The GOP and Sotomayor...

[joobz]

Right. She said "better conclusions" because of her Latin heritage.

Better conclusions than what, when?
You are selectively removing large chunks of her statement to be offended by something she didn't say.

 

[SezMe]

I will gladly sit back and let the others make things so bad that we will be proven right, in the long run. (or I'll eventually see that I was wrong, and change my beliefs).

This gave me a chuckle. The last eight years made things so bad it is difficult to count the ways: constitutional violations, economy in the dumpster, science ignored, environment a mess, and on and on and on and on.

If you haven't changed your beliefs in the face of that, just be honest and recognize that you aren't going to at all. Nothing wrong with that, just admit it.

 

[Cicero]

Better conclusions than what, when?
You are selectively removing large chunks of her statement to be offended by something she didn't say.

Whose offended?

These hilited passages:

You are leaving out the phrases "would hope" and "more often than not," which are important qualifiers, and suggest more humility than you are willing to ascribe to Sotomayor.

Robster, FCD

do add context. However, they do not change what she did say and meant, and what she did say is not the same as what Alito said.

 

[Ziggurat]

This gave me a chuckle. The last eight years made things so bad it is difficult to count the ways: constitutional violations, economy in the dumpster, science ignored, environment a mess, and on and on and on and on.

So bad, liberals were being hunted like wild game. Mobs with pitchforks and bibles assaulted university professors across the land. Chickens replaced the dollar as the dominant currency. The senate was dissolved, and martial law declared in every blue state. And science became so taboo that people held calculator burnings. And anyone with a higher degree was forced to wear a yellow patch of an academic cap. Terrible years, those were.

 

[joobz]

If by these hilited passages:

Robster, FCD

And don't forget
"who hasn't lived that life."

They do add context.

CONTEXT? How about completely changing the meaning.

However, they do not change what she did say and meant,

Actually you are right. It doesn't "change what She said or meant" because I'M GOING BY WHAT SHE SAID AND MEANT. You implied that she said she made "better conclusions "because of her heritage.

and what she did say is not the same as what Alito said.

of course not. But what she said isn't the same thing as what you implied she said.

 

[dudalb]

Puh-lease... The demagoging here is just so outrageous. And of course, yet another lesson for Democrats. No matter how fair you try to be, you'll never be considered such by the right. You'll never an ounce of respect in return. It's war. Vicious, scorched earth warfare. There is no sense in trying to do anything to appease the other side, ever. It never helps or works at all.

Sound familiar, Whip?

And folks, here is why "A Plague On Both Your Houses" is my attitude toward the hard line ideologues in both parties.

 

[SezMe]

It didn't occur to you, dudalb, that that was exactly my point?

 

[Cicero]

And don't forget
"who hasn't lived that life."

CONTEXT? How about completely changing the meaning.

Actually you are right. It doesn't "change what She said or meant" because I'M GOING BY WHAT SHE SAID AND MEANT. You implied that she said she made "better conclusions "because of her heritage.

of course not. But what she said isn't the same thing as what you implied she said.

I'm not implying she said "White men can't judge."

She described herself as a "wise Latina women;" that's her heritage . Her experiences were those of a Latina. Why do you suppose she brought up her heritage and connected that to her conclusions which would be better than a...? During the four day Senate hearings, she never denied what she said, nor did she disabuse the Senators that they were wrong on her meaning. Hence she said:


"I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat."

 

[Tricky]

I'm not implying she said "White men can't judge."

She described herself as a "wise Latina women;" that's her heritage . Her experiences were those of a Latina. Why do you suppose she brought up her heritage and connected that to her conclusions which would be better than a...? During the four day Senate hearings, she never denied what she said, nor did she disabuse the Senators that they were wrong on her meaning. Hence she said:


"I was using a rhetorical flourish that fell flat."

Yeah, she was giving an inspirational speech. It wasn't one of her decisions. It wasn't a statement on her positions. It was a single phrase out of an inspirational speech that was taken (mostly out of context) as the litmus test of what she believes. One would think that the GOP could come up with something better than this to attack if it were really worth it. Of course, it isn't really worth it at all. They're just making a little show for their constituency to try to prove that they're still conservative. Maybe that explains the lackadaisical effort at investigating Sotomayor. They know they haven't go anything solid and they don't want to waste their time. They also don't want to make too big a show because they don't want to alienate Hispanics even more.

They've got more important issues to deal with to keep their party from being irrelevant.

 

[Cicero]

Yeah, she was giving an inspirational speech. It wasn't one of her decisions. It wasn't a statement on her positions. It was a single phrase out of an inspirational speech that was taken (mostly out of context) as the litmus test of what she believes. One would think that the GOP could come up with something better than this to attack if it were really worth it. Of course, it isn't really worth it at all. They're just making a little show for their constituency to try to prove that they're still conservative. Maybe that explains the lackadaisical effort at investigating Sotomayor. They know they haven't go anything solid and they don't want to waste their time. They also don't want to make too big a show because they don't want to alienate Hispanics even more.

They've got more important issues to deal with to keep their party from being irrelevant.

Had you watched the hearings, you would have noticed it was essentially a love fest for all concerned.

With unemployment heading to 11%, the party that is indeed relevant is the Democratic. Whether they will still be relevant come the nest election cycle is another matter.

Speaking of important issues, has any lib pursued your notion that "Palin lied while taking her oath of office" and filed charges against her?"

 

[Tricky]

Had you watched the hearings, you would have noticed it was essentially a love fest for all concerned. "

Funny. I seem to have seen some news items where Senators basically accused her of being a racist. True, she has a number of Republicans already on her side and her approval is pretty much a foregone conclusion, but that doesn't mean that there wasn't some nastiness, and most of it was based on that one speech, not on her court rulings.

With unemployment heading to 11%, the party that is indeed relevant is the Democratic. Whether they will still be relevant come the nest election cycle is another matter.

Not sure what this has to do with the topic, but yeah, if the economy continues to tank, the Democrats will be in trouble. That's how politics works.

Speaking of important issues, has any lib pursued your notion that "Palin lied while taking her oath of office" and filed charges against her?"

As I said when I brought it up, it was meant as a sarcastic counter to when somebody brought in Bill Clinton "lying under oath". As I said then, they both did it, and neither is important. I had no idea it would trigger such a Pavlovian reaction. And what this has to do with Sotomayor is completely beyond me.

 

[Cicero]

As I said when I brought it up, it was meant as a sarcastic counter to when somebody brought in Bill Clinton "lying under oath". As I said then, they both did it, and neither is important. I had no idea it would trigger such a Pavlovian reaction. And what this has to do with Sotomayor is completely beyond me.

"Sarcasm?" It must have been a "rhetorical flourish that fell flat." But the more I pressed you on your claim, the more you tried to sell it. It became "sarcasm" when nobody bought into it.

 

[Whiplash]

I wish I could take the opinion that "both sides are equally at fault, so screw 'em all" as dudalb. But at this time, these are the only two viable parties in this country. And I find that one side more closley shares my values than the other. So I support them. They do not do so perfectly. I would imagine even a hard liberal would feel that the Democrats don't always serve their own interests well enough, but it's better to them than the other side.

It's been my feeling that the left has been more guilty of this than the right. Maybe not in quantity, but in tone. Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe it's just been that way the last 8 years. I don't disagree that the right was rough on Clinton. But I don't remember them saying things as outrageous as much that was said about Bush. Much of the Bush hatred seemed, to me, to be a vindictive "payback" for Clinton. But taken much too far.

I personally experienced people judging me as less than human or as unworthy of respect and friendship based on my support of Bush. I never was like that with anyone who supported Clinton. Yet I lost many friends online, and a couple in real life, that were absolutely intolerant of Bush in every single way. In a manner that seemed to be wholy outrageous.

Calling him Hitler, accusing him of "pissing on the constitution". Comparisons of him to a monkey. Constantly belittling him for every word out of his mouth. Constantly demagoging right wing positions in the worst way. It was maddening and extremely frustrating.

Regardless of who is worse, it's just wrong. It's sad that we are all so blinded by our beliefs that we are willing to go such levels to destroy the other side. I'm sick of it. It may never change, but I hold out hope that one day, someone will be able to raise above it and lead by example, and revolutionize things. Or maybe they will try to do so, and go down in such terrible flames, it'll wake everyone up to how bad things are. I would have thought that Palin would have been that line, in the recent past. But clearly not.

 

[Monketi Ghost]

*snip*
... I would have thought that Palin would have been that line, in the recent past. But clearly not.

What line?

 

[Whiplash]

I guess I should have spelled that out more clearly. Where the viciousness of politics was shown so demonstrably as to sicken people to the process. It certainly was the case for the right, but the left still feels completely justified in what they did.

But I'd also agree that she was not someone who "rose above it all" and "lead by example". So I was mistaken to invoke her there. I'll retract that.

 

[Tricky]

"Sarcasm?" It must have been a "rhetorical flourish that fell flat." But the more I pressed you on your claim, the more you tried to sell it. It became "sarcasm" when nobody bought into it.

Way back when, I made it clear that I was doing it for comparison's sake and not because I thought it was important. Discuss it in those threads if you feel you must. I am not going to further derail this one.