NationStates Jolt Archive

By a partisan vote (is there anything else? :rolleyes:) Justice Alito confirmation goes to the full vote of the US Senate.

According to the news, it is apparent that the Senate Dems WILL NOT filibuster this nominee.

Even after I wrote both of my state's senators and specifically asked them to filibuster? Damn, I knew I should have hired a high-priced lobbyist.

Meh! He sounds like a smarter version of Thomas.

Hopefully he turns out to be an honest judge and not some idealogue.

Time will tell.....

Oh and to your partisan comment; I am sure you cons would be all for fairly evaluating a liberal judge on his knowledge of the law. :rolleyes:

Meh! He sounds like a smarter version of Thomas.

Hopefully he turns out to be an honest judge and not some idealogue.
You do realize this second sentence inherently conflicts with your first sentence?

You do realize this second sentence inherently conflicts with your first sentence?

Not really. Thomas is a lousy judge. Got pisspoor ratings from the bar. You would have to work to be worst them him.

A conservative can be an honest judge. Time will tell.....

Meh! He sounds like a smarter version of Thomas.

Hopefully he turns out to be an honest judge and not some idealogue.

Time will tell.....

Oh and to your partisan comment; I am sure you cons would be all for fairly evaluating a liberal judge on his knowledge of the law. :rolleyes:
He could hardly be a stupider version, now could he?

(Cheap shot, I know, but I couldn't resist. :D )

He could hardly be a stupider version, now could he?

(Cheap shot, I know, but I couldn't resist. :D )
Considering his education and record, it would be extremely difficult to categorize Alito as "stupid".

It's one thing to be afraid of a judge who just does what another judge does.

It's quite another to be afraid of one who is skillful enough to write a decision that could ruin your day for the next 100 years.

Not really. Thomas is a lousy judge. Got pisspoor ratings from the bar. You would have to work to be worst them him.

A conservative can be an honest judge. Time will tell.....
Only Alito's not a conservative. He's a neo-con. There's nothing actually conservative about that group -- and not much that's honest, either.

Considering his education and record, it would be extremely difficult to categorize Alito as "stupid".

It's one thing to be afraid of a judge who just does what another judge does.

It's quite another to be afraid of one who is skillful enough to write a decision that could ruin your day for the next 100 years.
Meow, kitty-kitty.

(It was a joke, for crying out loud. You want to get serious, read my other post.)

He could hardly be a stupider version, now could he?

(Cheap shot, I know, but I couldn't resist. :D )

No worries. I know I probably deserve a smackdown from time to time ;)

Considering his education and record, it would be extremely difficult to categorize Alito as "stupid".


Hmmm where did Kerry and the shrub go to school? ;)

Only Alito's not a conservative. He's a neo-con. There's nothing actually conservative about that group -- and not much that's honest, either.

He is? Damn I am asleep at the switch.

Well the confirmation hearings don't really allow for honesty much anymore.

Especially when you have Bork and his people teaching people how to get through them.....

Considering his education and record, it would be extremely difficult to categorize Alito as "stupid".

It's one thing to be afraid of a judge who just does what another judge does.

It's quite another to be afraid of one who is skillful enough to write a decision that could ruin your day for the next 100 years.
I threw up my hands when I knew we were facing both a retirement and a death on the Supreme Court. You can't leave the seats empty, and under Bush, there was absolutely no way we weren't going to get 2 neo-cons. Even before Roberts was nominated, I said the only proper course is to stay the hell out of court.

Mark my words, we'll see a rush by right-wingers to bring cases to the SC now. The trick will be to prevent cases from being brought at all and/or to force settlements before a case rises to the SC level.

As for any poor innocent bastards languishing on a death row or at Gitmo -- sorry, boys, game over.

No worries. I know I probably deserve a smackdown from time to time ;)
Oops! No, I meant a cheap shot at Thomas. I don't take shots at my own side (well, hardly ever...). :D

He is? Damn I am asleep at the switch.

Well the confirmation hearings don't really allow for honesty much anymore.

Especially when you have Bork and his people teaching people how to get through them.....
You can only spot a neo-con by looking at their actions. They don't announce themselves. For instance, they call themselves Republicans, but they believe in neither fiscal restraint (they spend like the Rapture is coming) nor the republic ("unitary power of the president," anyone?). They call themselves conservatives, yet they run around rewriting laws and upending long-standing custom like a bunch of radicals.

All lawyers and judges must be able to put aside their own beliefs and work with the law, regardless of what they think of it. Alito and Roberts may do that in the end, but neo-cons typically promise to be centrists or constructionists in order to get powerful jobs and then go ahead and promote the neo-con agenda whether it's appropriate or not. We've already seen that Roberts, on the New Hampshire parental consent for abortion law, voted exactly the way he said he would before he even heard the case. If he does that two more times, it's not a coincidence. I don't expect much different from Alito.

Why do they even have the hearings anymore? All of the Republicans voted for Alito, while all of the Democrats voted against him, just as 15 of the 18 senators announced their votes before the committee's session even began, the session was a waste of time.

Partisan politics are never going to die.

You can only spot a neo-con by looking at their actions. They don't announce themselves. For instance, they call themselves Republicans, but they believe in neither fiscal restraint (they spend like the Rapture is coming) nor the republic ("unitary power of the president," anyone?). They call themselves conservatives, yet they run around rewriting laws and upending long-standing custom like a bunch of radicals.

You can't tell ANYONE by anything BUT their behavior.

The question about changing things comes to this, though, between
your "neo-cons" (which I might describe rather as America-Firsters who are
into less coersive legislation and a trust in the voter as opposed to an elite
minority calling themselves judges) and the "left": We're the "good guys" so
we should do what we can to win power for our people from those
unprincipled tyrants on the other side.

That could, of course, come from either the "neo-cons" or from "the left".

The answer as to who is correct (right) will be borne out by the results of
their respective behaviors.


All lawyers and judges must be able to put aside their own beliefs and work with the law, regardless of what they think of it. Alito and Roberts may do that in the end, but neo-cons typically promise to be centrists or constructionists in order to get powerful jobs and then go ahead and promote the neo-con agenda whether it's appropriate or not.

If indeed the "neo-con" (America-Firsters) are right, though, their agenda
should prove beneficial, and the actions taken by them as "judges" must be
judged as a good thing.

"The Left" is constantly telling people what is right and wrong. And they do
so as judges. Now there's a judge who may be for something they're against.
So what? Let's see what happens, and judge the pudding by it's delightful
flavor.


We've already seen that Roberts, on the New Hampshire parental consent for abortion law, voted exactly the way he said he would before he even heard the case. If he does that two more times, it's not a coincidence. I don't expect much different from Alito.



-Iakeo

By a partisan vote (is there anything else? :rolleyes:) Justice Alito confirmation goes to the full vote of the US Senate.

According to the news, it is apparent that the Senate Dems WILL NOT filibuster this nominee.
So much for Specter being pro-choice--talk really is cheap.

And don't rule out the filibuster just yet--the news is reporting it as though there's an agreement not to do so, but unless something happened in the last couple of hours, the Democratic caucus has announced no such thing. I hope they do--it's a win-win for the Democrats.

Hmmm where did Kerry and the shrub go to school? ;)
Yes, but what did they do with their education afterwards.

It's rather difficult to become a respected jurist who is seen by the ABA as "well qualified" for the Supreme Court.

Bush and Kerry couldn't light a match with their brainpower put together.

it's a win-win for the Democrats.

which somewhat rules it out, i think. the one thing democrats refuse to do is something that lets them win. shit, they are afraid to openly hold positions that the majority of the public agrees with, let alone showing some sort of real opposition and leadership.

which somewhat rules it out, i think. the one thing democrats refuse to do is something that lets them win. shit, they are afraid to openly hold positions that the majority of the public agrees with, let alone showing some sort of real opposition and leadership.
Yeah, sometimes I feel like Jack from "The Importance of Being Earnest."
I'm afraid I have no politics. I'm a Liberal Unionist.
I'd love a filibuster. I'd be happy with a unified caucus "no" vote. I won't curse too bad if Alito gets fewer than 60 votes. I'll curse a lot if he gets more than that.

So much for Specter being pro-choice--talk really is cheap.

And don't rule out the filibuster just yet--the news is reporting it as though there's an agreement not to do so, but unless something happened in the last couple of hours, the Democratic caucus has announced no such thing. I hope they do--it's a win-win for the Democrats.

Have you not already arrived at the conclusion that Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter is a patsy?

Have you not already arrived at the conclusion that Arlen "Magic Bullet" Specter is a patsy?Nah--I arrived at that conclusion a while back, but he gets lots of media credit for being pro-choice, so I figured I'd mention it. Same goes for the other supposedly pro-choice Republican Senators--Chaffee, Snowe and Collins--we'll see if the talk matches the walk. Chaffee is fucked no matter how he votes, because he's got a primary challenger from the far right and he's running in a pretty blue state.

Just you wait. Alito's been fooling everybody for a long, long time.

Once he's appointed, he's going to whip out the rainbow wig, scream "GOTCHA SUCKAS!!!", and start by legalizing man on man on mule on young child marriages and abolishing Capitalism.

Just you wait. Alito's been fooling everybody for a long, long time.

Once he's appointed, he's going to whip out the rainbow wig, scream "GOTCHA SUCKAS!!!", and start by legalizing man on man on mule on young child marriages and abolishing Capitalism.

But will he allow for marriage to poultry!!!!!!!

And don't rule out the filibuster just yet--the news is reporting it as though there's an agreement not to do so, but unless something happened in the last couple of hours, the Democratic caucus has announced no such thing. I hope they do--it's a win-win for the Democrats.
How is it win-win if the Republicans nuke the filibuster?

But will he allow for marriage to poultry!!!!!!!

Hell yes..!!

There are WAY too many rhymes with "pluck" and "cluck" to NOT permit such a
thing..!!


-Iakeo

There are WAY to many rhymes with "pluck" and "cluck" to NOT permit such a
thing..!!

Best response ever.

Best response ever.

I try. :)


-Iakeo
(Read some of my other rubbish. It's quite good, you know!)

How is it win-win if the Republicans nuke the filibuster?
The first thing to realize is that if the filibuster for judicial nominees goes, the filibuster in general goes the next time the Democrats decide to stop something the republican majority wants passed. They'll use the same flimsy excuse and get rid of it all together, which sounds horrible, right?

Except that the Republicans won't always be in power, and historically, the filibuster has been used to stop progressive legislation. The good recent example is the Clinton universal health care bill in 1994.

Now that's spinning the outcome, no question, seeing the silver lining in losing a tool I'm generally in favor of keeping, but if we're going to lose on Alito, we might as well get something good out of it.

Best case scenario in my view is that there's a filibuster, Frist tries the nuclear option and enough of his caucus sees the madness and pulls back. Alito goes down and the filibuster remains. But at the very least, if there's a filibuster and it gets nuked, we come out of it with a small gain. That doesn't happen without a filibuster.

Sad day for the US.

Best response ever.


HEY!

At least toss a bone to the straight man! ;)

HEY!

At least toss a bone to the straight man! ;)

George (Burns),.. you know we love ya,.. right? <said in a Gracie Allen nasal voice>

Oh and to your partisan comment; I am sure you cons would be all for fairly evaluating a liberal judge on his knowledge of the law. :rolleyes:

I would.

So much for Specter being pro-choice--talk really is cheap.

And don't rule out the filibuster just yet--the news is reporting it as though there's an agreement not to do so, but unless something happened in the last couple of hours, the Democratic caucus has announced no such thing. I hope they do--it's a win-win for the Democrats.

If the democrats filibuster, it won't matter. Frist already told the press he'll push for the nuclear option if the dems play that card so it really is not an option.

On top of that... you have mid-term elections? I don't think the Dems want to risk those elections by filibustering.

which somewhat rules it out, i think. the one thing democrats refuse to do is something that lets them win. shit, they are afraid to openly hold positions that the majority of the public agrees with, let alone showing some sort of real opposition and leadership.

