Joe Btfsplk

[Flanders]

JOE BTFSPLK​

Old timers will remember Joe Btfsplk from the Li’l Abner cartoon strip because it was always raining on poor Joe.

Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is an impossible last name in common with Mr. Btfsplk; his first name is a tongue twister, too. My fingers rebel every time I type Dzhokhar Tsarnaev; so I’m making it easy on myself. From now on I’m typing Joe Car.

In addition to impossible names there’s a permanent rain cloud hovering over Joe Car, but he’s going to get an umbrella compliments of taxpayers:

Court documents filed Monday say three federal public defenders are assigned to represent the Boston bombing suspect. They are Miriam Conrad, William Fick and Timothy Watkins.

Meet the Boston bombing suspect's defense team
By Graham Winch
updated 2:14 PM EDT, Tue April 23, 2013

Meet the Boston bombing suspect's defense team | HLNtv.com

I heard that each of the public defenders is paid a yearly salary of $160,000. Hell, Joe Car is now a walking gold mine to the legal profession when you add in all of the other stuff. What with sequestration, I just hope there’s enough dough left over to buy the rope

On top of everything else every touchy-feely freak, every opponent of the death penalty, and every America-hater will rally around Joe Car. Folklore might even turn him into the Muslim Che Guevara:

All during shootout number two with Boston bombing suspect number two on Friday night, I was hoping he would not be taken alive. But the worst case scenario prevailed, and now that he has been captured the liberal coddling will begin.

The Worst That Could Happen
By Doug Gamble Tuesday, April 23, 2013

The Worst That Could Happen

 

[Ravi]

Public defenders who represent indigent people in federal court go by the titles of federal public defender, assistant federal public defender and research and writing specialist. The salaries of assistant federal public defenders and federal public defenders should always be comparable to those of their federal prosecutorial counterparts, assistant U.S. attorneys and U.S. attorneys. Therefore, federal defenders earn salaries ranging from approximately $47,000 to $125,000. The exact salary a person will receive as a federal defender depends on the amount of experience she has.

The Salary of a Federal Public Defender | Chron.com

When your hatred of half the US population boils over, Flanders, and causes you to harm someone, you too will be entitled to a defense, courtesy of the U.S. Constitution.

 

[Flanders]

Quote OP
On top of everything else every touchy-feely freak, every opponent of the death penalty, and every America-hater will rally around Joe Car.

Here they come:

And just like the conspiracy theorists who claimed last week that the Boston Marathon attacks were staged, the support for Dzhokhar has been fervent despite his reported confession.

A Change.org petition to "guarantee Dzhokhar Tsarnaev the right to a fair trial," addressed to President Barack Obama, has more than 6,000 supporters.

Tsarnaev’s condition improves; brothers reportedly motivated by U.S. wars
By Dylan Stableford, Yahoo! News | The Lookout – 15 hrs ago

Tsarnaev?s condition improves; brothers reportedly motivated by U.S. wars

 

[Flanders]

ADDENDUM

I was reminded that in 2004 then-Senator Zell Miller compared John Kerry to Joe Btfsplk for political reasons:

John Kerry as Joe Btfsplk
By Paul M. Weyrich
web posted June 28, 2004

ESR | June 28, 2004 | John Kerry as Joe Btfsplk

There is always a dark cloud and few drops of rain over Kerry’s head. If that does not describe EVERY leading Democrat, I do not know what does.

Parenthetically, Zbigniew Brzezinski and Btfsplk are not names that roll off the tongue with ease. Brzezinski lays out scenarios then tells you about the bad things that will happen if his advice is not followed. The man should carry a shovel in case his rain cloud lets loose with a load of horse manure.

Zbigniew is a relic from the Carter Administration. Kerry began raining on the country long before Carter became president. It seems that Democrats can’t outrun their dark clouds no matter the era they come from.

Lo and behold, the Huffington Post ran this in 2010:

Paul Szep
Two time Pulitzer prize winning cartoonist
Posted: September 2, 2010 06:51 PM

Paul Szep: The Daily Szep- Obama as Joe Btfsplk

And God help us! The biggest dark cloud of all —— Al “Global Warming” Gore —— refuses to go away.

Finally, Joe Btfsplk serves as a deus ex machina. I eagerly await Joe Btfsplk in the White House trying to rescue Joe Car with a plot twist.

 

[editec]

I recall this character.

He was Joe Btfsplnk, the world's worst Jinx

 

[George Costanza]

I heard that each of the public defenders is paid a yearly salary of $160,000.

Really. Golly, I've been a public defender for almost 25 years and I don't make anywhere near that much.

I am wondering where you "heard" this and if you could be so kind as to provide me with a link to verify it - not that I think you are a biased, right-wing nut case who is grossly exaggerating here simply to make a point, understand . . .

 

[Flanders]

I heard that each of the public defenders is paid a yearly salary of $160,000.

Really. Golly, I've been a public defender for almost 25 years and I don't make anywhere near that much.

I am wondering where you "heard" this and if you could be so kind as to provide me with a link to verify it - not that I think you are a biased, right-wing nut case who is grossly exaggerating here simply to make a point, understand . . .

To George Costanza: I heard it yesterday while I was surfing the boob tube. No link. You’ll have to take my word for it.

Check out #2 permalink. As I understand the link salaries are determined by experience and could go higher than $125,000 a year. That should interest you not that I think you’re a government parasite.

 

[George Costanza]

I heard that each of the public defenders is paid a yearly salary of $160,000.

Really. Golly, I've been a public defender for almost 25 years and I don't make anywhere near that much.

I am wondering where you "heard" this and if you could be so kind as to provide me with a link to verify it - not that I think you are a biased, right-wing nut case who is grossly exaggerating here simply to make a point, understand . . .

To George Costanza: I heard it yesterday while I was surfing the boob tube. No link. You’ll have to take my word for it.

Check out #2 permalink. As I understand the link salaries are determined by experience and could go higher than $125,000 a year. That should interest you not that I think you’re a government parasite.

Touche - well played.

Could be - I have to admit that some government positions pay huge salaries. 160K seems a tad high, though. (God, I think I'm in love with that sweet thing in the black bikini who is currently gracing the bottom of the pages here at USMB.)

 

[Flanders]

Could be - I have to admit that some government positions pay huge salaries. 160K seems a tad high, though.

To George Costanza: Way too high if you ask me especially since the right to counsel was not in the Constitution until 9 lawyers put it there:

The Right to Counsel: Badly Battered at 50

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/10/opinion/sunday/the-right-to-counsel-badly-battered-at-50.html?_r=0

Defendants should get counsel in death penalty cases as they did before Gideon, but Gideon was convicted of breaking and entering. That’s why I’ve always thought the Court’s decision was predicated on generating income for the legal profession, and what a boondoggle it’s been.

Tough financial times may be ahead:

“You can’t prosecute people without providing them a lawyer if they can’t afford their own lawyer, that’s just a constitutional requirement,” Conrad told the paper.

Sequester hits Boston terror trial
By DAVID NATHER | 4/24/13 5:59 PM EDT

Sequester hits Boston terror trial - David Nather - POLITICO.com

No. It’s a Warren Court requirement that was implemented without amending the Constitution.

Public defenders need not fear. Charles Krauthammer is on their side:

Krauthammer On Boston Bombings: "Beginning To Unfold How Much They Screwed Up Here" | RealClearPolitics

 

[whitehall]

Are Russians allergic to vowels?

 

[George Costanza]

“You can’t prosecute people without providing them a lawyer if they can’t afford their own lawyer, that’s just a constitutional requirement,” Conrad told the paper.

Sequester hits Boston terror trial
By DAVID NATHER | 4/24/13 5:59 PM EDT

Sequester hits Boston terror trial - David Nather - POLITICO.com

No. It’s a Warren Court requirement that was implemented without amending the Constitution.

Public defenders need not fear. Charles Krauthammer is on their side:

WTF are you TALKING about here? A constitutional amendment is not required if the United States Supreme Court rules that something is constitutional or unconstitutional. The right to counsel was granted in Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963. In other words, the U.S. Supremes ruled that prosecuting someone criminally without giving them an attorney, is unconstitutional. Again, in 1966, Miranda v. Arizona expanded on Gideon. Here, The Supremes held that the right to counsel is extended to pre-arraignment contacts with police in certain limited situations.

From your reference to "The Warren Court" as if it was a den of thieves, and your general comments about attorneys, I take it you are a lawyer hater. OK - you aren't the only one. I only hope that, some day, you find the police at your door with grim expressions on their face. Don't call me.

 

[Flanders]

“You can’t prosecute people without providing them a lawyer if they can’t afford their own lawyer, that’s just a constitutional requirement,” Conrad told the paper.

