O’Keefe Catches Organizing for America Helping Someone Vote Twice (Or So They Think)
From J. Christian Adams’s post:
Later, when the plan to vote twice is put into effect, Caballero coyly and laughingly asks: “Are you going to do what I think you are going to do?” — namely vote twice. When the volunteer says, “Well, if no one is going to know.” Caballero then prints out and gives the forms to the volunteer to vote twice.
The video:
My favorite part of Adams’s post:
The new O’Keefe video raises the question — how many other undercover videographers have penetrated the Obama campaign? O’Keefe obviously reached the heart of one operation. Who knows how many more Obama campaign offices are full of “volunteers” on the lookout for criminal behavior by other Obama campaign staffers?
O’Keefe provides a clue and taunts journalists, daring them to call this an “isolated incident.”
So is Big Media going to just ignore this?
And . . . ding.
Patterico (8b3905) — 10/10/2012 @ 9:04 pmOf course they are going to ignore this. In their minds O’Keefe is not legitimate so they can dismiss out of hand anything he exposes. In addition, to actually look at the evidence would put their favored policies in question.
John (5af905) — 10/10/2012 @ 9:07 pmI predict crickets.
Bill M (2f7437) — 10/10/2012 @ 9:15 pmHeavily edited!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/10/2012 @ 9:33 pmBUT, but, but, but, voter fraud never happens!
peedoffamerican (ee1de0) — 10/10/2012 @ 9:46 pmMeh. What should they have done? Reported it to the police?! I’ll bet plenty of Republican campaign workers would have done the same. I would certainly do so; it’s not my job or my business to report fraud, or to dissuade anyone from committing it, so if it helps my side I will shut up about it.
What O’Keefe really needs to find is DNC, OFA, or ACORN/SEIU/WFP workers organising double-voting on a large scale. Not waiting for people to come in and volunteer the information that they intend to vote twice, but actually encouraging people to do so. These tapes don’t show that, but I have little doubt that this is happening; the trick is catching them at it.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/10/2012 @ 9:54 pmThat’s sad.
Helping someone vote twice is effectively cancelling out a legitimate vote. That’s just wrong. There’s no rationalizing it away as ‘not my job’.
I don’t think that they are systematically doing this. And I’m not about to tell Mr O’Keefe what he really needs to do. I don’t see a whole lot of people doing what he does better than he is.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/10/2012 @ 10:12 pmDustin, you’re a lawyer, aren’t you? If you see something wrong in court, but it helps your side, do you raise an objection? Of course not. You only object to errors that help the other side. If it helps you, it’s the other guy’s job to object, and if he doesn’t then you shut up and take advantage of it.
A long time ago, in a jurisdiction far away, I trained as a poll watcher. My job was to watch the ballots being counted, and spot any irregularities. I was taught how to recognise an invalid ballot. And then I was told what to do when I spotted one; before opening my mouth I should check whom the ballot will end up helping if counted. If it’s for the other guy, object; if it’s for our guy, shut up. The other guy’s got someone doing the same for him, or at least had the opportunity to do so; if he didn’t send anyone, or that person didn’t spot the irregularity, that’s his tough luck.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/10/2012 @ 10:52 pmBeside which, I’m not convinced that the federal law making it illegal to vote in two states in the same presidential election is actually constitutional. Surely voting for a state’s electors is the exclusive business of the state legislature. They needn’t have an election at all. If they choose to have one they can surely open or restrict the franchise for it in any way they like, except in ways that are specifically banned by the constitution. I don’t see why a state couldn’t decide to let people vote even if they’re also voting somewhere else, and if one did allow this I don’t see how it’s any business of Congress to say otherwise.
In addition, all I saw on the video was the OFA workers helping people vote in one state, which is perfectly legal; their knowledge that the people intended to vote illegally in another state isn’t relevant. No one has a duty to report someone else’s intention to break the law; this is not Cuba or the USSR.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/10/2012 @ 11:09 pmGet a fire extinguisher for those straw men lit by Milhouse.
Some people have a higher standard of ethics and morals than others.
Milhouse once again illustrates where he falls on the spectrum.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/10/2012 @ 11:16 pmThe brownshirts will come after O’Keefe too. You just are not allowed to make certain types of videos in Obama’s America.
Didn’t O’Keefe learn anything from the treatment of Nakoula Basseley Nakoula?
PC14 (87cbf8) — 10/10/2012 @ 11:18 pmThere is nothing ethical or moral about election rules. And there’s no ethical or moral obligation to report people to the police. If daleyrocks thinks there is, maybe he should move to Cuba.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/10/2012 @ 11:41 pmMilhouse, are you crazy? No ethical or moral obligation to report people to the police? So if someone commits a crime in front of you and runs off, there is no moral obligation to report the crime?
OmegaPaladin (f2d931) — 10/10/2012 @ 11:50 pm“There is nothing ethical or moral about election rules. And there’s no ethical or moral obligation to report people to the police.”
Milhouse – For potential violations of election laws?
Beautiful strawman!
Should ethical or moral people express their disapproval of voting in multiple jurisdictions? Is that over the line for your delicate sensibilities?
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/11/2012 @ 12:31 amMeh. What should they have done? Reported it to the police?! I’ll bet plenty of Republican campaign workers would have done the same. I would certainly do so; it’s not my job or my business to report fraud, or to dissuade anyone from committing it, so if it helps my side I will shut up about it.
That’s why the meme that there’s no such thing as voter fraud is utter boloney.
MayBee (c4effe) — 10/11/2012 @ 12:33 amIf people can cheat, some people will cheat. That’s true in every aspect of life.
OmegaPaladin – Milhouse has previously expressed the view that citizens of this country owe it no duties or obligations, although I recall he for some hypocritical reason believes citizens have rights in return.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/11/2012 @ 12:36 amI think this is akin to the “broken windows” effect. If one allows small transgressions to accumulate and go unchallenged the “momentum” will lead to greater transgressions.
I can understand not going to the effort to report an individual case of voter fraud when you pretty much know nothing will be done (one person can fight only so many dragons a day) but to assist the act is to promote and encourage it.
Whether one owes this country anything or not, one is called to love one’s neighbor, which at least means to avoid encouraging things that harm, such as promoting a society of routine dishonesty.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/11/2012 @ 4:11 amI’m certain that these cheaters would have been shot 200 years ago, and the media wouldn’t even give any regard to the shooter. It would merely be the closest person with a gun.
j curtis (e1e376) — 10/11/2012 @ 4:21 amLook, if you are helping to education and assist people to vote, and somebody comes in and says “I’m thinking of voting twice in this election” you are failing at your mission if you don’t at least say “No, don’t do that, it’s probably illegal and certainly wrong.”
If you just giggle and then actively assist the person, you’re a dishonest jerk. Period.
Pious Agnostic (7c3d5b) — 10/11/2012 @ 7:19 amFirst of all, this isn’t quite what the issue at hand is.
If I knew someone was going to commit voter fraud to elect Mitt Romney or even a politician I identify more closely with, I would not help them.
I don’t know if I’d call the police or not. I’d be tempted to report this to the Secretaries of State for both states. As MD notes, in some cases it would obviously be a pointless exercise, and I don’t believe anyone is obligated to waste their time.
I do believe helping solve crimes is everyone’s moral responsibility to at least some extent.
Exactly. And the casual acceptance those democrats have for this form of voter fraud ties in nicely with the election fraud that ACORN was involved with. And it makes the denial that voter fraud even happens seem obnoxious rather than naive. It makes the strident objection to Voter ID make perfect sense (cynically).
Voter ID won’t be enough. Getting strict with absentee ballots and voter registrations is important.
When I worked on Capitol Hill ages ago, I had a conversation with another staffer about something called ‘caging’. Basically, some democrats believe that when voter registration mail is returned undeliverable, not only should the registration remain on the rolls, but it should be a felony to purge the incorrect registration!
This video shows why there has been such a fight to make sure enormous numbers of false voter registrations remain on the rolls.
Milhouse’s very honest thought process reveals what a lot of democrats are thinking. It’s not their obligation to do anything about it, if a crime helps their side. Let the other side try to fight it, and of course, kick a few obstacles in their way. Because right and wrong take a backseat to partisanship. And as Maybee says, cheating is going to be attempted. Just find a way to let that succeed, and YOU’RE not cheating…
We can do better as a country than the way our elections are currently administered. I don’t mean to pile on Milhouse, but I do not think one should consult a lawyer about moral obligations. Voter ID, accurate registrations, and absentee ballot protection of some kind.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/11/2012 @ 7:32 amActually, assisting another to commit an offense is a crime. See 18 U.S.C. 2(b) (Aiding and Abetting), and 18 U.S.C. 3 (Misprision of a Felony). Misprision is an odd statute, because it doesn’t occur until after someone else commits the felony, but it puts an affirmative duty upon the knowledge-holder to report the offense. Misprision is a 3 year felony. Right now, the one handing out the voter forms is only aiding and abetting.
509th Bob (4ae072) — 10/11/2012 @ 7:56 amIgnore, we must!
MSM (ca54bb) — 10/11/2012 @ 8:09 amSo is Big Media going to just ignore this? Yes.
So is Big Media going to just ignore this? Yes.
Amphipolis (d3e04f) — 10/11/2012 @ 8:28 amThe Democratic National Committee has terminated the employment of Houston, Texas, Organizing For America Regional Field Director Stephanie Caballero after she was caught on camera calling voter fraud “cool” and “so funny” while advising a presumably-liberal voter how to vote twice.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/10/11/dnc-fires-obama-campaign-staffer-for-assisting-voter-fraud-attempt/#ixzz291UCOL66
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/11/2012 @ 1:07 pmOf course not. That’s one difference between a free country and a police state.
The state exists to serve the people. The people do not exist to serve the state. And people’s rights are not granted “in return” for anything; they are inherent. If you disagree with that you’re a fascist and I wonder what you’re doing on this blog, or why you would ever vote for a Republican.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/11/2012 @ 10:31 pmThere’s your mistake. It’s no more a campaign worker’s job to educate and assist voters than it’s a lawyer’s job to educate and assist jurors. The purpose of a campaign worker is to help get his/her candidate elected; nothing else. Educating and assisting people who are likely to vote for ones candidate is a means to that end; when it works against the goal, it’s the campaigner’s job not to do it.
Indeed it’s far more important. Some opponents of voter ID actually make a valid point when they ask why Rs are focused so heavily on closing this breach rather than those others, which are far more likely to yield fraudulent votes. They’re right that this is somewhat odd, but the fact that there are giant breaches in a fence that are being left unattended is no reason to deliberately leave a small breach open as well. The correct answer is to fix them all.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/11/2012 @ 10:43 pm“The state exists to serve the people. The people do not exist to serve the state.”
Milhouse – The state exists by agreement among the people. One of the agreements among the people which when not followed results in the intervention of the state for the people to follow the laws established by the state.
If you disagree with this, you are an anarchist and I wonder what you are doing on this blog.
You have already expressed an opinion that you should be able to pick and choose which laws you obey, which makes me wonder if you are even an American citizen.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/11/2012 @ 10:46 pmThat point is only logically valid if Voter ID interferes with the other breaches.
It doesn’t at all, so it’s not a valid objection. I do not know of a politically viable way to fix the absentee ballot problem (if it were up to me, it would be no problem, but most people don’t see issues exactly the way I do).
Actually, this behavior is reprehensible, and this campaign worker was fired because she was caught (not because she did it, but because she was caught). Decency is part of politics. Politicians can’t get elected if society realizes their campaigns are deeply immoral.
Where do you draw the line, morally, in your work? I have never had a problem seeing the black and white line in almost any situation, but I think that’s something that makes me different. To me, stealing someone’s vote (identical to helping someone vote twice) cannot be justified or ignored.
Even campaign workers who believe their candidate is needed to stop the oceans from rising and to finally close Gitmo should be required to live up to some kind of morality. But the bar has fallen so low for everyone and everything.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/11/2012 @ 10:55 pmWhat language is that? It’s certainly not English.
What’s wrong with anarchism? In principle every decent person is an anarchist. The state is at most a necessary evil, not a good. And some very intelligent people believe it’s not that necessary after all. I don’t agree with them, but I’d like to. I wish we could do without the state; don’t you? Only evil people actually like the state, and wouldn’t get rid of it even if they could.
Try reading Lysander Spooner, or David Friedman. Or Bastiat, for that matter, though he wasn’t an anarchist per se.
In any event, I have never consented to obey any laws, nor do I know anyone who has ever so consented, and I recognise no moral obligation to do so. Morality consists of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong, and right and wrong are not affected by the decisions of legislators and bureaucrats.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/11/2012 @ 10:58 pmOnly to the extent that time and political capital spent fixing one problem is not being spent on fixing the others.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/11/2012 @ 10:59 pmUnfortunately, there are campaign workers who say it’s “cool” if someone promises to vote twice.
I don’t think you meant to say every decent person is an anarchist. I think you meant to say that if everyone was decent, we could all be anarchists. But we see examples every day of cheaters and frauds and worse.
I don’t mean to insult you, but I think if you really wouldn’t feel morally obliged to refuse to help someone vote twice for your candidate, you are falling short of the standard of person we’d need for a government free utopia.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/11/2012 @ 11:02 pmAs I said, Voter ID is much more politically feasible than any solution that would really fix absentee ballots. And I don’t think it’s a zero sum game. The more enthusiasm we get for one solution, the more likely the other problem will ever be addressed.
I think voter ID really would do a lot of good. You are correct that there are other very big problems with election integrity and I certainly agree, but the one thing that frustrates me most about political activism is how improvements are dismissed because they aren’t perfect solutions.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/11/2012 @ 11:05 pmDon’t mail ballots out; require any person who is mobile to cast their absentee ballot at a polling place, anywhere in the country or at any overseas embassy or consulate. In that place their ID can be checked and matched to their registration, and their finger can be inked. Such places should be open for such voting for at least a week in advance of the election day. In other words, you don’t have to vote at your usual place, or on the day, but you do have to vote at a place where they are able to check you out.
For immobile voters, have mobile polling places that visit them at home or at their hospital bed, complete with an election officer and watchers from each candidate who chooses to send one. The procedure would be the same; check ID, match with registration, and ink finger. Or some other prominent body part if the voter has no fingers.
Ideally ink applied on the first day of polling shouldn’t wash off until after the last day.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/11/2012 @ 11:10 pmThat’s very close to what I would do, Milhouse. I honestly would love it if that were politically viable at the moment.
I think that issue, and the voter rolls issue, and the voter ID issue, are all stronger together. And I think voter ID is one of the easier ones to convince people of, as we all use ID all the time. And of course, your reform doesn’t work as well without voter ID (I realize your ink solution is an attempt).
Dustin (73fead) — 10/11/2012 @ 11:15 pmNo, I meant what I said. Every decent person is at least in principle an anarchist, and if she accepts the state it’s only reluctantly, out of a belief that it’s the least bad solution.
Anarchism does not depend on everybody being decent; it’s obvious that everybody is not decent, and never will be, and anarchists claim that we can nevertheless do without the state. I’m not convinced, which is why I’m not one; I’m not sure they aren’t right, but I don’t want to take the risk if they’re wrong.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/11/2012 @ 11:16 pmIf I accept that in a completely impossible utopia where everyone is morally upstanding, it would not be necessary to have a government, I am in principle an anarchist?
I think the term you’re looking for is libertarian. Of course decent people regret when government coercion or intrusion occurs. Those who realize that this is, at some level, necessary and always would be, are not really anarchists in any way.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/11/2012 @ 11:24 pmIf ID weren’t already so ubiquitous, I’d be against requiring it to vote. But since it’s almost impossible to get around without ID, it makes little sense not to require it for voting, and those who put so much energy into opposing it have to have their motives questioned. There are people who have trouble getting valid ID, but that’s a general problem, not confined to voting. Such people have trouble getting jobs, opening bank accounts, etc., and common sense would go a long way to solving it. Basically, if you have no real doubt that the person is who they say they are, don’t create problems just because the form isn’t on your list. E.g. an expired passport is just as good a proof of someone’s identity as a current one.
A far bigger hole, though, and one that would be easy to plug, is registration. There is currently, at least as far as I know, no verification that a registrant is eligible to vote. There’s nothing preventing an ineligible person from registering. Indeed many such people innocently register not knowing that they’re ineligible, so if and when they’re caught they quite properly get away with it; but this means there’s no real disincentive for a knowingly ineligible person to register, since he can always claim he didn’t know. Far better to check eligibility up front, and simply reject bad applications.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/11/2012 @ 11:26 pmNo, you have it backwards. If you believe the state is a necessary evil, and you would get rid of it if only we could do without it, then you’re in principle an anarchist. Accepting the state is a compromise on your part, giving up a little liberty to purchase essential safety. Franklin warns us not to overdo it, not to give up too much liberty for not enough safety, but he too accepted that some such compromise must be made.
A statist, on the other hand, regards the state as a good, and wouldn’t give it up even if it were perfectly safe to do so. Rick Santorum, for instance, has openly said this. In his view the only problem with the state is that it’s run by the wrong people, but in the right hands it would be an instrument for good. And that is fundamentally wrong.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/11/2012 @ 11:32 pmIndeed. And thus politics. Those who fight against voter ID do so at a cost to the next fight regarding ‘voter caging’ or your reasonable absentee voter reform. And it will be the same people doing it.
Agreed. Of course, there have been efforts to fix this too. Not enough.
Dustin (73fead) — 10/11/2012 @ 11:32 pm“In any event, I have never consented to obey any laws, nor do I know anyone who has ever so consented, and I recognise no moral obligation to do so. Morality consists of doing what is right and avoiding what is wrong”
Milhouse – You have already admitted you are more than willing to commit morally wrong acts if your chances of getting caught and punished are not high so I know where you stand.
I’m sorry you can’t understand a slightly garbled sentence.
I find anarchists and libertarians to be fools for the most part but understand why they appeal to arrogant self-important blowhards who consider themselves intelligent.
Don’t pay your taxes this year if you owe any and argue that you never consented to pay any if the IRS comes after you and let me know how well your argument works out, Okay.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/12/2012 @ 12:16 am“I wish we could do without the state; don’t you?”
Milhouse – No. That crazy talk and it’s crazy talk to suggest only evil people believe there is a role for government in a society. Bastiat is a moron. I haven’t read Spoon.
I think if you put 1,000 libertarians on an island, they’d all be dead within a year because they couldn’t stop arguing long enough to agree on rules or cooperation for the common good. Anarchy and libertarianism evolved a philosophies to criticize structures already in place, not to establish societies from scratch.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/12/2012 @ 12:24 amYou lie.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/12/2012 @ 6:35 amWhat kind of argument is that? You might as well say “don’t pay off the union and see how it works out”, or “don’t pay the mugger and see how it works out”. Of course it won’t work out well, but what has that got to do with right and wrong? Or is that really how you think? Might makes right? We have a duty to obey the state simply because if we don’t it will kill us? Will you be the brownshirt who comes to kill me?
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/12/2012 @ 6:39 amA statement that can only be made by a moral degenerate.
Spooner, you moron.
You disgust me. There is no room for you or your ilk in the liberal (now known as “conservative”) movement. You are at heart a thug and nothing more.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/12/2012 @ 6:41 am“What kind of argument is that?”
Milhouse – It immediately follows your statement – “In any event, I have never consented to obey any laws, nor do I know anyone who has ever so consented, and I recognise no moral obligation to do so.” You view the state as evil, so why pay taxes?
It is much more directly connected to the argument at hand than implying people who believe campaign workers who should follow election law are fascists and think we live should live in a police state or move to Cuba or whatever fabulism you dream up.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/12/2012 @ 6:58 am“A statement that can only be made by a moral degenerate.”
Milhouse – A statement made by someone who read some the idiot’s puerile nonsense after you began referring to him on this site.
Form your own country of Milhouse’s who only think of themselves, unwilling to consent to the collective will of the people through its elected representatives. I’ve found in business that you cannot make good deals with bad people. You present yourself as an unethical, amoral person who I would avoid at all costs. You are a monster.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/12/2012 @ 7:09 am“In any event, I have never consented to obey any laws, nor do I know anyone who has ever so consented, and I recognise no moral obligation to do so.”
