Smear Job? Liberal Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Claiming Fellow Justice Choked Her.

[Zatch]

Not too long ago, David Prosser confounded the Left in Wisconsin and around the nation by narrowly winning another term on the state Supreme Court, after the unions failed to take him out in an off-year election. When reports of a physical altercation arose between Prosser and his colleague Ann Walsh Bradley, Wisconsin Watch’s single-sourced initial report appeared to give the Left a big opening to remove Prosser from the bench altogether...

Read here: http://hotair.com/archives/2011/06/26/hit-job-on-prosser/

[dejavu22]

Start an investigation if it is a smear then Bradley should resign for lying and trying to smear Prosser and if it is a legitimate report then Prosser should be charged and then resign after that accordingly. Either way though... Walker can replace them with a new justice.

[libertybrewcity]

I heard he was defending himself. Thing is, we will probably never know the truth.

[angelatc]

There's no reason we shouldn't know the truth - all the justices were in the room.

It appears that the liberal charged the conservative, he instinctively put his hands up to defend himself, and she then accused him of choking her. Of course, the Soros-funded media outlet that broke the story neglected to mention that the violent socialist was the original aggressor.

They were adamant that the conservative should resign when they believed he was responsible for instigating the violence, so it only seems fitting that the progressive should be forced out now that the truth is leaking out.

[Kade]

Of course, the Soros-funded media outlet that broke the story neglected to mention that the violent socialist was the original aggressor.


You have really degraded here haven't you? Wow.. shameless.

1. Soros-funded media outlet? You mean media matters? Soros supports anything that claims to support Open Democracy. Soros is a hero of liberty, not an enemy. I think we established this years ago?
2. Violent Socialist? Proof?

[belian78]

Soros is a hero of liberty, not an enemy.

Wow... Now I remember why I had you on ignore.

[Kade]

Wow... Now I remember why I had you on ignore.

Good policy, that way you never have to really learn evidence against your positions.

[Acala]

Soros supports anything that claims to support Open Democracy. Soros is a hero of liberty, not an enemy.

Democracy is violence.

[Kade]

Democracy is violence.

Learn about Open Society, start with Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies).

[oyarde]

Got this on video ? I have a couple of beer drinking buddies who may pay to watch two judges go after one another :)

[Acala]

Learn about Open Society, start with Karl Popper (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Society_and_Its_Enemies).

Don't care. Democracy, liberal or not, as a form of government, IS violence.

[Kade]

Don't care. Democracy, liberal or not, as a form of government, IS violence.

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't say that too often, and I'm going to ignore you're "don't care' ignorance in this case in hopes that you explain what in Nevada's anus are you talking about.

I miss Aratus.

[Acala]

I have no idea what you are talking about. I don't say that too often, and I'm going to ignore you're "don't care' ignorance in this case in hopes that you explain what in Nevada's anus are you talking about.

I miss Aratus.

You claimed that Soros was a hero for his support of "open democracy", or so I understood your post.

I responded by pointing out that democracy was violence. I didn't specify that I think violence is a non-optimal means for human beings to relate, figuring you would understand that implication.

You made a reference to Karl Popper, which I found to be a non-sequitur. Being a non-sequitur I dismissed it with "I don't care" and reiterated my indictment of democracy notwithstanding your proferred defense.

Understand?

Perhaps you can explain how Popper makes democracy non-violent?

[Kade]

You claimed that Soros was a hero for his support of "open democracy", or so I understood your post.

I responded by pointing out that democracy was violence. I didn't specify that I think violence is a non-optimal means for human beings to relate, figuring you would understand that implication.

You made a reference to Karl Popper, which I found to be a non-sequitur. Being a non-sequitur I dismissed it with "I don't care" and reiterated my indictment of democracy notwithstanding your proferred defense.

Understand?

Perhaps you can explain how Popper makes democracy non-violent?

Don't have to, because I reject the assertion that democracy=violence. It can be violent, but as a form of government it is not violence manifest. You'll have to defend this position, and if and when I agree we can move on to the next point.

If you can't see why you shouldn't readily assume that we are in agreement with something as unique as the concept of violence being directly equal to a form of government, then we have a ways to go...

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/shining.gif

[AuH20]

You have really degraded here haven't you? Wow.. shameless.

1. Soros-funded media outlet? You mean media matters? Soros supports anything that claims to support Open Democracy. Soros is a hero of liberty, not an enemy. I think we established this years ago?
2. Violent Socialist? Proof?

Soros wouldn't know liberty if it was pointed out to him. He's a demagogue.

[Kade]

Soros wouldn't know liberty if it was pointed out to him. He's a demagogue.

proof proof proof proof proof proof

[AuH20]

proof proof proof proof proof proof

Gun rights in the hands of the people? ROFL:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/george-soros-conspires-with-united-nations-to-kill-second-amendment.html

Like being forced to purchase health care against your will?:
http://blog.nj.com/njv_publicblog/2009/06/how_george_soros_created_obama.html

[Kade]

Gun rights in the hands of the people? ROFL:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/george-soros-conspires-with-united-nations-to-kill-second-amendment.html


Quite possibly the most ridiculous article I've ever read. I can't even begin to describe the issues and problems with this... needless to say Soros isn't a fan of the Second Amendment, but his philosophical arguments on the subject are lengthy and not worth defending, since I can see how using them here would be a epic mistake of sensibility.



Like being forced to purchase health care against your will?:
http://blog.nj.com/njv_publicblog/2009/06/how_george_soros_created_obama.html

Soros believes health care is a fundamental human right. I don't know about the purchasing against your will, frankly, I don't think he believes in Health Care Insurance, so an argument for mandatory purchase is moot.

[thehungarian]

You're boring.

[Kade]

You're boring.

If you are referring to me, that fact that you felt a need to respond proves otherwise. Maybe you meant that I'm no fun because I'm not on my knees sucking the $%^& of stagnant thought processes?

[thehungarian]

If you are referring to me, that fact that you felt a need to respond proves otherwise. Maybe you meant that I'm no fun because I'm not on my knees sucking the $%^& of stagnant thought processes?

You are on a Ron Paul forum defending George Soros. Think carefully about your situation in life, brother.

[Kade]

I am on a Ron Paul forum defending my principles. I have thought very carefully about my principles and my situation in life. And yes, I'm defending Soros, I've been defending him on here since 2007.

Are you threatening me Jared, because I don't take very kindly to it... Especially seeing that it took me five seconds to find your real name, your street address, your age, your previous schools, your guardians names, health records, and your reading lists... etc

So yes, Brother, I believe in a type of freedom that will make lesser people weep. You want people like me alive, because when push comes to shove, I'm going to be the one defending you, not Alex Jones.

[Cutlerzzz]

Soros believes health care is a fundamental human right. I don't know about the purchasing against your will, frankly, I don't think he believes in Health Care Insurance, so an argument for mandatory purchase is moot.
The fact that he believes health care is a right shows that he is not a hero of liberty. That's not even touching his position on guns...

[Kade]

The fact that he believes health care is a right shows that he is not a hero of liberty. That's not even touching his position on guns...

Some people expand their definition of rights, and their arguments are always worth the merit of comprehension. When you fully understand the position, then you are better able to argue why it is not a "right". I am always willing to listen to new arguments on what may or may not be a right, I do not limit myself to those that were scratched out thousands of years ago only...

Soros is not the only philosopher who thinks that health care is a right... also a hero of liberty is someone who attempts to expand liberties. We tend to throw this word around a lot without actually caring to take the time to understand it... you may not like someone's rights, but it doesn't mean you can summarily dismiss them.

[Pericles]

You want people like me alive, because when push comes to shove, I'm going to be the one defending you, not Alex Jones.

With what? The gun that George Soros, the BATFE, and your fellow citizens voted that you not have?

[Kade]

With what? The gun that George Soros, the BATFE, and your fellow citizens voted that you not have?

Nobody is taking anybody's guns.

[Pericles]

Nobody is taking anybody's guns.

You are correct in that nobody is taking mine, we are discussing yours.

[Kade]

You are correct in that nobody is taking mine, we are discussing yours.

Conservatives are so utterly lacking in theory of mind. A liberal phrases this differently, see... I would prefer to stand next to you in that defense. Nobody is going to be taking my guns either, but that being said, am I going to really be alone if they ever try? My whole point is that I defend other people's rights before my own, as to protect my own... very simple concept.

[Acala]

Don't have to, because I reject the assertion that democracy=violence. It can be violent, but as a form of government it is not violence manifest. You'll have to defend this position, and if and when I agree we can move on to the next point.

If you can't see why you shouldn't readily assume that we are in agreement with something as unique as the concept of violence being directly equal to a form of government, then we have a ways to go...

http://www.threadbombing.com/data/media/2/shining.gif

Easy. Democracy is a system whereby rules are implemented by some kind of vote of a majority of people in a jurisdiction. Subsequently, ALL of the people who live in that jurisdiction (and sometimes those who live otuside the jurisdiction) are required to obey the rules whether they agreed to them or not. Anyone who chooses not to obey the rules that were imposed on them by others will be confronted by men with guns and forced to submit. Failure to submit will result in the use of physical force upto and including death. Violence.

Democracy is a complex, carefully administered system for taking the freedom and property of one group and giving it to another. The level of overt violence is limited only by the willingness of the weak to submit to being preyed upon. But underlying even the most polite and peaceful democratic society is violence. Don't believe it? Walk outside naked and refuse to submit. Send pictures.

Oh, and as an aside, I'm not even particularly anti-Soros. It seems that I don't agree with some of the things he supports, but I don't agree with most of the people in the world. I don't think he is some kind of reptilian overlord or even an illuminati hit man. He probably thnks he is doing good and he probably is doing "some".

But democracy is just systematic violence.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

Conservatives are so utterly lacking in theory of mind. A liberal phrases this differently, see... I would prefer to stand next to you in that defense. Nobody is going to be taking my guns either, but that being said, am I going to really be alone if they ever try? My whole point is that I defend other people's rights before my own, as to protect my own... very simple concept.

If healthcare is a right then so to is food, shelter, Ipads, popcorn, cars, a job, and whatever will be invented in 500 years. Healthcare is the product of anothers labour, time, and property. To say you have a right to that is to say you have ownership of that person. If you think slavery is liberty, you have a very tortured and twisted definition. How about you think a little harder on what you are really proposing. I wonder who is going to supply Robinson Crusoe his right to healthcare. The magical healthcare fairy? Rights are negative, not positive.

[juleswin]

Some people expand their definition of rights, and their arguments are always worth the merit of comprehension. When you fully understand the position, then you are better able to argue why it is not a "right". I am always willing to listen to new arguments on what may or may not be a right, I do not limit myself to those that were scratched out thousands of years ago only...

Soros is not the only philosopher who thinks that health care is a right... also a hero of liberty is someone who attempts to expand liberties. We tend to throw this word around a lot without actually caring to take the time to understand it... you may not like someone's rights, but it doesn't mean you can summarily dismiss them.

I'd like to expand my definition of rights into having my way with your significant other. Just like 1 + 1 =2, I think it has well been established that a right cannot be dependent on someone else providing it for you. This is the same way why education, clean water, shelter are not rights. Most people support Ron paul for so many reasons, I started purely as an anti war supporter and slowly morphed into an anarcho cap, maybe you are still a few stages behind but the belief of healthcare as a right cannot be any further removed from liberty.

I am no expert on George Soros and his many pro democracy and NGO, but the few info I have heard about him scares the hell out of me

[devil21]

You have really degraded here haven't you? Wow.. shameless.

1. Soros-funded media outlet? You mean media matters? Soros supports anything that claims to support Open Democracy. Soros is a hero of liberty, not an enemy. I think we established this years ago?
2. Violent Socialist? Proof?

Looks like the Obama supporter is back in our midst. Please just go find another forum to troll. Nobody wants you here. Hopefully the mods will do their jobs and send you packing.

Back on topic. If this judge is smart he will exercise the 5th and STFU and let the liberal aggressor hang herself.

[Acala]

Looks like the Obama supporter is back in our midst.

Hey! Back off! Obama worked out fine. If you liked Dubya.

[teacherone]

You have really degraded here haven't you? Wow.. shameless.

1. Soros-funded media outlet? You mean media matters? Soros supports anything that claims to support Open Democracy. Soros is a hero of liberty, not an enemy. I think we established this years ago?
2. Violent Socialist? Proof?


WASHINGTON -- The contributors to House Majority PAC, the new Democratic Super PAC, reads like a Glenn Beck fever dream. The list includes George Soros, a hedge fund billionaire and long-time backer of political efforts to elect Democrats, and a collection of unions, including the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
.........................

The most notable contribution to House Majority PAC is Soros' $75,000 contribution. Soros previously stated that he had little interest in funding political efforts after his massive donations to defeat President George W. Bush failed in 2004.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/06/24/soros-unions-give-to-new-dem-super-pac_n_884021.html

[Danke]

Nobody wants you here. Hopefully the mods will do their jobs and send you packing.


Ha, a few prolific posters have welcomed him back. And maybe a mod or two. But some people enjoy abuse (and fat chicks).

[devil21]

Ha, a few prolific posters have welcomed him back. And maybe a mod or two. But some people enjoy abuse (and fat chicks).

I can only assume they have forgotten why said poster disappeared in the first place. This thread should jog some memories.

[Kade]

I'd like to expand my definition of rights into having my way with your significant other. Just like 1 + 1 =2, I think it has well been established that a right cannot be dependent on someone else providing it for you. This is the same way why education, clean water, shelter are not rights. Most people support Ron paul for so many reasons, I started purely as an anti war supporter and slowly morphed into an anarcho cap, maybe you are still a few stages behind but the belief of healthcare as a right cannot be any further removed from liberty.

I am no expert on George Soros and his many pro democracy and NGO, but the few info I have heard about him scares the hell out of me

So many flaws in this little excerpt I honestly don't know where to start... I'm certainly not behind on anything I believe, frankly, I've had my Conservative -- Libertarian -- Anarcho Cap phase during college, and I've grown up. I honestly didn't say Health Care was a right, I mentioned that Soros probably does, but you probably can't make that distinction between somebodies conversation versus opinions and beliefs.... This deal with having your way with my significant other is beyond childish, and pretty closely borders on the sort of asinine arguments politicians on both sides use to protect a "nanny-state". "If we don't pay for Health Care, then people will die on the streets." Come on.
Honestly, if you had your way with her, it would either be non-consensual, which is rape, or not, in which case, you would be doing me a favor. She loves intelligent men with large packages, so hopefully you got the one that is not completely obvious going for you.

[Kade]

Looks like the Obama supporter is back in our midst. Please just go find another forum to troll. Nobody wants you here. Hopefully the mods will do their jobs and send you packing.

Back on topic. If this judge is smart he will exercise the 5th and STFU and let the liberal aggressor hang herself.

I don't support Obama.



I can only assume they have forgotten why said poster disappeared in the first place. This thread should jog some memories.

I never disappeared, I just stopped posting.

[Kade]

Ha, a few prolific posters have welcomed him back. And maybe a mod or two. But some people enjoy abuse (and fat chicks).

Some people enjoy debate and being exposed to ideas different then their own. I'm one of those people, even though I generally agree with most of you on principal. The deal with the fat chicks makes you look pretty childish.

[Acala]

I don't support Obama.



Not now. But you DID! Don't force us to search the archives. Just admit you were mistaken and we can all move on. It is good for the character to occasionally admit you were duped.

[Kade]

Not now. But you DID! Don't force us to search the archives. Just admit you were mistaken and we can all move on. It is good for the character to occasionally admit you were duped.

Search the Archives. I never fully supported Obama, what you are probably referring to is the signature of RockandRoll, who claims I am an Obama supporter. I am a liberal, and very damn proud liberal at that... I like Obama, but liberals were absolutely duped by his on the knees approach to corporations, banks, Conservatives, and special interests. This isn't even counting the obvious: Gitmo, TSA, and all three god damn wars...

[Kade]

Not now. But you DID! Don't force us to search the archives. Just admit you were mistaken and we can all move on. It is good for the character to occasionally admit you were duped.

I also made it clear that when it came down to McCain versus Obama, I was not voting for McCain and Palin... absolutely not. I made that clear, and I got a shitload of flak for it, but I definitely don't regret that decision.

I hated Barr, Nader didn't run, and Chuck was a Theocrat. You folks should know my positions by now and let me defend them, instead of consistently manipulating them to fit into the worldview of what a liberal is... I know folks need enemies, but I'm not one of them.

[juleswin]

So many flaws in this little excerpt I honestly don't know where to start... I'm certainly not behind on anything I believe, frankly, I've had my Conservative -- Libertarian -- Anarcho Cap phase during college, and I've grown up. I honestly didn't say Health Care was a right, I mentioned that Soros probably does, but you probably can't make that distinction between somebodies conversation versus opinions and beliefs.... This deal with having your way with my significant other is beyond childish, and pretty closely borders on the sort of asinine arguments politicians on both sides use to protect a "nanny-state". "If we don't pay for Health Care, then people will die on the streets." Come on.
Honestly, if you had your way with her, it would either be non-consensual, which is rape, or not, in which case, you would be doing me a favor. She loves intelligent men with large packages, so hopefully you got the one that is not completely obvious going for you.

I apologize for accusing you of believing something you never said you believed it, but I by extension attributed that believe to you single you regard someone who believes healthcare is a right is a friend of liberty. Now to the 2nd point you made, I don't think its entirely absurd, especially when you start tinkering with your definitions of natural rights.

[Sola_Fide]

Funny thread!