Letters to the Editor
-
-- quickstrategy
" ... inflicting physical pain on you would certainly give me pleasure. ..."
My, my. Another armed thug trained by the government shows his true colors.
Not to worry, I knew you were that type by your self-described bio.
-
A quote, bucky?
And a question. Is the UPS your idea of a voluntary association?
-
quick-shot
He never defends a position so much as dances around it.
Still trying to type with that mirror in front of your face, I see.
-- quickstrategy
How do you see anything with your head so far up your ass? Got a periscope?
-
Didn't matter that the judge wasn't Jewish --
JNagarya
He then plotted to have the "Jewish" judge murdered by -- being of superior intellect -- attempting to hire an undercover cop to do the deed.
The latter is why the gov't indicted, tried, convicted, and imprisoned him.
"Just to underscore how ignorant you are about the most basic facts of a matter about which you're parading around like you're an expert, Judge Lefkow is not Jewish, . . . ."
Didn't matter that the judge wasn't in fact Jewish -- did you miss the fact that I put "Jewish" in quotes, which raises questions about the applicability of the term within the quotes? -- as Hale himself made clear his view that anyone who married a Jew was a "race traitor," therefore the equivalent.
I know what Hale's views were (are?) because I read his screeds on his website.
". . . and Hale was not alleged to have hired an "undercover cop" to kill her, but rather, a member of his Church whom the FBI had been paying $25,000 a year to give testimony against Hale, as Rowan pointed out."
I understand your defense argument, as his defense lawyer. But that doesn't deny the fact that Hale was about having the judge murdered, and was indicted, tried, convicted, and imprisoned on those grounds.
"In any event, none of that had anything remotely to do with the First Amendment matters where I represented him.
"-- GlennGreenwald Sunday, May 18, 2008 07:46 AM"
I didn't say the two were the same legal question or issue. I said he went to court on First Amendent grounds to contest denial of license to practice law because of moral turpitude for espousing the views he espoused. One certainly has the right to believe anything one wants to believe. But if one is going to become a member of a profession which at minimum wants to be seen as ethical, therefore about pursuing truth, one doesn't do so in order to advance views that have been discredited at very least, and in their very foundations, as being anti-factual. In a word: untrue.
He was found against.
He then plotted to have the judge murdered. The latter fact is not protected speech under the First Amendment; and it was an action intended to implement the very views he espoused. Thus he demonstrated his moral turpitude. Thus demonstrated the rightness of the denial of license.
-
Don't do it, QS! Think!
On the other hand, since you've introduced this s&m business I'll grant you this: inflicting physical pain on you would certainly give me pleasure.
-- quickstrategy
He must be protected - even though he craps all over the place!
By the gummint, no less!
He's an endangered species!
;-)
-
@bucky
My, my. Another armed thug trained by the government shows his true colors.
Trust me, the sentiment is shared by many of my non-government trained colleagues.
You just know how to bring out the best in people.
-
Agreed --
proxywars
For once, I think GG should lower his dudgeon and think twice about what Ms. Parker means.
The Republican genius has always been for coded racism, which pushes the buttons of the intended audience, but gives them plausible deniability about intent. If they have suddenly switched to open, fully articulated racism, it represents a dramatic development for the party, and probably further evidence of its disintegration.
"That's precisely why I think it's worth calling attention to this.
"-- GlennGreenwald Sunday, May 18, 2008 07:54 AM"
As Lenny Bruce put it:
"We have to know about all the really bad, bad shit in order to be protected from it."
A more ancient adage: "Know thine enemy."
-
and ...
How do you see anything with your head so far up your ass? Got a periscope?
Another brilliant rejoinder from bucky. My, the logic of your argument is simply unassailable.
Is that pearl of wisdom something you got from your indepth reading of 'the Sufis'? Or was that 'the Gnostics' in action?
-
Agreed
Just saying "bucky is dumb" does not answer the question on the table. -- bucky1
No, it doesn't. It may be necessary, but it's not sufficient, which is why I didn't actually say it.
-
re: A quote, bucky?
And a question. Is the UPS your idea of a voluntary association?
-- William Timberman
No, I do not care enough about your evasion to do your homework. I will say that it was early on and we were first discussing our notions on government. If I get time I might look, I bet it was in the summer when I had plenty of time and the cabal started the libertarian wars.
Yes, UPS is as close to a voluntary association as you will see in Modern America. They probably get some subsidies (welfare for the rich), but mainly the government attacks them over their competition to the Post Office. Have you ever been forced to deal with UPS? Are they the only firm allowed in their market sector by law?
What the hell do you not know about a simple word like voluntary? The laissez-faire market is non-coerced voluntary cooperation.
-
and a coward named quickshot!
How do you see anything with your head so far up your ass? Got a periscope?
Another brilliant rejoinder from bucky. My, the logic of your argument is simply unassailable.
Is that pearl of wisdom something you got from your indepth reading of 'the Sufis'? Or was that 'the Gnostics' in action?
-- quickstrategy
Sorry coward, it don't work like you want it to. You want me to ignore the cheap shots you through my way and not return fire.
The Sufi taught me that I did not have to suffer fools like you; you see, you are the type that hits woman because they can not hit back. To not answer a thug like you would be wrong.
Thug.