office they should lead, and that it is appropriate for him to ask its director to swear an oath of personal allegiance to Trump, then we all know who's not worth engaging with, and who's redefining words to mean only what they want them to mean.
AD respects the law. Others don't. For them, law is a weapon to take down their enemies.
Stephen Fearby prefaces his whine about surpassing some fictional comment quota with a lie (about anti-fa). Well, Stephen Fearby, the more you lie and smear the more pushback you should expect. It's kind of natural but then you right-wing Nazis are just about the most unnatural creation on god's earth.
Don't worry. Comment number doesn't obscure your minuscule contributions. Everyone knows how poor they are regardless of whether they are eclipsed in number by other comments or not. Or don't you believe in free speech?
It's always the right-wingers who want comment quotas. Don't believe them when they pretend to be in favor of free speech. They're not.
Of course, Trump never asked the FBI to "swear an oath of personal allegiance" to him. He tried to find out whether the FBI was loyal to the U.S. government, of which he was and is the legitimate head, or whether they were and are working surreptitiously and illegally for the previous regime and its failed candidate, trying to overthrow him by grossly unconstitutional means. All evidence points to the latter, at least for a large percentage of their top officials. Some here support their efforts.
Ann certainly seems more tolerant of Ritmo that ST.
I wonder why?
Because she has a blog that people read and he doesn't.
Is it any wonder that you wonder about stupid things?
Just go back to your chronic opioid prescribing and stop getting all emotional and haughty for a change.
“I didn't like it when Dershowitz accused cops of lying when necessary during the OJ trial. Now we know he was right, certainly about the FBI, just not about the OJ cops.”
I disagree with both of you there. Mark Ferhman went over the wall at OJ’s house and “found” the bloody glove. Why send a team of 4 detectives to notify OJ of his wife’s death? One or two uniforms would have made much more sense. And then why go over the wall? (Ferhman was apparently the one volunteered for the job, because the other 3 had eaten too many donuts in the past). Classic pretextual warrantless search, but too lazy to get such, and too impatient to sit around. Plus, of course, they had no probable cause. Decently likely the search that found the bloody glove would have been rejected on appeal as violative of his 4th Amdt Rights. Why did the judge not reject it? My guess is that that wiuldt have give him his 15 minutes of fame. Plus, judges routinely trust cops over most everyone else.
“...The prosecutors were pitiful. I watched the afternoon sessions of the trial as I was in New Hampshire getting another degree and the satellite dish had just come out. I would watch the afternoon sessions that began at 5 PM EST.”
Story I got from a close friend of the LA DA was that a group of black clergy met with him, and told him that LA would burn if OJ were convicted by a jury in almost all white Brentwood. So he moved the trial downtown, knowing he would probably lose. His Hail Mary was to have a woman and a black try the case. Both B Team, by necessity (since his A teasers were white males).
“I was not sure OJ was guilty, based on what I saw.”
According to the book written by three jurors, the problem was that they were never able to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt.
I didn’t believe hi guilty partially because early on, our Crim Law prof (a prominent defense atty in his other life) said that in real life, there are two types of murder - premeditated and through passion (or at least unpremeditated). Premeditated were typically almost bloodless. Unpremeditated, and esp crimes of passion, were the really bloody one. This was very bloody, yet would have required a lot of close planning to pull off (given his trip to Chicago). If you are going to murder someone up close and personal, like was done here, you are going to have to deal with a lot of blood. One more thing to clean up.
“It was Petrocelli in the civil trial who showed he was guilty.”
Two things there. One is that preponderance of the evidence only was required, not beyond a reasonable doubt. And the plaintiffs could get much better attys on contingency. But mostly, I think the standard of proof - the jury in the first case thought he might have been guilty, but had doubts, which is why he was acquitted. Oh, and the attys knew going in what the defense case would be.
The shoe-is on-the-other-foot moral test is “the first, basic exercise in critical thinking that America needs to engage in,” Kuby said, “But that’s not a conversation you can have on the Fox News channel.”
It is when no other news organization can spare the time to present a balanced view of the Trump administration.
From the article.
Rawls is ordinarily classified as a liberal philosopher, since “justice as fairness” requires equal rights, equal opportunity and, generally speaking, fair treatment of the powerless.
What odd stories liberals tell themselves. These are all things that conservatives approve of. In fact, conservatives argue that liberals are, in principle, opposed to all of these things.
I am surprised it has not been said before: "politics' is 'civil war' by other means.
Buwaya explains it well. Thanks.
I want to enfold it in a catchy slogan. More efficient and effective Persuasion strategy.
"Although his Blogger profile interests include "Lance Armstrong wannabe..." IOW - A LIAR! A guy who competed with steroids."
And what might the profile of pissant look like were it available. Are there aspirations, accomplishments, anything to support his/her very high opinion of his/her exceptional moral position and superior intellect? I think not. Sad. Surely there has been an anger management course in there somewhere. Or should be.
