TheAnvil

ROFLMFAO. Bill you neglect the key difference between the Borkings of Republican nominees and what's been said about Judge Sotomayor - extant evidence for the charges. And there is NO denying her remarks were racist in nature. Using identical standards as Democrats do when judging Republicans, she'd be considered to be a grand wizard in the KKK. Fit right in with one of the Dem's most senior Senators. 'Tis that fact that just has lefties in a tizzy - they've been caught dead to rights showing their double standard and epitomizing hypocrisy on the issue (not an uncommon thing). If you think what's been thrown at Judge Sotomayor is even CLOSE to what occurred to Ashcroft, Bork, Thomas et al, then your memory is blurred to the point where you might want to get it checked out. Rush did say he hopes Obama fails - he also said he hopes America succeeds. Tying the two together is ludicrous in all regards. Mr. Limbaugh has explained that repeatedly. ANY conservative hopes that the Obama administration fails MISERABLY in bringing socialism to the U.S. in any manner. Does that mean they hope America fails? Not by a long shot. Absurd. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

An implicit admission that the Borkers of Ashcroft, Lott, Pickering, et al are partisan pieces of shit? Thank you Bill. So nice of you. At the time of Borking would have been far, far more timely, but thanks nonetheless. I think you should try again yourself. The right's response to the Judge's remarks was quite benign. Newt Gingrich - who's been out of office for how long? - seemed to be the first to point out the racism in her remarks (which is undeniable). Some jumped aboard and others did not. As I said earlier - for the seed sown by the left it's a very meager harvest indeed. The left, in contrast, was quick to scream 'bullshit' and myriad other epithets in defense of her remarks. I don't think any of them addressed the undeniably racist nature of the remarks themselves, but oh well, one might take that as an implicit concurrence. Party of 'no'...nice mantra the left has come up with. Right along with quoting Rush Limbaugh out of context with regard to hoping the President fails. Incorrect in all regards. Conservatives will continue to vote against socialism and inane spending such as the so-called 'stimulus bill' because it's the right thing to do. Call it 'party of no' if you like. Won't make the policies they oppose any less moronic, nor will it garner conservative votes. Try again. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

As I said, she seems quite qualified - in spite of her racist remarks. As I've also said, her decisions seem to be to the right of Souter in many cases from what I've read, so that's a good thing. I don't find the statements - from what's likely several thousand pages of decisions she's written - offensive at all. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Why should they recant? Unlike Pickering, Lott, Ashcroft, and Bork, the Republicans actually have extant evidence from the Judge's own remarks. It IS without question that a white male making similar remarks would be borked into political oblivion, their name becoming synonymous with racism for quite some time. If you're of a certain race and sex, it's OK though - for idiots at any rate. And that's really what has leftists just up in arms. A public, undeniable display of them racially discriminating. I could expect no less of them, given their history on the issue. Nice to be proven correct yet again. Strategically, the Republicans should not have recanted. They should openly state that her remarks were racist, point out the disparity between her remarks and those made by the people I mentioned earlier (and others; my list is by no means all inclusive), and then point out that it's OK with leftists because they discriminate when it's OK to make racist remarks based upon the speakers color. They should then vote to confirm the Judge. She seems quite qualified. The Republican response is why they have issues with much of the electorate. They should mimic the left on this issue and get right in their face on it. They've the far, far stronger position. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

And the left's assault on Trent Lott after his innocuous comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party? Was that bullshit? Was the Borking of John Ashcroft bullshit? Judge Pickering? Was his borking bullshit? How about the vile assault of lies and hatred heaped upon Judge Bork? Was that bullshit? It's without question that Judge Sotomayor's comments, were they made by a white male republican nominee in the same context with the race portions interchanged, would have instantly made that nominee un-confirmable. The left media and the left's political machine would have borked them into political oblivion. Here, because of the judge's race and party, it's OK. If left wingers have a problem with Republicans calling her a racist, left wingers should think about the 'reap what ye sow' proverb. I think she's not a blatant racist and made some racist remarks. I've read her record is actually to the right of Souter's (hard to be left of it in some cases). Compared to what Democrats reaped upon myriad Republican nominees, the Republican response to the Judge's remarks is benign. It's struck a chord, hence the left's whining. Reap what you sow - and it's a small harvest given the enormous amount of seed the left has put out. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

The left media have to play up the Tiller murder for their beloved abortion lobby. Had Tiller not been an abortionist, his murder would have but a fraction of its publicity. Same for the recruiters. In both cases their professions thrust news of their murders onto the national stage. The President's responses indicate differences in the levels of his passion - or more likely that of his writers - with regards to the issues that thrust Tiller and the servicemen onto the national news scene. Personally, I don't care if a President comments on murders publicly and think he's probably better things to do. He took time to do so - perhaps it's a good thing; his choice. The difference in statements is indicative of a difference in feelings regarding the crimes, of that there is no question. Personally, I think Tiller was a brutal, murdering piece of shit, but I don't think he deserved to be murdered any more than the servicemen deserved what their attacker wreaked upon them. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Senator Clyburn's amendment achieved its intended purpose. Bravo for the fight, Governor Sanford. I emailed him and actually got a response back from his Chief of Staff a few months ago. Nice fellow. The Republican legislature can answer to their voters in the next election. Then again, the alternative would undoubtedly be far worse. [barf] Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Perhaps we should flatter leftists in here with a torrent of 'Bush Did It First' responses to dodge any logical (albeit rare) point of argument they come up with? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Check the bastard's socks, I wonder? Did that worthless-should-be-in-prison-sonofabitch ever take that court ordered lie detector test (not that I have faith in such a test)? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

I haven't been about much as of late - work and life have me busy as hell - but this issue caught my eye. Is Judge Sotomayor a racist? I don't think she is. Did she make racist comments? Without question. “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” - Judge Sotomayor Once again, the racially prejudiced bigots of the democratic party show us all how racist they really are. It’s without question that a white male or female making a similar statement regarding any other race would be instantly branded a racist immediately - and I’d agree with those branding them as such. Here, however, Judge Sotomayer is branded a racist neither by the leftists nor their sycophant media. The discriminating criteria leftists use to exonerate her of racism, in spite of her comments? Her race itself. Racial discrimination . . . ahhh . . . but should we expect less from them? After all, they support racial discrimination under the guise of Affirmative Action. Of course, they’ll run like cowards and refuse to admit they support racial discrimination or that they discriminate based upon race for any reason - all evidence to the contrary. Everyone should be used to that now. Their cowardice in that regard has been proven multiple times beyond question. It’s pretty hilarious how some leftists refer to taking this quote in context in defense of racism. Some of the same leftists were likely quoting Rush Limbaugh as hoping president Obama fails - and would run like cowards when challenged to give the complete quote from Mr. Limbaugh. The same lefties were undoubtedly screaming for Trent Lott’s head over his innocuous comments at Strom Thurmond’s birthday party, and later burying their heads in the sand when Senator Dodd stated that former KKKlansman Senator Byrd would have been right during the Civil War - right on the floor of the Senate. Here their discriminatory factor for taking things in context would be party allegiance, not race. Despicable double standard, regardless. In context or out, Ms. Sotomayor’s comments are racist by any rational standard. Peggy Noonan wrote a fantastic article in the Wall Street Journal regarding the Republican response to Judge Sotomayor. It advises them to ignore her blatant racism, face the fact that she will be confirmed, and try and engage her to get a feel for her legal thought processes. I agree with Ms. Noonan that Judge Sotomayor will be confirmed and that Republicans should not engage in Borking. It does little but bring down the political discourse and make fools of those taking part in it. I disagree with her, however, that conservatives should ignore the fact that she has made racist comments and her decisions tend to support institutionalized racism in the form of Affirmative Action. I do not, however, believe they should make said racism or racist comments the crux of their opposition to her. I think they should highlight it, and oppose or support her based upon her judicial qualifications - which seem to be quite impressive. They would be morons to oppose her on the race issue or to bombard her with queries on her abortion views, as she will likely rule on an abortion case and it would be inappropriate to query her on that issue. Conservatives need to question her in an intelligent manner and not resort to Biden-esque tactics that were used upon Bork, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas. Leftists have capitalized on the lie that anyone who opposes race based affirmative action is a racist. It’s a pillar of their rhetoric and their attack machine during any election cycle. It’s a lie that has political inertia. Republicans must realize that until they place another force into play, this inertia will allow this lie to have power. It’s time for them to take the truth and throw it back at leftists. Race based affirmative action is racial discrimination. Those who support it are cowards if they cannot admit that. Ms. Sotomayor’s comments are racist. Those who cannot admit that are cowards. Supporters of racial discrimination are racists. All of the aforementioned are irrefutable facts, that currently lie dormant in the Republican arsenal. It is long past time for conservatives to bring these weapons to bear. If they do so, they will eventually benefit. The truth, rest assured, has political inertia too. It must be set in motion.

If she's incorrect, then by all means prove it. Of course, that's sort of hard to do given extant evidence but by all means try... Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Imitation is flattery I suppose...clicky [dripping sarcasm]But there is no bias to the left in any media outlet, right? [/dripping sarcasm] Fox should be ashamed. Such shenanigans by CNN et al are the reason they became popular in the first place. [barf] Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

I don't deny anything of the sort, and think that portion of history disgraceful. I don't think I'd ever support racial discrimination as a tool or remedy for past injustices of any sort. Such things further the moronic notion of identifying someone by their race. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

He won't answer. He doesn't like what the answer says about himself. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

I've already given them - and you've run with your tail between your legs from them. I'll repeat: Taking gender into account in a decision is gender discrimination. Those who discriminate based upon sex are sexists. No negotiation. Fact. Deal with it. Taking race into account in a decision is racial discrimination. Those who discriminate based upon race are racists. No negotiation. Fact. Deal with it. Affirmative action or any other policy which requires decisions to be based upon race or sex is itself racist racist or sexist in nature. Deal with the aforementioned however you so desire. Facts they do remain. Running from facts won't make them go away. Nor will ignoring them. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Tell that lie to somebody who will believe it. I don't. Run from the facts as long as you like. They'll be waiting when you find the courage to face them. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Ex post facto means after the fact, and changing a tax rate after the fact seems to fall within the purvey of that clause to me. The minute differences between res judicata and collateral estoppel are lost upon me, though I'm sure they exist. A thing judged vice issue preclusion I'd imagine- something along the lines of an affirmative defense for the latter vice relying on precedent for the former. I'm satisfied if you say so dude. I just don't get it. I get the bill of attainder and how to get around that if the Congress so desires. I don't get it not being ex post facto. Just doesn't click in the Vinny brain. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Ahhhrgh. I become more disillusioned with it every day. Actually, I LIKE the regular acquisition processes far more than I like DoN internal processes - that should tell you something. SHIPMAIN is an abomination. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

I think the President's retirement pay is just about right...perhaps a slight bit high, but in the right range. Congress, on the other hand, needs a complete revamp of its retirement system. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

I thought of that too, but from reading the articles in question the constitution doesn't seem to single out criminal activity. I would think it would apply to any aspect of law. It doesn't make sense to me. If ex post facto doesn't apply to taxes, what's to keep Congress from retroactively taxing me at a higher tax bracket for 1994-2007 in lieu of the current budget crises? Citizen, hand it over to the State or else. Lawrocket will enlighten me, I'm sure. I honestly say that I don't get it.

I think DoD should program what it needs and OMB should correct for economic reasons prior to finalizing the PB. At the macroscopic level I'd hope this has been going on for some time.

Run from the facts as long as you like. Facts they do remain. If, in your fantasy world you've concocted for yourself, discriminating based upon race is not racism and discrimination based upon sex is not sexism, then in your fantasy world, affirmative action is not racist. Have fun in your fantasy word. Your fantasy views on this don't comport with reality. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Probably a lot of bad things in the short term. For the long term, capitalism would have run its course. Pain would have been felt. Several banks and companies might have gone bankrupt in addition to AIG due to its holdings. Not having thoroughly examined the assets of AIG myself, I can't say with certainty and doubt you can either. Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

I don't get why it isn't ex post facto. The bonuses were earned in 2008. 2008 is over and changing the tax rate for money earned in 2008 via wage or bonus just seems like it fits the bill. What am I missing? Vinny the Anvil Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

From what I read, the contracts were not performance based, but I'd have to reserve judgement myself. I've no personal desire to read them. Performance based or not, they were paid for work done in 2008. It's currently 2009. I think the willingness of Congress to pass a law ex post facto with regards to a contract between two entities is worrisome in so many regards. To me, this is blatantly unconstitutional - res ipsa loquitor based upon Article 1, Sections 9 and 10. But I'm not a lawyer and don't have your insight into the inner workings of Constitutional law. I don't know what any of these execs did or what their roles in AIG are - my concern is with setting a HORRIBLE precedent due to the anger of the masses that would place contract law within the U.S. on dangerous ground. This should not HAVE to be challenged in a court. Government intervention on these grounds is scary to me. Republics cannot function in a capitalistic manner when the State may intervene in contracts and ex post facto laws may be enacted. I don't like the damned bonuses, but not knowing the contracts, roles of the execs, and the specifics can't comment with certainty as to them. I can state unabashedly that I consider the Congressional response to these bonuses most troubling to my fundamental beliefs in government. Had bankruptcy been allowed to proceed, this mess would not have occurred. Thoughts?