Not many things tilt me. This however, get's me reaaaaaaaaaaallllllllllllllly close.
I love the guise and denial of liberalism not being socialistic at all. At least this one admits the intent.
If these plans happen in full effect and there is still an America when I'm 64, I will have no pity for you democrats that are old with me as we get pushed to the bottom of the list for medical treatment because it has been deemed we are likely to die soon anyways so we're not really a priority for our now rationed resources that we don't have a choice of. I will be saying, "Reap what you sow u bitches!" then I'm sure I'll be trying to hit em with my cane.
I wish I could instantly ship all these lazy lahlah dreamworld freehandout wanting people here in America that want a "socialist one choice" no competition type health insurance out in trade with the Canadians or many Europeans that say what you hardcore lefties want is ignorant and extreme. While I'm wishing I'd prefer to use TT's trampoline method to solve this problem of our export delivery. I'd use jets for the imports of course. ^_^
We just do not have a clue and our ignorance is maddening. More and more I am reminded of John Carpenters, "In the Mouth of Madness" which is a book on my to-read list as well as a really great older movie.
I won't spoil anything more about that movie except to say the graphics at the end are older cuz obv it's an older movie but nonetheless it is a good movie worth watching.
What a nice little tangent I just went on hmmm
For about the past month and a half now, I have been watching something broadcasted every Wednesday called Freedom Watch.
lol I know I know, good chance the very title of it just shunned out alot of you. But that imo is a good thing as the one's that stay aren't the narrow minded.
*Please note this is NOT the same Freedom Watch lobbying organization that was supportive of Bush. It has nothing to do with that and is something entirely different.*
This is a show moderated by Judge Andrew Napolitano.
I admit I was taken aback when I first started watching this show because I thought to myself, "Who is this gangster?" but this man knows his stuff inside and out and is solid as a rock. Hell he was a state Supreme Court Judge after all. I was obviously showing my ignorance.
Here's an intro to the Judge.
I say moderated because unlike the video above there is lots of discussion with people on the show and a big part of it is based/controlled by the viewers. You can twitter your questions/thoughts/advice to be said towards the end of the show live or you can email your opinions of what you think is important or who you would like to see on a future show. Basically the viewers help with the direction of the questions and flow of the current show as well as the upcoming one.
Just to name a few of the guests so far they have had people like Peter Schiff, Gerald Celente, Ron Paul, Daniel Hannan and Lew Rockwell on board.
Discussions primarily stick to liberty and the overreaching federal government. A few things discussed that I can think of off the top of my head would be things like the propping of the housing market, the bailouts, Republican and Democrats being one and the same, economics 101, The Constitution and the rule of law, torture... and people getting arrested or beaten for standing up for their individual rights. And what's really cool is unlike anywhere in the mainstream media, you don't just have some reporter being the host on these topics, you have a fucking Judge giving his insight onto the rights and wrongs. If you start to watch this show regularly you see a HUGE difference. This show Freedom Watch hits upon things going on in this country that actually have importance imo.
Also I know how alot of you feel about FOX and believe me I understand. Know that regardless of the little things you see that say FOX, this is not a mainstream FOX show and it is not aired on cable (as far as I know). Again as far as I know it only has the FOX label because it is broadcasted from within the FOX building and is nothing like the mainstream. It is completely different than anything else by that network that I've seen to this date.
Since this show is not big league funded (and you can tell) it has glitches from time to time. I believe they are even using skype for their phone calls. Personally I think it's good to see how they have to workaround the glitches. Also with it's structure it has tons of impromptu moments which I really like and prefer.
For example here's a moment on the torture issue..
Tell me how you really feel eh? =D
To end, I'm going to call this blog "My Response" because it apparently seems that after seeing the master tonight, alot of people have their Obama Kool-Aid cups refilled and so I want to try to start posting a weekly blog here with this show and hopefully the issues within it get discussed or at least seen. To me it is definitely worth watching and worth the work and at least me expressing my views constructively will do me good.
I'm sure I'll have to remember I said that ^^
Everytime the federal government says we are going to increase the funding or spending by giving X billion more to [insert some special interest here] from Y billion and hence the Federal Reserve starts printing more money, please keep this short video about history and economics in mind.
I'd really prefer not to repeat this route if possible
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." -Thomas Jefferson
"The Obama administration is asking the Supreme Court to overrule a 23 year-old decision that stopped police from initiating questions unless a defendant's lawyer is present, the latest stance that has disappointed civil rights and civil liberties groups."
While President Barack Obama has reversed many policies of his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, the defendants' rights case is another stark example of the White House seeking to limit rather than expand rights.
Since taking office, Obama has drawn criticism for backing the continued imprisonment of enemy combatants in Afghanistan without trial, invoking the "state secrets" privilege to avoid releasing information in lawsuits and limiting the rights of prisoners to test genetic evidence used to convict them.
The case at issue is Michigan v. Jackson, in which the Supreme Court said in 1986 that police may not initiate questioning of a defendant who has a lawyer or has asked for one unless the attorney is present. The decision applies even to defendants who agree to talk to the authorities without their lawyers.
Anything police learn through such questioning may not be used against the defendant at trial. The opinion was written by Justice John Paul Stevens, the only current justice who was on the court at the time.
The justices could decide as early as Friday whether they want to hear arguments on the issue as they wrestle with an ongoing case from Louisiana that involves police questioning of an indigent defendant that led to a murder confession and a death sentence.
The Justice Department, in a brief signed by Solicitor General Elena Kagan, said the 1986 decision "serves no real purpose" and offers only "meager benefits." The government said defendants who don't wish to talk to police don't have to and that officers must respect that decision. But it said there is no reason a defendant who wants to should not be able to respond to officers' questions.
At the same time, the administration acknowledges that the decision "only occasionally prevents federal prosecutors from obtaining appropriate convictions."
The administration's legal move is a reminder that Obama, who has moved from campaigning to governing, now speaks for federal prosecutors.
The administration's position assumes a level playing field, with equally savvy police and criminal suspects, lawyers on the other side of the case said. But the protection offered by the court in Stevens' 1986 opinion is especially important for vulnerable defendants, including the mentally and developmentally disabled, addicts, juveniles and the poor, the lawyers said.
"Your right to assistance of counsel can be undermined if somebody on the other side who is much more sophisticated than you are comes and talks to you and asks for information," said Sidney Rosdeitcher, a New York lawyer who advises the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.
Stephen B. Bright, a lawyer who works with poor defendants at the Southern Center for Human Rights in Atlanta, said the administration's position "is disappointing, no question."
Bright said that poor defendants' constitutional right to a lawyer, spelled out by the high court in 1965, has been neglected in recent years. "I would hope that this administration would be doing things to shore up the right to counsel for poor people accused of crimes," said Bright, whose group joined with the Brennan Center and other rights organizations in a court filing opposing the administration's position.
Former Deputy Attorney General Larry Thompson and former FBI Director William Sessions are among 19 one-time judges and prosecutors urging the court to leave the decision in place because it has been incorporated into routine police practice and establishes a rule on interrogations that is easy to follow.
Eleven states also are echoing the administration's call to overrule the 1986 case.
Justice Samuel Alito first raised the prospect of overruling the decision at arguments in January over the rights of Jesse Montejo, the Louisiana death row inmate.
Montejo's lawyer, Donald Verrilli, urged the court not to do it. Since then, Verrilli has joined the Justice Department, but played no role in the department's brief.
errr I'd like to say my piece but I just got home and have to take a shit and I'd actually rather do that than type anymore about this current administration atm
I try the best I can to stay balanced and in the middle of things and keep an open mind but in all honesty I do lean more on the right side when it comes to politics/economics and therefore in my principles of law. The traditional right is where my personal views and attractions come from and I'd be a fool not to know this. I'm sure some of u just duhhed =D
Anyhow the point of that background and me pointing it out is because I want to fully say that regardless of my tendencies, from the little I have seen of the Hannity and Colmes show (I don't have have cable) I don't like Hannity at all and actually prefer Colmes if for no other reason in just his way of handling argument and debate vs Hannity who seems like a pilled up nutjob that I want to instantly tune out.
I realize after tonight I had found myself saying this silently before *shrug*
This is a great recent podcast of Colmes interviewing Ron Paul that ups my respect of Colmes as a reporter and hits upon current issues. I wish we had more reporters like Colmes out there on both sides. He doesn't use the uncontrollable steamroll tactic that should rarely if ever be found in a reporters repertoire in the first place but seems an ever so increasingly common thing in mainstream media.
Even if drama is the reason a lot of reporters were probably hired in the first place I don't waste my time watching the ones that do that more than I have to. From what I've seen Colmes picks his spots fast and concise allowing the one being interviewed time to talk and maybe hang themselves in retort. Respect.
not meeting my goal/quota so far because of new outside interests that keep me from grinding more and more as they grow
I have max of 1 week left before it's withdraw time again - thinking about maybe cashing in the 650 bonus to leave myself afterward
I can still make the bottom end of my goal if I bust my ass this week
Contact Users: 586 Active, 0 Logged in - Time: 22:37
