Ron Paul

Ron Paul Caucus Goers in Their Own Words

|

Henderson, Nev. – Ron Paul may have finished second in the caucus here, but according to his supporters, he did very well in the battle for delegates to the state convention. Here Paul delegates Miles Planette and Karen Manning talk about their caucus experience. Karen, 52, was active in 2008 while this is the first rodeo for Planette, 21. 

Advertisement

NEXT: What a Nevada Caucus Looks Like

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Wow, I hope that guy from No Country for Old Men was able to get his arm fixed after that nasty accident.

    1. looking for the bilover?—datebi*cO’m— is a site for bisexual and bicurious singles and friends.sign up for free.

      1. Bicurious gambol with cat and dog.

      2. I’m curious why anyone can’t choose between dick and pussy (or hairy butt and pussy as the case may be).

        1. Hey, bisexuals… pick a hole, and stick with it. Quit being greedy.

    2. No kidding. If that kid pulls a coin out is pocket and starts to flip it, I am leaving.

  2. I don’t understand. Did Manning and Quinn travel back in time to the 70’s, or was Planette recently unthawed. He’s groovily well-spoken, either way.

  3. That was pretty reassuring really, to see a younger guy articulate better than older folk. The silver lining is that younger folk will hopefully pull the whole mess through. Unfortunately that is at least several election cycles away.

    1. Yeah that’s what they said about the Boomers. Look how that turned out.

      1. The boomers got rid of the draft. That’s a pretty big thing.

        1. It was Friedman and Nixon and a bunch of people older than 30 that got rid of the draft.

          1. No kidding.

            The first election where boomer voters were significant was 1980.

            The first administration where boomers had any significant political voice was Clinton’s.

            Just as boomers should not get the blame for the mess the countries in now, they shouldn’t get any credit for having made any improvements either.

        2. Today’s liberals want the draft back, especially the ones too old to be drafted who don’t have kids or expect to have them. Some just want any form of national service, draft included.

      2. Idiots still outnumber thinking citizens. As my brother puts it: “The masses are asses.”

      3. Some people need scapegoats.

  4. …Unfortunately that is at least several election cycles away.

    We don’t have that much time.

    1. We have plenty of time.

      The Federal Government, not so much.

  5. Anybody notice the interviewer’s accent when he says “fourth”?

    1. Methinks he’s from Beantown.

    2. I noticed the Bahstun accent in his other videos as well. Can’t they do something about “those people?”

    3. I noticed the Bahstun accent in his other videos as well. Can’t they do something about “those people?”

  6. This time it is an old woman named Gonzales. Nobody told Mrs. Gonzales that the San Concepcion voter registration office disconnected its telephone a year ago. I got the number . . . And every day I get a dozen calls from would be voters. This country’s been a dictatorship since WWII. I guess people like their illusions.

  7. And you know who else had supporters that liked to crash Jewish gatherings?

    1. Shit, here’s the link:

      http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012…..as-caucus/

      1. Part of the trouble was some Paul supporters told voters they could show up for the late-night caucus at a suburban Jewish private school for whatever reason. But voters could only participate if they signed a declaration affirming that they couldn’t vote during the regular morning caucuses because of their faith.

        Most supporters signed the declaration without hesitation, after confirming to an Associated Press reporter that they had missed the earlier caucuses for other reasons.

        Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012…..z1lVtqGdTv

        WTF? Are the Paul supporters being as big of assholes as they appear to be? Am I missing something?

        1. I had CNN on for background noise for a while last night, and they had some really nasty footage of a Paul supporter totally freaking out outside the caucus because he wanted to be let in to observe and they weren’t letting anyone in who had already caucused. He admitted already having voted but wanted to sit in and “observe.” Made Paul fans look really bad.

          Once the caucus was going they had cameras in the room and showed several minutes’ worth of folks standing up and giving their reasons for supporting the candidates, and they were going in alphabetical order by candidate and it was Paul supporter after Paul supporter…there were a ton and I was fairly impressed, but it looks like this explains part of why there were so many.

          1. Paul supporters need to understand that the media hates them and will use the worst example to smear the entire group. They just can’t get away with shit the media lets the liberals do. It sucks, but it is reality.

            1. the media hates them

              Ignores. Hates. Same thing, right?

              1. They ignore them because they hate them.

                1. Perhaps they ignore them because they bore them and their candidate doesn’t have a realistic chance. Hate is more provocative, of course, but sometimes there’s less to it than that. Most of the time, we would say. But then, we’re other people.

                  1. How do you know who has a realistic chance before the vote?

                    1. Polling has become fiendishly accurate as a predictive tool, but one needn’t pay attention to poll numbers to gauge the nation’s political mood and proclivities. Ron Paul has close to a zero chance of becoming the next president. Clinging to that miniscule hope fuels chat room chatter, but it’s just that: hope and chatter, soon to be followed by anger, resignation and cynicism. Most libertarians are already there, aren’t they?

                    2. Polling has become fiendishly accurate as a predictive tool

                      John Kerry wins North Carolina!

                      Love,

                      Fiendishly Accurate Exit Polling, 2004

                    3. More importantly this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Once the media decides someone has “no chance” and doesn’t cover them it makes it that much harder for them to have a chance…

                      Look at how wrong the media’s guess at who “has a chance” often is. Gingrich didn’t “have a chance” for most of this race.

                      But more importantly, look at the coverage they gave Huntsman compared to Paul who has polled far more support at every stage of the game.

                      The media coverage is problemattic. Not so much for the simplistic, ref-working rants John gives, but for more nuanced reasons which are nonetheless no less frustrating and silly.

                  2. Nader never had a chance and 2000 and they didn’t ignore him. Bill Bradly never had a chance either. But they never ignored him. Paul is picking up a solid 25% of the GOP vote. That is significant. If a hard left candidate were getting 25% of the Dem vote, he would get more fawning coverage than he knew what to do them.

                    Since most journalists have low IQs and went into the field because they were not smart enough to go into engineering or law or medicine, Paul supporters probably do bore them since I doubt the journalists understand what they are saying.

                    1. You write things that force honest people to doubt your sincerity, John. Are you trying to be provocative, or do you really believe what you just wrote about journalists? In other words, are you a crackpot or just bored?

                    2. No other people. I think most journalists are stupid. I went to a university that had a large and fairly respected journalism school. And it was about on the level of the education school.

                      And the older I have gotten and had a career where I was somewhat of an expert in a few things, the more I realized how horrible most news stories are. Journalists don’t know anything. And in my experience, at least in the subjects I know something about, they nearly always get it wrong. They seem to have little ability to understand or explain much beyond half truths and sound bites.

                      Do they have low IQs? Maybe not low but probably not that high. But regardless they rarely know anything about what they are writing about. So it really doesn’t matter.

                    3. So, in summary:

                      * The “media” are stupid, and they chose their profession because their IQs were not high enough to facilitate a career in engineering or law or medicine…

                      * The “media’s” inherently limited intellect thwarts their ability to comprehend Ron Paul’s politics, therefore they hate him…

                      Is that about right?

                    4. No other people the media is stupid because in my experience they get things at best half right and seem to have little or no technical expertise at the things they cover. For that reason, it is doubtful that they really understand what Paul is saying and thus don’t accurately report on it or just ignore it.

                      And this is coming from someone who is not a Paul fan. I just know the generally low quality of journalism in this country.

                    5. And other people, what have douchebags like Ezra Klein or Jeffrey Toobin or any of the rest of them ever done that would cause me to think they are intelligent or have any respect for them?

                    6. We all know what they could do for John to find them intelligent: agree with him.

                    7. No MNG. There are plenty of people from the right I think are stupid as well. I look at being a journalist as being a pretty low profession.

                    8. Do you look at the Reason writers the same way? Most of them have the same credentials as these journalists you castigate.

                    9. First, you have no actual evidence that Nader was “not ignored”, same for Bradley. You have some vague recollection, but given your tenous grasp on even current events (exceptionless ESA, injunctions barring all religious mentions, GPS trackers in FF guns) we should all start from a position of doubt when you make such unsupported assertions.

                      What coverage I remember Nader getting in 2000 was as his potential as a spoiler in a tight two way race. That is news. As for Bradley his coverage was based on his challenge to the sitting two-time incumbent VP.

                      The press has biases. In those case it was more of an example of this tiresome tendency they have to frame elections as “horseraces.” This is why they focus on Gingrich so much, he’s made the race something of a horserace. Paul hasn’t yet.

                      Don’t get me wrong; wouldn’t it be nice if they tried to explore the actual ideas of the candidates, especially when, like Paul’s, they challenge te coventional wisdom yet still garner significant support? But they never do that, even with front runners…

                  3. “Perhaps they ignore them because they bore them and their candidate doesn’t have a realistic chance.”

                    That would make sense if they similarly ignored candidates with lower polling results (the ones that dropped out earlier, and arguably Santorum). Anyone honest knows that the media is uniformly pro-Establishment (and aside from Fox’s Establican stance, mainly Establocrat).

                    Paul represents everything they hate — freedom, peace, and a populace that is informed, assertive, and that enjoys legal equality with its elites. They’d prefer to tell people that libertarians will make them slaves to choice, that America preserves world peace by engaging in endless war, that the populace is safer and the nation stronger when the workings of government are hidden behind national security, executive privilege, or in the back rooms of Congress. If only their stance could be boiled down into some simple slogans.

                    1. Paul represents everything they hate — freedom, peace, and a populace that is informed, assertive, and that enjoys legal equality with its elites.

                      I don’t even know if their animus is rooted in such malevolent reasons. I think it’s just that they recognize that a Paul presidency will try very hard to devolve power back to the states and away from D.C. Less power means less importance for D.C., and consequently, less importance for journalists who had to fight to get their positions/leads in D.C.

                      Paraphrasing—because I can’t find the clip—the one journalist who quipped at the D.C. press conference a few weeks ago, ‘Ron Paul gets elected and 2/3 of this room loses their jobs.’

                      All that said, I don’t want to hear another damned thing from the TEA Party. What possible things in Romney’s record could lead a TEA Partier to think he’d be good on spending and the deficit?

              2. Ignores. Hates. Same thing, right?

                I don’t think the media “hates” Paul or his supporters, though it might sometimes seem that way. The point is simply that the media doesn’t take his candidacy seriously, and that can manifest as ignoring him, making him/supporters look crazy/unserious, etc. So it is ultimately the same thing.

