RSS
The Wit of Bill Mahr
At the HuffPO, comedian Bill Mahr says:
"New Rule: If Phil Spector gets to kill people, Mary Ann from Gilligan's Island is allowed to drive with pot in her car."
Isn't he funny? Isn't it funny how screwed up our legal system and social priorities are.
Only, let's see Phil Spector was arrested and tried for murder and managed a hung jury. It was O.J. that got away with murder. But somehow that joke isn't as funny.
In the meantime, Mary Ann will get probation or whatever and never go to trial. Maybe she should hire the silver-tongued, marvelously-witty Mahr and go to trial. She could get a hung jury too and all would be right with the world.
"New Rule: If Phil Spector gets to kill people, Mary Ann from Gilligan's Island is allowed to drive with pot in her car."
Isn't he funny? Isn't it funny how screwed up our legal system and social priorities are.
Only, let's see Phil Spector was arrested and tried for murder and managed a hung jury. It was O.J. that got away with murder. But somehow that joke isn't as funny.
In the meantime, Mary Ann will get probation or whatever and never go to trial. Maybe she should hire the silver-tongued, marvelously-witty Mahr and go to trial. She could get a hung jury too and all would be right with the world.
posted by Spencerblog at
8:43 AM
52 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
Marry Ann or Ginger? I’m guessing Dave had his eye on Gilligan. :)
Mahr is a pompous Lib bore. Worse even than some Daves I know.
Thanks for the insult-free update, Dave.
That wasn't too hard was it?
Randal, enough with the gay jokes.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Why does Gil have to research and present all sides and opposing points of view? It always amazes me how often people yell at Gil for being biased. Gil is a columnist, not a reporter. There is a difference. He is paid to offer his opinion, not report the news. You are allowed to freely disagree with him and offer your own point of view, with your own links and stories to support your view.
Yeah. And what about all the many, many Left-wing hack editorials ever full of Lying Leftie distortions? There’re lots more of them out there.
Gil is like the FOX News of local Media. It bothers the LibDems to no end that ONE semi-Rightie gets to voice his views in the Sea of Filthy Lying Libism that passes as journalism.
Why are the Libs SO afraid of others being exposed to ONE opposing view?
Dave,
If you are going to do my research for me please do a better job.
DRIGGS, Idaho — Perhaps they should have called her Mary Jane.
A surprise birthday party for Dawn Wells, the actress who played Mary Ann on "Gilligan's Island," ended with a nearly three-hour tour of the Teton County sheriff's office and jail when the 69-year-old was caught with marijuana in her vehicle while driving home.
Wells is now serving six months' unsupervised probation for the crime. She was sentenced Feb. 29 to five days in jail, fined $410.50 and placed on probation after pleading guilty to one count of reckless driving...
The officer questioned her about a marijuana smell coming from her car and she claimed that she had picked up three hitchhikers, and let them out of the car when they began smoking something. A car search uncovered half-smoked joints and cases used to store the drug. She was then given a sobriety test, which she failed.
Gil:
Once again, no gay jokes here about Diano, even though he would never let the facts stand in the way of his version of what really happened. Where else has Diano done that?
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
This comment has been removed by the author.
Does Mary Ann drink fair-trade coffee?
I want to know what Maryann did on the Island to help combat global warming? Maybe Diano knows.
And since I stopped calling Diano queer, he still calls everyone else names, including me.
Gil, if I have to be politically correct towards Diano, why doesn't he need to be politically correct. This double standard is queer to me.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by the author.
To Diano aka John Edwards:
Don't worry about what I do on behalf of my clients, if you read the paper, watch tv, or listen to the radio, you would know that my clients get top shelf legal representation.
You have my permission to go back to curling your hair.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhppe.com
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diano:
What does pro-666 mean. Is that a tolerant liberal slur?
Do progressive Patriots drink fair trade coffee?
Gil, you need to write about this blog one of these days, the posts are too entertaining not to read!
This comment has been removed by the author.
Don’t I recall Lib Dave weeping like a little girl when Gil called him the Devil?
Man, you really are a hypocrite in everything you do, eh Dave.
“Libism sure does run deep in a shallow man.” ~that's mine
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I do! I do! And I'm a typical white guy.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Diano Edwards:
You are just flat out wrong about homosexuality, period. Also, you are right about sodomy being previously outlawed in various states (I am expandingon your thought), and it was a very liberal Supreme Court which created the "privacy" right to engage in homosexuality, while at the same time reversing about 18years of Supreme Court precedent.
Riddle me this Diano Edwards: I have spoken about the Supreme Court in many different "intellectual venues", especially as it relates to the precedent of Roe v. Wade. Why is the precedent of Roe v. Wade so much more important than the precedent of Bowers v. Hardwick? Also, why did Lawrence v. Texas abdicate our sovereingty by relying on international law (excluding sharia law of course) in relying upon a European Court of Human Rights case that was decided before Bowers v. Hardwick?
Let me know what you think by July, as I will be participating in an international discussion of this and other issues in Rome, and your help and insights could be invaluable to bring about the destruction of your empty intellectualism.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
This comment has been removed by the author.
Dave comparing gays to blacks again.
What’s up, Gil? Your censoring here seems to be very selective. What, any post with the word “gay” in it gets deleted but Dave’s abrasive and offensive religion bashing posts are ok? WTF?
Diano Edwards:
You know nothing about precedent! Also, Lawrence v. Texas was not a conservative decision. In fact, it was decided by the liberal wing of the Supreme Court, including Kennedy and O'Connor. Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas dissented.
By the way, it was Schumer who wanted a main stream nominee to replace a main stream Justice (O'Connor), whatever that means. That said, Schumer wants to be such a champion of "precedent", he seems to have forgotten that Bowers v. Hardwick (which really upheld the doctrine of federalism) was authored by .... Justice White. But really, guess who joined that opinion, you got it ... Justice O'Connor.
In Lawrence v. Texas, the same Justice O'Connor wrote a concurring opinion where she stated that the sodomy law was unconstitutional on equal protection grounds, and that Bowers should not be overturned based upon the majority opinion, which adopted Stevens' dissent from Bowers.
The slight of hand here was O'Connor. She knew that in order to protect Roe v. Wade, she could not come right out and overturn a decision she joined 17 years prior, so she invalidated the statute under equal protection, knowing that she was on safe ground because the majority was overturning Bowers without her vote.
Sort of like what Justice Douglas did in Griswold. You know Dave, that is the case where the majority found a right to privacy in the penumbra of the rights explicitly stated in the Constitution.
Conservatives don't do this when they are judges, but the liberals do. If you care for a more thorough understanding of this and many other cases where the same thing has happened, join me in Rome in July for a Constitutional law seminar where some of the brightest Constitutional practitioners and scholars (including little old me) will be discussing these important legal issues.
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diano Edwards:
You are a true lib who believes that the Constitution is a living breathing document that needs to be changed over time, instead of believing it is a legal document that can only be changed through the amendment process.
Taking your argument as a whole, what will you say when society becomes more aware that homosexuality is not natural, or that the unborn are people too? Can I then use/co-opt your arguments?
Why are you picking on creationism? Darwinism doesn't work and my proof is this. If you believe that being gay is genetic, how does the gay gene get passed along? It is my understanding that homosexuals, no matter how hard they try, can not make off spring (that is how you got here Diano Edwards). That said, how does the gay gene get passed to subsequent generations? So if homosexuals don't make offspring, your theory of evolution would mandate that it just die off.
If you really think about it, creationism is more in line with homosexuality. Darwinism mandates that homos die off. Homosexuality is a sin of man, and something that can be resisted, and also something you can repent from. That is why we have homosexuals. God created man, and Jesus died on the cross for all of our sins. There is hope for you and every other homosexual out there.
What say you Diano Edwards?
After your head explodes I will respond to your further rants.
Lol... Sure. Just like there's hope for alcoholics. Just say No and do something else.
There is hope even for the alcoholic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diano Edwards:
Have you seen 2 other species having same "whatever they do" sex? I thought we were the species that could reason and decide between what is right and what is wrong. If you choose not to believe in Christianity and the Bible, then I hope you come to see the light. But for now, there is no argument, either from a secular or scientific viewpoint that homosexual sex is normal just like heterosexual sex.
As for the Supreme Court, it is the liberal side that is doing exactly what you want them to do, and that is make law from the bench that protects the minority. It sounds nice but in a democracy the majority rules, and when they (the majority) set forth a mechanism in the Constitution to amend the document, it meant something.
Your ignorance of the law and what precedent means is understandable. Lastly, on the international note, Chief Justice Roberts was asked about using international precedent, and he responded something to the effect that anyone can look out over a crowd and pick out his friends. If international law is now going to be a source of our law, should we pick only those laws which fit a particular agenda, or should we just pick what is good and ignore what is bad? Hum, Dave, if that becomes the standard then even your side is in trouble. The law will mean whatever is fanciful at the time. I can smell the gumdrops falling from the sky.
This comment has been removed by the author.
The presence of same-sex sexual behavior was not 'officially' observed on a large scale until recent times, possibly due to observer bias caused by social attitudes to same-sex sexual behavior.
Lol... Yeah, about when biased gay defenders thought this might somehow bolster their arguments. Hahaha...
This comment has been removed by the author.
No. You gay defenders wanted to bolster your arguments in further attempt to make homoism appear normal, as in "See, see, animals do it too, so it must be normal!"
Besides, we've seen in recent times just how willing lying Libs are to twist science in order to fit their agendas. Some of us don't buy it. Just because you want to does nothing to change the truth.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Homoism IS unnatural behavior. It runs exactly counter to Evolution. One need not study penguins, the Bible, ancient history or Lib Agenda driven scientific studies in order to see this. But feel free to keep grasping in your blind efforts to justify and normalize it to others, if that’s what you’re into. Just try not to bet too upset when the rest of us laugh at you and dismiss you.
Should we get into the arguements about how the liberal wing of the Supreme court ruled in favor of eminant domain for big business developments and how liberal justices like Ginsburg are referencing european documents in rulings in lieu of our own constitution?
Justices should be naturally conservative - easist way to stay close to the constitution as intended.
Our Founders who wrote that Rule Book were all Righties. Every one of em. They would be appalled at how the filthy Libs have distorted their intentions for their Lib Agenda.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Diano:
Do you admit that some of the people who engage in gay activities also procreate through heterosexual sex?
By definition, if you are "gay", then you don't procreate, thus you don't spread your "gay" gene around. What we are seeing is people who engage in gay sex, and not because they are gay, but because they have other issues.
The gay community exists because it is an alternatve lifestyle. The gay community spends alot of time and effort in recruiting people to their lifestyle.
That said, it is still unnatural!
C. Scott Shields, Esquire
www.shieldsandhoppe.com
Sure. Clearly for many (most?) people Homoism is just another life choice –an experimentation because it has been promoted to young society as being just another fine and normal way to be.
And, despite the Gay Apologist's lame efforts here, it indeed runs counter to Evolution.
Come on, Dave, explain to us how “bi” folks only have part of the Gay Gene. Or how Lib college kids that dabble in Homoism were only partly born that way. What, they only have that gene for one drunken night in college? Lol…
I'm guessing Dave was the last male child born in his family of 20 or so male siblings.
;) ;)
Why does every conversation turn to arguements on homosexuality on this board? (This one started with Bill Mahr/Gilligan's Island and went to Sodomy, HOW?)
My opinion goes in another direction, and I've shared it with friends and family members before: "Why not let them be as miserable as the rest of us married folk?"
Gay people are not threatening us, they're not forcing us into their culture, so why get worked up about them?
I draw the line when it comes to trans-sexuals. I've been hearing about programs from the ACLU where they send them to do school seminars to promote acceptance of pre and post-op. I'm sorry but THAT will never be natural, in my opinion.
Speaking of HBO, has anyone been watching their "John Adams" series? I've found it to be excellent.
Yeah. How does Dave manage to turn every thread into a gay and black celebration?
This comment has been removed by the author.
So you're saying it's all about the sex after all.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You're a little too into this for me, Dave. Sorry, I don't swing that way.
And what about that part time gayness?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Blahblahblah... Keep grasping, Dave. Are you sure there's not something you want to tell us?
And what about that part time gayness?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home