For all things relative to politics.

[BigLutz]

I usually don't post and just read Biglutz thoughts(I love your arguments, btw!

Thank you very much, I'm honored really.

Well, another state just legalized same sex marriage - New Hampshire. The California court made a fair compromise on the issue, though it's only a matter of time before it returns on the ballot. It will be legalized eventually.

Very doubtful, unless they can some how discredit the black vote, or keep them away from the voting booths, California will remain with out Gay Marriage. Blacks are just too Conservative on this issue and that isn't going to change.

Newt Gingrich and Rush Limbaugh are also reversing their call of Sotomayor being a racist - which was ridiculous in the first place,

No it isn't the woman is a racist. And on the way back from Braum's ( Love their hamburgers ) he ( Rush Limbaugh ) was calling her a racist.

one subjective comment that was taken way out of context does not make one racist.

Well lets look at the comment to see if it was taken out of context.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"

That is a racist comment, no if's, and's, or but's, about it. Saying that one race would make better judgment than another IS a racist comment. Also was it one time? I bring you 1994

“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”

Now you could say that is a sexist comment on her part, granted her first comment was both racist and sexist. But seeing how her 1994 comment, and 2001 comment are both basically the same, I am going to go out on a limb and say that she actually believes this crap.

However, I believe choosing Sotomayor was a very political choice on Obama's part, rather sneaky if you will. The Republicans can NOT afford to deny her access to the Supreme Court, she would be the first Latina. Block her and criticize her, there goes the Hispanic vote even more down the drain, and as things stand, Republicans are in need of any voter they can get.

Umm yeah they can, it's a year and a half before the mid terms, 2 and a half years before the next Presidential Election, this would be long gone by then.

I do wonder in 2001 when Democrats opposed Miguel Estrada, for what we do know now for racist reasons, were they worried about the Hispanic vote? Here was a Hispanic on the fast track for the Supreme Court, and the Democrats torpedoed him because he was Latino!

I present a 2001 memo from Democrats about Estrada
To: Senator Durbin

"The groups singled out three--Jeffrey Sutton (6th Circuit); Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit); and Caroline [sic] Kuhl (9th Circuit)--as a potential nominee for a contentious hearing early next year, with a [sic] eye to voting him or her down in Committee. They also identified Miguel Estrada (D.C. Circuit) as especially dangerous, because he has a minimal paper trail, he is Latino, and the White House seems to be grooming him for a Supreme Court appointment. They want to hold Estrada off as long as possible."

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004305

Bush was heavily favored by Hispanics even back then, which helped him gain the Hispanic vote over Kerry in 2004, so why were Democrats not worried then?

The Supreme Court as it stands I would say it is moderate-right leaning. With the addition of Sotomayor, it goes to the middle. One or two more justices that are liberal or moderate would swing the court middle-left to left. So when social issues come into play, such as gay marriage, it certainly favors a Democrat's agenda.

The Supreme Court right now should be a place where Judges look at the law, and do not allow personal feelings and experiences to influence their decision. If the Democrats can find some one that can do that, then put them up for nomination. This racist piece of trash is not it.

As the economy is slowly picking up, and many economists saying we should be out of the recession next year, definitely by 2012,

Which they say is about the time we are hit with horrible inflation because of the stupidity done by Obama. Which to get out of the inflation we will need another Recession.

 

[Carlisle]

Very doubtful, unless they can some how discredit the black vote, or keep them away from the voting booths, California will remain with out Gay Marriage. Blacks are just too Conservative on this issue and that isn't going to change.

Blacks, however, are being outnumbered by Hispanics, who are more likely to vote pro on this issue. California is one of the most liberal states in the country, gay marriage will eventually be legal. Maybe in two years, maybe in five, maybe in 10. However, if the courts decide to legalize it once again, then it is much sooner. Prop 8 was filled with confusion, scare tactics, and pandering from the social right. A proper bill from the courts has a better chance of succeeding.

No it isn't the woman is a racist. And on the way back from Braum's ( Love their hamburgers ) he was calling her a racist.

Don't tell me you are jumping on the bandwagon from the far right, please. A comment or two like this does not automatically render someone a racist. Words are different from actions, and through all her court cases and decisions, none of them have inferred racism.

"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life,"

That is a racist comment, no if's, and's, or but's, about it. Saying that one race would make better judgment than another IS a racist comment. Also was it one time? I bring you 1994

“Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.”


Now you could say that is a sexist comment on her part, granted her first comment was both racist and sexist. But seeing how her 1994 comment, and 2001 comment are both basically the same, I am going to go out on a limb and say that she actually believes this crap.

I wouldn't call this comment crap, I'd go far enough to say it has merit - a Latina woman growing up in the dumps to becoming a lawyer has more knowledge and experience to offer than a typical white male growing up in an upper middle class suburb. No discrimination, no finicial hardships, yet a Latina has a double whammy of both.

Umm yeah they can, it's a year and a half before the mid terms, 2 and a half years before the next Presidential Election, this would be long gone by then.

I do wonder in 2001 when Democrats opposed Miguel Estrada, for what we do know now for racist reasons, were they worried about the Hispanic vote? Here was a Hispanic on the fast track for the Supreme Court, and the Democrats torpedoed him BECAUSE HE WAS HISPANIC.
Bush was heavily favored by Hispanics even back then, which helped him gain the Hispanic vote over Kerry in 2004, so why were Democrats not worried then?

No, they weren't worried. Eight years ago the Hispanic vote was nowhere near as important as it once was. The Democrats have the vote now, and the Hispanic population is only growing. The media being in bed with Obama and his approval ratings still high, a Latina being denied in 2009 would not be forgotten. In 2001, no one expected a woman to win a primary or a black man to be president. Things are different now than they were eight years ago.

The Supreme Court right now should be a place where Judges look at the law, and do not allow personal feelings and experiences to influence their decision. If the Democrats can find some one that can do that, then put them up for nomination. This racist piece of trash is not it.

Come now, that comment was way out of hand. Referring to her as a racist piece of trash? There are far worse things that she could have said. But hey, if Gingrich will call her a racist, we can call him an adulterer...

Which they say is about the time we are hit with horrible inflation because of the stupidity done by Obama. Which to get out of the inflation we will need another Recession.

The only way to stop inflation is a recession? I don't buy that.
And you know, whoever the Republicans will offer won't do much of a better job. No president is just going to sit there and do nothing, that's not going to happen. Obama is going to spend, and I guarantee you McCain would have been spending, Palin would spend, Clinton would spend, good luck finding someone who WON'T spend in this day and age.

 

[BigLutz]

Blacks, however, are being outnumbered by Hispanics, who are more likely to vote pro on this issue.

Hispanics are also catholic which is against the issue.

California is one of the most liberal states in the country,

Doesn't matter when a majority of the populous leans Social Conservative on the issue.

gay marriage will eventually be legal. Maybe in two years, maybe in five, maybe in 10. However, if the courts decide to legalize it once again, then it is much sooner.

If the courts legalize it over the will of the people then that is a sad and sick display of the courts over stepping their power.

Prop 8 was filled with confusion, scare tactics, and pandering from the social right. A proper bill from the courts has a better chance of succeeding.

Carlisle that is crap and you know it. Prop 8 was heavily advertised on both sides of the isle. Singling out one side is pathetic and you know it. Those that went in to vote on it knew what they were voting for.

Don't tell me you are jumping on the bandwagon from the far right, please.

Saying she is a racist isn't a bandwagon jumping its a fact.

A comment or two like this does not automatically render someone a racist. Words are different from actions, and through all her court cases and decisions, none of them have inferred racism.

I believe there is a Firefighter decision in the courts right now that would disagree with you on that.

Either way it was a racist comment, no matter what. If her actions reflect it or not that does not take away the fact that she made the comment in two different occasions, and seems to believe it is true.

Let me ask you this, if say I had on different occasions on this board, gone around saying how I believed Whites were superior to blacks, not once, but multiple times. ( Just for clarification I do not believe that ) Do you honestly believe I wouldn't be branded a racist?

You know what, lets just head over to Dictionary.com to see what it says.

Racist:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

I would think that the belief that a Latina woman can reach a better decision than a white man, would qualify as a belief of a inherent difference between human races that determines individual achievement.

I wouldn't call this comment crap, I'd go far enough to say it has merit

Now you are getting into the realm of pathetic.

a Latina woman growing up in the dumps to becoming a lawyer has more knowledge and experience to offer than a typical white male growing up in an upper middle class suburb.

Excuse me, but where the hell does it say in our judicial code allows you to use personal experiences to grant judgments? A judge is supposed to rule on the letter of the law, not the experiences she or he has had. Period.

Also lets twist it around, does a White Man growing up in the dumps to become a lawyer, have more knowledge and experience in the law to offer than a typical Latina Woman growing up in a upper middle class suburb? No! They both went to college, they both sat on the courts, they both read the same text books, they both know the law. Knowledge and Experience on the court is supposed to be on the law, not on if you got picked on while heading to school.

Also lets not forget you are pulling **** out of thin air. She did not say "Growing up in the dumps" or "Typical white male growing up in a upper middle class suburb" It was "Wise Latina Woman" and "White Man" stick with the facts instead of trying to twist her words.

No discrimination, no finicial hardships, yet a Latina has a double whammy of both.

Which factors NOTHING into legal decisions. Should a person spend less time in jail for murder because they had financial hardships? Should a child molester get less time in jail because they were discriminated on when they were a child? NO! And that is why this scum bag does not deserve to be on the highest court in the US.

No, they weren't worried. Eight years ago the Hispanic vote was nowhere near as important as it once was.

Some could say it helped get Bush elected in 04, just 3 years later.

The Democrats have the vote now, and the Hispanic population is only growing.

Oh so now that they have the vote it matters, when they didn't have the vote they had every right to be racist.

The media being in bed with Obama and his approval ratings still high, a Latina being denied in 2009 would not be forgotten.

You are assuming the media will still be in bed with Obama by 2012 and that he will still have high approval ratings.

In 2001, no one expected a woman to win a primary or a black man to be president.

Has absolutely nothing to do with this debate.

Things are different now than they were eight years ago.

So in the last 7 or so years, has there been some massive influx of tens of millions of Mexicans that I have missed that have suddenly gained the ability to vote?

Come now, that comment was way out of hand. Referring to her as a racist piece of trash? There are far worse things that she could have said. But hey, if Gingrich will call her a racist, we can call him an adulterer...

Call them what ever you want, the woman is a racist piece of trash, and I would expect that to be labeled if it was a White man up there talking about how he would make better judgments than a black or latino.

The only way to stop inflation is a recession? I don't buy that.

Stop inflation on the level we will see in a few years. Yes.

And you know, whoever the Republicans will offer won't do much of a better job. No president is just going to sit there and do nothing, that's not going to happen. Obama is going to spend, and I guarantee you McCain would have been spending, Palin would spend, Clinton would spend, good luck finding someone who WON'T spend in this day and age.

You know I have no doubt they would spend, would they spend 4 trillion dollars? Most likely not. Would they be willing to saddle us with the anchor that is Universal Health Care, well Clinton might, but the Republicans wouldn't. So yes while I think they would have spent, I do not think we would have seen the level of recklessness and absolute stupidity that Obama has done when it comes to spending.

 

[ccangelopearl1362]

If anybody’s curious, then I’ll be content with saving President Obama’s Cairo speech for a special debate thread. I should have quite a few noteworthy items for us political junkies to chew over in the course of the next few days, and the focus itself may be of interest to me. I will not deny that some have focused on abortion and/or homosexuality, while others tend to prioritize the current downturn. In my case, however, I realize that there is a special focus on events around the world, such as this latest speech to the Islamic world, North Korea’s nuclear menace, or Brazil’s energy initiatives. If we’re thinking of Sonia Sotomayor’s thoughts, though, then allow me to submit these two gems from Hot Air for consideration.:

Hot Air: Allahpundit: Video: Did Brian Williams bow to Barack Obama?
Hot Air: Allahpundit: Oh my: Sotomayor made nearly identical “wise Latina” comment in 1994, too

Are we to assume that this whole bowing thing is now in vogue among America’s top journalists, perhaps excluding those from Fox News Channel? I’m not certain whether to regard Allahpundit’s “bonus question”, as he put it, as funny or disturbing, but it might very well be both: “If Williams bowed, what would Keith Olbermann and Chris Matthews do to wish the President a good night? On second thought, I don’t want to know.”. I will have to assume that Olbermann and Matthews would at least be all too eager to continue attacking anybody who dares oppose Sonia Sotomayor for any reason, and she has believed in this “wise Latina/woman” thing for quite a while – as far back as, say, 1994. At least we’ll be certain about this woman’s interest in gender politics in interpreting American law, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see “Pawlenty” of arguments compiled against such a notion as Sotomayor’s nomination proceeds. Tim Pawlenty himself may be facing competition from some familiar names in attempting to discern how best to explain America’s mission to not just its people, but also the entire world.:

Fox News Channel: Minnesota Gov. Pawlenty Announces He Won't Seek Re-Election

I can still remember the speculation that Pawlenty would be McCain’s vice-presidential nominee… right until Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was revealed. I may have an even busier summer ahead of me than I expected, even after President Obama’s Cairo speech.

 

[Carlisle]

Hispanics are also catholic which is against the issue.

Yet, you don't see abortion being made illegal, something which many Catholics are against. And yet, we have almost six Catholics on the Supreme Court, and there is no ban on gay marriage that is federal.

If the courts legalize it over the will of the people then that is a sad and sick display of the courts over stepping their power.

People are guaranteed civil rights, marriage being one of them. If the courts didn't overrule segragation and other horrible, disgusting issues, we would be living in a disgusting, backwards, and terribly ignorant country.

Carlisle that is crap and you know it. Prop 8 was heavily advertised on both sides of the isle. Singling out one side is pathetic and you know it. Those that went in to vote on it knew what they were voting for.

Was the left using scare tactics? Not too much. "FAMILY VALUES WILL BE DESTROYED. GAYS SHOULD NOT HAVE CHILDREN. EVILLLLLLL." Not to mention money being poured in from money in Utah. And from what I understand, the wording of the prop was confusing enough for some people. Maybe not enough to change the outcome, but it was present.

Saying she is a racist isn't a bandwagon jumping its a fact.

Yes, it is a bandwagon. You're only hearing it from far right Republicans and even they are stepping down now because they know it's not a good idea to criticize her.

I believe there is a Firefighter decision in the courts right now that would disagree with you on that.

Link, please.

Either way it was a racist comment, no matter what. If her actions reflect it or not that does not take away the fact that she made the comment in two different occasions, and seems to believe it is true.

Yet, you're ignoring the fact that if her actions say otherwise, it shouldn't be taken so seriously.

Let me ask you this, if say I had on different occasions on this board, gone around saying how I believed Whites were superior to blacks, not once, but multiple times. Do you honestly believe I wouldn't be branded a racist?

Saying a race is superior is a different thing. Ms. Sotomayor said a Latina woman has more wisdom when it comes to certain things.

Racist:
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others.

I would think that the belief that a Latina woman can reach a better decision than a white man, would qualify as a belief of a inherent difference between human races that determines individual achievement.

That is the definiton of racism. Racism and being a racist are two very different things. A person can hold racist beliefs and still not be a racist. It's blatantly obvious that many Americans think Muslim nations are filled with crazies who are going straight to Hell, but I'd like to give those people the benefit of the doubt and view them as simply uninformed.

Excuse me, but where the hell does it say in our judicial code allows you to use personal experiences to grant judgments? A judge is supposed to rule on the letter of the law, not the experiences she or he has had. Period.

And the average politician, judge, policeman, etc. has put personal issues ahead of what should be. What happens in our law system multiple times should not be happening, yet it does. Remember when a lawyer told the judge that his client was, "too pretty for prison" just because she was a female? Casey Anthony would be on death row right now if she was a MALE, yet when a pretty, FEMALE is charged with a crime, many times she is off scott free. Women should not be pandered to in the law system, yet our judges and law makers still let it happen.

Also lets twist it around, does a White Man growing up in the dumps to become a lawyer, have more knowledge and experience in the law to offer than a typical Latina Woman growing up in a upper middle class suburb? No! They both went to college, they both sat on the courts, they both read the same text books, they both know the law. Knowledge and Experience on the court is supposed to be on the law, not on if you got picked on while heading to school.

Wisdom and knowledge are too very different things.

Also lets not forget you are pulling **** out of thin air. She did not say "Growing up in the dumps" or "Typical white male growing up in a upper middle class suburb" It was "Wise Latina Woman" and "White Man" stick with the facts instead of trying to twist her words.

No, she did not say that, I never said she that. It just happens to be the situation she grew up in.

Which factors NOTHING into legal decisions. Should a person spend less time in jail for murder because they had financial hardships? Should a child molester get less time in jail because they were discriminated on when they were a child? NO! And that is why this scum bag does not deserve to be on the highest court in the US.

They shouldn't, yet it happens. You get off in this law system just for being famous. Like OJ Simpson back in the 90's. I don't buy it that people are suddenly buying a conscience and saying the failure that is our law system is suddenly an outrage when it becomes a matter of politics.

Some could say it helped get Bush elected in 04, just 3 years later.

And some could say other factors did.

Oh so now that they have the vote it matters, when they didn't have the vote they had every right to be racist.

You are assuming the media will still be in bed with Obama by 2012 and that he will still have high approval ratings.

I believe the media will be loving Obama for quite some time. They aren't letting up, at all.

So in the last 7 or so years, has there been some massive influx of tens of millions of Mexicans that I have missed that have suddenly gained the ability to vote?

There have been millions of Mexicans coming in, either legally or illegaly, and many of them are going to be voting or have voted. They are the fastest growing minority and it's a matter of time before they are the majority.

Stop inflation on the level we will see in a few years. Yes.

And yet, if we enter this next alleged recession, what will we do again? Spend, spend, spend. So by your logic we'll be stuck in a never ending cycle of recessions and inflation.

You know I have no doubt they would spend, would they spend 4 trillion dollars? Most likely not. Would they be willing to saddle us with the anchor that is Universal Health Care, well Clinton might, but the Republicans wouldn't. So yes while I think they would have spent, I do not think we would have seen the level of recklessness and absolute stupidity that Obama has done when it comes to spending.

Palin's not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, so don't be surprised if she were to crash this country in the ground, either as you think Obama is doing. Clinton would be doing the exact same things, so would any Democrat. McCain would do, he's hardly a Conservative in any way. Romney might be a hopeful.

 

[BigLutz]

Yet, you don't see abortion being made illegal, something which many Catholics are against. And yet, we have almost six Catholics on the Supreme Court, and there is no ban on gay marriage that is federal.[/size]

Well A: That's different since you are applying it to just 6 people.

B: Were there that same number of Catholics when Roe v Wade was passed?

People are guaranteed civil rights, marriage being one of them. If the courts didn't overrule segragation and other horrible, disgusting issues, we would be living in a disgusting, backwards, and terribly ignorant country.

Doubtful since we were heading away from that, the courts over ruling it suddenly didn't make people stop acting backward or ignorant. Also just because you believe it is a Civil Right, some thing which could be argued, doesn't mean that we should suddenly overturn the way our laws are passed.

Was the left using scare tactics? Not too much. "FAMILY VALUES WILL BE DESTROYED. GAYS SHOULD NOT HAVE CHILDREN. EVILLLLLLL."

Yes both sides were using scare tactics, infact after it was passed the Left got ahold of the doners to those that gave to Prop 8 and ruined many people's lives.

Not to mention money being poured in from money in Utah. And from what I understand, the wording of the prop was confusing enough for some people. Maybe not enough to change the outcome, but it was present.

A: Money comes in from everywhere in every major issue election this is no different. There was money being poured in all over the country for being against Prop 8 as well.

B: As I said both sides heavily advertised on Prop 8 and had plenty of time to educate people so that excuse doesn't work either.

Yes, it is a bandwagon. You're only hearing it from far right Republicans and even they are stepping down now because they know it's not a good idea to criticize her.

I heard the line from a moderate radio talk show, backed up by Drudge Report which tends to be more moderate, as well as other sites. To say it is some fringe Republican thing is utter stupidity.

Link, please.

The three federal appeals judges said last year the city had the right to reject the results of two tests because no black firefighters scored high enough.

Yet, you're ignoring the fact that if her actions say otherwise, it shouldn't be taken so seriously.

As I said we will see, in the next few months we will be hearing more on her rulings right now we know of her comments and a few of her major rulings.

Saying a race is superior is a different thing. Ms. Sotomayor said a Latina woman has more wisdom when it comes to certain things.

Which would be saying a Latina Woman is superior in certain things, which is racist.

That is the definiton of racism. Racism and being a racist are two very different things. A person can hold racist beliefs and still not be a racist. It's blatantly obvious that many Americans think Muslim nations are filled with crazies who are going straight to Hell, but I'd like to give those people the benefit of the doubt and view them as simply uninformed.

A racist is one that holds beliefs defined under racism. And no a person cannot hold racist beliefs, expouse those beliefs as she has, and not be considered a racist.

And the average politician, judge, policeman, etc. has put personal issues ahead of what should be. What happens in our law system multiple times should not be happening, yet it does. Remember when a lawyer told the judge that his client was, "too pretty for prison" just because she was a female? Casey Anthony would be on death row right now if she was a MALE, yet when a pretty, FEMALE is charged with a crime, many times she is off scott free. Women should not be pandered to in the law system, yet our judges and law makers still let it happen.

Excuse me but we are not talking about the average politician, judge, or policeman, we are talking about a woman being nominated for the highest court in the land. There are no doubt that there are judges out there that allow personal beliefs to interfere with law. None of them are about to be promoted to the highest court, and as such, we should be looking for a lawyer or judge, that holds the letter of the law above all else.

Wisdom and knowledge are too very different things.

Granted but you used Knowledge in your sentence thus I was continuing it.

No, she did not say that, I never said she that. It just happens to be the situation she grew up in.

No you just injected those words into the argument of what she said. Like I said lets stick with the facts.

They shouldn't, yet it happens. You get off in this law system just for being famous. Like OJ Simpson back in the 90's. I don't buy it that people are suddenly buying a conscience and saying the failure that is our law system is suddenly an outrage when it becomes a matter of politics.

OJ Simpson back in the 90s was let off because of a jury not a judge and thus has nothing to do with this. Anyway people have been outraged about radical judges LONG before Sotomayer came onto the scene.

And some could say other factors did.

That's good, doesn't deny the fact that Bush got more hispanic votes than Kerry.

I believe the media will be loving Obama for quite some time. They aren't letting up, at all.

Media loved George Bush right after 9/11 so did the rest of the country. Trying to predict what will happen and how the media or the public will swing is a guess right now.

There have been millions of Mexicans coming in, either legally or illegaly, and many of them are going to be voting or have voted. They are the fastest growing minority and it's a matter of time before they are the majority.

Hispanics coming in illegally cannot vote. Those coming in legally can only come in at a certain amount each year with everyone else. And that number is around the hundreds of thousands I believe. Not enough to radically swing a demographic as you are saying.

And yet, if we enter this next alleged recession, what will we do again? Spend, spend, spend. So by your logic we'll be stuck in a never ending cycle of recessions and inflation.

Except there is a difference, there is spending, and then there is overspending by trillions of dollars. You can spend during a recession, the problem is when you spend at the level that Obama has, it does damage to the country that is lasting.

Palin's not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed, so don't be surprised if she were to crash this country in the ground,

I am so sick and tired of this Palin is a idiot crap. She did a hell of a job up there in Alaska, to think her IQ would suddenly drop off the cliff the minute she got into the White House is pathetic.

either as you think Obama is doing. Clinton would be doing the exact same things, so would any Democrat. McCain would do, he's hardly a Conservative in any way. Romney might be a hopeful.

Of those three I doubt any of them would be spending at the size and scope that Obama did. If Clinton is anything like her husband she would have spent but worked on restraint as well. McCain showed absolutely NO inclination to spend that wildly, and Romney has enough smarts to know how horribly damaging the reckless spending Obama has engaged in would have hurt this country.

 

[ccangelopearl1362]

All right. My new “Barack Obama, the United States, and Islam” thread is up and running – or at least, should be – right on time for Obama’s latest endeavor in American foreign policy, not to mention a certain gruesome anniversary in a country widely considered to challenge this country soon. Perhaps Obama really is far too mired in “identity politics” to sufficiently and effectively defend America’s best attributes, and there may be a slightly different take to Obama’s focus on blacks and/or Latinos… as discovered by Mr. Doug Ross, who felt revealed Dealergate to the blogosphere.:

Doug Ross: Some minorities more equal than others

Incredibly, dealerships owned by Hispanics got substantial hits from this mass closure, and three of them appeared in a list of 500 largest Hispanic-owned businesses in the United States. Will someone explain further this notion that Hispanics are a simple voting bloc in American electoral politics? Obama’s advisors might want to figure out how to factor this development into their promotion of Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination for the United States Supreme Court, all in the name of empathy, I guess. These comments may have even been enough to persuade the White House to get Sotomayor to shut up… at least until the hearings commence.:

American Thinker: Ralph Alter: Suddenly Silent Sonia

Radio reporters and photographers alike were left in the dark about Sotomayor’s journey and demeanor, and lawmakers seem determined to keep it that way now. This can only make me even more curious as to what Sonia Sotomayor says about any major political issue to come before the Supreme Court if/once she gets confirmed.

 

[BigLutz]

Alright there is something drastically wrong with the edit function of my post. So I decided I would make a new post for something I came across that I believe would settle the Racist debate for good. This comes from last week's Mark Davis Show, a local radio host that has a pretty center to right show. Nothing fringe as Carlisle is trying to portray those that believe this woman is rightly a racist. Anyway I could paraphrase this or cut sections out, but I believe it is so good that I will post a link and a transcript.

Mark Davis Podcast, half way in is the Racism discussion

"There is a difference between some one that utters a racist comment, and some one that is a actual racist. I thought about that, because I believe I said it Friday, I went home and thought about that and, isn't that a distinction with out a difference? Do non racists make racists comments? No! If you say it, you are one. Now there are degrees of racism, there's seething hate filled racists, and there are others who think they are the coolest cabbage in the patch, they just hold views like Judge Sotomyor.

That as a Latina, she will reach better decisions than a white guy. And she is well spoken and well educated, so she isn't Klan's man style racist, she's not skinhead style racist, she is just modern intelligencia style racist. But racist none the less.

So that is a distinction you will not hear me drawing again, "well she may not be a racist, she just said a racist thing." Wow, I will throw myself under the bus for that, that is the dumbest thing i've said in a couple of weeks, maybe more. Cause you know what? If you say a racist thing, and you mean it, guess what you are? Guess what you are?"

I believe that is put better than I ever could, it was a racist comment there is no doubt about that. She is a racist for saying it, now as Mark put it I also do not think she is a skin head style racist. But lets be clear, she IS a racist.

 

[ccangelopearl1362]

YouTube: Fox News Channel: Neil Cavuto’s June 3, 2009, interview with Tim Pawlenty

Well, that should cover Tim Pawlenty’s opposition to those car company bailouts. The good Minnesota Governor explained that GM would have been better off going into bankruptcy last year, “without the weight of the United States Congress on their backs”, but also disregarding the “psychometrics around what the UAW think”, so that it would have been recovered from bankruptcy this year. I imagine that those Tax Day tea party protesters would welcome this argument, and it might only feel like one day before the 2012 presidential election is upon us, so there would be “Pawlenty” of speculation before then about Governor Pawlenty’s political future. Interestingly enough, as Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News & World Report has uncovered, Republicans may have a slight different reason for paying special attention to the current names mentioned as possibly opposing President Barack Obama about three years from now.:

U.S. News & World Report: Dan Gilgoff: 2012 Republican Front-Runners All Christian Conservatives

The names that caught my eye other than Pawlenty were no less familiar, and some of them I currently favor more than others.:

1. Sarah Palin
2. Newt Gingrich
3. Bobby Jindal
4. Mark Sanford
5. Mitt Romney
6. Mike Huckabee

Two Catholics, one Baptist, one Mormon, one Episcopalian, one former Pentecostal, and one evangelical. It’s quite a lineup of front-runners in the Republican Party, based on religious affiliation, but I will be happy to see each of them communicate a similar basic set of values to best match America’s mission both within itself and around the world.

 

[Carlisle]

Lutz, my Internet is having some down time, so I might not get to reply to you until tomorrow. It's nice though that I get to reply to you sooner and more often now that school is out. ^__^
However, just wanted to reply to this quickly...

YouTube: Fox News Channel: Neil Cavuto’s June 3, 2009, interview with Tim Pawlenty

Well, that should cover Tim Pawlenty’s opposition to those car company bailouts. The good Minnesota Governor explained that GM would have been better off going into bankruptcy last year, “without the weight of the United States Congress on their backs”, but also disregarding the “psychometrics around what the UAW think”, so that it would have been recovered from bankruptcy this year. I imagine that those Tax Day tea party protesters would welcome this argument, and it might only feel like one day before the 2012 presidential election is upon us, so there would be “Pawlenty” of speculation before then about Governor Pawlenty’s political future. Interestingly enough, as Dan Gilgoff of U.S. News & World Report has uncovered, Republicans may have a slight different reason for paying special attention to the current names mentioned as possibly opposing President Barack Obama about three years from now.:

U.S. News & World Report: Dan Gilgoff: 2012 Republican Front-Runners All Christian Conservatives

The names that caught my eye other than Pawlenty were no less familiar, and some of them I currently favor more than others.:

1. Sarah Palin
2. Newt Gingrich
3. Bobby Jindal
4. Mark Sanford
5. Mitt Romney
6. Mike Huckabee

Two Catholics, one Baptist, one Mormon, one Episcopalian, one former Pentecostal, and one evangelical. It’s quite a lineup of front-runners in the Republican Party, based on religious affiliation, but I will be happy to see each of them communicate a similar basic set of values to best match America’s mission both within itself and around the world.

Don't get your hopes up with Pawlenty, Angelo. The man is not going to get anywhere in a presidential election. He has crashed himself in Minnesota, the economic problems and the budget defecit going on in that state are largely being blamed on him, and his refusal to sign over a election certificate is only angering Minnesotans more.

Also, since when in the world is Mike Huckabee a front runner in the Republican party? Are people too stupid to realize that he will NEVER win the Republican nominaton, and that he could NEVER, NEVER win the general election? He's the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party. Find someone less idiotic and more suited for the job than him.

Newt Gingrich doesn't have much of a chance either, the Republican party is better off with Jindal, Romney, Palin, Steele, and a few other charismatic people.

 

[BigLutz]

Lutz, my Internet is having some down time, so I might not get to reply to you until tomorrow. It's nice though that I get to reply to you sooner and more often now that school is out. ^__^
However, just wanted to reply to this quickly...

Awesome I can't wait, I am having a bit of a problem with my old post, for some reason the Server has a problem with random words which can kill edits or quotes.

Also, since when in the world is Mike Huckabee a front runner in the Republican party? Are people too stupid to realize that he will NEVER win the Republican nominaton, and that he could NEVER, NEVER win the general election? He's the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party. Find someone less idiotic and more suited for the job than him.

I asked the same thing when McCain was chosen and when Huckabee was getting votes. I believe part of his popularity now is that he had a hugely popular radio show that took over for Paul Harvey after Paul died. Having that kind of viability day in and day out helps, especially with the elderly who planned their day around Paul Harvey.

 

[ccangelopearl1362]

Hot Air: Allahpundit: Palin: Obama’s fiscal policies are designed to “control the people”

Speaking of Sarah Palin, it looks Hot Air has a new gem about her. She made the argument that lawmakers increasingly mired in fear will start to believe that bigger government really is the answer, so that she’s wondering “what the heck some in Washington are trying to accomplish there”. I counted at least ten or eleven calls for Governor Palin to run again in 2012, and quite a few of those posts mentioned Elizabeth Cheney as either Palin’s running mate… or even the presidential nominee herself. I can imagine that both women will have a substantial plate of issues to cover over the next four years, and they might end up getting some help focusing on at least one issue from Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.:

Politico: Harry Reid wants immigration bill this year

This “Hispanics as single voting bloc” is getting to catch my attention at this moment, if because of Sonia Sotomayor -- and those Hispanic-owned Chrysler dealerships. The irony is stark, I think, in recalling what the National Council of La Raza, among other organizations, have done in accusing Republicans of being mean-spirited toward Hispanics. Representative Charlie Norwood’s warning should be instructive to this end.:

Discover the Networks: Charlie Norwood: The Truth About ‘La Raza’

It’s quite a lineup, to say the least. The NCLR has accused anyone questioning its programs specifically targeting Hispanics of… racism, as if that could mean anything. Yet, hiding behind the NCLR’s happy face, for practical purposes, are organizations claiming a “Chicano” nation out of California, Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, Utah, and Colorado, among other key states in the southwestern area of the United States. I’m going to assume that these groups applauded Sotomayor’s nomination in order to promote a sort of Hispanic separation from the rest of America, thereby creating a new split along racial lines. I already thought that the Islamists were bad enough, but these Chicano radicals, if that’s what I may call them, can’t possibly help in keeping this country together through its best features.

 

[BigLutz]

Apparently it was more than twice that this scum bag made the racist comment. Seems like for Obama, this story isn't going away.

From CQ Politics.

"A draft version of a October 2003 speech Sotomayor delivered at Seton Hall University stated, “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.” That is identical to her October 2001 remarks at the University of California, Berkeley that have become the subject of intense criticism by Republican senators and prompted conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh to label her “racist.”

In addition, Sotomayor delivered a series of earlier speeches in which she said “a wise woman” would reach a better decision. She delivered the first of those speeches in Puerto Rico in 1994 and then before the Women’s Bar Association of the State of New York in April 1999.

The summary descriptions of speeches Sotomayor provided indicated she delivered remarks similar to the 1994 speech on three other occasions in 1999 and 2000 during two addresses at Yale and one at the City University of New York School of Law."

As I already covered with the Mark Davis quote today, she is a racist, while not a skin head one, she is a intellectual racist as she believes this crap.

Edit: The story that she repeated the comments on multiple occasions has now been verified by the Associated Press.

 

[Ethan]

Lutz, my Internet is having some down time, so I might not get to reply to you until tomorrow. It's nice though that I get to reply to you sooner and more often now that school is out. ^__^
However, just wanted to reply to this quickly...

Don't get your hopes up with Pawlenty, Angelo. The man is not going to get anywhere in a presidential election. He has crashed himself in Minnesota, the economic problems and the budget defecit going on in that state are largely being blamed on him, and his refusal to sign over a election certificate is only angering Minnesotans more.

Also, since when in the world is Mike Huckabee a front runner in the Republican party? Are people too stupid to realize that he will NEVER win the Republican nominaton, and that he could NEVER, NEVER win the general election? He's the Dennis Kucinich of the Republican party. Find someone less idiotic and more suited for the job than him.

Newt Gingrich doesn't have much of a chance either, the Republican party is better off with Jindal, Romney, Palin, Steele, and a few other charismatic people.

You're wrong. Tim Pawlenty has over a 55% approval rating in Minnesota.

http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/02/04/pollgovapproval/

I actually live in Minnesota, and no, the economic woes aren't being blamed on him because during his first term he was able to balance Minnesotas huge budget deficit without raising taxes. Now with the recession, the citizens realize that it's the recession, and not his leadership that are making things difficult.

 

[ccangelopearl1362]

Congressional Quarterly Politics: Sotomayor Repeatedly Referenced ‘Wise Woman’ in Speeches

While President Obama is jetting to Europe out of Cairo after essentially and ironically copying George Walker Bush’s talking points on Islam -- on no less than the anniversary of a massacre directed against protesters making themselves and their friends and relatives heard in the name of freedom -- Obama’s Supreme Court nominee is facing mounting criticism about her racial elitism. It may be reasonable to assume that Senator John Cornyn will be more and more willing to explore these comments on Sotomayor’s part in the coming weeks, and he may very well have even more to explore about Judge Sotomayor (rhyme intended) should he end up consulting Hot Air for this.:

Hot Air: Allahpundit: Sotomayor member of La Raza for six years

So much for isolated comments. I will trust us to chew over this woman’s “empathetic” preferences for Hispanics in the coming weeks, presumably after Obama’s done engaging in yet another round of equivocation and prostration in front of the entire world… not just the Islamic world, unfortunately. Likewise, I will trust Sarah Palin, Tim Pawlenty, Michael Steele, Bobby Jindal, and those other possible Republican presidential candidates to continue developing their separate arguments against Obama and the Democrats, calling for renewed confidence in America’s brand of democratic capitalism in riding out this downturn.

 

[BigLutz]

Well I think it's pretty much official, Sarah Palin is in the running for the 2012 Presidency. Between drawing a crowd of over 20,000 in New York ( I believe it was New York ) this weekend. To her Sean Hannity interview tonight, she is doing her best to remain visible.

The Hannity interview has already leaked to Drudge, with the biggest moment is her going out and saying "I told you so" when it comes to Obama's out of control spending and taxation. With more heavy taxes coming in the future on everything from Health Benifits to Soda Pop, and the coming Inflation Tidal Wave brought by Obama's binge spending stupidity, I expect to hear her saying "I told you so" in every interview possible.

Also a new Gallup Poll today, 51% are now against Obama's spending, 48% are now against Obama's handling of the deficit. Those numbers are incredibly soft, and with trillions of dollars in spending coming soon in the way of possibly nationalizing Health care. Expect both of those numbers to skyrocket.

Edit: When the most supportive TV News Network makes fun of you, you know you have a problem

I really do not get where people get the idea that Obama is this amazing speaker, and I have said this many times through out the last year. He is just a sock puppet, he reads what ever is put on the screen where ever he goes, and I mean WHERE EVER he goes, I doubt there has even been a speech since he got in the White House where he didn't have the teleprompter there in some form or fashion. The guy would be great in reading books for audio tapes, because he can read very very well. But when it comes to public speaking, he has two choices: read some one else's words, or sound like George Bush.

 

[Carlisle]

Bablyon, that link you sent is highly outdated.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/05/01/1918260.aspx
His approval rating is now below 50%.

Well I think it's pretty much official, Sarah Palin is in the running for the 2012 Presidency. Between drawing a crowd of over 20,000 in New York ( I believe it was New York ) this weekend. To her Sean Hannity interview tonight, she is doing her best to remain visible.

The Hannity interview has already leaked to Drudge, with the biggest moment is her going out and saying "I told you so" when it comes to Obama's out of control spending and taxation. With more heavy taxes coming in the future on everything from Health Benifits to Soda Pop, and the coming Inflation Tidal Wave brought by Obama's binge spending stupidity, I expect to hear her saying "I told you so" in every interview possible.

Also a new Gallup Poll today, 51% are now against Obama's spending, 48% are now against Obama's handling of the deficit. Those numbers are incredibly soft, and with trillions of dollars in spending coming soon in the way of possibly nationalizing Health care. Expect both of those numbers to skyrocket.

Edit: When the most supportive TV News Network makes fun of you, you know you have a problem

I really do not get where people get the idea that Obama is this amazing speaker, and I have said this many times through out the last year. He is just a sock puppet, he reads what ever is put on the screen where ever he goes, and I mean WHERE EVER he goes, I doubt there has even been a speech since he got in the White House where he didn't have the teleprompter there in some form or fashion. The guy would be great in reading books for audio tapes, because he can read very very well. But when it comes to public speaking, he has two choices: read some one else's words, or sound like George Bush.

I think it's been obvious that she has plans on running for quite some time. I must admit, her ability to draw a crowd of 20,000 is quite impressive, as I certainly wouldn't mind listening to what she has to say simply out of pure interest. However, I fear that as a woman she still doesn't have a chance, and will suffer a similar media backlach as Hillary Clinton did. Second of all, if the economy is out of a recession by 2012, but we are experiencing high inflation, I bet Romney would have a MUCH better chance. I would assume that the Republicans have a better chance of taking back the White House in 2012 with Romney or Jindal, as I believe Palin is a tad bit too polarizing. She would suffer an extreme backlash from the Democratic party, and I'm afraid she wouldn't fare too well with the media or even Independents. And if things contine on, she'll also see an annoyance and no votes from men. She was more popular with men this past election, but who knows, things do change. I, personally, would like to see Kristen Gillibrand(spelling?) possibly run in 2012...she seems like an accomplished Democratic woman who is MUCH more toward the middle than Obama is.
I don't know...I feel a Jindal/Palin ticket would work best. Palin brings charisma and leadership, so I feel that seeing her as number two is more helpful, as she isn't exactly viewed as very smart.

I asked the same thing when McCain was chosen and when Huckabee was getting votes. I believe part of his popularity now is that he had a hugely popular radio show that took over for Paul Harvey after Paul died. Having that kind of viability day in and day out helps, especially with the elderly who planned their day around Paul Harvey.

Huckabee, however, only received votes ONLY from the South and...Iowa? McCain at the very least got votes across America. Electing Huckabee would KILL even the tiniest of chances of Republicans getting any votes in the swing states, as swing states aren't going to elect someone THAT far too the right. He's WAY too partisan and WAY too much of a religious right wing nut job.

Well A: That's different since you are applying it to just 6 people.

B: Were there that same number of Catholics when Roe v Wade was passed

It still doesn't matter how many Catholics there ever will be, as I doubt abortion will ever be made illegal. And with the murder of Dr. Tiller I believe, it's not an issue that should be brought up in an election. He may have performed late term abortions, which I believe should be kept legal in those specific situations, but I'm pretty sure no president in modern age would want to be remembered as the president who caused a catastrophe by illegalizing abortion.

Doubtful since we were heading away from that, the courts over ruling it suddenly didn't make people stop acting backward or ignorant. Also just because you believe it is a Civil Right, some thing which could be argued, doesn't mean that we should suddenly overturn the way our laws are passed.

There are plenty of things that get passed that don't require vote approval by the citizens. Marriage is a civil contract that shouldn't be denied to two consenting adults because of religion. Religion has no place in government, and it is the only argument against gay marriage.

I heard the line from a moderate radio talk show, backed up by Drudge Report which tends to be more moderate, as well as other sites. To say it is some fringe Republican thing is utter stupidity.

Which is cherry picking. A handful of the bunch isn't Republican, doesn't mean that the majority isn't.

Excuse me but we are not talking about the average politician, judge, or policeman, we are talking about a woman being nominated for the highest court in the land. There are no doubt that there are judges out there that allow personal beliefs to interfere with law. None of them are about to be promoted to the highest court, and as such, we should be looking for a lawyer or judge, that holds the letter of the law above all else.

And somehow all the judges in the Supreme Court have NEVER allowed their personal beliefs to intefere? I'll give you this, yes, she holds racist beliefs - specifically a superiority complex. However, that doesn't merit her as a "scumbag" or a "piece of trash." The people of the KKK are scumbags and pieces of trash. Sotomayor is better fitted with "full of herself" or "conceited."

That's good, doesn't deny the fact that Bush got more hispanic votes than Kerry.

http://facethestate.com/articles/12556-understanding-67-hispanic-vote-obama
The jump from 2000 to 2004 is nothing compared to the one that is 2004 to 2008.

No, not relative to historical patterns of the past 20 years. According to the Pew Hispanic Center report on the 2008 election, the 67% of Hispanic votes that went to Barack Obama was within the norm for presidential elections since 1988. Bill Clinton got 72% in 1996 and Al Gore 62% in 2000. Thus, Obama's 67% was not a departure from historical levels. While Bush got 40% of the Hispanic vote in 2004, he got only 35% in 2000 and the Republican candidate in 1996, Robert Dole, received only 21%

And as the article explains, the Hispanic vote isn't even that crucial. So it's not something that saved Bush in 2004.

Media loved George Bush right after 9/11 so did the rest of the country. Trying to predict what will happen and how the media or the public will swing is a guess right now

But is the attitude that was toward Bush even comparable to that of the Obama mania that swept over the public and especially the media? Nope.

Hispanics coming in illegally cannot vote. Those coming in legally can only come in at a certain amount each year with everyone else. And that number is around the hundreds of thousands I believe. Not enough to radically swing a demographic as you are saying.

I think what I was trying to is that many Hispanics are coming in one way or another, and many of them will end up being legal anyway in four years.

Except there is a difference, there is spending, and then there is overspending by trillions of dollars. You can spend during a recession, the problem is when you spend at the level that Obama has, it does damage to the country that is lasting

But should we really expect Obama to keep on spending at his current rate for ALL four years?

I am so sick and tired of this Palin is a idiot crap. She did a hell of a job up there in Alaska, to think her IQ would suddenly drop off the cliff the minute she got into the White House is pathetic

Well, take a look at some of her statements:

"We realize that more and more Americans are starting to see the light there and understand the contrast. And we talk a lot about, OK, we're confident that we're going to win on Tuesday, so from there, the first 100 days, how are we going to kick in the plan that will get this economy back on the right track and really shore up the strategies that we need over in Iraq and Iran to win these wars?" --Sarah Palin, suggesting we are at war with Iran, FOX News interview, Nov. 1, 2008

"John McCain and I, and our camps, are working together to get John McCain elected." --Sarah Palin, denying reports that she is "going rogue" while suggesting there are separate Palin and McCain camps, Oct. 27, 2008

"I don't know if you're going to use the word 'terrorist' there." --Sarah Palin, asked if people who bomb abortion clinics are terrorists, NBC News interview, Oct. 23, 2008

"[T]hey're in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom." --Sarah Palin, getting the vice president's constitutional role wrong after being asked by a third grader what the vice president does, interview with NBC affiliate KUSA in Colorado, Oct. 21, 2008
We believe that the best of America is not all in Washington, D.C. ...We believe that the best of America is in these small towns that we get to visit, and in these wonderful little pockets of what I call the real America, being here with all of you hard working very patriotic, um, very, um, pro-America areas of this great nation." --Sarah Palin, speaking at a fundraiser in Greensoboro, N.C., Oct. 16, 2008

"I like being here because it seems like here and in our last rally too -- other parts around this great Northwest -- here in New Hampshire you just get it." --Sarah Palin, Laconia, New Hampshire, Oct. 15, 2008
"They are also building schools for the Afghan children so that there is hope and opportunity in our neighboring country of Afghanistan." --Sarah Palin, speaking at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Oct. 5, 2008

There's a place in Hell reserved for women who don't support other women." --Sarah Palin, misquoting former Secretary of State Madeline Albright, who said women should "help" other women," Carson, Caliif., Oct. 4, 2008

"I told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that Bridge to Nowhere." –Sarah Palin, who was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it

"I'm the mayor, I can do whatever I want until the courts tell me I can't.'" --Sarah Palin, as quoted by former City Council Member Nick Carney, after he raised objections about the $50,000 she spent renovating the mayor's office without approval of the city council

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

 

[VenomPhoenix]

wow... the woman who didnt know africa was a continent running for the presidency of america.

lol, i love irony.

EDIT:

"you know charlie..."

the new catch phrase of america.

lol.

 

[ccangelopearl1362]

Hot Air: Allahpundit: Palin on Obamanomics: We tried to warn you

I’ll give BigLutz credit for giving me a new interview to track this evening. If it helps, I supported John McCain and Governor Palin last November, and I persuaded my family -- and perhaps a few of my relatives, as well -- to do the same thing, if for slightly different reasons that America’s current economic challenges. However, Palin may wind up getting some help on one of Obama’s most recent initiatives regarding a certain famous car company from a rather unlikely source.:

Hot Air: Ed Morrissey: Breaking: SCOTUS stops Chrysler sale

Of all the possible justices to sign the order, it was Ruth Bader Ginsburg who did this. Between this and Dealergate several days ago, I can only wonder how bad the Chrysler bankruptcy smelled to the political junkies trying to make sense of it in Washington, D.C. -- or to the bloggers trying to uncover its sordid details.

 

[BigLutz]

wow... the woman who didnt know africa was a continent running for the presidency of america.

lol, i love irony.

Was disproven LONG ago.

I don't know...I feel a Jindal/Palin ticket would work best. Palin brings charisma and leadership, so I feel that seeing her as number two is more helpful, as she isn't exactly viewed as very smart.

That would be a great ticket, and really Palin has a good while to rehabilitate her image. Really most of the damage was done by her being the typical Vice President attack dog against a popular candidate.

Huckabee, however, only received votes ONLY from the South and...Iowa? McCain at the very least got votes across America. Electing Huckabee would KILL even the tiniest of chances of Republicans getting any votes in the swing states, as swing states aren't going to elect someone THAT far too the right. He's WAY too partisan and WAY too much of a religious right wing nut job.

Really looking at Huckabee's record he was more centrist to leftist on spending and taxation. Now my memory is a bit foggy on that as it was over a year ago when I last paid attention to him, but that was my main complaint with him.

but I'm pretty sure no president in modern age would want to be remembered as the president who caused a catastrophe by illegalizing abortion.

Personally I don't want Abortion Illegalized, but Roe needs to be overturned. Its a shining example of the Court creating legislation out of thin air with no input from the citizens or the elected legislators. We need it legalized either through the states, or through the Congress, not through the courts.

There are plenty of things that get passed that don't require vote approval by the citizens.

Umm yeah one way or another there usually is a vote by the citizens or representatives of the citizens. The Courts how ever do not represent the citizens nor should they be making legislation.

Marriage is a civil contract that shouldn't be denied to two consenting adults because of religion. Religion has no place in government, and it is the only argument against gay marriage.

Problem is the Government has a place in marriage, always has and always will. And as long as the people feel one way or another on Gay Marriage no matter what the reason being religious or other, the Government will typically side with the people.

Which is cherry picking. A handful of the bunch isn't Republican, doesn't mean that the majority isn't.

I'm not cherry picking those were literally the first places I heard it. Granted I do not expect the Daily Kos or MSNBC to be leading the news with it. But the quote was even in the NYT story about her when her bio came out, long before this scandal. Now granted its also been on Republican websites, both more mainstream ones like Hot Air, and far right ones like Red State. But the places I heard it first were more centrist areas.

And somehow all the judges in the Supreme Court have NEVER allowed their personal beliefs to intefere?

Oh I have no doubt that on occasion they have let Personal Beliefs interfere, but then again just because a judge or two does it on occasion, it isn't a excuse to allow some one on that we already know is bias.

I'll give you this, yes, she holds racist beliefs - specifically a superiority complex. However, that doesn't merit her as a "scumbag" or a "piece of trash." The people of the KKK are scumbags and pieces of trash. Sotomayor is better fitted with "full of herself" or "conceited."

Well that is really a matter of perspective, having grown up in the deep South and seen Racism from all sides, I personally believe anyone that holds the disgusting belief that one race is smarter than another, or can make better judgments than another, or a multitude of things, is a scum bag. But that is just my personal belief.

The jump from 2000 to 2004 is nothing compared to the one that is 2004 to 2008.

Which seeing how Pro Illegal Immigration McCain was, shows that the Hispanic Population will go more for popularity than issues.

And as the article explains, the Hispanic vote isn't even that crucial. So it's not something that saved Bush in 2004.

As tight as 2004 was, getting 40% of the Hispanic vote can swing a election.

But is the attitude that was toward Bush even comparable to that of the Obama mania that swept over the public and especially the media? Nope.

You're right, it wasn't even comparable. With a 90%+ Approval Rating, and a wave of Patriotism sweeping the media and this country not seen since I would say VJ and VE day in WW2, Bush mania swept the country and media far more than Obama did.

I think what I was trying to is that many Hispanics are coming in one way or another, and many of them will end up being legal anyway in four years.

As much hatred the last Illegal Immigration bill brought, and as much backlash that happened, I doubt Obama would risk it.

But should we really expect Obama to keep on spending at his current rate for ALL four years?

Doesn't matter if he doesn't spend a dime, the amount of money he has already spent is so horrible the damage has already been done. That being said with the horror that will be Universal Health Care, he will have to keep spending in the trillions for the next few years. And that is with out factoring in all the other social programs he wishes to bring about, as well as the damage he will have to deal with from the horrors of sky rocketing inflation brought about by him.

Well, take a look at some of her statements:

If you want to get into a pissing contest on statements said on the Campaign trail infront of a 24/7 news media, I would be more than happy to delve into Joe Biden and Obama's statements. I promise you, I will make the two look like the biggest pair of idiots to ever step foot into the White House. Mind you, you are also Cherry Picking Quotes, even though it doesn't matter as the results speak for themselves. Anyway I will however address two of them.

"I told the Congress, 'Thanks, but no thanks,' on that Bridge to Nowhere." –Sarah Palin, who was for the Bridge to Nowhere before she was against it

This was for a five second sound bite on the Campaign Trail, if she really wished to get into the nuance of it she could, but a 5 minute explanation doesn't play well when the campaign is looking for 5 second sound bites to use for the media. Mind you both campaigns engaged in this, and campaigns have engaged in this as long as there has been radio and tv.

"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where– where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border." --Sarah Palin, explaining why Alaska's proximity to Russia gives her foreign policy experience, interview with CBS's Katie Couric, Sept. 24, 2008

She actually is right on this one, as I have explained MULTIPLE times before, for the past ten or so years, Putin has been flying bombers close to Alaska again, and again, and again, AND AGAIN. I wouldn't be surprised if she is kept in constant contact with the State Department, or the DoD when these things happen, as well as in contact with Canada and Russia.