Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry


Here's how the intellectually dishonest mind works.

Give an investigator the following:

Suspect A is seen by three independent people entering a house.

Video cameras show said suspect ransacking the house.

Dozens of fingerprints of Suspect A lifted.

Receipts show a van rented by Suspect A with a stolen credit card.

Video at rental agency reveals identity of Suspect A.

Van found ditched around corner of Suspect A’s home.

Stolen merchandise found in and around Suspect A's home.

Now, if the investigator begins to dig for evidence attacking the credibility of the witnesses, accuses the video company of shoddy manufacturing practices, discovers a 20-year-old drunk driving charge against the fingerprint expert from her freshman year in college, claims the victim didn’t really need the stolen property, argues that the suspect has an ex-wife who never returned her house key, … well you get the picture.

Because, you see, the investigator is a "liberal" and the suspect is a too, and finding the facts is just an inconvenience.

That’s what it’s like having a conversation with people who claim they are “liberal/progressive”. Facts don’t matter. Results do.

They’re leftist ideologues who will do anything to advance their agenda, attack and destroy their opponents, and protect their own ... like Nathan Raines, Jamie Gorelick, and Jim Johnson ...

Such is the depth to which “liberalism” has sunk.

But if socialism is what you want ... the insurance/lending debacle is another taste of what you'll get.



( 2 comments — Leave a comment )
Sep. 23rd, 2008 02:42 am (UTC)
OK so I'll bite... explain to me how this has ANYTHING to do with anyone being a liberal. The flaw is in the ability of a lawyer in convincing a jury that the those points have nothing to do with the case. It is simple incompetency. That an investigator AND the crook are both liberal, and attempting to draw some sort of suggestion that this would cause ANY investigator or prosecutor to toss out a case is just absurd. About the only one of these that has any merits is the shoddy video... if it wasn't clear enough to finger the perp, then it wasn't worth the money it was bought for. The rest of it is just garbage. This is really beneath your usual. Of course I expect you will tell me I am defending liberalism, and that I am wrong... Truth is a crook is a crook, and the most liberal of my lefty pals are not so dense to call a spade in suite.

No you want to see REAL chaos... let McCain deregulate the finical sector (even though he favors oversight - which is a regulation) and health insurance (as he says he wants to do). In honor of Nero- I wonder where I can learn to play fiddle by spring.
Sep. 23rd, 2008 03:08 am (UTC)
I'm speaking from observation and experience.

When an objective investigator actively seeks to destroy an argument or mislead you by ignoring the obvious and manufacturing or dredging up peripheral and tangential points for argument, he or she ceases to be an investigator but a defense attorney.

In my experience, "liberals" of today can be presented with fact after fact after fact and they will usually ignore or dismiss them out of hand, regurgitate talking points, call their opponent nasty names, or run away and hide.

I've been doing this since grad school and the pattern never changes. The liberals of today have ceased to be liberals because their minds, for the most part, are closed. They are the most intolerant, judgmental, and repressive individuals I've ever seen ... and the sad part is they've fooled themselves into believing they are enlightened.

Thank your lucky stars you are simply an admitted "independent" leftist and not a Democrat in sheep's clothing.

( 2 comments — Leave a comment )

Latest Month

August 2014


Page Summary

Powered by LiveJournal.com