House Republicans prepared to do the ‘immoral thing’ and vote against war supplemental.
House Republicans prepared to do the ‘immoral thing’ and vote against war supplemental.
The Hill reports that the House Republicans “are preparing to vote en bloc” against President Obama’s war funding bill, representing a striking 180-degree turn:
For years, Republicans portrayed the bills funding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as matters of national security and accused Democrats who voted against them of voting against the troops. In 2005, Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.) went so far as to say sending troops into battle and not paying for it would be an “immoral thing to do.” And just last year, more House Republicans voted for the war supplemental bill than did Democrats, who opposed the legislation because it did little to wind down the military effort in Iraq. But Republicans say this year is different.
The GOP objects to increased funding to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations through the financial crisis, funding the GOP is calling “a global bailout.” That the financial crisis was largely caused by the United States doesn’t seem to trouble House conservatives.
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
Should I post the list of (d)’s that voted against supplying our troops with needed supplies?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:41 amI thought the Repugs were all for the troops! What a bunch of pigs!
June 16th, 2009 at 10:42 amThe GOP objects to increased funding to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations through the financial crisis
This has NOTHING to do with funding our troops. Try basic reading, pd.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:44 amThe GNOP has been using the service men and women of our armed forces as nothing more than political props for years. This should come as no surprise for anyone who’s been paying attention.
PEACE
June 16th, 2009 at 10:44 amJust as long as you post ALL the GOP wingnuts that want to do the same thing. These clowns let an ex president start a war on a bunch of lies, backs all the funding for it BUT now that there is a democrat in office they want to change their minds.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:45 amAmerica, you voted for these people. Do you want your sons and daughters to die because of a game of politics?
This is another example of tp parsing and spinning to get the 4 minions in an uproar. LOL!
June 16th, 2009 at 10:45 amHYPOCRISY, the defining characteristic of Republican American Idiots.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:45 amFCUK THE GOP.
KILL IT BEFORE THEY KILL YOU.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:46 amI would say they are terrorists according to their own words. I mean your either with us or against us, right.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:46 amI guess Mr.P(atriot) is just another chicken hawk who doesn’t support the troops if it will suit his own agenda,
dtony and lido
American Patriot Says:
The GOP objects to increased funding to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations through the financial crisis
This has NOTHING to do with funding our troops. Try basic reading, pd.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:44 am
______________
Wow, you’re a moron.
Do you seriously think that the IMF has nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:48 amSo I guess American P thinks s its time to get out of thaat quagmire, right.?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:50 amTime for dbadass to slap you around again.
tony and lido
Sure, if you’re willing to state a position and stick to it.
Either voting “NO” on the Supplemental is “an Immoral thing to do”, in which case we can expect a vociferous condemnation from you of the Republicans who are set to do just that,
OR
the vote is a more complex issue than the Republicans tries to claim during the Bush years, in which case we can expect an admission from you that the Republicans in Congress are hypocrites, AND your offer to “post the list of (d)’s that voted against supplying our troops with needed supplies” is meaningless.
So which is it, Pee?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:50 amGOP and hypocrisy are now wedded in the public mind.
What a bunch of stooges.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:50 amDo you seriously think that the IMF has nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan?
Has NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNDING OUR TROOPS!
June 16th, 2009 at 10:51 amchirotera@10, American can insult me all he(or she) wants. I try not to feed the trolls.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:51 amCan you imagine being as gullible of this “American Patriot” guy?
wow, so partisan that he can’t even see hypocrisy staring him in the face
what an ignorant little pansy right winger
June 16th, 2009 at 10:51 amHere, American Puppykiller – let me help you:
Afghanistan, Islamic Republic of: Financial Position in the Fund as of May 31, 2009
Iraq: Financial Position in the Fund as of May 31, 2009
Still think the IMF has nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:53 amRalph, it has no time for nuance or critical thinking when it has talking points to post.
I can smell it’s two brain cells burning from here.
PEACE
June 16th, 2009 at 10:54 amThat the financial crisis was largely caused by the United States doesn’t seem to trouble House conservatives.
Actually that should be that the financial crisis was caused by George Bush and the Republics.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:54 amYou’re right, spencers mom. I should have stuck with the basics — either it IS an immoral thing to do, or it isn’t.
I may have confused our poor befuddled little friend.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:56 amRalph @12 — you beat me to it. That is the logical set of questions to ask AP about his positions. My money is that it will be ignored or answered in a way that does not answer.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:56 amRantingTommy Says:
ignorant little pansy
You are redundant by adding:
right winger
:0
June 16th, 2009 at 10:59 amAmerican Patriot Says:
Has NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNDING OUR TROOPS!
But the war supplemental bill does and that’s what they are voting against. During the Bush years when he pushed his off the books emergency spending for Iraq, his bills had lots of goodies attached that had nothing to do with funding the troops. But, if a Democrat objected and said they would vote against the bill because of the goody, they were called unpatriotic and accused of hating our troops.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:59 amapparently your verbosity is contagious
June 16th, 2009 at 11:00 amBut… but…. THAT’S DIFFERENT!!!! (rightwinger stamps his feet, tears rolling down his flush cheeks). Those were DEMOCRATS, and democrats are ALWAYS wrong! These are republicans, and republicans are always right.
Waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:01 amAmerican Patriot,
I served in Iraq from 2003-2004 as a combat engineer in the US Army. I was stationed in Baghdad (BIAP), at Dogwood, and at FOB Italy for a little more than a year. I returned home in May of 2004. Every time that a funding bill was presented that tried to bring closure to the Iraqi operation all of the republicans refused to fund it. The Iraqi government requested a withdrawal timeline. The republicans refused to give one. The Iraqi government sent two parliamentarians to the US congress requesting a timeline, and the republicans refused to provide one. The republicans voted against funding the troops over and over. They also voted against the express wishes of the Iraqi people. Maliki himself stated that the Iraqi government would not have signed the SOFA with the US if a republican would have won in 2008, as they did not feel it would be honored. Since I returned home, I have seen FAR more bashing of our troops from the right-wing than I ever did from the left. I know there are those on the left who bash the troops, but they pale in comparison to the number on the right.
Last year I visited Washington DC to push for the new Post 911 GI Bill. The only people opposing it were republicans.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:02 amRantingTommy Says:
apparently your verbosity is contagious
I HAVE been accused of that. :o
June 16th, 2009 at 11:03 amGreat! We should take their lead and end these ill-advised Bush expeditions and credit his party for being the hypocrites they are. Isn’t this: they voted for the war before they voted against it logic that plays very well with their base?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:04 amAmerican Patriot Says:
Should I post the list of (d)’s that voted against supplying our troops with needed supplies?
June 16th, 2009 at 10:41 am
American Patriot Says:
The GOP objects to increased funding to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations through the financial crisis
This has NOTHING to do with funding our troops. Try basic reading, pd.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:44 am
American Patriot Says:
This is another example of tp parsing and spinning to get the 4 minions in an uproar. LOL!
June 16th, 2009 at 10:45 am
American Patriot Says:
Do you seriously think that the IMF has nothing to do with Iraq and Afghanistan?
Has NOTHING TO DO WITH FUNDING OUR TROOPS!
June 16th, 2009 at 10:51 am
….
blah, blah, blah.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 11:04 amyeah, but it was probably by some jerk jazz musician
June 16th, 2009 at 11:05 amGood for them! A bit hypocritical, but at least they have the balls to do it, have the democrats ever had the balls to go against popular opinion? If this helps end the wars quicker, I’m all for it. Remember, the war in Vietnam ended because congress stopped funding it. Once again it looks as if the republicans are going to beat the democrats to the punch. This is a no win situation for the democrats who will look like hypocrites if they complain about it.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:06 amIt’s a $106 billion bill. $5 billion is for the IMF and the rest is “for the troops” as they are want to say. Obviously, the GOoPers are happy to screw the troops as long as they have another opportunity to vote “no”.
Pathetic!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:06 amDid American Pee disappear?
Darn. just when I thought we might have a decent conversation.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:06 amFor our moronic troll:
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0608/063008ap2.html
President Bush signed into law Monday a war supplemental spending package that includes nearly $162 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, in addition to an increase in veterans’ education benefits and a 13-week extension of unemployment insurance.
The Republics were against the increase in Veterans benefits and the extension of unemployment, but they voted for the bill anyway. And you know why? Because they said they could not abandon the troops in the field. So, if they couldn’t do it then, why can they do it now?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:07 amAlso and I shudder to think I agree with them but I do agree with the republicans idea of opposing any further funding for the IMF. In my opinion the IMF and the World Bank are evil and corrupt.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:08 am**** Off Topic ~ Jimmy Carter enters Gaza Strip *****
Carter told students at a graduation ceremony in the Strip: “I have to hold back tears when I see the deliberate destruction that has been raged against your people.”
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/06/200961684122470724.html
June 16th, 2009 at 11:08 amUncle Fester Lurks Says:
Good for them! A bit hypocritical, but at least they have the balls to do it, have the democrats ever had the balls to go against popular opinion? If this helps end the wars quicker, I’m all for it.
You really think the Republics are doing this to end the war quicker? I am disappointed that President Obama isn’t already bringing troops home but recognize that doing so will take a lot of planning and he’s only been president for 5 months.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:09 amscary black man in white house
June 16th, 2009 at 11:09 amAmerican Patriot Says:
Should I post the list of (d)’s that voted against supplying our troops with needed supplies?
Sure, whatever. If they voted against it before, they could vote against it now. At least those ones aren’t being hypocrites. The list of (d)’s who voted against in the past weren’t the same people playing politics with soldiers and trying to bully people by making slogans out of words like “American” and “Patriot.” You are neither, btw.
The only thing Republicans want to pay for is killing foreigners. When it comes to helping them achieve stability and independence, all of a sudden you’re nowhere to be found. Which is interesting, since killing people is more expensive.
.
American Patriot Says:
The GOP objects to increased funding to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations through the financial crisis
This has NOTHING to do with funding our troops.
Shall I post the list of objectionable and irrelevant riders that Republicans have inserted into past military funding bills…?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:11 amThere is a reason that every Iraq war vet currently serving in congress is a democrat.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:13 amChris LeJeune, thank you for your service and your ongoing support of the troops. We’re right there with you!
PEACE
June 16th, 2009 at 11:13 amRaaawwwkkk! American Parrot wants a cracker!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:15 amNo Bildo, the republicans are doing it for political gain, but like I said if it ends the war quicker, I’m all for it! Yes, it will take some planning to remove our troops but has a real date even been set yet? President Obama’s original campaign promise date has already been pushed back, he is now sending more troops into Afghanistan, another war which we cannot win.
The republicans are at their weakest point in recent history and yet they seem to be out maneuvering the democrats on this political issue, why? Because our democratic leadership is and always have been spineless to make controversial decisions.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:16 amIt seems that the Iranian people are more passionate and patriotic about their country’s elections and election fraud. Remember how we reacted in the obvious case of election fraud back in 2000? We all sat on our a$$e$ and whined about it on blogs. My hat goes off to the people in Iran! We could learn a lesson from them!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:19 amGood for the Republicans! I don’t want to give the IMF funds to bail out European banks, either. When you combine their “no” votes and the Progressive “no” votes (Progressives that signed a pledge to never vote for war funds without a clear timetable for withdrawl), we just might have enough votes to defeat this bill! People at firedoglake, digby, democrats.com, and many more sites have been pleading with people to call and pressure the Progressives to vote no. It’s about time we got serious with the war issue (and the IMF issue, for that matter).