CRAP! I agree with Free Soviets.

*would insert something here but its to close to the heart at the moment*

The first thing to realize is that if the filibuster for judicial nominees goes, the filibuster in general goes the next time the Democrats decide to stop something the republican majority wants passed. They'll use the same flimsy excuse and get rid of it all together, which sounds horrible, right?

Actually, I do not see the filibuster on normal legislation going out the window anytime soon. No one would be that stupid.

Except that the Republicans won't always be in power, and historically, the filibuster has been used to stop progressive legislation. The good recent example is the Clinton universal health care bill in 1994.

And THANK GOD that was defeated. That would've done unknown damage to the healthcare system. Oh, and Hillary was involved in this.

Now that's spinning the outcome, no question, seeing the silver lining in losing a tool I'm generally in favor of keeping, but if we're going to lose on Alito, we might as well get something good out of it.

Nothing good comes out of filibustering a judicial nomination.

Best case scenario in my view is that there's a filibuster, Frist tries the nuclear option and enough of his caucus sees the madness and pulls back. Alito goes down and the filibuster remains. But at the very least, if there's a filibuster and it gets nuked, we come out of it with a small gain. That doesn't happen without a filibuster.

I highly doubt this. IF and I mean IF the Dems want to filibuster, the Republicans WILL exercise the nuclear option and defeat the filibuster.

Sad day for the US.

Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by Free Soviets
which somewhat rules it out, i think. the one thing democrats refuse to do is something that lets them win. shit, they are afraid to openly hold positions that the majority of the public agrees with, let alone showing some sort of real opposition and leadership.

CRAP! I agree with Free Soviets.

*would insert something here but its to close to the heart at the moment*

Surprisingly, I agree with Free too. :)

They are afraid (period) to hold ANY position openly, because they might
have to explain how they understand their (held) position, and their utter
incapacity to understand (as oppose to argue with, or complain about)
anything whatsoever would make them look bad,.. which would be a dreadful
shot to their self-esteem, which they certainly can't handle.

For a Democrat NOT to have high self-esteem, regardless of whether it's
earned or not, is just NOT DONE..!!

So,.. they run home and jerk each other off until feelings are soothed.


-Iakeo

Hmmm where did Kerry and the shrub go to school? ;)

Yes, and what kinds of grades did they get there? Any rich kid can get into a good school. Actions are a better judge of intelligence and character than "education" and if you've seen Alito's history of rulings (very pro-business, anti-individual) there is reason to be worried. Let's hear it for a nation that treats corporations better than it treats citizens.

Surprisingly, I agree with Free too. :)

They are afraid (period) to hold ANY position openly, because they might
have to explain how they understand their (held) position, and their utter
incapacity to understand (as oppose to argue with, or complain about)
anything whatsoever would make them look bad,.. which would be a dreadful
shot to their self-esteem, which they certainly can't handle.

For a Democrat NOT to have high self-esteem, regardless of whether it's
earned or not, is just NOT DONE..!!

So,.. they run home and jerk each other off until feelings are soothed.


-Iakeo

So, is this where you hold up a target and scream "Someone attack or ban me"?

If the democrats filibuster, it won't matter. Frist already told the press he'll push for the nuclear option if the dems play that card so it really is not an option.

On top of that... you have mid-term elections? I don't think the Dems want to risk those elections by filibustering.
Well, as I said in another post, losing the filibuster doesn't scare me, because in the long term, it's better for progressive causes if it's not there, so if Frist gets enough people to kill it, I can live with that. All things being equal, I'd rather beat Alito, but losing the filibuster isn't a bad consolation prize.

As to the midterms, I ain't skeered there neither. It has been shown time and again--Lindsay Graham's shit talking notwithstanding--that most voters don't factor the Supreme Court into their decisions when voting for a politician. that's not a good thing, mind you, as they should factor that in, but the fact is that they don't. If we're in October 2006 and candidates are still talking about Alito instead of the economy, the war in Iraq, the Abramoff scandal, the NSA scandal, the Rove scandal or anything else that may pop up between now and then, then those candidates are fucked, plain and simple. This will not be a campaign issue, no matter how it plays out, unless Alito gets confirmed and there's a Roe-overturning decision made between now and then.

Meh! He sounds like a smarter version of Thomas.

Hopefully he turns out to be an honest judge and not some idealogue.

Hahahahahahahaha yeah...oh...okay. I'm sure he'll be non-partisan. :rolleyes:


Oh and to your partisan comment; I am sure you cons would be all for fairly evaluating a liberal judge on his knowledge of the law. :rolleyes:

Oh, I'm sure they would!*

*lies


"The Left" is constantly telling people what is right and wrong. And they do
so as judges. Now there's a judge who may be for something they're against.
So what? Let's see what happens, and judge the pudding by it's delightful
flavor.

Are you kidding me? Are you seriously suggesting that the Religious Right (aka: the neo-cons) aren't for constantly telling the American people what's right and wrong? They pushed the American flag burn bill through, they're for the illegalization of abortion and are actually defending the NSA scandal which encroaches so far into our rights I can't even begin to describe.

So, is this where you hold up a target and scream "Someone attack or ban me"?

that's how they've done it in the past


...hold up, didn't they have a perma-ban?

...hold up, didn't they have a perma-ban?

honest question. didn't iakeo get perma-banned for violating a forumban a while back?

honest question. didn't iakeo get perma-banned for violating a forumban a while back?

Actually he did, and bragged about how easy it was to get around.

Actually he did, and bragged about how easy it was to get around.

i thought so. well, i'm not gonna turn him in, but i assume he'll go down in flames this time too.

I threw up my hands when I knew we were facing both a retirement and a death on the Supreme Court. You can't leave the seats empty, and under Bush, there was absolutely no way we weren't going to get 2 neo-cons. Even before Roberts was nominated, I said the only proper course is to stay the hell out of court.

Mark my words, we'll see a rush by right-wingers to bring cases to the SC now. The trick will be to prevent cases from being brought at all and/or to force settlements before a case rises to the SC level.

As for any poor innocent bastards languishing on a death row or at Gitmo -- sorry, boys, game over.

Funny thing is, Bush didn't even need to nominate anyone at all. There is no set number of Justices for the Supreme Court. Why is it that people think that once somebody leaves the court, someone needs to be nominated? Pisses me off. Or, why not the next president just nominate a few more? It's not that hard. When the Dems get the House and Senate back, and Pres(Which is going to happen-it's a political cycle), they can stack the court as well. Which truly is depressing, because the SC is supposed to be the one place where Politics(and personal leanings for that matter) are to be left out.

Goddammit. The entire system is skewed.

To anarchy?

And THANK GOD that was defeated. That would've done unknown damage to the healthcare system. Oh, and Hillary was involved in this.

Hillary is a psycopath. "Congress is being run like a plantation." Wtf? Does she even listen to herself? I hope to god that she doesn't run for Pres. Almost anyone that the Repubs nominate would be a shoe-in(Note I am not saying that having a Repub as a pres would be bad, I'm saying that they could get a complete party lackey and not have to worry). Not going to talk about the healthcare thing, due to it being off topic.


Nothing good comes out of filibustering a judicial nomination.

I wouldn't say that. Perhaps the goal behind the nomination would be to stack the courts one way or the other. This would be extremely harmful, and without the filibuster there is really nothing a minority party(Which eventually the Repubs will be, and they just might want to exercise this with future Judical nominees) can do.


I highly doubt this. IF and I mean IF the Dems want to filibuster, the Republicans WILL exercise the nuclear option and defeat the filibuster.

I wouldn't bet on it. I'd like to think that the Republicans would be smart enough to know that they will lose majority, and likely within the next few elections. Such a scenario would come back to bite them in the ass. Short term answer to such a problem.

