Under what system would there be true justice?

Hint: it starts with “a” and ends with “narchism.”

Regarding the drunk judge: Does alcohol encourage tribalism? I have noticed this trend while on the job. People get loaded and all the sudden it’s time to drag out the “free, white and twenty-one” redneck shit or to play the “brother” card. Oh well. Whatever the case, this judge’s moral authority just went down the tubes. People should not hesitate to remind her of this.

I hink that would fix a world of ills.

“I don’t think this is what John Maynard Keynes had in mind with his economic principles, which we essentially adopted in 1971. I think the Keynesian system works, but only if the leaders directing it are honest, scrupled individuals.”

Keynesian economics is the reason for the present disaster.

I just read Sheldon Richman’s (freeassociation.blogspot.com) blog where he posted that Keynes was most likely kidding about his economic philosophy, that he knew he was just promoting the same old mercantilism that the State just loves.

As for Keynesian economics working with principled, scrupulous leaders, how nice and convenient to stand behind an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Pure religion, Bob.

Austrian economics is the only moral economic system.

From a witness quote in the Contra Costa Times article:

“…Oscar said, ‘Please don’t shoot me, please don’t Taser me, I have a daughter,’ over and over again…”

Clearly, he was asking for it.

He seems to have moved from promising Change to promising Dollars. And that’s the extent of the detail.

The longer he takes to give any real information on these plans of his, the worse that information is likely to be!

The president-elect says he wants to “create three million new jobs” — this is a change from a few weeks ago, when he said he wanted the plan to create OR SAVE two million jobs.

He says the “No. 1 goal of my plan … is to create three million new jobs, more than 80 percent of them in the private sector.”

If you do the math: 20 percent of three million means 600,000 new government employees.

No, Jake Tapper, it doesn’t. A job that isn’t in the public sector doesn’t necessarily equal a government employee. It could be a government-funded job in the non-profit sector, for example. If, say, the package includes funding for 10,000 people to work for the United Way’s employment transition services handling the jump in laid-off people then they aren’t “new government employees”, a term which means civil service. From a fiscal standpoint the government still pays them in whole or in part, but they ain’t civil service and so aren’t permanent or protected in the way that Tapper’s either sloppy or deceitful phrasing implies that they are.

One can validly argue whether such spending is a proper action for the American federal government to take. One can’t argue that reporters should get their goddammed facts straight.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/024723.html

Smash someone with a baseball bat for 10 minutes until interrupted and arrested. Stab someone 12 times and walk away, get caught later. Run someone over with your car, put it in reverse, back over them, put it back in 1st, and hit them again and flee the scene.

Attempted murder is notably different from simple assault, or assault with intent to maim, or aggravated assault.

It should be noted that in many districts every 3rd taze counts as attempted murder.

People do get shot multiple times and live. Assault with a deadly weapon isn’t enough, that’s more of a charge for stabbing someone in the leg with a hunting knife.

From the internet sting article:

“He did all he believed was necessary to complete the offense of sexual misconduct of a minor,” May wrote, “and he failed to complete the offense only because it was not possible under the circumstances.”

Yeah, it really sucks for law enforcement when the suspect actually has to commit the crime he’s being arrested for. I guess that means he got off on a technicality.

I would agree that the police proabbly would have gone ape-shit v. a regular joe because an officer was injured, but this particular sentence by itself is not SO lenient.

It is a crime to sell Oregono as weed and I think it should be (presupposing the legitimacy of the criminalization of marijuana – which is of course total BS). It is fraudulent and akin to theft to tell someone they are buying something they are not, and those people should be punished for that. I think your logic about no actual crime being committed is also suspect because intent to committ a crime is very important. Attempted murder where a person puts what they think is poison in someone’s glass, or attempted bank robbery where a person pulls up to a bank with a ski mask, safe-cracking tools and a gun are crimes right at that very moment, even if the poison is simply water, or the robber is apprehended before he gets out of his car.

Of course simply forming the intent in your mind is not enough and the law recognizes this. There is the “substantial step doctrine” which is self-explanatory. I agree with the Indiana decision, but i don’t think it’s as easy to simply look at the result in most cases.

Mike T, there are actually due process rights associated with people who lose their government jobs, so the at-will paradigm would be very difficult to apply to government jobs.

Obama promises 600,000 new federal employees.

That’s not necessarily true. The federal government has been letting contractors go left and right. Now, there are two types of contractors: technical and non-technical. The non-technical are the ones that they are letting go of the most because they are often people who should have been government employees anyway. So, in reality, a lot of those “new” jobs will be civil service versions of contract positions that already exist.

Of course, the reason why a lot of the non-technical positions are filled by contractors is because a contractor secretary can be fired if she sits there on the phone all day long, talking to her girlfriends and filing her nails. A “civil servant,” not so much.

“Ponzi-scheme vote-buying” (Boyd Durkin, post 3)

That’s probably the best description of our economic strategy I’ve ever heard. I don’t think this is what John Maynard Keynes had in mind with his economic principles, which we essentially adopted in 1971.

I think the Keynesian system works, but only if the leaders directing it are honest, scrupled individuals. I guess we’re boned, huh?