                1. Refreshing honesty and principles=can’t be taken seriously…

                  1. Well it’s like you say, MNG. Then they might have to talk about ideas! Issues!

                    1. For me a defining, telling moment occurred in the NBC Florida debate. Brian Williams asked the candidates a question about Iran. Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum beat the war drums as expected. Paul gave a totally different answer of course. So, did Brian William give this topic some further discussion? After all here was a sharp disagreement over a very important issue. Remember that he had allowed Romney and Gingrich to go back and forth several times on their disagreement over Romney’s business practices and Gingrich’s consulting work.

                      Nope. After Paul gave his answer he asked the next question about a totally different topic. Any pretense that this was an actual “Debate” was up at that moment…

                    2. My one real content-based “media bias” issue is that I’ve seen very little evidence that any of the moderators (including the ones from conservative outlets) have a deep enough knowledge of the issues (and the possible positions various Republicans might have on them) to even understand half the things these folks might disagree about.

                      I mean the Iran hawkishness thing is obvious; it doesn’t take much to understand there. But the questioners don’t seem even equipped to elicit meaningful responses on domestic issues that the candidates would have finer-grained disagreements about. I mean it’s always possible that they simply choose not to, and I think there’s some of that…but they also don’t seem to up to the task even if they wanted to try.

                    3. John is right on this point: journalists are trained in something, but usually not the content of the issue about which they are asking. They are trained in writing style and basic fact (or rather source) checking.

                      He’s wrong to dismiss that as not skills or talents, but he’s correct that this leaves them as not experts in much content areas. So they don’t know how to follow up well.

                      But here they didn’t need to know how: they knew there was a sharp, sharp disagreement here. Let the disagree-ers have more time to explore that!

                    4. If you don’t know anything about the subject, how can you be trusted to get the facts right?

                    5. John: here’s an argument.

                      Other People: Hem, haw, whine.

                    6. My problem (and I say this as an editor who works with [former] journos) is that those skills, writing style and source checking, should also include getting up to speed on your beat. These aren’t guys who get bounced from covering a high school basketball game one night to a cat stuck in a tree the next morning?you’re supposed to learn stuff if you’re really covering it long-term. And especially if you’re moderating a presidential-level debate about it.

                  2. Refreshing honesty and principles=can’t be taken seriously…

                    We saw it before in how the MSM treated Kucinich.

                    Don’t get me wrong, I think the boy mayor would’ve been a terrible president, but I give him credit for not being a total duplicitous shitbag like the current or past Oval Office resident.

  8. Great fun is to be had torturing indignant liberals about this Koman planned parenthood thing. All you have to do is ask them the following questions and much hilarity ensues.

    1. Are there any circumstances under which Koman can ever stop funding Planned Parenthood?

    2. If not, then doesn’t that meant that mean that everyone who supports planned parenthood, must do so in perpetuity?

    3. If Koman is required to support planned parenthood, then aren’t all women’s charities? If not, what is so special about them?

    Lots of shouting of the words, epic fail and Faux News and radio talking points ensues.

    1. First of all, I realize accuracy in basic matters is not something you feel the need to possess before launching into a rant about it, but it’s the Komen Foundation, not Koman.

      Second, I’m sure you were just as wound up about all the right wing brothers-in-arms organizing boycotts of organizations who dared to greet people with “Happy Holidays” rather than “Merry Christmans” and other such silly right wing outrages that sparked social media protests and such.

      Yes, I’m sure….

      Komen’s a private org that solicits money from people. They gambled that the right-wing PC crowd would make them pay more for their associations with PP than the left wing outrage crowd would for terminating it; looks like they gambled wrongly. But how this is some special indictment of the left, other than that they seemed to have won this spat, escapes me.

      1. And thus MNG always is here to provide and example of what I am talking about.

        Yes MNG “they do it too”. is one hell of an argument.

        1. No wait, don’t dodge. You post hundreds of posts here every day. Surely you, outraged over the pressure put on Komen (with an e John), posted some outrage about the right doing this kind of thing for the past few years?

          Surely.

          I mean, you’re not a hack or anything.

          1. The outrage from the right was a barely audible whisper compared to the shrieks and howls from the left.

            1. Are you kidding? Do you know how many Fox prime time shows had “War on Christmas” segments? How many bocycotts and social media campaigns were launched based on the use of “Happy Holidays” alone?

              1. From an admittely biased source, but here’s a sampling.

                http://www.rightwingwatch.org/…..right-wing‘s-war-happy-holidays

              2. I think he was talking about Komen, specifically.

          2. “No wait, don’t dodge”

            you mean like you just did you mendacious fuck?

            1. Does MNG have any other move besides that and sophistry?

            2. Oh, the butthurt right wing bedpals…How did I dodge? Words, you know.

  9. Sounds to me like this dude may have some issues.

    http://www.Real-Anon.tk

  10. http://nalert.blogspot.com/201…..omney.html

    Mitt Romney stealth Tea Party Candidate. LOL.

    There are two ways to look at this. One, sure he is but the Tea Party is not quite what this guy thinks it is. Or two, I wish.

    Either way, it doesn’t matter what Mittens actually is, the Left will convince themselves he is the small government devil incarnate.

    1. I think “tea-partier” is the New Left version of cryptofascist.

      1. Yeah. It is just a brand name for the “other”. I doubt this guy could name a single fact about the Tea Party other than they are all that is evil in the world.

        1. “I doubt this guy could name a single fact about the Tea Party”

          Jesus, can you get any basic facts correct before launching into yor right wing upset rant?

          That “guy” is a woman dude.

          1. You know it’s the real MNG because of the sophist tut-tutting over minor errors that don’t even make a difference to the point being made.

