More Free Goodies For Government!
By Mitch Berg
The Supreme Court of Minnesota (hereafter referred to as SCOM) says “didn’t actually drive drunk? Tough – W your wife did, so the police get a shiny new Tahoe!“.
An “innocent owner” cannot avoid forfeiture of a vehicle when it is jointly owned with the offender in the case, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in a split decision published Thursday.
The case involved a Cambridge man whose wife was cited for drunken driving while driving their 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe. The vehicle was seized from owner David Lee Laase. He argued in district court that the SUV should not have been taken away because he was an “innocent owner” under state law.
“This is really a major, major decision,” said Isanti County Attorney Jeffrey Edblad, who credited Assistant County Attorney Shila Walek Hooper for her work. “This is a case that obviously has statewide impact as it relates to being able to keep motor vehicles out of the hands of drunk drivers.”
Laase’s attorney, Brian Karalus, of St. Paul, disagreed.
“This opens up the floodgates for the government to come in and seize property of a 100 percent, completely innocent person,” he said. “It’s mind-boggling.”
Now, as I’ve pointed out many times to people who get overheated about court decisions, “the law means what it says it means” (which is partly false; it means what it and related case law say it means – which is why our society is all clogged with lawyers, who are the only people who can untangle it reliably, since the system was built by lawyers to be completely inscrutable to all the rest of us. But I digress).
So what does the law say?
Under state law, a vehicle cannot be seized “if its owner can demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the owner did not have actual or constructive knowledge that the vehicle would be used or operated in any manner contrary to law or that the owner took reasonable steps to prevent the use of the vehicle by the offender.”
The district court and Court of Appeals agreed that Laase qualified.
But the Supreme Court reversed the appeals court’s ruling, saying that “while Mr. Laase may be an innocent owner, Ms. Laase is not.”
Now, I’m going to suspect there may well be a little bit of backstory there that didn’t make it into the story (inasmuch as the story was likely written by a non-lawyer), but I’m thinking there’s substantial grounds here for a…
{{facepalm}}
“Ms. Laase is not” the innocent owner. Right. Got that, SCOM.
But if one owner’s guilt is enough to void the whole “innocent owner” law, then there’s no such thing as an innocent owner, is there? There’s only “owners who don’t co-own things with anyone accused of anything”, and “guilty owners and their victims”.
The SCOM: working to make government richer, more powerful and more stupid for over 150 years.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:51 pm
Mark,
Your reply is an interesting exercise in rhetorical framing.
Mitch, first you admonish me for being tiresomely on point regarding my views on the Dixiefied Republicans,
…well, no. I’m admonishing you for putting “dixified Republicans” on a hotkey on your computer, as if it explains everything about the GOP or conservatism today.
It doesn’t.
and now you’re mocking me for expecting everyone to know what my beliefs are?
Not sure where you get “mocking” from.
Reread your own comments in this thread and then tell me how exactly I should respond. Am I tiresomely on message, or totally obscure and inconsistent?
Oh, that’s easy: You very consistently put out a message based on a cherry-picked historical factoid that reinforces your own inaccurate prejudices.
You don’t like the Republican party of 1956?
I didn’t go into “like” or “dislike”: I merely accurately noted that the GOP evolved between 1956 and 1980, and has evolved some more since then. I also found it interesting that you picked a piece of the platform that wouldn’t be out of place in a state Democrat party platform (at least in a place with a more-sane Democratic party than Minnesota).
Then stop taking credit for Lincoln freeing the slaves because the party of 1956 had more in common with the new party of 1860 than with 2009’s.
Put another way: you want to cherrypick what “conservatism” and “republicanism” means to you, picking and choosing what the “good” and “bad” parts are to you, and plugging your ears and going “nya nya nya” to the responses you don’t want to hear.
What you are telling me sounds a lot like: screw history, I believe what I want to believe.
With all due respect, I suggest it’s you that’s doing that; you repeatedly claim that you (and the GOP you recall growing up around) were “the real conservatives”, when by any objective measure the GOP at large (not to speak for the party in your hometown) fit hand-in-glove with the post-New-Deal Democrats, and offered no substantive alternative on policy, choosing instead to superimpose the most cartoony aspects of “Dixie” over everything the GOP has done, good/bad/indifferent, since then.
Which is exactly how politics works in the South. Don’t like what they have to say? Wait a day and they’ll say something different. All that matters is that any eventual legislation they pass will consolidate wealth in the hands of the few, thanks to the votes of suckers who think it will be their turn to be rich next because mega-church Jesus was all about money and prosperity.
I was going to say “I have no idea how to respond to that”, but I guess it harkens back to that “cartoon” bit I was talking about above.
Look – I got it. You think “real conservatives” were the ones that were really indistinguishable from the New Dealers. It’s not above my feeble little right-wing brain to grok, honest. I get it.
It’s wrong, though. And not just because the Ghost of Jerry Falwell has possessed my fingers against my will to type it.
December 21st, 2009 at 2:53 pm
Your nutty, Gisleson. Over the rainbow, playing with toys in the attic, etc. What the hell are you talking about? ” . . . votes of suckers who think it will be their turn to be rich next because mega-church Jesus was all about money and prosperity.”
Do you actually know anyone who believes this crap?
‘Cuz if you don’t it’s all in your head.
December 21st, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Mitch, we can dance all day and you won’t change your mind or offer up any links that would change mine. Your party has devolved, mine has evolved. I picked 1956 for a reason: Eisenhower was one of the GOP’s greatest presidents, and the post-Eisenhower Republican party has utterly repudiated the global security and stabile economic growth Eisenhower worked to achieve. The “real” GOP had plenty of elected officials who worked with FDR to pass Social Security, just like Republicans worked with LBJ to make Medicare a reality. If being a conservative means rejecting Social Security and Medicare, have fun with being the permanent minority party. Your party was hijacked by Jeff Davis loving stars’n’bars waving Confederates.They’ve destroyed the GOP’s place in history by sacrificing conservative values on an altar of Southern demagoguery. Eisenhower preached truth and that’s why he’s all but been scrubbed from the party history books. Airbrushed out with Stalinist abandon, as it were. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Eisenhower%27s_farewell_address
Terry? At least I post under my complete name. But other than that, I don’t really understand what you’re saying. Have you ever been to a mega church or listened to one of their sermons? Jesus loved money! Jesus wants you to be rich! If you don’t think that’s what prosperity gospel is about, you’ve never been to a mega church that subscribed to this Jesus-as-money-manager approach. You don’t even have to go to one, just turn on your TV some Sunday morning. In my head? I’m just repeating what the prosperity gospel folks preach: http://tinyurl.com/prosperitygospelcrooks
December 21st, 2009 at 4:49 pm
And Mitch? I don’t read Lakoff. In fact, I’ve criticized Lakoff and his followers quite often on my blog.
Yes, I understand framing. I understand it because I’ve studied marketing since the ’60s. Framing is what you do when you’re trying to sell a product that has little or no merit. Lakoff mostly writes about how Rovian Republicans have used framing and then argues that Democrats should too. I don’t agree.
This country will never get better until we learn how to argue fairly again. I’ve made several specific allegations in your comment thread. I don’t think you’ve really answered my points. I provide a link, you respond with an assertion. I speak to how Republicans have become dixified, and you won’t even acknowledge that the South has taken over the GOP.
I think this Iowan has more respect for Minnesota’s Civil War dead than you do. This state fought a war to end slavery, but the Republican party we have now worked with corporate Democrats to gut our bankruptcy laws so that working people who fall down spend the rest of their lives in financial chains.
I’ve never ripped on Republicans for that bill, by the way. But I have ripped Joe Biden a new one over it many times. I don’t have a problem with faulting Democrats, and when you want to ding them over real issues, there’s a good chance we’ll agree. If you want to amend this post to acknowledge that the SCOM decision that so offended you was authored exclusively by Pawlenty appointees to the SCOM, that would be a good start towards establishing that you can be objective.