June 16th, 2009 at 11:20 amChris LeJeune, I’ve met a few Iraqi war vets and to a man they have been honorable and courageous. Your contributions to this community at TP suggest you are no different. Thank you for your service.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:20 am——————————————————————————–
American Patriot Says:
——————————————————————————–
The GOP objects to increased funding to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations through the financial crisis
This has NOTHING to do with funding our troops. Try basic reading, pd.
Typical tricks by the democrats. Throw a bunch of crap in a bill that has nothing to do with funding the troops so republicans look like hypocrites if they don’t vote for it. Do the democrats have any shame?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:21 amWhy does the antagonistic troll continuously enjoy getting it’s a$$ handed to it?
Day in, day out, it spouts it’s argument, only to be knocked down with facts. (Case in point: the racist email thread from last night).
It reminds me of the deviant child in elementary school, who acts up JUST TO GET ATTENTION, attention it rarely, if ever, receives at home.
Yes Twajie, we know you’re lonely and without partner.
But ignoring what is presented and veering off onto another debunked point does not a debate make.
You probably already know that.
Hey, let’s discuss your mythical vacation to Cabo. That should boost your self esteem in Never Never Land!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:21 amHow quickly things change, recall all the howling about how dems werent supporting the troops.
What hypocrites.
But go ahead and stop funding these wars, maybe it will end the insanity of spending trillions for control of oil.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:21 amI agree lefttown!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:22 amThe “Party of Personal Responsibility” strikes again!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:23 amBTW screw the IMF they dont deserve or need 100 billion which will create more federal debt.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:23 amJohn M = Sock Puppet
June 16th, 2009 at 11:23 amJohnM Says:
Do the democrats have any shame?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:21 am
______________
Says the guy who doesn’t think Muslims are people…
June 16th, 2009 at 11:26 amJohnM Says:
Typical tricks by the democrats. Throw a bunch of crap in a bill that has nothing to do with funding the troops so republicans look like hypocrites if they don’t vote for it. Do the democrats have any shame?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:26 am“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Um JohnM, are you so ignorant to believe that your party is innocent of doing the very same thing? Lets not forget the manipulated intelligence that led us to the unnecessary war in Iraq….idiot!
JohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
American Patriot Says:
——————————————————————————–
The GOP objects to increased funding to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help aid nations through the financial crisis
This has NOTHING to do with funding our troops. Try basic reading, pd.
Typical tricks by the democrats. Throw a bunch of crap in a bill that has nothing to do with funding the troops so republicans look like hypocrites if they don’t vote for it. Do the democrats have any shame?
>>>
they’re winning
the republicans are losing.
…
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am——————————————————————————–
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Do the democrats have any shame?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:21 am
______________
Says the guy who doesn’t think Muslims are people…
What are you talking about? I have never said anything remotely close to that.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am#43 Uncle Fester…Dito and thank you for posting….Starving the beast of war and bringing the troops home is the answer…Blessings
June 16th, 2009 at 11:29 amUncle Fester Lurks Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Typical tricks by the democrats. Throw a bunch of crap in a bill that has nothing to do with funding the troops so republicans look like hypocrites if they don’t vote for it. Do the democrats have any shame?
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Um JohnM, are you so ignorant to believe that your party is innocent of doing the very same thing? Lets not forget the manipulated intelligence that led us to the unnecessary war in Iraq….idiot!
But mommy Billy stole a cookie why can’t I? Yes, it sure does sound like “change” we can believe in.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:30 amFurther thoughts on this issue; perhaps the Republican have some sons and daughters who are about to enlist so why not end the war and claim victory against tyranny?
Remember: Smokers suck butts! Ye gods!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:31 amUh, JohnM… you may find these types of tricks “typical” because your boys perfected them.
Even now, Democrats are still letting them get away with it. Or do you think that allowing firearms in national parks really has something to do with credit card reform?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:31 amJohnM Says:
Uncle Fester Lurks Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Typical tricks by the democrats. Throw a bunch of crap in a bill that has nothing to do with funding the troops so republicans look like hypocrites if they don’t vote for it. Do the democrats have any shame?
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
Um JohnM, are you so ignorant to believe that your party is innocent of doing the very same thing? Lets not forget the manipulated intelligence that led us to the unnecessary war in Iraq….idiot!
But mommy Billy stole a cookie why can’t I? Yes, it sure does sound like “change” we can believe in.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:30 am
***
we see your tears.
we feel your pain.
…
who’s “billy”?
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 11:32 amThe Ironically Named American Patriot calls this typical Dem BS, attaching riders to bills that serve their agenda, yet forgets last week when Lindsey Graham and Droopy Dawg Lieberman threatened to do the same for no other reason than to slow the entire legislative process.
That’s a little “basic reading” you missed, American Pustule.
Don’t you have anything better to do than just embarrass yourself?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:33 amSo let’s review… JohnM claims such tricks are “typical” by “the democrats”.
Then, when challenged, he tacitly acknowledges that it’s a case of two wrongs make a right.
Yet JohnM has uttered not a word of condemnation against the Republicans who turned such tricks into an art form, nor has he backed off of his lazy assertion that it is a trick “typical” of “democrats”.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:34 amMaybe President Obama should label this bill “emergency spending” as this has worked like a charm over the many years with the fraidy-cat Repubs. I’m sure our daily fool AP had no problem with all the outlandish spending (off the books btw) that George W. @sshole waisted billions on throughout his term as CIC. Let’s see, there’s the billions in cash on pallettes that mysteriously vanished into thin air, there’s the billions spent to pay our enemy not to shoot at us, there’s the additional 10’s of billions given happily over to a military dictator in Pakistan so he could ignore bin Laden and the al quaida infested border to blow it all on his border with India, there’s the 10’s of billions thrown away in Israel so they can pound their war drums and foment unrest in their neck of the woods. Of course we cannot leave out the hundreds of billions thrown away to Bush and Cheney’s favorite charities Blackwater (Bush Sr.’s friends), Haliburton (Cheney’s bottom line), KBR (Cheney spin-off that has overbilled the US and killed scores of troops with their shoddy electrical work and fetid water). All while our soldiers went without armor plated vehicles and proper body armor costing who-knows-how-many lives, while Bush’s Pentagon spent untold billions on useless airplanes but that’s ok right AP? Oh and while AP harps on the subject of troop spending, wasn’t it the Republics that were so obstinate in their blocking of the GI Bill? Pappy McCain even helped write the bill but then went on to try to kill it. How about the abyssmal conditions at Walter Reid under Bush, AP? The Republic Party is a self-serving bunch of crybabies that cares about one thing and ONLY one thing: the Republic Party. They don’t give a shit about our troops either in the arena, retired, injured or dead. Not that that’s any concern for AP. All he is concerned with is trying to smear the current CIC at any cost…right AP?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:37 am#66 – Holy rejoinder, Batman. Amen.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:41 amJohnM Says:
Typical tricks by the democrats. Throw a bunch of crap in a bill that has nothing to do with funding the troops so republicans look like hypocrites if they don’t vote for it. Do the democrats have any shame?
It was a typical trick by the Republics for the last eight years, moron.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:42 am2002 WASHINGTON — Congress sets record for pork soending. A war and a recession did not stop a republican majority Congress from doling out the pork for special hometown projects, a government watchdog reported Tuesday. -FOX News
Yeh, JohnM, sure, only dems do it. Right,
June 16th, 2009 at 11:42 am….
i miss johnm.
the laughter, the fun…
:(
June 16th, 2009 at 11:44 amrepublicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
But mommy Billy stole a cookie why can’t I? Yes, it sure does sound like “change” we can believe in.
So you expect a DOUBLE STANDARD? Typical REPUBLICAN HYPOCRITE… YAWN…
No, but apparently you do. The fact is the republicans are not voting against war funding which is stated here, they are voting against the extra crap. Do up a clean bill and they would not vote against it. It just shows how hypocritical dems/progressives are. Change we can believe in!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am——————————————————————————–
Xisithrus Says:
——————————————————————————–
2002 WASHINGTON — Congress sets record for pork soending. A war and a recession did not stop a republican majority Congress from doling out the pork for special hometown projects, a government watchdog reported Tuesday. -FOX News
Yeh, JohnM, sure, only dems do it. Right,
I am very much against the pork projects, which is part of the reason I voted for McCain. To say that republicans are voting against war funding is misleading and dishonest and everybody here knows that. They are voting against the other crap.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:44 am“Not every earmark is bad, but my goodness, they ought to pass the straight face test,” Boehner said.[speaking of republicans porking out]
June 16th, 2009 at 11:45 amJohnM Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
But mommy Billy stole a cookie why can’t I? Yes, it sure does sound like “change” we can believe in.
So you expect a DOUBLE STANDARD? Typical REPUBLICAN HYPOCRITE… YAWN…
No, but apparently you do. The fact is the republicans are not voting against war funding which is stated here, they are voting against the extra crap. Do up a clean bill and they would not vote against it. It just shows how hypocritical dems/progressives are. Change we can believe in!
****
eight years of bush
and now he’s bothered
by “crap”.
…
johnm,
you’re a candle in the wind.
:\
June 16th, 2009 at 11:45 am——————————————————————————–
gummble-bee-itch Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Typical tricks by the democrats. Throw a bunch of crap in a bill that has nothing to do with funding the troops so republicans look like hypocrites if they don’t vote for it. Do the democrats have any shame?
It was a typical trick by the Republics for the last eight years, moron.
So how is that “change”?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:45 amJohnM Says:
Says the guy who doesn’t think Muslims are people…
What are you talking about? I have never said anything remotely close to that.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am
The record begs to differ.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:49 am
johnny boy, are you really that ignorant? The Party of NO will vote against this bill no matter what is in it. They have made it perfectly clear that they will do anything to thwart anything that Obama trys to do. This is nothing but pure politics, and has nothing to do with the troops of the war.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:49 amBilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Asshat, they aren’t voting against the bill as a whole, they are voting against the “bail out” part. Understand? It’s called democracy! obama hasn’t forced us to wear brown shirts and jack boots, yet!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:49 amJohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
Xisithrus Says:
——————————————————————————–
2002 WASHINGTON — Congress sets record for pork soending. A war and a recession did not stop a republican majority Congress from doling out the pork for special hometown projects, a government watchdog reported Tuesday. -FOX News
Yeh, JohnM, sure, only dems do it. Right,
I am very much against the pork projects, which is part of the reason I voted for McCain. To say that republicans are voting against war funding is misleading and dishonest and everybody here knows that. They are voting against the other crap.
…
if “everybody here knows that”
then what’s your point?
and why are you still here?
***
darn that “crap“.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 11:49 amWhat a bunch of hypocritical tools these Rethugs are! I am willing to bet they all voted FOR every war funding bill ever presented by Dubya. I think if Barack Obama had the ability to rule the sun, they would vote against allowing him to let the sun rise tomorrow. Idiots!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:50 amBut you didn’t VOTE for change. You said so yourself.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:50 amShorter JohnM: “Write a bill that calls for the Halfrican illegally occupying the White House to be put to death, and we’ll sign it. Otherwise it’s just TYPICAL DEMOCRAT TRICKS.”
June 16th, 2009 at 11:51 amralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
gummble-bee-itch Says:
It was a typical trick by the Republics for the last eight years, moron.
So how is that “change”?
But you didn’t VOTE for change. You said so yourself.
Yes I didn’t, but you must feel duped. Sorry.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:51 amAmerican Patriot Says: Are you for civil war in this country?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:51 amJohnM Says:
June 16th, 2009 at 11:52 amYes, it sure does sound like “change” we can believe in.
“““““““““““““““““““““““““““““““`
It sure is! Change from the Bush fascist regime. Change from 8 years of blunders, corruptness and phuck ups! Change from 8 years of unaccountability. That was change much needed!
So how is that “change”?
Um, before changing directions, we have to dirst get out of the ditch bush left us in.
And we need folks like you to help push, not sit on the trunk and complain.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:52 amAmerican Patriot Says:
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Asshat, they aren’t voting against the bill as a whole, they are voting against the “bail out” part. Understand? It’s called democracy! obama hasn’t forced us to wear brown shirts and jack boots, yet!
June 16th, 2009 at 11:49 am
…
you see johnm?
am. pat. (and redstate)
agree with you!
…
isn’t that nice?
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 11:52 amDid you know that the terrorists attacked us on 9/11 because they hated us for our…republicans?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:53 amJohnM Says:
Typical tricks by the democrats. Throw a bunch of crap in a bill that has nothing to do with funding the troops so republicans look like hypocrites if they don’t vote for it. Do the democrats have any shame?
JohnM: Make no mistake. Obama wants this war funding, and he’s not playing tricks with the Republicans. Word is, Obama himself has been calling representatives, urging them to vote yes. They threw in the IMF part of the bill because they thought they could get that through while they were at it and because Obama promised the funding while he was in Europe.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:53 amThanks, Uncle Fester Lurks and Witch1. You know, maybe from now on the administration will pay a little more attention to the Progressive Caucus. The administration has met more with Blue Dogs and Republicans than with the Progressive Caucus (they’ve met only once with them).
JohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
gummble-bee-itch Says:
It was a typical trick by the Republics for the last eight years, moron.
So how is that “change”?
But you didn’t VOTE for change. You said so yourself.
Yes I didn’t, but you must feel duped. Sorry.
…
still don’t have a point, eh?
:)
keep searching!
:p
June 16th, 2009 at 11:54 amMake that “first.”
Sorry, short breaktime doesn’t allow for a lot of editing.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:54 amchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Says the guy who doesn’t think Muslims are people…
What are you talking about? I have never said anything remotely close to that.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am
The record begs to differ.
JohnM Says:
I said Muslim detainees were non-human.
Now lets see if you can see my post and if I said that and not somebody else quoting me incorrectly and lying.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:54 amPork is pork whether attached to war funds or not.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:55 amAmerican Patriot Says:
Bilbo Hussein Baggins Says:
Asshat, they aren’t voting against the bill as a whole, they are voting against the “bail out” part. Understand? It’s called democracy! obama hasn’t forced us to wear brown shirts and jack boots, yet!
If that’s the case, then why didn’t they do that in the example I gave you?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:56 amJohnM Says:
Now lets see if you can see my post and if I said that and not somebody else quoting me incorrectly and lying.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:54 am
___________
It’s not a lie. Those are your exact words, written in the exact order you wrote them.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:56 amYeah, Pee, we get it.
The point is simple: when Democrats voted against war funding for similar reasons under Bush, Republicans unversally (and probably you too) wailed about them “voting against funding our troops”.
Didn’t matter what reasons Democrats gave for objecting to the bills — structure, inclusions or “emergency” status — Republicans claimed that to vote “no” on the bills was ‘voting against the troops”. Simple.
So they pretty much dispensed with the kind of nuance you’re now seeking to embrace.
So what is it, Pee?
Were Republicans wrong then when they called a vote against war funding “unAmerican” or are they wrong now?
can’t have it both ways, no matter how much cognitive dissonance your Manichean brain can tolerate.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:56 amThe Dems attach a rider to help struggling nations impacted by our own (Bush Admin.) fiduciary mismanagement, and somehow that’s equal to loading up a bill with GOP bridges to nowhere? This is change, oh drinkers of the Reich Kool-Aid, for everyone but you troll apologists.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:57 amjohnny boy, just suck it up, because toasterhead quoted you exactly right. I was one who attcked you for that comment.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:57 amNo, JohnM, I don’t feel “duped”. Sorry to disappoint you, but I never bought into electioneering slogans as a measure of the candidate.
You, on the other hand, one who voted AGAINST change are now complaining about things in Congress remaining the same as they were under Republicans.
kinda silly when you look at it like that, init?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:59 amJohnM Says:
I am very much against the pork projects, which is part of the reason I voted for McCain. To say that republicans are voting against war funding is misleading and dishonest and everybody here knows that. They are voting against the other crap
Since AP doesn’t seem to be able to answer a question truthfully, maybe you can tell us how this is any different than the example I gave in post #34? The Republics were against the additions to that off-the-books war supplement bill, but they didn’t vote against it. So why are they voting against this one?
June 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pmJohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Do the democrats have any shame?
June 16th, 2009 at 11:21 am
______________
Says the guy who doesn’t think Muslims are people…
What are you talking about? I have never said anything remotely close to that.
…
JohnM Says:
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Says the guy who doesn’t think Muslims are people…
What are you talking about? I have never said anything remotely close to that.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:28 am
The record begs to differ.
JohnM Says:
I said Muslim detainees were non-human.
Now lets see if you can see my post and if I said that and not somebody else quoting me incorrectly and lying.
***
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
JohnM Says:
Now lets see if you can see my post and if I said that and not somebody else quoting me incorrectly and lying.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:54 am
___________
It’s not a lie. Those are your exact words, written in the exact order you wrote them.
…
johnm,
busted!
:)
“crap”
:|
June 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pmThe GOP is hurting the troops by delaying funding, its unpatriotic!, it unAmerican! and harms national security!
Sound familiar?
June 16th, 2009 at 12:00 pmAmerican Patriot
June 16th, 2009 at 12:01 pm–
So you never did say how things worked out with the Tenessesee Tramp…
——————————————————————————–
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Now lets see if you can see my post and if I said that and not somebody else quoting me incorrectly and lying.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:54 am
___________
It’s not a lie. Those are your exact words, written in the exact order you wrote them.
Great, please link to where I said that. You know my post, not a quote from somebody else.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pmJohnM Says:
Great, please link to where I said that. You know my post, not a quote from somebody else.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Right here. Click it and weep, chuckles.
You say it and then deny saying it in the very next sentence. Pretty slick!
June 16th, 2009 at 12:04 pmBoy jonny boy, you really are a pussy. Stand up for what you said, either defend it or just say it was a mistake. We all make mistakes you know.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:04 pmOh noes! The Horror! The Troof! Skreamy Haid!
June 16th, 2009 at 12:05 pm106 dbadass
Just a short post to let you all know news about a certain democrat going to trial is going to make wipey -Jeffy Bovine, habib, Archie, olby sucks, o$- get his panties all wet.
Later.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:05 pmJohnM is attempting to flipflop about what he said. I read where he posted the exact words “I said Muslim detainees were non-human”.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:07 pmJohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Now lets see if you can see my post and if I said that and not somebody else quoting me incorrectly and lying.
June 16th, 2009 at 11:54 am
___________
It’s not a lie. Those are your exact words, written in the exact order you wrote them.
Great, please link to where I said that. You know my post, not a quote from somebody else.
…
but johnm,
those are your words
“and everybody here knows that.”
:)
:) :)
June 16th, 2009 at 12:07 pmPatrioticLiberalChristianMantisReligiosa Says:
JohnM is attempting to flipflop about what he said. I read where he posted the exact words “I said Muslim detainees were non-human”.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
…
let’s not rub it in, pat.
:|
June 16th, 2009 at 12:08 pmJohnm, just ignore the asshat known as “joecant thinkwell.”
June 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pmLike a (R)Halliburton shower..its a SHOCKER!!!
June 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pmPatrioticLiberalChristianMantisReligiosa Says:
JohnM is attempting to flipflop about what he said. I read where he posted the exact words “I said Muslim detainees were non-human”.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
____________
Yeah, I can’t wait to see how he weasels his way out of this one…
Oh, wait – he can’t!
June 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pm…
pat,
on second thought,
let’s rub it in.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pmNow what were those patriotic acts again? Was it pretending to be a Latin King or was it jerking around all day here?
June 16th, 2009 at 12:10 pmAmerican Patriot Says:
Johnm, just ignore the asshat known as “joecant thinkwell.”
June 16th, 2009 at 12:09 pm
***
gotcha.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 12:10 pmjohnny dol1ar Says: If your speaking about Mr. Jefferies, I’ll make it easy for the trolls. If he is found guilty, I hope he enjoys his new digs in that 4by6 room the feds will be giving him.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:10 pmHey, American Patriot, you still think that sending troops to secure oil is supporting them?
June 16th, 2009 at 12:10 pmjohnny dol1ar Says:
Hey, namejackin loser. I can’t wait for your orange faced hero to spike that story! LOL!
June 16th, 2009 at 12:11 pmReza said, a few posts back or so, that APee [sic] supported Halliburton but not the troops.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:12 pmjoe, it is our patriotic duty as blogging entertainers to rub it in. Massage the message, if you will. If you won’t that’s OK, too.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:12 pmColumbians are pussy aren’t they or is it just pretend Columbians…
June 16th, 2009 at 12:13 pmObama could yank the IMF funding out of this supplement, and the Republicans still won’t vote for it.
But hey, as long as they’re still wearing flag pins…
June 16th, 2009 at 12:13 pmAmerican Peetriot, dont go away mad…
June 16th, 2009 at 12:13 pmjoecant thinkwell
June 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pm— how infinitely clever… NOT…
Hey AP try answering my question from #86. Its a simple question, all it takes is a yes or no.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pmAmerican Patriot Says:
johnny dol1ar Says:
Hey, namejackin loser. I can’t wait for your orange faced hero to spike that story! LOL! Grrrrr!
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Great, please link to where I said that. You know my post, not a quote from somebody else.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:02 pm
Right here. Click it and weep, chuckles.
You say it and then deny saying it in the very next sentence. Pretty slick!
You have once again posted a link where somebody else said that I said that and have not been able to post any actual post where I said that. Case closed, you are clearly incapable of honesty, move along.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pmCase closed? Since when does the accused get to make the decisions of the judge?
June 16th, 2009 at 12:15 pmI love it when toasterhead messes with the trolls. :D
June 16th, 2009 at 12:16 pmJohnM Says:
You have once again posted a link where somebody else said that I said that and have not been able to post any actual post where I said that. Case closed, you are clearly incapable of honesty, move along.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
Do you deny making this statement at 3:46 pm EST on June 10th, 2009?
If not, then you said “I said Muslim detainees were non-human.”
I’m not sure how much more clear I can make this for you.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:16 pm——————————————————————————–
American Patriot Says:
——————————————————————————–
Johnm, just ignore the asshat known as “joecant thinkwell.”
It really is amazing how stupid he is. He’s actually trying to be funny and he thinks that he is getting to me, but I find it rather amusing.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:17 pmMmmpphh Mmmpphh
Mmmpphh Mmmpphh
Know what that is the sound of?
(R)eciprocal Tea-Bagging
June 16th, 2009 at 12:19 pmJohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
American Patriot Says:
——————————————————————————–
Johnm, just ignore the asshat known as “joecant thinkwell.”
It really is amazing how stupid he is. He’s actually trying to be funny and he thinks that he is getting to me, but I find it rather amusing.
…
oh look am. pat.,
you have a “friend”.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 12:20 pmZooey, It isn’t like you haven’t slap a few senseless yourself. Doing the law thang’ this summer?
June 16th, 2009 at 12:21 pmwow, JohnM got totally busted on that one
right wingers should really be ashamed of their ignorance and dishonesty
June 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pmXisithrus Says:
Mmmpphh Mmmpphh
Mmmpphh Mmmpphh
Know what that is the sound of?
(R)eciprocal Tea-Bagging
***
johnm and am. pat.?
oh my.
:|
June 16th, 2009 at 12:23 pmRantingTommy Says:
wow, JohnM got totally busted on that one
right wingers should really be ashamed of their ignorance and dishonesty
June 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
____________
Owned by his own words. They truly have no shame.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:23 pmrepublicans hate facts Says:
Oh and we *ALL* get to you, it’s why you COME HERE to a *LIBERAL* SITE and constantly SPEW YOUR SH*T.
You get to us? Why don’t you spend another 10 minutes putting *s and capitalizing a few more words to try and prove your point? It really is easy/fun messing with people like you because you get so mad and type jibberish.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
RantingTommy Says:
wow, JohnM got totally busted on that one
right wingers should really be ashamed of their ignorance and dishonesty
June 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
____________
Owned by his own words. They truly have no shame.
Still waiting for the link buddy.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:25 pmJohnM Says:
republicans hate facts Says:
Oh and we *ALL* get to you, it’s why you COME HERE to a *LIBERAL* SITE and constantly SPEW YOUR SH*T.
You get to us? Why don’t you spend another 10 minutes putting *s and capitalizing a few more words to try and prove your point? It really is easy/fun messing with people like you because you get so mad and type jibberish.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:24 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
JohnM Says:
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
RantingTommy Says:
wow, JohnM got totally busted on that one
right wingers should really be ashamed of their ignorance and dishonesty
June 16th, 2009 at 12:22 pm
____________
Owned by his own words. They truly have no shame.
Still waiting for the link buddy.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
…
“us”?
you’re a “couple”?
congrats!
xxooxxoo
/.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:29 pmJohnM Says:
Still waiting for the link buddy.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:25 pm
No, you’re not. I already posted it, and quoted you in #135 above. Now you’re just stalling cause you don’t want to admit that you said what you said, but you said it:
Here’s the link again.
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/06/10/tiller-clinic/#comment-5682233
Your exact words. “I said Muslim detainees were non-human.”
So are you going to deny that you wrote that? Was the comment server hacked? Did your cat jump on your keyboard and type that posting while your back was turned?
June 16th, 2009 at 12:29 pmYou get to us? Why don’t you spend another 10 minutes putting *s and capitalizing a few more words to try and prove your point? It really is easy/fun messing with people like you because you get so mad and type jibberish.
When the holocaust killer story broke my FIRST thought was “it has to be rhf!”
June 16th, 2009 at 12:37 pmHmm. JohnM is suddenly quite silent. What gives?
June 16th, 2009 at 12:37 pmAmerican Patriot
June 16th, 2009 at 12:38 pm— Remind me what your career pathway was again…
American Patriot Says:
You get to us? Why don’t you spend another 10 minutes putting *s and capitalizing a few more words to try and prove your point? It really is easy/fun messing with people like you because you get so mad and type jibberish.
When the holocaust killer story broke my FIRST thought was “it has to be rhf!”
…
got a link?
:\
maybe your new “boyfriend”
can help you with that.
:)
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 12:39 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
Hmm. JohnM is suddenly quite silent. What gives?
June 16th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
…
he’s making his rounds.
he’ll be back.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 12:40 pmAmerican guy, Can’t answer my question from #86? Is it to hard for ya? I kind of thought it was a simple question, but I guess for a great intellect like yourself, it was to tough.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:42 pmAlso, sorry for breaking my pledge to stop feeding the trolls. I’ll go back to honoring it after I finish destroying JohnM.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:43 pmangels81 Says:
American guy, Can’t answer my question from #86? Is it to hard for ya? I kind of thought it was a simple question, but I guess for a great intellect like yourself, it was to tough.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:42 pm
…
am. pat is selective in his responses.
he likes to talk about boys and cars.
try that approach.
:<)
June 16th, 2009 at 12:45 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
Also, sorry for breaking my pledge to stop feeding the trolls. I’ll go back to honoring it after I finish destroying JohnM.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:43 pm
***
there’s not much left.
just a quivering mass
of abject humiliation.
:|
June 16th, 2009 at 12:46 pmJohnM had to run over to some freeper site to ask how to cover his ass, so he doeswn’t look like such a git.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pmI’ll go back to honoring it after I finish destroying JohnM.
Posting a totally out of context quote is considered “destroying” someone? FU.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pmAmerican Patriot Says:
Posting a totally out of context quote is considered “destroying” someone? FU.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
___________
Since when does the context of a quote matter?
JohnM certainly didn’t think so last week when he was deliberately taking Judge Sotomayor’s words out of context in order to call her a racist.
So now JohnM is stuck in a trap. He either has to admit that he said that Muslim detainees are non-human – which were his exact words albeit out-of-context – or he has to admit that his out-of-context rants against Sotomayor were intellectually dishonest.
He can’t have it both ways.
So, yes, that’s what I call “destroying” a troll.
Move along, JohnM. Move along.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:50 pmDavid Shuster Is A Liar
June 16th, 2009 at 12:51 pmMSNBC’s journalistic standards are, shall we say, somewhat flexible. Even by its weak standards, however, David Shuster today issued a report that was breathtaking for its mendacity. Simply put, Shuster lied–brazenly, knowingly, on the air.
American Patriot Says:
I’ll go back to honoring it after I finish destroying JohnM.
Posting a totally out of context quote is considered “destroying” someone? FU.
…
you are upset,
aren’t you?
:|
be strong,
defend your love.
:|
June 16th, 2009 at 12:51 pmAmerican Patriot Says:
David Shuster Is A Liar
MSNBC’s journalistic standards are, shall we say, somewhat flexible. Even by its weak standards, however, David Shuster today issued a report that was breathtaking for its mendacity. Simply put, Shuster lied–brazenly, knowingly, on the air.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:51 pm
****
am. pat.;
plagiarist.
:|
stealing is a sin.
how do you like the link?
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 12:54 pmI love watching the trolls get their butts whipped by their intellectual superiors here
Too funny that JM/AP get spanked every time they think the talking point they were just given by the radio is a winner.
typical right wing ignorance
June 16th, 2009 at 12:55 pmAmericasBack Says: Don’t worry, will never confuse you with the little troll.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:55 pmAnd what, pray tell, is Shuster’s evidence? He says of Lieberman: “You’ve publicly declared it’s a mistake to engage in dialogue with Iran. You’ve taken issue with President Obama offering a time table for withdrawal of troops from Iraq.”
Frankly, we here at TWS would be delighted if these were Joe Lieberman’s views. Alas for us-–and more importantly, for whatever pretense of integrity David Shuster tries to maintain, they’re not. Shuster made these things up, apparently out of whole cloth.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:58 pmPublicans support the troops like they support fetuses.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:59 pmFor show and tell only.
Pat, you’re a riot.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:00 pmThat’s as close as you’ll ever get to being an American who values the principles our nation was founded on.
And we will never mistake that troll for someone that walks fully erect.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:00 pmThe Weekly StandardJun 14, 2009 … Frankly, we here at TWS would be delighted if these were Joe Lieberman’s views. Alas for us-–and more importantly, for whatever pretense of …
June 16th, 2009 at 1:01 pmFrom the Weakly Standard:
David Shuster Is A Liar
MSNBC’s journalistic standards are, shall we say, somewhat flexible. Even by its weak standards, however, David Shuster today issued a report that was breathtaking for its mendacity. Simply put, Shuster lied–brazenly, knowingly, on the air.
From American parrot:
American Patriot Says:
David Shuster Is A Liar
MSNBC’s journalistic standards are, shall we say, somewhat flexible. Even by its weak standards, however, David Shuster today issued a report that was breathtaking for its mendacity. Simply put, Shuster lied–brazenly, knowingly, on the air.
So is American Parrot actually Michael Goldfarb?
Or is Pee simply another garden-variety right-wing plagiarist troll?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pm166 joe cantwell
You are waaaaaay off if you think Jeffy Bovine is going to be ashamed being called “plagiarist”
His homo erotic fixation with Keith Olbermann and David Shuster is well known at Crapper 1 and Crapper 2, now here at TP. Hardly a day goes by without Jeffy Bovine commenting in his obsession.
“Plagiarist”?… Jeffy Bovine milks horses for a living.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pmDoncha Bovine?
C’mon Patsie, at least give the link when you’re plaegerizing.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pmWow.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:02 pmA troll, seeking attention, plagiarizes from someone’s blog.
Huh.
Whoda thunkit?
looks like AP is just a thief
typical right winger, can’t think for himself and has to be told what to think
June 16th, 2009 at 1:03 pmRantingTommy Says:
angels81 Says:
AmericasBack Says: Don’t worry, will never confuse you with the little troll.
And we will never mistake that troll for someone that walks fully erect.
***
or thinks for themselves.
“we here at TWS”
…
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 1:04 pmDeserves a re-post. Emphasis added.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:04 pmNice to see that progressive hypocrisy remains front and center.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:05 pmRUCeriousMaggot! Says:
C’mon Patsie, at least give the link when you’re plaegerizing.
***
that’s american pastie,
ru.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 1:05 pmAmerican Patriot Says:
Nice to see that progressive hypocrisy remains front and center.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
***
nice to see you can spell “hypocrisy”.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pmWas it “mendacity” that gave it away?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:07 pmhttp://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/ratings/the_scoreboard_saturday_june_13_119055.asp
ROFFLMFAO!!!!!
June 16th, 2009 at 1:08 pmhe had to look it up
June 16th, 2009 at 1:09 pmWhy do Republicans hate the troops?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:09 pmThanks for the kerrekshun Joe C.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:10 pmWe should give American Pastalot a break. It’s gotta be hard to get through life when you are so frightened and ignorant.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:10 pmhe had to look it up
Websters: hypocrisy-democrat.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:10 pmAmerican Patriot Says:
Nice to see that progressive hypocrisy remains front and center.
Where did you steal that from?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:11 pmHe’s had to look it up so many in order to know what it meant when people accused him of it.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:11 pmdbadass Says:
June 16th, 2009 at 1:12 pmWas it “mendacity” that gave it away?
Had to be something involving men, didn’t it?
Ouch. That’s gotta hurt, Pee.
Now we all assume you steal ALL your material.
And why shouldn’t we?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:12 pmpoor little American Pastalot
no ideas
no original thought
no ability to discern fact from fiction
so scared
so ignorant
so lonely
poor little guy
I’d feel sory for him if he wasn’t such a gasbag
June 16th, 2009 at 1:12 pmRUCeriousMaggot! Says:
Suck c*ck much?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:13 pmShouldn’t AP be spelling that more like Amurkun Paytridiot?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:13 pmNow, now Amurkun Pasty, let’s not get in the gutter, shall we?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
American Patriot Says:
Posting a totally out of context quote is considered “destroying” someone? FU.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
___________
Since when does the context of a quote matter?
JohnM certainly didn’t think so last week when he was deliberately taking Judge Sotomayor’s words out of context in order to call her a racist.
So now JohnM is stuck in a trap. He either has to admit that he said that Muslim detainees are non-human – which were his exact words albeit out-of-context – or he has to admit that his out-of-context rants against Sotomayor were intellectually dishonest.
He can’t have it both ways.
So, yes, that’s what I call “destroying” a troll.
Move along, JohnM. Move along.
Of course the key difference is that in my sentence the beginning part was “Please show me where…” so if you take the entire sentence you can see that I clearly never said that Muslims are sub human. The difference of course is that I never took anything Sotoymayor said out of context. She clearly stated that a female Latina would come to a better conclusion on certain cases because of her race and gender multiple times. Your feeble attempt to connect the two is pathetic at best.
When you take part of sentence and change what the total sentence says that is intellectually dishonest. I never did that with the Sotomayor quote. Even in the entire context her statement is racist. Nice try buddy, but you are way out of your league.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pmHey! American pussy, answer my question from #86, what are you, scared?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pmThat’s the tip -off. He even stole his screen name.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pmAmerican Patriot Says:
RUCeriousMaggot! Says:
Suck c*ck much?
Well, to tell a family secret, my granny was Dutch!
June 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pmAmerican Patriot Says:
RUCeriousMaggot! Says:
Suck c*ck much?
***
well now we know what’s on your mind.
***
and it isn’t even lunch time.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pmAfter losing the argument in a large way, Amerikkkan Pastalot has to resort to homophobia and childish namecalling
too funny
June 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pmPatsy, made any posts on your fav bog olbermannwatch.com lately? LOL!
June 16th, 2009 at 1:15 pmJohnM Says:
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
American Patriot Says:
Posting a totally out of context quote is considered “destroying” someone? FU.
June 16th, 2009 at 12:47 pm
___________
Since when does the context of a quote matter?
JohnM certainly didn’t think so last week when he was deliberately taking Judge Sotomayor’s words out of context in order to call her a racist.
So now JohnM is stuck in a trap. He either has to admit that he said that Muslim detainees are non-human – which were his exact words albeit out-of-context – or he has to admit that his out-of-context rants against Sotomayor were intellectually dishonest.
He can’t have it both ways.
So, yes, that’s what I call “destroying” a troll.
Move along, JohnM. Move along.
Of course the key difference is that in my sentence the beginning part was “Please show me where…” so if you take the entire sentence you can see that I clearly never said that Muslims are sub human. The difference of course is that I never took anything Sotoymayor said out of context. She clearly stated that a female Latina would come to a better conclusion on certain cases because of her race and gender multiple times. Your feeble attempt to connect the two is pathetic at best.
When you take part of sentence and change what the total sentence says that is intellectually dishonest. I never did that with the Sotomayor quote. Even in the entire context her statement is racist. Nice try buddy, but you are way out of your league.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
***
American Patriot Says:
RUCeriousMaggot! Says:
Suck c*ck much?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
***
what a team!
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 1:16 pmAmerican Pansie Requests:
RUCeriousMaggot! Says:
Suck c*ck much?
Why? Are you so desperate for a date that you’re coming on to a married father?
Egads, son.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:16 pmTry e-harmony.
And here’s JohnM, back from his reaeacrh trip to RedState, to declare that “context” only extends to the same sentence. The previous paragraph is not useful context, apparently.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:16 pmThat’s the tip -off. He even stole his screen name.
johnny dol1ar Says:
Hypocrite much?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pmo looky, ToiletM is back to lie some more
poor little guy, busted for a quote and now whining that it was taken out of context
reap what you sow, hypocrite
June 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pmI know. That’s probably my favorite outcome of these trolling parties.
thanks for obliging, Pee!
June 16th, 2009 at 1:17 pmDRjX ~ condolences to your Redwings…And what a laugh this moron is!!
June 16th, 2009 at 1:18 pmRalph, these morons think context means any text written by neo cons.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:18 pmSuck c*ck much?
– Desperation sets in…
June 16th, 2009 at 1:18 pmI was in Pittsburgh this weekend. They were partying hard.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:19 pmOh — I was mistaken. The childish namecalling is NOT my favorite outcome.
Incoherent babbling is my favorite outcome.
Thanks again, Pee!
June 16th, 2009 at 1:19 pmwhat are you, scared?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:20 pm– Yes. Yes, he is…
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
So now JohnM is stuck in a trap. He either has to admit that he said that Muslim detainees are non-human – which were his exact words albeit out-of-context – or he has to admit that his out-of-context rants against Sotomayor were intellectually dishonest.
Honestly I was abstaining from this discussion, because I thought that quoting JohnM out of context was pretty childish. Now I see it was all part of a master plan. I stand corrected, and in awe.
So, yes, that’s what I call “destroying” a troll.
Very well played. Bravo!
June 16th, 2009 at 1:20 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says
Muslim detainees are non-human
So the truth comes out, a quote from your post. Sad really.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:21 pmThanks RU.
The sting was lessened by the fact that they’ve won 4 the last 12 years.
And as my wife stated, at least I won’t be spending money on championship hats and banners for the section of the basement known as “the guys lair”.
And as much as I hate to say it, the Penguins truly deserved it.
As for these a$$hats posting, they’re getting beyatch slapped, and don’t even know it.
It’s hilarious.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:21 pm…
am. pat.
and jonnm…
take turns!
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 1:22 pmI see AP and JM are still holding down the day shift at Troll Central
The economy must be improving if TC is scraping the barrel for help. The “brainy” trolls (by comparison) got hired on at WalMart and/or McDonald’s
June 16th, 2009 at 1:24 pmjohnm,
do you need a link on this one?
American Patriot Says:
RUCeriousMaggot! Says:
Suck c*ck much?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
or can you find it yourself?
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 1:24 pmAnd as much as I hate to say it, the Penguins truly deserved it.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:24 pmWow! Now THAT’s sportsmanship!
Tip O’ the helmet to ya Dr!
Luis Chapulin M Says:
——————————————————————————–
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
So now JohnM is stuck in a trap. He either has to admit that he said that Muslim detainees are non-human – which were his exact words albeit out-of-context – or he has to admit that his out-of-context rants against Sotomayor were intellectually dishonest.
Honestly I was abstaining from this discussion, because I thought that quoting JohnM out of context was pretty childish. Now I see it was all part of a master plan. I stand corrected, and in awe.
It is childish, because I never changed the meaning of what Sotomayor said by taking the end of the sentence only. His master plan was a weak one and it only made him look more ignorant. If anybody can show where I changed words in her sentence to make it mean something else I would love to see it, otherwise his master plan was a master flop.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:24 pmbut they both like being bottoms
June 16th, 2009 at 1:25 pmjoe, are there enough teabags to go around in that crowd?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:25 pmRantingTommy:
June 16th, 2009 at 1:25 pmTell me you got to Primanti’s for me! How about the Altar Bar?
ToiletM got owned and is STILL whining about it and trying to spin
Face it, ToiletM, YOU tried to misrepresent Sotomayor and have been called out for your hypocrisy
you really should stop digging, but then again, that would be evidence that you had a brain and possession of one of those is considered grounds for dismissal from Troll Central
June 16th, 2009 at 1:27 pmI was having too much fun enjoying the lack of helmet law in Penn. to stop anywhere. I was up there for a family event and only had a few hours to ride around Pitt, so I didn’t want to spend any of my free time not on the bike.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:29 pmRantingTommy Says:
——————————————————————————–
ToiletM got owned and is STILL whining about it and trying to spin
Face it, ToiletM, YOU tried to misrepresent Sotomayor and have been called out for your hypocrisy
you really should stop digging, but then again, that would be evidence that you had a brain and possession of one of those is considered grounds for dismissal from Troll Central
Please show where took only part of her sentence in her quote to change the meaning. Until you do that your point is not valid.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:31 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says
Muslim detainees are non-human
Classy!
June 16th, 2009 at 1:32 pmJohnM Says:
Of course the key difference is that in my sentence the beginning part was “Please show me where…” so if you take the entire sentence you can see that I clearly never said that Muslims are sub human. The difference of course is that I never took anything Sotoymayor said out of context. She clearly stated that a female Latina would come to a better conclusion on certain cases because of her race and gender multiple times.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
____________
Wrong again.
You’ve left off the key words “I would hope,” which changes the judge’s ENTIRE quote from a declarative statement to a hypothetical musing. Your very mis-parsing of the one sentence you are deliberately excising negates your pathetic “only sentences count” defense.
And, as you say, that is intellectually dishonest. I appreciate your candor in admitting your own intellectual dishonesty.
I cut my internettering teeth in FYAD, son. The one out of his league is you.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:32 pm…
my friends,
am. pat.,
and johnm.
we wish them well on their journey.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 1:33 pmand still ToiletM spins
give it up dude, you are talking to intellectuals, not republicans
June 16th, 2009 at 1:33 pmJohnM Says:
RantingTommy Says:
——————————————————————————–
ToiletM got owned and is STILL whining about it and trying to spin
Face it, ToiletM, YOU tried to misrepresent Sotomayor and have been called out for your hypocrisy
you really should stop digging, but then again, that would be evidence that you had a brain and possession of one of those is considered grounds for dismissal from Troll Central
Please show where took only part of her sentence in her quote to change the meaning. Until you do that your point is not valid.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:31 pm Recommend (0) | Report Abuse
American Patriot Says:
chiroptera toasterhead Says
Muslim detainees are non-human
Classy!
June 16th, 2009 at 1:32 pm
****
work together,
live together,
love together.
:|
June 16th, 2009 at 1:34 pmthey do make a cute couple, don’t they, joe?
here’s hoping they don’t reproduce
June 16th, 2009 at 1:37 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Of course the key difference is that in my sentence the beginning part was “Please show me where…” so if you take the entire sentence you can see that I clearly never said that Muslims are sub human. The difference of course is that I never took anything Sotoymayor said out of context. She clearly stated that a female Latina would come to a better conclusion on certain cases because of her race and gender multiple times.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
____________
Wrong again.
You’ve left off the key words “I would hope,” which changes the judge’s ENTIRE quote from a declarative statement to a hypothetical musing. Your very mis-parsing of the one sentence you are deliberately excising negates your pathetic “only sentences count” defense.
And, as you say, that is intellectually dishonest. I appreciate your candor in admitting your own intellectual dishonesty.
I cut my internettering teeth in FYAD, son. The one out of his league is you.
Nice try, changing it to I would hope does not change it to make her look less racist. It actually makes her look more racist because she is showing her bias against white males. Her entire speech does not change the context of that one sentence where she obvisously has a bias. Once again, your comparison between changing my sentence and what I said about Sotomayor does not work. You are clearly trying and that is cute, but you simply don’t have the brain power to keep up.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:38 pm——————————————————————————–
RantingTommy Says:
——————————————————————————–
and still ToiletM spins
give it up dude, you are talking to intellectuals, not republicans
I figured you would not be able to provide the info that I changed her sentence.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:41 pmWhy are they always talking about Master Plans?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:42 pmJohnM Says:
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Of course the key difference is that in my sentence the beginning part was “Please show me where…” so if you take the entire sentence you can see that I clearly never said that Muslims are sub human. The difference of course is that I never took anything Sotoymayor said out of context. She clearly stated that a female Latina would come to a better conclusion on certain cases because of her race and gender multiple times.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
____________
Wrong again.
You’ve left off the key words “I would hope,” which changes the judge’s ENTIRE quote from a declarative statement to a hypothetical musing. Your very mis-parsing of the one sentence you are deliberately excising negates your pathetic “only sentences count” defense.
And, as you say, that is intellectually dishonest. I appreciate your candor in admitting your own intellectual dishonesty.
I cut my internettering teeth in FYAD, son. The one out of his league is you.
Nice try, changing it to I would hope does not change it to make her look less racist. It actually makes her look more racist because she is showing her bias against white males. Her entire speech does not change the context of that one sentence where she obvisously has a bias. Once again, your comparison between changing my sentence and what I said about Sotomayor does not work. You are clearly trying and that is cute, but you simply don’t have the brain power to keep up.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
***
“brain power“?
…
conservatives are having a tough
time getting the hang of this
“ethernet” thing, aren’t they?
***
h/t tpm
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 1:42 pmI see Jeffy Bovine has managed again to show he is a closet log cabin gopiggie, a plagiarist, and a coward.
It is OK, Bovine. We understand.
But you should not use TP to post your desires for discreet meetings. Stick to posting your phone number at truck stops.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:42 pmDon’t forget the boots for the tap dance under the stall partition.
Damn, toasterhead! That troll’s ears must be ringing from the b!tch-slapping you issued.
Well done, sir!
June 16th, 2009 at 1:43 pmWhy are they always talking about Master Plans?
Because they are bottoms and have the need to submit to a Master’s plans.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:44 pmToiletM thinks he is worthy of debate
dude, you will get nothing but ridicule from me. you don’t debate. you lie, you spin, you dissemble, but you never debate
you get your talking points and run with them. you don’t have the intellectual capacity to understand them or realize you are being manipulated
but keep on digging, it is entertaining as hell
June 16th, 2009 at 1:44 pmJohnM has nce again demonstrated his complete lack of intellectual integrity, as CTH has definitively proved.
johnM — totally pwned.
once again.
The sad part is, he’s completely oblivious to his humiliation.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:45 pmgood job toasterhead, you owned poor little ToiletM
imagine if he wasn’t too ignorant to realize it!
June 16th, 2009 at 1:46 pmDid Pee ever declare which side of the fence he came down on?
Were Republicans wrong to tag Democrats who voted against war spending under Bush as “failing to support the troops”, or are they now failing to support the troops?
June 16th, 2009 at 1:47 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
JohnM has nce again demonstrated his complete lack of intellectual integrity, as CTH has definitively proved.
johnM — totally pwned.
once again.
The fun part is, he’s completely oblivious to his humiliation.
***
ralph,
i had to do it.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 1:48 pm——————————————————————————–
Zooey Says:
——————————————————————————–
Damn, toasterhead! That troll’s ears must be ringing from the b!tch-slapping you issued.
Well done, sir!
Keep living in your cocoon here on “progressive” websites where truth takes a backseat to dishonesty. We both know toasterhead was shown how pathetic his little plan was, but you would never admit that because you don’t have the intellect to think for yourself.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pmhilarious that ToiletM thinks his talking points constitute “truth”
it makes you wonder how he feeds himself without the radio telling him how
June 16th, 2009 at 1:53 pmright wingers have to be told what to think
ToiletM is a perfect example of that
June 16th, 2009 at 1:53 pmoh so now it is a “little plan” is it? Please make up your mind…
June 16th, 2009 at 1:57 pmRantingTommy Says:
——————————————————————————–
right wingers have to be told what to think
ToiletM is a perfect example of that
Coming from a regular at this website that is hilarious! Thanks for the laugh.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:58 pmJohnM Says:
Nice try, changing it to I would hope does not change it to make her look less racist. It actually makes her look more racist because she is showing her bias against white males. Her entire speech does not change the context of that one sentence where she obvisously has a bias.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
______________
So now you are predicating your entire argument not on her words, but on the words you are putting in her head. You’re assuming she thinks a certain way – even though she doesn’t actually say it – and framing every sentence in the context of the false mental picture you’ve painted.
That’s ridiculous.
But if you want to stand by that tactic, fine. It’s the same way I know that you think Muslim detainees are non-human, even though you deny saying it.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:05 pmOne of the reasons JohnM, jimmy likes big bucks and American Patroit work at troll central is that they get free Slurpees while they there. Afterward they go to the 7-11 together for cold drinks.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:08 pmAmerican Patriot Says:
chiroptera toasterhead Says
Muslim detainees are non-human
Classy!
Jeeze now he’s stealing from John, toast and channeling OS! When will it stop?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:09 pmJohnM Says:
RantingTommy Says:
——————————————————————————–
right wingers have to be told what to think
ToiletM is a perfect example of that
Coming from a regular at this website that is hilarious! Thanks for the laugh.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:58 pm
***
but you’re a “regular”.
aren’t you?
:)
let’s count how many comments
you’ve posted here.
…
so far.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 2:12 pmJohnM Says:
June 16th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Aw, I can see how embarrassed you must be for being played so well. I forgive you for being a meanie doo doo head.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:12 pm“We’re at war with Oceania. We’ve always been at war with Oceania.”
George Orwell
June 16th, 2009 at 2:14 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
I only read halfway through these, but…. this is gory… I’ve never seen anyone play whack-a-troll(TM) by slowly feeding the troll into a blender.
And it keeps squirming. I believe that trolls clearly do not have higher brain functions, as they continue to make sounds that sometimes resemble words as long as any cells remain. Is that worm-like? We know the genus, but I’m trying to categorize the species…
(BTW, you are very naughty for being diabolically devious in your attack. I am in awe. And it is, and always shall remain, obstinantly oblivious.)
June 16th, 2009 at 2:17 pmJohnM Says:
Her entire speech does not change the context of that one sentence where she obvisously has a bias.
Actually, the entire speech IS “the context” of the one sentence that you are latching onto.
You clearly do not understand what “context” and “taking out of context” actually mean.
You have been ridden around this thread like a 25 cent whore, and you just don’t realize it.
I would pity you, if it weren’t for the fact that your ignorance is deliberate and willful.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:20 pmJohnM, why do support groups exist? Isn’t it because people of common experience can more easily and readily understand their common experience in comparison with those who have not? Don’t people join support groups hoping to find that wisdom and expected guidance? This is what Sotomayor was saying she could bring to SOME judicial cases, specifically those involving the shared Latino experience.
Just because YOU refuse to see the total meaning of what she said and YOU project your own racism does not mean that Sotomayor herself is racist.
You were none to happen with your quote being stripped of its context and its meaning. THAT is now an experience you share with Sotomayor. I hope you gain some wisdom from the experience. (Although I seriously doubt that you will.)
June 16th, 2009 at 2:21 pms/b “none too happy” (thinking ahead of fingers again)
June 16th, 2009 at 2:21 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Nice try, changing it to I would hope does not change it to make her look less racist. It actually makes her look more racist because she is showing her bias against white males. Her entire speech does not change the context of that one sentence where she obvisously has a bias.
June 16th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
______________
So now you are predicating your entire argument not on her words, but on the words you are putting in her head. You’re assuming she thinks a certain way – even though she doesn’t actually say it – and framing every sentence in the context of the false mental picture you’ve painted.
That’s ridiculous.
But if you want to stand by that tactic, fine. It’s the same way I know that you think Muslim detainees are non-human, even though you deny saying it.
Sorry bud, never put any words in her head. Used her words exactly as they appeared in her speech without changing the context or changing the sentence to say anything else. I have made you look stupid enough and have shown that your attempt to try and change what I said in order to prove a point that is nonexistent was feeble and ingnorant.
You truly have no clue what you are talking about as you have not been able to back up any of your claims with facts. That’s okay, you are a progessive and I don’t expect much out of you. The bar was really low, and you were nowhere near getting over it.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:22 pmJohnM,
June 16th, 2009 at 2:23 pmExplain to us again why Muslim detainees are non-human.
After being exquisitely played and pwned by CTH, JohnM still thinks he can alter reality simply by repeating his belief over and over and by ignoring the import of the statements he’s made.
Either that, or he’s a permanent resident of the Faux News/right-wing alternate reality.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:25 pmJohnM, are you seriously trying to tell us that you can relate to the experiences of the Latino culture or any culture other than your own as well as a person actually in or from that culture? It’s not racist to admit that you can understand your own culture better than someone outside of it. It’s reality….oh, now I see the problem….never mind.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:26 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
After being exquisitely played and pwned by CTH, JohnM still thinks he can alter reality simply by repeating his belief over and over and by ignoring the import of the statements he’s made.
Either that, or he’s a permanent resident of the Faux News/right-wing alternate reality.
***
he’s a “regular”
you know.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 2:29 pmWhere the heck did that other poser go?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:31 pmJohnM Says:
If anybody can show where I changed words in her sentence to make it mean something else I would love to see it,
Completely unnecessarry, as you took one sentence out of a comment that involved more than one sentence to make a point. Therefore, the CONTEXT of the sentence that you, to use the vernacular, cherry-picked out of her speech is, implicitly “out of context”.
One more time: the “context” of the sentence is not the sentence itself, but the words around it in the other sentences that come before and follow after (and in both instances may involve more than one sentence).
CTH is absolutely correct in the example used.
You are absolutely an ignorant liar.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:33 pmdbadass Says:
Where the heck did that other poser go?
June 16th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
..
he loses,
he leaves.
:|
June 16th, 2009 at 2:33 pmdbadass Says:
Where the heck did that other poser go?
Couldn’t stand to watch his boyfriend happily coming back for beating after beating, like a masochistic Weebil(tm).
June 16th, 2009 at 2:36 pmIn that same “controversial” sentence, Sotomayor ends with the phrase “who hasn’t lived that life”. THAT is the context.
As a psychologist, I can more readily engage people who have had struggles or strive that I myself have had. That doesn’t mean I can’t relate to those with different experiences, but it is harder and takes more time. In Sotomayor’s speech, she went on to say almost the exact same thing about her judicial work as I just did about my counseling work.
JohnM is ignorant, either by nature, by nurture, or by choice.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:37 pm****
ot,
the crazies at fox
go crazy.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 2:38 pmHey, speak for yourself. The crisis wasn’t caused me ME. Yet I would have to pay to fund this IMF “help” to poorer governments.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:40 pmJohnM Says:
You truly have no clue what you are talking about as you have not been able to back up any of your claims with facts. That’s okay, you are a progessive and I don’t expect much out of you. The bar was really low, and you were nowhere near getting over it.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
______________
You can back-pedal all you want, Johnny, but you still have yet to preove you don’t think Muslim detainees are non-human.
Here’s some free advice for ya, Ace: the first thing to do, once you’ve dug yourself into a hole, is stop digging.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:50 pmAs an old psychology prof told me, maybe he’s eclectic(?)
He seems to specialize in all three.
tony and JohnM is ignorant, either by nature, by nurture, or by choice.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:37 pm Recommend (0
lido
June 16th, 2009 at 2:52 pmchiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
You truly have no clue what you are talking about as you have not been able to back up any of your claims with facts. That’s okay, you are a progessive and I don’t expect much out of you. The bar was really low, and you were nowhere near getting over it.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
______________
You can back-pedal all you want, Johnny, but you still have yet to preove you don’t think Muslim detainees are non-human.
Here’s some free advice for ya, Ace: the first thing to do, once you’ve dug yourself into a hole, is stop digging.
And you have yet to prove that I think they are non-human, just like you could not prove that Sotomayor’s comments were not racist.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:58 pmjust like you could not prove that Sotomayor’s comments were not racist.
It’s up to you to prove they were. So far, you haven’t done it.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:00 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
After being exquisitely played and pwned CTH still thinks he can alter reality simply by repeating his belief over and over and by ignoring the import of the statements he’s made.
I agree!
June 16th, 2009 at 3:01 pmSo John, is ethnocentrism the same as racism?
That’s really the question.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:01 pmJohnM Says:
chiroptera toasterhead Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
You truly have no clue what you are talking about as you have not been able to back up any of your claims with facts. That’s okay, you are a progessive and I don’t expect much out of you. The bar was really low, and you were nowhere near getting over it.
June 16th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
______________
You can back-pedal all you want, Johnny, but you still have yet to preove you don’t think Muslim detainees are non-human.
Here’s some free advice for ya, Ace: the first thing to do, once you’ve dug yourself into a hole, is stop digging.
And you have yet to prove that I think they are non-human, just like you could not prove that Sotomayor’s comments were not racist.
***
keep rubbing it, johnm
and maybe your wish
will come true :)
…
June 16th, 2009 at 3:02 pm——————————————————————————–
barfly Says:
——————————————————————————–
just like you could not prove that Sotomayor’s comments were not racist.
It’s up to you to prove they were. So far, you haven’t done it.
Done, over and over again, the fact that you are unwilling to accept the truth does not change anything. Sorry ;)
June 16th, 2009 at 3:03 pmJohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
barfly Says:
——————————————————————————–
just like you could not prove that Sotomayor’s comments were not racist.
It’s up to you to prove they were. So far, you haven’t done it.
Done, over and over again, the fact that you are unwilling to accept the truth does not change anything. Sorry ;)
June 16th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
…
talking to yourself again?
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 3:04 pmjoe cantwell Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
barfly Says:
——————————————————————————–
just like you could not prove that Sotomayor’s comments were not racist.
It’s up to you to prove they were. So far, you haven’t done it.
Done, over and over again, the fact that you are unwilling to accept the truth does not change anything. Sorry ;)
June 16th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
…
talking to yourself again?
:)
Since I seem to be the only one with an education beyond the 5th grade, perhaps I should.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:09 pmMy original comment:
johnM tries to respond:
Still wanna claim you don’t take only part of a sentence in a quote to change the meaning, JohnM?
June 16th, 2009 at 3:14 pm——————————————————————————–
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
My original comment:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
After being exquisitely played and pwned by CTH, JohnM still thinks he can alter reality simply by repeating his belief over and over and by ignoring the import of the statements he’s made.
johnM tries to respond:
JohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
After being exquisitely played and pwned CTH still thinks he can alter reality simply by repeating his belief over and over and by ignoring the import of the statements he’s made.
I agree!
Still wanna claim you don’t take only part of a sentence in a quote to change the meaning, JohnM?
It was a joke idiot because of what was done earlier to me. Get over yourself, you are not important enough.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:24 pmJohnM apparently decided it would be a good idea to take the last lone brick of a once-standing wall of integrity, and smash it with a sledge hammer.
Granted, it wasn’t a very impressive wall of integrity, and it existed mainly in the mind of JohnM, but still, he clearly decided it was holding him back.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:26 pmAh, the “it was only a joke!” defense, favored by Rush, O’Lielly and now JohnM.
Problem with the “humorous analogy”, though JohnM, is that CTH took no words out of your quote. He simply pulled a useful portion.
You, on the other hand, took key words and punctuation out of mine, which did not so much take it out of context as actively distort its meaning.
Big difference.
But I don’t expect you with your “fifth grade” education to see it.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:30 pmAnd JohnM…?
Given your woeful performance here today, you might want to rethink calling anybody else an “idiot”.
Not that anyone respects what you say, but it’s terribly impolite and besides, you’ve cultivated a reputation here for being so spectacularly wrong, it’s only a matter of time before an insult from you becomes accepted as a compliment.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:33 pmCorrect me if I am mistaken they all sort of blend into one sometimes and other times they are all one but either way hasn’t JohnM claimed to be a disabled vet in the past? Maybe that explains the confusion. JohnM am I correct about a disability or am I confusing you with one of the all day crumudgeons?
June 16th, 2009 at 3:38 pmDescription of proof – American Heritage® Dictionary
NOUN: 1. The evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true.
JohnM, one person, has presented his argument that Sotomayor’s comments were racist. At least a half dozen of us are NOT compelled to accept his assertion as true. So, by definition, there has been no proof.
JohnM appears to believe that his saying something is true, especially repetitively, makes it true. If such magic thinking was part of this world of reality, I would ask JohnM to make this stack of papers on my desk into dollar bills.
June 16th, 2009 at 3:57 pmJohnM Says:
I am very much against the pork projects, which is part of the reason I voted for McCain.
You are aware that “earmarks” account for a tiny percentage of pork, aren’t you? All of that “earmarks are bad” talk was a red herring to distract attention from the actual pork loading up every year’s budget. Man, I can’t believe you fell for that.
International stability = less war = cost savings. Siphoning massive quantities of cash through the military-industrial complex to create ridiculously advanced gadgets to slaughter foreigners is not cheap. Preventing situations that might call for such intervention, is.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:17 pmJohnM Says:
joe cantwell Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
barfly Says:
——————————————————————————–
just like you could not prove that Sotomayor’s comments were not racist.
It’s up to you to prove they were. So far, you haven’t done it.
Done, over and over again, the fact that you are unwilling to accept the truth does not change anything. Sorry ;)
June 16th, 2009 at 3:03 pm
…
talking to yourself again?
:)
Since I seem to be the only one with an education beyond the 5th grade, perhaps I should.
…
but you don’t.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 4:29 pm(To be sung to the tune from the chorus of “Bingo”…)
I-O-K-I-F-Y-A-R…
I-O-K-I-F-Y-A-R…
I-O-K-I-F-Y-A-R…
It’s Okay If You’re A Re-Pub-Li-Can!!!!
Puh-leeeeeeze…as if Republicans never attached unrelated legislation to a military appropriations bill!
All kidding/sarcasm aside…I think that a bill should be put before Congress to stop them from attaching unrelated pieces of legislation to each other. I think we all know that one of the biggest reasons why they do this in the first place is in the hopes of forcing legislation through by manipulating — or even outright blackmailing — each other into approving measures which they would otherwise want to debate/review further or even simply vote down. In all honesty, I think that another reason why they do it is in order to shorten the amount of time that they spend in session so that they have more time to themselves…despite the fact that their first responsibility is (or should be) to us.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:48 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
And JohnM…?
Given your woeful performance here today, you might want to rethink calling anybody else an “idiot”.
You clearly are delusional as to what transpired today. That is okay, because you are expected to follow the sheep here because original thoughts and intellectual conversations are taboo here. To restate what happened:
Somebody misquoted me when they took the beginning part of my sentence out.
This individual clearly knew that this would not fly as truth and he eventually said he did this because he believes that I took Sotomayor’s quotes out of context.
After showing him that nothing was taken out of context from her speech and that she was clearly saying that she would hope a white man would not come to better conclusions than a Latina woman in deciding some cases (an obvious racist statement) all of the sheep here decided that they cannot win this argument due to flawed reasoning.
Then they tried to deny the fact that I wiped the floor with the competition and made everybody look immature and uninformed.
June 16th, 2009 at 4:49 pmJohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
And JohnM…?
Given your woeful performance here today, you might want to rethink calling anybody else an “idiot”.
You clearly are delusional as to what transpired today. That is okay, because you are expected to follow the sheep here because original thoughts and intellectual conversations are taboo here. To restate what happened:
Somebody misquoted me when they took the beginning part of my sentence out.
This individual clearly knew that this would not fly as truth and he eventually said he did this because he believes that I took Sotomayor’s quotes out of context.
After showing him that nothing was taken out of context from her speech and that she was clearly saying that she would hope a white man would not come to better conclusions than a Latina woman in deciding some cases (an obvious racist statement) all of the sheep here decided that they cannot win this argument due to flawed reasoning.
Then they tried to deny the fact that I wiped the floor with the competition and made everybody look immature and uninformed.
…
such courage.
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 5:17 pmThanks for your clinical diagnosis, but as I pointed out, your reputation here for either insight or intellectual integrity is kind of nonexistent.
You are clearly misinformed. Original thoughts and intellectual conversations are very welcome here. You’re just not capable of providing either one, as todays’ events demonstrate.
No, not misquoted. You typed those words in the exact order in which they were quoted, with nothing taken out (unlike what you did to my quote). So, no misquote. It was truncated in order to misrepresent what you typed, to make a point.
It was a dramatic example of what yourself had done with the judge’s speech in order to make her one statement sound like a declaration of racist attitude. You not only ignored the larger context of the speech (crafted around a theme of Latina identity in the judiciary) but also removed the first part of her sentence “I would hope” in order to eliminate the conditional nature of the statement and make it sound more declarative.
The fact that CTH drew you into such a clever trap, and that you are unable to admit even now the similarity of the acts is what is so amusing.
No “believes” about it. You gave us a textbook example of taking a quote out of context. Everyone here with any intellectual integrity knows it.
You did not do this, because you DID take the statement out of context. Simply removing the “I would hope” and presenting it as a declarative takes it out of context, and that error is compounded when you insist on ignoring the previous paragraph in which the judge describes a specific case to which she later refers in the statement you claim is a declaration of racism.
No, not in some cases — in the specific case she was discussing. True, she was seeking to generalize this example to similar cases of discrimination, but the statement that you insist on misinterpreting was focused on a specific case in Minnesota.
Nor is this the “obvious racist statement” that you insist it is — unless you refuse to acknowledge that a judge would have a better ability to decide a case in which he or she has some familiarity through common culture or experience. Because THAT is what the Judge was referring to: cultural experience, not race. Your assumption that it’s about “race” rather than upbringing and background not only proves that you did not read (or at least, comprehend) the entire speech, but also that by focusing on race YOU are the closest thing to racist in the whole discussion.
I know you love to namecall as a means of regaining some of the acres of ground you’ve lost, but it really doesn’t help your case. It probably makes you feel better for the moment, but delusion is not a long-term strategy, JohnM.
The only one who looks immature and uninformed is JohnM.
Oh, and American Parrot, too.
But the only thing you wiped the floor with is your face. Sorry, them’s the facts.
Given the way you stubbornly insist on clinging your own alternate reality, it comes as no surprise that your reaction to the truth is recoiling in fear.
June 16th, 2009 at 5:27 pm>>>
mopped, soaked
and mopped again.
sorry johnm.
…
care to try again?
:)
June 16th, 2009 at 5:36 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
You did not do this, because you DID take the statement out of context. Simply removing the “I would hope”
On the day Sotomayor was nominated by President Obama.
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
——————————————————————————–
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life,”
Judging by this obviously racist statement, it looks like she will have a hard time ruling fairly without undue influence from her own personal race, gender, or political preferences.
May 26th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/26/sotomayor-inhofe/#comments
Tme to move along, you have been proven wrong once again.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:06 pmI have no idea what you think that link proves, JohnM, or who you are quoting, since you didn’t bother to identify the source and it doesn’t appear at the location to which you linked.
If it is a comment of your own, I gotta tell ya, it’s not a very convincing addition to your case, since you’re not exactly a credible witness.
I do notice, however, that you again commit the same sin against me that you wailed against CTH for committing; you quoted a part of my statement and simply ignored the rest after “I would hope”, and you did for no clear purpose.
For someone who continually slams the intelligence and/or education level of others, you seem to have a difficult time both grasping certain concepts and expressing your own positions in a cogent manner.
June 16th, 2009 at 6:19 pm——————————————————————————–
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
I have no idea what you think that link proves, JohnM, or who you are quoting, since you didn’t bother to identify the source and it doesn’t appear at the location to which you linked.
If it is a comment of your own, I gotta tell ya, it’s not a very convincing addition to your case, since you’re not exactly a credible witness.
I do notice, however, that you again commit the same sin against me that you wailed against CTH for committing; you quoted a part of my statement and simply ignored the rest after “I would hope”, and you did for no clear purpose.
For someone who continually slams the intelligence and/or education level of others, you seem to have a difficult time both grasping certain concepts and expressing your own positions in a cogent manner.
Wow you really are dense. This shows that I never took out the I hope part from her quote. The only part I quoted from you was the part I was responding to. You stated that I took the I hope part of her sentence out in her quote, which I clearly did not. So once again, I have proven that the little game of taking part of a sentence out of my quote did nothing but show how ignorant CTH is and obviously how ignorant you are.
Game, set, match. You have officially been worked over and the ref has called the fight.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:25 pmNo, JohnM, it doesn’t show that I “really am dense”. it shows that you either have no concept of framing an argument or you have no interest in others understanding what you post. Your comment was confusing in the way it set up its rather lame premise, it changed direction sharply and it failed to focus attention on its reference.
But let’s address your argument, such as it is; you say “I never took out the I hope part from her quote”. I’d like to emphasize the “NEVER” part, because, taken literally, as you are fond of doing, it means that every single time you mentioned the Judge’s statement, you included the “I hope” part in your quote or description.
All I have to do is find a single instance of you characterizing the Judge’s statement but leaving out that part, and your claim is debunked.
Like when you said above:
No mention there of of any conditional phrase, no “she clearly stated she would hope”, no mention of that part at all — just a simple declarative description of the Judge’s statement.
Boy, that was easy.
Here’s a tip, JohnM: never say “NEVER” when you mean “that one time”.
No, JohnM, once again you have proven how sloppy and short-sighted a debater you are. But you are good on the insults, I’ll grant you that.
You don’t really get to claim anything “official” here, JohnM. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your level of self-delusion.
June 16th, 2009 at 7:48 pm——————————————————————————–
ralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
Wow you really are dense. This shows that I never took out the I hope part from her quote.
No, JohnM, it doesn’t show that I “really am dense”. it shows that you either have no concept of framing an argument or you have no interest in others understanding what you post. Your comment was confusing in the way it set up its rather lame premise, it changed direction sharply and it failed to focus attention on its reference.
But let’s address your argument, such as it is; you say “I never took out the I hope part from her quote”. I’d like to emphasize the “NEVER” part, because, taken literally, as you are fond of doing, it means that every single time you mentioned the Judge’s statement, you included the “I hope” part in your quote or description.
All I have to do is find a single instance of you characterizing the Judge’s statement but leaving out that part, and your claim is debunked.
Like when you said above:
She clearly stated that a female Latina would come to a better conclusion on certain cases because of her race and gender multiple times.
No mention there of of any conditional phrase, no “she clearly stated she would hope”, no mention of that part at all — just a simple declarative description of the Judge’s statement.
Boy, that was easy.
Here’s a tip, JohnM: never say “NEVER” when you mean “that one time”.
So once again, I have proven that the little game of taking part of a sentence out of my quote did nothing but show how ignorant CTH is and obviously how ignorant you are.
No, JohnM, once again you have proven how sloppy and short-sighted a debater you are. But you are good on the insults, I’ll grant you that.
Game, set, match. You have officially been worked over and the ref has called the fight.
You don’t really get to claim anything “official” here, JohnM. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your level of self-delusion.
You do realize that there is a difference between interpeting what she said and quoting her don’t you? I never misquoted her and I never took the beginning part (or any part) out of her sentence. So as I stated before the little game played earlier when my sentence was cut does not apply to anything I said about Sotamayor.
You really are pathetic when you try and weasel out of this argument. I am amazed that you continue to cling onto the false comparison of my quoting of Sotomayor and the quote used against me.
Yes it is official, the game has been called on part of your ignorance, please take your free t-shirt and move on.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:06 pmYes, I realize that, and I also realize that “interpreting what she said” carries the bulk of your argument (such as it is).
If you are going to characterize a statement, then you have an obligation to include any conditionals on it if you’re going to make a definitive judgment (which you are prone to do).
Yet in your very first citation of the judge’s statement in this thread, you stated that it was a definitive statement of racism, completely ignoring the conditional that you say you “NEVER” cut out.
CTH made the point that your repeated characterization of the Judge’s statement — that she believes that a Latina would make better decisions than a white male, almost always ignores the case-specific nature of the original remarks as well as the conditional “I would hope” sentiment that necessarily destroys the validity of your declarative.
As it is, you seem content to parse words as usual and not deal with the scope and import of language in its broader sense. No matter; we’ve come to expect that from you when it suits your purpose.
In addition, you continue to claim the statement is “racist” when in fact it is and always was focused on the Judge’s cultural experience and history, not her “race”. This shows another fundamental misreading of the text and you can ignore it all you want, but it glares up at anyone who cares to pay attention.
You are quick with the ready insults, once again, I must admit. I guess you figure it gives your argument (such as it is) intellectual heft, hm?
But your blatant ignorance of the sharp analogy CTH played on you is pretty amusing.
Suffice to say, JohnM, you’re not nearly as bright as you seem to think you are, and it’s obvious to anyone viewing your posts. But please, keep up the pretense. It provides all of us with some good entertainment.
June 16th, 2009 at 8:39 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
JohnM Says:
You do realize that there is a difference between interpeting what she said and quoting her don’t you?
Yes, I realize that, and I also realize that “interpreting what she said” carries the bulk of your argument (such as it is).
If you are going to characterize a statement, then you have an obligation to include any conditionals on it if you’re going to make a definitive judgment (which you are prone to do).
Yet in your very first citation of the judge’s statement in this thread, you stated that it was a definitive statement of racism, completely ignoring the conditional that you say you “NEVER” cut out.
CTH made the point that your repeated characterization of the Judge’s statement — that she believes that a Latina would make better decisions than a white male, almost always ignores the case-specific nature of the original remarks as well as the conditional “I would hope” sentiment that necessarily destroys the validity of your declarative.
As it is, you seem content to parse words as usual and not deal with the scope and import of language in its broader sense. No matter; we’ve come to expect that from you when it suits your purpose.
In addition, you continue to claim the statement is “racist” when in fact it is and always was focused on the Judge’s cultural experience and history, not her “race”. This shows another fundamental misreading of the text and you can ignore it all you want, but it glares up at anyone who cares to pay attention.
You are quick with the ready insults, once again, I must admit. I guess you figure it gives your argument (such as it is) intellectual heft, hm?
But your blatant ignorance of the sharp analogy CTH played on you is pretty amusing.
Suffice to say, JohnM, you’re not nearly as bright as you seem to think you are, and it’s obvious to anyone viewing your posts. But please, keep up the pretense. It provides all of us with some good entertainment.
Everybody should congratulate Ralphy boy for the most pitiful post of the day! He tries to play a game of semantics, but anybody with a brain knows that I never misquoted Sotomayor in any post, because the evidence is there. The fact that she said she would hope does not qualify her statement, it simply shows her racial bias. You can’t seem to graps this, or you whoose not to. She obviously does believe that a women that is Latina would come to a better conclusion than a white male in certain cases(no that is not quoting her).
I have not in any way taken her out of context or changed what she has said. Your conditional argument does not apply because her saying she hopes is not a qualifier. Her hoping for something does not make it a condition as the rest of the statement is not dependent on it. It merely shows her overall bias in that she hopes a Latina woman with all her experiences would come to a better conclusion than a white male.
Maybe one day you will understand racism on your own without a progressive site telling whether or not it is. Until then I am more than happy to show your ignorance. As for the analogy by CTH, it missed by a mile. Keep digging into my posts, maybe you will one day actually find something that will work as an analogy for my astute observations on the racist judge.
June 16th, 2009 at 9:47 pmPoor, JohnM, resorting to simple insults to try to make up for his lack of progress in defending his persistent arguments.
I think everyone who reads is capable of determining whether JohnM’s argument, such as it is, is at all compelling or convincing.
JohnM’s continued and vociferous insistence that he’s right and everyone else is wrong, ignorant and stupid certainly adds a great deal of intellectual rigor to what is otherwise a simple example of intellectual rigor mortis.
Thanks for playing, JohnM. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:09 pmIs John still tilting at the Sotomayor windmill?
You’d think after being de-horsed the third time he’d call it a draw, and move on.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:22 pmWhat’s with you trolls trying to get regular TP posters to take your side against other progressives, here? In order for divide and conquer to work, you have to actually have a lot of people on your side already. You trolls have no such thing—especially you racist trolls. I know you’re desperate, but thinking you’re going to get us to start tearing each other apart for your sake is a waste of your even your worthless trollish time.
June 16th, 2009 at 10:55 pmralph the wonder locust Says:
——————————————————————————–
Poor, JohnM, resorting to simple insults to try to make up for his lack of progress in defending his persistent arguments.
I think everyone who reads is capable of determining whether JohnM’s argument, such as it is, is at all compelling or convincing.
JohnM’s continued and vociferous insistence that he’s right and everyone else is wrong, ignorant and stupid certainly adds a great deal of intellectual rigor to what is otherwise a simple example of intellectual rigor mortis.
Thanks for playing, JohnM. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.
Yes everybody does know who had the more compelling argument, unfortunately your like-minded sheep will agree with you without regardless of facts.
June 17th, 2009 at 12:06 amJohnM Says:
You do realize that there is a difference between interpeting what she said and quoting her don’t you? I never misquoted her…
OK, so you “misinterpreted” her. Big difference. You’re still ascribing beliefs and motivations to her that do not exist.
The facts are, Alito has said the same thing about his immigrant parents. It’s been commonly accepted for a long time that having a broad diversity of backgrounds on any team leads to better decisions. It brings broader experience to the team with less overlap, and it prevents groupthink situations where everybody agrees with a stupid idea just because they identify with the person who said it. This was all common knowledge until wingnuts got their latest bout of amnesia.
And just because Sotomayor admits that her background may influence her decisions somewhat doesn’t mean that white male backgrounds don’t influence their decisions too. They just would prefer not to say it out loud. Besides, her record shows no such favoritism as you claim.
June 17th, 2009 at 2:55 amThis is getting interesting: Republicans voting against bailing out international bankers through the IMF and a Dem.
president funding a war with no end in sight.
What’s next? Pres. Obama holding secret meetings with energy companies in the WH and denying the press the log of visitors? Oh wait, that’s already happened!
Or will it be the Justice Dpt. denying access to the Supreme Court to a group of anti-terrorist Cuban agents seeking to prevent terrorist acts against their country from Fascist Cuban exiles acting under the protection of local Miami authorities? Oh wait, that’s already happened too!
June 17th, 2009 at 4:24 amThank you..
Sesli Chat
June 23rd, 2009 at 11:36 amSesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Seslikent
SesliChat
SesliSohbet