gdp's Comments

Breitbart.com : Schwarzenegger caught parking Porsche in red zone

Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:32:07 +0000

Hypocrisy is ALWAYS "news", Sweetheart, especially in the case of the self-anointed and arrogant, because hypocrisy can always be used to demonize the arrogant and get them out of office.

Breitbart.com : Dollar facing \'power-shift\': analysts

Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:29:45 +0000

Perhaps it makes as much "sense to the numbskulls" who ran too old, too manipulative, too "reach across the aisle", too McCain-Feingold, too Gang-of-14, too Amnesty-for-Illegals, too tweaker, too faux-benign-voice John McCain as the 2-party alternative to the Barack the Magic Negro. Rock star charisma won out over has-been-POW-political-hack status. So what? Whose fault is that? Who are the real numbskulls? It is always better to vote FOR what you believe in (third party of choice) than AGAINST what you are afraid of. With your unhelpful attitude, you're probably going to lose again in 2010 by choosing yet another McDole to run against the DEMS. How sad! How downright unintelligent.

Breitbart.com : Crowley gets ovation from officers in California

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 04:02:56 +0000

The problem I have with Crowley's behavior is that he lost his professional cool and DELIBERATELY violated the 1st and 4th Amendments and arrested a citizen (admittedly an arrogant jerk, but being a jerk in and of itself is not a crime) in his own home when there was ZERO constitutionally sufficient probable cause and when he KNEW a conviction would be constitutionally impossible. Unlike those of you who don't care about such, I am interested is preserving the Bill of Rights. What most pro-Crowley posters are too ignorant to understand is the relevant constitutional law involved. When the police and prosecutors bring a charge against an accused person, they are not at liberty to merely parrot the language of the statutue, in this case, "uncooperative", "unruly", "disorderly", "tumultuous", "resisting a police officer", "interfering with a police officer", etc - as Crowley unarguably did. That wannabe-cutesy-pie unconstitutional parroting is ALL Crowley had, which is why the case was dropped by higher ups. A Bill of Particulars is the constitutional method for overcoming unconstitutional statute parroting. Regarding a Bill of Particulars, the U.S. Supremes have said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875): "In criminal cases, prosecuted under the laws of the United States, the accused has the constitutional right 'to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.' Amend. VI. In United States v. Mills, 32 U.S. (7 Peters) 138 138 (1833), this was construed to mean that the indictment must set forth the offence 'with clearness and all necessary certainty, to apprise the accused of the crime with which he stands charged;' and in United States v. Cook, 84 U.S. (17 Wallace) 168 168 (1872) that 'every ingredient of which the offence is composed must be accurately and clearly alleged.' It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading that, where the definition of an offense, whether it be at common law or by statute, "includes generic terms, it is not sufficient that the indictment shall charge the offense in the same generic terms as in the definition, but it must state the species -- it must descend to particulars." THERE WERE NO CONSTITUTIONALLY VALID SPECIFIC PARTICULARS in Crowley v. Gates. Nor was there any constitutionally acceptable probable cause. I despise arrogant jerks who deliberately and very manipulatively throw around false charges of racism. And I support constitutionally valid police behavior. But unlike some citizens who are functionally illiterate about their own Bill of Rights, I have a problem with any policeman who will deliberately violate the 1st and 4th Amendments and arrest a citizen in his own home when that policeman knows FULL WELL that constitutionally valid probable cause and a constitutionally valid conviction are impossible AS A MATTER OF LAW. Many long-time cops and prosecutors have said the only reason Gates was arrested is because Crowley lost his professional cool. Freedom in America is threatened by the constitutional illiteracy of citizens who, often combatively proud of their ignorance, in effect, say, "screw the constitution, just nail the bad guy no matter what!" I refuse to join that type of over-heated, illiterate (aka "n-u-m-b-n-u-t-t-e-d"), short-sighted, control-freak insanity. Too many brave men and women have died over the years defending the Bill of Rights to simply summarily disregard it for the sake of scoring a few cheap political points. Too bad Obama didn't think about that before he shot off his mouth on a trivial local issue just because he thinks he's narcissistic. I stand by my original constitutional assessment: Crowley v. Gates should actually be titled "Jerk v. Jerk". The whole thing is an embarrassment and a shame from ALL sides. It shouldn't have happened to three such reasonably intelligent men as Crowley, Gates and Obama. It just goes to demonstrate our human weaknesses. God save us all, and God save America!

Breitbart.com : Crowley gets ovation from officers in California

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 01:42:15 +0000

Most of the pro and con posters are just as screwed up as GOP and DEMS. Crowley deliberately violated Gates' 4th Amendment rights without the requisite probable cause. Gates deliberately made false charges of racism. There is going to continue to be a race problem until whites get as violently angry at being falsely called "racist" as blacks do being called the "N" word. Gates is part of the "I'm entitled to free money from the government because white people are racist A$$H***s" prevailing black culture promoted by race hustlers like J-e-r-kson and Sharpton et al. But saying that doesn't, and shouldn't, excuse the VERY REAL problem of arrogant badge-heavy cops who will empty their guns into an innocent person and then say they thought his wallet was a gun. Regarding the 1st Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech, there are a number of seminal United States Supreme Court decisions every citizen should read. Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) is the obscenity standard. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942) is the “fighting words” standard, but Chaplinsky has been weakened by later cases such as Gooding v. Wilson, 405 US 518 (1972) and Lewis v. New Orleans, 415 US 130 (1974). Hustler Magazine v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988) is the standard for parody and satire. Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971), FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, 438 U.S. 726 (1978) and Roth v. United States, 354 US 476 are also "must reads". As a matter of fact, in the recent case of State of South Dakota v. Marcus J. Suhn, 2008 SD 128, the South Dakota Supreme Court, citing U.S. Supreme Court cases, upheld a citizen's right to swear at the police. The clear reasonable inference of 1st Amendment free speech law is that, unless he physically struck Sgt. Crowley (he did not), Prof. Gates was pretty much free to say whatever he pleased as vigorously and obnoxiously as he pleased without having the testilying Cambridge cops spin it as "uncooperative", "unruly", "disorderly", "tumultuous", "resisting a police officer", "interfering with a police officer", etc - as they unarguably did. As far as I'm concerned, Gates v. Crowley should be titled "Jerk v. Jerk". There is more than enough blame to go around, and I get sick and tired of self-absorbed vociferous m-o-r-o-n-s who are in possession of ZERO first hand information and are self-evidently illiterate in the relevant constitutional law posting their ignorant ad hominem blather for the whole world to see. I would fear Crowley because he has a gun, badge, a license to kill me and obviously doesn't give a damn about constitutional probable cause. In contrast, I wouldn't fear Gates but merely dislike and shun him for being the arrogant loud-mouthed A$$H*** he is.

Breitbart.com : NKorea vows nuke attack if provoked by US

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 00:19:29 +0000

What is it about the human species, anyway? How is it that some 24 million people let a little dog-eating mutant gargoyle get totalitarian control over them? I don't get it. I say step on the cockroach!

Breitbart.com : Twitter streams break Iran news dam

Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:37:28 +0000

It's easy to see why Twitter has become my #1 source for news in real time. Even Drudge with his immense readership posts there. Anybody who is somebody posts there. Twitter allows the reader to choose which posts (including news) s/he wants to follow. VERY powerful tool for freedom! VERY cool! Hello grassroots journalism! Bye, bye fascist MSM media monopoly. And good riddance to bad rubbish!

Breitbart.com : Hiroshima mayor \'fury\' over N.Korea nuclear plans

Sun, 14 Jun 2009 16:36:17 +0000

What is it about the human species that a mutant gargoyle like Kim Jong II can acquire totalitarian political control over millions of otherwise "normal" human beings? I don't get it. Squash the stinkin' insect and be done with it!

Breitbart.com : Cheney on gay marriage: \'Freedom for everyone\'

Tue, 2 Jun 2009 20:27:56 +0000

Rverp1: The DEFINITIVE blog I've read on the subject of so-called "gay marriage" is "Does the CA Supreme Court's Prop 8 decision mean the "gay marriage" semantics fraud may be winding down?" at john wilkenson dot com (no space and real dot). You can Google the title and read it.

Breitbart.com : Cheney on gay marriage: \'Freedom for everyone\'

Tue, 2 Jun 2009 20:17:02 +0000

Rverp1: This has NEVER been about "government licensing marriage". It's a LOT more subtle and evil (anti-individualism) than that. It is about manipulative, deliberately irrational propaganda strategists trying to use the police powers of the State to REDEFINE COMMON-USAGE, COMMON-LAW WORDS for the express purpose of promoting their political agenda, which is to: create in law by police-power coercion "equal" dignity and respect for homosexual behavior as for heterosexual behavior. Violators, of course, will be punished at law for "hate speech" because the 1st Amendment no longer means what it says. Judicial "interpretation" is how the individual loses rights. For example in the infamous Dred Scott decision, the Roger Taney majority defined the word "persons" to exclude blacks. In other words, blacks should remain slaves because they are not "persons" as that word is contemplated by the Constitution! The Civil War was fought, 600,000 people were killed, and, thanks to the "Civil War Amendments" blacks are no longer chattel. BUT the Supremes have NEVER rejected their usurpation of the power to define common-usage, common-law words! So the gays want them to do it again with the word "marriage". That's SO scummy!

Breitbart.com : Miss California keeping title ... for now

Tue, 12 May 2009 03:49:49 +0000

In a fair world, the sophist manipulations of the 1st-Amendment-destroying radical gay propaganda strategists would be countered with a movement to lobby for the criminalization homosexual behavior. But in the real world virtually no decent kind-hearted people (including me) would be in favor of that. Unfortunately, that leaves the loud, aggressive, rude, crude and highly manipulative radical gay propaganda strategists free to be as ugly, spoiled-bratish and scummy as they please. Frankly it frustrates the hell out of me that they can't see what a serious threat they are to the first amendment. Gay is not straight. That's why there are two words: "homosexual" and "heterosexual". Equally logical are the two other separate words, "marriage" and "civil unions". But that's never been the point with spoiled-brat radical gay propaganda strategists. Sophistry, manipulation and political correctness are dangerous diseases. Actually, I am starting to favor criminalizing political correctness with the death penalty attached to it — and I'm opposed to capital punishment generally! B.S. is B.S., whether "gay" or "straight", so just say "No!" to gay propaganda B.S. To hell with what radical gay propaganda strategists think. They're not interested in truth, tolerance or honest communication anyway, they just want to win their wannabe-clever little public relations contest regarding their ownership of the word "marriage". I advocate boycotting all things "gay" until they back off their snottiness and sophist control freak ways!

Breitbart.com : Miss California keeping title ... for now

Tue, 12 May 2009 01:16:23 +0000

The radical gay propaganda strategists are destroying the very same 1st Amendment which allows them to be who they are and associate with whom they please. Perez Hilton had no business pushing his agenda at the pageant and asking such a VERY stupid and aggressive question if he didn't want to hear an honest answer. Prejean should keep her crown. Perez Hilton should crawl back under his little control-freak rock.

Breitbart.com : China calls for reform of global monetary system

Mon, 27 Apr 2009 14:21:43 +0000

To all the hardliner posters (and I'm not saying you're wrong): If China should ever decide that they want to come over here and collect what we owe them by force, exactly how do you propose to beat them back with the current crop of overly-sexualized and under-educated purple-haired, backwards-baseball-hatted, nose-pronged, proud-of-ignorance-and-violence morons that comprise so much of America's younger generation? The current crop of self-indulgent wussies couldn't fight their way out of a wet paper bag against a tough and determined military foe. History is fascinating: either you learn from it, or you repeat it. "O must go!" in 2012.

Breitbart.com : Internet has only just begun, say founders

Thu, 23 Apr 2009 05:17:38 +0000

Bunch of comedians on this string! LOL. I agree that the Internet is EXTREMELY cool, but I don't get it: what's an Algore? Are they best broiled or deep fried? It has been said (and I agree) that Hitler could not have risen to power if the Internet had existed in his day. Open widespread ridicule would have done him in. Same goes for O, W, or any other narcissistic control freak who wants to run out lives and steal our labor.

Breitbart.com : Holder: US is nation of cowards on racial matters

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 05:15:51 +0000

I guess I wasn't quite satisfied yet, so as long as I'm venting in a "non-cowardly" way . . . That there is exponentially more black racism than white is CLEARLY manifested by two facts: 1) many conservative blacks voted for a black for prez because of his color, and in so doing voted in favor of primitive tribalism instead of their core philosophical beliefs, and 2) white Americans proved their non-racism by electing a half-black prez. Why is it that individuals who are half white and half black invariably call themselves black instead of white or bi-racial? The following attitude is actively cultivated by the race hustlers, and is prevalent in a significantly large percentage of blacks: "I am black, therefore I am by definition a victim, because whites are by definition racist perpetrators. Everything is Whitey's fault, so give me your money, Whitey, or you're a racist. If you disagree with me that steal-and-redistribute socialism is a wonderful idea, you're a racist. Now what what it you wanted to have a friendly intellectually honest discussion about, Whitey? Until 90% of blacks believe that the blacks who manifest the above attitude are race-hustling j-e-r-k-s, and VEHEMENTLY repudiate them, there isn't that much to talk about. By the way, gays and hardcore gender feminists utilize the same despicable tactics and rhetoric. The best thing that can be said about a manipulative race hustler like Eric Holder is: ". . . and the horse he rode in on!" And the same goes for the decent, hard-working, well-intended blacks whose conspicuous silence in the face of race hustling enables this kind of malignant racist garbage. Is that non-cowardly enough for you, Eric, baby?!

Breitbart.com : Holder: US is nation of cowards on racial matters

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 04:30:56 +0000

Lots of ad hominem posts make it past the censors. Let's see if an educational post does. Holder is wrong and he knows it. Here is the proof that there is more black racism than white: If 96% of whites vote for a white for prez because of race, it's racism. If 96% of blacks vote for a black for prez because of race, it's not racism. If there was a white caucus in Congress, it would be racism. There IS a black caucus in Congress, but that's not racism. White pride is racism. Black pride is not racism. White power is racism. Black power is not racism. It is BLACKS, not whites, who insist that steal-and-redistribute socialism equals "anti-racism". It is BLACKS, not whites, who make it impossible to talk discuss economic theories without bringing race into it. Any non-black who thinks steal-and-redistribute socialism is a bad idea is a racist. Any black who aspires to acquire skills and an education is ridiculed for "acting white". I no longer have any "white guilt" because I am aware of the existence of many MSM-ignored conservative blacks in Project 21, and I have accepted Professor Walter E. Williams' gracious "Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to All Persons of European Descent ." As the WASP son of deceased evangelical missionaries who went to Africa and ran a free dental clinic for the natives, I am 100% FED UP with the race hustling industry. It is an insult to the legacy of MLK, and most blacks know that, even if very few of them do anything about it. Until a greater percentage of blacks join together in vehement repudiation of the race hustlers AND of steal and redistribute socialism, there isn't all that much to talk about. Is that non-cowardly enough to suit you, Holder!?

Breitbart.com : Holder: US is nation of cowards on racial matters

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 03:13:45 +0000

Holder is full of it. Here is the proof that there is more black racism and manipulation than white: Jesse Jerkson et al adamantly insist that "socialism equals anti-racism". It is BLACKS, not whites (no group is monolithic), who make it impossible to discuss various economic philosophies without bringing race into the discussion. If 96% of whites had voted for a white prez because of race it would be racism. When 96% of blacks vote for a black prez because of race, it's no problem. If there was a white caucus in Congress, it would be racism. There IS a black caucus in Congress, and that's no problem. As the WASP son of deceased missionaries to Africa who went there to run a free dental clinic for the natives, I've 100% HAD IT with the double standard and all the wannabe-clever talking points defending it. I don't have "white guilt" because I have accepted Walter E. Williams' gracious "Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to All Persons of European Descent "! Put that in your racist pipe and smoke it, Holder! Is that non-cowardly enough for you!?