December 21st, 2009 at 6:45 pm
This country will never get better until we learn how to argue fairly again.
This comes from a guy who just called half of his fellow Americans revanchist confederates.
The folks on the left can’t argue at all.
December 21st, 2009 at 6:53 pm
The underlying Giz point is that ALL Republicans are racists!!!
December 21st, 2009 at 6:57 pm
In 2008 Minnesotans had a chance to vote for a moderate GOP candidate with long experience in office or a radical leftist political newcomer who has said that republicans (half of Minnesota voters) should be put in a prison camp.
I think I know who Gisleson voted for. It wasn’t Coleman.
December 21st, 2009 at 7:08 pm
So, you don’t anyone who believes that next it “will be their turn to be rich next because mega-church Jesus was all about money and prosperity.”
Got it. Nutty, like I said.
December 21st, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Actually, it bothers me that ANY Minnesota Republicans would be racist. Rural midwestern states have grown more intolerant over my lifetime, not less. That disappoints me. Racism in the rural Midwest is a problem for both parties, not one.
If you read what I wrote, I fault Republicans for letting Dixie in, and my criticism is of the Dixie-driven end of current Republican theology. If you were to criticize Dems for having too many Jews in leadership positions, I wouldn’t be inclined to argue with you even though it’s not a concern of mine. Just a readily identifiable fact and one that impacts Democratic policy on Israel way too much.
Look at the electoral maps from the last few elections. The GOP has become the party of Dixie, and that tail is wagging your dog. Creationism never used to be a Republican issue. Privacy used to be at the center of Republican philosophy.
As for Norm Coleman, he’s always been a big city liberal con man. The fact he’s got half the Republicans in Minnesota bamboozled is absolutely hilarious given how he stuck it to the Dems that elected him in the first place. But so long as your people are paying him under the table, he’ll deliver whatever you want. Just make sure you know what you’re paying for and don’t expect his wife to actually show up at an office for her paycheck, just mail it to her.
I won’t argue with people who call me nutty. That and I really don’t know how to respond to “you don’t anyone who believes that next it ‘will be their turn to be rich next because mega-church Jesus was all about money and prosperity.'” A verb would help out here a lot, or maybe not.
I’ll leave you alone now. I’ve had two people call me “Giz” in this thread and I really don’t take that kind of crap very well from people who don’t post under their own name. Yeah, yeah, not everyone can post under their own name yadda yadda.
December 21st, 2009 at 8:47 pm
The missing verb is “know”, Gisleson. I drop words on occasion. Sorry. Mark one up for you.
To reiterate, you don’t know anyone who believes that next it “will be their turn to be rich next because mega-church Jesus was all about money and prosperity.” Though you accuse all republican voters of believing this. Or most of them. Or some of them. Whatever, it’s your crazy fantasy.
Mark one up for me.
I correctly guessed that you chose the radical leftist with no political experience over the experienced moderate in Minnesota’s 2008 senate election. Mark another one up for me.
My name is Terry. Says so on my DL. And I didn’t call you ‘Giz’. And I am not a Republican. Mark another one up for me.
Your fantasy about republicans being neo-confederates is making you unbalanced. Democrats lost the white working class vote when the socialists took over the party after the ’68 election. Trying to make yourself feel better about it by accusing your political opponents of being backward-hillbilly-religious-nut-racists is a coping mechanism, and not a very good one. It’s making you crazier.
And speaking of creationism, I hope you realize that science hasn’t accepted that idea that to evolve is to progress to a higher form since the 1930’s. A lot of really bad ‘progressive’ ideas were born in that miserable decade. You seem to believe in most of them.
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:17 am
Since Gisleson has bid us farewell, I cp’d my last comment to his blog.
I posted under my real name, Terry. I understand that Gisleson hates anono-commenters.
Back inthe 80’s the Vikes had a coach whose last name was identical to my last name but for a single letter. My Mom’s last name is currently “Olson”. It used to be “Johnson”. My grandmother’s maiden name was Stenge with some sort of diacritic mark over one of the e’s. Or both of them, maybe.
I am anonymous no longer.
December 22nd, 2009 at 7:04 am
Er,Mark,
I gotta confess, this thread’s gotten a little long and gray. I’ll try to respond, ‘cuz it’s the polite thing to do.
Actually, it bothers me that ANY Minnesota Republicans would be racist. Rural midwestern states have grown more intolerant over my lifetime, not less. That disappoints me. Racism in the rural Midwest is a problem for both parties, not one.
More intolerant? Hm. Not sure what objective standard you have for this. Maybe it’s your observation – nothign wrong with that. But with a few exceptions, I think you’re wrong.
If you read what I wrote, I fault Republicans for letting Dixie in, and my criticism is of the Dixie-driven end of current Republican theology.
For the I-don’t-know-how-many-th time – I read it. It’s not an especially difficult concept. You have a problem with southerners, for whatever reason. You superimpose all sorts of tempates on anyone with an twang or a spoken middle name. Which is fine, but while you’ve written the word “dixie” over and over and over you’ve not really said (that I can see – and again, I’m just a dummy) what it is you hate about them. Religion? Accent? History?
If you were to criticize Dems for having too many Jews in leadership positions, I wouldn’t be inclined to argue with you even though it’s not a concern of mine. Just a readily identifiable fact and one that impacts Democratic policy on Israel way too much.
(((facepalm again)))
Look at the electoral maps from the last few elections. The GOP has become the party of Dixie,
Well, no. Oh, the south is strongly Republican, but so is the rural west. So, indeed, are the non-metropolitan areas of pretty much every state. People in Granite Falls are snake-handlers, too?
and that tail is wagging your dog. Creationism never used to be a Republican issue. Privacy used to be at the center of Republican philosophy.
Creationism isn’t a Republican issue.
As for Norm Coleman, he’s always been a big city liberal con man. The fact he’s got half the Republicans in Minnesota bamboozled is absolutely hilarious given how he stuck it to the Dems that elected him in the first place.
“Dems” who elected him? I dind’t know caucuses selected mayors.
He was elected by Republicans who realized – correctly – what a disaster Bob Long would be.
I really don’t know how to respond to “you don’t anyone who believes that next it ‘will be their turn to be rich next because mega-church Jesus was all about money and prosperity.’” A verb would help out here a lot, or maybe not.
Here’s a verb: Prove it. Show us some evidence that prosperity gospel is a signficant political force – and by that, I mean numbers, not conveniently-timed news reports focusing on them.
I’ve had two people call me “Giz” in this thread and I really don’t take that kind of crap very well from people who don’t post under their own name
Er, wasn’t your co-blogger MNob pretty famous for pretty much exactly that?
December 22nd, 2009 at 9:21 am
In reverse order:
Minnesota Observer is one of those folks who cannot post under their real name AND keep their job. She also didn’t play games with my name.
Mega churches = Republicans? http://tinyurl.com/yamq4xb Get past a couple of Obama-Rick Warren references and the enormous preponderance of links speak to Republicans and mega churches. See also http://tinyurl.com/yb99shv. You can do your own searches with Democrat instead of Republican, but it doesn’t take much effort to see that you’re getting a very different set of responses. As for numbers: 1) mega church ≠ prosperity gospel. 2) Prosperity gospel is a fraud: http://tinyurl.com/c4msxd and http://tinyurl.com/y8a8vpn 3) Prosperity gospel was a Dixiecrat thing before it went nationwide, and it reflects the growth of southern values in our culture — or do you think NASCAR is overhyped and warmongering is a traditional Republican value? (Wasn’t it Bob Dole who said all wars are Democrat wars?) 4) I’m not finding any specific polling data, but I pulled this out of an Indiana University research paper: “Prosperity adherents vote in about the same proportions as the rest of the population, and those with a Prosperity orientation tend to have voted for Bush in the year 2004 and identify as Republican.”
