Lunatics Call for Arrest of 5 Supremes on Treason Charges

23Jan/106

Lunatics Call for Arrest of 5 Supremes on Treason Charges

You can read this dementia, here.

What's interesting is that none of these people mentions the merits of the particular case: namely, what gives Michael Moore the right to propagandize, and prohibits another from doing so? The fact that he's made money (on at least one of his films)? Does that mean that he's grandfathered in?

The question is similar to the one posed by proposed FCC rules that would extend protections against revealing sources to "professional journalists," but not to bloggers. Especially in view of a politicized FEC that (as one of our commenters noted) seemed not to have any problem with the donations to Obama that were captured without electronic verification of the source, against all campaign law and principle, and in view of the expressed proposals of High Hierophant Cass Sunstein, the slippery slope of censorship in this case is not a merely theoretical bug, but a feature. For Obama to complain about it now is worse than disingenuous.

I imagine that it is possible to craft campaign finance legislation that is constitutional, but McCain-Feingold is not that legislation. And any legislation that has side effects like those suffered by Citizens United is poorly crafted and effectually opposed to freedom of speech for all. And Gordon Duff of Veterans Today (which is likely incorporated) can bite me.

Kook Alan Disgrayson, who called Linda Robinson a K Street Whore, seems pretty upset that the 5 "Treasonous" Supremes have cut out the middle men, and inevitably Olby picks up the banalogy. How bad has it gotten? Disgrayson was verbally ass-raped by Chris Matthews yesterday, and Olby was meat-bagged by Jon Stewart.

Take a hint, douchebags.

Dan Collins

Dan Collins is a dude who blogs. He used to blog elsewhere. Now he blogs here.

Website - More Posts

Filed under: Too Lazy to Categorize Leave a comment

Comments (6) Trackbacks (2) ( subscribe to comments on this post )

Enoch_Root
January 23rd, 2010 - 08:57

let them eat their own entrails. I love it. watching Maddow, Mathews and Olberdouche is a delicious pastime. I mean, next to dipping ones balls in pudding, of course.

but I kind of remember liking Matthews at one point many years ago – and I think it was because though partisan, he seemed a lot more equal-opportunity about it. And then… well, we met Chris Tingle.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Bono's steroids
January 23rd, 2010 - 09:28

Ye no likey Chris Matthews, after standing there like a slobbering stooge with a high volume of blood rushing to his boner, did you shake the honorable Mr. Matthews hand?

Oh wait, now you’re in want to fit in with the r-wingy kkkoool boiz and Matthews ain’t that so, golly gee, you no longer do the i-likey-u dance?

You’re deep.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Bono's steroids
January 23rd, 2010 - 09:32

Lincoln called on the arrest of Supreme Court Justice Taney on grounds of treason. I think they authors are being historically metaphoric.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
Thorisa Cheesedick
January 23rd, 2010 - 11:23

If unions are allowed, why not corporations? They’re both looking for the same advantage—access!

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
jaed
January 23rd, 2010 - 11:44

Unions *are* corporations. A corporation is the legal method of organizing a group of people so the group can own property, make contracts, sue and be sued, hold copyrights, et cetera, et cetera. The Sierra Club is a corporation, the New York Times is a corporation, any group that needs to do any of these things is a corporation. By definition. Because under our legal system, that’s how a group can do these things.

Gahhhh.

As for these entrail-self-eaters… does anyone remember anyone on the right – even the veriest nutters – calling for the *arrest* of the Supreme Court after, say, the Hamdan decision? Or (maybe more to the point) Austin? Because I sure don’t.

For someone my age, it’s very strange that the right has become the solid defense of civil liberties, and whenever you see an anti-free-speech case, it’s the left defending it. Very strange indeed, but there it is.

Like or Dislike: 0 0
( REPLY )
- SDN
  January 23rd, 2010 - 15:11
  
  jaed, you’re confusing the left with “classical liberals”. The left has never been in favor of any free speech except its’ own.
  
  Like or Dislike: 0 0
  ( REPLY )