Breitbart.com : Calif. artist sues AP over image of Obama

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 21:51:42 +0000

The ignorance of copyright law and its history by the whiners on this string is both astounding and sickening. Posters really should research first, blather second. Just because somebody came up with the equation a2 + b2 = c2 or the alphabet doesn't mean the rest of humanity is forever barred from using that information to design and market different products. To listen to all the whiners who are jealous that they didn't come up with a neat idea to make some money, you would think that AP or the photog weren't free to blowup their photo and try to sell posters incompetition with the artists rendering. I'm familiar with both digital photography and Photoshop, Illustrator and Gimp. I have friends who are world-class photogs. As any honest photog will freely admit, luck has a LOT to do with a photo like the one in question. As far as I'm concerned, more SKILL went into the artist's rendering than the luck-out photo. Infantile fascistic jealousy is quite ugly. As I said, research the law first, then yammer second. As I also said, screw AP, IMHO they are part of the cover-up of the JFK assassination. I do, however, believe it would be the morally preferable thing to do to look up the photog and give him a fair cut, even though I don't believe it will be proven to be legally necessary. The history of copyright law is quite interesting for any person who is not too lazy to do the reading! My money is still on Stanford for reasons those who like to hear the noise of their own teeth rattling will probably never understand..Full disclosure: as a libertarian, I can't stand either W or O.

Breitbart.com : Calif. artist sues AP over image of Obama

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 16:02:22 +0000

My previous comment about attorney fees for frivolous lawsuit against AP was meant to be in the context of IF AP actually filed suit, which I doubt a professional lawyer would do. That means AP was probably bluffing, which the best lawyers NEVER do. Nor do they ask questions they don't already know the answer to. It sounds like the artist's lawyer filed a declaratory judgment action pursuant to the federal statute: Title 28 U.S.C. § 2201. Creation of remedy. "In a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought. Any such declaration shall have the force and effect of a final judgment or decree and shall be reviewable as such." Title 28 U.S.C. § 2202. Further relief. "Further necessary or proper relief based on a declaratory judgment or decree may be granted, after reasonable notice and hearing, against any adverse party whose rights have been determined by such judgment."

Breitbart.com : Calif. artist sues AP over image of Obama

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 15:48:28 +0000

AP would need to prove that the artist's Warhol-ish rendering interferes with, or otherwise threatens, their ability to make money, which it obviously doesn't. If anybody owns the image it would be Obama who owns his own image, and Obama being a public figure, AP is free to take pictures of him when he's in public. If you want to know about the Fair Use doctrine instead of just blathering ignorantly, it is codified at 17 US §107. Also check out Nolo.com's podcast titled "Fair Use & Copyright at http://www.nolo.com/podcast.cfm/objectid/AE850C93... There's nothing to stop AP from blowing their picture up and selling posters, as long as they don't copy the artist's rendering. What the posting photogs (who pretend to know something about the law) ignore is the FACT that the rendering itself is copyrightable separately from the photo, just like dance choreography is copyrightable separately from the music. Regardless of all the blather, AP's move is truly arrogant and stupid from a public relations point of view. What's in it for them? Make the artist stop selling his poster? Obviously, they just want some money from a marketing idea they didn't come up with. Screw AP, but it would be nice if the artist would give the photog a cut. My money is on the artist's lawyer, especially if Obama takes the artist's side. Hopefully he can get attorney fee sanctions for a frivolous lawsuit.

Breitbart.com : Sen. Leahy proposes truth panel on Bush era abuses

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:49:05 +0000

The last part of the URL is 9050474362583451279.