Please take two valium and get some rest. In the morning, please try blogging something coherent and maybe just a modicum of logic. You quite obviously are a disturbed person.
May God’s blessing and your employer’s EAP ease you towards some tranquility and peace. Eventually, your anger and raving, ranting madness will pass.
Remember, no matter what your state of mind, Jesus loves you.
I moved to an area wher I was a disliked minority. It was an eye opening experience for me. It was extremely difficult. It changed how I thought and grew me as a person. To not understand that we all see the world through the lens of our experiences, is extremely naive.
I believe that to see through the lens of a poor minority woman does provide a broader perspective than a white male would see. However, because the white male lens is so well represented, we don’t need to worry about lack of representation there.
To support a racist to be a sitting Supreme Court judge is idiotic. Let’s hope America’s Communists, Socialists, Leftists, and Democrats can understand that this is not a community organizer slot it is the U.S. Supreme Court.
Check out this wild-eyed commie. You are a dummy – a socialist working in the insurance industry? How silly. No wonder you are going wacko. Why don’t you give everything you own to the government?
Larry Elder
Thursday, May 28, 2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the CIA “misled” her about waterboarding.
What difference does it make, in the grand scheme of things, whether Pelosi is telling the truth? Maybe the CIA did; maybe the CIA did not. So what? Well, it makes a great deal of difference — and not only because if true, the CIA didn’t just “mislead” Pelosi but also committed a crime.
People like Pelosi, who once supported waterboarding — just like the folks who once supported the war — now attempt to rewrite history.
The country turned against former President George W. Bush and Republicans because of the war in Iraq. Yes, many Americans reversed their previous support of the war because of its unexpectedly high human and monetary costs. Yes, many turned against the war because, in its early stages, Iraq seemed on the verge of civil war. To many, the toppling of dictator Saddam Hussein backfired — and made America less, not more, safe.
But what turned growing unease over the war into outright disdain for Bush? As to the case for war — the assumption that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction — many Americans feel flat-out lied to.
This brings us to waterboarding.
Like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, waterboarding serves as a metaphor for the former President’s alleged deceitfulness and villainy. Pelosi denounces waterboarding as torture, yet another outrage by the lying, scheming, manipulative Bush administration.
Pelosi, at first, said she knew absolutely nothing about the administration’s use of this “enhanced interrogation technique.” The CIA disputes this. But by her own admission, the agency told her that it was considering using waterboarding. Wasn’t that enough for the speaker to have thundered her disapproval? What about a letter of protest to the Bush White House? What about moving to cut off funds to prevent the agency from employing a technique that she purportedly finds so offensive?
The CIA pushed back. The agency said that it informed Pelosi, who received briefings, that it not only intended to use waterboarding but, in fact, had used waterboarding. Former CIA Director Porter Goss said that the CIA provided accurate information to Pelosi. Goss further said that the only objection during the briefing was the concern as to whether the CIA was going far enough.
Current CIA Director Leon Panetta agreed with Goss. In a memo to CIA employees, Panetta said, “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed.'” Panetta also wrote: “Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.”
Now, the retreat.
Before declaring in a news conference that she no longer wants to stress the matter, Pelosi praised the CIA. Pelosi said, “My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe.” Does her respect extend to former CIA head George Tenet? Tenet served under former Presidents Clinton and Bush. As for believing Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, Tenet described the case as a “slam-dunk.” Does she now “respect” that he made that assertion in good faith?
So, what does all of this tell us?
It tells us that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, most Americans — including the Democratic leadership in Congress — wanted to prevent another attack. Despite their newfound “outrage” over torture, people like Speaker Nancy Pelosi understood, accepted and even encouraged harsh interrogation techniques to prevent another attack.
As to the case for war, all 16 intelligence agencies concluded — at the highest level of probability — that Saddam Hussein possessed those stockpiles. Yet people like Sen. Ted Kennedy said things like “week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie.” And many Americans — especially those predisposed to believe the worst of the Bush administration — completely bought it. “Bush lied, people died” became a refrain uttered endlessly by Bush haters.
But Bush didn’t lie — and the Democrats know it. Indeed, to extricate herself from Torture-gate, Pelosi now compliments the CIA, the very agency Bush relied on in making the case for war.
But public opinion turned against the war. Then waterboarding became “torture.” And Bush became not simply a commander in chief who, in good faith, relied on near unanimous but faulty intelligence. He became, as then-Minority Leader Harry Reid said, “a loser” and “a liar.”
