Obama picks Sotomayor for Supreme Court -- bye bye Republican Party

Yurt said:
that is what BAC said, and he said he agreed and see post 21 and 22...notice i underlined "simply"
Click to expand...

No twit... I said "While I agree with the above for the most part"

Which means I did not agree with everything he wrote. I do agree that this nomination will help the Dems in 2010, all else being equal. It leaves a strong positive impression... that cannot be denied. That said, as I already mentioned, a lot can happen between now and the next election. There is no such thing as a 'lock' in politics.
 
Yurt said:
do you agree that obama NOW has a lock on hispanics simply for nominating a hispanic to the scotus?
Click to expand...

Superfreak said:
I do agree that this decision will swing the hispanic vote to the Dems in 2010 in larger numbers than before. You cannot deny it is a powerful image that will persuade many that the 'Dems' are on 'our side'.

That said, I think it is simplistic and ridiculous to proclaim one party 'dead' due to this decision. So no, I do not think it is a 'LOCK'... too many other things can happen between now and the next election that could cause another shift in allegiance.
Click to expand...

you post indicates you agree with my statement and then you expanded that the decision will swing the hispanic vote in larger numbers than before...

so, your dumbass name calling aside, you specifically stated that SOLELY becuase of the nomination the dems and obama have the hispanic vote....IN LARGER numbers than before, hence, giving them a vast majority or a lock on the vote.

do you even realize what you are saying?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
for someone claiming to be a socialist, as well as a strong distaste for the liberals of today, you sure make a strong showing of hating the republican party. why is that?
Click to expand...

If you were a Communist in 1933, and you had to choose between supporting the Nazi's, supporting the Social Democrats, and doing nothing, which would you choose? The Communists of 1933 chose nobody, and they didn't exist within the year.
 
Yurt said:
you post indicates you agree with my statement and then you expanded that the decision will swing the hispanic vote in larger numbers than before...

so, your dumbass name calling aside, you specifically stated that SOLELY becuase of the nomination the dems and obama have the hispanic vote....IN LARGER numbers than before, hence, giving them a vast majority or a lock on the vote.

do you even realize what you are saying?
Click to expand...

No you fucking retard, that is not what I said. That is what you WANT me to have said.

As I stated, this decision does have the impact to swing the hispanic vote, just as Gonzalez being nominated did. However, ... and do pay attention because this next part is the one you seem to have a problem comprehending... there is a lot that can happen between now and the next election. Thus, it is not a lock. A point I even highlighted for you, yet you still failed to grasp it.

IF no other catalyst occurs to shift allegiance by 2010, then I do believe this decision will help pick up greater numbers among hispanics for the Dems.

Do you comprehend it now moron or do I have to say it another 400 friggin times?

Side note... you cannot take one statement and pretend that nothing else I said exists. Unless of course you truly are a fucking retard...
 
Yurt said:
you post indicates you agree with my statement and then you expanded that the decision will swing the hispanic vote in larger numbers than before...

so, your dumbass name calling aside, you specifically stated that SOLELY becuase of the nomination the dems and obama have the hispanic vote....IN LARGER numbers than before, hence, giving them a vast majority or a lock on the vote.

do you even realize what you are saying?
Click to expand...

"That said, I think it is simplistic and ridiculous to proclaim one party 'dead' due to this decision. So no, I do not think it is a 'LOCK'... too many other things can happen between now and the next election that could cause another shift in allegiance."

Read the above 1000 times.... or until you get it.
 
Socrtease said:
This. I remember hearing in 1994 that the Democratic party was dead. Both sides keep eulogizing each other while the patient still breathes. Unless righties and lefties have somewhere viable to go, the parties will not die. They will lay dormant for a while, not gaining much ground in congress and that will be further evidence for the die hard fringers to make further claims of death. Then a year like 2006 will come along and the dead party will live again, make more gains 2 years later and so it goes. No one is dead yet.
Click to expand...

Or they'll go the way of the whigs. You don't have a crystal ball.
 
Superfreak said:
"That said, I think it is simplistic and ridiculous to proclaim one party 'dead' due to this decision. So no, I do not think it is a 'LOCK'... too many other things can happen between now and the next election that could cause another shift in allegiance."

Read the above 1000 times.... or until you get it.
Click to expand...

yes, that was AFTER i made my comment that YOU ridiculed moron....you had to clarify your statement, i merely was showing you how YOUR comments caused me to state what i did about your beliefs....

you still are naive and idiotic believing that just because obama picked a hispanic nom, that this will somehow ALONE give the dems a LARGER percentage of hispanic voters.....you still ignore that alberto gonzalous did not give the repubs or bush any larger share, my guess is becuase you know it makes your logic bigotted, simplistic and wrong....
 
Yurt said:
you already know why, why are you being obtuse? when a republican appointed the 1st hispanic to the US AG, did that give the republicans a "lock" on the hispanic vote? what about the 1st black sec state, did that give republicans a "lock" on the black vote?

it is moronic to think that NOW obama and the dems have a lock on the hispanic vote solely for appointing a hispanic to the bench. i don't think hispanics are as myopic and ignorant as you seemingly believe them to be. i honestly thought you would be the last person to state that solely becuase obama appointed a hispanic to the bench that now obama has a lock on the hispanic vote....
Click to expand...


