From the clip, it's appears to be more of a townhall pile on Coulter. But still, you can see even the usually (if harsh) effectiveness of Coulter's logic dwindle. She makes a few good points about the socialist state and bigger issues, but ultimately, she has no defense.
If you're a conservative who argues for limited government, providing very good reasons for your inconsistencies would seem prudent.
Via HotAir.
2/22/13
2/20/13
2/12/13
Democrats suck, but voters are the real idiots
2/12/13
Yeah I'm just going to go the undignified route because I don't give two shits about politicians and the voting public in general. Let's just drop the pretense: the vast majority of Americans have a rational interest to be politically ignorant, and in our case, they are super-rational.
It's like they've all been urinating in the pool--what's a little pee in this giant pool, nobody will know--and now, thanks to all of them we're neck deep in piss.
Why am I so cynical today? You could probably guess in one try: Internet commenters. Specifically those commenters over at this Buzzfeed piece on the hypocrisy of Democrats.
A good percentage of those commenters get up on their high horse and say shit like, "Oh I voted for Bush, then I voted for Obama. Now I despise both of them. They are all corporatist war mongers!"
But you know what, it's ok because they're going to vote for the next candidate Pepsi or candidate Coke.
Go fuck yourself.
And no, I'm not saying we should get rid of democracy, I'm just saying it sucks. There are possible improvements, but that's for another post.
It's like they've all been urinating in the pool--what's a little pee in this giant pool, nobody will know--and now, thanks to all of them we're neck deep in piss.
Why am I so cynical today? You could probably guess in one try: Internet commenters. Specifically those commenters over at this Buzzfeed piece on the hypocrisy of Democrats.
A good percentage of those commenters get up on their high horse and say shit like, "Oh I voted for Bush, then I voted for Obama. Now I despise both of them. They are all corporatist war mongers!"
But you know what, it's ok because they're going to vote for the next candidate Pepsi or candidate Coke.
Go fuck yourself.
And no, I'm not saying we should get rid of democracy, I'm just saying it sucks. There are possible improvements, but that's for another post.
2/8/13
Look at this truck
2/8/13
From the wrongful shooting that took place in Los Angeles the other day. Police apparently mistook the truck for the murder-spree suspect's.
This was an innocent lady's truck, and yes, she and a passenger were shot (luckily both survived) by seemingly neglignent police officers.
This wrongful shooting took place in what appears to be a neighborhood. And if you look closely at the truck, there are at least 20 bullet holes by my count, that have penetrated it. At least a few of those are at the very top of the cab.
Who the hell trained these guys how to shoot? Elmer Fudd? Elmer Fudd at least had the excuse of a legitimate and cunning target.
There are bullet holes all over that truck. If the police were aiming at all, they even aimed at the passenger! As if stopping the truck depended not only on incapacitating the driver. These women were not armed. Apparently identification of the type of truck is all that is needed to satisfy due process.
Maybe I'm assuming too much, maybe the driver of the truck tried to flee. But either way, the shooting pattern on that truck indicates some very poor control of fire. They're lucky no one else in the neighborhood took a stray bullet. If there were a good reason for gun control, this would be it.
I hope the driver and passenger sue.
This was an innocent lady's truck, and yes, she and a passenger were shot (luckily both survived) by seemingly neglignent police officers.
This wrongful shooting took place in what appears to be a neighborhood. And if you look closely at the truck, there are at least 20 bullet holes by my count, that have penetrated it. At least a few of those are at the very top of the cab.
Who the hell trained these guys how to shoot? Elmer Fudd? Elmer Fudd at least had the excuse of a legitimate and cunning target.
There are bullet holes all over that truck. If the police were aiming at all, they even aimed at the passenger! As if stopping the truck depended not only on incapacitating the driver. These women were not armed. Apparently identification of the type of truck is all that is needed to satisfy due process.
Maybe I'm assuming too much, maybe the driver of the truck tried to flee. But either way, the shooting pattern on that truck indicates some very poor control of fire. They're lucky no one else in the neighborhood took a stray bullet. If there were a good reason for gun control, this would be it.
 |
| I've circled the bullet-holes that were near misses on top of the cab, and several more apparently aimed at the passenger |
I hope the driver and passenger sue.
2/4/13
Police perjury
2/4/13
I have been thinking this for years.
If, in a court of law, the issue at hand comes down to just a he-said, she-said and one of those persons happens to be a cop, that testimony shouldn't be considered any more or less true (unless the other person's account is an obvious lie AND the officer's account is factually unquestionable).
Why would we give dirtbag criminal suspects an equal footing with law enforcement? Because that could be you standing there, and the only thing preventing you from years of absolute misery is that cop's word. I don't trust anyone that much, let alone a guy I never met.
I mean why, in a court of law, would we give one person's testimony more weight than another's? Especially if the defendant is presumed innocent! It's foolish to think police officers are somehow inherently more honest. Tell me how they are more honest than the rest of us? Show your work!
I was reminded of this via a commenter at Classical Values, by this NYT op/ed. Almost shocking, but definietely sad:
If, in a court of law, the issue at hand comes down to just a he-said, she-said and one of those persons happens to be a cop, that testimony shouldn't be considered any more or less true (unless the other person's account is an obvious lie AND the officer's account is factually unquestionable).
Why would we give dirtbag criminal suspects an equal footing with law enforcement? Because that could be you standing there, and the only thing preventing you from years of absolute misery is that cop's word. I don't trust anyone that much, let alone a guy I never met.
I mean why, in a court of law, would we give one person's testimony more weight than another's? Especially if the defendant is presumed innocent! It's foolish to think police officers are somehow inherently more honest. Tell me how they are more honest than the rest of us? Show your work!
I was reminded of this via a commenter at Classical Values, by this NYT op/ed. Almost shocking, but definietely sad:
But are police officers necessarily more trustworthy than alleged criminals? I think not. Not just because the police have a special inclination toward confabulation, but because, disturbingly, they have an incentive to lie. In this era of mass incarceration, the police shouldn’t be trusted any more than any other witness, perhaps less so.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