    2. Who knows whom the “tea party” backs?
      Sharron Angle endorsed Sanatorium. The so called “tea party favorites” are all over the map.

      1. Exactly. And they don’t even agree about a lot of things.

    3. Rhetorically Mitt has checked every conservative box the right could want. The fact that at other times in his career he’s checked the opposite boxes might unsettle some, but a lot of people are judging him on his current rhetoric…

  11. Patricia Blair is still hot.

  12. http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/li…..be-a-wife/

    My God Gwyneth Paltrow turns out not to be the shrew she always has seemed to be. She admits you have to compromise to be married and actually give a shit about your husband.

    Shrewish women all over the world, shocked and appalled.

  13. Good news.

    “Ohio is the only state that classifies a specific breed of animal as vicious, but a bill that passed the Senate 27-5 yesterday should change that.

    Sen. Mark Wagoner, R-Toledo, said Ohio law discriminates against a specific breed. “In doing so, it discourages responsible dog owners from complying with licensing requirements. Canine profiling is expensive, ineffective and infringes on property rights.”

    Instead of Ohio’s 25-year-old law labeling pit bulls vicious, the bill, which still needs final House approval of Senate changes, wouldn’t classify dogs that way in advance. Should behavior problems arise, dogs could be classified in one of three categories: “nuisance,” “dangerous” or ” vicious.”

    All five “no” votes against the bill were from Republicans, including Sens. Jim Hughes of Columbus and Kevin Bacon of Minerva Park.”

    http://www.dispatch.com/conten…..label.html

    1. ole Kevin is just intimidated by that TV dog that’s obsessed with bacon.

    2. Huh, I didn’t know Kevin Bacon lived in central Ohio.

      1. He’s linked to everything dude, didn’t you know?

      2. No, but his cousin’s college roommate’s ex-girlfriend does.

  14. Interesting case pitting the right of fishers vs. property owners.

    “Dargan Coggeshall’s legal troubles began in June 2010, when he and Charlie Crawford decided to fish on the Jackson River near the home of Dr. John Feldenzer, a surgeon from Roanoke, Va. Matt Sponaugle, the owner of a housing development called River’s Edge, who had sold the riverfront property to the Feldenzers, insisted that the anglers leave that section of the river immediately. He pointed to the “no trespassing” signs posted on the banks of both sides of the river that indicated that neither fishing nor wading was allowed there. Coggeshall, who had fished that part of the Jackson for years prior to the home being built, countered that his map, issued by the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries, listed this section of the Jackson River as public property.

    Eventually, Sponaugle called for an Alleghany County deputy sheriff to check the anglers’ fishing licenses. The deputy found that their licenses were in order and, because the state said that they had a right to be there, refused to arrest them. Undeterred, Sponaugle tried to sue the anglers in criminal court; the case was dropped, however, because the court found the ownership of the river in dispute. Now Feldenzer and Sponaugle are suing the anglers in civil court – to the tune of $10,000 apiece – for trespassing.

    Sponaugle contends that he has a crown grant – a deed issued by the Crown of England – that gives him title to the land, including the bottom of the river….In June 2009, the VDGIF had informed Sponaugle by letter that his posted signs on this milelong stretch of the Jackson were illegal…Because the VDGIF does not have the authority to actually take the signs down, confusion ensued, creating dire financial consequences for Coggeshall and Crawford, who were relying on VDGIF-provided maps for their outing.”

    http://www.bayjournal.com/article.cfm?article=4265

    1. Here’s an intersting part: despite the importance of the issue and that one party relied on a state agency, the supposedly brave, crusading Virginia AG sidestepped this fray between two strong GOP leaning voting blocs. He’s running for Gov. it seems.

      “Outdoorsmen everywhere might wonder where the Virginia Attorney General’s Office is in all of this. According to a letter released by the attorney general’s office, “This is a civil trespassing case between private parties, and the Commonwealth of Virginia generally does not intervene in disputes between private parties.””

    2. Govt is infallible, as you well know MNG, so the maps were infallible.

      1. The maps may or may not be wrong, for sure. My point is that this is exactly the kind of case the AG should weigh in on, while they may style themselves as something else their primary role iirc is to defend state agencies.

        At the least he could weigh in on whether the state agency’s interpretation is right or not so future fishermen could rely on it or not…

  15. Do you guys think Paul can pull wins in the next several states?

    1. I’m thinking Maine is his best shot Res…He must be thinking the same thing as he’s spending a lot of time there. The problem is Romney is going to try to push his “inevitability” from now on.

      It’s hard to imagine the mindset that would see that as a determining factor in a vote. If Romney were the inevitable candidate then shouldn’t that free you up more to vote your beliefs? Who says “well, I hate this guy, but he’s gonna win anyway so I’ll vote for him.” WTF?

      1. In honesty, I’d consider voting for Mitt if I thought Newt or Santorum had a chance of winning. Luckily, it appears most voters are smarter than that.

    2. I figured NV was his best chance. This is based on a limited knowledge of politics and assuming the state of whores and gambling would understand liberty. Oh well.

      1. “Mormon voters made up a full quarter of the electorate ? and the vast majority, 91 percent, voted for Romney. That’s slightly lower than in 2008, when Romney won 95 percent of Mormons in Nevada.”

        http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..13497.html

        Surely all the folks here who lament African-american voting blocks voting in similar numbers for a black candidate will rush to comment here on Mormons doing the same thing.

