http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-08-07/ron-paul-urges-trump-dump-ag-jeff-se...

Well, if a city decides to break the law and shelter federal immigration violators......
Perhaps we can then confiscate the city  

I agree that civil forfeiture is one of the most brazenly disgusting things our government does, but geeze, could you have picked a more slanted article? Here's an article that's a little heavier on facts, numbers and possible remedies for the civil forfeiture issue:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/10/report-in-lean-times-p...

justin_o_guy2 wrote on 08/10/17 at 17:54:14:


I don't know how to answer that... The writer of the article is bad and relies on dog-whistles and assumed shared beliefs instead of simply stating the facts or making a case... Like stuff we all learn in 6th grade...

He uses language and phrases that he knows his reader base will resonate with instead of being a journalist. It's the death of journalism and an informed electorate, and writers like that and the fact that his readers can't detect the condescending slant is a bigger problem than the civil forfeiture he's trying to write about.

Well, there's the title, as it's not theft. There's the first sentence, where this "order" isn't really an order and is taken out of context, then the author decides to bold opinionated and unsubstantiated adjectives that he doesn't expound on or support in any way. Then there's the second paragraph where he massively oversimplifies what the article is about, and renames "forfeiture" to "theft", because he thinks his audience is too stupid to understand a $10 word...

I'm not going to go line-by-line for the rest of this thing. It's bad journalism.

You write an article like this, even allowing for some pretty heavy slant, by stating what civil forfeiture is, why people find it egregious, what the latest palace intrigue is between Paul and Sessions, and they you play devil's advocate and lay out the other side of why this thing is law in the first place. Facts. If the item in question really is as outrageously bad as I believe civil forfeiture to be then I'm going to come to this conclusion all by myself. I don't need to be told what to think via dog-whistles and one-sided rhetoric.

And "Obviously" should NEVER be the first word in a journalistic paragraph! Ahhh! This article drives me insane, it's so bad!

That the criminals who wrote the legislation wrapped a big word around Theft doesn't mean it's Not Theft.
By someone Suspecting the item or money was associated with some illegal activity, they just Take it.. No. Not okay.
It's not new, maybe the People need to see it accurately labelled as Theft.

Just like the forfeiture of possessions of "known" but un tried drug lords; legal but hardly moral.  Yes, the article, like most recently, is a wonderful example of crap journalism.

In deference to equality, ABC news has started the past 4-5 nights broadcasts with "Trump vacations at Bedminster" - which colors the report.  Why can't Tweety stay at his own club while the slummy White House gets a makeover??  Really, I suspect he is doing as much work as he did in Washington, how much that is I don't know -really.

But how he wrote his piece is how laws like that slip through in the first place.


I'm old enough to remember the snow job they used to sell it. It was supposed to be a tool to Get those sneaky drug runners. The media was fully supportive.
The same kind of constant blathering on was happening with it as we have seen pushing wars. Everyone who spoke publicly spoke in favor.
I would like to see every piece of legislation have a place right after the title where they put the exact section of the Constitution that makes it lawful.