S.C. nominee

[Turtle]

Turtle, the end justifies the means. Um like man the dude went to jail. How righteous is that! Plus like how far out is it when one bro and his friends can end a war, or police action or conflict or something; man.

My idiot North Korea versus North Vietnam typo notwithstanding, yeah, absolutely. The protesters of the 60's, just like many liberals today, act on emotions and feel-good goals, and do with without regard to any unintended consequences. They don't even think things through far enough to even conceive of any consequences (so much for justice <snort>). And when bad consequences happen, they dismiss them as being someone else's fault (so much for truth <snort>). Making a difference is far more important to them than the difference they make (so much for being the American way <snort>).

I'm not sure sure that this a case of the ends justifying the means as much as it's all about the means justifying the ends.

But, hey, if it feels good, do it, right?

 

[layoutshooter]

Doug, you know NOTHING of the history of Carter and the Middle East, come over my house and I will explain it to you. Mrs. Layoutshooter will help, she is far more aware than you are. I will cite you chapter and verse. Given a bit of time I can look up a couple of people who were there when it happened. Carter blew it.

And drop the stupid remarks about clinging to my duck gun. It is just plain stupid and NOT related. By the way, when I posted the actual bill that Obama voted for in IL that WOULD outlaw EVERY gun like that you did not comment. The current so-called assault weapon ban has the exact same language.

 

[greg334]

If you google "factcheck.org bias" you will see numerous claims that it is biased from BOTH the right and left. The recent thread I started about misclaims from Obama was from there as well.

I can also Google "Hilter living in Argentina" and see numerous claims that it is a fact. You have to get a grip on what propaganda is and how it is used to mess with people. The left has been great with mis-information as much as the right has been with stupid lame remarks.

Recently it checked out a claim that Bush and Cheny had lied about WMD's in Iraq and found that to be mostly non truths.

Ok I thought sarin residue was actually something to do with WMDs? Maybe I'm wrong about that but isn't there something to be said if a chem student can extract sarin from castor beans in his basement but a dictator with BILLIONS of dollars and the UN looking the other way can't. IF anyone thinks that Saddam didn't have WMDs, well they are not thinking.

I find the site to be pretty balanced in their reports.

OK how do you prove that it is balanced? Running against Huffington Post stunning reporting?

Judging balance can be done when you have facts that are confirmed from neutral sources but Annenberg anything is not neutral. Seeing that they have a clear connection makes them suspect that the information is bias from the start and putting it together with the track record of others involved, I can't see anything from them being credible unless it is an obvious truth.

Take it as you will, arguing with people who are clutching their duck guns in fear and those blaming Carter for Iraq and those who state that 60 plus percent of her verdicts are overturned is getting a little futile.

I can't answer about the duck guns but I can about the middle east and carter, you have a lot to learn Doug, a lot of history seems to be missing form your cache of information. IF you can't get the connection, and don't want to learn about that pathtic old man, I really truly feel sorry for you.

The source for the 60% of overturned cases came from, ready for this.... the BBC. Maybe they got it from the Obama administration news service as part of the mis-information project within the WH (you do know about that, don't you?) and it was repeated a few times throughout the day I heard it.

You guys just keep spinning your little half truths (half! that is generous) if it makes you feel superior in some small minded way.

Well you go feel happy about Factcheck.org....

 

[Turtle]

Doug, factcheck.org is, absolutely, biased. While they are pretty balanced, their facts tend to leave out a lot of things that don't support their conclusions on issues that aren't cut and dry. I wouldn't recommend using them as the first, last and only source of truth. Not at all. What they are good for is pointing you at different places to do your own thorough research.

For example, and I don't know what they say about it now, if anything at all, but factcheck.org stated unequivocally that Hillary Clinton never endorsed the reinstatement of the 55 MPH national speed limit. Yet she did, although she quickly backed off that one. It wasn't until factcheck.org was presented with the transcript of her speech at the National Press Club did they reverse their position, which tells you that "their" facts aren't always the facts.


"If you google "factcheck.org bias" you will see numerous claims that it is biased from BOTH the right and left."

Of course you will. Those claims are likewise from people with their own bias, and will claim things based on their own agendas.


As for those clinging in fear to their duck guns, they have justification for that fear. The government has proven time and time again that once they are allowed to start down a slippery slope, nothing stops them. I mean, lawn darts are illegal in the US (and now Canada), for cyin' out loud.

 

[DougTravels]

Doug, you know NOTHING of the history of Carter and the Middle East, come over my house and I will explain it to you. Mrs. Layoutshooter will help, she is far more aware than you are. I will cite you chapter and verse. Given a bit of time I can look up a couple of people who were there when it happened. Carter blew it.

And drop the stupid remarks about clinging to my duck gun. It is just plain stupid and NOT related. By the way, when I posted the actual bill that Obama voted for in IL that WOULD outlaw EVERY gun like that you did not comment. The current so-called assault weapon ban has the exact same language.

I would not step foot in your house, should I change my mind it is next door to George Jefferson's old place right?

As far as you teaching me, I would respond in detail but the thought of you "teaching" anyone world politics sickens me.

As far as it being stupid for you to cling to your duck gun. it is ok we all do stupid things sometimes, for example my trying to enlighten small minded people in a forum such as this.

So you guys have your fun bashing! You lost the Congress the Senate, The Presidency and now just a Supreme Court seat.

 

[chefdennis]

Ok doug Sotomayors 60% reversal is based on the five cases of hers that have been reviewed by the S/C. She many more cases of hers that were not reviewed, and were not reversed. The 60% reversal does not take into consideration yhe cases that were not reviewed by the S/C since they never got there. Judges get reversed; it happens.

So when 3 out 5 are reviewed and are reversed or overturned (ill cover both angles so you don't have to worry about word games) that comes out to a simple 60% reversal or overturn rate...I'd hope that not every case she ever sat in as a fed judge was reviewed! I think even barry would have a problem with that. I mean common sense would tell most people that her reversal rate would only be based on the case of hers that were REVIEWED by the S/C, not every case she ever sat in....lol i am sorry that i and the rest of the conservatives that have talked about this didn't hold your hand and point out the obvious to you......something that isn't reviewed can't be reversed......

I guess fact check didn't bother to 'check" it all, well they probably did, but since it didn't fit there agenda, they didn't feel the need to be accurate...oh and she has another case coming up that the justices will review before her appointment, most thnk that will be reversed or overturned also......

BUT, as i said before, barry as the right to appoint anyone he wants, and he wants someone with the same warpped ideals that he has, so she is his dog in the fight....just as any conservative would point their own type of dog for the fight also.....

 

[DougTravels]

Thank you Chef for making my point.

Factcheck did have the whole story I purposely omitted the end part 3 of 5.

232 cases 3 overturned of 5 reviewed.

Think of it like a football game with instant replay 232 plays, 5 calls challenged with 3 of those 5 overturned. would you then say that the officials were wrong 60% of the time?

I was challenging the spin, and still do.

 

[chefdennis]

doug wrote:

I purposely omitted the end part 3 of 5.

Oh so you decided to change the facts,,,typical,,,,what part of the number of cases that weren't reviewed couldn't be over turned don't you get!?!? If they all would have been, id be willing to bet she would have more reversals....thats also just common sense...but i guess we will never know....

She is good for the liberal racist sector, she has proven that already, oh and the republicans/conservatives didn't lose a S/C seat, she is replacing anothe liberal...so there is no change of power.........yet

Oh and as for looking at it as a Football game.....i am sorry, its not a game, its abiout the Constitution of our country and how it will be enforced.....but i understand how much contempt you liberals have for that document..............so as i said, she fits for you.........

Hey how does it feel to know that she thinks her opinion is worth more/ better then yours as a white male........lol

 

[layoutshooter]

Doug, I am NOT teaching you about politics, just history. Carter blew and I can prove it. I will introduce you to people who were there. You have no idea in the world.

I did not make fun of you, just your ideas. Who the heck is George Jefferson? What does that have to do with anything?

The fact is I KNOW what happened. I was working then, not just sitting around. Tell me, what were YOU doing at that time? What gives you such insight? Talk to my wife, SHE is the ONLY reason that WE were NOT in Iran when it all happened. You see, I had ACCEPTED orders to go there. I am willing to bet a LOT of money that you were NEVER it that positition. I can win that because I knew everyone from our bunch who went there at that time.

Carter blew it, in every way. Even if you agree with him on withdrawing support from the Shaw there is NO defense for him NOT getting those people out of there. HE KNEW that the attack was coming. HE was told by several sorces it was coming. WE told him, and then WE got 100% of OUR people out in time. So did several other agencies. HE ALLOWED those people to be captured. I can PROVE that.

Are people left in the middle of the night, one suitcase per family. They lost EVERYTHING they owned. Things like family photos, kids toys and family momentos. THEN, after they got out the Carter Administration FOUGHT the reembursment for thier loss and FINALLY gave in after 18 months. Many of those people were forced into bankrupcy.

Now, tell me your first and second had experiences on that very sad episode. Sorry Doug, you have NO clue as to what happened.

 

[DougTravels]

She is also an ACTIVE member of "La Raza" and their sister groups

But it seems she is also "Pro-Life"!!!! Wonder how that got past barry....maybe that was is "token" take one for the team....

She has also had over 60% of her decisions overturned by a higher court........

But the fact is, barry can appoint anyone he wants...he is going to appoint people that have the same basic ideals as he does....as would any ither president

This pick isn't going to change the makeup of the court, but the next one might....this one could backfire a bit, if she isn't quite the liberal she is being painted as being...i wouldn't bet on it, but you just never know...but on the 1st look, she sure doesn't look to good.......

So you see Chef you stated as fact that over 60% of her decisions are overturned, firstly 3 of 5 is 60% not over. So even if that was conceded it is still false. It is not a conceded fact but a total spin to further an agenda and either you were fooled or just don't care about the truth.

So if I get the whole picture alot of you have 2 major problems with her.

1 is based on a over 60% lie.
and the other is based on an out of context remark, which does make perfect sense.
The interpetation of a law in a sense is actually stating what the law is, which really is kinda like writing the law.

If you have 2 groups debating a written law and the Supreme Court rules what the law means they in effect just wrote a law.

 

[layoutshooter]

Where were you Doug, and what were you doing when my friends were put through that mess? You claim to know more than I, prove it.

 

[chefdennis]

Doug, i pointed out that barry can appoint anyone he wants, she will get the seat...my issue is she is a liberal and a racist...oh and her record as a judge is really nothing special anyhow.....i mean no one knew a thing about her, including barry , he only met her 1 time prior to appointing her. So much for the vetting process.....she isn't his pick......

 

[layoutshooter]

How come you never give me your historical credentials Doug? I put out MOST of what I know on this subject, If you know more refute it. My backround is real, again I ask, what is yours? What have YOU done in this field?

 

[DougTravels]

Doug, I am NOT teaching you about politics, just history. Carter blew and I can prove it. I will introduce you to people who were there. You have no idea in the world.

I did not make fun of you, just your ideas. Who the heck is George Jefferson? What does that have to do with anything?

The fact is I KNOW what happened. I was working then, not just sitting around. Tell me, what were YOU doing at that time? What gives you such insight? Talk to my wife, SHE is the ONLY reason that WE were NOT in Iran when it all happened. You see, I had ACCEPTED orders to go there. I am willing to bet a LOT of money that you were NEVER it that positition. I can win that because I knew everyone from our bunch who went there at that time.

Carter blew it, in every way. Even if you agree with him on withdrawing support from the Shaw there is NO defense for him NOT getting those people out of there. HE KNEW that the attack was coming. HE was told by several sorces it was coming. WE told him, and then WE got 100% of OUR people out in time. So did several other agencies. HE ALLOWED those people to be captured. I can PROVE that.

Are people left in the middle of the night, one suitcase per family. They lost EVERYTHING they owned. Things like family photos, kids toys and family momentos. THEN, after they got out the Carter Administration FOUGHT the reembursment for thier loss and FINALLY gave in after 18 months. Many of those people were forced into bankrupcy.