Back before the dawn of pre-history when Fred Flintstone and all the dinosaurs were running around, Norm Coleman was the DFL Mayor of St. Paul. Every Republican in St. Paul could have voted for him three times and he would have still owed his election to the DFL. And yes, there is a DFL endorsement for mayor. Also for City Council, Ward Supervisor, etc. It’s a sickness with these people that I’ve never quite understood, especially given the disastrous results coming out of your typical DFL caucus.
Prediction: Western Republicans are about to start peeling away from the Republican party. Why? Because a lot of them are turned off by the Dixie and the fundamentalism. Just as the Democratic party is being divided into old school liberals and progressives, with progressives being more pay as you go and pragmatic.
As for my problems with Dixie, I’m having trouble remembering when Wyoming Republicans left the union and fought a war against our federal government, lost, and then held a grudge ever since. Northern Republicans aren’t driving much of the self-destructive filibustering in the Senate (I count Boehner as an honorary Dixiecrat because Northerners just aren’t that orange). Maybe I should say Dixie + the Bible Belt, but really, Dixie sums it up best. They hate this country, our traditions and our way of life. A northern Republican businessman doesn’t want to pay his employees a dime more than he/she has to, but they won’t screw their workers half to death like they do in the south. The South is an identifiably anti-labor zone. Even on foreign policy matters they see the world differently. Southerners will work with the Chinese in a heartbeat. National security only passes their lips when they want to investigate other Americans. The rest of the time it’s all about money and power.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:22 am
Gisleson, you are a bigot.
That means that you form opinions based on ignorance and hold on to them stubbornly.
December 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
Mark Gisleson said:
“Mr. Clown, my name is Mark Gisleson. I write under my own name and because my last name is somewhat unusual, it’s very easy to find my writings online. My name is not “Giz,” and f*ck you for taking it upon yourself to diminish me with a grade school nickname.”
Giz, I’m sure in this Internet age, what with the Bings and the Googles and all, it’s quite a simple matter to locate your collected works and read them until one’s eyes bleed. But Angryclown has let himself fall far behind in his reading. There are those volumes of Thackeray calling out from the shelf, not to mention the unicycle maintenance manuals and past issues of Highlights magazine. So while there’s no doubt that Angryclown will one day read, and be suitably impressed by, the Gisleson ouevre, it may be a little while. M’kay?
December 22nd, 2009 at 2:46 pm
Gisleson does not believe that Sarah Palin is Trig’s natural mother.
http://norwegianity.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/linksnstuff/
Gisleson also has no patience with Creationists. ‘Cuz you’d have to be crazy to believe that stuff.
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Amazing how much attention you get after you try to leave a thread. Mr. Angryclown doesn’t have to read my work or be impressed by it, he just needs to shut up when talking about people he knows absolutely nothing about.
And feel free to call me a nutter for doubting Sarah Palin is Trig’s mom, but either Palin was using Botox during her pregnancy, or she was covering for Bristol’s ignorance of how birth control works. Not a huge scandal, but big enough that you’d have to be insane to vote for her.
http://breepalin.blogspot.com/
And I’d really like to leave this thread now. If you feel you absolutely have to insult me, leave your comments at my site so I’m sure to see it:
http://norwegianity.wordpress.com
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
“I won’t argue with people who call me nutty.” – Gisleson
Giz, good call for once. Yes, Giz, you certainly are a bigoted nut case. Do you ever tire of playing the race card?
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:51 pm
MG,
Minnesota Observer is one of those folks who cannot post under their real name AND keep their job. She also didn’t play games with my name.
Suppurating, liquifying bullshit.
I can think of maybe a half a dozen bloggers in the Twin Cities who do it for a full-time living, and a few more who are out of work and so can say or do anything they want. The rest of us have to balance our hobbies with our day job (by making a habit of not writing anything we’re not willing to have associated with our name), or write anonymously.
The problem is, when you’re anonymous, you can pretty much do anything you want. I don’t know what MNob does or how many identities she keeps going; frankly, I don’t read her much; she’s not a very good writer. That, however, makes her interchangeable with quite a number of other anonymous leftyblog identities in the Twin Cities, all of them more obstreporous and less responsible than MNob.
Mega churches = Republicans? http://tinyurl.com/yamq4xb Get past a couple of Obama-Rick Warren references and the enormous preponderance of links speak to Republicans and mega churches.
Right. So what?
Republicans are much more likely to be Christian than non-Republicans. We’ll be a majority at mega-churches – and, most likely, mini and midi churches as well, especially outside the Catholic/Anglican sphere.
“Megachurch” is just shorthand, on the left, for “prosperity gospel teaching conservatives” – which is inaccurate, as well.
I mean, kudos for finding an article that reflects your prejudices and talking points, but seriously, who cares? “Megachurch” is code for “uppity Christians” in the same way that “Dixie” is code for…whatever it’s code for.
2) Prosperity gospel is a fraud:
Prosperity gospel is bad theology; some practicioners are fraudulent, but the vast majority are just preaching a really idiotic interpretation of the Gospel.
3) Prosperity gospel was a Dixiecrat thing before it went nationwide, and it reflects the growth of southern values in our culture
Really? My only response to that – besides, again, who cares? – is another “who cares”. People are different. Until the left homogenizes us all, anyway.
or do you think NASCAR is overhyped
All sports are overhyped. Compared to football and basketball, NASCAR is pretty reasonable.
and warmongering is a traditional Republican value? (Wasn’t it Bob Dole who said all wars are Democrat wars?)
Probably not, but since he fought in one, I’ll give him some leeway. And no, warmongering has never been a Republican value. Peace through strength is; the left calls that “warmongering”, but that’s even more fucking stupid that most of what the hard left prattles about.
4) I’m not finding any specific polling data, but I pulled this out of an Indiana University research paper: “Prosperity adherents vote in about the same proportions as the rest of the population, and those with a Prosperity orientation tend to have voted for Bush in the year 2004 and identify as Republican.”
And again, so what? You know else who voted for Bush in 2004?
– Men
– Mothers (by a closer but significant majority)
– The military (by a 4-1 margin among active-duty)
– Small businesspeople
– Farmers (2-1)
Do you have some other scary conspiracy theory about their motivations, too?
Prediction: Western Republicans are about to start peeling away from the Republican party. Why? Because a lot of them are turned off by the Dixie and the fundamentalism.
Nope. Western Republicans are going to take over the GOP, and drag most of the South with ’em. The GOP is going to get more libertarian and less “fundamentalist” – or, rather, the fundie and lib wings are going to learn to co-exist and fight the same enemies. That’s been one of the big takeaways of the tea party movement (which the left and media have missed amogn all their “teabagger” giggling); you see something you’ve never seen before; libertarians, paleos and Paulbots putting their differences down and uniting against a common enemy.
You.
No, not you. Just kidding. Big government.
OK – now, onto your curious obsession with “dixie”:L
As for my problems with Dixie, I’m having trouble remembering when Wyoming Republicans left the union and fought a war against our federal government, lost, and then held a grudge ever since. <
So many smartass responses…
Northern Republicans aren’t driving much of the self-destructive filibustering in the Senate
WHAT?
THAT is the dividing line betweeen “good” and “evil” republicans to you? Opposing the socialization of healthcare – as they were elected to do – by the very few parliamentary means available to them?
Please come up with a rational explanation for this, or just quietly admit your perspective is utterly unsuited to analyze any flavor of the GOP or conservatism.
Theyhate this country, our traditions and our way of life. A northern Republican businessman doesn’t want to pay his employees a dime more than he/she has to, but they won’t screw their workers half to death like they do in the south. The South is an identifiably anti-labor zone.
I’m at a loss for words. I”m literally shaking my head.0
Even on foreign policy matters they see the world differently. Southerners will work with the Chinese in a heartbeat.
Um…OK…
?
December 22nd, 2009 at 3:54 pm
Feel free to call me a nutter for doubting Sarah Palin is Trig’s mom,
By your leave.
You are a nutter.
That’s just bizarre.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Actually, Giz, Angryclown needs only to follow the dictates of his rather permissive conscience and the laws of the republic. Your request is noted, but is unlikely to make it very far up Angryclown’s list of lifetime goals.
Angryclown does like what you have to say about the malign influence of the Confederate states on American society, though. Perhaps he will check out your blog.
You still around or really leave this time?
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:35 pm
The evidence re Trig Palin at the llink that Gisleson provides is:
In a video supposedly filmed while she was pregnant with Trig, SPalin raises her eyebrows and HER FOREHEAD DOES NOT WRINKLE.
This obviously mean she has botox injections and since they don’t give botox injections to pregnant women IT”S OBVIOUS THAT SHE WAS NOT PREGNANT AND SHE IS A LIAR!
I wonder if Gisleson thinks people who believe that Obama was not born in the US are crazee? I mean, he does believe that birth documents can be forged by a snowbilly. It would be racist to say that Indonesians, Kenyans, or Hawaiians couldn’t do it.
December 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 pm
Greatest. Thread. Ever.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:07 pm
I can understand, if not forgive, Angry Clown’s resentment re the South. I imagine that competition from the Toby shows down the-ah have been eating into his profit margin.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Isn’t there one baby too many for the conspiracy theory to work?
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:12 pm
Oh, I almost missed this, and I sincerely hope Mr. Gisleson is still blessing my humble but dumb conservative blog with his presence. Leaving aside the patent, almost depressing 9/11-truther-level absurdity of the meme, and its absolute inconsequentiality even if true, I have to ask:
Not a huge scandal, but big enough that you’d have to be insane to vote for her.
So do you mean that if Palin wasn’t accused of faking her pregnancy there’d have been a snowball’s chance in hell of you voting for a limited-government pro-growth paleoconservative woman?
OK – so does that mean you’ll consider backing a limited-government pro-growth conservative woman whose pregnancies remain unquestioned?
OK, Mark, let’s take baby steps here. Who do you endorse for governor – Pat Anderson or Laura Brod?
And no, you can’t say “Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer is the real conservative AND the real woman”.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
And finally, Mark,
With all due respect, no, I’ll keep my comments here. I’m a big boy, and I give vastly worse than I get in any kind of rhubarb, but your comment section (and I say this, again, with all respect due to you) is – well, I could start tossing out the diagnoses, but I’ll stick to outputs; your comment section depresses me. Maybe it’s me.
I can deal with pretty much anything, of course, but honestly – why? I had more fun working in bars than jinking through comment sections at DU, the Freep, Little Green Footballs, Kos or, well, The Wege.
Just business. Nothing personal.
December 22nd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Isn’t there one baby too many for the conspiracy theory to work?
I think the “conventional wisdom” is that Todd killed a drifter to get Bree.
Do I have it right, Mr. G?
December 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 pm
I thought the real father of Trig was supposed to be that “Grandpa Sawyer” character from Texas Chainsaw Massacre. Not the remake, the original.
December 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
No, but Swiftea’s father is the guy who butt-rapes Ned Beatty in “Deliverance.” Maybe that’s what you were thinking of.
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:05 am
Just acknowledging I’ve read all the new comments.
Bookmark this page and read it again after Palin leaves the national stage disgraced.
December 23rd, 2009 at 10:12 am
Botoxgate!
December 23rd, 2009 at 11:29 am
Gisleson, people should also find and bookmark the pages where you said you were ready for an armed revolution and that you are a union labor thug who wants to beat the shiite out of your enemies. Speaking of disgrace.