1) [...] So you admit that you lost the elections because you are clearly out of touch with the majority of this country, and so you can’t impact the nominations to the Court, and you are going to see her confirmed with 70+ votes.
A: The republicans lost the elections, and if you want to shorthand this into their being “out of touch with the majority” description, I am fine with this – yet I will remind you again that elections happen every few years and, exactly as the Reps lost this time, so had Democrats, so will Reps again, and so will do Dems again;

2) [...] Your big plan is to wait until 2010 or 2012 and see if the cries of racism and the party of ‘no’ thing has resonated with the people (or just sit around and hope the Democrats fail, which is more likely than your other approach of name-calling and obstructionism). Great, finally some closure.
Q: Used as I am with liberals’ non sequiturs and absurd tirades, your hysterical reaction at my modest mentioning of some incoming elections is beyond anyting I heard so far. Does my “big plan” to vote in 2010 and 2012 sound that offending? My!
AAs far as Sotomayor’s confirmation (which I hope that won’t happen), it increasingly looks like a Lani Guarnier, “quota queen” type of political adventure – even LA Times, this liberal battleship has become kind of leary of her, situation echoing the Dem establishment’s fear of a YES! white electorate backlash.
4) [...] who has the “left” assassinated (or even tortured) to support the “most primitive and ruthless” manner you suggest?
A: Gross or stupid, but probably both: one century of communism has left over one hundred million murders around – and, considering your hysterical tone, I can see you very well as left-wing commissar inflicting your enlightenment upon completely innocent humans around.
5) And how does me pointing out that the FBI is watching (given all of the talk of violence around here) make me a thug?
A: Certes, PJM is a rather conservative site. But, I’ve been visiting PJM for about one year and I always found the regulars here as polite and cultured and willing to listen to adverse opinions, and simply no normal human would (liberals don’t qualify for this description) describe the dialogue here as “all that talk of violence around here” -
On the other hand, the verbal violence is a common threat of most liberal sites, like Daily Kos and HuffPo, where insults and screams are part of the regular offering – situation also showing from what miserable pastures you’ve strayed in this noble real of wisdom and insightfulness that PJM is –
5) [...] If anything I was warning you to think before you make careless threats of violence if that was where you were headed…”
A: my #247 has already addressed this:
[...] Sorry lot you are Jack, trying to equate my “So, can’t it be a bit too late for We The People try to [m]act AFTER Sotomayor is in office? What about this?” with a call for assassination.
Stopping Sotomayor, process that has began and probably will be successful, is exactly what is happening now, people examining her records and legal pronouncements and increasingly doubting her fitness for the SCOTUS job. (And revealing the rank hypocrisy of her supporters). [..]

Sad job to review your rants, Jack, but I did it for the record’s sake – and now, for comic relief comes your stormy end:
6) “[...] is there something wrong with me enjoying the Chesapeake Bay this weekend?
A: ??!
7) Are you afraid of the water and are jealous or something?
A: ??!
8)Is there some problem with kayaking (or at least spelling it correctly, since you don’t seem able to…)?
A: It’s either Kayaking or cayaking – stop barking, Jack;
9) Are you just being petty and small? I’m just curious about this fixation of yours.”
A: ??!!

Conclusion: if anyone ever needed another proof that a liberal’s psychology is nothing but fuzzy, wiggling knot
of hostility, fraudulence, bitterness, paranoia and supeficiality, refer to the highly literate presence on this site of dba Jack, qayaker in Chesapeake Bay -

Bye Jack – since barking might be good for your lungs, keep barking, but also be aware that lungs’ use tells a lot about brains, too, so…

And I’ll also say again that I don’t even know if I want her confirmed yet, but it’s still extremely likely as the Repubs want political cover and she’s already been through the process twice and been confirmed with bipartisanship both times.

But once again, since you didn’t answer, who has the “left” assassinated (or even tortured) to support the “most primitive and ruthless” manner you suggest? And how does me pointing out that the FBI is watching (given all of the talk of violence around here) make me a thug? If anything I was warning you to think before you make careless threats of violence if that was where you were headed…

As a final note (again), is there something wrong with me enjoying the Chesapeake Bay this weekend? Are you afraid of the water and are jealous or something? Is there some problem with kayaking (or at least spelling it correctly, since you don’t seem able to…)? Are you just being petty and small? I’m just curious about this fixation of yours.

Jack

Jack

Sorry lot you are Jack, trying to equate my “So, can’t it be a bit too late for We The People try to [m]act AFTER Sotomayor is in office? What about this?” with a call for assassination.

Stopping Sotomayor, process that has began and probably will be successful, is exactly what is happening now, people examining her records and legal pronouncements and increasingly doubting her fitness for the SCOTUS job. (And revealing the rank hypocrisy of her supporters).

But the clue for your pathetic psychological make-up lies in “the FBI is probably watching”, sentence which shows that as usual, in a liberal, camouflaged by noble utterings and gesticulation, lies a tyranical, petty and scheming bully – indeed bottomless is the liberal sleaze, and good illustration for that you are, dba Jack.

As far as “[...] your side losing too many elections so that your side had no chance to impact, etc. [...]” – buddy, apparantly your cayaking has exhausted your mental resources – elections happen often, every two years. The Reps lost last cycle, the Dems won, oblady, oblada – yet there isn’t anything definitive in an election.
2010 and 2012 are already here, in 2010 I suspect the Dems will lose their grip on the legislative branch (as you can see, the past week showed that they’re far of being invulnerable), and 2012, god willing, we’ll take the house again. If not, we’l do it next round.

So, since the hysterical layer of your psychology won’t accept this idea, Chesapeake bay is handy – happy drowning!

No, what I’m suggesting is is that the courts have arrogated to themselves the power to repeal laws on the basis of their constitutionality, and that they therefore do have the power to repeal laws.

IMO, it’s a huge mistake to grant the courts that power, especially since they’ve misused it so often, but they do have it.

So We The People are supposed to assassinate Sotomayor? Is that what your suggesting???? The FBI is probably watching…are you honestly suggesting that rather than following the democratic path that you want to just kill her? Who has the “left” assassinated to support the “most primitive and ruthless” manner you suggest?

Is it a matter of it being “too late” once she is in office, or is it a matter of your side losing too many elections so that your side had no chance to impact who was put in that position (note that your inability to impact things was because of the will of the majority who didn’t want people like you to rule them)? Maybe you and your peers are so out of line with everyone else that you lost election after election and per our CONSTITUTION you are therefor the fringe and going to have to wait?

I voted for Perot…can I riot now because he didn’t win? Is that how you think this country works?

As a final note, is there something wrong with me enjoying the Chesapeake Bay this weekend? It seems like you took personal offense to that. I know I’m a white male that is supposed to be mad at Sotomayor, but she didn’t steal my bank account quite yet…

Jack

P.S. The sad part is you are going to ignore everything I said, call me names, and come up with more strawmen. Prove me wrong or I’ll ignore you like I’ve done on so many other threads…

Jack, sorry, I’m just back from a whale hunt in Spitzbergen (nice harvest, I admit), and while I am a bit tired and need to get a good soak to get rid of all the blood on me I recognize & praise your noble approach in this Sotomayor matter.

Yet I still have an efficiency question here – since it takes very long for a case to reach the Supreme Court and (as it often happens) the un-addressed issues of that particular case can often be very painful for a larger group of citizens, why should’t We The People (your suggestion, buddy), jump in the fray and stop that or that injustice happen by simply not allowing someone so clearly bent on further wronging the wrongee like Sotomayor have an opportunity to do so?

Do I need to remind you that always, ALWAYS the left when in power acts in the most primitive and ruthless way?
Here’s a reminder for you, I’m quoting Henry Kissinger when in France (justly) admonishing Michel Jobert (French foreign affairs minister at that time, socialist), for yet another self-destructive alliance with the communists: “The entire world is dotted by millions of tombs of socialists who thought that can deal with communists.”
So, can’t it be a bit too late for We The People try to mact AFTER Sotomayor is in office? What about this?

Hope your cayak is ok – my Sollingen harpoons worked well in Spitzbergen, and next weekend I’ll go in Canada for a babyseals clubbering wildin’ (place undisclosed). If you want to join, let me know.

That said, I don’t see the Ricci case as Sotomayor approving of Affirmative Action (i.e. against whites…and frankly hispanics since they also lost that ruling), but simply as saying that the case falls within the boundaries of the current laws on the books regarding Affirmative Action. We The People are going to have to fix those laws unless the SCOTUS suddenly decides to reverse their prior rulings and declare them unconstitutional.

Jack

I’m not defending her as much as I’m defending her against the radical first opinions. NO ONE should be definitively judged after a 24 hour news cycle on a (however old she is) time period. Especially if the answer is “you are nothing but a racist bitch” or something similar. I’m pointing out the other side of the story, and while I’ve said several times I have to wait through the confirmation hearings, most people hear heard enough after the first afternoon.

In a discussion about judges where we think care and thoughtful decisions should be made and not rushed, I find it ironic here that most people refuse to show the same care that they expect in kind. I’m also sure that no one here can honestly say they’ve never made a statement they wish they could rephrase or take back (the same could be said of any politician, President, CEO, Doctor, etc…so don’t give me the “justices can’t make mistakes” line…everyone is human regardless of the office we expect them to hold).

As to court cases, if you’ve ever been involved in one, they are not as simple as a paragraph overview.

I am taking the entirely pro-Sotomayor standpoint because I am talking to people who have written her off 100% and I find that premature, simplistic, and de-valuing the importance of the Supreme Court. No one here needs to hear the side of the story they agree with any more than they already are. I’m telling them another view on the Ricci case and on the statement she made. Depending on her answers about that statement, and the ultimate view from the SCOTUS on the Ricci case, I may decide she IS racist, or she did botch that decision. But the people here that are close-minded aren’t going to wait (and they haven’t)…so I gave them another perspective.

If I can convince anyone to think a little open-mindedly then I feel like it wasn’t a waste of time (even it if changes nothing). I will make up my own mind once the hearings are over, and nothing anyone says here will change that.

So there you go.

Jack