OT: Sotomayor - no assets???

[LegendRider]

*** This post is not intended to be partisan. And, I hope that the thread doesn't become a political battleground regarding the Supreme Court. ***

The Washington Post and other media outlets are reporting that Sotomayor has very few assets - financial, real estate or otherwise - despite her nice salary and other income. The question is WHY?

There may be a reasonable explanation, but I'm worried it is emblematic of the American problem - consumerism, excessive consumption, instant gratification, or however you want to describe it. Does this bother you? Unless she's donating a sizable chunk of her income to charity or taking care of family, I find it problematic (though I don't think it rises to the level of disqualification).

[fiamme red]

What bothers me more is that she's an "avid Yankee fan." ;)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/06/AR2009050603762.html

Sotomayor, an avid Yankees fan, lives modestly, reporting virtually no assets despite her $179,500 yearly salary.

On her financial disclosure report for 2007, she said her only financial holdings were a Citibank checking and savings account, worth $50,000 to $115,000 combined.

[goonster]

What bothers me more is that she's an "avid Yankee fan." ;)
Exactly.

So she's not filthy rich. What's the problem again?

[Dekonick]

Unlike many of us, she (and other judges) has a secure, guranteed retirement. Those who 'make policy' make sure they are taken care of.

[RPS]

Unlike many of us, she (and other judges) has a secure, guranteed retirement.Not if they screw up enough. One of the Federal judges in Houston is about to find out.

[Richard]

So, because she isn't rich there may be a problem? Hmmm, maybe she isn't beholdin' to the traditional power brokers. Would that be grounds for disqualification?

[RPS]

.

[csm]

I think the bigger problem should be her "we make policy" comments that have been played. I know she's discounting that but still....
that said, I think we could have done worse assuming she is confirmed.

[HSG Racer]

Obama doesn't have much assets either. She's a judge which means that she's a civil servant. Civil servants from the president on down just do not make much money. They do it for public service and not for the money. She did work at a boutique law firm at one point before she became a judge and she was most likely pulling in some big bucks at that time. But since graduating from Yale Law school, she has by choice pursued a career as a prosecutor and then appointed as a judge.

With her ivy league educational background and her extensive experience as a prosecutor and law clerk, she could have easily become a senior partner at a posh Manhattan law firm and be a multi-millionaire by now. But, she chose public service.

On the other hand, I cannot support her. I'm a diehard Red Sox fan and the way I see it, Yankee fans are mentally challenged.

[rugbysecondrow]

I am not certain if it is odd if you are in NYC. You can live a more hand to mouth lifestyle (so to speak) with really very little that you actually have to own. Especially if you have a very secure position as she does, with no familiy, husband or children (from what I understand), it is entirely possible and maybe even desirable to live that way.

[EDS]

*** This post is not intended to be partisan. And, I hope that the thread doesn't become a political battleground regarding the Supreme Court. ***

The Washington Post and other media outlets are reporting that Sotomayor has very few assets - financial, real estate or otherwise - despite her nice salary and other income. The question is WHY?

There may be a reasonable explanation, but I'm worried it is emblematic of the American problem - consumerism, excessive consumption, instant gratification, or however you want to describe it. Does this bother you? Unless she's donating a sizable chunk of her income to charity or taking care of family, I find it problematic (though I don't think it rises to the level of disqualification).

$179,000 does not go very far in NYC.

[avalonracing]

$179,000 does not go very far in NYC.

Sure it does... It is a 20% down payment on a leaky rat-infested studio apartment in a seedy part of town. Well, almost 20% :D

[Louis]

I'm worried it is emblematic of the American problem - consumerism, excessive consumption, instant gratification, or however you want to describe it.

Do you have any evidence at all of this? If so, let's hear it. If not it is IMO quite irresponsible to make the accusation. Have you tallied her income - basic living expenses to have an even ballpark idea of whether or not she is an "excessive consumer"?

Without any facts this just totally unfounded speculation.

Louis

[znfdl]

Just a few quick calculations

Pay $179,000.00
fed taxes $ 50,120.00
state $ 4,009.60
fica $ 10,000.00
Retirement $ 15,500.00

Net / Month $ 8,280.87

Rent $3,000
Food $1,200
utilities $ 300

Net $3,780.87, does not leave much for a NYC lifestyle. I know that taxis easily run a minimum of $300 pr month and $1,200 is low for food in the city of take out. Not having much assets does not surprise me.

[EDS]

Just a few quick calculations

Pay $179,000.00
fed taxes $ 50,120.00
state $ 4,009.60
fica $ 10,000.00
Retirement $ 15,500.00

Net / Month $ 8,280.87

Rent $3,000
Food $1,200
utilities $ 300

Net $3,780.87, does not leave much for a NYC lifestyle. I know that taxis easily run a minimum of $300 pr month and $1,200 is low for food in the city of take out. Not having much assets does not surprise me.

Don't forget city taxes. She also may still be repaying law school loans.

[dd74]

Everything is subjective. Would anyone here have a problem with Sotomayor if she received her degrees from Texas Tech as opposed to Yale and Princeton?

Now that I think of it, we probably would have never heard of her if she did receive her degrees from anything less than ivy league.

[MilanoTom]

I think the bigger problem should be her "we make policy" comments that have been played. I know she's discounting that but still....
that said, I think we could have done worse assuming she is confirmed.

She was only being honest - maybe even a little too honest. Federal judges have been making policy since Marbury v. Madison (February 24, 1803).

IMHO folks only decry judges as being "activists" and "makers of policy" when they disagree with the policy being make.

Regards,
Tom

[Climb01742]

maybe she's been helping her mother out financially. until a fuller picture emerges, who knows? whatever she has, she's earned herself.

[Rueda Tropical]

Civil servants who actually live on their salaries and don't augment them with extra earnings from influence buying 'friends' are not going to have a lot of assets. Especially if they live in high rent areas like NYC and come from poor families who they are probably helping out financially.

The fact that she has not made herself rich on public service is unusual and a plus for me.

[93legendti]

*** This post is not intended to be partisan. And, I hope that the thread doesn't become a political battleground regarding the Supreme Court. ***

The Washington Post and other media outlets are reporting that Sotomayor has very few assets - financial, real estate or otherwise - despite her nice salary and other income. The question is WHY?

There may be a reasonable explanation, but I'm worried it is emblematic of the American problem - consumerism, excessive consumption, instant gratification, or however you want to describe it. Does this bother you? Unless she's donating a sizable chunk of her income to charity or taking care of family, I find it problematic (though I don't think it rises to the level of disqualification).
I think a person's assets are private and should not be part of the discussion, pro or con. I suspect I know why this is being revealed...

[LegendRider]

I think a person's assets are private and should not be part of the discussion, pro or con. I suspect I know why this is being revealed...

You mean the Ethics in Government Act of 1978? That's what has required that she reveal her sources of income, assets, etc.

[DukeHorn]

I don't think one can state that $180,000 is a "nice" salary in Manhatten when first year associates at corporate law firms make more than that. It's a salary that one can live on but one's not going to generate great savings off of it. As an ADA she probably barely scraped by. She probably made decent money in her 7 years at a corporate law firm but the partner profits/salaries didn't have the crazy scale-up that occurred from 1998 onward (she was corporate from 84 to 91) so I think that's probably a wash.

She may have gotten grants at Princeton and Yale but it's quite obvious that her family didn't have the resources to pay off any of her loans (and let's face it, many of my peers at Ivy League schools got substantial help from their families--my parents paid for Yale for my sister).

And if you know or have done work with the appellate courts, it (realistically) is where policy is being made. So if folks want to dig into the weeds whether overturning or upholding "separate but equal" was a policy decision or a legal decision (or both) before it hit SCOTUS, I don't think anyone should vest too much of their position based on that singular statement.

[1happygirl]

I'm here to provide levity since I usually refuse to comment on political matters, but I do have 1 question:


Has she paid all her taxes every year?


hahah, just kiddin' :)

[93legendti]

You mean the Ethics in Government Act of 1978? That's what has required that she reveal her sources of income, assets, etc.
No. I understand why she had to reveal the info to the powers that be. I don't support the press (or any one else) releasing the info to the general public.

[saab2000]

I live in the glamorous world of the airlines. My company has a base in New York.

I wish I made half of what she makes. Afraid I can't shed too many tears on someone making $180K, even in New York.

No other comment than that. But in my world, that's a lot of coin.

[97CSI]

Unlike many of us, she (and other judges) has a secure, guranteed retirement. Those who 'make policy' make sure they are taken care of.She has nothing to say (or do) about the money she is paid. Set by our wonderful friends in congress. While I would like to make $179K these days, that is not a great deal of money in NYC. A reasonable 2-bdrm apartment will run $3-6K a month, depending on the area of town. That takes a big chunk of that $179K. Same with taxes. Can't do much worse than NYC for a big tax bite. Think she is a reasonable choice. Would not have been my first pick, but I'm not picking.

[csm]

She has nothing to say (or do) about the money she is paid. Set by our wonderful friends in congress. While I would like to make $179K these days, that is not a great deal of money in NYC. A reasonable 2-bdrm apartment will run $3-6K a month, depending on the area of town. That takes a big chunk of that $179K. Same with taxes. Can't do much worse than NYC for a big tax bite. Think she is a reasonable choice. Would not have been my first pick, but I'm not picking.

do federal employees get a cost of living adjustment for living in certain areas vs others?

[1happygirl]

I like a lot of the comments but I do wonder about this practice of disclosure , however, I know EVERYTHING is politics. That being said, if/when I go to a financial advisor, I want to know how they handle money, same with some mental health people I am friends with. Are you handling your affairs correctly? Legally? Why then do most applicants for new jobs have credit checks run? Since most all people in public office have an the ability to effect my finances directly or indirectly and influence (by decisions) large sums of money I guess it's a valid question.
If we would have done this with more of our politicians maybe we wouldnt be mortgaging our future like now. I dunno, just askin'

[LegendRider]

She made $25k teaching at NYU and Columbia in addition to her $180k salary. So, her total income was $205k.

She did a cash-out refinance to fund renovations of her very nice condo (worth $1 million give or take). But, her mortgage balance is $350k, which is very reasonable for her income.

However, no matter how you slice it, she's not a "saver." I don't think it disqualifies her from the bench, but it rubs me the wrong way.

[djg21]

This discussion is based on an entirely false premise: that Judge Sotomayor has no assets. Today's New York Times reports that:

Financial disclosure forms that Ms. Sotomayor filed in 2007 show that her primary asset is her Greenwich Village condo, which she bought in 1998 with the help of two mortgages totaling $324,000 from Chase Manhattan Bank. Her last reported savings account balance was between $50,000 and $100,000, and she held no stocks or other significant investments. In addition to her judicial salary, she earned small sums for teaching at the law schools at New York University and Columbia University.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/27/us/politics/27websotomayor.html?pagewanted=1&sq=greenwich&st=Search&scp=5

Moreover, this is a politicized thread, despite the stated intentions of the OP. The only imaginable reason for posting this here is to preach to the unconverted in an effort to sway opinion.

And, Judges do create policy, despite the demonization of "activist" judges by the right. Every time a Court upholds or strikes a law or governmental action, it is making policy either directly or indirectly.

Finally, these discussions should be left to other arenas. This is a bicycle-related forum.

[sg8357]

She is a nice safe choice, a member of the club (ivy, judge etc)
The dear leader has enough on his plate.
If the ecomony was good, then we would have seen Larry Tribe or Uncle Noam,
and a mass die off of Republicans from apoplexy.

[LegendRider]

No. I understand why she had to reveal the info to the powers that be. I don't support the press (or any one else) releasing the info to the general public.


I think it's a fair trade-off so that the public knows she doesn't have income from dubious sources.

[39cross]

There may be a reasonable explanation,
Of course there is. How many people do you know who live in NYC on 179K (gross) and inherited no money are millionaires? Wouldn't it be more worrisome if someone in this position had a 5 mill house in the Hamptons?

but I'm worried it is emblematic of the American problem - consumerism, excessive consumption, instant gratification, or however you want to describe it.
It's better than a lot of other problems (drug addiction, hunting with Dick Cheney).

Does this bother you?
Your attempt at demeaning her character doesn't bother me.

Unless she's donating a sizable chunk of her income to charity or taking care of family, I find it problematic (though I don't think it rises to the level of disqualification).
Well, that's a mighty generous sentiment on your part!

[torquer]

$179,000 does not go very far in NYC.

And will go even less far when she has to maintain a second crib in DC. ;)

Interesting sidebar on judicial salaries in last week's New Yorker article on Chief Justice Roberts by Jeffrey Toobin:

The Chief Justice, as the leader of the federal judiciary, is obligated to prepare an annual report, which historically has been a fairly anodyne document—a set of modest requests to Congress, like faster confirmation of judges or new construction funds for courthouses. In 2006, however, Roberts devoted his entire report to arguing for raises for federal judges, and he even went so far as to call the status quo on salaries a “constitutional crisis.” Most federal judges are paid a hundred and sixty-nine thousand dollars, and at that point they had not had a real raise in fifteen years. This request to Congress was universally popular among Roberts’s colleagues, who were long used to watching their law clerks exceed their own salaries in their first year of private practice.

(After GHW Bush’s defeat by Clinton) Roberts went back to Hogan & Hartson, where, according to his financial-disclosure forms, he made more than a million dollars a year.

During the heart of his career, Roberts’s circle of professional peers consisted entirely of other wealthy and accomplished lawyers. In this world, a hundred and sixty-nine thousand dollars a year might well look like an unconscionably low wage.


http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/05/25/090525fa_fact_toobin

[rugbysecondrow]

do federal employees get a cost of living adjustment for living in certain areas vs others?

Yes, we do.

[cody.wms]

do federal employees get a cost of living adjustment for living in certain areas vs others?

Yes, there is an area adjustment. Available here: http://www.opm.gov/oca/09tables/pdf/saltbl.pdf



Thomas (for sure) and Scalia (i think) both had law school loans when they were confirmed. At the moment, Yale recommends 67k per year for a single student! If you went by that, you would be out 201k, and not all of that would be subsidized loans.

As a law student in D.C., few of my fellow classmates really think about the impact this will have on them before they are locked in.

[sevencyclist]

There may be a reasonable explanation, but I'm worried it is emblematic of the American problem - consumerism, excessive consumption, instant gratification, or however you want to describe it.

I think if she had used her below-Yale-Law-School-graduate-average income to get a Serotta Meivici, that would be instant grounds for disqualification due to excessive consumerism. :rolleyes:

[torquer]

I think if she had used her below-Yale-Law-School-graduate-average income to get a Serotta Meivici, that would be instant grounds for disqualification due to excessive consumerism. :rolleyes:
Plus that could get the shrimp-boat veterans for truth all riled up about her (if they haven't already Photoshopped her head on a picture of Kerry wind-surfing).

[saab2000]

She should get a Coeur d'Acier (heart of steel). Costs less, more appropriate bike name for a judge/justice.

[Rueda Tropical]

She did a cash-out refinance to fund renovations of her very nice condo (worth $1 million give or take). But, her mortgage balance is $350k, which is very reasonable for her income.

However, no matter how you slice it, she's not a "saver." I don't think it disqualifies her from the bench, but it rubs me the wrong way.

??? You have no clue as to her personal fiscal habits. Is she mired in debt? Does she have more mortgage then she can carry? How much has she given her mom, family, charities? Has she gotten loans or speakers fees from organizations, groups looking for favors?

But your uninformed speculation about her supposed savings habits 'rubs you the wrong way"? But this is not a partisan thread -just can't find anything substantive to object to so let's make something up.

Why is this on a bicycle forum?

[rugbysecondrow]

quote from George Will today:

By George F. Will
Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Responding to early 19th-century rumors that they drank excessively, the Supreme Court justices decided to drink nothing on conference days -- unless it was raining. At the next conference, Chief Justice John Marshall asked Joseph Story to scan the sky for signs of rain. When Story said he saw none, Marshall said: "Our jurisdiction extends over so large a territory that the doctrine of chances makes it certain that it must be raining somewhere -- let us refresh ourselves."

Lets celebrate this discussion with a drink, its 5:PM somewhere.

[Pete Serotta]

and yes, she has decided on an HSG instead of an AE. :)

[EDS]

She made $25k teaching at NYU and Columbia in addition to her $180k salary. So, her total income was $205k.

She did a cash-out refinance to fund renovations of her very nice condo (worth $1 million give or take). But, her mortgage balance is $350k, which is very reasonable for her income.

However, no matter how you slice it, she's not a "saver." I don't think it disqualifies her from the bench, but it rubs me the wrong way.

So she has an apartment work approximately $1 million with a very manageable mortgage, a decent salary, good job security, expected pension and 6+ months of cash in reserve and you are worried that she is not a saver? She is in better shape then 95% of the U.S. population.

Too funny.

[zap]

snipped

Obama doesn't have much assets either. She's a judge which means that she's a civil servant. Civil servants from the president on down just do not make much money. They do it for public service and not for the money. She did work at a boutique law firm at one point before she became a judge and she was most likely pulling in some big bucks at that time. But since graduating from Yale Law school, she has by choice pursued a career as a prosecutor and then appointed as a judge.



Obama is a millionaire.

His '08 tax return is availble for viewing online.

If Sotomayor has few assets, well, I think she has done better than some of the fools in congress.

[tylercheung]

i'll say...good move on the Greenwich Villlage condo....~$300,000k for one of those? :beer:

[DukeHorn]

I'd like to know how much the OP has saved living in Atlanta since this is "rubbing him" the wrong way. Feel free to post your finances for our analysis......

[paczki]

This thread is ridiculous. People in NYC live rather differently, they invest all of their money in their condos. I lived there a long time, I know.
But why it matters I can't understand. Scalia spends a lot of money, he's a generous guy. Should we hold that against him? And especially to hold such things against lawyers who decided to go into public service as against becoming wealthy in private practice. Unbelievable. :crap:

[palincss]

No. I understand why she had to reveal the info to the powers that be. I don't support the press (or any one else) releasing the info to the general public.

That happens to be the law. It's one of the sacrifices that go along with public service.

[palincss]

However, no matter how you slice it, she's not a "saver." I don't think it disqualifies her from the bench, but it rubs me the wrong way.

And why is that your business? Any more than the way you spend or don't spend your money is my business?

[swt]

People who think $8k bicycles are reasonable questioning the discretionary spending of a federal judge...excellent thread.

[znfdl]

This is really a silly discussion.

[Louis]

Hey, if you disagree with someone's politics I think you ought to be able to blame them for every single problem you have with the world. For all we know she's probably related to Pol Pot or maybe even Hitler. I heard she sometimes speaks out while she's on the bench. Once she's on the Supreme Court making policy maybe she'll let loose with similar tirades.

[rugbysecondrow]

However, no matter how you slice it, she's not a "saver." I don't think it disqualifies her from the bench, but it rubs me the wrong way.

I don't see why this matters at all, but since it does to you, she is a Federal Judge with a set income source FOREVER. What is the incentive to be a strong saver if you are guaranteed money from your position FOR LIFE? The answer is that there is not a strong one.

[harlond]

Unlike many of us, she (and other judges) has a secure, guranteed retirement. Those who 'make policy' make sure they are taken care of.Rare to see someone impugning the founding fathers.

[LegendRider]

A lot of vitriol out there. My question was prompted by this:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/05/scotus-appointee-is-spender.html

I have no agenda or ulterior motive.

[97CSI]

do federal employees get a cost of living adjustment for living in certain areas vs others?They used to. Top three were NYC, Boston and SF. Not sure if they still do or how much. But, do recall that it was not enough to make up the difference for the SF area when I lived there 40 years ago (egad.......I'm getting old :cool: ).

[Louis]

A lot of vitriol out there. My question was prompted by this:

http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2009/05/scotus-appointee-is-spender.html

I have no agenda or ulterior motive.

And I doubt that W's ex Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisors has an agenda or ulterior motive either.

[Rueda Tropical]

A lot of vitriol out there.
Vitriol? You attack the character of a woman that you don't know based on zip except the unsubstantiated musings of a partisan hack and when you are called on it you get offended:) Sleazy innuendo about her personal character is the only vitriol I've seen here.

[Bruce K]

Easy boys. Play nice.

Personally, I always thought that policy was set in the Executive Branch and made into law by the Legislative Branch and that the job of the Judicial Branch was to both enforce the law and interpret it to ensure that it was Constitutionally correct.

It terrifies me that judges believe it is their job to create policy. That is when the judicial system runs amok.

For that reason alone I hope she does not get confirmed.

BK

[Rueda Tropical]

It terrifies me that judges believe it is their job to create policy. That is when the judicial system runs amok.
BK

Then I would not be to concerned as that is not her philosophy. Her quote "court of appeals is where policy is made." was taken out of context and what is conveniently left out is the rest of the sentence: "I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it".

A number of judicial commentators both conservative and liberal have said she was merely stating the obvious. Appeals courts set precedent for other courts in interpreting laws (which are sometimes vague) and that is perceived as having the effect of setting policy by parties that may have an interest or may be impacted by the precedents being set.

Just like Alito and Roberts were qualified conservative judges, Sotomayor is a qualified liberal judge. No surprise that a liberal president would not pick a conservative. No one expected Bush to pick a liberal for the courts. Elections have consequences as the Republicans used to like to say.

[don compton]

I don't think one can state that $180,000 is a "nice" salary in Manhatten when first year associates at corporate law firms make more than that. It's a salary that one can live on but one's not going to generate great savings off of it. As an ADA she probably barely scraped by. She probably made decent money in her 7 years at a corporate law firm but the partner profits/salaries didn't have the crazy scale-up that occurred from 1998 onward (she was corporate from 84 to 91) so I think that's probably a wash.

She may have gotten grants at Princeton and Yale but it's quite obvious that her family didn't have the resources to pay off any of her loans (and let's face it, many of my peers at Ivy League schools got substantial help from their families--my parents paid for Yale for my sister).

And if you know or have done work with the appellate courts, it (realistically) is where policy is being made. So if folks want to dig into the weeds whether overturning or upholding "separate but equal" was a policy decision or a legal decision (or both) before it hit SCOTUS, I don't think anyone should vest too much of their position based on that singular statement.
as a conservative, its probably strange for me to support her, but i do. the abortion issue is just tooo narrow for me to support anybody. as a californian, i have many "hispanic" friends. some are extremely successful.
none of them are democrats. oh well.
bottom line:ms.sotomayor was a prosecutor, an appellate judge, princeton grad, and a yale law school grad. she is a winner.
don compton

[Louis]

the abortion issue is just tooo narrow for me to support anybody

Don't know if this is just a strategic move / leak and not really true, but the NYT web has a story saying that some pro-choice groups are unsure about her support for abortion. Might be a red-herring, but there you are.

Wouldn't it be ironic, if she were to replace Souter then be the deciding vote to overturn Roe v. Wade?

[swt]

It terrifies me that judges believe it is their job to create policy. That is when the judicial system runs amok.

I'm not sure what industry you work in, but in telecom, which is mine, and some others of which I have direct knowledge, the courts are the only place that sensible policy is made. The bureaucrats who you seem to think are best endowed make policy actually are willfully oblivious to the facts that must be considered. Ideally, the role of the lobbyist is to fill this gap, but I don't think I need to explain how broken that system currently is.

Judges, on the other hand, are required to master the facts, no matter the case or circumstance. By interpreting the law, they make policy; no one with any practical experience or legal training disputes that. In fact, I imagine that you would be shocked and dismayed to know that a tremendous amount of policy in areas that are governed by administrative legal bodies (e.g. FCC, FTC, EPA) is actually made in bankruptcy courts. That's just they way it is. Sorry.

And if you are going to be rational and intellectually honest, you will have viewed her entire statement in its context and understood that she was talking precisely about her works as a federal appellate judge working in exactly the situation I am describing. She was not at a Federalist Society meeting espousing her views on constitutional interpretation.

[93legendti]

After N. Korea's adventure's the last 3 days, I wonder if her nomination was rushed out to distract from the failure of the President's foreign policy.
I think there are more pressing matters this Nation should be attending to.

[ciclisto]

woman is a lightweight.....80% overturned by supremes and one more on the way this month i.e. Riccci her opinions lack any brilliance according to even liberal lawyers in the media. she was nominated not for her mind but her genitals and race, and is a racist. I would like her to explain why the court houses have a blindfolded woman out front. Anyone , anyone making a racist statement as she did at Berzerkley, would be disqualified. This is just a feel good deal for OB, and on a lighter note, what is a diabetic doing in a bakery, her favorite place to eat.

[Bruce K]

swt;

I worked in construction for almost 30 years and retired from it to become an educator (Middle School Math/Science).

I understand completely "how broken the system is". It doesn't mean I have to like it.

I also hope that I understand the job of judges and appeals courts in interpreting the law vs our Constitution and to me that is not setting policy. But maybe that's just a semantics thing.

I also have no problem withh liberals nominating liberals and conservatives nominating conservatives. It's how the system works and hopefully stays balanced.

It just bothers me when judges have a stated purpose before they hear cases. That's bias. And that's WRONG.

BK

[rwsaunders]

That position isn't about the money...it's the power. Otherwise, she'd be practicing personal injury or medical malpractice.

[Rueda Tropical]

woman is a lightweight.....80% overturned by supremes and one more on the way this month i.e. Riccci

Sotomayor's reversal rate is 60% - the Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon. Alito had a 100% reversal rate and he was an eminently qualified conservative elected to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor's rate is better then most including sitting Supreme Court justices. Remember that there where 100's of cases the Supremes chose to let stand and did not choose to even hear so the statistic is misleading whether applied to Alito or Sotomayor.


her opinions lack any brilliance according to even liberal lawyers in the media.

Nonsense. One discredited article by one New Republic columnist is not "liberal lawyer(s)". Rosen "admitted he had neither read enough of her opinions nor spoken to enough of her supporters to form a fair assessment of her, and cropped and twisted a quote from a colleague who praised Sotomayor's intellect in order to make it appear that he had criticized it."

She is recieving praise from conservatives:
Larry Klayman, the founder of conservative groups Freedom Watch and Judicial Watch, is praising -- in a qualified way -- the Sotomayor pick, calling the selection "a very prudent and wise decision from a far left liberal like Obama."

I thinks it's hysterical that the gang that said with a straight face that Sarah Palin had the intellectual chops to be President is questioning the intellect of Sotomayor who was top of her class in Princeton, editor of The Yale Law Journal and has more judicial experience then any of the current justices had at the time of their nomination.

she was nominated not for her mind but her genitals and race, and is a racist. I would like her to explain why the court houses have a blindfolded woman out front. Anyone , anyone making a racist statement as she did at Berzerkley, would be disqualified. This is just a feel good deal for OB, and on a lighter note, what is a diabetic doing in a bakery, her favorite place to eat.

Keeping it classy I see.

That 'criticism' will play well with the dittoheads but is turning off the majority of Americans. The Democratic fringe went ballistic when the Democratic congress refused to attempt to thwart the majority and block Roberts and Alito. The right wing loons will likely go ballistic when the Republican congress refuses to fall on its sword and try to thwart the majority with Sotomayor's confirmation. She will be confirmed and do a great job. It will be healthy to preserve a range of views on the court. Nasty race baiting and personal attacks will only serve to hasten what is looking like the complete collapse of the once venerable Grand Old Party. It's actually sad. We have had many great Republican legislators and Presidents, the party deserves better then gasbags like Limbaugh and Hannity.

[Pete Serotta]

Yep,,,, :crap: the Republicans are rallying around a rubber chicken as a spokes person.

It is probably a sign of the times - for I am afraid we are losing our ability to look at other views besides our own.

Few things in life are more valid than "things are never as good or as bad as we think!!!

Sotomayor's reversal rate is 60% - the Supreme Court typically reverses about 75 percent of circuit court decisions that it chooses to rule upon. Alito had a 100% reversal rate and he was an eminently qualified conservative elected to the Supreme Court. Sotomayor's rate is better then most including sitting Supreme Court justices. Remember that there where 100's of cases the Supremes chose to let stand and did not choose to even hear so the statistic is misleading whether applied to Alito or Sotomayor.




Nonsense. One discredited article by one New Republic columnist is not "liberal lawyer(s)". Rosen "admitted he had neither read enough of her opinions nor spoken to enough of her supporters to form a fair assessment of her, and cropped and twisted a quote from a colleague who praised Sotomayor's intellect in order to make it appear that he had criticized it."

She is recieving praise from conservatives:
Larry Klayman, the founder of conservative groups Freedom Watch and Judicial Watch, is praising -- in a qualified way -- the Sotomayor pick, calling the selection "a very prudent and wise decision from a far left liberal like Obama."

I thinks it's hysterical that the gang that said with a straight face that Sarah Palin had the intellectual chops to be President is questioning the intellect of Sotomayor who was top of her class in Princeton, editor of The Yale Law Journal and has more judicial experience then any of the current justices had at the time of their nomination.



Keeping it classy I see.

That 'criticism' will play well with the dittoheads but is turning off the majority of Americans. The Democratic fringe went ballistic when the Democratic congress refused to attempt to thwart the majority and block Roberts and Alito. The right wing loons will likely go ballistic when the Republican congress refuses to fall on its sword and try to thwart the majority with Sotomayor's confirmation. She will be confirmed and do a great job. It will be healthy to preserve a range of views on the court. Nasty race baiting and personal attacks will only serve to hasten what is looking like the complete collapse of the once venerable Grand Old Party. It's actually sad. We have had many great Republican legislators and Presidents, the party deserves better then gasbags like Limbaugh and Hannity.

[Rueda Tropical]

Yep,,,, :crap: the Republicans are rallying around a rubber chicken as a spokes person.
I think it's some kind of tragic irony that the party of Lincoln has been reduced to the remnants of the old Dixiecrats (who for a century after the civil war were their mortal enemies), who Nixon brought into the party with the cynical Southern Strategy. LBJ would never have gotten the Civil Rights Act passed over the opposition within his own party without the Republicans of the 'old' Republican party.

[palincss]

Then I would not be to concerned as that is not her philosophy. Her quote "court of appeals is where policy is made." was taken out of context and what is conveniently left out is the rest of the sentence: "I'm not promoting it, and I'm not advocating it".

A number of judicial commentators both conservative and liberal have said she was merely stating the obvious. Appeals courts set precedent for other courts in interpreting laws (which are sometimes vague) and that is perceived as having the effect of setting policy by parties that may have an interest or may be impacted by the precedents being set.


And it is clear from the rest of the statement that setting precedent was precisely her point.

[goonster]

After N. Korea's adventure's the last 3 days, I wonder if her nomination was rushed out to distract from the failure of the President's foreign policy.
North Korea has a crisis for every occasion. :rolleyes:

There is almost nothing that can be done about it. Ask the last five presidents.

[palincss]

After N. Korea's adventure's the last 3 days, I wonder if her nomination was rushed out to distract from the failure of the President's foreign policy.
I think there are more pressing matters this Nation should be attending to.

It may be hard to believe, but this government can actually do more than one thing at a time.

[goonster]

Seriously folks,

Setting aside any politics, partisanship, judicial qualifications, gender, ethnicity, etc. for a second . . .

This is first time I've ever, ever heard misgivings about a public official for not having enough money.

Complete non-story.

[Dekonick]

I live in the glamorous world of the airlines. My company has a base in New York.

I wish I made half of what she makes. Afraid I can't shed too many tears on someone making $180K, even in New York.

No other comment than that. But in my world, that's a lot of coin.

+1

[14max]

*****

[William]

http://www.codestore.net/store.nsf/rsrc/incgifs24/$file/imginc166.gif

[MilanoTom]

After N. Korea's adventure's the last 3 days, I wonder if her nomination was rushed out to distract from the failure of the President's foreign policy.
I think there are more pressing matters this Nation should be attending to.

No matter what he was doing, you'd be saying he should be doing something else. Don't you ever give it a rest?

[Climb01742]

the court reconvenes in october. to have a full court by then -- given the confirmation hearings and congress' august recess -- now is when someone needed to be nominated. there's nothing nefarious going on. it's the simple math of the calendar.

[93legendti]

woman is a lightweight.....80% overturned by supremes and one more on the way this month i.e. Riccci her opinions lack any brilliance according to even liberal lawyers in the media. she was nominated not for her mind but her genitals and race, and is a racist. I would like her to explain why the court houses have a blindfolded woman out front. Anyone , anyone making a racist statement as she did at Berzerkley, would be disqualified. This is just a feel good deal for OB, and on a lighter note, what is a diabetic doing in a bakery, her favorite place to eat.
This no surprise.

She is a distraction from the President's latest failure.

The Stimulus didn't stimulate. Iran and N. Korea are ascending. The gov't has taken over the banking and auto businesses. The debt has quadrupled in only 100 days. Now we have Sotomayor (with a personality that "disqualified" Bork and Bolton) - a racist who doesn't understand the role of the judiciary.



Welcome to neo-liberalism.

[Dekonick]

Wiliam - I LOVE your quotes and 'found treasures' -

Back to what I posted - I never said anything about the founding fathers BUT law makers do take good care of themselves... What the President and Congress make in salary pales in comparison to the fluff they get due to their position. Ever been to DC? You should see the perks they have...

Planes, trains, and automobiles.

On site MD's, health clubs, etc...

Heck - they essentially have their own airport!

I DO NOT feel sorry ONE IOTA for anyone working for 'peanuts' compared to private practice peers...

Salary is a small component of the overall compensation (SCJOTUS has more prestige than even being President of the US) the elite who run this country receive.

Having said that -

I WANT MY SCJOTUS to have life long benefits - it reduces the risk of corruption.

I also do not feel sorry for them. I work my ass off and make less dough - mind you I do just fine, but I don't have private masseuses, MD's, health clubs, you name it...

Now as to wheter she will make a good SCJOTUS? I don't know.

[BumbleBeeDave]

. . . It is probably a sign of the times - for I am afraid we are losing our ability to look at other views besides our own.

I have felt for some time that one insidious effect of the Internet is that people no longer have to go to a forum for news where they may serendipitously be exposed to differing viewpoints and gain some understanding of how others think on various social or political issues. With Americans able to program the news they see--and with a seemingly endless supply of polarized, wacky web sites to supply it--they no longer have to consume any news that supports any viewpoint except that with which they already agree. Don't like "liberals?" No problem. Just do a search for conservative oriented web sites and get your "news" from those.

Now with the demise of many mainline newspapers, that trend will only accelerate. I'm truly worried that our country is becoming more polarized, insular, and filled with people unwilling to really sit down and listen to any ideas except those they already agree with. The type of insinuating, disingenuous, smear-tactic public relations campaign you see with a new Supreme Court justice is one of the best examples of this trend. The SC ultimately does determine public policy because it decides which ones are permissible vis-a-vis the constitution. Polarized interest groups from either end of the political spectrum rightly realize they have the most to lose, so they pull out all the stops and the going gets ugly.

Sigh.

BBD

[rugbysecondrow]

Yep,,,, :crap: the Republicans are rallying around a rubber chicken as a spokes person.

It is probably a sign of the times - for I am afraid we are losing our ability to look at other views besides our own.

Few things in life are more valid than "things are never as good or as bad as we think!!!

Republicans might put up the obligatory fight against the nominee for the purpose of raising some key issues that help them in fundraising, but nobody seriously believes that they will stop the confirmation. Additionally, her position will not really alter the make-up of the court, so I see no real change in the near future. Of course, a liberal Pres has the right to nominate whoever he sees fit and the Congress is in the position to confirm it via discussion and hearings. Remember, she was first nominated by Bush in the early 1990's (1992 I think), so I think any "fight" or "Rallying" is strictly for soundbites and fundraising, nothing else real substantive.

Obama did a good job picking her because there is little that can be said about her. A few quotes, a position or two that might not be media friendly, but her background, CV and Resume seems pretty airtight. She is a liberal, but that goes with the territory. There will be no "Real" mud-draggin opposition because even the tone deaf Republicans know that it will make them looks worse then her.

[paczki]

This no surprise.

She is a distraction from the President's latest failure.

The Stimulus didn't stimulate. Iran and N. Korea are ascending. The gov't has taken over the banking and auto businesses. The debt has quadrupled in only 100 days. Now we have Sotomayor (with a personality that "disqualified" Bork and Bolton) - a racist who doesn't understand the role of the judiciary.



Welcome to neo-liberalism.

Do you believe this stuff when you write it, or do you say it to provoke? I really can't tell. This is an honest question. :banana:

[Spinner]

... our country is becoming more polarized, insular, and filled with people unwilling to really sit down and listen to any ideas except those they already agree with.
BBD
... and the more "selected" sound bites or data that people consume the more rigid their thoughts become.

[William]

... and the more "selected" sound bites or data that people consume the more rigid their thoughts become.

http://www.northernsun.com/images/imagethumb/%20Less%20You%20Know%20The%20More%20You%20Believe% 20Bumper%20Sticker%20(7131).jpg

[Louis]

After N. Korea's adventure's the last 3 days, I wonder if her nomination was rushed out to distract from the failure of the President's foreign policy.

Adam,

You think everything this administration does is a failure, so regardless of when the nomination was announced you would have found something to whine about.

Louis

[zap]

I have felt for some time that one insidious effect of the Internet is that people no longer have to go to a forum for news where they may serendipitously be exposed to differing viewpoints and gain some understanding of how others think on various social or political issues. With Americans able to program the news they see--and with a seemingly endless supply of polarized, wacky web sites to supply it--they no longer have to consume any news that supports any viewpoint except that with which they already agree. Don't like "liberals?" No problem. Just do a search for conservative oriented web sites and get your "news" from those.

Now with the demise of many mainline newspapers, that trend will only accelerate. I'm truly worried that our country is becoming more polarized, insular, and filled with people unwilling to really sit down and listen to any ideas except those they already agree with. The type of insinuating, disingenuous, smear-tactic public relations campaign you see with a new Supreme Court justice is one of the best examples of this trend. The SC ultimately does determine public policy because it decides which ones are permissible vis-a-vis the constitution. Polarized interest groups from either end of the political spectrum rightly realize they have the most to lose, so they pull out all the stops and the going gets ugly.

Sigh.

BBD

Maybe, but newspapers did and do the same. Idiots like Rush and Olberman have been around for some time in print. Yellow journalism? How about NYT v NYP or WP v WT.

The big difference today is the speed of news. You can get it on your phone while riding your bike :rolleyes:

[johnnymossville]

Elections have consequences as we are seeing. She'll fly through the Q&A without a hitch and be sitting on the bench in no time.

[Charles M]

What a dumb fu&^ing thread....


let's start an arguement based on assumtions about someone...


:fight:

[paczki]

What a dumb fu&^ing thread....


let's start an arguement based on assumtions about someone...


:fight:

OK. Hey Pez, is Menchov going to be popped?

[RPS]

I have felt for some time that one insidious effect of the Internet is that people no longer have to go to a forum for news where they may serendipitously be exposed to differing viewpoints and gain some understanding of how others think on various social or political issues. With Americans able to program the news they see--and with a seemingly endless supply of polarized, wacky web sites to supply it--they no longer have to consume any news that supports any viewpoint except that with which they already agree. Don't like "liberals?" No problem. Just do a search for conservative oriented web sites and get your "news" from those.
I agree we are becoming a more polarized society and the Internet hasn’t helped. From my perspective, however, it’s not that people generally flock to the forums that often express their own opinions but rather that it’s like having 50 people in one room all arguing an issue at the same time without set rules. It quickly becomes the equivalent of a shouting match with all participants thinking that the only way to get heard is to be louder and more aggressive in order to get their points across.

For sharing objective information the Internet has been great, but on subjective material it has caused more harm than good IMHO. It’s not like many people change their minds on subjective material that is based on feelings anyway. With few exceptions every post on this thread is consistent with what we’d expect from individuals based on their previous political leanings. What a shocker -- don't know why we keep trying. :confused:

[csm]

I think she represents a great story... born into trying circumstances, done very well based on merit (according to her and potus). sounds like the American Dream. that said, I can disagree with her nomination and believe that it was done rather quickly and will undoubtably go through the confirmation process rather unscathed. perhaps she will surprise those of us that lean towards the conservative side.
we shall see.

[Charles M]

OK. Hey Pez, is Menchov going to be popped?


I don't think anyone get's popped at the Giro... But I wouldn't be suprised. A couple guys that used to be stage hunters (well into their careers) are now 3 week front runners...

But I love watching and will let the testers spoil the race ;)


Sorry for the bold type, but this is one of those threads that is good for absolutely nothing but getting people that have something in common to toss it aside for the sake of b!tching

[EddieBirdsell]

Is anybody else as disappointed as me to see Scarponi score another stage win? Twice implicated as a Puerto participant. Should we believe he's clean now? I have to think that our boy Pate might have pulled it off were Scarponi not in the mix or not on the juice.

[Louis]

Is anybody else as disappointed as me to see Scarponi score another stage win? Twice implicated as a Puerto participant. Should we believe he's clean now? I have to think that our boy Pate might have pulled it off were Scarponi not in the mix or not on the juice.

Would you folks please keep this OT stuff away from important threads like this?

Jeez, just when the forum really starts to focus on meaningful topics Eddie tries to distract us with cycling.

[Charles M]

Is anybody else as disappointed as me to see Scarponi score another stage win? Twice implicated as a Puerto participant. Should we believe he's clean now? I have to think that our boy Pate might have pulled it off were Scarponi not in the mix or not on the juice.


Frankly I don't like to see teams that dont adhere to the Bio Passport system etc get in the races at all...

Second rate teams like LPR etc. are simply the fall back places...

I'm not saying the big teams are clean. I mean that they are controling and testing to the point that they're far less likely to present cycling in a bad way than teams that pretty clearly are around simply to skirt the rules.

[gary135r]

[

[Rueda Tropical]

Menchov has been very smart only doing what he has to. Frustrating DiLuca and preventing anyone from getting to close to his time. I don't see anyone in a position to take him out. But anything can happen. Basso, Menchov, Sastre and DiLuca were unbelievable on Monte Petrano. I missed today's race but over all it's been a great race.

As to the subject of this thread if I want to hear fact free commentary I can always turn on cable news. I really don't give a crap what peoples politics are on this forum as it has nothing to do with anyone's opinions on anything cycling related.

[harlond]

Now we have Sotomayor (with a personality that "disqualified" Bork and Bolton) - a racist who doesn't understand the role of the judiciary.If she's confirmed, there will be three of them on the Supreme Court. Look here at what Scalia said in Republican Party of Minnesota v. White:

This complete separation of the judiciary from the enterprise of "representative government" might have some truth in those countries where judges neither make law themselves nor set aside the laws enacted by the legislature. It is not a true picture of the American system. Not only do state-court judges possess the power to "make" common law, but they have the immense power to shape the States' constitutions as well. See, e.g., Baker v. State, 170 Vt. 194, 744 A. 2d 864 (1999). Which is precisely why the election of state judges became popular.

And in footnote 12 of that opinion:

Although Justice [John Paul] Stevens at times appears to agree with Justice [Ruth Bader] Ginsburg's premise that the judiciary is completely separated from the enterprise of representative government, post, at 3 ("[E]very good judge is fully aware of the distinction between the law and a personal point of view"), he eventually appears to concede that the separation does not hold true for many judges who sit on courts of last resort, post, at 3 ("If he is not a judge on the highest court in the State, he has an obligation to follow the precedent of that court, not his personal views or public opinion polls"); post, at 3, n. 2. [I]Even if the policy making capacity of judges were limited to courts of last resort, that would only prove that the announce clause fails strict scrutiny. "f announcing one's views in the context of a campaign for the State Supreme Court might be" protected speech, post, at 3, n. 2, then-even if announcing one's views in the context of a campaign for a lower court were not protected speech, ibid.-the announce clause would not be narrowly tailored, since it applies to high- and low-court candidates alike. In fact, however, the judges of inferior courts often "make law," since the precedent of the highest court does not cover every situation, and not every case is reviewed. Justice Stevens has repeatedly expressed the view that a settled course of lower court opinions binds the highest court.

Then there's that racist Alito:

ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. ... And that's why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let's say, someone who is an immigrant -- and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases -- I can't help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn't that long ago when they were in that position. [...]

And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.

[rugbysecondrow]

As to the subject of this thread if I want to hear fact free commentary I can always turn on cable news. I really don't give a crap what peoples politics are on this forum as it has nothing to do with anyone's opinions on anything cycling related.

For somebody who doesn't care, you have posted quite a few times on the subject. If you don't care for politics on the forum or for the forum opinions, then I would think the title of the thread would have dissuaded you from reading further. Apparently not.

[Rueda Tropical]

For somebody who doesn't care, you have posted quite a few times on the subject. If you don't care for politics on the forum or for the forum opinions, then I would think the title of the thread would have dissuaded you from reading further. Apparently not.

And I regret it as it really was a pointless exchange. The point of the post was not to enlighten, just to spread unsubstantiated bile. In the future forewarned is forearmed and I'll know better.

[DukeHorn]

racist who doesn't understand the role of the judiciary

Considering that this poster used the "racist" term against a number of people here on this forum before, maybe he should re-examine the definition.

[93legendti]

North Korea has a crisis for every occasion. :rolleyes:

There is almost nothing that can be done about it. Ask the last five presidents.

I'd agree, except this President PROMISED that all we had to do is talk nice to N. Korea and Iran and they would play nice with others. Iran and N. Korea have made that notion look very silly.
Adam,

You think everything this administration does is a failure, so regardless of when the nomination was announced you would have found something to whine about.

Louis

let's see:

TARP II didn't work, bank bailouts didn't work -banks still aren't lending.
AIG bailout hasn't worked.
Auto bailouts didn't work -GM and Chrysler are bankrupt.
Mortgage bailouts haven't worked - foreclosures are at a 25 yr. high.
Unemployment is up.
Stimulus Bill didn't work- the states with the highest unemployment have gotten the least amount of money.
No country has agreed to increase their stake in Afghanistan.
Our allies have agreed to take only 1 prisoner from Gitmo.
There is no bi-partisanship.

The Gov't runs GM and Chrysler and the banks.
The deficit is at a level 4 times what it was under Pres. Bush and is greater than the deficit under every other Pres. in our history.

Please tell me what has improved as a result of the President's policies.


I will give the President credit for reversing himself on the eit photos; military tribunals; tax credits on energy saving measures.

Please Mr. President fix the credit crunch.

[palincss]

I'm not saying the big teams are clean. I mean that they are controling and testing to the point that they're far less likely to present cycling in a bad way than teams that pretty clearly are around simply to skirt the rules.

In other words, in spite of everything, they're still dopers. All the more reason to throw out both the baby and the bath water. I'd like to see a 25 year ban on all racing, giving the dopers a time-out they'll understand, long enough for them to age out and die.

[Bruce K]

I'm SO confused !!!!! :crap: :crap: :crap:

Just what are we talking about now?!? :D

BK

[Kirk007]

perhaps she will surprise those of us that lean towards the conservative side.
we shall see.


I don't think this is unlikely in the least.

If you look back on appointments other than Scalia (well and not so much with Thomas, (and its too early to tell with Alito and Roberts), many Justices' surprise their supporters. This is also observed at the Federal District Court level and Appellate level. Sometimes the Judges step out of the political creature costume that everyone seems to assume is the true nature of all the appointees, and actually follows the law and the facts without a political partisan twist. Shocking, I know.

I find it hilarious that pundits are stymied by the political "inconsistency" of Judge Sotomayer's appellate decisions. Gee, maybe she's actually doing what judges are supposed to do, who woulda thunk it.

[harlond]

I'd agree, except this President PROMISED that all we had to do is talk nice to N. Korea and Iran and they would play nice with others. Iran and N. Korea have made that notion look very silly.Show us where he made such a promise.

[14max]

*****

[BBB]

To respond to some of the issues raised:

(1) Judges make law. They always have. They always will. Yes there is a seperation of power between the executive/parliament and the judiciary, but as the final arbitor of what the law is, judges do stray into policy. This should suprise no one, yet it seems to really rile conservatives. Why?

(2) Unless bankrupt, the financial position should not be relevant.

(4) The US has conducted numerous nuclear tests. Why can't Nth Korea? If it's good for the goose...

(5) I'd be extremely surprised if one of the protagonists in the Giro is not juiced in some way shape or form, but comment on this subject is just simply grist for the mill.

[Louis]

In the same way that "Real Housewives of New Jersey" says something about TV and the people who watch the show, I sure hope that this thread does not say something similar about this forum and the folks who hang out here... :crap:

PS I've never seen the show, but did hear a story about it on NPR. As they said on the radio, it's like a train wreck - you don't want to look, but just can't help yourself.

[avalonracing]

let's see:

TARP II didn't work, bank bailouts didn't work -banks still aren't lending.
AIG bailout hasn't worked.
Auto bailouts didn't work -GM and Chrysler are bankrupt.
Mortgage bailouts haven't worked - foreclosures are at a 25 yr. high.
Unemployment is up.
Stimulus Bill didn't work- the states with the highest unemployment have gotten the least amount of money.
No country has agreed to increase their stake in Afghanistan.
Our allies have agreed to take only 1 prisoner from Gitmo.
There is no bi-partisanship.

The Gov't runs GM and Chrysler and the banks.
The deficit is at a level 4 times what it was under Pres. Bush and is greater than the deficit under every other Pres. in our history.

Please tell me what has improved as a result of the President's policies.

Please Mr. President fix the credit crunch.

Dude! Your guy and his buddies CAUSED all of the trouble that you listed but you're giving flack to the new guy for not fixing the mess in 4 months?!

Do you give your mechanic a hard time for not fixing your car in 24 hours after you drain all the oil, drive it 50 miles and then, just for good measure, jump it off a thousand foot cliff into a flaming pile of crap? (actually this metaphor is a little light compared to what W and Friends did to the country)

TARP 1 - W
AIG Bailout - W
Tax breaks for automakers pushing SUVs, (now no one wants them)- W
Mortgage Crisis- due to no oversight under W
Unemployment up- tax breaks for off shoring companies and workers- W
Stimulus?- Like the "Federal DVD Assistance Program?- W
Countries take our prisoners and help in Afghanistan?- W-hy should they?
Bi-partisanship?- that would take cooperation on BOTH sides, right?
Deficit 4 times than that under Bush?- Dear Mr. Hannity... just because W charged everything up, including his Trillion Dollar BS war, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be paid for sometime.

[Louis]

Dude! Your guy and his buddies CAUSED all of the trouble that you listed but you're giving flack to the new guy for not fixing the mess in 4 months?!

avalonracing,

No fair. Rebutting this one was like taking candy from a baby - too easy.

Why bother? ;)

Louis

[don compton]

Dude! Your guy and his buddies CAUSED all of the trouble that you listed but you're giving flack to the new guy for not fixing the mess in 4 months?!

Do you give your mechanic a hard time for not fixing your car in 24 hours after you drain all the oil, drive it 50 miles and then, just for good measure, jump it off a thousand foot cliff into a flaming pile of crap? (actually this metaphor is a little light compared to what W and Friends did to the country)

TARP 1 - W
AIG Bailout - W
Tax breaks for automakers pushing SUVs, (now no one wants them)- W
Mortgage Crisis- due to no oversight under W
Unemployment up- tax breaks for off shoring companies and workers- W
Stimulus?- Like the "Federal DVD Assistance Program?- W
Countries take our prisoners and help in Afghanistan?- W-hy should they?
Bi-partisanship?- that would take cooperation on BOTH sides, right?
Deficit 4 times than that under Bush?- Dear Mr. Hannity... just because W charged everything up, including his Trillion Dollar BS war, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be paid for sometime.
bogus

[avalonracing]

avalonracing,

No fair. Rebutting this one was like taking candy from a baby - too easy.

Why bother? ;)

Louis

Damn it! You are right... He got me again. :crap:
You see, I have this problem... I read actual news from a variety of sources. Then, to make matters worse, I think about what I read and make decisions and form opinions.
I know it would be much easier to get my talking points from Rush, Fox and zealot bloggers (actually, you only need to listen to one because it's all the same) but my upbringing from right-coast elite-intellectual parents and my education make it hard to work that program.

[DukeHorn]

Come on Avalon. All that money that was sunk into going to college is a waste. Not when you should be listening to the Triumvirate.

Hannity

Hannity graduated in 1980 from St. Pius X Preparatory Seminary high school, located in Uniondale, New York. Hannity dropped out of New York University and Adelphi University. He later decided to pursue a radio career.[4]

Limbaugh

Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class.[4]

Beck

After graduating from high school, Beck pursued his career as a Top 40 DJ



We all know that getting a high school education is where it's at in American society. It's not cool to be smart or well-read (or have you forgotten). Just take your talking points from our well-heeled DJs and the world would be a better place (and the earth would be quite flatter).

[Ray]

We all know that getting a high school education is where it's at in American society. It's not cool to be smart or well-read (or have you forgotten). Just take your talking points from our well-heeled DJs and the world would be a better place (and the earth would be quite flatter).
There was nothing about this thread I saw any reason to jump into until this. This is BIG! I like hills a lot, but I don't much like 'em once they get steeper than about 10-12%. So I need clarification - will listening to these guys reduce the number of hills or just reduce the grade of the steepest ones? If its the former, I'll stick with my old comfortable shoe media (filled with liberal bias and foot smells). But if its the latter, I'll be over to ditto-land pronto. THAT would be worth it. Then neither I nor the tainted riders of the Giro would have to juice to get up the damn things.

-Ray

[1happygirl]

Come on Avalon. All that money that was sunk into going to college is a waste. Not when you should be listening to the Triumvirate.

Hannity

Hannity graduated in 1980 from St. Pius X Preparatory Seminary high school, located in Uniondale, New York. Hannity dropped out of New York University and Adelphi University. He later decided to pursue a radio career.[4]

Limbaugh

Limbaugh graduated from Cape Central High School, in 1969. His father and mother wanted him to attend college, so he enrolled at Southeast Missouri State University. He dropped out after two semesters and one summer; according to his mother, "he flunked everything", even a modern ballroom dancing class.[4]

Beck

After graduating from high school, Beck pursued his career as a Top 40 DJ



We all know that getting a high school education is where it's at in American society. It's not cool to be smart or well-read (or have you forgotten). Just take your talking points from our well-heeled DJs and the world would be a better place (and the earth would be quite flatter).


I dunno what was said previous but having a college education doesnt make you any smarter or more well read.
Not a defense of these particular people, but my personal opinion as a self motivated person is that college is just an effort in persistance and endurance.

[97CSI]

I dunno what was said previous but having a college education doesnt make you any smarter or more well read. Not a defense of these particular people, but my personal opinion as a self motivated person is that college is just an effort in persistance and endurance.As I tell my students.........everyone is born stupid. You choose through life (everyday) to either become educated (and smarter) or not. The old 'you can lead a horse to water but can't make him/her drink' saw. If all you get out of college is an "effort in persistance and endurance", then that is a choice you have made. Many folks actually learn something in an academic sense and become more educated and smarter. And many do not. Both based on the choices they've made.

[avalonracing]

I dunno what was said previous but having a college education doesnt make you any smarter or more well read.


This can be true. My brother went to a top academic university (UVA). He did very well there while playing football on scholarship and drinking his brains out with this fraternity brothers. Now he's very successful in business but he still voted for Bush twice and thought that going to Iraq was a good idea.

One day I was having a political disagreement with him and he said, "You really need to get your news from someplace other than whatever liberal blog it is that you read" (this was said over the sound of his TV blaring Fox News).

I grabbed a piece of paper and a pen and wrote down about a dozen media outlets that I check on a daily basis (everything from NPR to Fox and the Washington Post to the WSJ) and asked him how many places he gets his info. His reply...
"Dude, if you get news from all of those places you have too much time on your hands".

Cool. I got to bash my bro for my thousandth post. :D

[paczki]

This can be true. My brother went to a top academic university (UVA). He did very well there while playing football on scholarship and drinking his brains out with this fraternity brothers. Now he's very successful in business but he still voted for Bush twice and thought that going to Iraq was a good idea.

One day I was having a political disagreement with him and he said, "You really need to get your news from someplace other than whatever liberal blog it is that you read" (this was said over the sound of his TV blaring Fox News).

I grabbed a piece of paper and a pen and wrote down about a dozen media outlets that I check on a daily basis (everything from NPR to Fox and the Washington Post to the WSJ) and asked him how many places he gets his info. His reply...
"Dude, if you get news from all of those places you have too much time on your hands".

Cool. I got to bash my bro for my thousandth post. :D


I think you missed the point smart guy. Wasn't he criticizing you for reading the news. That's where all the trouble comes, reading.

[93legendti]

Dude! Your guy and his buddies CAUSED all of the trouble that you listed but you're giving flack to the new guy for not fixing the mess in 4 months?!

Do you give your mechanic a hard time for not fixing your car in 24 hours after you drain all the oil, drive it 50 miles and then, just for good measure, jump it off a thousand foot cliff into a flaming pile of crap? (actually this metaphor is a little light compared to what W and Friends did to the country)

TARP 1 - W
AIG Bailout - W
Tax breaks for automakers pushing SUVs, (now no one wants them)- W
Mortgage Crisis- due to no oversight under W
Unemployment up- tax breaks for off shoring companies and workers- W
Stimulus?- Like the "Federal DVD Assistance Program?- W
Countries take our prisoners and help in Afghanistan?- W-hy should they?
Bi-partisanship?- that would take cooperation on BOTH sides, right?
Deficit 4 times than that under Bush?- Dear Mr. Hannity... just because W charged everything up, including his Trillion Dollar BS war, it doesn't mean that it doesn't have to be paid for sometime.
Is that what they tell you on BSMBC?

Tarp II-BO and Turbo Tim
AIG Bailout with bonuses-BO and Turbo Tim
Mortgage bailout-BO and aTurbo Tim
Unemployment is up since 1/20/09 when the Messiah ascended to his throne.
Stimulus-you know the $787 Billion Bill signed by BO-how much has been spent in your state? Here it is $9.21 per person and we have 13% unemployment.
BO promised he would close Gitmo by getting Euros to take prisoners. He promised Euros would help in the war because he was so nice. Why should they? Because the Messiah promised he would get the Euros to do it!
The quadrupling of the deficit is not for the War, it's for BO's radical agenda-$650 Billion for health care. That's bigger than the deficit under Pres. Bush. $787 Stimulus. That's bigger than the deficit under Pres. Bush.
Tarp II, AIG, and all the money wasted on GM and Chrylser by BO-$600 Billion- also more than the deficit under Pres. Bush. That's ~$2 Trillion in total.

Again, please answer my question when you finish your personal attacks:

Which economic indicators have improved since the President committed $2 trillion for fixing the economy? Which have gotten worse?

[goonster]

all the money wasted on GM and Chrylser
What would the unemployment in your state be if this, and the previous, adminstration did not "waste" all that money?

[rugbysecondrow]

This can be true. My brother went to a top academic university (UVA). He did very well there while playing football on scholarship and drinking his brains out with this fraternity brothers. Now he's very successful in business but he still voted for Bush twice and thought that going to Iraq was a good idea.

One day I was having a political disagreement with him and he said, "You really need to get your news from someplace other than whatever liberal blog it is that you read" (this was said over the sound of his TV blaring Fox News).

I grabbed a piece of paper and a pen and wrote down about a dozen media outlets that I check on a daily basis (everything from NPR to Fox and the Washington Post to the WSJ) and asked him how many places he gets his info. His reply...
"Dude, if you get news from all of those places you have too much time on your hands".

Cool. I got to bash my bro for my thousandth post. :D

Hold up there fellas. As one who holds conservative beliefs, votes accordingly and reads, I find your tone pretty misguided and limiting. So, if I grab a pen a write down all the media sources I read daily, does that validate my beliefs or somehow lend credence to my opinions? Of course not. People rarely read with an open mind, but rather soak in info filtered through our own notions. No matter the number or sources, it is often filtered just the same.

Also, this crazy notion that somehow all conservatives get talking points from Fox News and all liberals have free well developed thoughts is one of the foggiest, least cogent things I have heard in a while. I know that Obama sends out talking points nearly everyday to millions of Democrats and I can tell when they get it because I hear the echo of repetitive "thought" all day long. Does that mean that I think all liberals or Democrats are mentally herded through their lives, of course not.

Lastly, It has been my experience that when somebody doesn't have a strong position to argue from, they try to shift the conversation to a ground they feel more comfortable arguing from. If you are going to argue against people and their position, then argue the point. Shifting the converstion to something like, "Conservatives are stupid and uniformed" shows me you have conceeded the other points and are trying to recapture ground someplace else.

Oh, almost forgot...Good Morning Gentlemen! Happy Friday :)

[paczki]

Hold up there fellas. As one who holds conservative beliefs, votes accordingly and reads, I find your tone pretty misguided and limiting. So, if I grab a pen a write down all the media sources I read daily, does that validate my beliefs or somehow lend credence to my opinions? Of course not. People rarely read with an open mind, but rather soak in info filtered through our own notions. No matter the number or sources, it is often filtered just the same.

Also, this crazy notion that somehow all conservatives get talking points from Fox News and all liberals have free well developed thoughts is one of the foggiest, least cogent things I have heard in a while. I know that Obama sends out talking points nearly everyday to millions of Democrats and I can tell when they get it because I hear the echo of repetitive "thought" all day long. Does that mean that I think all liberals or Democrats are mentally herded through their lives, of course not.

Lastly, It has been my experience that when somebody doesn't have a strong position to argue from, they try to shift the conversation to a ground they feel more comfortable arguing from. If you are going to argue against people and their position, then argue the point. Shifting the converstion to something like, "Conservatives are stupid and uniformed" shows me you have conceeded the other points and are trying to recapture ground someplace else.

Oh, almost forgot...Good Morning Gentlemen! Happy Friday :)

I don't think this was meant as a criticism of conservatism. The Economist is my main news source and I admired Jack Kemp above just about any politician. I think it was a criticism of Limbaughism, a long standing stripe in American political history embraced by all sides. Remember the "Know Nothing" party.

[SamIAm]

Since we are so far afield at this point, does anybody worry that we are heading toward this guys vision of democracy?

In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated people being governed by "an immense, tutelary power" determined to take "sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate." It would be a power "absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident and gentle," aiming for our happiness but wanting "to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness." It would, Tocqueville said, provide people security, anticipate their needs, direct their industries and divide their inheritances. It would envelop society in "a network of petty regulations -- complicated, minute and uniform." But softly: "It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them" until people resemble "a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

[paczki]

Since we are so far afield at this point, does anybody worry that we are heading toward this guys vision of democracy?

In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated people being governed by "an immense, tutelary power" determined to take "sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate." It would be a power "absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident and gentle," aiming for our happiness but wanting "to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness." It would, Tocqueville said, provide people security, anticipate their needs, direct their industries and divide their inheritances. It would envelop society in "a network of petty regulations -- complicated, minute and uniform." But softly: "It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them" until people resemble "a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

Wasn't that meant as a criticism of a national policy that only concerns itself with promoting economic well-being as opposed to Ancien Regime France which admired anti-democratic aristocratic greatness?

[zap]

snipped

As I tell my students.........everyone is born stupid.

There's your problem.

When your born, that's when you have the most common sense given to you by mother nature.

As the day's and years go by, that's when most people really get messed up.

[avalonracing]

What would the unemployment in your state be if this, and the previous, adminstration did not "waste" all that money?

Well played... :beer:

[rugbysecondrow]

Well played... :beer:

Avalon, my man :)

Not well played at all. All he did was ask a question that few people, especially here, can reasonably answer, and he knows it. He lazily relied on a question to try to make his point for him, rather than arguing a substantive position. If you have a point to make, then make it, but just lobbing questions over a fence serves no purpose.

[avalonracing]

Rugby, my EC neighbor... :)

No, he didn't have a solution to the problem but he was pointing out the silliness of the other statement.

While a do know that offering a solution is always favorable there are some cases where it isn't all that easy. Likewise, there are times when the "Oh well, that's in the past, we need to move forward" doesn't always work either. There are a lot of people who would love to forget and move forward about going to Iraq. That's BS. We preemptively attacked an independent nation killed thousands and wasted hundreds of billions (so far). Sure, bringing it up isn't a solution but we need to not forget what got us there so it never happens again.

Hopefully having a balanced Supreme Court is another step in the right direction.

[csm]

What would the unemployment in your state be if this, and the previous, adminstration did not "waste" all that money?

what's the unemployment rate gonna be in MI, OH and every other state that has a GM or Chrysler plant that is gonna be idled this summer? not to mention the vendors and other plants/industries that feed the auto plants. plus the service industries that take care of the people that work there?
seems kind of disengenuous to have taken tax payer monies to survive for a few more months only to end up in bankruptcy anyway. is there really anyone out there who thinks that GM and Chrysler are heading anywhere but some sort of bankruptcy reorganization when it's all said and done?
And in the words of a web address that was as anti-Bush as they come..... Move on.... it's time for the current administration to suck it up and deal with the further mess they've made.... and time to stop saying it's the previous administration's fault. maybe it is maybe it isn't but seems to me nearly everyone currently "fixing" it had a lot to do with where we're at now.

[97CSI]

snipped



There's your problem.

When your born, that's when you have the most common sense given to you by mother nature.

As the day's and years go by, that's when most people really get messed up.Yes......obvious from your post what you've chosen to remain.

[Kirk007]

[QUOTE=SamIAm]Since we are so far afield at this point, does anybody worry that we are heading toward this guys vision of democracy?

No me. I worry that the next 4 years are a short blip, at best, on the continued road where a government controlled by corporations will "soften them, bend them, and direct them" until people resemble "a herd of timid animals, of which big business is the shepherd."

[93legendti]

Since we are so far afield at this point, does anybody worry that we are heading toward this guys vision of democracy?

In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated people being governed by "an immense, tutelary power" determined to take "sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate." It would be a power "absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident and gentle," aiming for our happiness but wanting "to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness." It would, Tocqueville said, provide people security, anticipate their needs, direct their industries and divide their inheritances. It would envelop society in "a network of petty regulations -- complicated, minute and uniform." But softly: "It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them" until people resemble "a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."
It seems we have arrived there already. What you can earn; what you can drive; what dr. you can visit - all determined by the President. Don't forget card check.

This President loves to appoint "czars". These "czars" do not have to report to Congress and thus have enormous, unchecked power. Then there is the middle-class task force, which is devoid of any middle class citizens. And the auto task force-which is devoid of any automobile people.

The best indicator of where we are? Apparently the vast majority of the
Chrysler dealerships that have been eliminated were donors to the Republican party.

WND reviewed the list of Chrysler's 789 closing franchises and databases of political donors and found that of dealership owners making contributions in the recent election, less than 10 percent gifted to Democrats while 90 percent gave substantial sums to Republican candidates.

The following dealers are scheduled to lose their Chrysler franchise designation. Based on available records and databases, each of them contributed to political campaigns during the 2008 election.

Many of the dealers who donated to Republican campaigns last year also contributed additional thousands to George W. Bush's presidential 2004 campaign and to campaigns to elect GOP representatives. Those donations are not included in this list.

The listed franchise owners contributed at least $450,000 to Republican presidential candidates and the GOP in the recent election while only $7,970 was donated to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign and $2,200 was given to Sen. John Edwards' campaign.

[boissy]

It seems we have arrived there already. What you can earn; what you can drive; what dr. you can visit - all determined by the President. Don't forget card check.

This President loves to appoint "czars". These "czars" do not have to report to Congress and thus have enormous, unchecked power. Then there is the middle-class task force, which is devoid of any middle class citizens. And the auto task force-which is devoid of any automobile people.

The best indicator of where we are? Apparently the vast majority of the
Chrysler dealerships that have been eliminated were donors to the Republican party.

WND reviewed the list of Chrysler's 789 closing franchises and databases of political donors and found that of dealership owners making contributions in the recent election, less than 10 percent gifted to Democrats while 90 percent gave substantial sums to Republican candidates.

The following dealers are scheduled to lose their Chrysler franchise designation. Based on available records and databases, each of them contributed to political campaigns during the 2008 election.

