someoneinnorthms 's Techdirt Comments

Latest Comments (87)

• On the post: It Definitely Looks Like I Was Wrong About The Iowa School Superintendent Arrested By ICE

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 09 Oct, 2025 @ 05:48am

  Tim, I applaud you for this post. No restrictions or caveats. I applaud you. I respect this post, and it's the reason I come here for your perspective. Thank you.

• On the post: ICE Arrests Iowa School Superintendent Who Doesn’t Even Match The Mugshot Photo It Posted

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 04 Oct, 2025 @ 09:07am

  I'm on pins and needles. Is it the same guy or not? I'm conservative, so I know I'm not allowed to trust my own eyes. I need Techdirt's assistance on this one. So, any updates?

• On the post: The Washington Post Fires Its Last Black Opinion Columnist For Directly Quoting A Bigot

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 18 Sep, 2025 @ 09:57am

  I wouldn't call what she put in quotation marks a quote. She put quotation marks around her paraphrase of what Charlie Kirk said and attributed the paraphrasing as a quotation. I'm a dimwit, misogynistic, xenophobic, homophobic idiot. But I do know the difference between quotation and paraphrasing. Having said that, if anybody can find evidence that Charlie Kirk said those exact words, I will be happy to reaffirm my dimwit status. Down vote me, y'all. Nobody wants to see truth anymore. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

• On the post: Charlie Kirk Doesn’t Deserve What’s Happening To Him

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 15 Sep, 2025 @ 04:21pm

  Leave it to Techdirt to analyze complex subjects in an entirely superficial way. The situation is pretty clear. The majority of people who care enough to vote are conservative. Hurling invective still isn't a way to convince us stupid people to come tl your side. Some of us ignorant, bigoted, misogynistic, dimwits actually don't respond positively to the name-calling. You should try to convince me instead of shaming me. Until someone on the left can make a cogent, evidence-based argument, I'll just stand here on the sidelines and punch the R button every chance I get. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

• On the post: Kristi Noem Gets Mad About CBS Not Broadcasting Her Bullshit About Kilmar Abrego Garcia

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 09 Sep, 2025 @ 06:47am

  If I understand correctly, this is your website. You should really configure it so that registered users don't have to log in each time they want to post or reply. But I appreciate your snarky comment about my inability to navigate your website. I'm clearly not on your intellectual level. Economic studies that purport to demonstrate illegal immigration is good for the economy are just using illegal immigration as a substitute for the abolition of minimum wage. I agree that employers should be able to pay whatever wage that employees will accept. So, we've found common ground finally. You denigrate my ability to make sound arguments by flaunting your inability to process my arguments. Okay, I'll play along. I'm ignorant, evil, and xenophobic. I'm probably racist and misogynistic, too. But here's where your self-righteous smugness can be shown to he demonstrably unpersuasive. 2016 and 2024. Trump won those elections. If you ever hope to peel off moderates like me you should stop attacking us for having differing opinions and convince us they are wrong. You don't live in the same world most of us do. We can't afford the luxury of being in favor of bringing in people who are simultaneously above and below the law and who drive down wages. Maybe they are good for the economy of rich people who never have to go to war. They are bad for the poor people who are citizens of the United States.

• On the post: Kristi Noem Gets Mad About CBS Not Broadcasting Her Bullshit About Kilmar Abrego Garcia

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2025 @ 02:21pm

  So, by your logic, we should import MORE immigrants to make our economy better? I suppose you believe in the strength of American diplomacy and the United States military to impose our will on the polity of every country around the world? You want us to bring more democracy to places like we delivered some in Iraq? You live in an ivory tower of idealism. It's nice that some people can do that. It affords them the luxury of sending the poor people's kids to die so that nobody ever gets tortured in some backwater country. I'm glad we ended it in Iraq. I'm sure we'll end it in El Salvador. However, I doubt you will be brave enough to go do it yourself. You'll send my children to do it for you.

• On the post: Kristi Noem Gets Mad About CBS Not Broadcasting Her Bullshit About Kilmar Abrego Garcia

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 07 Sep, 2025 @ 06:27am

  Thank you for the compliment disguised as ad hominem. This is exactly how to win an argument. If you knew who I am (and I suppose you could figure it out), you'd realize I'm not the person you've built me up to be. I just think our country is struggling enough on its own. We don't need to be the social worker of the world. We can't afford it. And interfering in other countries' internal political systems is how we've created a lot of the international problems we face today. Let's fix our country first before we start fixing others. You know, the mote and the beam story from the traditional Christian Bible. Republicans want illegal immigration because it contributes to cheaper labor costs. Democrats want illegal immigration because it contributes to a higher vote count. Everybody wants illegal immigration except the American people.

• On the post: Kristi Noem Gets Mad About CBS Not Broadcasting Her Bullshit About Kilmar Abrego Garcia

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 06 Sep, 2025 @ 10:19am

  Let me start by saying I don't practice immigration law, so I may not understand the intricacies. If I understand correctly, our good friend Kilmar was given the legal status of "withholding of removal," after a full hearing. I suspect this would comfort with Due Process. This status means that he was subject to immediate deportation to any country that would accept him, except for his home country, El Salvador. So, when ICE agents picked him up and had him transported to El Salvador without a hearing, they were wrong. However, had the plane landed somewhere else, Due Process would have been fulfilled. Frankly, I honestly don't give a shit whether a citizen of another country is tortured or wrongfully imprisoned in their country. Maybe he was; maybe he wasn't. It appears Kilmar is a coward for not standing up for his rights at home, and he wants the United States tl fight for him instead of doing it himself. But all of that is pointless and meaningless. The legal question of whether he should have kicked off the plane in EL Salvador or some other question does appear to raise a question of whether more process was due. They should've taken him to Uganda to begin with. However, the policy question of what Process is due a noncitizen who is subject to a final removal order with "withholding of removal" status is far different than how it's being framed in the press (which was the original post). The press and others on the Left suggest that this could happen to anyone. We all know this is not true. This mistake of landing in the wrong country (granting this, arguendo) can't happen to anyone. It can only happen to people who have been through a deportation hearing and lost. It's not a question of substance: it's a question of remedy. We really ought to end the importation of all people from other countries completely until this gets sorted out. We are already choked enough with taxes. I don't need to pay more to support people who are not biologically mine.

• On the post: Kristi Noem Gets Mad About CBS Not Broadcasting Her Bullshit About Kilmar Abrego Garcia

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 05 Sep, 2025 @ 06:12pm

  I mean this in all seriousness. What process was he due that he did not get? Due Process suggests that the process is standardized and codified somewhere. I thought all of the standardized and codified procedures were followed and he was subject to a final order of deportation? What process us due after that? Where am I wrong?

• On the post: Kristi Noem Gets Mad About CBS Not Broadcasting Her Bullshit About Kilmar Abrego Garcia

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 05 Sep, 2025 @ 08:01am

  It's clear the edit was made for political purposes. It changes the entire context of what she says. It went from, "we're getting him out of the country because we think he's a bad person," to "we're getting him out of the country because we're retaliating against him " Regardless, he isn't a United States citizen and thus doesn't belong here. We have enough problems giving our money away to other counties. We shouldn't have to import the problems they don't want. I realize this is an unpopular opinion to vocalize, but it's shared by enough people that it got a deranged person elected for saying he would enforce it.

• On the post: DHS Deported A Two-Year-Old US Citizen To Honduras And Now A Federal Judge Wants Some Answers

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 01 May, 2025 @ 06:39am

  Actually, it's the other way around. As I understand Article I of the Constitution, Congress makes immigration and naturalization laws. Article II gives the Executive branch power to enforce those laws. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments require Due Process in that enforcement. As a policy matter, it is a sad day when we have to say, "we're so far down the toilet that it would take 88,000 per person to worry about getting out of the toilet." "Americans" won't do certain jobs because they have the power to go to the Department of Labor if an employer forces them to accept sub-mininum wage salaries. It's the chicken and egg syndrome. There's a problem. We need to go all-in, one way or another. Everybody should be able to come in, or nobody should. I would bet on the United States. But, this wishy-washy approach certainly hasn't worked. Let's repeal all immigration laws or enforce them. One or the other is fine with me.

• On the post: DHS Deported A Two-Year-Old US Citizen To Honduras And Now A Federal Judge Wants Some Answers

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 30 Apr, 2025 @ 05:49am

  People who support breaking the law will find any justification. If the Trump administration had kept the child here and sent the illegal away, the headline would be, "Trump Separates Mother from Crying Two Year Old Child." I will tell you like abortionists used to tell us, if you love that baby so much, you should take it, adopt it, and raise it as your own. Or, my spin on it, let its mom decided for it. If she wants it, she should keep it. If she doesn't want it, she can give it to you. I know taxes are not your concern, but I'm tired of paying to support people who don't belong here. I realize you'll claim I'm racist; that's the standard troll. But I'm not talking about entitlement spending. I'm talking about the extra burden on infrastructure ajd prisons and schools, and the use of limited resources on people who should get them from their government. I hate having a gun pointed at me every April 15 and being forced to pay for other people.

• On the post: FBI Arrests Wisconsin Judge For Allegedly Obstructing The Arrest Of An Undocumented Immigrant

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 29 Apr, 2025 @ 11:00am

  If she knew a warrant existed and led through subject of the warrant into an area where he could not otherwise have gained entrance, she's guilty of a crime. The question of whether she committed a crime is really an easy one. The harder question is whether it should be prosecuted. I think it should be prosecuted because it sends the message that one cannot assist someone with a warrant escape service of that warrant. Her actions in removing the person were not related to her judicial duties--completely unrelated.

• On the post: RFK Jr. Blames Malnutrition For Measles Outbreak’s Severe Illnesses And Deaths

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 13 Mar, 2025 @ 08:11am

  Oh. So, ONE death? In 25 years. If we had all just gotten the measles shot then nobody would've died. Damn the consequences of the shot; one life is worth all of those consequences!

• On the post: RFK Jr. Blames Malnutrition For Measles Outbreak’s Severe Illnesses And Deaths

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 12 Mar, 2025 @ 03:12pm

  Somebody died from measles in the United States? Seriously??!?

• On the post: Sixth Circuit Tosses Evidence After Cop Can’t Find One Credible Reason For Extending A Traffic Stop

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 23 Nov, 2024 @ 07:52am

  Little known fact: those drug interdiction officers have access to many databases. They are not pulling over random vehicles for traffic offenses. Rather, they get a hit from a license plate reader a mile back down the road. They already KNOW they are going to pull over a vehicle before it is even in sight. They just make up the excuses in hindsight so they don't have to reveal the real source of their theoretical "reasonable articulate suspicion."

• On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2021 @ 08:18am

  I'm seriously asking

  Let me get my biases out. I am aa ols, fat, rich (ostensibly), white, male Republican living in the Deep South. I am a lawyer, but it's been forever since I took a First Amendment class and never since I had a First Amendment case. So . . . I thought the debate/legal status/comparison was whether social media companies should be treated like AT & T back in the olden times. The phone company had no duty to listen to the calls being made to weed out true threats, defamation, etc., because they were a utility (i.e., a platform). It seems social media companies of today wish to "listen in" on the calls/posts made by some people today. Those companies say they have a duty to suppress certain communication. I promise I'm trying to present this as neutrally as possible . . . . So they remove posts they deem unworthy of being communicated. They refuse to provide service to people who communicate messages they think are troublesome or wrong or whatever. Okay. Great. I can accept they have that right as private businesses. However . . . How does this practice distinguish them from a newspaper publisher who publishes false information about people (whether public or private, it matters not)? If they stop being like telephone service providers and start being more like newspapers, why aren't they being sued to hell and back for defamation? If they edit the content then why aren't they legally responsible for the content they allow to pass through their moderation filters? I am not asking this question rhetorically. I'm seeking an honest answer. Of course, I could look it up myself, but I suspect the legal research on this issue would fascinate me enough that I'd lose sleep and/or business if I allowed myself to be distracted by this subject. So, if there's a short answer, someone please help. If no short answer then I will find some time to look myself and maybe report back to the group. Thanks.