These are all things that conservatives approve of. In fact, conservatives argue that liberals are, in principle, opposed to all of these things.
Just without any evidence and they only "approve of" those things in theory.
In practice conservatives believe that might makes right. That is why they are amoral. Might makes right is the antithesis of Western morality as it's existed since Christianity. But conservatives get around this by lying to themselves and everyone and re-inventing Christ as a capitalist rather than the socialist that he was.
Cook said: My impression has always been that Dershowitz is a centrist or moderate conservative........
I always perceived him as being a centrist, constitutionalist and more of a libertarian mind. Not really able to classify as right or left. Sort of the Jonathan Turley type.
First step of successful lawfare is to capture the referees ... The judiciary.
I found myself unexpectedly enjoying Dershowitz's analysis back in 2005 onward as I think I had matured into a more libertarian understanding of how the state needs to be reigned in to protect all of us in the long run. If memory serves me he was no fan of G.W Bush either but he keeped his bearings when democrats where flying the flag for impeachment then. Maybe he really is anti-impeachment except for high crimes and misdemeanors?
Are there aspirations, accomplishments, anything to support his/her very high opinion of his/her exceptional moral position and superior intellect? I think not.
True. You think not - literally. You have no thoughts.
As for your hilarious notion that a man can only present his best self through a Blogger profile, check this shit out:
For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.
Nicolo Machiavelli (1469 - 1527)
Yeah, that describes you pretty well.
In practice conservatives believe that might makes right.
A belief is not a practice. You are a dumb bunny, Ritmo. Can't even work language correctly.
Second step ... The legislature .
Facially you then can claim to follow rule of law, even insist on it, enlist law professors to your cause etc..
A belief is not a practice.
I didn't say that it was. Hence, conservatives practice differently than what they say they believe.
Now who's the dumb one, again?
Rawls was a Leftist Collectivist. He assumed a static world. Malthusian, in that way.
Third ... Elect someone who has thoroughly mastered these tactics.
"True. You think not - literally. You have no thoughts."
You should be repeatedly beaten about the face. Over and over again. In front of an audience. And then some more. And then again. Repeatedly. Endless, violent blows across your repulsive mug. Literally.
What has Trump done that meets the Constitutional definition of impeachment ("High crimes and misdemeanors")?
That phrase alone means something not just political, but illegal. You know, like lying in a deposition or telling your staff to lie to the FBI.
The pure and basic truth that the Mueller investigation is a political witch hunt is perfectly illustrated by the fact that he indicted a company that does not exist.
In his zeal to have a public relations coup to try to pretend that there was Russian collusion in the election he indicted several Russian individuals and companies in the thought that they would stay in Russia and not appear. Well one of the companies appeared in court represented by an American Law firm and demanded a speedy (30 days) trial and discovery. Mueller refused and will be dropping these phony charges. When the judge asked if this firm would represent another of the defendants the American lawyer said no. He said it was the proverbial indictment of a ham sandwich as the company did not exist during the time frame of the election.
Simply put indictments mean very little. A grand jury can be shown selective information and will indict anything or anyone based on the lies of an unscrupulous prosecutor. Mueller's only play is to get a phony indictment and drag people into court hoping to bankrupt them and force them to accept a plea deal. That is what he has done to Michael Kelly. However there has been a delay in sentencing. Kelly will be withdrawing his plea. The one significant success of the special prosecutor will be reversed. Mueller is just playing out the string until after the election. It is purely a political process for the advantage of the Democrats and the Never Trump establishment. It has nothing to do with the law. It is politics. Dirty politics at that.
The FBI has a long history of corruption and politicization. Believe it or not J Edgar Hoover was made the director to clean it up after the debacle of Walter Burn's tenure where the FBI served as a goon squad for the President.
The list of their high crimes and misdemeanors are long and varied.
The illegal wiretapping of Martin Luther King and the passing of the tapes to the media to discredit him as a homosexual and a communist.
The use of Mafia Don and hit man Greg Scarpa to intimidate witnesses to get information by the barrel of gun in the disappearance of the four civil rights workers. That was the real Mississippi Burning. Scarpa's murders and crimes were ignored and covered up for thirty years of his time as an informant.
The sending of four innocent men to prison to cover up the crimes of Steve FLemmi and Whitey Bulger. This was a crime that Mueller personally signed off on as agent in charge of the Boston office. Perfectly illustration his corruption.
Waco.
Ruby Ridge.
The collusion between democratic operatives with FBI badges like McCabe who wanted an "insurance policy" if Trump were to be elected.
The FBI needs to be disbanded and a new Federal Law Enforcement agency needs to be established. Headed by real cops not politicians. Get someone like Ray Kelly of New York or Dallas police Chief David Brown. Or even the FBI agent with the most arrests. A low level grunt who knows real police work.
The FBI's time is done. Lets end the corruption and politicization and get honest cops on the job.
We need to drive a stake through the heart of the Deep State.
How do liberals and media (I know I am being redundant) climb down from this RUSSIA RUSSIA RUSSIA pole? They have spent the better part of 1-1/2 years pushing this and its becoming clearer by the week there will be no "Fitzsmas". At least Dersh will be able to keep his dignity and principles as this impeachment hysteria subsides. Where does NYT, CNN, MSNBC and the Washpo go from here? My hunch is they will find some thin reed to fall back on, some booby prize to claw at to justify their witch hunt. Sucks to be them.
I didn't get who Ritmo was until I Googled "Althouse Ritmo". The psycho in his own words:
Fen said...[9/7/12, 8:14 PM]
Weekly PSA re Ritmo Troll
For those who feel a need to waste their time responding to Ritmo [AKA O Ritmo Segundo], it's worth reposting a Ritmo admission of what he's up to at Althouse, and why he comments here:
Ritmo said: "It's good to know that the stupidest threads are just ripe for the threadjacking. I'll be sure to leave a trail of turds on every one of the brain droppings here that suit my fancy. Getting you shit-eaters to complain about the taste after opening your mouths wide and saying "Ahhhh..." to every bad idea under the sun is very satisfying, I must admit."
Their hope is that Trump will fire Mueller. That is why the press is beating that drum every day.
The next move is to subpoena President Trump to appear before the Grand Jury. He will rightly refuse and it will go to the Supreme Court. That is Mueller's only play.
Trump has been disparaged as undisciplined and impetuous and it must astound the liberals that he has not fired Mueller. They say he is going to do it every day. The President is too smart for that. He is giving them enough rope. They have nothing because there is nothing. Their own corruption is being revealed more and more every day. The illegal leaks and corrupt practices will lead to the indictment of several of the key players in the FBI.
This is a political process not a legal one. President Trump has shown that he is a pretty good politician. Robert Mueller not so much.
Dershowitz is a classical liberal with a religious/moral temperament. That is, he's an American conservative or centrist. So, he is resistant to progressive centralization, but also resistant to social isolation. As yesteryear's liberal, and today's de facto conservative, he is working to reconcile principles and progress, and is well aware, perhaps just aware, of the risk engendered by ideology that is internally, externally, and mutually inconsistent.
Please note that the families of the four poor morons who were sent to jail by Mueller to protect Whitey Bulger got a 100 million dollar settlement for unlawful imprisonment and malicious prosecution.
I wonder how much money Michael Flynn and the rest of the people wrongfully targeted by the corrupt Mueller will get when they sue.
(I would like to correct an error I made in a previous post. Mueller was not the special agent in charge. Mueller was the assistant US attorney and then the US Attorney who wrote letters and testified to the lies that kept these innocent men incarcerated where two of them died in prison. His actions were a huge part of the reason why this huge settlement was paid out. Mueller is a corrupt and evil man. He knew or he should have know he was keeping innocent men in jail to protect murderers.)
So, in short, there will be no pissant profile.
Blogger Birkel said...
Rawls was a Leftist Collectivist. He assumed a static world. Malthusian, in that way.
5/13/18, 11:52 AM
Also from the article:
Rawls, widely regarded as the most important political philosopher of the 20th century, suggested people should think about ethics as if they were operating behind a “veil of ignorance”—as if they were building a society without knowing what their race, gender and social standing would be, and were trying to develop rules that would work to everyone’s benefit.
This is absurd. This is literally an idea developed and adopted because it was developed by a high status white male. No human being is without gender, race, and social standing. Why develop a philosophy tht treats people as though they had no gender, race, or social standing?
Rawls might have been a Leftist Collectivist but "You will never find a love like mine" was a pretty good song.
I always loved seeing him on Johnny Carson.
Lewis Wetzel,
He developed his theory at Harvard *spit* in order to further a socialist agenda. You can read the 900 page tome, if you like. To be persuaded, it will help if you know nothing of economics.
[PPPT:] Basically a right-winger says that some power metric (money, in America) means that some people are better than everyone else and should get away with things that ordinary people can't.
Really?
How about linking to a right-winger saying that. Just one would be nice.
Given your repeated evasions, I'm starting to think you are making it all up. Lying, in other words.
This is simple, really. You have several alternatives.
Link to even one right winger saying that.
However, since you have slain entire forests of pixels avoiding the obvious, it is clear you can't. So, instead, admit you are liar and apologize.
Or not. You are still a liar.
Rawls is dealing in Platonic terms. An ideal approach to human systems. This is not practical. Even our ability to imagine ideal forms is inadequate.
You can take the indifference to gender, race and social standing as a Christian concept. So is Rawls' idea of "justice". Christ saves all, regardless of social status. All are sinners likewise. Thats why medieval art had Popes and Kings thrown into the flames. But as a practical method of governance in this world - this is not going to work. You cannot create either heaven or hell in this world.
These Ritmo-fests are tedious. It almost makes the comments unreadable.
There is nothing 'almost' about it.
Scroll.
"My impression has always been that Dershowitz is a centrist or moderate conservative that conservatives like to patronize for being a "good liberal."
Cookie wins the thread. It can't be that he's so far left of mainstream politics, it's that Dershowitz is a moderate conservative. Lulz
Somehow ST posting 20 posts is grounds for dismissal, but seeing Executive Urine constantly throw up 6 posts in a row on a thread multiple times is edifying
Is consistency the bugaboo of small minds, Ms. Althouse?
Robert Cook said...
My impression has always been that Dershowitz is a centrist or moderate conservative that conservatives like to patronize for being a "good liberal."
Not really. The people you cll conservative are for the most part classic liberals. Dershowitz is a man with consistant principals. Like Hitchens he stood up for what he believed in. Not like the changeable leftists here.
"Why develop a philosophy tht treats people as though they had no gender, race, or social standing?"
Why develop a "philosophy" that treats people as though they have whatever "gender", race, or social standing they claim for the purposes of crybullying and claiming entitlement?
Somehow ST posting 20 posts is grounds for dismissal, but seeing Executive Urine constantly throw up 6 posts in a row on a thread multiple times is edifying.
I doubt it was number. It was because ST was insanely hateful and made demands of the host that it wasn't his place to make. To call the disrespect he showed her "heckling" would be a disservice to hecklers.
Besides, I'm not aware that he was "dismissed." I see him post here all the time.
As far as 20 posts, check out the newest little bitch, "Hey Skipper." This ass-twat posted the exact same post nearly a half dozen times. Surely if the hostess wants to avoid tedium it would involve the abjure of saying the same stupid thing over and over and over and over again.
Or are you blind to your own side's (many) evils?
Link to even one right winger saying that.
"the central question that emerges ... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."
Bazinga!
However, since you have slain entire forests of pixels avoiding the obvious, it is clear you can't. So, instead, admit you are liar and apologize.
Oh noes! Got me! Dear Internets, I hereby apologize too all so-called "conservatives" everywhere, whether high or low, big or small, on behalf of how stupid "Hey Skipper" is. He is a disservice and a discredit to your race. Not only is he too dumb to define what conservatives like himself believe, he thinks that their beliefs cannot be discerned from their actions and political prioritized, especially when contextualized within the writings of centuries of conservative political philsophers and thought. No longer are they interested in preserving institutions - (aristocracy being an institution) - but they don't appear to believe in anything, or so he would have you all believe. And when they want to throw the indigent under the bus while slashing their healthcare, their welfare, and other widespread measures to alleviate the impact of their very unequal standing - while devoting precious government attention and resources to increasing disproportionately and permanently the take-home pay of the wealthiest Americans to lobby them, Hey Skipper will forbid anyone from reading into that priority a preference for helping the rich and punishing the poor.
Why would he do something this dumb?
Because he is an arrogant bastard who lies to himself and does not admit how stupid he must really be.
And oh yeah - because he believes might makes right. Just look at how much he wants to browbeat the thread with the same comment - over and over again. It's like Chinese water torture. As I said, he believes might make right. Not logical, but through verbal repetition he proves that he has the whinier and more persistent mouth and he thinks that makes him victorious!
11:54. "You should be repeatedly beaten about the face. Over and over again. In front of an audience. And then some more. And then again. Repeatedly. Endless, violent blows across your repulsive mug. Literally."
The mask slips completely off. LOfuckingL. Sick And here on this beautiful Sunday. Sad.
What mask, Michael Soros? Did you know who you were quoting?
I wonder if they are going to turn moderation on this thread like they did on the McCain one from last night?
I know that they hate robust conversation.
I also don't think they are censoring Shouting Thomas. He has a life. He has better things to do. There are a lot of Filipina bimbos in the world and not enough time to pork all of them.
With all due respect I believe that expressed desire was to see Ritmo's face beaten to a pulp. Which I can't imagine anyone would deny the joy of witnessing.
You only had to go back to the 1950s to find your quote. That is damned goofy.
I beseech you to remember the wise words of that great American Richard Milhouse Nixon who said:
"Those who hate you don't win unless you hate them, and then you destroy yourself."
Of course his other famous aphorism was:
"Please touch it Pat it won't bite."
2:20 - "Might makes right" -- Conservative who can't control himself and persuade through words.
The Nazis and Stalinists also preferred violence to communication.
HipsterVacuum is trying to get people to recognize his own sock puppets. How sad that not only do they not recognize HipsterVacuum, they can't even figure out who his own sock puppets are.
LOL!!!
"With all due respect..."
Translation: "I humbly beseech thee, Michael Soros! I, HipsterVacuum, wrote those words that you misattributed to someone else rather than to my own sock puppet, and used to insult a third party... apparently as violent and "sick!" But instead, I, HIpsterVacuum am the one you thought to be sick! Even though I am only violent in a way that surely you must see the wisdom of! Please, Michael Soros!"
That one goes down in the annals of idiotic friendly fire mishaps. And how likely! Republicans prefer their firing squads to be circular in formation.
LOL!
It's fun reminding you that you're a repulsive turd that everyone hates under multiple identities. Did you like that other one, "Ritmo's Tampon?" Get it? Because you're the sort of human equivalent of a used period rag! Haha that's my A-material folks.
An interesting aside off topic. The Iranian Foreign Minister has threatened to reveal those Western Diplomats who took bribes to create the Iran Nuclear deal.
That throws a fox among the chickens no? I mean they keep telling us we have to believe the Iranians so how are they going to wiggle out of that one?
Now back to your regular scheduled bickering.
Is John Kerry one of those diplomats? Is CNN asking if he violated the Logan Act? Is MSNBC asking why two former Obama administration spokesmen are asking European nations to recall their ambassadors to protest the President reversing an executive order that does not have the force of law because it was never brought before the Senate?
Nah.
It's Stormy Daniels all the way down.
Good luck with that girls.
The Iranian Foreign Minister has threatened to reveal those Western Diplomats who took bribes to create the Iran Nuclear deal.
Please don't throw me in that briar patch !
I expect there are some passports being checked today. For expiration dates, in case the owners have to leave suddenly on a business trip.
Haha that's my A-material folks.
LOL! If you have to explain the joke then it wasn't funny, Sheldon Cooper.
That's like the first rule of comedy. All non-psychopaths get it, but if you and Michael Soros want to friendly fire each other, I'm happy to watch!
It's Ritmo, the semi-human used tampon still looking for a friend or at least a handjob from his crackhead aunt! Give her a nickel, bitch boy. You might get lucky!
With all due respect...
"I know you wanted to pounce on someone else, but that was me, "HipsterVacuum" being the douchebag you were calling out as 'sick!' Michael Soros!"
ROFLMAO. Can't make this shit up. Hahahaha.
Come on Ritmo, come change your tampon and Aunt Dad will give you a handie, little boy! I'll touch you just like Uncle Pedro did, sweetie.
No sense in arguing with a loser.
[PPPT:] Basically a right-winger says that some power metric (money, in America) means that some people are better than everyone else and should get away with things that ordinary people can't.
Really?
How about linking to a right-winger saying that. Just one would be nice.
The point here, which you continually fail to get, is that something isn't true just simply because you say it. Your persistent refusal to substantiate your claim -- hence my having to repeat my request in the face of your endless prevarication -- is proof you are a liar. And this isn't the only instance. No doubt you can't back up any claim you make, and that is aside from the endless, copious, effluvia that pervades your every comment.
You earned it, you wear it.
Irony. Do you speak it?
[PPPT:] As far as 20 posts, check out the newest little bitch, "Hey Skipper." This ass-twat posted the exact same post nearly a half dozen times. Surely if the hostess wants to avoid tedium it would involve the abjure of saying the same stupid thing over and over and over and over again.
Oh, and stop your pathetic whining. You are only getting what you richly deserve.
You only had to go back to the 1950s to find your quote. That is damned goofy.
I was thinking the same thing. Quote that is over half a century old to try to tar people today. Reaching a bit?
Of course there are going to be people saying reprehensible things. Those people are generally what are known in statistics as outliers and can reliably be ignored.
That's right. I didn't just say it. I perceived it!
Go and defend your conservative icon Buckley's true sentiments. We all know how far deep into your fragile, wounded psyches you shove such unspeakable thoughts. Here they are, once again - since you failed to acknowledge them:
"the central question that emerges ... is whether the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas where it does not predominate numerically? The sobering answer is Yes—the White community is so entitled because, for the time being, it is the advanced race."
Sure sounds like "might makes right" to me. But you go ahead and show me what all your conservative politicians are doing for the poor, despite how it fails to curry favor for the rich. Go on now. Or did you want to just create another $1 trillion dollar deficit to blame on someone else?
Facts. That Rocky and Bullwinkle Bullshitter can't explain. He sure likes to guess at some people's motives, but can't figure out what his own side believes. And will lash out like a wild animal at anyone who can.
Stay ignorant of the conservative agenda, he implores! Our ways are truly secret to you and must remain that way!
I was thinking the same thing. Quote that is over half a century old to try to tar people today. Reaching a bit?
And how has American conservative "ideology" changed since Buckley voiced that one? Instead of defending the might of racial/ethnic/cultural institutions it looks like they're pulling all for the might of aristocratic/corporatist institutions. Crash helmet boy says there's no evidence for that, but the policies are sure evidence of something. Do conservatives value money in itself and presume wealth to be the best metric of virtue or do they not? Remember that they just elected a guy who claims to be a billionaire, and it's not been the first time, if you compare presidents and parties and wealth. They were so impressed by his daddy's wealth that they keep insisting it was "self-made" - even though it only grew since he inherited it at a rate less than the actual market itself.
But even this is cheating a little, since DBQ is no dyed -in-the-wool conservative. But she's honest enough to feel ashamed if she refuses to tell the truth about them, or at least about things in general. The conservatives however lie about everything. They have to. They can't admit that there was nothing conservative about this country they claim to love so much in its founding ideals. If the founders were conservatives they would have been Tory monarchists opposed to independence and self-sovereignty.
So, we're relying on you, DBQ. Obviously the true self-styled "conservatives" are too ashamed or embarrassed to admit what they really stand for, in real terms. Are you ashamed of them, too? Or can you admit that, as with all conservatives, they just want strong institutions and with the government being an institution they're sworn to hate, they're only left with worshipping a strong (imperial) military and aristocracy (corporatism) instead?
Waste of pixels.
So go turn it into pulp and a book then. As if those are less precious resources.
Ritmo, stop eating the Vagisil like candy and let Grandma rub it on where you like it.
“I call it the shoe-on-the-other-foot test,” Dershowitz told me. . . . “if this were Hillary Clinton being investigated and they went into her lawyer’s office, the ACLU would be on every television station in America jumping up and down.”
Of course. It's the very foundation of moral reasoning. A six-year-old child is capable of comprehending that rules that apply to thee must also apply to me.
But since the vast majority of Althouse's commenters are just as incapable of passing the Dershowitz test on a wide variety of legal and political issues, it's like the pot calling the ACLU kettle black.
William F Buckley was just another intellectual faggot who had too high an opinion of himself. His storied fight with Gore Vidal it turns out was a lovers quarrel. He was that generations Andrew Sullivan.
It would be much more practical for conservatories to turn to real American conservative thinkers and icons like Douglas MacArthur, Joe McCarthy and Pat Buchanan.
Fuck the intellectual pussies and pansies. Stick with the fighters.
[EP:] But since the vast majority of Althouse's commenters are just as incapable of passing the Dershowitz test on a wide variety of legal and political issues ...
Okay. Name one. Be specific, and provide details.
The alt right rejects William F Buckley. That is why his butt boys at the National Review hate them and hate President Trump.
The alt right is the only hope for the men of the West. The orcs are circling and Sauron has arisen.
If you don't believe me listen to Wormtongue blandishing his wit on this very thread.
Earnest Prole,
Bull shit. If President Trump managed to direct the coercive powers of the state to target liberals through the IRS, I would object every bit as much as I did when Lois Lerner acted to deprive American citizens of civil rights.
If Trump directs the NSA, CIA, FBI, and State to spy on domestic political rivals, I will hold him in precisely the same low regard I have for Obama.
If Trump tries to rule through Executive action (negating prior EA is wholly different because it corrects past improper behavior) then I will be just as critical.
Quit your holier than thou bull shit.
Quit your holier than thou bull shit.
Oh, there you are! Throw a shoe into a pack of dogs and the one that hollers . . .
Is the one that knows you're an ass hole throwing things indiscriminately.
And how has American conservative "ideology" changed since Buckley voiced that one?
Well, I don't know exactly for several reasons.
1. You only quoted a small amount of the very verbose Buckley. So in order to understand exactly what he was saying, I'll have to go back and look at the quote in context and the totality of his speech.
2. I don't know that Buckley was speaking "for conservatives" or just for himself.
3. I don't have the slightest clue what Conservative Ideology today is because there are so many people who have claimed to be wearing the Conservative Mantle. From Kristol to George Bush to John McCain to Lindsey Graham to Jim Webb to Billy Graham...... Who KNOWS what Conservative Ideology is? I know what I think. Trying to discern what those people think is a fools game and to try to pin their ideas on a group of people and label them ALL Conservatives is even more foolish.
. I didn't just say it. I perceived it!
I also want to say something about perception.
Perception is not necessarily reality. It may be YOUR reality but that is just your perception. Eye of the beholder. Or ear of listener.
My mother was color blind. My brother is color blind. Their perception of surroundings was real for them. However, their perception and reality is not in like with the actual. The refractive qualities of light which produce the individual colors can be proven scientifically accurate and relatively stable. What those colors look like to them, the color blind, to me the NOT color blind or anyone else is a matter of perception based on the processing of those light waves in the rods and cones of their eyes. Filtered by their eyes to the brain.
The color, which I call "red", and which my mother and brother could not tell from green or brown, might not even be the same "red" that you see. I can see that it isn't green or brown......however, my perception of red is MY truth.
Your perception of what other people "mean" by what you hear is not necessarily the truth. You are, like everyone else, looking and listening through the FILTER of your own ability to perceive.
Try to realize that you have a filter and perhaps.....just perhaps....it might not be the same as others or....perhaps your filter, like the colorblind eyes of my Mother is a bit broken.
Lol. Joe McCarthy and Pat Buchanan. A drunk and a loser paleoconservative.
Conservatives don't need "intellectuals". They thrive off of purposelessness because they either stand for nothing or don't know what they want to stand for, let alone what they would stand for. Just witness flyboy goggles above.
Why can't they just admit that they love power and wealth for its own sake and call it a day? They are into hierarchies and superiority - be it racial, cultural (which is legitimate), imperial (neo-con) or aristocratic (most of them). These groups are squabbling because none of them can command a unifying majority of support.
The psychologists know this. The left that built the modern political order believe in reason and purpose. The right is a reaction that instead prioritizes order and organization - i.e. hierarchy. That is why the right worships power.
In other societies they can admit this because other countries have ethnogenesis myths in which to ground their identity. But America doesn't. It was founded within clear historical memory by people who generally had very liberal and progressive ideas about government and about whom much was known.
This is why the American right-wing is basically crazy. There was nothing conservative about the founding of America (no monarchy, clerisy, official priesthood, etc.) so our right-wing has no symbology or myths to satisfy their irrational longings. They instead try to deify the founders, but those guys were all too human, also.
So we have a right-wing that rises to power every 80 years as political cycles tend to do, but crashes and burns into a meaningless even emptier than the ethno-states. They simply have no binding ethos, or really any historical/political legitimacy in a nation explicitly founded on such progressive ideals as America was.
They are losers, no matter how much political government power they accumulate. They know it, and it's what drives their paranoia and lust for even greater power and control over the people.
However, their perception and reality is not in like with the actual
Fixed;
Not in LINE with the actual reality of the scientific values of colors.
Blogger langford peel said...
The alt right rejects William F Buckley. That is why his butt boys at the National Review hate them and hate President Trump.
The alt right is the only hope for the men of the West. The orcs are circling and Sauron has arisen.
I don't really agree. Buckley was an inspiration for a new sort of conservatism.
Coolidge is my image of the real thing but 20 years had gone by by the time Buckley started a new movement at Yale.
Certainly, he was an elite but he is also the one who said, I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
He knew that the ruling class was getting corrupt.
The war had changed everything. That plus the New Deal had convinced people that rule by elites was useful.
I think the war was more important than the Depression experience.
The people who followed Buckley, like Lowry and Goldberg and the rest, are not able to see past their own prejudices.
That doesn't mean that he couldn't see it, even if he was fond of big words and was a little effete in his mannerisms.
The truth tellers these days are people like Derbyshire and Anthony Daniels. (Dalrymple)
Lol. See? I told you so. Not all conservatives are racists but they generally tend to be very secretive about the either abominable or ridiculous things that they actually DO believe. Witness Michael Special K's love for Derbyshire. Here's what the guy says:
Leaving aside the intended malice, I actually think "White Supremacist" is not bad semantically. White supremacy, in the sense of a society in which key decisions are made by white Europeans, is one of the better arrangements History has come up with. There have of course been some blots on the record, but I don't see how it can be denied that net-net, white Europeans have made a better job of running fair and stable societies than has any other group.
Also...
(10a) Avoid concentrations of blacks not all known to you personally.
(10b) Stay out of heavily black neighborhoods.
(10c) If planning a trip to a beach or amusement park at some date, find out whether it is likely to be swamped with blacks on that date (neglect of that one got me the closest I have ever gotten to death by gunshot).
(10d) Do not attend events likely to draw a lot of blacks.
(10e) If you are at some public event at which the number of blacks suddenly swells, leave as quickly as possible.
(10f) Do not settle in a district or municipality run by black politicians.
(10g) Before voting for a black politician, scrutinize his/her character much more carefully than you would a white.
(10h) Do not act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress, e.g., on the highway.
(10i) If accosted by a strange black in the street, smile and say something polite but keep moving.
(11) The mean intelligence of blacks is much lower than for whites. The least intelligent ten percent of whites have IQs below 81; forty percent of blacks have IQs that low. Only one black in six is more intelligent than the average white; five whites out of six are more intelligent than the average black. These differences show in every test of general cognitive ability that anyone, of any race or nationality, has yet been able to devise. They are reflected in countless everyday situations. “Life is an IQ test.”
Lovely stuff, that. Totally repudiating of anything racist that Buckley ever wrote. Right.
There's yer conservative intellectualism, folks!
Conservatives don't need "intellectuals". They thrive off of purposelessness because they either stand for nothing or don't know what they want to stand for, let alone what they would stand for. Just witness flyboy goggles above.
Conservatives represent and stand for the status quo; progressives represent and fight for change. In physics, this duality is called statics and dynamics and in chemistry it's called structure and reactivity. Can't really have one without the other.
"'Rawls, widely regarded as the most important political philosopher of the 20th century, suggested people should think about ethics as if they were operating behind a “veil of ignorance”—as if they were building a society without knowing what their race, gender and social standing would be, and were trying to develop rules that would work to everyone’s benefit.'
"This is absurd. This is literally an idea developed and adopted because it was developed by a high status white male. No human being is without gender, race, and social standing. Why develop a philosophy tht treats people as though they had no gender, race, or social standing?"
Oh, for Heaven's sake! You're one of those people who thinks Lennon's "Imagine" is evil for...I don't wtf people object to in the song. It's just a wish for human peace and harmony, with no violent conflicts over different beliefs (religion, conflicts between nations and peoples, etc.).
