André Jute, extreme, unsuitable for purpose, dangerous, dull, overpriced

Andre Jute wrote:
On Jun 7, 6:36 am, "Edward Dolan" wrote:

The OJ Simpson miscarriage of justice is a monument to Black Racism in
America. All Blacks should have been excluded from that particular jury.
Some morons do not think Black racism can exist in America, but I assure you
that it is alive and well everywhere in the land

I made a point of watching some of that on television, and Alistair
Cooke, an acute observer of American mores, broadcast on the subject
more than once.

That case made a mockery of the entire justice system in the States.
The judge wasn't in control from day one: more to the point, he was
terrified of all the legal showboats sitting in front of him. He let
them run away with the trial. It looked like one sort of justice for
the rich and famous and another for the poor and friendless because it
was so blatantly a rich and famous man's bought justice.

You can't exclude blacks from a jury. But the Constitution guarantees
a man a jury of his peers. Had Simpson been tried by a jury of his
neighbours, in the same income bracket (which is what the Constitution-
framers intended), he'd still be in jail. It is a misuse of the
Constitutional guarantee to claim his skin colour is suddenly the most
significant thing about him (there are laws precisely to to forbid
that sort of racism!) and then to give him a poor black jury whose
vote was a foregone conclusion from day one.

However, the jury system is also everyone else's protection. If it
occasionally makes a mistake and lets a guilty party walk, we must
accept that to enjoy the protection it offers against an arbitrary
state. It's balance must very definitely be that not one innocent
shall be convicted.

Andre Jute
Outside observer

Like a stopped analog clock, Mr. Jute is occasionally correct.

--
Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT"
wrote in message ...
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:14:11 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22b...+alive+act%22&

Perhaps you'd like to comment on the first hit.

You really think Media Matters deserves comment?

Media Matters is surely left, but like the best left-wing sites, it's
very fact based and links to documentary evidence and mainstream news
reporting a lot.

That's not what humanevents.com and the other sites you cite tend to
do -- they just weave commentary into a big blog and claim it's news.

Conservative commentators present the facts just fine and then they
comment on those facts. If you don't like the comments, then just
read the facts. The Human Events article that I presented in full was
just a statement of the facts. There was hardly any commentary at
all. What was there about it that you did not agree with?

Prediction: no answer to this. I noticed Still Me (and I assume Flogger?)
never replied to your post quoting the H.E. article.

The silence spoke volumes.

BS

On Jun 8, 8:14*pm, "Bill Sornson" wrote:

I refuse to do his Googling for him. *(And Ed, please break it to him that I
plonked him and don't see what he addresses to me.

Yes. We know. You have the non-existent impulse control that so
often characterizes Dry Drunk Syndrome.

http://www.minnesotarecovery.info/li...e/drydrunk.htm

*It's really sort of
cute, in a sad and pathetic way, that he's still doing it. *Just like
Prus-boy! *LOL )

As opposed to what you're doing ... just now?

Rrrrright. I see you're ignoring me about as much as you've stopped
drinking ;-)

BS

Amen.

Nearly inconceivable quantities OF it, too.

What's your problem with my former car, Bill.

It was a GREAT car.

You just don't like things that DON'T run on alcohol, huh??

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:21:05 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT"
wrote in message ...
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:14:11 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

http://www.google.com/search?&q=%22b...+alive+act%22&

Perhaps you'd like to comment on the first hit.

You really think Media Matters deserves comment?

Media Matters is surely left, but like the best left-wing sites, it's
very fact based and links to documentary evidence and mainstream news
reporting a lot.

That's not what humanevents.com and the other sites you cite tend to
do -- they just weave commentary into a big blog and claim it's news.

Conservative commentators present the facts just fine and then they
comment on those facts. If you don't like the comments, then just
read the facts. The Human Events article that I presented in full was
just a statement of the facts. There was hardly any commentary at
all. What was there about it that you did not agree with?

Prediction: no answer to this. I noticed Still Me (and I assume Flogger?)
never replied to your post quoting the H.E. article.

The silence spoke volumes.

A. If you have me killfiled, how can you know what I've done.

B. But in this case, you're right. I've looked at Human Events often
enough from your postings to dismiss it. It's mainly commentary with
a cherry-picked facts.

Compare it to the big liberal blogs such as, say,
talkingpointsmemo.com or Dailykos or Crooks and Liars. Those sites
quote extensively from conservatives and show extended bits of
conservative politicians. They don't have to cherry-pick and paint a
pictu they let their oppenents speak for themselves rather than
putting words in their mouths. Plus some of them, like TPM, do
original reporting that is picked up by mainstream news, and they also
link extensively to articles in the mainstream news so we can check
out.

Drudge sorta follows this model, and he's worth reading.

But humanevents.com? C'mon, get a clue.

Anyway, I just took another look at the humanevents home page. Every
story above the fold is commentary, not news.

I'm not about to waste time critiquing right-wing commentary with a
smattering of facts mixed in. It's like the helmet article you posted
- that was an opinion piece, not news and not reporting.

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:14:56 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT"
wrote in message ...
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 15:14:11 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

His votes are public record and I heard the clip
of him rationalizing one of them.

The votes are a public record but what they mean is not at all clear
from the right-wing sites you frequent. Please, find a mainstream
news site (even a conservative one like the Washington Post or the
AP) that characterizes that vote meaning what you think it means.

I don't think you can.

The Washington Post and the AP are entirely left wing liberal
propaganda crap. The Washington Times is the paper to go to, not that
execrable Post.

Only Flogittodeathlinson (times 12 now I guess LOL ) could attribute a sound
and/or video clip of Obama saying he opposed the bill (one time of three)
because it "threatened the original intent of the woman" to destroy the
baby. This wasn't a /fetus/; it was a living /baby/ that had survived the
butchery of abortion and was viable outside the womb.

I refuse to do his Googling for him. (And Ed, please break it to him that I
plonked him and don't see what he addresses to me. It's really sort of
cute, in a sad and pathetic way, that he's still doing it.

Sorni, you just posted some material I wrote - see above.

You may have me killfiled, but you're quoting me and possibly reading
me. And you're writing about me.

So it's only appropriate that I write about you and ask you questions.
If you can't deal with that, or my questions annoy or frighten you so
much, you really should at least stop posting material from me.

"Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT" wrote in
message ...
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:21:05 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
Conservative commentators present the facts just fine and then they
comment on those facts. If you don't like the comments, then just
read the facts. The Human Events article that I presented in full was
just a statement of the facts. There was hardly any commentary at
all. What was there about it that you did not agree with?

Prediction: no answer to this. I noticed Still Me (and I assume
Flogger?)
never replied to your post quoting the H.E. article.

The silence spoke volumes.

A. If you have me killfiled, how can you know what I've done.

He has not kill filed me so he can see how I am kicking your dumb ass.

B. But in this case, you're right. I've looked at Human Events often
enough from your postings to dismiss it. It's mainly commentary with
a cherry-picked facts.

If the cherry-picked FACTS are the ones that count, that is good. It means
the reader does not need to waste a lot of time bothering with facts that
don't matter.

Compare it to the big liberal blogs such as, say,
talkingpointsmemo.com or Dailykos or Crooks and Liars. Those sites
quote extensively from conservatives and show extended bits of
conservative politicians. They don't have to cherry-pick and paint a
pictu they let their oppenents speak for themselves rather than
putting words in their mouths. Plus some of them, like TPM, do
original reporting that is picked up by mainstream news, and they also
link extensively to articles in the mainstream news so we can check
out.

Your liberal commentators are just commenting on conservatives. Just how
incredibly stupid is that when it is the NEWS that needs commenting on. One
thing is for sure, I would never in a thousand years trust any liberal blog
to do any "original reporting". In any event, liberal commentary and the
mainstream media is all just one big ****ing orgy of nonsense - downright
incestuous if you ask me!

Drudge sorta follows this model, and he's worth reading.

But humanevents.com? C'mon, get a clue.

Sigh ... here it is once again. I do not see any commentary at all, just a
recitation of facts.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced Infant
Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived late-term
abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born Alive Infant
Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15 members of the U.S.
House opposed it, and it passed the Senate unanimously on a voice vote.

Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for babies who
survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion and wanted babies
who were born prematurely and given live-saving medical attention."

"But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed it in
committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in the Judiciary
Committee on which he served. At its first reading he voted "present." At
the second he voted "no."

The bill was then referred to the senate's Health and Human Services
Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went Democratic in
2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a vote.

Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover behind
the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies' being born alive and
left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the Induced Infant
Liability Act bills. She also testified before the U.S. Congress in support
of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony "did not faze" Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, "I brought pictures in and presented
them to the committee of very premature babies from my neonatal
resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association, trying to show
them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the same age were being
treated if they were wanted!"

"And those pictures didn't faze him [Obama] at all," she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the Illinois
State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being "very clear and forthright,"
but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested "doctors really don't
care about children who are being born with a reasonable prospect of life
because they are so locked into their pro-abortion views that they would
watch an infant that is viable die." He told her, "That may be your
assessment, and I don't see any evidence of that. What we are doing here is
to create one more burden on a woman and I can't support that." "

Anyway, I just took another look at the humanevents home page. Every
story above the fold is commentary, not news.

