judge not lest ye be uncool
webmost
Posts: 7,713 ✭✭✭✭✭
The commentary on that page is worth quoting to explain the cartoon:
When it comes to putting one of the so-called Benghazi terrorist "masterminds" on trial, no one can question the importance of assigning the proceedings to an exceptionally well qualified judge with a long and solid track record on the bench.But I'm not criticizing. No. No. That would be racist. And uncool.
Of course, that's only if you want a conviction rather than a trial that's as staged as a sixth grade play.
Sadly, the latter is exactly what Hope n' Change is expecting now that the case of Ahmed Abu Khattala has been "randomly" assigned to former Obama ass-monkey and transition team member Christopher "Casey" Cooper, who will only officially be sworn in as a US District Judge later this week in a formal investiture ceremony.
While Hope n' Change is not usually averse to the idea of on-the-job training, we really prefer to see it in less critical situations than the highest profile terror trial of the century. Instead, start with something easy like brain surgery or piloting commercial jetliners.
Reassuringly, Cooper is described as "quite capable" (wow!) by a totally unbiased partner at his former law firm - who also happens to be his freaking father-in-law. And we assume that he is also considered "quite capable" by his wife, who - surprise! - worked at the Justice Department under Eric Holder.
And by an absolutely astounding coincidence, Cooper's college roommate just happened to be the brother of national security adviser Susan Rice - the woman whose most famous career achievement was lying her ass off about Benghazi.
Looking at all of the incestuous political connections, it would be easy to come to the conclusion that this coordinated attack on the American jurisprudence system was carefully planned in advance by political radicals. But the Obama administration contends that this demonstration of "random" case assignment was entirely spontaneous.
At least, that's what Susan Rice is saying. Again.
“It has been a source of great pain to me to have met with so many among [my] opponents who had not the liberality to distinguish between political and social opposition; who transferred at once to the person, the hatred they bore to his political opinions.” —Thomas Jefferson (1808)
0
Comments
Am I doing it right?
just goes to show how much any government can muck things up.
1) The word His is spelt with a capital H
2) It's never His fault.
But it's not Democrats versus Republicans. It's not even Liberals versus Conservatives. It's Government versus Liberty. One side says: "Prohibiting abortion didn't work before. Let's do it again." The other side says: "Government has thoroughly screwed up VA hospitals. Let's hand them the rest of health care." You can vote for more of what doesn't work on the one side or you can vote for more of what doesn't work on the other side. What you can't find is a viable candidate for less is more.
If we can't have good government, let's have less government.
Less government = more freedom for banks, brokers and hedge funds to play greedy ponzi schemes that cause recessions.
Less government = more freedom for companies to pollute and destroy the environment.
Less government = more freedom for states to curtail voting rights and impose segregation.
Less government = more freedom for well-armed militias to take over communities, extort citizens and kill them at will
Less government = more deaths due to consumption of contaminated food products because manufacturers are no longer required to comply with food safety standards
Less government = more freedom for terrorists to carry out their acts of destruction with inpunity
Less government = more people losing their homes and their livelihoods because there's no one to stop the banks or employers from cutting them off
Less government = swift deterioration of infrastructure because there's no government to fix roads and bridges, because the private sector will never pay to take care of it
Less government = accelerated destruction of natural habitats, water supplies, and the environment because people will be able to do whatever they want on their property or on land that was one protected but now is not
Less government = an increase in deaths because without controls only the rich will be able to afford healthcare
Less government = lower incentives for businesses to create new products because there will no longer be patent protections
Less government = communities turning into fiefdoms run by drug gangs and warlords who will always be far more well armed and organized than the gun-owning citizens they'll enslave
Every one of these "effects" has existed in America at one time or another (and many still do), all because of people and businesses expressing their "liberty" to do whatever they want to free of government intrusion. Less government = more freedoms. But, to paraphrase Spiderman, "With freedom generally comes more irresponsibility." From slavery to Jim Crow, from Love Canal to BP, from Standard Oil and AT&T, from the gold miners who destroyed northern California to the frackers who are causing earthquakes in Oklahoma, liberty, more often, means short-term self-interest at the expense of the common good. If that's the world you want, fine. I'll trust the federal government to protect my best interests versus state governments and Big Business anyday.
Also, that's a gross misquote of Spider-Man. It's "With great power comes great responsibility." Meaning that if you have great power, you have the responsibility to help. However, that's not what politicians do. They use that power to buy themselves more power. So to curtail that, small government can help the situation. Also, in the case of Jim Crow laws, you do know those were regional laws that were started by southern Democrats that later became federal law under Woodrow Wilson, right?
the times when the government does that, we are good. when they do more than that (and they are doing WAY WAY more than that) it becomes a problem. the stuff beyond protecting the rights of the individual need to be cut back.
unlike your scenarios suggest, most "less government people" are not looking for "no government."
suggesting so is insulting not only to the person you are debating with, but to your own intelligence. you should know better than that. that is one of the more absurd lists i have seen in quite some time. if you honestly believe the "smaller government people" want all of that list you posted then there is no hope for you.
i hope you DONT honestly believe that the "less government people" are in favor of that list because i took you for a thinking man and i would hate to ruin that image of you all of that can be traced to corruption in government as well. corruption in business and corruption in government are dependent on each other. If the government does the job it is supposed to do (defending the rights of the individual) then those things tend to go away. if they let some people trample the rights of others because of corruption, then there is a problem. right now there is corruption in the government that is influencing business (and yes it is both democrats and republicans. if you dont believe that then you are a very uneducated individual)
our government has plenty to be ashamed about, just as plenty in business do. listing it here to see what list is longer proves nothing. those lists, in reality, are the same list.
...because every privately owned parking lot, drive way, corporate parking lot, Parking deck, private bridge, is in disrepair with no hope of it ever getting fixed unless the government steps in. this is a weak argument... mainly because many private entities DO pay for some sort of infrastructure. it helps their business/life.
even the rich die. 100% of people die. there will be the same amount of death if government exists or not. we ALL die at some point in our lives...
usually the end of it...
Less doesn't mean none.
Less means not so much.
So how much is enough?
Government presently admits to spending 40% of GDP. That does not include black budgets. More importantly, that does not include the cost of all the things which government does not directly pay for, but which government requires. Everything from CPAs to lawyers to busy HR departments to the ordinary citizen slaving away at his tax return to higher cost of sugar cause we can't get it from Cuba to the little sticker on the hammer I bought years ago, telling me "do not use to strike a hard object" to public relief for people whose jobs disappeared because business found it cheaper to ship the jobs overseas where these regulations would not inflate price. What is the total cost of government beyond the admitted 40%? No one knows. Now we are saddled with a new mandate -- health insurance which many could not afford, now required, and required in a form which previously nobody could afford, plus the cost of all the medical aides and clerks in doctors' billing offices wrestling with thousands of new codes. All this is a tax just as much as cash collected from medical devices. Look at the industry I work in: unemployment cost control began the very year the social security bill was passed. Everything we do, everything we make, every phone call we place to a supervisor, every bit of paper we fax to and from HR... all this is overhead. How much overhead can any enterprise support? The real goods are made on the factory floor. Every investment in the front office reduces what we can put out the door for value, but adds to the price.
How much is enough? 40% is already shamefully exhorbitant in my eyes. Yet we know the total must be way more than that. What do you think raisindot? What percentage of society ought to be government? When is too much too much? When does it stop? What's left for the worker to enjoy at his own discretion?
Personally, I'd give them the tithe that church used to demand, and let them get by on that. They'd cause way less trouble that way. I'd settle for 15%. They would find a way to grab 20% and claim they only spent 15. Forty is way max bloated over doing it. The actual total, whatever it may be, is an obscenity. Enough is enough. Too much is too much. TEA = Taxed Enough Already; and the truth in those three letters is not refuted by adding the perjorative "baggers" to it.
I say start by putting them on a diet.
Where's your limit, raisindot?
No your not.
The most glaring inaccuracy is Fannie & Freddie, brought to you by barney frank and slick willy. The others are wrong too, but you will nave to look it up yourself.
Oh, Katrina and the violation of civil rights, was brought by Louisiana's governor and not the President. And I don't know if I blame her, when the population acts like a bunch of predatory animals. But they were saved by sean penn and his shot gun.
Total and utter fantasy. Now have at it.......
You know it might help things if people stopped justifying what is happening today by blaming what happened yesterday. Drum beat.....
Give us a number.