Well ewwww! Big, strong Repub "kick's liberal butt"

[carrowsboy]

Sounds like this asshole needs to funnel all that outrage and energy into enlisting!

But something tells me that his almighty dollar won't be able to have the insurgents "thrown out."

http://www.timesdispatch.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=RTD%2FMGArticle%2FRTD_BasicArticle&c=MGArticle&cid=1031784077034&path=%21editorials%21letters&s=1045855935005

"Bar Story Provided Evening of Fun

Editor, Times-Dispatch: I was undercover, a young conservative at a crowded bar in the Fan crawling with college-age neo-Communists, better known to editorial fans as "neo-Coms."

Fate, alcohol, and a bartender who likes "The Daily Show" presented me with an opportunity for parody that only a Ché Guevara T-shirt and stammering lips provide.

I queried a red-faced patron about what ailed him. He apparently didn't appreciate Jon Stewart's dismissive (and for once, justified) mockery of Senator Dick Durbin's Guantnamo Bay remarks comparing U.S. treatment of jihadists at Gitmo with the conduct of Nazis, Soviets, and the Khmer Rouge. My medium-rare subject felt that these remarks were fair and Stewart was betraying the cause by making fun of Durbin.

I challenged our friend. He answered me with excited talk of civil liberties, the Patriot Act, and every name not in the book (it's a family book).

I questioned his sincerity. With his T-shirt lionizing a founding father of the Cuban police state and all, I doubted his concern for civil liberties. Speaking of civil liberties, I pointed out that liberals are at fault for the recent Supreme Court decision allowing New London, Connecticut, and everywhere else to more broadly define "public use" while invoking eminent domain to seize private property. Thanks to the "mainstream" judges who gave us this decision, any homeowner is a campaign contribution with a promise of a higher tax base away from losing his home. Is there any more egregious affront to civil liberties than seizing property? He couldn't answer. The conversation went to the toilet and he followed. I stole his barstool. He tried to retrieve it in anger, but my well-compensated bartender had him thrown out. David Leto. richmond."

[cornermouse]

1. What do you want to bet tha David was liquored up before

he got there?

[carrowsboy]

2. well personally...

I think this story is made up.

[The Doctor.]

3. Though I'd agree that this story is devoid of 'the ring of truth'...

The author's point is nonetheless accurate with regard to the supreme court decision.

It was, in fact the moderates (excepting O'Connor) who voted in favor of the expansion of emminent domain.

"In a 5 to 4 decision, Supreme Court Justices John Paul Stevens, David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, as well as Reagan appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, voted to expand the government's right to seize property from citizens by declaring that such seizure was legal --not just communal improvement purposes, such as building roads, bridges, or court houses, but to facilitate private commercial development. What could the 5 to 4 majority "liberal" justices be thinking? "

http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/05/07/02.php

[zanne]

4. Creative Writing 101

I'd give him a C-.

[The Doctor.]

5. Nah... a story like that would get a 'B'...

in junior high.

[livinginphotographs]

6. I read this the other day.

I think Mr. David Leto is a fucking liar, to put it bluntly. Richmond may be mostly red, but the Fan is so blue it hurts. This guy would've gotten a beer in his face before long if he was really going around the bar taunting liberals that have had a few drinks in them.

And liberals are at fault for the eminent domain decision? Funny, weren't most of the current appointees Reagan or Bush judges?

[Blue_Tires]

7. seems like fiction n/t