Hillary is a psycopath. "Congress is being run like a plantation." Wtf? Does she even listen to herself?

yeah, who would ever even think of saying something like that? (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/17/181357/556)

Well, it's good to see Alito headed for the Court, and it's nice to have that added bit of judicial legroom now, but what'd *really* be nice would be a retirement by someone like Ginsburg or Stevens.. :) /wishful thinking.. :p

yeah, who would ever even think of saying something like that? (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/17/181357/556)
You're forgetting the first rule of the traditional media--IOKIYAR*

*It's OK if you're a Republican.

Well, it's good to see Alito headed for the Court, and it's nice to have that added bit of judicial legroom now, but what'd *really* be nice would be a retirement by someone like Ginsburg or Stevens.. :) /wishful thinking.. :p

If that happens then Civil War 2 would have to begin! :p

You can't tell ANYONE by anything BUT their behavior.

The question about changing things comes to this, though, between
your "neo-cons" (which I might describe rather as America-Firsters who are
into less coersive legislation and a trust in the voter as opposed to an elite
minority calling themselves judges) and the "left": We're the "good guys" so
we should do what we can to win power for our people from those
unprincipled tyrants on the other side.

That could, of course, come from either the "neo-cons" or from "the left".

The answer as to who is correct (right) will be borne out by the results of
their respective behaviors.



If indeed the "neo-con" (America-Firsters) are right, though, their agenda
should prove beneficial, and the actions taken by them as "judges" must be
judged as a good thing.

"The Left" is constantly telling people what is right and wrong. And they do
so as judges. Now there's a judge who may be for something they're against.
So what? Let's see what happens, and judge the pudding by it's delightful
flavor.





-Iakeo
Everybody is always telling everybody what's right and wrong. You just did it yourself with those cute, indirect swipes at the "left."

BTW, FYI, American political balance is not between "neo-con" and "left." There are more than two players. The neo-cons fall towards the extreme American right. There are so few extremist American leftists, that they don't even have a name of their own. Then there are the Republicans, within which party there are, possibly, 3 different groups -- conservatives, liberal-republicans, and corrupt bastards. Among the Democrats there are also 3 groups -- conservatives who lie about it, liberals, and corrupt bastards (note: corrupt bastards are so common in US politics that they are their own group, and they're probably the only non-partisan voters in the government -- they only vote the way they're paid to). Then, outside the two parties, there are yet other parties who never get on ballots, so one or the other of the two sides get their votes.

Your assumption that there are only neo-cons vs leftists (i.e. everyone else) and that neo-cons support America and everyone else doesn't, makes me think that you are a neo-con, and that you're not admitting it. Which would be typical of a neo-con.

Actually he did, and bragged about how easy it was to get around.
Oh, so I'm right, then. He is a neo-con. (typical ... :rolleyes: )

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b283/jtkwon/losing.jpg

<snip>
Have I mentioned that I love your sig line?

For a really futile and stupid gesture, who can you always depend on?

John Kerry, of course. Now he is threatening to filibuster the nomination of Sam Alito. Does he actually have come home from Switzerland to do that, or have the rules weakened so much that he can have a filibuster on the slopes?

Anyhow, Mr. Kerry thinks that Mr. Alito will create a climate of justice "... where a black man may be sentenced to death by an all-white jury for killing a white man absent any kind of multiple regression analysis or other analysis of potential discrimination; and where police may search--I paraphrased that last sentence; it reads precisely 'absent a multiple regression analysis showing discrimination'--and where police may search what a warrant, may search and define what a warrant permits and then some."

This is as convoluted as anything the man has ever said, but I'm impressed that he can work 'multiple regression analysis' into a sentence and have it fail to make any sense whatsoever.

So, it's cheers to Mr. Kerry for giving the country yet another reason to vote against him.

Not to mention, a filibuster has no hope of succeeding.

That's generally accepted. Only a nutcase like Kerry would even propose such a thing. Hopefully, this means that the wacko wing of the party will become more isolated and outcast from the more reasonable Democrats. That ought to make it more likely that an acceptable candidate can be nominated.

That's generally accepted. Only a nutcase like Kerry would even propose such a thing. Hopefully, this means that the wacko wing of the party will become more isolated and outcast from the more reasonable Democrats. That ought to make it more likely that an acceptable candidate can be nominated.

Hopefully. Maybe one that I can actually support.

Not to mention, a filibuster has no hope of succeeding.

Ideed. Really, Alito is a good candidate. He may not be whom I would choose, but he is not "teh devil" as many have portrayed. The Democratic attacks on him have been childish, as well.

That being said, I do hope that Alito is *not* as conservative as the Democrats have portrayed, or the Republicans wish for. That *would* be devastating. Hopefully, he will allow party and personal bias not stand in the way of his duty on the Supreme Court. And everything I have seen has shown to me that although conservative leaning(being conservative isn't a bad thing in and of itself-nor is liberal, just when you take it to far), he's not really as bad as has been portrayed. Also, to point out in his favor, he does have quite good qualifications for a Justice, with 15 years under his belt.

I'd give him the go ahead, knowing what I know.

And the fillibuster would fail. Of course.

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
Surprisingly, I agree with Free too.

They are afraid (period) to hold ANY position openly, because they might
have to explain how they understand their (held) position, and their utter
incapacity to understand (as oppose to argue with, or complain about)
anything whatsoever would make them look bad,.. which would be a dreadful
shot to their self-esteem, which they certainly can't handle.

For a Democrat NOT to have high self-esteem, regardless of whether it's
earned or not, is just NOT DONE..!!

So,.. they run home and jerk each other off until feelings are soothed.

-Iakeo

So, is this where you hold up a target and scream "Someone attack or ban me"?

Actually, if you've read anything else by me or one of my other pre-banned
pseudonyms, every posting is pretty much me holding up the big bullseye.

(( Look for "iakeo" in the body of my messages if your interested in my
past "work". ))

Though, when they DO ban me, it's always due to their over developed sense
of censorship, more than anything else.

I don't mind calling names, and don't mind being called names,.. as you've
probably already figured.

The only thing that matters is that we eventually et back to having a
conversation about something interesting,.. which banning simply preempts.

(Though, getting around banning is ludicrously simple..)


-Iakeo

Originally Posted by Deiakeos
"The Left" is constantly telling people what is right and wrong. And they do
so as judges. Now there's a judge who may be for something they're against.
So what? Let's see what happens, and judge the pudding by it's delightful
flavor.

Are you kidding me? Are you seriously suggesting that the Religious Right (aka: the neo-cons) aren't for constantly telling the American people what's right and wrong?

No. Just that what they say IS indeed what is right and/or wrong.

Of course, that's a wild overgeneralization, but just because the right is more
often RIGHT (right) than wrong (left) doesn't mean that telling people of
wisdom is a bad idea because other people tell people of idiocy.

It's for time to tell who's right (and otherwise "left").


They pushed the American flag burn bill through, they're for the illegalization of abortion and are actually defending the NSA scandal which encroaches so far into our rights I can't even begin to describe.


You disagree with those things?

Who finally decided that "burning flags" is a "criminal matter"?

Who FINALLY decided that abortion should be illegal, and has made it so?

Who has finally decided that the NSA doing whatever they're doing
is "scandalous" and "rights encroaching"?

Simple questions from (and for) a simple mind. :)


-Iakeo

Actually, if you've read anything else by me or one of my other pre-banned
pseudonyms, every posting is pretty much me holding up the big bullseye.

(( Look for "iakeo" in the body of my messages if your interested in my
past "work". ))

Though, when they DO ban me, it's always due to their over developed sense
of censorship, more than anything else.

I don't mind calling names, and don't mind being called names,.. as you've
probably already figured.

The only thing that matters is that we eventually et back to having a
conversation about something interesting,.. which banning simply preempts.

(Though, getting around banning is ludicrously simple..)


-Iakeo

Aloha, to the ever-fleeting 'iakeo'.... ;)

At 4:30 PM today, cloture will be invoked to end debate.

Will Kerry's Filibuster move succeed? polls indicate no it wont

If the vote would be held today, the numbers stand at 57 yes votes to 35 no votes.

Originally Posted by Maegi
Actually he did, and bragged about how easy it was to get around.

i thought so. well, i'm not gonna turn him in, but i assume he'll go down in flames this time too.

Most probably. :)

But that's fine. I'm only in here occassionally anyway, and really just use
these fora for a little mental gymnastics (which is pretty much what
everyone does) when something interesting occurs to me, or I'm "bored"
(which I HATE to admit because I should never REALLY be bored if I
thoroughly internallized my own STATED philosophy!.. a contradiction which
really does piss me off and which I'm working on).

I think my next alias will be "Daiakeon",.. to keep with the "theme". :)

..but really, all "they" (the censors) have to do is search for "iakeo" in the
message body, as I "nearly" always sign my work.


-Iakeo

Originally Posted by Maegi
Actually he did, and bragged about how easy it was to get around.

Oh, so I'm right, then. He is a neo-con. (typical ... )

What? You'll have to explain the linkage of that one.

I'm a "neo-con" for what reason?

..and what IS the linkage between "what I did" and "being a 'neo-con'" in
general?

Please be so kind as to elucidate... Thanks.


-Iakeo

Everybody is always telling everybody what's right and wrong. You just did it yourself with those cute, indirect swipes at the "left."

You're absolutely correct. The difference between the "left" and the "right" is
that the "left" thinks that such behavior, in all cases, is wrong, even as they
do it, while the "right" admits that we all do it and that it is a correct and
good thing to tell people "right from wrong".


BTW, FYI, American political balance is not between "neo-con" and "left." There are more than two players. The neo-cons fall towards the extreme American right.

http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/leftism3.html

..do a "find" for "neo".

(( Check out the rest of that site as well. As well as THIS (http://jonjayray.netfirms.com/menu.html)and THIS (http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/). ))


There are so few extremist American leftists, that they don't even have a name of their own.

Wow..! I'm impressed. Denial taken to herculean proportions. Fascinating.


Then there are the Republicans, within which party there are, possibly, 3 different groups -- conservatives, liberal-republicans, and corrupt bastards.

Among the Democrats there are also 3 groups -- conservatives who lie about it, liberals, and corrupt bastards (note: corrupt bastards are so common in US politics that they are their own group, and they're probably the only non-partisan voters in the government -- they only vote the way they're paid to).

Can't much argue with that! :D


Then, outside the two parties, there are yet other parties who never get on ballots, so one or the other of the two sides get their votes.

Your assumption that there are only neo-cons vs leftists (i.e. everyone else) and that neo-cons support America and everyone else doesn't, makes me think that you are a neo-con, and that you're not admitting it. Which would be typical of a neo-con.

If "neo-con" means "newly conservative" then I, for one, am certainly one, as
I've come to see the wisdom in NOT being a liberal ("libertine" as opposed
to "libertarian") only in the last 3-4 years or so.

This, for me, again, is a matter of age and newfound "responsibility" in my life.

I actually DO believe that "the left" is suffering from an actual pathology of
mind (and possibly body, ie a physiological pathology).

"The right" is nothing more than the remainder when you remove "the left",
which are diseased, literally.

Now, of course, not all people of "the left" are malignant, ie actively "evil",..
they simply are mistaking various "good looking" things/behaviors/goals
for "the correct (right) way".

The "right" is a massively diverse group, just as the "left" is, which if allowed
to EXCLUSIVELY come to power would be just as fractious and diverse as the
present situation (with a "left" and "right").

The very same thing would be the case with an exclusive "left" power
structure.

The difference is that the "leftist" power structure would degenerate into
some version of Stalin/PolPot/Maoism, while the "right" would "degenerate"
into yet another "left" vs. "right" situation veritably exactly like what we have
now.

The leftist degeneration, of course, would eventually further "degenerate"
into abject chaos and eventually be "helped" into "capitalist republicanism"
(via self appellation to the "rightist others" in the world, or humanitarian
conquest by them).

-Iakeo

Aloha, to the ever-fleeting 'iakeo'.... ;)

E aloha nui loa, kanaka lani a ali'i DUDE..!!!

You da man..!! Nobadi bedda dan you fo da ho'omāke'aka..!

Nobadi bedda dan mi fo da ho'onaukiuki..! :D


-Iakeo