Making Baby Jesus Cry

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In a sense, Bush is like us. He's a moderately bright guy who doesn't want to do the work, finds it dull, but likes the money (in his case, power) it brings. President Lawtalker.

I think I should take offense by this.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
I'm pretty sure I'll be able to beat the crazy screaming/ranting bum on the street corner who no one listens to anymore b/c they don't have the time to decipher the shit from the substance, if there actually is any.

Good point. The ironic coincidence is I have spent the better part of the morning on the phone with one of the largest (after Zell's group) equity fund managers in Chicago, whom I have never represented, talking about representation on structuring a $2B RE development deal. Odd that someone in Chicago would call a crazy, screamin/ranting bum on the street corner, which corner is 2200 miles away, when someone as substantive and capable as you is right there in his own backyard (maybe in the same bldg, who knows?), if not for rep then for a referral. Perhaps he doesn't know no one listens to me anymore.

Because I feel an overwhelming ethical duty to my clients (or potential ones) I will give him your PM address.

In my reference, should I cite him to your substantive posts on anal creampies, DPs or sno-balling?

[i]

Plus, I'm younger.

Yes, you are. Story:

Back when I did my first IM, in my youth, slightly younger than you are now, I wasn't sure what to expect. Turns out I had an affinity for the distance but I misjudged how to race on the run. I was in 5th AG/18th OA at mile 20 and my legs ran out of juice. I was struggling to hold 8:30s, but it was a better than expected showing and there was no one around me, so I figured I would coast in. At mile 23.5 I heard footsteps. Merde! From the sounds, this person was going to get me, hard. Acknowledging my weakness, I looked back. IT WAS AN OLD GUY. In my youthful innocence, he looked old enough to be my dad. I felt nauseaus. He passed me. I hung on his heels for 50 metres and was dropped. Like a red headed step-childe.

Turns out he set the World Masters record for IM that day. It held for 9 or 10 years. Respect your elders. Punk!!

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Nut Penske
You still haven't explained Where Were the BUSES?

I don't know, we need to ask Nagin. and Blanko.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I think I should take offense by this.

He's part of the crowd you didn't like... the really dumb frat guy who's been accused of date rape a bunch of times.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
As to Blanco, at least, the Congressional Research Service seems to put her in the clear.

Nagin, I think, goes down in the next mayoral election - sometime in probably oh say 2008, when there is a NOLA again.

I predict that Bush will, in a moment of dry drunk confusion, award Landrieu a Medal of Freedom.

When is the Demo party leadership going to call her to task for violating a Fed statute? Censure?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Oh, you poor dear.

Here, you dropped this.

good answer. I see a lot of liberals teach their children the same ill manners. While they would shit their adult depends if a kid in school called their kid fat or stupid or another perjorative term, they see no problem in teaching their children literally and by example, without context, that its okay to say the President of the United States is a fucking arsehold.

No wonder our the moral compass of the blue states is so far astray. Culture of death and mayhem indeed.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Nut Penske
Cute.

First, Where were the BUSES?

I don't know, we should ask Nagin, and Blanko.

[notcasesensitive]

I enjoyed The Daily Show bit on Supreme Court confirmation hearings last night:

Really, there are only two kinds of Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Those involving pubic hairs on a coke can and those that don't. Unfortunately, this hearing falls in the latter category. Ah, pubic hair coke can guy. I wonder what he's up to now. A real "Where Are They Now" story...

I would have indented this if I had Gatti's mad indenting skilz.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
Are you the creator of those strips, or are you just taking all your talking points from them?

the latter, the rank and file liberals have no independent thoiught or judgment, it makes it easier to avoid responsibility later (although in fairness they have nothing to be responsible for up trhough last night, as that is all Ty's fault. Has he resigned yet?)

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
good answer. I see a lot of liberals teach their children the same ill manners. While they would shit their adult depends if a kid in school called their kid fat or stupid or another perjorative term, they see no problem in teaching their children literally and by example, without context, that its okay to say the President of the United States is a fucking arsehold.

No wonder our the moral compass of the blue states is so far astray. Culture of death and mayhem indeed.

Yeah, that follows from Biden's comments.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Captain
My point really was in response to yours. I'd suggested, and Spanky had agreed, that it would be reasonable to punish police officers guilty of unconstitutional behavior rather than applying the Miranda rule. You'd suggested that sovereign immunity was a problem.

My question is: why? Let's assume the police officer is a state official. Where is the power of sovereign immunity granted, and who granted it? Why sould it protect a police officer who violated a defendant's rights? I view sovereign immunity itself as a creature of "judicial activism", that is, a common law doctrine.

I hope you'll let me avoid a discussion of current 11th amendment jurisdprudence - my useful knowledge ends pretty much with its adoption.

Well, the federal government won't abridge state immunity, and states won't abridge state immunity for these purposes if they're still subject to the exclusionary rule. An interesting question (which I suspect Amar has answered) is whether a state could satisfy the fourth amendment by waiving sovereign immunity for wrongful search and seizure, and then would not have its evidence excluded. That's the tradeoff, and I suspect no state is going to open itself up to money suits on the chance the supreme court will agree with that position.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Bush is like your budddy who always knew he was going into the family business. You know... the one who manages to take a great business and totally fuck it up in three years, then be forced to sell it and live off the proceeds and show up at dinners pathetically talking about how he's now a venture capitalist.

Only problem is, we can't sell off the asssets here.

Why not? Privatize most everything, and/or sell it to the states. Get rid of the USA and reform as the CSA. Feds provide defence, fed judiciary (to ensure the Second Amendment) and foreign relations. the far more automonous states get the rest. It's inevitable, why not hasten the process.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
He's part of the crowd you didn't like... the really dumb frat guy who's been accused of date rape a bunch of times.

You should love him, those were the guys that made you look that much better in comparison such that you became an acceptable guy for the sorority girls to lay. As long as the booze was flowing. No offence.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Yeah, that follows from Biden's comments.

It absolutely does. The liberals seek to throw out any sense of morality, decency, and decorum, because any lit bit of it threatens the boundaries of their faux-intellectually elite rude boorishness.

Its like the NARAL strategery on abortion. Abortions in the 39th week?!!? We can't prohibit those, its the woman's right to choose. Any infringement is a slippery slope. Disgusting.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Well, the federal government won't abridge state immunity, and states won't abridge state immunity for these purposes if they're still subject to the exclusionary rule. An interesting question (which I suspect Amar has answered) is whether a state could satisfy the fourth amendment by waiving sovereign immunity for wrongful search and seizure, and then would not have its evidence excluded. That's the tradeoff, and I suspect no state is going to open itself up to money suits on the chance the supreme court will agree with that position.

Leaving aside "won't", I think they can and should.

On a different topic, do you guys have rules or moderators here? Some of these posts are pretty strange.