Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by $ root1657 9 years, 3 months ago
    I love that he is giving his students copies of his work as gifts. I would love to support that portion of this insanity as a continuing effort! He should be given a new judge and have his case reviewed to end the mandatory BS, but yes, lets get his work in front of as many immigrants as possible!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
    It is Judge Berman who has the mental disorder. I call it Surrealiberalitis. It is reaching pandemic proportions among liberals. It is unfortunate that Mr. D'Souza has been subjected to the actions of this irrational lib.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by vido 9 years, 3 months ago
    By overruling the judgement of two psychiatrists, that judge is placing himself above medicine doctors. This clear abuse of authority, combined with an equally clear suspicion of partiality, should disqualify him from his functions.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
    The person with a mental disorder is Judge Berman. He suffers from the mental disease I call surrealiberalitis. It is rising to pandemic proportions. Unfortunately, Mr. D'Souza has been the victim of a person who cannot control his liberalism. If you read his excuse, you will see that it is unintelligible gibberish.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
    Obviously, it is Judge Berman who has a mental disorder. He suffers from Surrealiberalitis. It is unfortunate that this malady is increasing at an alarming rate. Too bad that a rational thinker like Mr. d'Sousa has been punished by the very kind of person who needs help. Just read his excuse for punishing Mr. d'Sousa. It is unintelligible gibberish.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 3 months ago
    Obviously Judge Berman is the one who is suffering from a mental illness. He has Surrealibitis. Liberals are afflicted with this disorder in alarming numbers. It's a shame that a rational thinker such as Mr. d'Sousa . is subject to the whim of a judge who is mentally deficient. The judge's excuse is so obtuse as to render it unintelligible.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by H6163741 9 years, 3 months ago
    Forced psychiatric care? This is truly terrifying. Apparently, it's not enough to brainwash Americans through schools and media. Now the democrats/socialists/nazis have found a way to physically alter the minds of those who disagree with them. How much do you want to bet that he is prescribed some form of tranquilizer. Had the judge truly believed that D'Souza was not thinking reasonably, the sentence should have been therapy, NOT psychiatry (meds).
    Be afraid. Be very afraid.
    PS - I wonder how many liberals have violated campaign finance laws and what their 'punishments' were.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years, 3 months ago
    He is being "re-educated" to a more acceptable way of correct thinking...

    How much would you wager he makes no more films critical of "Dear Leader"... under threat of involuntary commitment to a mental facility by selfsame (in)justice?

    Now... non-fiction. Ain't it the truth?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      he said in interview that going to prison would have stopped his film making. He intends to continue to film. He called the judge a hero.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by $ Susanne 9 years, 3 months ago
        Didn't Winston Smith also praise O'Brien for helping him to see that 2+2=5, he loved Big Brother, and the eventual bullet to the back of his neck? I sense a very sad similarity between D'Souza and 1984...
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by RevJay4 9 years, 3 months ago
    Hmmm. Does this "judge" have a FB page? An email address, etc.? A deluge of comments and emails might change his attitude. Wait, no, that wouldn't work. Can't get past his "God" complex and over inflated ego.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 3 months ago
      Outcry sometimes works. If you find a contact for him, put it out as a thread in the Gulch and see what happens. The difference between the contacts he will get from Gulchers and from most other people is that their emails/comments will be based on emotion and ours will be based on logic.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by jabuttrick 9 years, 3 months ago
    While this story is disturbing on its own, it is illustrative of a larger equally disturbing phenomena. When federal judges sentence defendants to supervised release to follow imprisonment, they often order dozens of conditions to go along with it. Those conditions, some of which make sense (don't commit other crimes, don't contact the victim) and some of which don't (get counseling where none is really indicated), come with an explicit threat: If you violate any of the terms of your release it can then be revoked and you may then be imprisoned for the remainder of the supervised release term. This scheme sometimes leads to the kind of bizarre result seen here. It is extremely difficult to challenge any of these conditions because the defendant has often pleaded guilty knowing that supervised release is on the horizon. Therefore he is deemed to have agreed to the terms in advance.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by NealS 9 years, 3 months ago
    Yes, and the American people are going to just sit back and watch them do it. It's little different than the way returning Vietnam Veterans were treated. Why should it not be any different today.

    Anyone old enough to remember Joseph McCarthy?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago
    I have thought for while now that the sentence for someone who violates others' rights should be removal of their rights. The judges would establish what rights would be vacated- then anyone or everyone could take revenge, restitution, or whatever without fear of government reprisals. So if you kill someone, you lose your right to be protected from people killing you. I think it would be a lot fairer than imprisoning someone (and we all have to pay for it).
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jlc 9 years, 3 months ago
      This is the origin of 'outlaw' - a person who was outside of the law, hence, not under its protection. In Medieval Iceland, if the Ting exiled you for (say) 3 years, then during those 3 years someone (a bounty hunter hired by your enemies) could legally kill you without it being considered murder.

      Icelandic Law also had a provision for weregild. Weregild (man-gold) was a fee that you could pay in reparation for an ill deed (killing cow or kinsman). If the injured party did not choose to accept weregild, they could insist that you 'go to the island' and fight it out. (Radford, R. S. "Going to the Island: A Legal and Economic Analysis of the Medieval Icelandic Duel". Southern California Law Rev. 62 (1989) 615-44)

      Some of these historic laws bear consideration in terms of whether they would be valuable in some form in today's society.

      Jan
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago
        That is a really cool thing to know. It seems a lot better than what we have now. It would eliminate victimless crimes like possessing marijuana, and I think would make would-be criminals think twice about violent behavior. Thank you for bringing this up. Maybe a good idea for a constitutional amendment actually.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by 9 years, 3 months ago
      term, so in this case, what rights should d'Souza lose?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by term2 9 years, 3 months ago
        Its more difficult when he only "helps" the criminals. That would be for the judge who has all the facts to decide. I suspect that this guy did more than just stand around gathering clothes, however.
        Deciding these things would have to be based on some pretty sound philosophy to be fair, but I am saying that imprisonment is kind of a catch all sentence that makes little sense when we all have to pay for keeping him imprisoned, medical care, food, etc.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo