This Andrew Stiles buffoon @ the birdcage bedding mill known at the Free Beacon just launched himself into the stratosphere of stupid with his wretched attempt at an expose on Buffetts Wal-Mart investment – a place of rarified, stupid air occupied intermittely by the Dirigible of Drivel and always by Glenn Reynolds and anyone who writes for Renew America.

The logical conclusion of Stiles article was that Buffett knowingly bought shares in Walmart while they were making bribes to the Mexican government – which beyond obvious violations insider trading rules, infers that Buffett surmised that this news wouldnt someday hit the street, sooner or later.

Why yes, Andrew, buying high and selling low is exactly how Buffett has gotten to be a billionaire.

No wonder these combat avoiders journalists work at this laughable excuse of a newspaper – no one else could possibly employ them.

Um, no. The applicable standard here is NOT whether the hidden evidence

would have turned the verdict

as you stated. You either purposely or ignorantly chose to avoid defining what was the basis was for reasonably assuming that a different outcome would have occurred. The actual basis, as repeated multiple times in the majority opinion, is if nondisclosure of the evidence in question is material to the extent that the likelihood of a different result is great enough to undermine the confidence in the outcome of the trial.

This is a much lower, different standard than what you have continually asserted here in your strange obsession with defending a Scotus justice who long ago clearly established his gross incompetence when hes not practicing his dog sniffing routine with Scalia.

You do not need to be a lawyer to see that it is reasonable to conclude that at the very least confidence in the outcome was undermined via the exclusion of evidence favorable to the defendant, particularly in light that Smiths identification was basically the only evidence brought against him. Hell, even rabidly conservative wildcards like Alito concluded as such. Only resident fool Clarence Thomas or one of his laughable defenders or knee-jerk contrarians could possibly conclude otherwise.

Perhaps you should heed your own advice and read the opinions provided. Either that, or stop obfuscating about what the actual question at hand is.

This is the paragraph that made me a daily TBogg reader:

Then Bristol complained about how her future baby daddy stole her innocence by plying her with Bartles & Jaymes (snowbilly champagne) and afterward they pinky-swore a solemn blood oath to never ever have sex again until they were united in the eyes of White Jesus, and that lasted until there was nothing to do, what with it being Wasilla and all, and they were suckin’ on chili dogs outside the Tastee Freeze and Levi was all “Dribble off those Bobby Brooks and let me do what I please plow you like a snow-choked Salmon River Road ” (snowbilly poetry) and Bristol finished off her fifth chili dog and said “Whatev’s” and wedged herself into the backseat of Levi’s Ford Escort. Then, next thing you know, Bristol was knocked up before getting married (just like her mom!) and she pooped out possibly her second child and this somehow made her role model for abstinence to the kind of people who will pick up her book along with 5-gallon tubs of Cheezy-Bacon Corn Syrup Puffs at Wal-Mart because Bristol Palin’s life is like a fairytale or something.

But with meth.

The end.

http://tbogg.firedoglake.com/2011/06/21/bristol-palins-airing-of-grievances/

I actually asked that very question a couple of weeks ago on C4P. I also asked why Perry, Pawlenty, and Romeny didn’t get the same salutation, at least on the C4P website.

Needless to say, this didn’t sit well with them. Also, needless to say, I didn’t get a straight answer from any one of them.

However, rattling their cages was good for 10 minutes of cheap entertainment.

I blame TBogg for my (hopefully) short-lived obsession with C4P, which before I started reading here I was blissfully blind to its existence.

The sycophants fans at C4P must be the offspring of the Jim Jones cult, but that would make them probably far less older than they really are.

Nevertheless, they are an entertaining buch of half-wits. Consider the following, recently posted on another C4P thread, which of course was about how “Governor Palin” has yet again indicated that she’s running for POTUS:

“They fight, but they listen to one another.” (Tood and “the Gov” fight)

I think this is the most interesting factoid in the entire piece. Anyone out there in a solid long-term relationship, ie marriage, understands that these few words shed an emormous amount of many shades of light on the two of them as a couple, but more importantly as individuals.

In short, it speaks volumes as to their character, motivation, drive, and success – in EVERYTHING they do. They are Olivia and John Walton, Lucy and Desi Arnes, and Bonny and Clyde, all rolled into one… in other words, they are unstoppable. ”

Ok, I can take Olivia and John, but Lucy and Desi, and Bonny and Clyde? That’s just downright insulting to those couples.

BTW, yes, I’m also utterly shocked that a C4P mouthbreather misuses the word “factoid”. Oh wait, I’m not.