Sequester hits Boston terror trial
By DAVID NATHER | 4/24/13 5:59 PM EDT

Sequester hits Boston terror trial - David Nather - POLITICO.com

No. It’s a Warren Court requirement that was implemented without amending the Constitution.

Public defenders need not fear. Charles Krauthammer is on their side:

WTF are you TALKING about here? A constitutional amendment is not required if the United States Supreme Court rules that something is constitutional or unconstitutional. The right to counsel was granted in Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963. In other words, the U.S. Supremes ruled that prosecuting someone criminally without giving them an attorney, is unconstitutional. Again, in 1966, Miranda v. Arizona expanded on Gideon. Here, The Supremes held that the right to counsel is extended to pre-arraignment contacts with police in certain limited situations.

From your reference to "The Warren Court" as if it was a den of thieves, and your general comments about attorneys, I take it you are a lawyer hater. OK - you aren't the only one. I only hope that, some day, you find the police at your door with grim expressions on their face. Don't call me.

To George Costanza: Drop the B.S. It’s not working.

The Warren Court did not strike down, or uphold, a law. Nine lawyers legislated from the bench and enriched the legal profession more than did any other Court before or since. Worse still, the Warren Court opened the door to the government telling Americans what they must do rather than what they must not do. That’s the only way Socialists can govern. The SCOTUS, and the country, have been sinking faster than the Titanic since the Warren Court.

And don’t tell me you are unaware of the ongoing war being waged over activist judges legislating the Democrat agenda. That war is all about judges telling Americans what they must do. The question is: Where did they get that authority in the first place?

Incidentally, throughout history philosophers, great thinkers, and wise men saw judges as thieves, butchers, perverts, government stooges, and every other vile thing men get up to, yet you obviously think our judges are different. Only a lawyer would defend that position.

And please don’t reply with the standard liberal garbage —— the Constitution is a living, breathing, document. That’s only true because of Article V, the very article Democrats avoid like the plague. Their reasoning is simple; why try to amend when our judges can give us whatever we want.

 

[George Costanza]

No. It’s a Warren Court requirement that was implemented without amending the Constitution.

Public defenders need not fear. Charles Krauthammer is on their side:

WTF are you TALKING about here? A constitutional amendment is not required if the United States Supreme Court rules that something is constitutional or unconstitutional. The right to counsel was granted in Gideon v. Wainwright in 1963. In other words, the U.S. Supremes ruled that prosecuting someone criminally without giving them an attorney, is unconstitutional. Again, in 1966, Miranda v. Arizona expanded on Gideon. Here, The Supremes held that the right to counsel is extended to pre-arraignment contacts with police in certain limited situations.

From your reference to "The Warren Court" as if it was a den of thieves, and your general comments about attorneys, I take it you are a lawyer hater. OK - you aren't the only one. I only hope that, some day, you find the police at your door with grim expressions on their face. Don't call me.

To George Costanza: Drop the B.S. It’s not working.

The Warren Court did not strike down, or uphold, a law. Nine lawyers legislated from the bench and enriched the legal profession more than did any other Court before or since. Worse still, the Warren Court opened the door to the government telling Americans what they must do rather than what they must not do. That’s the only way Socialists can govern. The SCOTUS, and the country, have been sinking faster than the Titanic since the Warren Court.

And don’t tell me you are unaware of the ongoing war being waged over activist judges legislating the Democrat agenda. That war is all about judges telling Americans what they must do. The question is: Where did they get that authority in the first place?

Incidentally, throughout history philosophers, great thinkers, and wise men saw judges as thieves, butchers, perverts, government stooges, and every other vile thing men get up to, yet you obviously think our judges are different. Only a lawyer would defend that position.

And please don’t reply with the standard liberal garbage —— the Constitution is a living, breathing, document. That’s only true because of Article V, the very article Democrats avoid like the plague. Their reasoning is simple; why try to amend when our judges can give us whatever we want.

You are a true credit to today's conservatism.

 

[Truthmatters]

revenge has no good value to humankind.

Seek justice not revenge

 

[George Costanza]

revenge has no good value to humankind.

Seek justice not revenge

To many conservatives, there is no distinction.

 

[Truthmatters]

and that is why they are known as the stupid party

 

[Flanders]

revenge has no good value to humankind.

Seek justice not revenge

To many conservatives, there is no distinction.

and that is why they are known as the stupid party

Wonderful. Another example of the Hindenburg trying to rescue the Titanic.