Many of the dealers who donated to Republican campaigns last year also contributed additional thousands to George W. Bush's presidential 2004 campaign and to campaigns to elect GOP representatives. Those donations are not included in this list.

The listed franchise owners contributed at least $450,000 to Republican presidential candidates and the GOP in the recent election while only $7,970 was donated to Sen. Hillary Clinton's campaign and $2,200 was given to Sen. John Edwards' campaign.


It should be note that 92% of dealerships remaining open also contributed to the Republicans. Past Automotive News polls have shown that an overwhelming majority of car dealer owners are Republican.

[97CSI]

Interesting how the right is finding a "vast left-wing conspiracy" now that they are on the outside looking in. Tit-for-tat, perhaps?

[avalonracing]

Why do I not find it odd that the owners of Chrysler dealerships would donate Republican? :rolleyes:

[93legendti]

Why aren't you outraged that the "first post-partisan" President is using unchecked power to single out, persecute, punish and ruin supporters of the President's opponents? Of course, the fact these dealers are profitable is besides the point. :rolleyes:

I think I now understand what the President means by "empathy". :rolleyes: Empathetic like a dictator.

[sjbraun]

Are you really as bitter and paranoid in real life as you come off on this forum?
For your sake, I hope not.

Steve-who thinks that this morning's ride might be the answer

[zap]

Yes......obvious from your post what you've chosen to remain.

Thanks.

I wish I was as pure as a new born babe.

:beer:

[97CSI]

Why aren't you outraged that the "first post-partisan" President is using unchecked power to single out, persecute, punish and ruin supporters of the President's opponents? Of course, the fact these dealers are profitable is besides the point. :rolleyes:

I think I now understand what the President means by "empathy". :rolleyes: Empathetic like Stalin.Where do you come up with the idea that OB and his folks have anything to do with which dealerships are being closed? These decisions are made by Chrysler and have no input from the administration. Bankruptcy judges, just like all federal judges, are independent.

[rugbysecondrow]

Where do you come up with the idea that OB and his folks have anything to do with which dealerships are being closed? These decisions are made by Chrysler and have no input from the administration. Bankruptcy judges, just like all federal judges, are independent.

Bankruptcy Judges serve finite appointments, just like Magestrate Judges, so they can be tempted by the whims of politics and decision-makers too. They can be forced to resign or not have their appointments picked up. Not to say that they are unfair people or bad public servants ( think most of them are very well meaning people trying to do a hard job and deal with trying circumstances), but they are not the same as other lifetime Federally appointed judges who are truly independent.

Also, I don't know if the Administration has anything to do with closing dealerships, but I know that the President is very aware of swing states (look at his most recent travel) and I would not be suprised if there was a vetting process. I don't think this is any different than what would happen under any other President though, par for the course.

[97CSI]

Bankruptcy Judges serve finite appointments........Yes, but 14 years per appointment and are appointed by their district court of appeals, not some elected official or group of stupid voters, so is a pretty far cry from a political appointment.

[Louis]

Why aren't you outraged that the "first post-partisan" President is using unchecked power to single out, persecute, punish and ruin supporters of the President's opponents?

It's all part of our plan !!! (As I rub my hands together and cackle with evil delight.)

Yup, Obama's been plotting the downfall of the Big 3 for years, just so he could get back at those dealers. It had nothing to do with their management decisions. Same thing with the Wall Street money-men who contributed to the wrong party. All must go.

Only a matter of time until people like you all wearing Obama "Collars of Obedience"

http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/memoryalpha/en/images/thumb/d/db/Collars_activated.jpg/180px-Collars_activated.jpg

[paczki]

Empathetic like Stalin.

I find that deeply offensive. There's overstatement and then there's comparing the president to one of the greatest psychopathic murderers of the century. Show a little discretion in your rambling please. Or think before you write such grotesque and offensive things. I like it when you write about bikes, but this is just too much.

[Louis]

I find that deeply offensive.

If the rest of the post made sense I might take it seriously, but since the whole thing is so bizarre there's no reason to get worked up about the Stalin thing. Notice Adam was actually nice about it - he could have called him Hitler, which is way worse.

New image in my head:

Obama = Oz, controlling the entire world from behind the curtain

[paczki]

If the rest of the post made sense I might take it seriously, but since the whole thing is so bizarre there's no reason to get worked up about the Stalin thing. Notice Adam was actually nice about it - he could have called him Hitler, which is way worse.

New image in my head:

Obama = Oz, controlling the entire world from behind the curtain

Perhaps, but I find this kind of over the top rhetoric desecrates the memory of so many who suffered in show trials and countless other liquidations. I think Adam should read a book or two about Stalin and the Soviet Union in the 1930s and then try to write a comment like that again.

[93legendti]

I find that deeply offensive. There's overstatement and then there's comparing the president to one of the greatest psychopathic murderers of the century. Show a little discretion in your rambling please. Or think before you write such grotesque and offensive things. I like it when you write about bikes, but this is just too much.
I am sorry if you were offended, as that was not my intent. So the post now reads "Empathetic like a dictator".

To be fair, I am sure you would admit that just as bad things, if not worse, were posted here about Pres. Bush. I hope your umbrage extends to comments about Presidents from both sides of the political spectrum.

[paczki]

To be fair, I am sure you would admit that just as bad things, if not worse, were posted here about Pres. Bush. I hope your umbrage extends to comments about Presidents from both sides of the political spectrum.

Absolutely. People who compare Obama or Bush to Stalin have no idea what it's like to live in a truly non-democratic totalitarian and murderous society. They should consider themselves very lucky that they can make such thoughtless comparisons.

[93legendti]

Glad we agree. I remember this post and do not recall anyone on the left taking offense.*


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ray
But in terms of seizing and holding power, he figured out how to do it better than most.

-Ray

So did Adolf Hitler. Which leads me to believe that there is no coincidence to my thinking that the GOP convention is kind of like what a prettied-up NSDAP convention would have looked like some 70 years ago.


* I am not referring to Ray's post.

[avalonracing]

I would think that there are a lot of innocent Iraqis who have a pretty rough opinion about W right now.

[93legendti]

With BO's policy of Predator strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan, I would think that there are a lot of innocent Afghans and Pakistanis who have a pretty rough opinion about BO right now.

[14max]

*****

[Kirk007]

I doubt any of the Pakistanis or Iraqis who have suffered loss of family members as a result of American action really care about whether Bush or Obama is running the show; rather that America and its military are engaged in military action in their countries. And, its not like Obama inherited any good options for extracting us from the mess that we are in; which would not be the case if a certain administration would have kept their eye on Bin Laden a few years ago rather than going on the Iraq misadventure. Of course if Cheney had his way who knows what additional aggressive tactical measures we would be pursuing around the world.

[Ray]

I doubt any of the Pakistanis or Iraqis who have suffered loss of family members as a result of American action really care about whether Bush or Obama is running the show; rather that America and its military are engaged in military action in their countries. And, its not like Obama inherited any good options for extracting us from the mess that we are in; which would not be the case if a certain administration would have kept their eye on Bin Laden a few years ago rather than going on the Iraq misadventure. Of course if Cheney had his way who knows what additional aggressive tactical measures we would be pursuing around the world.
That's true. Even we liberals have to give Bush credit for wising up in the later years of his presidency and keeping folks like Cheney and Bolton in check. I don't think they ever admitted mistakes, but its pretty clear they knew they made some and changed the worst of their ways in the second term. At least on foreign policy.

-Ray

[93legendti]

That's true. Even we liberals have to give Bush credit for wising up in the later years of his presidency and keeping folks like Cheney and Bolton in check. I don't think they ever admitted mistakes, but its pretty clear they knew they made some and changed the worst of their ways in the second term. At least on foreign policy.

-Ray
Ray, Pres. Bush was the Pres., not the VP. If VP's make policy we are in a world of hurt with VP Biden.

AFAIK, Ambassadors execute policy. What is your issue with Amb. Bolton? If you listen to Amb. Bolton, he is critical of Pres. Bush. I know the NYT and BSNBC do not like Amb. Bolton, but they're just propoganda wings of the DNC.
(Before you protest, ask why they killed the Sen. Edwards story the Enquirer had to break; why they killed the ACORN story; why Obama was able to write an op-ed during the campaign, but not McCain; why the NYT ran the non-story trying to smear McCain with an affair; why Chris Matthews claimed on the air his job was to help Obama succeed...).

FWIW, Pres. Obama has basically adopted the anti-terror policies of Pres. Bush: indefinite detentions, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator missile strikes, execution of Somali pirates without trial, rendition - turning over terrorists seized abroad to foreign countries; state secrets - claiming them in court to quash legal proceedings on rendition and other erstwhile barbarisms; and the denial of habeas corpus - to detainees in Afghanistan's Bagram prison.

I'm surprised Pres. Obama would adopt/continue the anti-terror policies of Pres. Bush. Surprised, but happy.

Anyway, thank you Amb. Bolton. Thanks to you, the UN rescinded the Zionism=racism canard.

[rugbysecondrow]

Yes, but 14 years per appointment and are appointed by their district court of appeals, not some elected official or group of stupid voters, so is a pretty far cry from a political appointment.

All judicial appointments are political appointments, some are for life and some are finite. The Judges never really stop being politicians.

[93legendti]

To bring it back to the nominee, I laughed when I read then. Sen. Obama's comments about Justice Alito...

[palincss]

To really bring this discussion back to the nominee's personal life, there's an interesting story about her in today's Washington Post:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/30/AR2009053002061.html

I thought you all might find this interesting:

Never particularly athletic as a child, Sotomayor has lately tried to exercise several times a week at the courthouse gym and has hired a personal trainer at the nearby Equinox gym. She has also become an avid bicyclist, sometimes going up the West Side of Manhattan and cycling back down the East.

[Pete Serotta]

Please lets move on ..also NYT has a good article.

THANKS Pete