|
|
Post by Thomas Littlechief on Jun 12, 2009 21:31:06 GMT -5
Although there was this one Dou tou we took one year that had particularly tough meat, it had the most curious red nose as well, very bright in the Arctic night........
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Littlechief on Jun 12, 2009 22:55:31 GMT -5
Heard on news radio the other day that a couple of the politicicans in federal jail are now being recalled by a District Court Federal Judge in Anchorage. They are to be escorted back to the State of Alaska by U.S. Marshalls for bail hearings. Apparently Stevens ability to have his judgement over-turned has and will bring a radical stop to corruption charges. One of them is Vic Koenig a representative for Eagle River, Alaska.
|
|
|
|
Post by karlsie on Jun 12, 2009 23:25:40 GMT -5
Now i know why that fat man with a sleigh borrowed my battery op Coleman lantern and never gave it back.
Actually, Tom, i've been mulling a lot about this latest turn in the corruption scandals. The basis for appeal isn't one of proving the evidence of guilt, but improper proceedings leading to a bias in judgment. I believe one of the Supreme Court justices said, "it shouldn't be about winning or losing but doing what is right". Well, fancy that! Now, then. To me this should indicate that the big can of worms needs to be our court system which has catered far too long to the expensive suits of legal magistrates who never bring anything to its proper closure but continue to accumulate suit after counter suit, squandering tax payers dollars on settlements that don't get settled, bills that remain challenged and policies that are revoked, only to be re-instated by the next round of attorney deliberations. A system that grants reprieve only to those who have enough money to slide through the legal loop holes. Stevens knew the law. He was attorney general under Eisenhower. He waited until the usual three ring circus of legal representation was over, than filed a Constitutional appeal. Although Kohring and Kott were both legislators and both had attorneys, neither the attorneys nor the legislators had enough understanding of Constitutional law to adequately build a defense safe guarding their guaranteed rights to procedure until Stevens paved the way. It's a very pitiful day when neither our legislators nor our Representatives of the courts have any understanding of the underlying principles of our democratic Constitution.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Littlechief on Jun 12, 2009 23:43:57 GMT -5
First part, lol.
second part, Amen Sister.
Also;
And it's not a democratic form of Constition, it's supposed to be a Republic(an) form of Constitution. Democracy in Constitution did not happen until the abomination of the Supreme Constitution when the Federalist took power, circa 1891.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Littlechief on Jun 13, 2009 18:01:32 GMT -5
Got another Sovereign friend of mine, whom just left for Colorodo, and he calls Democracy, and I quote, "Demons cry".
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Littlechief on Jun 13, 2009 18:07:06 GMT -5
karlsie, I hope you let the fat man borrow your lantern in the same condition as he leaves his items with for other people, batteries not included.
|
|
|
|
Post by karlsie on Jun 13, 2009 22:11:18 GMT -5
Good ole Big John. The one who gives "tortillas" a literal English pronounciation; tor-till-a. Do you think we can rattle him into igniting his field of expertise on the forum? Colorado should be getting thirsty with all the water rights going to Denver. And you know that when he's around, there aren't any batteries anywhere.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thomas Littlechief on Jun 14, 2009 19:14:06 GMT -5
He also pronounces Knik as Nick, not Kah Nick. Drives me crazy, he does it on purpose though.
And as to the theory of him being an active participant, well I believe, in the mental context, J.T. is his own worst enemy.
While on paper, at Law he holds his own, as an active author I believe his progress would be impeded by his knack to over empathize his thought processes against his ability to objectify a position.
|
|
|
|
Post by karlsie on Jun 15, 2009 4:19:50 GMT -5
Back to the Palin issue, my Anchorage friends were discussing it today. They brought up a point that i hadn't thought about in my first wave of Palin distaste. One of them asked me frankly what reaction i would have had if someone had made such a "joke" about my daughter. This caused me to reflect a minute. Whether the joke was aimed at the fourteen year old or the eighteen year old doesn't really matter. It was aimed at a young girl. My daughter is twenty two; the legal age to smoke and drink and be considered a fully responsible adult. If someone had made such a comment about her though, i would tear that person a new ass hole. Sarah's oldest daughter is of the age of consent, but not old enough to be considered an adult. She's not an adult; she's a young girl, with all the propensity to make mistakes discovered in young girls everywhere. She didn't ask to be in the lime light; she got pulled into it. I may not like the mother, but i see no reason for psychologically harming the children. And now i remember why i quit watching Letterman years ago. He's crass, crude, vulger and insensitive.
|
|
|
|
Post by grainnerhuad on Jun 15, 2009 11:09:14 GMT -5
. If someone had made such a comment about her though, i would tear that person a new ass hole. And now i remember why i quit watching Letterman years ago. He's crass, crude, vulger and insensitive. After mulling it over briefly I find I would not dignify this type of "joke" with a response. It isn't funny, so why pay it any attention? It is the attention paid to this type of behavior that keeps it fresh and relevant. Do we really need to bring back finishing schools to teach people how to behave in social situations, particularly when they volunteer themselves and their families to be in the "firing range" so to speak? |
|
|
|
Post by The Late Mitchell Warren on Jun 15, 2009 12:49:33 GMT -5
Gimme a fuckin break. Palin brought her family into the limelight, making them a focal part of her campaign. She had the nerve to preach family values while her own daughter was getting knocked up?? And then her daughter has the nerve to promote abstinence after having a baby out of wedlock and living in mommy's house? This is the type of stupidity that deserves to be laughed at. No, if you're going to expose yourself as that much of a hypocrite then you deserve whatever humiliation you get. If Palin was so protective of her daughters then she shouldn't have paraded them around in front of the whole country and demanded they share her celebrity. The whole argument is bullshit since John McCain and Rush Limbaugh didn't have any problem making fun of the Clinton children, who like the Obama children, haven't really done much worthy of news coverage. But of course, no one seemed to mind when Palin herself was trashing Obama and making personal attacks. I absolutely defend Letterman's right to make jokes about stupid people who think they are above criticism. If you start censoring Letterman's sense of humor, that edgy everyman anti-authoritarian wit that all late night talk show hosts share these days, then you take one huge step backward into PC Mommy Police territory. Censoring Letterman now would send a very strong conservative message to the nation, suggesting that it's not okay to laugh at hypocrisy and that just because someone has children they are somehow above answering to the people for their sins. Very um, Royal Family as LittleChief might suggest. Sounds very Nixonian, like this story suggests, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/george-schlatter/should-letterman-be-fired_b_215429.html) that politics have power over the entertainment industry. I'm kind of startled how quickly you two have traded sides. Must be the maternal instinct kicking in. Good to know Sarah Palin can even manipulate her most adamant dissenters; she's good at what she does. P.S. I went ahead and posted a cover story. Karlsie sure knows how to egg me on.  |
|
|
|
Post by The Late Mitchell Warren on Jun 15, 2009 12:51:46 GMT -5
BTW, it's fairly obvious I am a big Letterman fan, as he is possibly the last entertainer on TV with a built in bullshit detector. Unlike Leno, Conan and every other Hollywood kiss ass personality on TV.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Late Mitchell Warren on Jun 15, 2009 12:57:16 GMT -5
LOL oh no, look at what you've done! AD Mom Forum Groups Where Moms Share Advice, Product Reviews & Baby Photos. www.cafemom.comYou've turned Subversify into a mommy haven! |
|
|
|
Post by karlsie on Jun 15, 2009 14:20:37 GMT -5
Well, i was getting awfully tired of that banner that anounced all the time that it would like to pray for me. I don't recall saying Letterman should be censored, only that i understood the rancor. I never have liked muck raking, money making scandals over celebrity children; in fact, i'm not overly fond of muck raking, period. I thought it was a pity that Clinton's big down fall was over his sexual conduct, which had nothing to do with his ability to govern a country. In fact, he governed the country with far more intelligence and less squandering of tax payer's money than good ole George W., who has plunged us into unrecoverable debt. I don't have any taste at all for the expose of the private lives of Clinton's children, Bush's children or even Brittany Spheres or Paris Hilton. I wouldn't even know they were scandalous at all if it hadn't been for hard to ignore headlines and gossip. The truth is, i don't give a flying fuck what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms.
Sarah's a bully and i have no doubt that she bullied her children into their public performances. Let her have her fifteen minutes to re-enforce for National television what a complete idiot she really is. Let them see the hyprocracy of a woman who bleets about family values and has none. She provides her own noose well enough. Carry to her the issue of her poor governorship and cut the side show of beating up her children, who can only act out their rebellion with what they do to their bodies. America eats its youth and destroys them with National publicity, then sets about to re-habilatate the wreckage. Letterman can say whatever he pleases; i don't care. I don't have to watch him and i don't have to join the masses crying out for the blood of misbehaved or mistaken children. And i don't have to like him any more than i have to like Seinfield, who is like the obnoxious neighbor who i try to avoid but who never shuts his mouth so he's like an annoying gnat buzzing in the background. It's all in choices; and my choice is to place him at no better a level than Palin for diverting from the real issues; corrupt favoritism practices, mismanagement of the fisheries, mismanagement of social programs, and rampantly destructive environmental policies, and making tasteless sexual jokes. The joke wasn't funny. He isn't funny, and i won't laugh with him until he brings up something relevant to joke about.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Late Mitchell Warren on Jun 15, 2009 14:41:29 GMT -5
Palin is much more dangerous than Letterman, since she wants to lead the country and usher in a Bush-like administration, and possibly worse, if she wants her family to have the Royal Family treatment. Letterman is the wise guy in the background that questions authority and reminds us all that no one really smells like a rose. He's definitely the closest thing to subversive thinking on network TV, since South Park is on cable and Stern is on radio.
|
|
