Round The Tubes: Don’t Rush Into Things

Posted: February 26, 2013 by veeshir in China, Conservatism, Funniest End of Civilization Evah, Government FAIL, Nanny State, Notes on the Revolution, PEBKAC

In the 90s and 00s they sing about cough syrup (Flaming Homers), in the 70s they had different priorities.

Rush is the perfect metaphor for the musical transition from the 70s to the 80s. They went from this to Big Money in just 10 years. Sigh.

So let’s go tubin’!

I was going on about this a few years ago and I’ve been watching it to see what happens.

Headline and subhed.

America’s Red State Growth Corridors

Low-tax, energy-rich regions in the heartland charge ahead as economies on both coasts sing the blues.

 

The problem is that the leftist states are fucked and many of the rest are doing fine.

So instead of taking money from The Rich(tm) to give to their constituents, they’ll have to take money from the rich states to give to the poor states.

The interesting part will be that the rich states won’t be so easy to intimidate as the feds might think and somehow, I don’t see Texas being happy about paying for California’s welfare state.

I’ll tell you what, the old Chinese curse of “interesting times” is a good description, it’s very interesting to see what’s going to happen.

China’s “Stealth Frigate“,  I just love the way commies and other murderous dictators always have to give their stuff names that make it sound as if it means something and the way western ‘journalists’ just accept it. It takes people like the Jawa Report to notice that the Iranians crappy p-shops are p-shops.

 

I’ve been practicing my repentance speech but somehow I don’t think He’s going to buy it cuz I keep smiling and laughing when I get to certain points, so this one scares me cuz it might be the sign of the endtimes. Why? Check out who I’m praising.

The Supreme Court is refusing to hear a case because the plaintiffs don’t have standing. Apparently, the govt’s claim of a right to listen to Americans on the phone without a warrant doesn’t mean Americans have standing to sue.

It was a 5-4 decision, the 4 saying “Americans do have standing to sue for violations of the 5th amendment”  are Breyers, Sotomayor, Kagan and Ginsberg. I agree with the 4 people who I think have no idea what the Constitution actually says and I am furiously fucking angry at Scalia, Alito and even Clarence motherfucking Thomas, I was sure Thomas was in the dissent and he wasn’t .

Fuck. No, fuck. I don’t know which way it should be decided, but it surely should be fucking heard. The gov’t is saying more that every amendment doesn’t mean what it says. I wonder if those assholes will think I have standing when they start quartering troops in my house.

NY pol wears blackface to a party, outrage ensues, but that doesn’t mean any news stories about it are going to mention the guy’s a Dem.

 

Nice Deb has vid of Chuckie Schumer doing what he does best, lying to your face with that smug fucking grin. “We’re not going to create a registration of firearms, but when we pass the law on universal background checks, we’ll create a database of the information.”

This is one of those “funny never” things that you have to laugh at. Recall that in NC if a black woman accuses white men of rape, they’re guilty. But if a white girl accuses the wrong people of rape, well, she needs to be expelled.

That’s another my favorite intertubes memes, how we have to read about bad stuff about Americans with the “proper” beliefs  in furrin papers.

 

I’ll end on a touchy subject. It involves hot women whose fathers are in the military.  You can help the hot daughters of friends of This Ain’t Hell to become Colts’ Cheerleaders.

So grab your…mouse and go look at This Ain’t Hell and then go vote. Seriously, that last link, is bery, bery good, but check the TAH link to see how you can help TAH while you’re helping yourself.

About these ads
Comments
  1. jokelly65 says:

    does the Supreme court really surprise you. They have become Political hacks like most every one else in the District of Corruption.

    • Veeshir says:

      The surprising part is that I am bashing Thomas and praising Ginsburg.
      What’s next? Praising Obama and bashing Rand Paul over taxes?

      • jokelly65 says:

        LOL I understand, I know once I actually had to defend something Obama said, I kept waiting for Oompa Loompas and flying pigs to put in an appearance. But Obama was right, the sky really was blue. I checked to make sure. LOL

        • veeshir says:

          I would defend Obama’s decision to stop funding NASA and letting private enterprise get into the business, but he did it so he could spend the money on his supporters.

          Eh, it was still a good thing even if done for a marxist, Chicago-Machine reason.