I've never heard of Rawls before and I can't say what this passage may mean in its original context, but simply reading it as a stand-alone passage, I read it as being an analog to Lennon's song: he thinks people should establish or support an ethical system and social organization on the assumption that they will not have any special standing at all in the society. Imagine you are one of society's low-status members, and imagine a society that would work for you as well as for those of high-status. Most people will imagine a society with the assumption they will be among the higher-status members of society who won't be harmed by the rules and ethics that harm those of low-status.
For example, establish a prison system on the assumption you could be imprisoned in it, or an economic system on the assumption you could end up jobless, homeless and hungry. Become conscious of one's own advantages (if one has them) instead of being oblivious to them, to understand how much of the good fortune you may enjoy is a reslt of good luck or of your place in the society, which may be relatively (or literally) privileged compared to others.
Conservativism is a conservation of principles.
Progressivism is unqualified, monotonic change.
Liberalism is a volatile divergence, which may also be reactionary (e.g. "=" or political congruence, abortion rites/selective-child/one-child) when it is politically convenient.
Conservatives represent and stand for the status quo; progressives represent and fight for change.
That's not very descriptive or meaningful and disregards the fact that conservatives like to perpetuate dangerous conditions of the status quo that make it inherently unstable. It also ignores the fact that the right went completely against the grain in nominating a lifelong Democrat Donald Trump who brought with him an anti-status quo view of Republican Party leadership, nationalistic rabble-rousing against the status quo on trade, an anti-status quo view of manufacturing and a whole lot of openly white racists to his cause. It was not just right-wing votes that tilted him over the edge in the swing states and caused him to win but all of those aforementioned variables were strong on the right and not conservative.
Conservatives want order and hierarchy. Progressives want purpose and equality. Those are the meaningful psychological predispositions. Might as well come clean on it. Anything else is just muddling the relevant and inevitable conversation.
For example, establish a prison system on the assumption you could be imprisoned in it, or an economic system on the assumption you could end up jobless, homeless and hungry. Become conscious of one's own advantages (if one has them) instead of being oblivious to them, to understand how much of the good fortune you may enjoy is a reslt of good luck or of your place in the society, which may be relatively (or literally) privileged compared to others.
The American right-wing is incapable of this. There is an increasingly well-established psychological observation that people of increasing privilege over-estimate the degree to which merit contributed to their good fortune. I think the right-wingers follow a projection of that onto the privileged. (Eg. the number of right-wingers of any social class even at the bottom who actually think that Donald Trump "earned" anything more valuable than what his daddy bequeathed him and the bankruptcy courts awarded him. It's quite insane the amount of disconnect they possess on this).
Conservatives want order and hierarchy. Progressives want purpose and equality. Those are the meaningful psychological predispositions. Might as well come clean on it. Anything else is just muddling the relevant and inevitable conversation.
This an even grosser oversimplification than mine. Progressives also want hierarchy (and some want anarchy). I never met a class of people so into hierarchy and who's who than liberal academics -- though "liberal academic" is redundant). Conservatives also want equality of opportunity but they don't want equality of outcome.
(Eg. the number of right-wingers of any social class even at the bottom who actually think that Donald Trump "earned" anything more valuable than what his daddy bequeathed him and the bankruptcy courts awarded him
That's tantamount to saying that he built and accomplished nothing in his life since his father died. That's just your spite talking.
Like famous media people, I guess. Actors, singers, comedians, reporters.
Well then it would be a pretty stupid guess then. While the principle is sound it's rare that you find a very successful actor/singer/comedian who is not appreciative of the talents and gifts they're born with and knowledgeable of how lucky they are. They also tend to invest a lot of time back into huge charitable causes. It's hard for someone in entertainment to be that successful if they're not, otherwise they will tend to fail at their craft - being one that requires astute observation of the human condition in all its imperfections and failures, personal and social. Artists who think they deserve more in life because of their talents tend not to do very well.
The new liberal media mantra is "spite makes right."
This an even grosser oversimplification than mine. Progressives also want hierarchy (and some want anarchy). I never met a class of people so into hierarchy and who's who than liberal academics -- though "liberal academic" is redundant).
There is not much hierarchy in academia - basically tenure or lack of tenure. Positions above that are few and tend to rotate around. That said, academia has become a bloated glut in some ways and a failure in others but that doesn't change the fact that your oversimplification in this regard is also inaccurate.
Conservatives also want equality of opportunity but they don't want equality of outcome.
Oh FFS. The fact that they look upon Donald Trump as an unequal outcome and not one who made killings off of his unequal opportunity (and unequal access to the bankruptcy courts) says it all. The two are linked more than any delusional self-professed con wants to admit. And even moreso in America. (Denmark and the Netherlands have a lower link between generational wealth or poverty transfer/transmittal than America does. Explain that one. You people need to inject some reality into your theory).
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा