Letters to the Editor
-
HRH
Whatever floats your boat. It's your boat. IMHO, it's sinking.
-
James Joyner's blog
http://outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/01/
/judge_orders_kucinich_included_in_nevada_debate[...] On the merits, I don’t see how Kucinich has a case.
[...] As Ed Morrissey notes, “the broadcast is the property of the network and it’s their decision to make.”
- - James Joyner
One of Joyner's commenters replied:
"On the merits, I don’t see how Kucinich has a case."
I don't either, but James, wouldn't it make sense to link to the decision first before we all assume to be experts in Nevada law?A different commenter there seems to favor civil disobedience:
Appeal! Hell, if anyone at NBC had any balls they would just ignore this judge and proceed with the broadcast in which ever way they chose. How is it that this country has become a nation of cowards, afraid to stand up for their rights?
Now in case you don't know, Morrisey and Joyner are the mild, moderate, reasonable face of the right wing.
No, I'm not joking, they really are.
They're not frothing freepers, and I'm sure that Joyner would disapprove of his commenter who was advocating contempt of court.
Joyner isn't a lawyer, but he does have a Ph.D. in Political Science, so Doctor Joyner really is smart enough and well enough educated to have known better than to cite Morrisey's "legal" argument.
So, why was Joyner citing it?
-
Legal argument free attacks? Like all those on Bush?
By launching legal-argument-free attacks on court decisions, the wingnuts establish the idea that legal reasoning, court decisions, and the law itself are all irrelevant at best, and dangerous to the nation at worst.
Actually this is a good description of most Bush "lied," "broke the law," "is a criminal," memes. Its very easy in this overlegalized society to find a statute that seems to point to wrongdoing, yet in context of the whole law, does not. It's one of reasons people distrust the law in general and lawyers in particular. Too many avenues for a gotcha upon the average individual.
-
@ Divadab
I assume you are saying that the Republican Party of New Hampshire didn't want Ron Paul in the debates. That makes you look silly because they most certainly did. Are they not the Republican Party or part of the GOP?
You can call Ron Paul whatever you want. It won't make you more of a fool than you already are.
And Fox News is not in charge of anything.
New Hampshire G.O.P. Backs Out of Fox Forum
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/new-hampshire-gop-backs-out-of-fox-forum/
-
Sysprog
Joyner isn't a lawyer, but he does have a Ph.D. in Political Science, so Doctor Joyner really is smart enough and well enough educated to have known better than to cite Morrisey's "legal" argument.
So, why was Joyner citing it?
Precisely. Like Morrissey, Joyner should presumably know better. Would Joyner have been so careless in linking to an analysis that defended a legal result with which Joyner disagreed? I think not. And so I would put Joyner in the same "intellectually dishonest" category as Morrissey.
-
shooter
bush lied us into a war, broke US & international laws regarding traetment of prisoners. i do not think these are esoteric statutes we are talkin' about here. pretty basic stuff...
-
RMP~Bingo.
O, 'The Count of Monte Cristo' by Alexandra Dumas ~ O, poor George Bernard Shaw ~ wrote about similar turbulent times.
If feeling chilled, robe yourself in a wool blanket?
It's fun, pain, and dashing here?
Who wants to go to jail and sit quietly in a GOP's built dang-goop-dungeon? Nobody.
There is mystery and intrigue here constantly.
A Nature's revenge may take time? Nature will bring retribution at the proper moment?
Yes... It's so dazzling here, and outside.
One moment it's grey, and then, a windy snow squall, followed then by what smells or appears to be a foul odor-smell from a
damn troll snooper?
What daily-lesson's,
O, what immortality!
It's remembrance recall.
-
@sysprog
James Joyce has a blog?
-
Troll
I rarely use that term but when someone comes into the thread and immediately turns the debate away from the subject at hand, to something completely irrelevant (in this case, the troll himself) it is beyond doubt what is going on.
Remember, the thesis here is: Conservatives do not believe in any principle of objective legal reasoning or even-handed justice. All they want is conservative ideological results and the law be damned. This example is a small case of a greater truth and it pervades Bush v. Gore, their hiliarous ineptitude about warrantless wiretapping, the farcical interpretations of the constitution including Article II being some grand unlimited grant of power and to Cheney not being part of the Executive branch despite his office being explicitly in Article II.
Conservatives simply do not believe in objective reality.
Usually we confine this thesis to neo-conservatives since they are the most explicit and aggregious examples of this, but regular conservatives are on board with it too, in practice if not in principle. You don't have to even look to written law to find them in abject denial of reality, they also deny science (global warming, evolution), statistics (abstinence only education), economics (supply side) and often basic reasoning and language comprehension itself (see Goldberg trying to spin tales of left wing Nazis or the many times Glenn has schooled the right on the actual definition and meaning of "hypocrisy").
So I'm left to conclude, by the overwhelming evidence as bolded above. If a conservative is a liberal mugged by reality, it seems clear the experience was so traumatic that the victim can't bear to face his attacker ever again.
-
"Until then I will post what I wish when I wish."
And others will respond or not. Just as they wish.
It isn't your positions... it's your haranguing and insulting tone.
-
RMP
Just because you get no response, even to something that may be wrong, doesn't mean your comments are not read or thought about. When you consider silence as thoughtless or ignoring you, an insulting tone doesn't invite thoughtful commenters to respond.
You think I'm complaining of being ignored when I'm simply stating a fact.
I know my posts are being read and thought about, why else would I state that the better my post the fewer replies I get?
The great majority of those who read my posts wish to prove me wrong, mainly because my thrust is that they should be ashamed of what they have allowed to happen in "the land of the free".
The silence in the face of my posts is not a comfortable one and I certainly do not intend for it to be so.