  2. >>>The gov’t is saying more that every amendment doesn’t mean what it says.<<<

    Yes, but more and more, judges are having a difficult time going along with the reasoning…

    • chad says:

      Ok IANAL but I thought the whole warrantless wiretapping thing was decided years ago. Wasn’t there a FISA related case in the 70s or 80s that was on point and then the law was changed to address the other concerns.

      I’m not taking a stand on the law either way, I didn’t follow this case at all that was just my memory.

      • veeshir says:

        I don’t know about that, all I know is they dismissed it based on standing.

        That’s fucking bullshit.

        • chad says:

          It’s been my understanding that you always have to prove harm in order to have standing. How is this different?

          I definitely remember during the Bush years when these cases were dismissed the political right generally was happy with the outcome and when the NSA surveillance program was ruled unconstitutional by Judge Anna Diggs Taylor a lot of people were unhappy.

          http://kurulounge.blogspot.com/search?q=wiretap

          http://ace.mu.nu/archives/192877.php

          http://kurulounge.blogspot.com/2006/08/idiot-judge-rules-nsa-terrorist.html

          I’m not saying that my legal analysis in those posts was correct, but I know for sure that I was in with the majority of right wing bloggers at the time.

          • veeshir says:

            It’s been my understanding that you always have to prove harm in order to have standing. How is this different?

            If they listen in on calls they could be listening to the people they talk to, which means Americans.

            So Americans should be able to sue.
            Now let’s look at the plaintiffs listed
            of American lawyers, journalists and organizations

            No idea of the orgs, but journalists often interview terrorists, lawyers defend them, they should definitely have standing.

            As for me, I’m in favor of the law as I understand it (they’re listening to furrin terrorists and don’t have to hang up when they call America), but that doesn’t mean I think that lawsuit should be dismissed over “standing”.

            Many (most?) times when I’ve seen a suit dismissed over “standing” I’m fucking furious.

            Now, if I’m trying to sue Boeing for their unsafe space shuttle that I’ll never ride in, I have no standing.

            But if I’m suing Cox for the carcinogens in the bombs loaded on their Skybombers that Obama’s going to use to KILL US ALL!!!, I should have standing.

            • chad says:

              So by your logic because one day you might hit me with a car I should be able to sue you now, or because they may someday prove that vaccines actually do cause autism drug companies should just start handing out the cash. According to the article the palintiffs couldn’t show that any of their calls had ever been listened to, that any of the people they were talking too had ever been surveilled or that the people in question were even of interest to any intelligence agency or the FBI. If someone had been able to show some sort of interference of any sort beyond the government I would say let em sue and lose but for shits sake there has to be some sort of minimum bar they have to get over.

              • chad says:

                beyond the government should have been beyond the government’s mere existence

              • veeshir says:

                No, by my logic if I say I can hit people in your town with my car, you should have standing to sue me.

                It’s not some stupid hypothetical, the gov’t is claiming they can listen in on American’s phone calls without a warrant, therefore, Americans have standing.

                • chad says:

                  I’m sorry in my opinion, which counts for very little in the giant scheme of things you are completely wrong. The standard that you propose is nothing but a path to madness. Think seriously about what you said in the first sentence of your reply and then think about what that would mean in the American judicial system.

                  • veeshir says:

                    I don’t have any respect for the American Plea Bargain/Elite Protection System we have now.

                    I also notice that people who used a product with a warning label on it that said they could get a disease from using this product have standing to sue for catching that very disease. and other indignities.

                    As for thinking about the effect on the system.
                    I did think about that.

                    The gov’t is saying the 5th Amendment is not in effect in certain instances, therefore, all Americans have standing.

                    The govt’s power is a deal with Americans with the Constitution being the terms of the deal, if they feel they can ignore that document, all Americans have standing.

                    I understand that lawyers and judges disagree, that doesn’t mean I have to like it or agree with it.

                    Instead of the old, ‘Better that 100 guilty go free than 1 innocent be convicted” we’re at ‘Better shut up so the gov’t can do what the fuck they want.”

  3. Lemur King says:

    … the high court ruled that a group of American lawyers, journalists and organizations can’t sue to challenge the 2008 expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) because they can’t prove that the government will monitor their conversations along with those of potential foreign terrorist and intelligence targets.

    So… by the majority’s opinion, any complaints I could have against the idea of (a future law allowing) warrant-less search and seizure would be invalidated because I would not be able to prove that I’m going to be targeted. Do I have that about right?

    I don’t mind monitoring if there is proven need and oversight, but there isn’t enough oversight.

    Yeah, Thomas caught me by surprise.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s