Milhouse – What kind of moronic dormitory argument is that? Do you actually believe the real world functions the way you fantasize it? Do governments hand out forms with lists of laws for people check off which ones they consent to obey? One of the more recent times you tried this line of reasoning, your compatriot JBS/kishnevi even chided you for being an idiot.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:04 am” “Actually, people do have the right to pick and choose which laws to obey; I do not recognise any moral obligation to obey any law, and regard anyone who believes in such an obligation as a moral pervert.”
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:11 amMilhouse, you don’t really mean that! Din ha-malkutha ha-din and all that…*
[For the rest of you: it’s from the Talmud, and means literally “the law of the land is the law”–and was meant by the Rabbis of the Talmud to mean that we are in general obligated to accept the laws of the lands in which we live, especially in regard to economic matters and financial transactions (so that, for instance, a contract valid under California law between two Jews is valid under Jewish law even though it was made in a way that would otherwise invalidate it under Jewish law).
Comment by JBS — 11/10/2011 @ 6:37 pm”
daleyrocks/Milhouse,
Most of the time, you two are good people. I know Milhouse has a practice of being a bit of a pedant at times – I’ve certainly brushed up against it from time to time but maybe you both have more in common than you think.
SPQR (768505) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:15 amHaven’t read all of this, but I would say that Lucifer was not only the first radical, but the first anarchist. There was only one rule and he wanted it broken.
MD in Philly (3d3f72) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:22 amYour “argument” was that I had better pay taxes or else the IRS would do bad things to me. Which is an excellent reason to pay up, but it’s exactly the same reason why one should quietly hand ones wallet to a mugger, or spread ones legs for a rapist. It’s a prudential argument, but not a moral one. And when you make it a moral argument you reveal yourself as a degenerate.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:48 amOf course not. Which is precisely why nobody is morally obligated to obey the law.
My compatriot?! What is that supposed to mean?
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:50 am“I’ve certainly brushed up against it from time to time but maybe you both have more in common than you think.”
SPQR – Milhouse defends statutory rape and election fraud so there are big differences right off the bat. He also attempts to deny things he has said in the past, cites obscure philosophers and appeals to authority by claiming to have read texts in their original language.
I just defend a position and what I wrote.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:50 amThe state is not the Creator.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:51 am“My compatriot?! What is that supposed to mean?”
Milhouse – Whatever you want it to mean!?x@#!
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:52 amdaleyrocks, Milhouse seems to me to take an ideological position and run it out to its boundary conclusions. Don’t say I agree with those conclusions. He also can get strident in his rhetoric on what seem to be trivial differences.
That said, I think you two have more in common than you think and you’ve gotten to the point of calling each other names. Since I have some good feelings for each of you, I said something.
** shrug **
SPQR (768505) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:53 amThis is not a halachic forum, and I have not relied on halacha in arguing here, for the simple reason that most people here have no reason to recognise its authority, and indeed have never even heard of it. In fact JBS is wrong even on his own terms, but this is not the place to have that debate.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:54 am“And when you make it a moral argument you reveal yourself as a degenerate.”
Milhouse – On the contrary. Your argument that as a member of a society you have no moral obligation to follow its rules marks you as a degenerate. That should be obvious to anyone following this thread and your comments on this blog over time.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:56 amDaleyrocks, you are a fascist, and should go where all fascists belong.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/12/2012 @ 11:59 am“Milhouse seems to me to take an ideological position and run it out to its boundary conclusions.”
SPQR – I appreciate your thoughts. Milhouse to me seems to live in a fantasy world where his personal ideology bears little relationship to how the world actually functions or could realistically function. It is much like a liberal bubble world.
daleyrocks (bf33e9) — 10/12/2012 @ 12:02 pm1. Fiat justitia ruat coelum. Does that mean nothing to you?
2. Compromises with reality take place after principled positions are arrived at, not before.
Milhouse (15b6fd) — 10/12/2012 @ 12:04 pmMy mistake, you guys are enjoying yourselves.
Which I am in no position to criticize. 😉
SPQR (768505) — 10/12/2012 @ 12:05 pmWe can just throw sawdust onthe thread floor
EPWJ (4380b4) — 10/12/2012 @ 12:09 pmPeanut shells are more my style.
SPQR (768505) — 10/12/2012 @ 12:17 pm