You also seem to dismiss the ethnic communities. Performance, both by the individual and the party, is part and parcel of those selections. Hispanics grew to dislike and distrust Gonzales, he was but a lacky polishing the boots of his Right Wing sponsors and selected for that reason. He used the Justice Department as a political tool at Rove's bidding, and if the whole truth was to finally come out, he(and Rove) would be behind bars. He was no friend of the Latin Community, and a poor example to hold up as evidence of deference to Latins by the GOP, chosen only for the ethnicity of his name. Who can forget his most famous quote, re: the Geneva Convention prisoner rules as being "quaint"? Let's also not forget the current GOP hierarchy's sentiments toward Powell for speaking his mind and how he was used when Secretary of State.
If the Dems currently have a "lock" on the Latin or Black vote, it is for other, more easily analyzed, reasons than Powell, Gonzales or Sotomayor. Another example might have been the current GOP Chairman, but only time will tell if we will be placing him in the 'used' category along with the other examples. As long as he stays out of Limbaugh's/Cheney's sights, I presume he's safe.
 
belme1201 said:
You also seem to dismiss the ethnic communities. Performance, both by the individual and the party, is part and parcel of those selections. Hispanics grew to dislike and distrust Gonzales, he was but a lacky polishing the boots of his Right Wing sponsors and selected for that reason. He used the Justice Department as a political tool at Rove's bidding, and if the whole truth was to finally come out, he(and Rove) would be behind bars. He was no friend of the Latin Community, and a poor example to hold up as evidence of deference to Latins by the GOP, chosen only for the ethnicity of his name. Who can forget his most famous quote, re: the Geneva Convention prisoner rules as being "quaint"? Let's also not forget the current GOP hierarchy's sentiments toward Powell for speaking his mind and how he was used when Secretary of State.
If the Dems currently have a "lock" on the Latin or Black vote, it is for other, more easily analyzed, reasons than Powell, Gonzales or Sotomayor. Another example might have been the current GOP Chairman, but only time will tell if we will be placing him in the 'used' category along with the other examples. As long as he stays out of Limbaugh's/Cheney's sights, I presume he's safe.
Click to expand...

typical liberal response....a minority must be a lackey if they are republican...hmmmm, uncle tom for powell, aunt jemima for rice...

pathetic

and pray tell how have i dismissed ethnic communities?
 
Yurt said:
yes, that was AFTER i made my comment that YOU ridiculed moron....you had to clarify your statement, i merely was showing you how YOUR comments caused me to state what i did about your beliefs....

you still are naive and idiotic believing that just because obama picked a hispanic nom, that this will somehow ALONE give the dems a LARGER percentage of hispanic voters.....you still ignore that alberto gonzalous did not give the repubs or bush any larger share, my guess is becuase you know it makes your logic bigotted, simplistic and wrong....
Click to expand...

"While I agree with the above for the most part.... keep in mind who it was that first nominated her to the federal bench. It was a Republican... not a democrat.

So while I agree that groups will vote in their best interest, allegiances can change. So proclaiming 'bye bye Republicans' is rather silly based on this nomination. "

This was my first comment on the thread you fucking moron. As I stated there, allegiances can change. You then asked me if I agreed with BAC's 'LOCK' comment and I further clarified for you. That was my mistake, I should simply have recognized that you are indeed a fucking moron and given you a shiny ball to play with why the grown ups discuss the issue.

Again you fucking moron.... this most certainly is a powerful message to hispanics. You are an idiot to not recognize its implications. It will most certainly solidify the gains Obama got and most likely will help the Dems gain more ground ...... IF they don't do anything to alter that line of thought.

You are also an idiot for pretending that Bush didn't get any kind of a bump from Gonzalez among hispanics. What you fail to comprehend is that other events took place AFTER that nomination that negated the benefit received.

Do you comprehend now moron?
 
you should have simply made yourself clear when i asked you. stop being such a whiny little boy that you did not clarify that you disagree fully with BAC about the lockstep. it is amazing to me that i was trying politely to gage your beliefs, to find out where you stand and because YOU give an ambigious response that i apparently did not read the way you wanted.... you go ape shit.

my mistake for attempting to engage in rational discussions with you.

i believe that hispanics are smart enough to not simply vote for obama or democrats because he appoints a hispanic to the bench. sure, some will, but not to the level that you and BAC believe. i have no idea where you came up with the notion that alberto's appointment increased support for republicans and bush among hispanics.

you mention that it was alberto's actions afterwards that lost support, don't you see that this actually weakens your point. hispanics will look to the actions, beliefs.....and NOT MERELY the nomination of a hispanic. that is all i am trying to say and you are freaking out over it. i have no idea why you're irrationally angry over this issue.
 
wonder why no one is touching this

“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001
 
Yurt said:
hispanics will look to the actions, beliefs.....and NOT MERELY the nomination of a hispanic.
Click to expand...

And they're going to see a lot of seething hate and accusations of hispanic racism from Republicans. That's not going to help you. What do I mean by accusations of hispanic racism? Just read your own posts for answers. Here's one:

Yurt said:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001
Click to expand...
 
why noone is touching this......

Yurt said:
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion [as a judge] than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” — Judge Sonia Sotomayor, in her Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture at the University of California (Berkeley) School of Law in 2001
Click to expand...

I would expect that it would probably paint the first criticizer as someone who doesn't want the courts looking out for individual rights instead of focusing on allowing greater corporate and government power.
 
I don't know much about her, but I am sure with his law background that it is a good and moderate choice.
 
It is not the party itself, it is what they have allowed themselves to become.

Powell is right, they need to widen their stance and allow more diversity within the party, if not, it will stagnate and die!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top