Now, tell me your first and second had experiences on that very sad episode. Sorry Doug, you have NO clue as to what happened.

Layout: I am sorry but I cannot answer your question as to my part and wherabouts during said time. Your not knowing the "secret code of George jefferson" has tipped me that you do not have the security clearance for said information.

Chef: You said 60% of her decisions were overturned that is an entirely a false statment.
You omiited the word reviewed either by mistake or to bolster your claim.
The difference between 60% and less than 2% is just flagrant spinning.

 

[layoutshooter]

That is what I thought Doug, all talk with no substance. Too bad, I was hoping for a REAL discussion. Guess I will have to look to other sorces for a good talk. Ok, this is where you say something else to ricicule me or my ideas. Have at it.

 

[LDB]

Doug, I'm sure you won't get this but here it is anyway. She didn't comment on "interpreting" the law. Her comment was on "making policy". Vastly different and totally wrong. It's recorded and available to listen to in her own words. Give it up. She is a Congresswoman hiding in a judicial robe. You are wrong on this one and there's no way around it and no amount of factcheck or any other diversionary tactic will change that.

Her high court reversal rate is 60%. You posted yourself that she has been overturned in 3 of 5 cases brought before the high court. It doesn't matter if she's had 5 total cases or 500 total cases. Only those argued before the high court count as far as her success or failure in high court cases. You are right that she's had 232 decisions (at least I think that's the number I also heard) but you are again wrong on this point because you are putting the liberal spin on it rather than taking it at face value.

Do you factor in a player's numbers from AA and AAA farm clubs as he worked his way up to the big show too? Those numbers don't count any more than their numbers all season long count if they make it to the world series and series stats are discussed. It's only the numbers in the series that count for that average and it's only the cases heard before the high court that count for those numbers. Sorry to spill some of your koolaid but that's how it is.

 

[LDB]

If you have 2 groups debating a written law and the Supreme Court rules what the law means they in effect just wrote a law.

You don't really know that little about how it works do you? You're just saying this to try to goad people and not due to that much ignorance of the judicial branch and process aren't you?

 

[DougTravels]

Doug, I'm sure you won't get this but here it is anyway. She didn't comment on "interpreting" the law. Her comment was on "making policy". Vastly different and totally wrong. It's recorded and available to listen to in her own words. Give it up. She is a Congresswoman hiding in a judicial robe. You are wrong on this one and there's no way around it and no amount of factcheck or any other diversionary tactic will change that.

Her high court reversal rate is 60%. You posted yourself that she has been overturned in 3 of 5 cases brought before the high court. It doesn't matter if she's had 5 total cases or 500 total cases. Only those argued before the high court count as far as her success or failure in high court cases. You are right that she's had 232 decisions (at least I think that's the number I also heard) but you are again wrong on this point because you are putting the liberal spin on it rather than taking it at face value.

Do you factor in a player's numbers from AA and AAA farm clubs as he worked his way up to the big show too? Those numbers don't count any more than their numbers all season long count if they make it to the world series and series stats are discussed. It's only the numbers in the series that count for that average and it's only the cases heard before the high court that count for those numbers. Sorry to spill some of your koolaid but that's how it is.

Guess what interpreting the law does?

Let Me Answer ME ME....... it makes policy duh


Chef did not mention "high court" cases, he made a blanket statment that

"60% of her decisions are overturned"

That is not true.

It is total spin and you know it!

If she heard 232 cases and 3 were overturned it is not 60%!!

 

[layoutshooter]

No real answer Doug? What are you afraid of?

 

[LDB]

No, a neutral interpretation doesn't make new policy, it merely affirms meaning and legality... unless one has a need for spin either in the law or what interpretation means. It is no different than a jury. The facts are A, B, C. The law says X. It is not making new law/policy to adjudicate X based on A, B, C. She on the other hand advocates deciding F as a new option if X doesn't fit the bigotry/prejudice of the jurist, in this case her. That's what's wrong and will always be wrong... besides your understanding and idea on it that is.