• On the post: Various States All Pile On To Push Blatantly Unconstitutional Laws That Say Social Media Can't Moderate

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 07 Feb, 2021 @ 08:18am

  I'm seriously asking

  Let me get my biases out. I am aa ols, fat, rich (ostensibly), white, male Republican living in the Deep South. I am a lawyer, but it's been forever since I took a First Amendment class and never since I had a First Amendment case. So . . . I thought the debate/legal status/comparison was whether social media companies should be treated like AT & T back in the olden times. The phone company had no duty to listen to the calls being made to weed out true threats, defamation, etc., because they were a utility (i.e., a platform). It seems social media companies of today wish to "listen in" on the calls/posts made by some people today. Those companies say they have a duty to suppress certain communication. I promise I'm trying to present this as neutrally as possible . . . . So they remove posts they deem unworthy of being communicated. They refuse to provide service to people who communicate messages they think are troublesome or wrong or whatever. Okay. Great. I can accept they have that right as private businesses. However . . . How does this practice distinguish them from a newspaper publisher who publishes false information about people (whether public or private, it matters not)? If they stop being like telephone service providers and start being more like newspapers, why aren't they being sued to hell and back for defamation? If they edit the content then why aren't they legally responsible for the content they allow to pass through their moderation filters? I am not asking this question rhetorically. I'm seeking an honest answer. Of course, I could look it up myself, but I suspect the legal research on this issue would fascinate me enough that I'd lose sleep and/or business if I allowed myself to be distracted by this subject. So, if there's a short answer, someone please help. If no short answer then I will find some time to look myself and maybe report back to the group. Thanks.

• On the post: Prosecutor Who Used Bite Mark Analysis Even The Analyst Called 'Junk Science' Can Be Sued For Wrongful Jailing Of Innocent Woman

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 08 Sep, 2020 @ 08:20pm

  The 2009 National Academy of Sciences report on forensic science concluded that no current forensic "science" has been validated as being able to individualize, with the rare exception of some forensic DNA. In layman's terms this means that there is no "science" that has been proven scientifically reliable in determining the source of any questioned evidence. It's all junk science!

  There is no proof that everyone has unique fingerprints. The best that can be said about any particular fingerprint is that it does not match any of the fingerprints contained in the databases, and even that is subject to computer error in falsely claiming no matches to other people. With DNA, there are at least statistical models that can tell you how many people could statistically have the same forensic DNA profile. With fingerprints, there is no statistical models that can demonstrate any kind of reliability. In fact, there are several criminal cases where it is strongly suggested that two different people had the same fingerprints (google "Brandon Mayfield Madrid bombing" for one example).

  I could go on for hours about the unreliability in making "matches" between various toolmarks such as firearms or knives, etc. I won't bore you. But, rest assured, ALL forensic science is junk science except certain types of DNA.

• On the post: Colorado Government Dumps Qualified Immunity For Cops

  

  someoneinnorthms ( profile ), 10 Jul, 2020 @ 04:13pm

  Re: Operational Ability

  Please. Really? You didn't think this comment through, did you? If someone violates the law, there ought to be a remedy under the law to address the injury. If a police officer does something illegal or unlawful and has to pay a judgment, that means, ispo facto, THAT PERSON DID SOMETHING UNLAWFUL OR ILLEGAL. Why should some people be able to violate the law and other people should not? I think you might be suggesting that an easier standard for plaintiffs to meet will encourage more lawsuits, perhaps many of them frivolous. Well, guess what? Frivolous lawsuits get filed all the time. Furthermore, no officer who is sued for actions under color of law ever pays a lawyer a penny to represent him. The governmental entity that employs the officer provides the defense (with a very few odd exceptions). So why does the increase in the number of lawsuits trouble you? If an officer does something wrong, he'll pay. It used to be that if an officer does something wrong, the city/county/state will pay. The officer doesn't ever pay for a lawyer. Under this particular law he will pay $25,000 or 5% of the judgment, whichever is lower. Only sadistic, purposefully-ignorant, domestic enemies of the Constitution will complain about NOT being able to get away with violating someone's legal and constitutional rights. When I joined the United States Marine Corps 30 years ago I swore I would protect the Constitution from scumbags like that. They actually swear something similar in most jurisdictions when becoming law enforcement officials. And apparently you think it's okay they lied through their teeth when they did it.

Next >>