Reader Tips

Reader Tips 22 Comments

According to the least insulting definition I could find from unverified sources in the comments under YouTube videos, a schützenliesel is an olden term for a woman who served beer at shooting matches. Tonight we step lively into the tips with Dutch couple Leni & Ludwig, former hairdressers both, as they treat us to a song about same.
The comments are open, as always, for your Reader Tips.

22 Replies to “Reader Tips”

  2. I doubt that Leni and Ludwig are Dutch. Ludwig is a German name, the song is in German and it sounds from Tirol.
    It is possible that they are Dutch but it is definitely not a Dutch song, nor a Dutch style.

  11. The CBC has, since its inception, been NOTHING MORE THAN A LEFTIST NEWS SHAPER in Canada.
    NOW, SOLOMON has been OUTED…… feet of clay …WITHIN THE NEWSand INFFORMATION DISSEMINATING …. and forever, from the LEFT!
    HUMAN SELF INTEREST, SOLOMON would feel comfortable in THE CANADIAN SENATE!
    GEEZ!!

  13. Kroket, if you click on the link “Leni & Ludwig” in the post you’ll see that Leni Raat (b. 1925 in Nieuwenhagen) and Ludwig Rutar (b. 1915 in Landgraaf) are definitely Dutch. The song, written in 1953 by Austrian songwriter Fred Rauch, is in German.

  14. The irony here.
    The Red Star outs Evan, less than 6 months from the election.
    Evan would have been a loud, liberal voice, attacking the evil Harper and his minions, bwa-ha-ha!
    Is the left imploding?

  16. The left is purging itself of all no-believers.
    Solomon had the termerity to be seen in a capitalist venture with some “evil 1%’s”. He was a dependable talking head to recite the liberal talking points, but this breach of faith could not be allowed to pass without a proper act of submission to the gods of progressiveness that CBC is supposed to be.

  17. “The Department of Justice has ordered libertarian website Reason.com to turn over the information of six commenters after they made threats against the federal judge who presided over the Silk Road trial.
    Ken White of the blog Popehat obtained the grand jury subpoena issued by the Department of Justice last week, which demands “any and all identifying information” the website has pertaining to the threatening commenters. This includes email addresses, telephone numbers, IP addresses, and billing information associated with the accounts.”
    http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-government-wants-names-of-online-commenters-who-trashed-the-silk-road-judge

  18. James Taranto asks a version of the question I raised in a comment a few weeks ago: should the press continue to enjoy its special privileges under the First Amendment when its members use those protections to frustrate the very purposes of the first amendment—when they intend to deceive, and when they collude with others in their deception. His example is the NYT and its cozy relationship with the Clintons, in particular, and with the Democratic Party in general. He answers in the affirmative—that the press should be protected under the First Amendment. He cites Brandeis in support: “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
    That the remedy to false, misleading, or dangerous speech should be more speech is a time-worn principle with impeccable credentials. It applies, we seem to believe, in almost all cases. “Almost”, because there are equally well-known exceptions, including the absence of a right to falsely yell “Fire!” in a crowded theater (The all-important “falsely” is usually and mistakenly omitted from reference to this analogy to seditious speech.)
    However, in the case we are discussing, The Brandeis quote employs the all-too-common fallacy known as “False Alternative”. For the press, the choice is not between protected speech and “enforced silence”, but between protected speech and speech one may be held responsible for, especially speech intended to deceive; and especially, perhaps, when that deliberately deceptive speech concerns matters of utmost national importance—e.g., who should be the president of the US—and when such speech may have been caused by bribery. The easy answer to the question of First Amendment protections of the press becomes less appropriate, it seems to me, not just when their intention is to mislead, but when they are venal, and when their corrupt attempts to mislead are parroted endlessly elsewhere in the press, as are the opinions of “the newspaper of record”, the NYT.
    Why should we protect speech directed, successfully, at thwarting the very value that the First Amendment was designed to protect?

  21. It’s what is called “precedent setting”. Although this may be a valid application – given apparent threats against a Federal judge – it opens the barn door to censorship.
    And who takes rabid postings seriously anyway?

  22. Obama Supporters Sign Petition to NUKE RUSSIA so America will Stay World’s Superpower
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=192&v=CNr5czZKEdk
    Media analyst Mark Dice asked beachgoers in San Diego, California to sign a petition supporting President Obama’s supposed plan to launch of preemptive nuclear attack against Russia to help keep the United States of America the world’s leading superpower. The results are disturbing.
    Reinvigorating your faith in the ‘Low Information Voter’ (LIV)….
    Cheers
    Hans Rupprecht, Commander in Chief
    1st Saint Nicolaas Army
    Army Group ‘True North’

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation