What do you think of Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to the Supreme Court??

[yoyomama]

First thing is I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I am a Libertarian.

Whose the last Democrat President you voted for?


I like Bud Lite.

[peanuts]

...read Ayn Rand's book " Fountainhead". when people with real brains and initiative take their intellect and their resourses out of the loop here in the USA they are going to be left with themselves and the people with their hands out...

I know exactly what you mean, ski. But, I think you meant to recommend, "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

Our real problem is the government held spoon that feeds democratic propaganda to a country that is supposed to be a republic. If people would stop to think about the motives of officials and programs, then they might not be so willing to accept them. There are fewer enlightened citizens than there are mind-lazy Americans, so the rights of the righteous are stomped out by the needs of the masses. The press panders to the politicians that can offer them the most recognition, rather than actully searching for truth. So the seemingly mundane correct course of action is overlooked and neglected because of the need to get ratings... These mind-lazy people would rather watch something shocking and get involved with it, than see the righteous side of things. This is why the trainwreck of America's core beliefs being tested, smashed, and reorganized is the focus of the news. So, people think that this is the way it should be... "we need change" is there motto

Well, it's change that they'll get. And it will come packaged as a present to the people. And it will only cause another and bigger trainwreck. Then good ole Dagny Taggart might leave them afterall.

[Karel]

karel, will tanning change your political views.

Not in my experience, but I tan rather slowly, so the change might be so gradual as to escape notice.

Regards,

Karel

[LemonButt]

Whose the last Democrat President you voted for?


I like Bud Lite.

I've never voted for a Democrat president, but I have voted for Democrats for Congress. I didn't vote for Heath Shuler for our House rep in this past election, but I'm glad we have him as one of the five Democrats who opposed the stimulus package and voted no.

I turned 18 in 2002, so I've only had the privilege of voting for 2 Presidents, where I voted for Bush in 2004 and Barr in 2008. I'd take Ron Paul over anyone right now as he seems to be the only politician out there who will tell you the truth and not just what you want to hear.

Peanuts, the reason the media has a liberal bias is because when they go for their degree in mass communication or journalism, they don't take microeconomics, macroeconomics, or any other business course, but they do get to study Russian Literature, 16th Century Poetry, and the Short Story. Ignorance is bliss though, right?

[yoyomama]

I think most Libertarians vote Republican even though they claim they're neither Democrat or Republican but when push comes to shove they don't vote Democrat, they vote Republican. Just my personal findings.

I don't really have a problem with any of it though. People just have different opinions.

[skiracer]

I know exactly what you mean, ski. But, I think you meant to recommend, "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.

Our real problem is the government held spoon that feeds democratic propaganda to a country that is supposed to be a republic. If people would stop to think about the motives of officials and programs, then they might not be so willing to accept them. There are fewer enlightened citizens than there are mind-lazy Americans, so the rights of the righteous are stomped out by the needs of the masses. The press panders to the politicians that can offer them the most recognition, rather than actully searching for truth. So the seemingly mundane correct course of action is overlooked and neglected because of the need to get ratings... These mind-lazy people would rather watch something shocking and get involved with it, than see the righteous side of things. This is why the trainwreck of America's core beliefs being tested, smashed, and reorganized is the focus of the news. So, people think that this is the way it should be... "we need change" is there motto

Well, it's change that they'll get. And it will come packaged as a present to the people. And it will only cause another and bigger trainwreck. Then good ole Dagny Taggart might leave them afterall.

thanks for the correction peanuts. i always get the two books mixed up. Atlas Shrugged was the one i meant.

[skiracer]

Since you asked, here it goes. First thing is I am not a Republican or a Democrat. I am a Libertarian. Our founding fathers were libertarians and believed in small government and letting businesses and people be free--as long as they don't infringe upon the rights of others. Milton Friedman is one of my heroes and embodies the spirit of consequential libertarianism. The only way you can have a successful society where freedom is unrestricted by government intervention is if you have a strong judicial system. The federal government already has too much power and things that should be left up to states, simply isn't.

When someone is having their rights infringed upon, they should be protected by the judicial system. The fact is, the white firefighters who scored high on the exam for a promotion are having their rights infringed upon. Instead of rewarding hard work, they are condemning them because minorities in the system did not work as hard or simply don't want to be firefighters. Why is this okay?

