"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1952
Doubleya responded:
You talking to me?
HORNETS NEST: OGLE MANIA: Rumpole says, lets get off racism and back to sexism, which is more....sexy.
Talk about opening a can of worms:
Anonymous responded to a comment about an attractive young PD:
Complementary comments regarding women lawyers should be controlled with the same rigor as disparaging comments. This blog cannot be a mask from behind which to anonymously ogle.
Let the fun begin.
See You In Court not oogling anyone. We Google, but don't oogle.
PS: Final poll tallys for polls removed will be posted this week. Stay tuned.
14 comments:
I'm slightly disturbed by today's post. I may not always agree with you or the other bloggers who visit when they comment on the media's coverage of the Martin Lee Anderson story, the discussions of the politics of being a Judge in Miami (the whole Jewish male versus minority discussion), or even the posts regarding the death penalty, but at least those topics touched on events affecting life in the criminal justice arena.
The Ike piece here is clearly out of bounds. What does this post possibly have to do with anything that this blog is about? While you are at it, you might as well start posting people's thoughts on the Danish cartoons or port security. If I want a discussion of national politics, there are quite a few blogs and news outlets that already provide that. I like to come here to find out the latest happenings in the criminal justice field in Miami. Can we keep the blog focused on that goal?
Why would someone who claims to be a Randian support farm programs, socialist security, etc? Maybe you need to re-read "An introduction to Objectivism", or stop faking.
I love it when commentators to this blog lecture the blog owner about what he, (or she), should post. They apparently presume Rumpole is here to please them. Let's hope they get their money's worth.
Someone done wrote "Why would someone who claims to be a Randian support farm programs, socialist security, etc? Maybe you need to re-read "An introduction to Objectivism", or stop faking."
Your conclusions don't follow.
Ike, a Republican, made a comment ridiculing "Stupid" Texas Oil Millionaires who sought to return to a pre-New Deal policies. Now we have a Texas Oil Millionaire who seeks exactly that. The contrast between Eisenhower's comments and the policies of our Texas Oil Millionaire-President creates what is often referred to in the business as "humour."
But more important to your conclusion, pointing out, as Rumpole did, that the times have changed dramatically, does not mean Rumpole supports either Ike's view of Republicanism or Bush's view of Republicanism. Indeed it says nothing about Rumpole's views on social security, unemployment insurance, labor laws or farm programs.
But I want to thank you for continuing to make what I think was Rumpole's original point... Specifically, you have just labled Rumpole a socialist merely because he quotes Eisenhower ( A man known to occasionally refer to himself as a "Republican." And when Eisenhower's comments represent socialism, then we're forced to come face to face with the radical success these "Stupid" Texas Oil Millionaires have had in swaying public perception.
Get fucking real if you think Bush is some kind of radical economic libertarian. Federal spending, at all levels, up dramatically. Federal spending on the "poor" up 80% in 5 years of Bush. It was up 37% in 8 years of Clinton. In fact , acc'd to the govt's own figures, there are 37 million "poor" in the USA, and we spend $380 billion a year in programs to "help" them. Why not just cut every fucking "poor" person a check for 100, 000 a yr, and be done with it.Face it, your little welfare state is a failure and only serves to further the dependence of poor people on the govt. But, maybe that's why you like it.
P.S. I didn't label Rump a socialist, I just pointed out to him the incongruence of his previously stated beliefs and the quote from Eisenhower that he seemingly approved of. Anyone who has read as much Rand as he has can't possibly be a socialist, unless they were also a masochist.
I love it when commentators to this blog lecture the blog owner about what he, (or she), should post. They apparently presume Rumpole is here to please them. Let's hope they get their money's worth.
I never said that Rumpole doesn't have the right to publish whatever he/she desires on the site. I just commented that this blog is "dedicated to Justice Building Humor, Innuendo, and a discussion about and between the judges and lawyers who labor [btw, shouldn't that be "labour", Rumpole?] in the world of Miami's Criminal Justice." Rumpole has been courteous yet firm in his reminders to people who have asked him to post on political issues that such things are not what this blog is about. My post was merely a reminder of that creedo, rather than the demand that some apparently assume it to be.
I appreciate that, but why not let us talk about whatever we want, and you can ignore it if you wish to.
Some one wrote......."Face it, your little welfare state is a failure and only serves to further the dependence of poor people on the govt. But, maybe that's why you like it."
Wow. You are indeed most gifted with the ability to ascribe to anonymous posters that which they have never said. Please, if you will allow me also to try... I deduce that YOU enjoy fellating consenting marsupials... By god it works!!! You have taught me to tar people with labels which follow neither rhyme nor reason.
I remember taking a college philosophy course in the early 90's. Ayn Rand was quite popular among fellow students in college and, I suppose, the professor was frequently asked to discuss her work. Toward that end, the syllabus listed a number of essays and books we might use as further reference on various topics. One book was Ayn Rand's "Irrelevantism." In parentheses, the professor assured us it would tell us everything we needed to know about Rand and philosophy.
Is it me, or is "anonymous" monopolizing the conversation?
you all need to bring your iq's down to our level and get in on our conversation below regarding the definition of a "fuckbird".
In response to the above comments on Ike and Objectivism, please note WE DID NOT Quote President Eisenhower, a reader left the quote and we posted a response that was appropriate. By now it should be clear that posts in ITALICS are readers comments. We try to stay clear of politics but we also sort of go where the readers and posters tug us.
I believe the colloquialism the original poster was looking for was "fucktard." Playing off the word "retard", "fucktard" allows you to both insult a person's intelligence AND there integrity.
Or, as Rob Kordry of The Daily Show reported, Dick Cheney's huting accident occured while he was "stalking" fat, domestic, pen-raised "quailtards" which were released in pre-determined spots at pre-determined times. Rumsfeld does the same at Gitmo.
Post a Comment