So look again and maybe you will begin to SEE something.

I'm not about to waste time critiquing right-wing commentary with a
smattering of facts mixed in. It's like the helmet article you posted
- that was an opinion piece, not news and not reporting.

The article quoted above has next to no commentary at all. It is just a
simple recitation of what transpired.

Now if I tell you that I think Obama is a jackass and a baby killer as well
as being a moron ... there, now that is COMMENT!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

"Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT" wrote in
message ...
[...]
Sorni, you just posted some material I wrote - see above.

You may have me killfiled, but you're quoting me and possibly reading
me. And you're writing about me.

So it's only appropriate that I write about you and ask you questions.
If you can't deal with that, or my questions annoy or frighten you so
much, you really should at least stop posting material from me.

You are not Johnny-Twelve-Point, you are Johnny-One-Note. It is tiresome to
keep going over the same material without any progress being made. It is
enough to drive one stark raving mad.

You remind me of the village idiot in the Mussorgsky opera Boris Godunov,
just wailing about nothing. The entire world knows what Obama did in
connection with the baby born alive issue. Mr. Sornson and I have both
explained it to you. Now you need to decide if you approve of what Obama did
or not.

Abortion is an abomination, but to kill a baby outside the womb is
infanticide (murder). What is there about this that you do not understand?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT"
wrote in message ...
On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 19:21:05 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

Edward Dolan wrote:
[...]
Conservative commentators present the facts just fine and then they
comment on those facts. If you don't like the comments, then just
read the facts. The Human Events article that I presented in full
was just a statement of the facts. There was hardly any commentary
at all. What was there about it that you did not agree with?

Prediction: no answer to this. I noticed Still Me (and I assume
Flogger?)
never replied to your post quoting the H.E. article.

The silence spoke volumes.

A. If you have me killfiled, how can you know what I've done.

He has not kill filed me so he can see how I am kicking your dumb ass.

God, he IS stupid. I even wrote "I assume" since if no one replied to him,
I'd never see his (continual) innanity. Poor ol' Flogger just can't seem to
grasp that I PLONKED him! LOL He truly lives/reads/posts in denial.

B. But in this case, you're right. I've looked at Human Events often
enough from your postings to dismiss it. It's mainly commentary with
a cherry-picked facts.

Psst. Ed. Tell him that *I* didn't post it; you did.

If the cherry-picked FACTS are the ones that count, that is good. It
means the reader does not need to waste a lot of time bothering with
facts that don't matter.

Compare it to the big liberal blogs such as, say,
talkingpointsmemo.com or Dailykos or Crooks and Liars. Those sites
quote extensively from conservatives and show extended bits of
conservative politicians. They don't have to cherry-pick and paint a
pictu they let their oppenents speak for themselves rather than
putting words in their mouths. Plus some of them, like TPM, do
original reporting that is picked up by mainstream news, and they
also link extensively to articles in the mainstream news so we can
check out.

Of course, they NEVER take things out of context. Oh, wait, who am I
dealing with? The MASTER of "snip and obscure Usenet posting" LOL Context
is yet another concept Flogger just can't grasp.

Your liberal commentators are just commenting on conservatives. Just
how incredibly stupid is that when it is the NEWS that needs
commenting on. One thing is for sure, I would never in a thousand
years trust any liberal blog to do any "original reporting". In any
event, liberal commentary and the mainstream media is all just one
big ****ing orgy of nonsense - downright incestuous if you ask me!

Drudge sorta follows this model, and he's worth reading.

There's hope for humanity after all. (Except I bet you a dollar to a donut
that Flogger won't really READ any link Drudge provides that challenges his
ideological world view.)

But humanevents.com? C'mon, get a clue.

Sigh ... here it is once again. I do not see any commentary at all,
just a recitation of facts.

READ IT, FLOGGER!!!

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced
Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived
late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born
Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15
members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate
unanimously on a voice vote.
Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for
babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion
and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving
medical attention."
"But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed
it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in
the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he
voted "present." At the second he voted "no."

The bill was then referred to the senate's Health and Human Services
Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went
Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a
vote.
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover
behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies' being born
alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the
Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the
U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony "did not faze" Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, "I brought pictures in and
presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my
neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association,
trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the
same age were being treated if they were wanted!"

"And those pictures didn't faze him [Obama] at all," she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the
Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being "very clear and
forthright," but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested
"doctors really don't care about children who are being born with a
reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their
pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable
die." He told her, "That may be your assessment, and I don't see any
evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden
on a woman and I can't support that." "
Anyway, I just took another look at the humanevents home page. Every
story above the fold is commentary, not news.

So look again and maybe you will begin to SEE something.

I'm not about to waste time critiquing right-wing commentary with a
smattering of facts mixed in. It's like the helmet article you
posted - that was an opinion piece, not news and not reporting.

The article quoted above has next to no commentary at all. It is just
a simple recitation of what transpired.

Now if I tell you that I think Obama is a jackass and a baby killer
as well as being a moron ... there, now that is COMMENT!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Edward Dolan wrote:
"Johnny Twelve-Point presented by JFT"
wrote in message ...
[...]
Sorni, you just posted some material I wrote - see above.

You may have me killfiled, but you're quoting me and possibly reading
me. And you're writing about me.

So it's only appropriate that I write about you and ask you
questions. If you can't deal with that, or my questions annoy or
frighten you so much, you really should at least stop posting
material from me.

You are not Johnny-Twelve-Point, you are Johnny-One-Note.

ROTFL Poor ol' Flogger just doesn't get plonking. I only see his words if
someone replies to them. I'm not going to SELECTIVELY DELETE (hint, hint)
all his crap and comment on the replies, as that would remove -- WAIT FOR
IT -- /context/.

He truly is a dolt. Thick as a brick, and just about as flexible, too. LOL

It is
tiresome to keep going over the same material without any progress
being made. It is enough to drive one stark raving mad.

Welcome to Flogger 101. Why do you think I plonked him? He's a liar and a
weasel and, honestly, just plain boring.

You remind me of the village idiot in the Mussorgsky opera Boris
Godunov, just wailing about nothing. The entire world knows what
Obama did in connection with the baby born alive issue. Mr. Sornson
and I have both explained it to you. Now you need to decide if you
approve of what Obama did or not.

Abortion is an abomination, but to kill a baby outside the womb is
infanticide (murder). What is there about this that you do not
understand?
Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

On Mon, 8 Jun 2009 20:54:45 -0700, "Bill Sornson"
wrote:

READ IT, FLOGGER!!!

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=18647

"In 2002, as an Illinois legislator, Obama voted against the Induced
Infant Liability Act, which would have protected babies that survived
late-term abortions. That same year a similar federal law, the Born
Alive Infant Protection Act, was signed by President Bush. Only 15
members of the U.S. House opposed it, and it passed the Senate
unanimously on a voice vote.
Both the Illinois and the federal bill sought equal treatment for
babies who survived premature inducement for the purpose of abortion
and wanted babies who were born prematurely and given live-saving
medical attention."
"But Obama voted against this bill in the Illinois senate and killed
it in committee. Twice, the Induced Infant Liability Act came up in
the Judiciary Committee on which he served. At its first reading he
voted "present." At the second he voted "no."

The bill was then referred to the senate's Health and Human Services
Committee, which Obama chaired after the Illinois Senate went
Democratic in 2003. As chairman, he never called the bill up for a
vote.
Jill Stanek, a registered delivery-ward nurse who was the prime mover
behind the legislation after she witnessed aborted babies' being born
alive and left to die, testified twice before Obama in support of the
Induced Infant Liability Act bills. She also testified before the
U.S. Congress in support of the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.

Stanek told me her testimony "did not faze" Obama.

In the second hearing, Stanek said, "I brought pictures in and
presented them to the committee of very premature babies from my
neonatal resuscitation book from the American Pediatric Association,
trying to show them unwanted babies were being cast aside. Babies the
same age were being treated if they were wanted!"

"And those pictures didn't faze him [Obama] at all," she said.

At the end of the hearing, according to the official records of the
Illinois State senate, Obama thanked Stanek for being "very clear and
forthright," but said his concern was that Stanek had suggested
"doctors really don't care about children who are being born with a
reasonable prospect of life because they are so locked into their
pro-abortion views that they would watch an infant that is viable
die." He told her, "That may be your assessment, and I don't see any
evidence of that. What we are doing here is to create one more burden
on a woman and I can't support that." "
Anyway, I just took another look at the humanevents home page. Every
story above the fold is commentary, not news.

So look again and maybe you will begin to SEE something.

I'm not about to waste time critiquing right-wing commentary with a
smattering of facts mixed in. It's like the helmet article you
posted - that was an opinion piece, not news and not reporting.

The article quoted above has next to no commentary at all. It is just
a simple recitation of what transpired.

I just read it. Compare the structure, in term so amount of quotes,
to a proper news article, or to an article at a website like
talkingpointsmemo.com. It's not news -- it's opinion or argument
structured to mislead you.