        Surely.

        1. I agree. It’s fucking retarded.

        2. Hey, from the same article, hope for the future?

          “Despite Romney’s strong overall lead, Paul narrowly won the youth vote. He got 41 percent of 17- to 29-year-olds, compared to 39 percent for Romney, 15 percent for Gingrich and 5 percent for Santorum. Romney won among all other age groups.”

        3. It’s not quite as bad, because at least Mormon is a memetic label with a certain amount of self-selection. Racial or ethnic blocs do not share those characteristics. That said, I don’t think a shared religion is the best indication of a good choice for candidate.

          1. Robots don’t even have souls anyway.

        4. People do vote for whom they identify with, religiously or otherwise.

          So Ron Paul appeals to actual Christians,
          Romney to Mormons, Gingrich and Santorum to fake Christians, etc.

    3. Nomination? Don’t talk about the nomination! Nomination? I just hope we can win a state!

  16. Larry Summers wants to borrow another eleventy gazillion dollars to restore our decrepit, crumbling infrastructure.

    Jesus; going to Larry Summers and Diane Swonk for economic analysis? Where’s the question-mark-suit guy?

  17. Norm MacDonald endorsed Ron Paul.
    If that doesn’t convince you hoopers Ron Paul is nuts, nothing will.

  18. “Newt Gangrinich balanced the Budget”?

    Seriously?

    1. He balanced his personal budget by abandoning his sick wife. He’s obviously the right man for the Office of the Presidency of history’s greatest superpower!

      1. “He balanced his personal budget by abandoning his sick wife.”

        I would have thought this was harmful to his personal budget 😉

  19. Okay, seriously… how much money would it cost for me to buy plane tickets and beer for John and MNG just to drink there way to friendship?

    1. Beer summit!

      What will they drink? Oh, the suspense!

      1. Cosmos. Maybe a few Appletinis. NTTAWWT

    2. MNG is just insecure and makes up for it by being smug. He means well but he just can’t help himself. He used to annoy me. Now I just roll my eyes. He is the classic know just enough to be dangerous about everything. But he is a liberal so is quite sure he is an expert facts be damned. It is fun to tweak him.

      1. I don’t have to be an expert to decry your jumping to conclusions on topics where you can’t even get basic facts (like the spelling of the Komen Foundation or the gender of the Harvard academic) correctly.

        John as a person is profoundly unimportant. It’s his embodiment of movement conservative “thinking” that tickles me: start with incorrect misinformation and build a wildly outraged rant on it full of conjecture and half truths. When called on the mistakes, never retreat, just change the subject and make sure you hurl the charge of “bias” frequently.

        1. No MNG, you nit and pick and miss the larger point because that is all you can do. In some ways arguing with you is good for me. It makes me dumb things down and not assume that the person on the other end understands metaphor or sarcasm or anything beyond the literal meaning of what I am saying.

          1. Yes John, your misnaming the very foundation at issue or the gender of the person whom you rant against was a metaphor.

            1. Yes MNG. “guy” could never be a gender neutral pronoun. And the sex is such a relevant factor here.

              This is a great example. You have nothing to say. So you pick at something you can. Typical and not surprising.

              1. The VERY FIRST line of the article says “SHE’S an academic….”

                Sure, you meant “guy” metaphorically, it’s not like your usual mo is to go off half informed…

                1. AGain, what difference does it make other than giving you an excuse to change the subject away from something you don’t like and don’t have a good response to?

                  That is what you do. You could do better. But doing better would require you being honest and admitting things that go against your ideology. And you will never do that.

                  1. It’s not changing the subject to point out that you don’t even have basic facts straight about matters you rant about…

                    Besides, noone is better at changing the subject than you John. You’re doing it below where you initially criticized the reporter for not including a legal analysis you now admit is wrong and now want to talk about cops in a blue city. The difference betwen you and me is you want to change the subject when I catch you as wrong; I want to change the subject to point out where you’re wrong…

              2. This is a great example. You have nothing to say. So you pick at something you can. Typical and not surprising

                You could put this after most or all of MNG’s ‘rebuttal’s’. Only someone super-insecure could be so petty and then call their opponent ‘profoundly unimportant’ as if that were some kind of point that differentiated you from him. Way to vindicate John’s profile of you dipshit.

                1. The butthurt runs strong in this one…

        2. If you look at the two posts of John’s I take issue with you see the very essence of movement conservative “argument.”

          John doesn’t have much clue about what happened at Komen. He can’t even get the name right. But he’s read some links on right wing sites supposedly poking fun at the left for their outrage and forms a quick opinion and trots it out with great passion. Of course if he had any memory outside what Drudge et al., tells him he would have to think about all this in the context of all the right wing outrage social media/boycott activity in the past few years. But that takes time and a desire to think about these things rather than just trying to score a quick political point before moving on to the next similar attempt.

          Ditto with the Paul coverage. John himself has ridiculed Paul’s foriegn and domestic policy here several times. But he sees a chance to trot out the ol’ right wing meme “the media is full of incompetent elites who are biased and hate conservatives.” His evidence? Nader and Bradley got better coverage. Of course just ignore the context of all that (Nader was seen, and probably was, a spoiler, and he was only covered as such; Bradley was covered as a point of discontent with the Clinton-Gore regime). But hey, it’s always fun to work the refs, even if you are wrong you never know when it might come in handly when disputing a later call.

          1. The fact that I am not a Paul fan means that I am calling it like I see it rather than mindlessly defending Paul.

            If I was a Paul fan, you would call me a partisan. Since I am not, you scream meme. Either way, you scream and ignore the facts and the argument. That is just what you do.

          2. And of course below I give an example of a NYT reporter not understanding the legal ramifications of what he was reporting. Yes MNG, they are stupid and uniformed and nothing they say can be trusted.

    3. Meh. I think I’ve just decided to utilize the ignore button on both of them. Tiresome.

  20. “Okay, seriously”

    See, I think this post is disengenous from the start 😉

    1. I will eat the eyes of your children, dude. Don’t tempt me.

      1. Is that Mike Tyson? I thought it was hearts…

  21. Well, off to seize the day, but before I go, the most important post of all:

    Pats by 10!

    Enjoy the Super Bowl.

  22. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02……html?_r=1

    The fatal shot came shortly after 3 p.m. Thursday. Members of the Street Narcotics Enforcement Unit, who had pursued Mr. Graham based on a report that he was armed, broke open the door to the second-floor apartment where he lived with his family on East 229th Street, Mr. Kelly said.

    As the first officer came through, Mr. Graham emerged from the back of the apartment running toward them, then veered into the bathroom, the police said.

    “Show me your hands! Show me your hands!” the officer yelled, said Mr. Kelly, who cited the account of a second officer who trailed the first officer into the apartment. The police did not release the names of any of the officers. Mr. Graham was black; the officer who shot him is white.

    Inside the apartment, Mr. Kelly said, the first officer, who was in the hallway outside the bathroom, yelled, “Gun! Gun!” suggesting to the officers behind him that Mr. Graham was armed.

    “The partner said he then heard a shot,” Mr. Kelly said. “It is at that point we believe the shooting officer fired once from his 9-millimeter service firearm.”

    The bullet hit Mr. Graham in the upper chest, striking a lung and his aorta, killing him, said Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the medical examiner.

    Mr. Kelly added that investigators had yet to find evidence that Mr. Graham was armed. “No gun was recovered,” the commissioner said. Rather, the police said, a bag of marijuana was found in the toilet, raising the possibility that Mr. Graham bolted to the bathroom to try to dispose of it.

    1. For those of you who never took Criminal Procedure. Last I looked you had to have exigent circumstances to make an arrest in a home without a warrant. This hardly qualfies. The cops had no authority to bust down the door in the first place.

      The news story misses that angle. Why? Because reporters know nothing about the subjects they write about.

      1. This is your problem.

        They’ve reported the basic facts here. They are, after all, reporters.

        You want them to additionally write “well, according to criminal law doctrine these facts describe an illegal entry on the part of the police.”

        But then that would be the very analysis that, when you disagree with it, you decry so loudly.

        And by the way, the entry to effect an arrest of a suspected fleeing and armed felon is covere by the exigent circumstances exception. In fact, there’s a SCOTUS case almost directly on point here.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W….._v._Hayden

        1. The felon part is the issue. But of course in NY owning a gun is a felony. So essentially, NY law has swallowed the rule.

          1. Pedal, pedal.

            You got it wrong. And unlike the reporter you’re supposed to be a lawyer. So what does that make you?

            1. I am still not convinced of that. By the NY law the mere presence of a gun makes it exigent which is a very odd way of formulating it. From the story there is no obvious felony unless you remember NY’s insane gun laws.

              So what? I don’t practice gun law in New York.

              1. “By the NY law the mere presence of a gun makes it exigent which is a very odd way of formulating it.”

                So you were wrong, and yet you castigated the journalist because he didn’t include your wrong analysis.

                That’s John!

                1. You are such a sad person MNG.

                  1. Ha ha, now comes the psychologizing. Jesus you have the same four moves…

                    Let’s review though.

                    1. Did you not criticize the journalist for not noting the exigent circumstance exception did not apply here?
                    2. And don’t you now admit the exception likely DOES apply?

                    And for pointing out this, I’M the sad person?
                    lol

                    1. “From the story there is no obvious felony unless you remember NY’s insane gun laws.

                      So what? I don’t practice gun law in New York.”

                      “If you don’t know anything about the subject, how can you be trusted to get the facts right?”

                      John, I must give you this: you are the best source of laughter I have had this morning!

      2. See, smoking pot kills!
        /sic

      3. Last month, the police in Brooklyn fatally shot an armed man who they mistakenly believed was a robber but was a resident of a house where a home invasion was occurring, and, two weeks later, a carjacking suspect.

        Adding in this shooting, the Brooklyn cops are 1 for 3, assuming the carjacker was the right guy. This isn’t baseball, and those aren’t good numbers.

    2. Look out! He is coming right at us!

      1. Easy enough. Just report any NYPD officer you see.

  23. Agony and anguish.

    The public got its chance to comment at scores of open houses, but the real political horse trading took place in meetings involving solar developers, federal regulators and leaders of some of the nation’s top environmental organizations.

    Away from public scrutiny, they crafted a united front in favor of utility-scale solar development, often making difficult compromises.

    “I have spent my entire career thinking of myself as an advocate on behalf of public lands and acting for their protection,” said Johanna Wald, a veteran environmental attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “I am now helping facilitate an activity on public lands that will have very significant environmental impacts. We are doing it because of the threat of climate change. It’s not an accommodation; it’s a change I had to make to respond to climate.”

    What a bunch of dumb fucking rubes.

    1. It is almost like it is not about the environment. Like AGW is some kind of religion or something.

  24. The cops had no authority to bust down the door in the first place.

    But he was trying to evade the police, which is a capital crime.

    1. ButBut he had a gun!! we heard. It is appalling that the NYT missed that angle. It is just assumed that the cops have a right to bust down the door since he was running.

      But remember I am a fanatic or trolling when I say journalists are stupid.

      1. 1. The fact that a reporter didn’t go further than reporting the facts and comment on the legality of what they just reported on proves their stupid?

        2. Further, YOU, who are supposedly a lawyer, have the legal analysis wrong. Precedent is on point against you. So does that mean you’re stupid and uninformed?

        1. The police were informed that an armed robbery had occurred and that the suspect, respondent, had thereafter entered a certain house. Minutes later they arrived there and were told by respondent’s wife that she had no objection to their searching the house. Certain officers arrested respondent in an upstairs bedroom when it became clear he was the only man in the house. Others simultaneously searched the first floor and cellar. One found weapons in a flush tank; another, looking “for a man or the money,” found in a washing machine clothing of the type the suspect was said to have worn. Ammunition was also found.

          Held:

          1. “The exigencies of the situation,” in which the officers were in pursuit of a suspected armed felon in the house which he had entered only minutes before they arrived, permitted their warrantless entry and search.

          http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/…..7&page=294

        2. No it just means I forgot how horrific New York gun laws are. In any other state the mere fact that he was armed wouldn’t create an exigent circumstances. You would have to have an underlying felony he was fleeing from. Here that felony wasn’t obvious. It never occurred to me that the gun itself was a felony.

          I guess I am qualified to write for the NYT now.

          1. “No it just means I forgot how horrific New York gun laws are.”

            You forget a lot of things, for sure.

            But even here you don’t know if the underlying drug offense was a felony or not either, right? Half cocked as usual.

            1. That gives you a good reason to ignore the story and not have to talk about how the cops in the bluest city in America are the worst and most abusive.

              My forgetfulness about New York gun laws gives you a way to change the subject from something that no doubt if you were honest would embarrass you as a liberal. So you should thank me.

              1. “That gives you a good reason to ignore the story and not have to talk about how the cops in the bluest city in America are the worst and most abusive.”

                Remember above when I described John this way:

                “When called on the mistakes, never retreat, just change the subject and make sure you hurl the charge of “bias” frequently.”

                Never let it be said John is not predictable!

                Remember, John’s initial post was not about abusive cops in a “blue city” it was criticizing the journalist who wrote the story because they didn’t write that this entry was outside the exigent circumstances exception. Now that I’ve pointed out that it was JOHN who wrongly understood that caselaw he wants to talk about cops in a blue city.

                Rich.

                1. It was also about how horrible the cops were MNG. I gave you the bait to be able to obscure that fact, and you as usual took it.

                  So now the whole thread is about something that doesn’t embarrass liberals, which is your whole point of coming on here isn’t it?

                  1. “It was also about how horrible the cops were MNG.”

                    Nice try John. Here is what you posted:

                    John|2.5.12 @ 11:53AM|#
                    For those of you who never took Criminal Procedure. Last I looked you had to have exigent circumstances to make an arrest in a home without a warrant. This hardly qualfies. The cops had no authority to bust down the door in the first place.

                    The news story misses that angle. Why? Because reporters know nothing about the subjects they write about.

                    1. If whatever decency and integrity you have left in you could somehow overcome your partisan and arrogant refusal to retreat you’d engage in some self-reflection and say “you know what, I just criticized an entire profession because a journalist did not take an angle that I now have to concede was actually an incorrect one…I should be more careful in the future.”

                      But you’re John, Right Wing Keyboad Kommando!

          2. I’ve better things to do than trudge through a SCOTUS opinion, but from the first paragraph of your cite, MNG, if the other resident says it’s O.K. for the cops to come in and search, then it’s O.K. for them to come in and search. IOW, I think your cite has nothing to do with John’s point on when the cops can kick in your door.

            Now, the police in the NYT case may have had other exigent circumstances to kick in the door—my money is on destruction of evidence, since this looks like a narcotics case. Most of the other exigent circumstances cases (as covered in this paper) deal with imminent threats: threats to safety (the defendant’s, a third party within the dwelling, the officers’); threats to property; threats to evidence; threat of the suspect escaping. Situations where the harm threatened by the suspect in the dwelling outweighs the harm of the officers not getting a warrant.

            IANAL, and NY appears to be a funny jurisdiction when it comes to guns, but I did not think that possession of a firearm equaled imminent threat to safety. Perhaps NY case law says that it does?

    2. About a week ago, I was driving to a friends’ house late in the evening, and I took a couple of side roads to get there.

      Meanwhile, a cop had been following me for about a mile of this trip, and decided to pull me over for – in his words – “attempting to evade”.

      I pointed out that my four-banger Toyota was clearly outmatched by his Dodge Charger cop car, and that I drive for a living at my day job so of course I use shortcuts all the time… AND that the cops in this town know where I live, know my car – they see it every time they patrol my neighborhood, when I’m parked in the driveway, car’s kinda fuckin’ hard to miss – AND it was a cop I’d talked to on occasion at a local business, so he knew who the fuck *I* was.

      Plus, he damn well saw me leafing through my CATO pocket Constitution when he walked up to my car.

      He let me go.

  25. Doesn’t Running While Black by definition constitute exigent circumstances?

    1. In New York it does. So does moving while black, see Amou Diallo or whatever his name was.

      1. Here’s the richeset element of fun for movement conservatives: the one justice who wrote the dissent in the case I had to point out to John is one of those “liberal, activist judges” he would be decrying on another thread…

        1. Did you not take your meds this morning? What are you even talking about and why should anyone care? And where do you get the idea that I think no liberal judge could ever be right about anything?

          If you want to argue fine. But please do it with me and not the voice that live in your head.

          1. No, this says something important about how movement conservatism works. It works against an unrealized appreciation of what liberals have done, but it works on misinforming people to think the liberals are the bad guys.

            Remember when you posted about the evil Texas liberal judge that forbade any mention of religion in a graduation ceremony? You ranted about how while it was clearly right to forbid state led prayers this judge had gone too far, liberal activist judge, etc. Of course when I dug a little beyond the Fox news report you relied on and posted the actual injunction it was clear it was only the school led prayers it targted. You see, the whole time you agreed with the liberal position but had been duped into hating liberals here via being misinformed.

            The same dynamic here. You’re trying to castigate liberals when the one person who dissented in the opinion that shows you wrong, the one person you’d agree with here, is the justice most decried by the right as an activist judge.

            If you read outside your Pajamas media you’d probably be a liberal John!

        2. And good way to come down and highjack the thread away from the embarrassing fact that New York cops are some of the worst in America despite New York being run by liberals.

          Do you really think you accomplish anything by coming on here to obscure every fact you don’t like?

          1. “And good way to come down and highjack the thread away from the embarrassing fact that New York cops are some of the worst in America despite New York being run by liberals.”

            Oh no, Proteus, you’r not going to squirm away that easily! You didn’t mention anything about “liberal NY” and such until I flat out busted what you initially complained about. For your refreshment here it is:

            John|2.5.12 @ 11:53AM|#
            For those of you who never took Criminal Procedure. Last I looked you had to have exigent circumstances to make an arrest in a home without a warrant. This hardly qualfies. The cops had no authority to bust down the door in the first place.

            The news story misses that angle. Why? Because reporters know nothing about the subjects they write about.

  26. Race Traitors.

    The labels used to describe Americans of African descent mark the movement of a people from the slave house to the White House. Today, many are resisting this progression by holding on to a name from the past: “black.”

    For this group ? some descended from U.S. slaves, some immigrants with a separate history ? “African-American” is not the sign of progress hailed when the term was popularized in the late 1980s. Instead, it’s a misleading connection to a distant culture.

    ———

    “I prefer to be called black,” said Shawn Smith, an accountant from Houston. “How I really feel is, I’m American.”

    “I don’t like African-American. It denotes something else to me than who I am,” said Smith, whose parents are from Mississippi and North Carolina. “I can’t recall any of them telling me anything about Africa. They told me a whole lot about where they grew up in Macomb County and Shelby, N.C.”

    This reminds me of a conversation I overheard in a restaurant one day as I was eating lunch. At a nearby table were what I assumed to be two married couples, well dressed and perhaps in their early sixties; black.

    I heard one of the men say, “I’m not an African American. I don’t know anything about Africa. I was born and raised in Indianapolis, Indiana.”

    I couldn’t help myself; I laughed out loud. They didn’t seem to be offended.

    1. She and her black friends rarely use it [the term “African American”] to refer to themselves, only when they’re speaking in “proper company.”

      Right, they call each other “nigger”

  27. They’ve reported the basic facts here. They are, after all, reporters.

    Heroes in Blue Shoot Crazed Murderer, Prevent Collapse of Civilization as Thankful Civilians Cheer

  28. The media have given that boring old fuck Ron Paul such an easy ride. Anybody else with his racist, neo-Nazi baggage would have been cricified by now. Even the fake eyebrows and oversized suits haven’t knocked him off his perch. There’s clearly and libertarian-Nazi bias in the media.

  29. The media have given that boring old fuck Ron Paul such an easy ride. Anybody else with his racist, neo-Nazi baggage would have been cricified by now. Even the fake eyebrows and oversized suits haven’t knocked him off his perch. There’s clearly and libertarian-Nazi bias in the media.

  30. “I have spent my entire career thinking of myself as an advocate on behalf of public lands and acting for their protection,” said Johanna Wald, a veteran environmental attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “I am now helping facilitate an activity on public lands that will have very significant environmental impacts. We are doing it because of the threat of climate change. It’s not an accommodation; it’s a change I had to make to respond to climate.”

  31. I found your website perfect for my needs. It contains wonderful and helpful posts.I wanted to thank you for this Websites! Very interesting post. I like to share this post with my friends and book mark this interesting page. Thanks for Sharing. Great Websites!

  32. Thanks a lot for sharing such a wonderful post. It contains wonderful and helpful posts. I have read most of them and got a lot from them very nice comments as well.I would like to thank for the efforts you have made in writing this post. I am hoping the same best work from you in the future as well. Thanks for sharing. This is a great websites!

  33. Thank you for posting the great content. Nicely presented information in this post, I prefer to read this kind of stuff. I’m glad to have found this post as it’s such an interesting one! I am always on the lookout for quality posts and articles so i suppose I’m lucky to have found this! Thanks for Sharing. Great Websites!

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.