Canuck57 wrote:
wrote in message
m...
On 26-May-2009, wrote:

she is an
arrogant flaming liberal".
If you expect anything else from the one, you're not living in the real
world

None of us are. We are living in Obamanation. You don't have to pay your
bills in Obamanation and can line others pockets with bailout corruption.
Just toss the taxpayers money to the wind, they don't care. It is
Obamanation, where the Obamamobile comes in any color you want, as long as
it is black.

As we say in Obamanation, charge it. Maybe we will pay later, or maybe not.
Or just send the bills to Obama Government Motors.


Well, at least it's no longer Bushnation....where billions in taxpayer
dollars didn't line American pockets...it line Iraqi pockets.

Where thousands of Americans died based on a lie.

Where greed ran rampant, without checks and balances.

Where millions went without health care.

Where the rich got richer and the poor, poorer.

Yup. That was Bushnation.

I'll take Obamanation over that any day.

..


--

We must change the way we live,
or the climate will do it for us.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2oCYW4ScUnw

I know that conservatards don't care about facts, but where did you
get that she is a lesbian?

On May 26, 10:03*pm, tonysin wrote:
I know that conservatards don't care about facts, but where did you
get that she is a lesbian?

He tried to jack-off to her on TV, but he couldn't get it up.
Yeah, must be a lesbo!

On May 26, 2:38*pm, wrote:
On 26-May-2009, wrote:
she is an
arrogant flaming liberal".

If you expect anything else from the one, you're not living in the real
world

--
bill-o


It's funny watching the wingnuts scramble trying to find something to
smear her with. What I have witnessed today are a bunch of right-
wingers scrambling to find something to oppose this pick on without
making it look like what it is .... politics as usual. I even heard
one wingnut mouthpiece claim that Sotomayor was only appointed to the
Federal bench by George Bush as some sort of political gesture of
goodwill to the Democrats, the obvious implication being that she
wasn't really qualified for the job. I mean, how can she be
qualified .... she's a WOMAN for Chrissakes ... and a Latino!

The irony is that had Obama appointed some old pasty white guy, as is
the norm, all the Repugs would be crying, "Where's the change you
promised? Same old politics as usual!"

It's early in the game, but I haven't yet heard one person give a
valid reason to oppose her. No doubt, the Repugs will try to dredge
(or is that Drudge) up some out-of-context remarks she made in some
decision years ago in an attempt to smear her, but I suspect her
confirmation will go fairly smoothly, assuming all her tax returns are
in order.

On May 26, 10:22�pm, Annika1980 wrote:
On May 26, 2:38�pm, wrote:

On 26-May-2009, wrote:
she is an
arrogant flaming liberal".

If you expect anything else from the one, you're not living in the real
world

--
bill-o

It's funny watching the wingnuts scramble trying to find something to
smear her with. What I have witnessed today are a bunch of right-
wingers scrambling to find something to oppose this pick on without
making it look like what it is .... politics as usual. I even heard
one wingnut mouthpiece claim that Sotomayor was only appointed to the
Federal bench by George Bush as some sort of political gesture of
goodwill to the Democrats, the obvious implication being that she
wasn't really qualified for the job. I mean, how can she be
qualified .... she's a WOMAN for Chrissakes ... and a Latino!

The irony is that had Obama appointed some old pasty white guy, as is
the norm, all the Repugs would be crying, "Where's the change you
promised? Same old politics as usual!"

It's early in the game, but I haven't yet heard one person give a
valid reason to oppose her. No doubt, the Repugs will try to dredge
(or is that Drudge) up some out-of-context remarks she made in some
decision years ago in an attempt to smear her, but I suspect her
confirmation will go fairly smoothly, assuming all her tax returns are
in order.

She graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton.
The wingers screaming above couldn't get into Princeton on the back of
a garbage truck.

On May 26, 10:20*pm, tomcervo wrote:
On May 26, 10:22 pm, Annika1980 wrote:



On May 26, 2:38 pm, wrote:

On 26-May-2009, wrote:
she is an
arrogant flaming liberal".

If you expect anything else from the one, you're not living in the real
world

--
bill-o

It's funny watching the wingnuts scramble trying to find something to
smear her with. What I have witnessed today are a bunch of right-
wingers scrambling to find something to oppose this pick on without
making it look like what it is .... politics as usual. I even heard
one wingnut mouthpiece claim that Sotomayor was only appointed to the
Federal bench by George Bush as some sort of political gesture of
goodwill to the Democrats, the obvious implication being that she
wasn't really qualified for the job. I mean, how can she be
qualified .... she's a WOMAN for Chrissakes ... and a Latino!

The irony is that had Obama appointed some old pasty white guy, as is
the norm, all the Repugs would be crying, "Where's the change you
promised? Same old politics as usual!"

It's early in the game, but I haven't yet heard one person give a
valid reason to oppose her. No doubt, the Repugs will try to dredge
(or is that Drudge) up some out-of-context remarks she made in some
decision years ago in an attempt to smear her, but I suspect her
confirmation will go fairly smoothly, assuming all her tax returns are
in order.

She graduated Summa Cum Laude from Princeton.
The wingers screaming above couldn't get into Princeton on the back of
a garbage truck.

Last week, they tried to make an issue of her intellect... she isn't
smart enough to be a SC Justice... they'll say anything... it's
shameful.

She has been a judge longer than any of the current justices were
before their appointments.

Tom

On May 26, 7:03*pm, tonysin wrote:
I know that conservatards don't care about facts, but where did you
get that she is a lesbian?




If she is one, then I'll say it's about time we had a gay Supreme
Court Justice.

There have been 110 Supreme Court Justices in this nation's history.
Only two have been women. If there haven't been any gays, well,
they're due.

In article
,
Tom wrote:

Last week, they tried to make an issue of her intellect... she isn't
smart enough to be a SC Justice... they'll say anything... it's
shameful.

It cuts both ways.

Do you not remember the Clarence Thomas high-tech lynching?

On Tue, 26 May 2009 20:35:26 -0700 (PDT), "Kurgan. presented by
Gringioni." wrote:

If she is one, then I'll say it's about time we had a gay Supreme
Court Justice.

There have been 110 Supreme Court Justices in this nation's history.
Only two have been women. If there haven't been any gays, well,
they're due.

You haven't noticed that they all wear gowns?

--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."

- James Madison

In article , John Reddy wrote:

In article
,
Tom wrote:

Last week, they tried to make an issue of her intellect... she isn't
smart enough to be a SC Justice... they'll say anything... it's
shameful.

It cuts both ways.

Do you not remember the Clarence Thomas high-tech lynching?


No, since no lynching happened. Thomas himself called it a lynching,
which helped divert attention from the purpose of the hearings. It was
a deft playing of the race card.

Of course, the hearings did not call Thomas' intelligence into
question, so your point is doubly irrelevant.

Absent any real or manufactured scandal, Sotomayor is going to be
confirmed on the merits. The only question is how ridiculous her
opposition is willing to look in vainly opposing her. So far, the
answer has been "pretty damn ridiculous." Ex: The title of this
thread.