PDA

View Full Version : Slapping Sotomayor from the left.


nicki
06-02-2009, 11:31 AM
All of us know Sotomayor is wrong on guns, but that will get us nowhere with the newspapers and MSM in this state as well as our senators.

So, I have a different approach, one that some of you may be uncomfortable with.

We are at WAR guys, we can't be like the British generals in World War 1 who at first refused to use "MACHINE GUNS' because it wasn't "SPORTING".

The issue is gun freedoms, it is FREEDOM.

I propose we attack on the "Raich case". That was a case involving homegrown marijuania and was a attack on the "Wickard Case" regarding abuse of the "Commerce Clause".

If she gets tagged as hostile to "Medical Marijuania", it is a issue that could cost her votes.

The "Commerce Clause" and the "Wickard Case" will be big issues and we probably have enough "Dems" in states that this is becoming a issue to make this happen.

Nicki

383green
06-02-2009, 12:00 PM
She seems racist and sexist to me, not based on the (overblown?) La Raza connection, but simply because of the quote that I saw attributed to her where she opined that a female Latina should be able to come up with better rulings than a white male. I'm skeptical that the left side as a whole would be bothered by that, though. There seem to be entirely different standards of what constitutes racism/sexism for white males vs. any other combination.

I'm a true believer that racism and sexism are evil and should be eliminated to the greatest extent possible in our society. Despite the tremendous gains which have been made in the civil right arena in the last century, these evils are still alive and well as long as people (particularly people in positions of power) make blanket statements that a particular color and/or gender of person should be better able to answer questions of great importance.

Regulus
06-02-2009, 12:02 PM
Doh! From the title, I thought I would see somebody slapping the left out of Sotomayor.

bwiese
06-02-2009, 1:38 PM
We keep hearing indications that Sotomayor is not proabortion.

With recent drama in news this may be enough to get the left to kill her nomination.

MikeinnLA
06-02-2009, 1:47 PM
We keep hearing indications that Sotomayor is not proabortion.

With recent drama in news this may be enough to get the left to kill her nomination.

I heard Rush this morning and he threw out that bit of bait. Knowing full well how many liberal bloggers follow his every word in order to criticize him. He said, "If she is truly Pro-Life, I may have to support her". You can expect her to announce her abortion stance soon in order to quiet the Left. I could almost see him smiling through the radio.

Mike

nhanson
06-02-2009, 1:47 PM
We keep hearing indications that Sotomayor is not proabortion.

With recent drama in news this may be enough to get the left to kill her nomination.

Isn't Sotomayor Catholic?............she better not be pro-abortion, would not go well with the church.

Steveo8
06-02-2009, 1:50 PM
Does not Catholic and Latino/Latina go hand in hand?

Untamed1972
06-02-2009, 2:16 PM
There seem to be entirely different standards of what constitutes racism/sexism for white males vs. any other combination.


Dont you realize that white males are the only persons on this planet capable of being racist/sexist?

For anyone else it is simply expressing ethnic/gender pride! :thumbsup:

Untamed1972
06-02-2009, 2:22 PM
I'm a true believer that racism and sexism are evil and should be eliminated to the greatest extent possible in our society. Despite the tremendous gains which have been made in the civil right arena in the last century, these evils are still alive and well as long as people (particularly people in positions of power) make blanket statements that a particular color and/or gender of person should be better able to answer questions of great importance.


Think about how the various "minority" groups often refer themselves.....thay call themselves disadvantaged. Not unequal....disadvantaged. What is the opposite of disadvantaged? ADVANTAGED!!

What EVERYONE needs to realize is this....these groups have NEVER sought true equality, true equality was achevied many, many years ago.....but that was not enough. What they have always sought is ADVANTAGE!!! They do not want to JUST be equal with "the white man". They seek ADVANTAGE so as to exact revenge and retribution for the sins of out forefathers. This is why they have absolutely no qualms, issues or reservations about committing acts of blatant "reverse discrimination" against white males, or even throwing "one of their own" under the bus if they do not support the party line.

Exocet5
06-02-2009, 10:32 PM
Think about how the various "minority" groups often refer themselves.....thay call themselves disadvantaged. Not unequal....disadvantaged. What is the opposite of disadvantaged? ADVANTAGED!!

What EVERYONE needs to realize is this....these groups have NEVER sought true equality, true equality was achevied many, many years ago.....but that was not enough. What they have always sought is ADVANTAGE!!! They do not want to JUST be equal with "the white man". They seek ADVANTAGE so as to exact revenge and retribution for the sins of out forefathers. This is why they have absolutely no qualms, issues or reservations about committing acts of blatant "reverse discrimination" against white males, or even throwing "one of their own" under the bus if they do not support the party line.

As a non-white, I have to agree with above. It's almost a sin to be white in public these days....much less to be a white fireman in New Jersey.

All I can say for my group is: coming here to the USA, we pulled ourselves up with hard work, an entrepreneurial spirit, intense dedication to studies for some, and a can-do attitude.

383green
06-02-2009, 10:48 PM
All I can say for my group is: coming here to the USA, we pulled ourselves up with hard work, an entrepreneurial spirit, intense dedication to studies for some, and a can-do attitude.

No matter what color, race, religion, language, culture, etc. that "your kind" come from, that's the right American way to do it. :thumbsup:

As an aside, one of the things that I love about the US is that people come here from all over the world, and they bring their food with them. There's so much good stuff to eat here! :drool5:

Nessal
06-03-2009, 12:16 AM
I'm not white either but I'm glad that I'm not because they get so much sh** for just being white. It's sad really. It's funny how a family of immigrants that came here LEGALLY with NOTHING can work hard and become millionaires. My grandparents came here washing dishes. However they worked HARD and valued education and slowly worked their way up to where they are now.

I feel even worse for their future generation because they don't know HOW LUCKY they really are to have been born here. They can not comprehend how hard life can be. I slowly see the "hard-working" mentality slowly fading away by spoil @ss brats.

CalNRA
06-03-2009, 2:08 AM
Does not Catholic and Latino/Latina go hand in hand?

and they vote Dem most of the time.

Faith takes second place to free government money.

Model X
06-03-2009, 2:19 AM
and they vote Dem most of the time.

Faith takes second place to free government money.

Well i am friends with a lot of minorities, many of them ARE conservative-ish, but they view the Republican party as hostile to immigrants. Which is a major problem that the Republican has in garnering minority votes.

Republicans need to rebrand themselves as the party of freedom for ALL; and caste the Democratic party as freedom for SOME.

It may involve giving up some social issues that Republicans hold dear, but it will bring beneficial economic change (and hopefully not the "beneficial" economic change of the past 8 years which was hardly conservative in and of itself).

cousinkix1953
06-03-2009, 2:28 AM
We keep hearing indications that Sotomayor is not proabortion.

With recent drama in news this may be enough to get the left to kill her nomination.
This is based upon her supporting a Bush policy of not giving family planning money to foreign countries, to be used for abortions overseas. It still doesn't tell us what she thinks about using Medi-Cal funds at a local Planned Parenthood clinic...

cousinkix1953
06-03-2009, 2:34 AM
All of us know Sotomayor is wrong on guns, but that will get us nowhere with the newspapers and MSM in this state as well as our senators.

So, I have a different approach, one that some of you may be uncomfortable with.

We are at WAR guys, we can't be like the British generals in World War 1 who at first refused to use "MACHINE GUNS' because it wasn't "SPORTING".

The issue is gun freedoms, it is FREEDOM.

I propose we attack on the "Raich case". That was a case involving homegrown marijuania and was a attack on the "Wickard Case" regarding abuse of the "Commerce Clause".

If she gets tagged as hostile to "Medical Marijuania", it is a issue that could cost her votes.

The "Commerce Clause" and the "Wickard Case" will be big issues and we probably have enough "Dems" in states that this is becoming a issue to make this happen.

Nicki
Sotomayor is just one of three federal judges, who believes that a state can abolish the 2nd Amendment! In that case, a senator should ask her if they can ban abortions too? What about gay marriage?

The governator wants to legalize marijuana and tax it at a rate of $50.00 per ounce. Some states still have blue laws dating back to Prohibition. You can't buy booze on Sunday, and I get the feeling that many places would like to be entirely dry again. Lets see if she gives a consistent Libertarian answer to all of these "states rights" questions or is just an anti-gun hypocrite...

Untamed1972
06-03-2009, 7:26 AM
Well i am friends with a lot of minorities, many of them ARE conservative-ish, but they view the Republican party as hostile to immigrants. Which is a major problem that the Republican has in garnering minority votes.

Republicans need to rebrand themselves as the party of freedom for ALL; and caste the Democratic party as freedom for SOME.

It may involve giving up some social issues that Republicans hold dear, but it will bring beneficial economic change (and hopefully not the "beneficial" economic change of the past 8 years which was hardly conservative in and of itself).

I think minorities need to get over it and realize Rep. are not hostile to immigrants, they are against open borders and rampant illegal immigration. They need to learn to see the difference.

yellowfin
06-03-2009, 7:53 AM
^ They know the difference, but they're playing dumb.

I say we attack her on her support of the Cruikshank decision on the basis that it made being an accomplice to lynching perfectly blameless. We should publicly frame it in reference to today's extreme distaste for police brutality. I seem to recall a certain incident called the LA riots being at very least in part attributed to police beating -ONE- minority. It seems to me they might object somewhat to a supreme court justice saying police (and citizens) killing over 100 minorities were innocent of all wrongdoing under the Constitution.

7x57
06-03-2009, 9:27 AM
Isn't Sotomayor Catholic?............she better not be pro-abortion, would not go well with the church.

Catholic politicans have never seemed to care one bit what goes well with their church.

And evidence to the contrary would have prevented Kennedy from being elected.

7x57

andalusi
06-03-2009, 10:02 AM
I propose we attack on the "Raich case". That was a case involving homegrown marijuania and was a attack on the "Wickard Case" regarding abuse of the "Commerce Clause".

If she gets tagged as hostile to "Medical Marijuania", it is a issue that could cost her votes.

The "Commerce Clause" and the "Wickard Case" will be big issues and we probably have enough "Dems" in states that this is becoming a issue to make this happen.


I'm afraid you seem way off-base with this one. You are picking minor issues when there is a much more glaring problem with Sotomayor for us on the left: where does she really stand on abortion rights? I'm also concerned about her stance on the rights of government versus the rights of citizens---who gets the edge when those two conflict?---but haven't heard much on her views there or on abortion rights.

1BigPea
06-03-2009, 11:17 AM
I heard Rush this morning and he threw out that bit of bait. Knowing full well how many liberal bloggers follow his every word in order to criticize him. He said, "If she is truly Pro-Life, I may have to support her". You can expect her to announce her abortion stance soon in order to quiet the Left. I could almost see him smiling through the radio.

Mike

Yeah, I heard that too, what a great way to get it out.

7x57
06-03-2009, 11:22 AM
Dont you realize that white males are the only persons on this planet capable of being racist/sexist?

For anyone else it is simply expressing ethnic/gender pride! :thumbsup:

Usually, this is just left up to the listener to figure out from the rules, because it's a bit embarrassing to say you're such a flaming racist that you make special ethical rules for different people. But I have had this actually argued to me explicitly.

In college, of course, where people go to lose their minds and ethics. But she was smart enough to have reverse-engineered the rules and honest enough to state them. Sadly, she was also clueless enough to not be ashamed of it. :eek:

7x57

7x57
06-03-2009, 11:48 AM
What EVERYONE needs to realize is this....these groups have NEVER sought true equality, true equality was achevied many, many years ago.....but that was not enough. What they have always sought is ADVANTAGE!!!

Actually, I disagree with this. The following is probably the closest you'll hear me to sounding like a liberal racist of the type that currently occupies Washington, but it's different if you pay attention.

The really inspirational black writers tend to be from the antebellum through reconstruction for a reason-- a lot of them managed to get a real education, read the Constitution, Locke, etc. and said "yes, that's what I want, and I can get it if no one stops me." The end of that was not their fault--it was segregation and the destruction of the Fourteenth Amendment, especially the P&I clause.

So let's be brutally clear here: this was a failure of white culture, specifically Anglo-American culture. The Constitution was an Anglo-American production, and who would defend it if Anglo-Americans would not? Who would understand it better and value it more? What happened was that they created a system that, with the passage of the fourteenth amendment, simply could not function with partial citizens. This was no secret--it was the design goal of the 14A. But it was unacceptable to too many people who should have known better, and so they refused to obey the law. In a system where the law is supreme that is extremely destructive. What it did was sow the wind, and the whirlwind that was reaped was the loss of rights for everyone. Today no one is a full citizen, frankly, because no one has all the Privileges and Immunities of an American citizen. *Everyone* is now subject to parts of segregation law.

In the eyes of the modern government, everyone is a n----- and the end result of concentration of government power is to treat everyone that way. What we are attempting to do in restoring the 2A is, frankly, attempting to end segregation.

So much for that. But so far as I can tell is that the lasting effect of segregation was a loss of belief in and even understanding of the system, and this seems to be even deeper for blacks than for whites. It is a permanent segregation of the mind. While unfortunate, counterproductive and possibly fatal to the republic, it is not hard to have some sympathy for how it happened. But we have a liberal elite, with an ideology whose foundational concepts and assumptions were created by whites, that fosters and preserves the alienation from liberty itself. So once again, if you want to apportion blame, who gets the most? Quite possibly the white liberal elite who created a dysfunctional culture of dependence and ethical poverty all too seductive to the disillusioned. To a large degree the aspirations of the black community now are what those white elitists told them their aspirations should be. So I do not particularly like laying blame without them receiving a heaping portion.

I think I may have just implicitly called Jesse Jackson and that crowd a pack of Uncle Toms, which is probably a hangin' offense now that the flaming racists control all branches of government. :eek:

Anyway, if someone destroys a carefully-tuned machine through neglect, malice, and ignorance, who would receive greater blame? An operator who followed directions without understanding the consequences, or the designer himself who always knew them? Surely the designer. So let's not let the designers off the hook.

7x57

kermit315
06-03-2009, 12:56 PM
If we are coming up with talking points to turn the public against her, how about the eminent domain case she ruled on in New York that amounted to government backed extortion of a business deal?

cousinkix1953
06-03-2009, 3:38 PM
Catholic politicans have never seemed to care one bit what goes well with their church.

And evidence to the contrary would have prevented Kennedy from being elected.

7x57
The Congress is full of Catholic politicians. They go to confession on Saturday and to mass on Sunday. Come Monday morning they are right back to funding Planned Parenthood and those abortion clinics. The popes have ranted about promiscuity and baby killers for decades. Bernie ward (ex-KGO host) got kicked out of a Jesuit seminary for preaching abortion rights rhetoric in the 60s.

Maybe I will listen; when Benedict XVI excommunicates these heretics and infidels (Kennedy, Biden, Leahy, Pelosi etc) from his church. He decreed that smoking marijuana and polluting the environment are mortal sins and a one-way ticket to hell a couple of years ago on the news. Don't be surprised if he decrees that owning a gun is another mortal sin in the future. So why go easy on the abortionists in his flock? Talk is cheap.

nicki
06-04-2009, 2:10 AM
I'm afraid you seem way off-base with this one. You are picking minor issues when there is a much more glaring problem with Sotomayor for us on the left: where does she really stand on abortion rights? I'm also concerned about her stance on the rights of government versus the rights of citizens---who gets the edge when those two conflict?---but haven't heard much on her views there or on abortion rights.


The real issue is where does the government get authority to tell someone what they can do with their own body.

When it comes to control of one's own body, there are no minor or major issues because if the government can tell you what you can and can't do to your body, they are effectively exercising ownerhsip of you.

In effect, you are no longer a free person.

My original point is simple, hit her from the left and keep her head spinning.

Make her nomination radioactive. We need 51 senators to vote no.
If she gets grilled only from the right, she will be nominated.

Thats why I wanted to make a point why a left sided attack is needed.

Nicki

yellowfin
06-04-2009, 4:50 AM
If the pope declares owning a gun a sin he deserves to lose every follower he has, including my household. The church needs to drop this stupid Eurocentric mindset it has; I am getting so sick of its leftism.

Untamed1972
06-04-2009, 7:10 AM
If the pope declares owning a gun a sin he deserves to lose every follower he has, including my household. The church needs to drop this stupid Eurocentric mindset it has; I am getting so sick of its leftism.


If the Pope declared such a thing would that mean next time I visit the Vatican I can expect to see the notable absense of all the armed guards there?

7x57
06-04-2009, 8:47 AM
The real issue is where does the government get authority to tell someone what they can do with their own body.


I always like the way pro-abortion arguments are generally straw-man arguments that reduce to "if I assume things contrary to the other position, it's a dumb position."

The pro-life position, of course, is that you may do what you like with your own body but not with that of another person. It is also reasonably well understood that a person not capable of consenting must be assumed not to consent to something harmful. Death is harmful.

Not meant to be hostile to Nicki, but I always prefer for the lynch mob to hang me for crimes actually committed and not ones invented specially for the occasion.

7x57

lioneaglegriffin
06-04-2009, 11:01 AM
Does not Catholic and Latino/Latina go hand in hand?

no Catholicism is losing ground in that demographic (and others), but there are a growing number of African Catholics. I know quite a few former Catholics.

GuyW
06-04-2009, 11:39 AM
The real issue is where does the government get authority to tell someone what they can do with their own body.


The abortion debate is about what someone does to someone ELSE's body (aka suck their brains out).

.

nicki
06-04-2009, 11:50 AM
The abortion debate is about what someone does to someone ELSE's body (aka suck their brains out).

.


You know Guy, I agree with Ron Paul on the abortion issue which I guess makes me a PRO LIFE LIBERTARIAN.

My personal view on abortion though is that we could probably reduce the demand for abortions by about 90 percent which is why I am for low hanging fruit goals first.

Even if Roe vs Wade was overturned, we would still have abortion in the US.

The point of the thread though was not to endorse abortion, rather, burn Sotomayor on her left flank because we need her gone.

Our goal should not only be to preserve our 5 to 4 Heller majority, but to increase it. If we get a replacement for one of the 4, then let's make sure that it is at a steep political cost.

Right now what we have in the public view is a bunch of name calling on what I call minor league cases, cases that do not involve substantial cases that would get the government out or our lives.

Restoring the Commerce Clause back to orignial intent would lead to dismantling much of the Federal bureaucracy.

Undoing the Commerce Clause would enable us to restore the 9th and 10th amendments. Those are bigger issues than Abortion.

Nicki

nicki
06-04-2009, 12:03 PM
I always like the way pro-abortion arguments are generally straw-man arguments that reduce to "if I assume things contrary to the other position, it's a dumb position."

The pro-life position, of course, is that you may do what you like with your own body but not with that of another person. It is also reasonably well understood that a person not capable of consenting must be assumed not to consent to something harmful. Death is harmful.



My position is simple, people have a right to control their own bodies, but with freedom comes responsiblity.

Freedom and Responsiblity for one's actions are interdependent on each other.

I find it nuts that a person can kill a unborn child and claim that it is their right, yet support sending someone else to jail because they choose to get high on a non approved government drug.:rolleyes:

I have to agree with the PRO LIFE position. As much as I would like to agree with the Pro Abortion position, I can't justify killing a third party because I made irresponsible choices.

Rape, incest or legitimate medical necessity are different issues and I honestly don't have a answer to those. Those issues represent probably under 2 percent of abortions anyway.

I know unplanned children can be a burden. I have 2 children from my ex, although we are civil, it is a huge financial hit and I will support my children till their early 20's. I want them to have a good start at life.

In hindsight, abortion of the first one and ending any involvement with my ex would have been more cost effective, but the cost to me would have been probably no children, dealing with a guilty conscious and then ultimately explaining my actions to St Pete.

I still probably will have things to discuss, but what I won't be discussing is how I executed some innocent unborn children because they were inconvient.

I have to live with my actions, and dispite all the grief I have had for the last 20 years or so, the cost is far less than if I had choose the abortion route.

Hopefully this clears up any misunderstandings some of you may have about how I feel on abortion.

Nicki

Rekrab
06-04-2009, 12:14 PM
I have to agree with the PRO LIFE position. As much as I would like to agree with the Pro Abortion position, I can't justify killing a third party because I made irresponsible choices.


Last I heard that was the exact percentage.

DDT
06-04-2009, 12:20 PM
The Congress is full of Catholic politicians. They go to confession on Saturday and to mass on Sunday. Come Monday morning they are right back to funding Planned Parenthood and those abortion clinics. The popes have ranted about promiscuity and baby killers for decades. Bernie ward (ex-KGO host) got kicked out of a Jesuit seminary for preaching abortion rights rhetoric in the 60s.

Actually after his conviction for child porn last year a slightly darker image was revealed about Bernie Ward and his departure from the catholic church.

7x57
06-04-2009, 12:20 PM
Rape, incest or legitimate medical necessity are different issues and I honestly don't have a answer to those.


Medical necessity is triage, and as painful as that is we understand it very well. There is also a long-standing, widespread ethical teaching from many cultures and religions that one may prefer the mother's life over that of the child. It would not surprise me if that reasoning is based on the low survivability of a child in general and without a mother in particular, so that it is in fact a poor triage choice in a pre-modern medical setting, but in any case it exists and would not be objected to. One probably must allow the mother to choose otherwise, as occasionally happens when a treatment would kill the unborn child (I recall a case of a mother diagnosed with a fast cancer after conception). There she *is* choosing what to do with her own body, to the advantage of another who can be presumed to consent to survival.

As far as rape or incest, I am going to earn a lot of enemies by saying that they need to be treated the same as the children of rape or incest after birth. Can a two-year old child be killed because it is the product of rape or incest?

The rape or incest exceptions function in a pattern gunnies should understand: if you want to get the camel's nose in the tent, figure out a way to get the other side to agree to *some* exception. Get them to agree that *some* gun, any gun, is evil, and that *some* child, any child, can be killed. That's going to earn me flames, but I think it's the only consistent position. I see no objection to the kind of "safe surrender" rule already existing some places however.

It would help *enormously* to destroy the cultural prejudice against, to be pointedly crude, bastards. There is neither religious nor ethical justification for blaming a child for *anything* another did--before he was conceived, no less. There are other ways to defend the institution of marriage, but a magical belief in transferred guilt or some such bizzare thing is not it. I can and will give theological hell (and that's not swearing) to any Christian skeptics if y'all will handle the others.

And yes, I would raise or help raise my (non-existent) daughter's child by rape or incest.


Hopefully this clears up any misunderstandings some of you may have about how I feel on abortion.


I had reason to suspect that anyway, and tried (poorly) to indicate I was riffing on what you said and not what I thought you believed.

7x57

Untamed1972
06-04-2009, 12:21 PM
The point of the thread though was not to endorse abortion, rather, burn Sotomayor on her left flank because we need her gone.

Our goal should not only be to preserve our 5 to 4 Heller majority, but to increase it. If we get a replacement for one of the 4, then let's make sure that it is at a steep political cost.

Nicki


But if you get her smacked down then Obama will just find some other radical left-winger to nominate next. Just cuz you get her smacked down on her pro-life stance doesn't mean they're gonna nominate someone less radical. They will just find someone with a more pro-choice leaning. She is replacing one of the 4 Heller decenters anyway. So even if appointed that doesn't change the 5-4 balance. There is no way in heck we're gonna get someone more pro-2A out of Obama.

Untamed1972
06-04-2009, 12:25 PM
The real issue is where does the government get authority to tell someone what they can do with their own body.

When it comes to control of one's own body, there are no minor or major issues because if the government can tell you what you can and can't do to your body, they are effectively exercising ownerhsip of you.

Nicki

Which is exactly why SOMEONE needs to be filing injuctions against this national healthcare debacle!

7x57
06-04-2009, 12:25 PM
But if you get her smacked down then Obama will just find some other radical left radical to nominate next.

I still would like to reinforce the current Democratic perception of gun control as the third rail. Every public electrocution helps. :43:

7x57

DDT
06-04-2009, 12:27 PM
That's not necessarily true. Her nomination wouldn't be killed by a pro-life stance alone, it would die because of problems with her stances on both sides. I'm sure that EVERYONE is happier with Harriet Meyers NOT being on the Supreme Court. You can get a better second nominee. It would also put Obama on notice that he can't do ANYTHING he wants. I suppose that seizing control of the auto industry and banking industries ought to be enough for any any president.

Untamed1972
06-04-2009, 12:29 PM
I suppose that seizing control of the auto industry and banking industries ought to be enough for any any president.

It oughta be......but I don't think it will be. He's still 3-1/2 yrs to go! (ugh!!)

GuyW
06-04-2009, 2:48 PM
Our goal should not only be to preserve our 5 to 4 Heller majority, but to increase it. If we get a replacement for one of the 4, then let's make sure that it is at a steep political cost.


I'm with 'ya there. I don't agree with the position that "its OK to replace one lefty with another". Incremental gains is what we need.

.