Waiting for Fitzgerald

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
In an effourt to bolster my bi-partisan board cred, I have changed my signature to show my solidarity with the Hugo Chavez in the revolution of the babyjesi.

PTLBJ.

Ross Perot and now Hugo Chavez. What is it with you and people that are against free markets.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Let me check the trash liner and I tell you if its in the Times.

confidential to Club:

I checked the NYTimes. Only reports on how bad the election prep is going and how Talibans may get elected. The lies and bias of the MSM strike again.

I am not sure if Jayson Blair was one of the contributors.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Ross Perot and now Hugo Chavez. What is it with you and people that are against free markets.

Spank, you know I know love you like O'Reilly loves a spin free zone, only more platonically, but you didn't read my post carefully enough. I aligned with Chavez in his love of the babyjesus, and BJ's rebel stance. I too am rebel, I am rebel against the nanny-state of morally relativistic responsibility-ducking appeassingly pacifistic socialism that the dems and assorted liberal rabble rousers have tried to cram down on the America of freedom that I know and love. Relatedly I am a rebel against taxes. My rebel stances are all in furtherance of truly Free Markets, not the regulatory skewed bastards of the FDRs and LBJs of history's dustbins.

Further, I point out the fact of the unity of Chavez and myself in the revolution of the babyjesi, starkly contrasted in so many other areas, to note to the god-hating liberals here that one of their idols is one with the babyjesus and their hatred of the same is to their own peril.

Why was all of that not clear?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Spanky
Donna Brazile shows leadership:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...602167_pf.html

Donna Brazile just put her head on the chopping block. The wrath she will face form her fellow Dems will be intense. She just took a huge political risk in order to help her hometown. Now hopefully the administration can follow through with a fast and efficient reconstruction plan so her actions where not taken in vain. I hope the old axiom of "no good deed goes unpunished" will not come true. I am a fiscal conservative, but this is not the time and place for it. The time to be fiscally conservative is when the farm bill, the energy bill or other such nonsense comes before Congress. Not when a disaster relief and reconstruciton effort comes before congress.

On Thursday night President Bush spoke to the nation from my city. I am not a Republican. I did not vote for George W. Bush -- in fact, I worked pretty hard against him in 2000 and 2004. But on Thursday night, after watching him speak from the heart, I could not have been prouder of the president and the plan he outlined to empower those who lost everything and to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

Very patriotic. I'm sure I have phottoshopped her before and now I almost feel badly, although she is definitely ew-scrayed herself in the demo party. Because I am masochist I read Dowd today. She apparently did not get the Brazile memo. Honestly, with some of these liberals I really don't know why they just don't pick up and move to France. They would be so much happier and so would we.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
On Thursday night President Bush spoke to the nation from my city. I am not a Republican. I did not vote for George W. Bush -- in fact, I worked pretty hard against him in 2000 and 2004. But on Thursday night, after watching him speak from the heart, I could not have been prouder of the president and the plan he outlined to empower those who lost everything and to rebuild the Gulf Coast.

Very patriotic. I'm sure I have phottoshopped her before and now I almost feel badly, although she is definitely ew-scrayed herself in the demo party. Because I am masochist I read Dowd today. She apparently did not get the Brazile memo. Honestly, with some of these liberals I really don't know why they just don't pick up and move to France. They would be so much happier and so would we.

I'm against sending American malcontents to France. That is the last thing France needs.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by nononono
I'm against sending American malcontents to France. That is the last thing France needs.

Gaza?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Gaza?

Hell - can't you put in a good word for us with your father?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Hell - can't you put in a good word for us with your father?

"Us"? Since when did you become a malcontented rabble-rousing leftist?

[nononono]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Gaza?

Well, that would preserve my vacation options.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Hell - can't you put in a good word for us with your father?

Chavez's speech had him proposing moving the UN to Jerusalem, because that would solve most of the Wrold's problems. He got the biggest ovation of the summit.

Do you think the diplomats would vote to move it to Jerusalem, you know, if it were a secret vote?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_world_summit

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I said at the outset that sovereign immunity currently makes this alternative approach impossible. It would be necessary to eliminate sovereign immunity for damages actions for unlawful searches.

As for criminals being sentenced to death, 2 to spanky. Unlawfully seized evidence is not unreliable (this is not coerced confessions). No one has ever said it is. The only reason it's excluded is it's a way to vindicate the 4th amendment.

As for your damages, there are plenty of ways that civil litigation has evolved to address just such a concern, including class actions and punitive damages. Why are neither sufficient here?

Damages aren't sufficient because they fail to remedy the injury. The exclusionary rule is all about the externalities.

As a citizen, I have no use for cash. What I want is to know that the cops won't come crashing in my door because my neighbor, who is pissed at me for letting my dog shit in his yard (hi Pony!), has told the cops that he thinks I might be dealing.

If the cop is going to get a demerit on his record because the city has to pay me $10,000 damages, but he's going to get his sergeant's stripes if he busts a drug dealer, isn't going to give a shit about whether the neighbor is right or wrong. He's kicking the door in because it no longer costs him anything to be wrong.

What the fuck is it about some people that they think that all the wrongs in the world can be solved by throwing money at them?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Of course not. I'm just saying that your suggestion that Dirty Harry movies illustrate how bad the exclusionary rule is does little to tell me about the actual state of affairs with the exclusionary rule and more to tell me that you get your info on law enforcement from bad cop movies.

The point of the CLE wasn't to ask Hollywood to change. It was to illustrate that we as lawyers have a huge task of educating our clients on what is and is ethical since our clients are likely to have very bad information on legal ethics because of what they see in the movies.

Using Spanky as your example, apparently some lawyers got their knowledge from the same source. Which I guess explains why he's now preying on unfortunate homeowners instead of practicing law.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I never have gotten enough credit here for my consistentcy with respect to civil rights. Most of you poo poo me because of the economic side, but I doubt you will find someone that backs personal liberties more whole heartedly than I.

I have always given you credit for that. It's one of the main reasons it rustrates me so much when you refuse to see that some of your economic ideas truly screw over the same people you would otherwise protect.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Chavez's speech had him proposing moving the UN to Jerusalem, because that would solve most of the Wrold's problems. He got the biggest ovation of the summit.

Do you think the diplomats would vote to move it to Jerusalem, you know, if it were a secret vote?

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=stor...n_world_summit

I would favour the anywhere but here approach. Good riddance. I am sure all the loud mouthed adherents of socialism and marxism and anti-US imperialism who are also diplomats at the UN would find any third world city to be much more to their liking. And it frees up some prime real estate in NYC for more capitalistic development.

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Damages aren't sufficient because they fail to remedy the injury. The exclusionary rule is all about the externalities.

As a citizen, I have no use for cash. What I want is to know that the cops won't come crashing in my door because my neighbor, who is pissed at me for letting my dog shit in his yard (hi Pony!), has told the cops that he thinks I might be dealing.

2nd Amendment takes care of this.

Originally posted by taxwonk


If the cop is going to get a demerit on his record because the city has to pay me $10,000 damages, but he's going to get his sergeant's stripes if he busts a drug dealer, isn't going to give a shit about whether the neighbor is right or wrong. He's kicking the door in because it no longer costs him anything to be wrong.

I am not sure why this of concern to you....in Chicagoland, I am pretty sure that anyone who might raise their 4th Amendment rights to challenge a police search gets another visit from the police explaining why the invocation of such "rights" might not be in their long term health's interest.

Of course this oppression and abuse of government is due to the right wing thugs who have controlled Cook County for so long.

Originally posted by taxwonk


What the fuck is it about some people that they think that all the wrongs in the world can be solved by throwing money at them?

The political heirs of JMK, FDR and LBJ.