When you infringe upon someone elses rights, you immediately lose yours without exception. I was watching Anderson Cooper 360 a few weeks ago and there was a police chase where a cop laying down a spike strip in the highway was hit by the fleeing driver. The driver proceeded to flip his van and was ejected and wasn't moving on the ground. The officers attacked the man and beat him for a few seconds to make sure he was incapacitated (it was 5 officers or so and it lasted less than 5 seconds when they backed off), but there was a huge uproar of police brutality, when the fact is this guy attempted to take the life of a police officer and therefore loses any rights he has to keeping his own life. It would be different if it were a chance mistake or an accident, but you don't run from the cops on accident. There is no place for empathy in court.

The government has been infringing upon the rights of business and citizens for as long as I can remember. In general, Democrats will defend a woman's right to choose as it's their body and they should do whatever they want, yet they turn around and want to tax soda because it leads to obesity. Apparently destroying a fetus is acceptable, but drinking Pepsi is a big no-no. Republicans are just as guilty. In general, Republicans will say abortion is wrong and that we should protect life, but are for the death penalty. Personally, I think everyone should own a handgun and have a concealed carry permit to dispense some instant justice when they are victimized. The only people who are afraid of armed citizens are criminals and tyrants. If a criminal knew everyone had a deadly weapon on their hip, do you think he's going to mug you in the park? Hell no. And the excuse about accidental killings is a joke--there are over 80 million gunowners in America and somehow we aren't killing off millions a year in accidental shootings. To quote a Philadelphia police officer, "I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6."

Is it so hard to just leave people alone and let them live their lives and conduct business without having the government babysit us? As long as you aren't infringing upon the rights of others, you should be able to do whatever you want which means carrying a handgun, growing pot in your backyard, or getting an abortion. I do believe abortion is wrong and I would never promote getting an abortion, but I am pro-choice and believe women can do whatever they want to their bodies and they can answer to whatever god they do or don't believe in. In the end, who the hell am I to determine what someone else can or can't do when they aren't infringing upon the rights of others?

With all that being said, welfare, social security, medicare, government subsidies, tax breaks for anyone, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, non-profit organization status, unemployment insurance, food stamps, bailouts, and progressive income taxes are all immoral and therefore wrong because they infringe upon my rights. My rights as a citizen are being infringed upon because my money is being taken from me forcible in the form of taxes to pay for the welfare and well being of someone else. Why is acceptable that almost 50% of all workers in America have zero tax liability, yet they get to vote on what we get to do with our tax dollars in elections? Americans, like myself, who pay taxes are almost a minority in this country now. Why do you think we're in a housing crisis? Governement stepped in and subsidized a bunch of mortgages (with my money) through Freddie and Fannie which gave money to people who in the private sector never would have qualified. As a result, normal banks have to offer loans to subprime customers as well just to stay competitive and found a way to unload their not-so-great loans in the form of derivitives and minimize their risk. In the end, money was taken from me in the form of taxes to subsidize someone with a bad credit score who in turn is now defaulting and getting foreclosed on which in turn lowers the value of my home due to simply supply/demand. I've been kicked in the balls twice here.

Now tax dollars that go towards things individuals would not be able to provide for themselves for the good of a community, such as roads, schools, military, and law enforcement are justifiable taxes that are neccessary, but if welfare disappeared today, private charities would still be helping the homeless. If social security disappeared today, people would still have a retirement account. People are in an uproar about Madoff's $50 billion pyramid scheme, but hardly anyone is saying anything baout the $4 trillion pyramid scheme that is social security.

I don't care if you're white, black, green, magenta, native american, handicap, Jewish, or Mother Teresa. The fact is the government has setup a system of legalized theft in this country and it seems that no one is doing anything about it. If the founding fathers were alive today, I'd bet a kidney that there would have been more tea parties and organized resistance, not only during Obama's administration, but Clinton's as well as Bush I and II. The Supreme Court is supposed to protect the citizens of our country, not be in collusion with the other branches of government for their own interests.

The fact is that 18 firefighters are not getting a promotion when they should be since they are the best at what they do. Due to the color of their skin, they are being held back, and since we do not have the best 18 firefighters available being promoted, communities are at risk. If your house was burning down, would you like to have your accountant come over and put it out, or do you want the best damn firefighters available?

