Empathy Alert!
The Republic is in Great Peril. Thanks to Barack Obama we know have a Supreme Court nominee who some claim capable of empathy. What a chilling thought. Horrors!
In even greater peril is the future of the Republican Party. In opposing such a supremely qualified and relatively moderate nominee as Sonia Sotomayor, the GOP has a real opportunity to cut its current 22% identification level among the electorate down to somewhere in the single digits. Move over Ralph Nader, here come the Cheney=Gingrich-Rove Republicans ready to displace you as leader of America’s third party.
Within minutes of Sotomayor getting tapped, a chorus of Republicans fired the first partisan shots in what will be her prolonged confimation process. She’s too empathetic. She’s an affirmative action hire. She hates white firemen. She hates men. She’s a “reverse racist” (per straightforward racist Rush Limbaugh). She’s not that smart (this last canard launched against the top Yale student in her class by none other than Karl Rove — the man who brought us the genius Harriet Miers).
You and I both know the real reason behind opposition to Sotomayor. It’s simple. She’s Democrat Obama’s nominee. Period. Doesn’t realy matter who she is or how she has ruled.
Now, if the GOP critics play their cards right, they have a golden opportunity in front of them to lblow off the slender remains of the electorate that is Latino, that is female, and that is moderate.
Bring it on.
What’s the over-under on what the final Senate confirmation vote will bw? I say 71.
In the meantime, the Republicans will have oodles of time to further rend their tattered battle flag.
—————————-
Please subscribe to my Twitter feed at http://twitter.com/marc_cooper
Watch my regular Video Blogs by subscribing at http://www.youtube.com/McooperTube
May 26th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
This move was (well, predictable and predicted) brilliant. The GOP has been hoping to make the nomination a wedge issue to gain support and money, but there’s no way you can make this into anything debatable. She’s moderate and well-qualified. And she’s a woman and hispanic, so they risk alienating women and hispanics by attacking her.
May 27th, 2009 at 4:48 am
The Republican negativists are starting to sound shrill… a word normally reserved by pundits for Democratic women candidates.
May 27th, 2009 at 7:09 am
Don’t forget, too, that Sotomayor is a bully – the reason that the Democrats “Borked” the confirmation of John Bolton as U.N. Ambassador. Surely, the Democrats wouldn’t change their positions about someone who is “mean”…and, someone who is mean to others doesn’t have empathy. We need a nice judge – like some good WASP male.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:22 am
Meanwhile, let’s ignore the missile and nuclear programs of Iran and North Korea – except with “very angry letters from the U.N.” That’s it! We have a President with “empathy” towards the remaining two countries in the axis of evil. Well, this is what we get when people put “feeling good” over national security.
- – -
Hey, to help Obama get the decisions that he needs, has anyone thought about this lately.
Boy, that took some twisting of logic to go from what Roosevelt said were his intentions to his actual intention of making the President superior over other branches of government and over our Constitution.
Obama, with the help of a Democratic Congress and the media, is up to a similar task to put the Court and America under his thumb. Sotomayor is a decent start.
Do you think that Obama could get his Court to overturn the 22nd Amendment?! Destroying democracy and capitalism may take more than eight years.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:23 am
Like Marc, I’m looking forward to this fight. Sotomayor is a fine moderate liberal – pretty much the safe pick one would expect from Obama on his first round, first term Supreme appointment. Ramping up the screeds and hatemongering against her is a great opportunity for the GOP blowhards to alienate even more people than they already have. It will put Rush, Hannity, Beck and the “Crazy Party” even more in the forefront of “conservative” image and message.
Perfect.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:27 am
Incidentally, lest we forget Reagan made an explicit campaign promise to appoint a woman to the Supreme Court – which to his credit he kept – and George H.W. Bush, having appointed Clarence Thomas almost solely on the basis of his race and political ideology praised him for his alleged ability to show empathy. Subsequently George H.W. Bush appointed Sonia Sotamayor to her first judicial post.
But by all means, asylum dwellers, go on the attack…
May 27th, 2009 at 8:30 am
“Do you think that Obama could get his Court to overturn the 22nd Amendment?!”
Yes…whenever I take very strong paranoia-inducing drugs that turn my brain into mush.
May 27th, 2009 at 8:38 am
reg: Sotomayor is a fine moderate liberal
Excuse me while I pause to laugh. Isn’t it funny that all conservatives get labeled as right-wing radicals but liberals are “moderate.”
Reagan nominated an independent minded, qualified person who happened to be a woman — and, before a Democrat could appoint a woman based solely upon gender and a pro-abortion ideology.
reg, it’s people like you who said that Clarence Thomas wasn’t really black, and even called him an Uncle Tom. To you, if you don’t “think black” then you can’t be black. You might as well have tried to lynch him.
Obama perpetuates race-identity politics with this appointment, and Sotomayor will stick with the liberal “minority and female” ideology as predetermined by the left — or else!
Obama and the Democrats further divide the country into nice little groups to control rather than bringing people together.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:30 am
Listner, if you’re over here, I just responded to your lengthy comments on the previous thread.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:37 am
I am growing to really love Rush Limbaugh. While the “adults” like Ed Whalen and Ilya Shapiro just dance around it, he’ll say it: the big problem with Sotomayor is that she’s a racist. We know this because she voted against hearing a case where there was an aggrieved white man. And she’s not a white man. Case closed.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:15 am
Please, in your attacks on the GOP, remember the overwhelming approval of this nominee by the democrats without any hearings having started. the judges are to be non-political, yet both parties continue to mock that system by totally supporting or opposing the nominees. maybe they should do their job. If democrats wish to do their constitutionally mandated job then they should be speaking with the moderate republicans who say, let’s wait and see and hear her responses to questioning. But have no fear, the hypocrites in the dmocratic party will pass her with no tough questions. they owe it to the american people to be just as tough or fair with all nominees. i have some serious questions about her decision making that I as an American citizen would like answered. the democrats should quit the fear mongering and racist language and challenge her so that we are certain she is right for the job. But I have no hope that democrats will be fair, they have never been since i started watching politics in 1964. they are whatever they accuse republicans of or only worse.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:21 am
Woody – careful. Don’t use the “L” word. Somebody may start dredging the swamps you inhabit….
Clarence Thomas is THE affirmative action pick on the Supreme Court. Marginally qualified, but chosen soley because of his race and his ideology. You, Woody, are so full of shit, you’re choking on it.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:26 am
When Sotomayor says that she will make decisions based on her gender, race and expereince it sounded so right. But then I am thinking, does that mean a white man with an upper class background and limited expereince outside of his circle of friends should make decisions with the same reasoning as Sotomayor does? She may have life experience but how does that better qualify her in making decisions about the law. Case in point, a city fire department announces testing for promotion. A man with learning disabities pulls himself up by his bootstraps and studies hard, gets the highest score possible and passes along with other whites and one hispanic, and the test is invalidated because a black man was ‘required’ for the promotion. based on her experince with race, she denies his lawsuit, saying it has no merit. Some empathy (oh, I forgot, the law is about race). His achievement should be honored, not denagrated.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:40 am
Yeah, Bruce “…blah, blah, blah…don’t know what I’m talking about…straw man…make some shit up…blah, blah, blah.” Very convincing stuff, based on deep research and close analysis.
Let’s remember that no one was clearer than George Will when Clarence Thomas was nominated that, but for his race, there wasn’t a chance in hell he would have been nominated to the court. Will has also called Thomas’ “natural law” theories “half-baked.” And, of course, GHW Bush invoked, in a very short statement on the Thomas nomination, his capacity for “empathy.”
Which leads me to conclude that asylum dwellers like Bruce and Woody are waving the flag of white resentment because Sotomayor isn’t an ass-kisser who will keep her mouth shut and bow to the righwing judicial activist, Scalia – who literally and blatantly trashed the Constitution in 2000 in the most important case of his nasty career of defending power and privilege.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:45 am
Hopefully, by the time of her confirmation hearings, the Ricci case will have been decided in a manner that takes a sledgehammer to the disparate impact clause of Title VII. Thank God for the only two positive things that George W. did in his eight years: appoint Roberts and Alito.
By the way, in case anyone is interested, here are is a sample and link to some more from that New Haven firefighters promotion test, the one that Sotomayor apparently suspects was written by Bull Connor:
When coupling hoses together, ___ 50-feet hoses and ___ 75-feet hoses will result in a length of 575 feet.
a. 5, 4
b. 4, 4
c. 5, 5
d. 4, 5
http://www.ocfa.org/…/sampexam.pdf
May 27th, 2009 at 11:49 am
reg, it’s not like you can find qualified black judges at every courthouse. Thomas’ record as a Supreme Court justice, though, is good and a heck of a lot better and more reasoned than those of Thurgood Marshall.
Don’t you know that when a Republican chooses a so-called minority that he does so to accommodate a group rather than pandering to them for votes, as do the Democrats. Do you think that Reagan appointed Justice Thomas and signed the MLK Holiday bill because he expected black votes in return? No, such Republican motives are noble without seeking to own any group.
On the other hand, the Democratic Party owns blacks and keeps them firmly entrenched on the Democratic plantation with welfare promises. Now, the Democrats want to add Hispanics migrant workers* to their owned voter crop. Sotomayor will help them to do that and would be willing to give employment preferences to illegals over “favored” and legal whites.
* Footnote 1935 – As this rapid shift of Mexico’s working population occurred, the first labor agreement between the United States and Mexico was formed. Mexico required that U.S. farm owners provide legal contracts for all Mexican workers guaranteeing conditions such as wages and work schedules. The U.S. government, in turn, enforced the border between the United States and Mexico, checking that all Mexican immigrants had the proper work contract so they would not be exploited.
…California state and local governments responded to white farm owner pressure and implemented “repatriation” plans to send Mexican immigrants back to Mexico in busloads and boxcars.
I’m glad that worked out so well.
May 27th, 2009 at 11:59 am
reg, a couple of posts back, you were saying that George Will was an idiot. Now you quote him as a respected authority. Which is it?
- – -
White Cornerback: …two positive things that George W. did in his eight years: appoint Roberts and Alito.
Don’t forget that Bush earlier nominated Harriet Miers, who headed up the search committee and found out that the best qualified person was the head of the search committee — plus she was recommended by Harry Reid. Thank goodness for a conservative backlash on that one.
The answer is d, but don’t give it to me because I’m white.
May 27th, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Woody – for you to claim that Thomas is a better Justice than Thurgood Marshall proves you’re still the stupidest person commenting here. You’re pulling shit out of your ass. Anyone with an IQ above room temperature would be embarrassed to rant on with your trivia and drivel.
A non-asylum dwellers’ look at the Ricci case…
http://mediamatters.org/research/200905260068
May 27th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Suffice to say that Will – who occasionally stumbles on an honest and thoughtful observation – is neither an “authority” on all things, nor a total idiot. The latter fact sets him apart from you…
May 27th, 2009 at 12:11 pm
Oh, I didn’t provide the link in my last response to reg – not that it matters. Depression Era Migrant Farm Workers
- – -
Now, something that does matter:
May 27th, 2009 at 12:37 pm
reg, Thurgood Marshall decided what he wanted the law to be rather than what the Constitution said, had his law clerks write his opinions, and stayed on the court long after he became senile or unable to do his duties.
May 27th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
This is my last one. (Cheering in the background.)
- – -
Rush was right.
Flashback: Limbaugh foresaw Sotomayor pick in ’97
- – -
Marc: You and I both know the real reason behind opposition to Sotomayor. It’s simple. She’s Democrat Obama’s nominee. Period.
Oh, but not so with the Democrats…or not.
WHEN IS A HISPANIC NOT A HISPANIC?
- – -
Most importantly, we need to make sure that Sotomayor’s name is pronounced in accordance with acceptable English standards.
Can we just say, “Hey, you”?
May 27th, 2009 at 2:22 pm
Thurgood Marshall stayed on the Supreme Court when he was ill because he foresaw exactly what Bush would do to dishonor his legacy – appoint some servile midget who “happened to be black” to replace a titan of the legal battle for civil rights. But white racists love nothing more than a servile, ass-kissing Negro like Thomas to prove they’re “not racist.” Thomas was an affirmative action baby who figured the smart move in the Reagan-Bush era, for an ambitious black mediocrity, was to help the right-wing kick the door shut behind him.
May 27th, 2009 at 2:31 pm
“the one that Sotomayor apparently suspects was written by Bull Connor”
This is sheer stupidity and dishonesty – Sotomayor and the majority were affirming the position of the city government in questioning their own test. In fact, the court didn’t rule on the merits of the test itself, but allowed the city to broaden their process. They dictated nothing and, rather than being “activist” decided not to overrule the judgement or discretion of elected officials in a hiring process.
It would be nice if Sotomayor’s opponents had the virtue of at least a shred of honesty in characterizing her record. I guess that’s too much to ask…
May 27th, 2009 at 2:32 pm
Newt Gingrich is a perfect example of Sotomayor’s point – just too fucking stupid to justify his oxygen intake….
May 27th, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Reg — “decided not to overrule the judgement or discretion of elected officials in a hiring process.”
Actually what she did was refuse to allow a suit to go to trial. She didn’t even want it to be heard in court. And the process she was defending, by the way, was a specifically RACIST hiring process, punishing successful whites for the fact that no blacks were able to pass the same test.
May 27th, 2009 at 9:59 pm
More on Ricci…you’re full of shit, WC.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2009_05/018369.php
May 27th, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Apparently WC suspects that Sotomayor is the second coming of Bull Connor.
()I just wanted to write something as stupid as Sotomayor’s critics are wont to descend to, in their throes of white resentment.)
May 27th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
Sotomayor is a moderate liberal – simple fact:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=9f36b707-ef6d-401e-a23a-8b96987b8b5e
May 27th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Reg, if I’m really getting under your skin and pissing you off, that means I’m doing something right.
Regarding disparate impact, my understanding is that in the event of a Title VII suit the city would have needed to show that the test was related to job performance and that they made an effort NOT to have disparate impact. Which they certainly did — by hiring a company to design a “race-neutral” test and setting aside money to “validate” the test in the event there was disparity of outcome, by making the test 40% oral (the maximum it could be according to the collective bargaining agreement with the firefighters), and by bringing in minority firefighters from outside the city to judge the oral results.
I’m curious, maybe you can tell me, what keeps black law school graduates from suing the various state bar examiners, given the much lower pass rate by blacks who take the bar?
May 28th, 2009 at 2:13 am
You’re the one who’s pissed off, apparently because another elitist white boy didn’t get nominated like your heroes, Roberts and Alito.
Nobody cares about your whining…
The short – and obvious – answer to your question is that state bar examiners aren’t newly hired outside consultants, whose performance may or may not be deemed adequate by the elected officials who contracted with them to perform a particular task. Oh yeah…Duh!
May 28th, 2009 at 3:34 am
had his law clerks write his opinions
Shock! You don’t know anyone who ever worked for a judge, do you? You don’t have any idea how the internal process works, do you?
And, hey, what’s with the “lynch” talk? I know this will fall on the hard ground of your empathy, but don’t you think, given the great history of race relations in this country, that lynching images are a little bit ill-considered?
May 28th, 2009 at 7:26 am
reg: Sotomayor is a moderate liberal – simple fact
There’s nothing like “moderate” commenter referencing a “moderate” source to define a “moderate” liberal nominated by a “moderate” President and backed enthusiastically by the “moderate” mass media.
Sotomayor made a “moderate” ruling that states can control guns because the 2nd Amendment only applies at the federal level. In this a “moderate” ruling, she completely ignored the earlier and recent Supreme Court decision invalidating the District of Columbia’s handgun ban.
A judge can’t go around selective declaring parts of our Constitution invalid in individual states, no matter how “moderate” they are. Could a state control free speech, as long as a person didn’t shout over state lines?
Sotomayor graduated from Princeton, a “moderate” university, and one of her “moderate” legal theses was titled “Deadly Obsession: American Gun Culture.”
- – -
Dan O, yes, t I know how the process works, but Thurgood Marshall was so out of it that he left it up to his law clerks to do far more than their usual work, and he required a higher level of personnel for that. Marshall would decide a case based upon his own prejudices, and would have the clerks try to find some legal reasoning to support it.
These quotes from him explain some of his prejudices.
In defending racial setaside plans:
So, Marshall was discriminating against specific individuals of that day based solely upon their being white. It’s wrong to ask one person to pay for something done by others a century earlier.
Maybe he should have gone to Africa and asked for reparations from the black tribes that sold other tribes into slavery, but that would be admitting a responsibility that he wouldn’t have wanted to discuss.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:29 am
Incidentally, I don’t want to litigate the Ricci case because I’m not qualified. But I want to make it clear that I don’t consider the judges who were in the minority, i.e. who took the position opposite Sotomayor, in this case “racists” because it’s complex law and a difficult terrain. What I do resent and consider racist are the brutish terms in which way assault on Sotomayor’s record is being conducted. Especially when it comes from a venomous blowhard like Limbaugh who persistently plays the race card, from defenders of crap like Charles Murray’s crank “research” who go ballistic over affirmative action and embody white resentment, or a creep like Woody who has flaunted his bigotry time and again and is, frankly, a shamelessly twisted piece of shit. Sotomayor has principled critics over matters of law. We’re not hearing them here…
May 28th, 2009 at 7:37 am
Woody – your reading of the DC gun case is, shall we say, flawed. I.E. your head is stuck in the usual place. Literally don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about in terms of precedents.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:46 am
“since this case represents this Court’s first in-depth examination of the Second Amendment, one should not expect it to clarify the entire field.”
Explicit limitation on assumption of a single defining precedent re: various gun control laws included in the Heller decision.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:46 am
God I’m sick of this troll’s racist bilge…
May 28th, 2009 at 7:49 am
“something done by others a century earlier.”
No, asshole. Something you drag into these discussions on a near-daily basis. You’re like a Rorschach of a certain generation of white southerner – totally expose yourself as a product of that filth. The homophobia just makes it even clearer that blatant bigotry is your comfort zone…
May 28th, 2009 at 8:36 am
reg, you’re a total idiot and are intentionally misleading. The D.C. case is exactlly the precedent that Sotomayor should have followed for her decision.
If I don’t know “what the f- that I’m talking about,” then neither does the ultra-liberal Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which even it used “Heller v. District of Columbia” to guide its ruling.
Here’s more: Sotomayor Ruled That States Do Not Have to Obey Second Amendment
- – -
reg, it wasn’t fair to Allan Bakke to be denied entry into a medical school because of his race. It’s one thing to correct a wrong, but it’s another thing when you put the burden on people who had nothing to do with it but happen to be the wrong color.
You’re a c-s racist.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:49 am
The consistent inconsistencies of the NYT:
NYT: Political considerations, life experience only good if we like the results
May 28th, 2009 at 9:38 am
You’re so far in over your head, Woody, it’s ridiculous…
May 28th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Woody – you’re just a whining little partisan bitch. Alito has noted that his life experiences come into play when he considers a case and Scalia has stated clearly that courts “make law” in deciding appeals. George HW Bush praised Thomas for his “empathy.” And the “conservative” majority you worship totally and unquestionably trashed the constitution in the 2000 election for pure political expediency.
Your pissing and moaning against Sotomayor is so deep in the black hole of boring the shit out of everyone I can only assume it’s part of your pathological bigotry and you can’t help yourself.
May 28th, 2009 at 9:51 am
Why lying and misrepresentation come so easily to Woody:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/accountants-helping-banks_n_208580.html
May 28th, 2009 at 10:55 am
Words only a homo would use…
reg Says: Woody – you’re just a whining little partisan bitch.
Well, you don’t have to get snippy, do you?
- – -
Why lying and misrepresentation come so easily to reg via the Democrats:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/accountants-helping-banks_n_208580.html
Oops. Same article that you referenced, isn’t it. In fact, it’s the same story over which I offered condemnation on April 24th, because Obama, Geitner, and the Democrats in Congress pressured the FASB to do something that it didn’t want to do. The Democrats are the ones cooking the books, no matter how much you want to shift the blame.
You and the HuffPost are a little late coming up with this over a month later. And, when I caught you with this after you said that I pulled it out of my rear, you disappeared. Short memory, huh?
Here’s the link. Go read it all carefully, you queer idiot. Woody Says:
April 24th, 2009 at 8:23 am …or, at least read this first part >>>
Congress hijacked accounting standards
Try to lie your way out of this one.
May 28th, 2009 at 11:31 am
Actually those are words I’d only use for a weak, self-pitying little whiner.
I don’t exonerate anyone of any party who has had a hand in this – they all have and I don’t like it at all. Which means I’m not a cowardly little pig who tosses out “Democrat” to shift blame from himself.
Troll: “The Democrats are the ones cooking the books, no matter how much you want to shift the blame.”
From the article:
“So the Bush administration’s Treasury Department asked the SEC and FASB — pronounced FAZ-bee in the number-crunching world — if banks could just go ahead and ignore that rule.”
It’s also evident from the article, the accounting profession is complicit: ” Even the FASB, a quasi-public board with authority to establishes financial accounting standards, has consistently split three to two — three board members with corporate backgrounds standing with banks and an academic and a former investor objecting to loosening the rules.”
So we’ve got three corporate accountants lining up with their masters and an academic and an investor trying to put on the brakes.
You’re a lying piece of racist trash, Woodster. Go to hell. Oh wait – you’ve already created one for yourself and you parade it here relentlessly for our “edification.”
May 28th, 2009 at 11:34 am
Typical that you call me a “homo” – like I give a shit – but ignore the substance of my comment, exposing Alito, Scalia and Thomas – based on their own words and an explicit characterization of Thomas by the Prez who nominated him – as fit targets for the same absurd shrieking and bleating that the Scumbag Right has unleashed on Sotomayor.
You’re lame…
May 28th, 2009 at 11:36 am
Link on Alito and Scalia quotes:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/28/antonin-scalia-judges-mak_n_208531.html
May 28th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
It appears that the right is going to use this occasion–on a relatively safe issue–to see just how far it can go with race-baiting. One of the ironies of Obama’s election is that it has allowed the “[white] race men” to emerge from the cover of code words to challenge Obama, his policies and his choices for positions in his administration on the basis of race.
Sotomayor is racist when she discusses the effect on her ethnic heritage on her judicial decisions. Alito is a humble man of the people when he does the same.
Sotomayor should permit her name to be mispronounced in order to demonstrate her American-ness. Scay-lie-a is a great American (and by the way, what kind of name is “Antonin,” anyway?…a typo?) God forbid anyone from central Europe, Thailand or Wales should be nominated.
We know by now that there is no consistency in either party as to the standards that will apply to Supreme Court nominees. There is a general rule that the victor of the previous Presidential election should be permitted to name his own Supreme Court justice, and then innumerable exceptions to that rule. The best questions we can raise now concerning the Republican/right campaign against Sotomayor are (1) just how racist/sexist will the opponents get? and (2) how much distortion of her record and the role of an appellate judge in the federal system will we see?
May 28th, 2009 at 4:03 pm
Nice summation…
May 28th, 2009 at 4:46 pm
Well, Michael, the Zombies lurch as you speak – let’s hear it for Tom Tancredo ! “Sotomayor=KKK!” If you’re a liberal, ya gotta love a party that’s got frontmen as moronic and hysterical as our Resident Troll.
May 28th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
Tancredo is a total cretin. No shame. They have no shame at all. Watch him tap dance on the Alito quote. Total hypocrisy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSliLDRJqy8
As reg is fond of saying, if this what they have, they have nothing. A completely bankrupt ideology leading a legion of cretins around by the nose.
May 28th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
reg, if you can justify lumping all accountants into a pool of evil just because of what a few were forced to accept under extreme pressure from the Democrats, then it is much more justifiable to lump all blacks into a pool of criminals, since almost one in four black men in the age group 20-29 is either in prison, jail, on probation, or parole on any given day, and they did those crimes voluntarily. Hmmm. I wonder if those accountants were black.
The SEC and Congres have said for DECADES that the FASB better go along with them or they will take over the authority to determine accounting principles and auditing standards.
You’re pathetic when it comes to knowledge of accounting history, financial principles, and the politicization of regulations.
Girly man.
- – -
Micahel Crosby: There is a general rule that the victor of the previous Presidential election should be permitted to name his own Supreme Court justice, and then innumerable exceptions to that rule.
Republicans always allow the choices of Democratic presidents, and Sotomayor will be confirmed. It’s the Democrats who inventing “Borking,” expanded judicial requirements from qualifications to ideology (specifically abortion), have threatened filibusters, and blocked appointments. Put Obama in that obstructionist group when he was a senator.
Better questions are (1) how much will the Democrats resort to calling people “racists” after nominating someone specifically as a racial political attack tool and (2) how much will Democrats demoguge Republicans who legitimately ask questions of Sotomayor in the Senate hearings, something that the American people deserve to hear.
Sotomayor is a pawn being used by Obama to attack opponents who have a right to know what he’s forcing on us. It’s not about picking the best justice. How pathetic.
- – -
reg: Well, Michael, the Zombies lurch as you speak
reg, has no fear of zombies. They only go after people with brains.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:20 pm
The language runs in the family.
reg: Woody – you’re just a whining little partisan bitch.
Harry Reid: Bush Is Kind of a “Bitch” Like His Mother
Perez Hilton: Miss California is a dumb bitch.
May 28th, 2009 at 8:39 pm
I guess we’re not permitted to ask any questions. So far, most of the public only knows that Sotomayor is Hispanic, so that’s enough.
Left-Wing Smear Machine Takes Fight to Sen. Sessions Home Turf in SCOTUS Battle
May 29th, 2009 at 10:19 am
No time for more of your crap, not even to read it…sorry, Troll Boy!
June 1st, 2009 at 5:38 am
It must be very frustrating for you to never beat me. Thank you for your short concession speech.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:06 am
You sorry little sonofabitch – you’ve been exposed here for years as a shameless, bigoted moron. And I’ll take a share of the credit.
Pathetic. Most telling is that when you’re ignored your narcissism and desperation for attention rises to “panic attack” levels.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:38 am
For someone who doesn’t have time to read my comments, reg, you never fail to do so.
It would be nice, however, for you to attempt, even in your feeble way, a logical and truthful discussion. However, takinig away your lies and name-calling would leave you defenseless.
You don’t need to continue to wave the white flag. It’s obvious that you’re overmatched.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:47 am
Woody – go masturbate where no one can see you.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:52 am
Your hero unmasked, TrollBoy –
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/opinion/01krugman.html
Since this expose of one of the worst Presidents of the 20th Century will make you drool, whine and perhaps wet your Depends, go pollute the NYT comments threads with any further moronic, economically-illiterate railing against your betters…
I’m through with you for now.
June 1st, 2009 at 6:57 am
????? Are you projecting, reg? Is that what you do when reading the comments from men? Does that get you off?
Quit worrying. Today should be your happy day. You are now the proud shareholder of a U.S. auto manufacturer. And, this review of Obama by Pravda should make you more joyful.
American capitalism gone with a whimper — It must be said, that like the breaking of a great dam, the American decent into Marxism is happening with breath taking speed, against the back drop of a passive, hapless sheeple, excuse me dear reader, I meant people.
…The proud American will go down into his slavery with out a fight, beating his chest and proclaiming to the world, how free he really is. The world will only snicker.
June 1st, 2009 at 7:19 am
Krugman is a leftist political columnist trying to disguise himself, weakly, as a fair-miinded economist, and he is repeatedly found to be wrong in his presentations.
No Joke By Kathryn Jean Lopez o6/01/2009
.
A Broken Record on Deflation By Allan H. Meltzer 06/01/2009
Your constant quoting of Krugman, reg, just makes you look stupid. But, if you can’t make up your own tales, go to the experts.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:27 am
TrollBoy commits the worst sin…boring us to death by recycling his stupidity.
June 1st, 2009 at 8:42 am
Woody: “go to the experts”
“No Joke By Kathryn Jean Lopez”
Lopez ? Mistress of the NRO Krazy Korner ? Joke !!!!
Meltzer, incidentally, is a Hayekian free-market fundamentalist who only a crackpot like Phil Gramm would invoke…to wreak economic havoc.
June 1st, 2009 at 10:47 am
For someone who doesn’t read my comments, reg, you sure spend a lot of time…A LOT of TIME…on them.
- – -
Why pay attention to the author who merely provided the link to a source, which is all that Lopez did? Rather, go directly to the comments of Krugman and a copy of the prepared speech by Sotomayor about Latino women making better decisions than white men. Krugman is an idiot to say that the ‘wise Latina’ line, from a prepared, reviewed, and published speech, was a joke.
Also, YOU ARE a RACIST for attacking Ms. Lopez.
Anyway, everyone knows that a white man will make better decisions than a Latino woman. You don’t see white men all over the place having babies that they can”t support.
So, Meltzer…not qualified? Go check out his bio in the article. And, are all the other economists who don’t agree with Krugman — especially after Krugman has been shown wrong before — not qualified?
– - -
Below is an article sympathetic to Krugman but calls him and the Obama team out on their mistaken economic assumptions.
Deconstructing Krugman
But, then there are articles like this: Krugman the Story Teller
I’ll give Krugman credit for one thing. He doesn’t always blame Pres. Reagan for all of the world’s problems. Sometimes he blames Bush! But, never, ever the Democrats or Keynesian economics.
Do you know what that tells me, as does most of Obama’s speeches? The Democrats are like little kids who never take responsibility for anything and simply stand around blaming others — like you, who claim to know so much but are ignorant of history.
BTW, I hope you’re enjoying the hiked minimum wages courtesy of the Democrats. As a result, there are unemployed people out there who might otherwise be working. When the minimum wage goes up again this year, small businesses will have to cut more workers. The Democrats care more about a false perception of helping “working families” rather than the reality. And, you better know that an increase in the minimum wage without a corresponding increase in productivity will produce inflation that Krugman denies will happen.
Of couse, then there will also be mandated emplyee benefits on businesses and a “value added tax” on produced goods from Obama, but Krugman doesn’t mention any inflation in those.
More on inflation, the Chinese are worried about Obama cranking up the currency printing presses to get the U.S. out of debt, like this country has done before when it paid back real dollars with inflated ones? But, what do the Chinese know, except how to buy America and put us under their control?
Hey, reg, tell us about your research in economics and all the courses that you’ve had on the subject. …I didn’t think so.
BTW, just so that I can say something about the real topic of this post, here’s something on the drive behind Sotomayor.
June 1st, 2009 at 11:06 am
TrollBoy’s got nuthin’…
Meltzer’s qualified to teach in the academy and to write free-market fundamentalist propaganda for the AEI, Fully qualified…but who cares ?
The articles linked, by the way, don’t address a single line of Krugman’s op-ed. Pure misdirection and ignorance. And also totally misrepresent Krugman and “paradox of thrift.”
An economically illiterate wingnut accountant attempts to counter Krugman and dismiss Keynes and fails miserably. Who’d a’ thunk ?
But bring it on, TrollBoy ! It’ll save $$ for anyone here who uses Ambien.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:11 pm
reg, you, of all people, are hardly qualifed to understand, much less discuss, economics or the qualifications of others who do.
Now, compare your description above of Dr. Meltzer with that below from the link that I provided.
Wow! Did you really miss it! But, why is that not a surprise?
Now, let’s look at your qualifications.
That’s why.
You don’t care about qualifications because you would instantly eliminate yourself if you admitted it.
- – -
If you read my comment and its links you would have found more than one counter to Krugman’s anti-Reagan and pro-Keynes hysteria.
You just make yourself look more stupid all the time, even after I thought that you couldn’t go any lower.
- – -
BTW, your article of Krugman’s did not address a single line of anything within this post. To quote you, “Pure misdirection and ignorance.”
- – -
You better keep a good supply of white surrender flags handy when you want to get into a logical and truthful discussion with me. Maybe you should stick with your name calling.
The way you get whipped so easily, are you French?
June 1st, 2009 at 12:49 pm
You’ve exposed yourself as a bigot and a moron.
Sorry, little man – the only thing driving your perennial prescence here is desperation. No one takes you seriously. Consider all of the time I’ve wasted on your drivel a gift…
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:30 am
Monsieur reg: Consider all of the time I’ve wasted on your drivel a gift…
That’s like opening a present and finding feces inside the box. If that is your idea of a gift, then I wouldn’t want to be at your house on birthdays and anniversaries.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:50 pm
You would never be allowed in my house on any day.
June 2nd, 2009 at 5:54 pm
Well maybe on a leash or in a shipping kennel . . .
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:03 pm
You wouldn’t catch me near your house. I avoid ghettos.
June 2nd, 2009 at 6:26 pm
That’s why you use racist terms like “darkie” from the safety of your keyboard.
June 3rd, 2009 at 7:57 am
Randy, that term was reserved for a specific individual who constantly referred to me as a “^%$&%&% cracker.” Of course, white men shouldn’t be offended or defended, as there are different sets of rules for blacks and liberals.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:40 am
Randy, that term was reserved for a specific individual who constantly referred to me as a “^%$&%&% cracker.”
Two wrongs don’t make a right. I guess your amam never told you that.
June 3rd, 2009 at 8:41 am
That should read mama.
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:34 am
Did your mama teach you that it’s okay to insult some people because of their race and that the “wrong races” shouldn’t be defended?
June 3rd, 2009 at 9:41 am
You’ve never seen me use cracker or redneck here. Again, two wrongs don’t make a right.
June 3rd, 2009 at 11:40 am
When one person repeatedly calls me all sorts of racist names, you never said a word. You’re a hypocrite. But, my one reference did serve a purpose to show that person that the knife can cut both ways – but, not for revenge.
Either be consistent and criticize your side or give it a rest, Randy.
June 3rd, 2009 at 12:31 pm
It’s more that, Woody. It’s terms like Stumpy and it’s the constant racial comments you make as well as racist terms about everyone who isn’t white.
I might also point out that I in fact did defend you against Anna Chruchill’s nasty comments. I would blame your ignoring that on your old age, but frankly you’ve always struck me as feeble-minded.
Being called a hypocrite by you is something I wear with a badge of honor. It’s like being called a racist by David Duke and has as much credibility.
Two wrongs still don’t make a right.
June 3rd, 2009 at 1:02 pm
Being politically incorrect isn’t actually the same thing as being racist. It’s just that I don’t pander to race baiting and say the truth rather than pretend that there is an alternate truth.
And, Randy, I didn’t claim the comment as something of a “right,” which assumes that I had something to gain or protect or for pay-back. It was an illustration of the same thing that Anna did from a different perspective.
You and your blogging buddy reg, have done your share of personal attacks over the years. However, may I expect, in the future, that you will police your own for their wrongs? Otherwise, you’re just a troll.
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:07 pm
Trolly Boy’s Fine Whine !
June 3rd, 2009 at 3:10 pm
oops “Troll” not “Trolly” – presumably Woody, in his throes of “anti-gummint” insanity hates public services like mass transit “trollies” because they are founded on a sense of responsibilty, as opposed to resentment.
June 3rd, 2009 at 5:46 pm
You and your blogging buddy reg, have done your share of personal attacks over the years.
And you of course are as pure as driven snow. Your lack of self-awareness is a thing of wonder.
Proverbs 26:11:
“As a dog goes back to its vomit, so a fool repeats his stupidity.”
You’re a veritable broken record in this regard.
June 3rd, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Wow – God “gets” Woody !!!
November 30th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
I’ve recently started a blog, the information you provide on this site has helped me tremendously. Thank you for all of your time & work.