Disgusting.
And I am part Hispanic. Check out these facts from Anne Coluter. We hope the Repbulicans do not go wobbly on this one. Sotomayro does not represent the views of all or even most, or even a plurality of women and Hispanics.
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
God save us from liberal “empathy.” After President Barack Obama announced his empathetic Supreme Court nominee this week, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, we found out that some people are more deserving of empathy than others.
For example, Judge Sotomayor apparently “empathized” more with New Haven, Conn., government officials than with white and Hispanic firefighters who were denied promotions by the city on the basis of their race.
Let’s hope she’s as empathetic to New Haven residents who die in fires fought by inferior firefighters as a result of her decision.
In the now-famous firefighters’ case, Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven Fire Department administered a civil service exam to choose a new batch of lieutenants and captains. The city went so far as to hire an outside consultant to design the test in order to ensure that it was job-related and not racially biased. (You know, just like all written tests were pre-screened for racial bias back when we were in school.)
But when the results came in, only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to earn promotions.
Such results never entice Democrats to reconsider their undying devotion to the teachers’ unions that routinely produce students who can’t read, write or do basic math. Obviously, disadvantaged children from single-parent homes suffer the most from inadequate public schools — and their tragic outcome bedevils the entire society for the rest of the students’ lives.
Instead, Democrats hide the failure of government schools by punishing the high-scoring whites, Asians and Hispanics, who presumably learned everything they know at home. (If only successfully applying a condom were relevant to firefighting, public school graduates raised in single-parent homes would crush the home-learners!)
So naturally, New Haven city officials decided to scrap the exam results and promote no one.
Seventeen of the high-scoring whites and one high-scoring Hispanic sued the mayor, John DeStefano, and other city officials for denying them promotions solely because of their race.
The district court ruled that there was no race discrimination because the low-scoring blacks were not given promotions either — citing the landmark case, One Bad Apple v. The Rest of the Barrel. (That’s the sort of sophistry we’re taught in law school.)
Concerned that Sotomayor’s famed “empathy” might not shine through in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, the Democrats are claiming — as Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC — that she was merely applying “precedent” to decide the case. You know, just like conservatives say judges should.
This was an interesting claim, in the sense that it was the exact polar opposite of the truth.
To be sure, there is “precedent” for racial discrimination by the government, but Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education. If Sotomayor had another case in mind, she wasn’t telling: The lower court’s dismissal of the firefighters’ case was upheld by Sotomayor and two other judges in an unsigned, unpublished opinion, titled, “Talk to the Hand.”
Not only that, but Sotomayor’s fellow Clinton appointee, Jose Cabranes (who sounds like an “empathetic” fellow), issued a blistering dissent from the appellate court’s denial of a rehearing specifically on the grounds that the case “raises important questions of first impression in our Circuit — and indeed, in the nation.”
A “case of first impression” means there’s no precedent. If there were a precedent, it would be a case of, at least, “second impression.”
If it were merely “empathy” that explained liberal judges’ lawless opinions, one might expect some liberal judges to have empathy for the white and Hispanic firefighters being discriminated against today, and others to have empathy for the hypothetical black firefighters discriminated against in times past.
But all liberals only have empathy for the exact same victims — always the ones that are represented by powerful liberal interest groups. As Joe Sobran says, it takes a lot of clout to be a victim.
Thus, the media and Democrats seem to find successful Hispanic attorney Sotomayor much more “empathetic” than successful Hispanic attorney Miguel Estrada.
After aggressively blocking Estrada’s nomination to a federal appeals court during Bush’s first term solely on the grounds that he is Hispanic and was likely headed for the Supreme Court — according to Senate Democrat staff memos — now Democrats have the audacity to rave that Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice!
If Sotomayor is not more empathetic than Estrada, liberals at least consider her more Hispanic — an interesting conclusion inasmuch as Sotomayor was born in New York and Estrada was born in Honduras.
Forty-four of 48 Senate Democrats voted to filibuster Estrada’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with congressman and professional Hispanic Raul Grijalva assuring them that just because “he happens to be named ‘Estrada’ does not give him a free ride.”
The truth is liberals couldn’t care less about Sotomayor being Hispanic. Indeed, liberals often have trouble telling Hispanic people apart, as James Carville illustrated on “Good Morning America” Wednesday morning when he kept confusing Miguel Estrada with Alberto Gonzales.
“Empathy,” in Liberalspeak, is nothing but raw political power.
how many judges are we to think we know more than anyone else? remember as a judge on a judge only trial, it is one person’s opinion compared to a group of folks. she tries the best to read the law and come up with a solution. sometimes her solutions don’t work and sometimes they do! when you look at the reversals, most of them were either 3 or more judges reviewing. it’s like putting group of folks together and finding a solution. during the solution phase, there can be more than one opinion. each opinion could be right and another might be wrong. some folks strive hard to do things correctly. that does not mean this lady is doing wrong. if i sat a glass on the table and it’s 1/2 full, how many of you would say it’s 1/2 empty and how many say 1/2 full? same sometimes when it comes to make a decision based on what background information they have. also, don’t go blaming any president on anyone’s actions except his own. the supreme court is there to uphold the law and correctly ensure that previous court decisions are correct. they won’t be able to review everything. how many times has the supreme court made a unaminous decision? not many! they usually do split. but both sides do make their remarks on how they stand and that is that. it may seem like she has a lot of activity, but how many of you can say the same? how many of you done something wrong or different than someone else? how many you thought you had made a right decision? how many of you actually turn on your turn signal to make a lane change or better – how many of you actually keep the speed limit?
Elize. You don’t know diddely. A Puerto Rican scored high on that test. He is part of the Lawsuit, you bimbo. So taxpayer money finances Minority Education? You are blinded by hatred. My kids are financed by my wife and I. Sun up to sun down. Day to day. We work our rear ends off. Pay taxes. Treat people like they treat us. Believe in Jesus Christ to soothe our anger. But, you are a moron.
We have updated our privacy policy to be more clear and meet the new requirements of the GDPR. By continuing to use our site, you accept our revised Privacy Policy.
So, So Crazy, Angry, & Disturbed Socialist:
Please take two valium and get some rest. In the morning, please try blogging something coherent and maybe just a modicum of logic. You quite obviously are a disturbed person.
May God’s blessing and your employer’s EAP ease you towards some tranquility and peace. Eventually, your anger and raving, ranting madness will pass.
Remember, no matter what your state of mind, Jesus loves you.
I am white and was raised not to be a racist.
I moved to an area wher I was a disliked minority. It was an eye opening experience for me. It was extremely difficult. It changed how I thought and grew me as a person. To not understand that we all see the world through the lens of our experiences, is extremely naive.
I believe that to see through the lens of a poor minority woman does provide a broader perspective than a white male would see. However, because the white male lens is so well represented, we don’t need to worry about lack of representation there.
And with any luck, Obama will be in office 8 years…
:-))))))
To support a racist to be a sitting Supreme Court judge is idiotic. Let’s hope America’s Communists, Socialists, Leftists, and Democrats can understand that this is not a community organizer slot it is the U.S. Supreme Court.
Please don’t assume that just because I am a woman and Sotomayer is a woman that I like her. BELIEVE ME, it doesn’t work that way.
Check out this wild-eyed commie. You are a dummy – a socialist working in the insurance industry? How silly. No wonder you are going wacko. Why don’t you give everything you own to the government?
Larry Elder
Thursday, May 28, 2009
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says the CIA “misled” her about waterboarding.
What difference does it make, in the grand scheme of things, whether Pelosi is telling the truth? Maybe the CIA did; maybe the CIA did not. So what? Well, it makes a great deal of difference — and not only because if true, the CIA didn’t just “mislead” Pelosi but also committed a crime.
People like Pelosi, who once supported waterboarding — just like the folks who once supported the war — now attempt to rewrite history.
The country turned against former President George W. Bush and Republicans because of the war in Iraq. Yes, many Americans reversed their previous support of the war because of its unexpectedly high human and monetary costs. Yes, many turned against the war because, in its early stages, Iraq seemed on the verge of civil war. To many, the toppling of dictator Saddam Hussein backfired — and made America less, not more, safe.
But what turned growing unease over the war into outright disdain for Bush? As to the case for war — the assumption that Saddam possessed weapons of mass destruction — many Americans feel flat-out lied to.
This brings us to waterboarding.
Like Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, waterboarding serves as a metaphor for the former President’s alleged deceitfulness and villainy. Pelosi denounces waterboarding as torture, yet another outrage by the lying, scheming, manipulative Bush administration.
Pelosi, at first, said she knew absolutely nothing about the administration’s use of this “enhanced interrogation technique.” The CIA disputes this. But by her own admission, the agency told her that it was considering using waterboarding. Wasn’t that enough for the speaker to have thundered her disapproval? What about a letter of protest to the Bush White House? What about moving to cut off funds to prevent the agency from employing a technique that she purportedly finds so offensive?
The CIA pushed back. The agency said that it informed Pelosi, who received briefings, that it not only intended to use waterboarding but, in fact, had used waterboarding. Former CIA Director Porter Goss said that the CIA provided accurate information to Pelosi. Goss further said that the only objection during the briefing was the concern as to whether the CIA was going far enough.
Current CIA Director Leon Panetta agreed with Goss. In a memo to CIA employees, Panetta said, “CIA officers briefed truthfully on the interrogation of Abu Zubaydah, describing ‘the enhanced techniques that had been employed.'” Panetta also wrote: “Our task is to tell it like it is — even if that’s not what people always want to hear. Keep it up. Our national security depends on it.”
Now, the retreat.
Before declaring in a news conference that she no longer wants to stress the matter, Pelosi praised the CIA. Pelosi said, “My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe.” Does her respect extend to former CIA head George Tenet? Tenet served under former Presidents Clinton and Bush. As for believing Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, Tenet described the case as a “slam-dunk.” Does she now “respect” that he made that assertion in good faith?
So, what does all of this tell us?
It tells us that in the immediate aftermath of 9/11, most Americans — including the Democratic leadership in Congress — wanted to prevent another attack. Despite their newfound “outrage” over torture, people like Speaker Nancy Pelosi understood, accepted and even encouraged harsh interrogation techniques to prevent another attack.
As to the case for war, all 16 intelligence agencies concluded — at the highest level of probability — that Saddam Hussein possessed those stockpiles. Yet people like Sen. Ted Kennedy said things like “week after week after week, we were told lie after lie after lie.” And many Americans — especially those predisposed to believe the worst of the Bush administration — completely bought it. “Bush lied, people died” became a refrain uttered endlessly by Bush haters.
But Bush didn’t lie — and the Democrats know it. Indeed, to extricate herself from Torture-gate, Pelosi now compliments the CIA, the very agency Bush relied on in making the case for war.
But public opinion turned against the war. Then waterboarding became “torture.” And Bush became not simply a commander in chief who, in good faith, relied on near unanimous but faulty intelligence. He became, as then-Minority Leader Harry Reid said, “a loser” and “a liar.”
Disgusting.
And I am part Hispanic. Check out these facts from Anne Coluter. We hope the Repbulicans do not go wobbly on this one. Sotomayro does not represent the views of all or even most, or even a plurality of women and Hispanics.
Ann Coulter
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
God save us from liberal “empathy.” After President Barack Obama announced his empathetic Supreme Court nominee this week, Judge Sonia Sotomayor, we found out that some people are more deserving of empathy than others.
For example, Judge Sotomayor apparently “empathized” more with New Haven, Conn., government officials than with white and Hispanic firefighters who were denied promotions by the city on the basis of their race.
Let’s hope she’s as empathetic to New Haven residents who die in fires fought by inferior firefighters as a result of her decision.
In the now-famous firefighters’ case, Ricci v. DeStefano, the New Haven Fire Department administered a civil service exam to choose a new batch of lieutenants and captains. The city went so far as to hire an outside consultant to design the test in order to ensure that it was job-related and not racially biased. (You know, just like all written tests were pre-screened for racial bias back when we were in school.)
But when the results came in, only whites and Hispanics scored high enough to earn promotions.
Such results never entice Democrats to reconsider their undying devotion to the teachers’ unions that routinely produce students who can’t read, write or do basic math. Obviously, disadvantaged children from single-parent homes suffer the most from inadequate public schools — and their tragic outcome bedevils the entire society for the rest of the students’ lives.
Instead, Democrats hide the failure of government schools by punishing the high-scoring whites, Asians and Hispanics, who presumably learned everything they know at home. (If only successfully applying a condom were relevant to firefighting, public school graduates raised in single-parent homes would crush the home-learners!)
So naturally, New Haven city officials decided to scrap the exam results and promote no one.
Seventeen of the high-scoring whites and one high-scoring Hispanic sued the mayor, John DeStefano, and other city officials for denying them promotions solely because of their race.
The district court ruled that there was no race discrimination because the low-scoring blacks were not given promotions either — citing the landmark case, One Bad Apple v. The Rest of the Barrel. (That’s the sort of sophistry we’re taught in law school.)
Concerned that Sotomayor’s famed “empathy” might not shine through in cases such as Ricci v. DeStefano, the Democrats are claiming — as Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs said on MSNBC — that she was merely applying “precedent” to decide the case. You know, just like conservatives say judges should.
This was an interesting claim, in the sense that it was the exact polar opposite of the truth.
To be sure, there is “precedent” for racial discrimination by the government, but Plessy v. Ferguson was overturned in 1954 by Brown v. Board of Education. If Sotomayor had another case in mind, she wasn’t telling: The lower court’s dismissal of the firefighters’ case was upheld by Sotomayor and two other judges in an unsigned, unpublished opinion, titled, “Talk to the Hand.”
Not only that, but Sotomayor’s fellow Clinton appointee, Jose Cabranes (who sounds like an “empathetic” fellow), issued a blistering dissent from the appellate court’s denial of a rehearing specifically on the grounds that the case “raises important questions of first impression in our Circuit — and indeed, in the nation.”
A “case of first impression” means there’s no precedent. If there were a precedent, it would be a case of, at least, “second impression.”
If it were merely “empathy” that explained liberal judges’ lawless opinions, one might expect some liberal judges to have empathy for the white and Hispanic firefighters being discriminated against today, and others to have empathy for the hypothetical black firefighters discriminated against in times past.
But all liberals only have empathy for the exact same victims — always the ones that are represented by powerful liberal interest groups. As Joe Sobran says, it takes a lot of clout to be a victim.
Thus, the media and Democrats seem to find successful Hispanic attorney Sotomayor much more “empathetic” than successful Hispanic attorney Miguel Estrada.
After aggressively blocking Estrada’s nomination to a federal appeals court during Bush’s first term solely on the grounds that he is Hispanic and was likely headed for the Supreme Court — according to Senate Democrat staff memos — now Democrats have the audacity to rave that Sotomayor will be the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice!
If Sotomayor is not more empathetic than Estrada, liberals at least consider her more Hispanic — an interesting conclusion inasmuch as Sotomayor was born in New York and Estrada was born in Honduras.
Forty-four of 48 Senate Democrats voted to filibuster Estrada’s nomination to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, with congressman and professional Hispanic Raul Grijalva assuring them that just because “he happens to be named ‘Estrada’ does not give him a free ride.”
The truth is liberals couldn’t care less about Sotomayor being Hispanic. Indeed, liberals often have trouble telling Hispanic people apart, as James Carville illustrated on “Good Morning America” Wednesday morning when he kept confusing Miguel Estrada with Alberto Gonzales.
“Empathy,” in Liberalspeak, is nothing but raw political power.
Joe– where is your blog?
how many judges are we to think we know more than anyone else? remember as a judge on a judge only trial, it is one person’s opinion compared to a group of folks. she tries the best to read the law and come up with a solution. sometimes her solutions don’t work and sometimes they do! when you look at the reversals, most of them were either 3 or more judges reviewing. it’s like putting group of folks together and finding a solution. during the solution phase, there can be more than one opinion. each opinion could be right and another might be wrong. some folks strive hard to do things correctly. that does not mean this lady is doing wrong. if i sat a glass on the table and it’s 1/2 full, how many of you would say it’s 1/2 empty and how many say 1/2 full? same sometimes when it comes to make a decision based on what background information they have. also, don’t go blaming any president on anyone’s actions except his own. the supreme court is there to uphold the law and correctly ensure that previous court decisions are correct. they won’t be able to review everything. how many times has the supreme court made a unaminous decision? not many! they usually do split. but both sides do make their remarks on how they stand and that is that. it may seem like she has a lot of activity, but how many of you can say the same? how many of you done something wrong or different than someone else? how many you thought you had made a right decision? how many of you actually turn on your turn signal to make a lane change or better – how many of you actually keep the speed limit?
think about it!
Elize. You don’t know diddely. A Puerto Rican scored high on that test. He is part of the Lawsuit, you bimbo. So taxpayer money finances Minority Education? You are blinded by hatred. My kids are financed by my wife and I. Sun up to sun down. Day to day. We work our rear ends off. Pay taxes. Treat people like they treat us. Believe in Jesus Christ to soothe our anger. But, you are a moron.