Hopefully Sotomayor gets rejected and we get someone who judges based on the principles of freedom, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness instead of their gender and race (gasp!).

Read this:
http://townhall.com/Columnists/Walte..._is_immorality

lemonbutt,
very very informative and well put. impressive factual dialogue regardless of what side of the fence you're on. hard not to agree with everything that you have stated.

[yoyomama]

If the founding fathers were alive today, I'd bet a kidney that there would have been more tea parties and organized resistance, not only during Obama's administration, but Clinton's as well as Bush I and II.

If the founding fathers were alive today they'd be having Obama picking cotton for them....and no I'm not black.

[LemonButt]

If the founding fathers were alive today they'd be having Obama picking cotten for them....and no I'm not black.

You're probably right. The sad thing is he would be working in a field against his will and given shelter and three square meals a day as opposed to the current system where I work hard and get taxed against my will and the proceeds are given to someone else to provide them shelter and food who doesn't do anything productive to earn it. It's pretty sad when slavery is a more efficient system than welfare when it comes to punishment and incentives, isn't it?

[yoyomama]

You're probably right. The sad thing is he would be working in a field against his will and given shelter and three square meals a day as opposed to the current system where I work hard and get taxed against my will and the proceeds are given to someone else to provide them shelter and food who doesn't do anything productive to earn it. It's pretty sad when slavery is a more efficient system than welfare when it comes to punishment and incentives, isn't it?

Woah...I think I'm going to pass on this one.

[skiracer]

You're probably right. The sad thing is he would be working in a field against his will and given shelter and three square meals a day as opposed to the current system where I work hard and get taxed against my will and the proceeds are given to someone else to provide them shelter and food who doesn't do anything productive to earn it. It's pretty sad when slavery is a more efficient system than welfare when it comes to punishment and incentives, isn't it?

interesting statement. i need more time to digest that idea. there is alot going on there with the entitlement programs and whether or not it is a positive thing for everyone regardless of white or black. but an interesting statement.

[IIC]

Sonia...She's just so GhettoFabulous http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...hetto+fabulous

[Karel]

For people who like facts, here's a description of Ricci v DeStefano, with extensive references.

The case, as I understand it from that article, is as follows. After a qualifying test for higher positions in the New Haven fire department, it appeared that no black candidates (27 of 116) qualified. The city decided that the test might have been flawed, in the sense of racially biased, and decided to throw out the results, "citing a desire to avoid violating Title VII of the Civil Rights Act." According to Wikipedia, "Federal guidelines presume discrimination when a test has such a disparate impact on minorities."

The case appeared before the district court, which ruled in summary judgment that the city had the right to do so. The Appeals court, in which Sotomayor served, but not as president, confirmed this ruling.

The Supreme Court now has the case under review.

My conclusion is that this not a case of racism. On the contrary, it is a case against the right (or rather: duty) of the city of New Haven not to act in a racist way. If the test was indeed racially flawed (which by the way is not clear from publicly available sources, as the test is not published), the firefighters who passed can not be considered "the best".

The role of the Appeals court is limited. It can not judge in the case, only whether the lower court has judged well. In the case for the Appeals court, Sotomayor stressed the question whether the city had the right to review the test for flaws and if possibe create a better test (note 6 in the article). Apparently this was not contested by the firefighters’ lawyer, and in my opinion that makes their case very weak.

Regards,

Karel

[yoyomama]

Like all things everything else political...people already have their minds made up on both sides of the aisle.

[skiracer]

Like all things everything else political...people already have their minds made up on both sides of the aisle.

i know that i want to know that i have the most professional and most qualified in my house at that moment. i really dont understand the premise of creating a better test. does she mean to say one that is more conducive to latinos or blacks to the point where it finally becomes more proportional. is it racist or wrong because any group of people arent smart enough to answer the questions on the test and can it ever be the fault of the people taking the test not being qualified enough to pass the test with a high enough mark to win a spot legitimally. if any group wants to increase their presence and move up the ranks they should have to be as qualified as everyone else who gets higher marks. my mind isnt necessarily made up but i know how i feel and who i sympathize with.