The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[Eli]

So they'd never encounter each other en route to the basket, a rebound or loose ball?

It's possible, since Garnett is 33, has played almost 40,000 minutes in his career, has bone spurs in his knees and can barely walk right now.

[Apexx]

So they'd never encounter each other en route to the basket, a rebound or loose ball?

It's possible, since Garnett is 33, has played almost 40,000 minutes in his career, has bone spurs in his knees and can barely walk right now.

So you're saying there's a chance he may play next year?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP4RUHRcN3E

[air2300]

So they'd never encounter each other en route to the basket, a rebound or loose ball?

It's possible, since Garnett is 33, has played almost 40,000 minutes in his career, has bone spurs in his knees and can barely walk right now.

So you're saying there's a chance he may play next year?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bP4RUHRcN3E

Intrepid reader KG:

ANYTHING IS POSSSIIIBBLLLLLLEEEEE!

[Apexx]

HA!

This has been fun. EG, thanks for being a good sport about it. Here's a parting shot for your jagoff lottery pick entering his third year averaging: a tall seven & seven.

Everybody have a great weekend.

[Quality Start Machine]

It's Sotomayor.

[Brownie]

An interesting coincidence.

[Tank]

An interesting coincidence.

So, 25% of the dealerships are closing—close to 800—and a "partial list" of 40 of their owners gave money to politicians not named Barack Hussein Obama?

RED ALERT!

I have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Okay.

But what about on the list of dealerships staying open? How many owners of those donated to Obama? And how many, like those on the close list, donated to someone else like Russ Feingold?

Seems like something I would have looked at before declaring these numbers "interesting" (let alone "significant").

Honestly, all I see is that these business owners gave donations to politicians, local politicians especially. As is their right and their wont.

[Brownie]

It's Sotomayor.

Remember when Bork said this:

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

No, he didn't say that? Did Scalia? John Roberts?

No?

That's right, no one said it. But Sotomayor said this:

"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."

She'll sail through, but not before a few uncomfortable moments.

[Brownie]

An interesting coincidence.

So, 25% of the dealerships are closing—close to 800—and a "partial list" of 40 of their owners gave money to politicians not named Barack Hussein Obama?

RED ALERT!

I have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Okay.

But what about on the list of dealerships staying open? How many owners of those donated to Obama? And how many, like those on the close list, donated to someone else like Russ Feingold?

Seems like something I would have looked at before declaring these numbers "interesting" (let alone "significant").

Honestly, all I see is that these business owners gave donations to politicians, local politicians especially. As is their right and their wont.

It's not their right to give money to candidates or causes, Thrillho. Not if they want to do business in California.

Here's a more comprehensive list. Far more than 80 dealers here.

This is a fair question. More important is how the dealers are being closed. Chrysler (and the government) are going to see a fight from the dealers, especially those who went into debt at Chrysler's insistence over the last couple of years, and now will be left with nothing.

[morpheus]

It's Sotomayor.

Remember when Bork said this:

"I would hope that a wise white male with the richness of his experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life."

No, he didn't say that? Did Scalia? John Roberts?

No?

That's right, no one said it. But Sotomayor said this:

"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."

She'll sail through, but not before a few uncomfortable moments.

Another good one:

"All of the legal defense funds out there-- they're looking for people with court of appeals experience. Because court of appeals is where policy is made. And I know, I know this is on tape and I should never say that because we don't make law. [Laughs] I know. I know. [Laughter] I'm not promoting it, I'm not advocating it, I'm...y'know."

Source: https://childedlaw.org/webcast/?match=Sonia+Sotomayor (43-minute mark)

She will indeed sail through - the Senate composition makes it pretty much inevitable - but I'd like to think that statements such as these would at least be discussed during the confirmation hearings.

[Chuck to Chuck]

She will indeed sail through - the Senate composition makes it pretty much inevitable - but I'd like to think that statements such as these would at least be discussed during the confirmation hearings.

They should be discussed.  As was this quote:

I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by liberal colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed... To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.

That's William Rehnquist stating his preference for separate but equal.  And for the "relax and enjoy it" angle to the tyranny of the majority.

People don't have to be perfect to serve.  If they had to, we'd have anarchy.

Perhaps that would be good?

[ChuckD]

Thrill hit the nail on the head. Small business owners are simply more likely to donate to Republicans. It's not a coincidence; it's an effect of the ideological differences between the parties on economic issues. Had these closings occurred under Bush, the result would be the same. A large majority of those afflicted  would be owned by Republicans. If you are a supplier, you tend to favor supply-side policies. Supply-side policies are (generally) advanced by Republicans. If welfare was expanded tomorrow and a list of the new recipients was released, we'd likely find that the people on the list had donated to Democrats. Would that be indicative of political favoritism? Poor people vote Democratic; Democrats generally favor social welfare programs that benefit the poor.

Additionally, just glancing over that list, a lot of the owners are located in the South. I imagine you'd find--regardless of socioeconomic status or political ideology-- that a person in a southern state is a lot more likely to donate to the GOP. If you want the attention of your congressman and all of them are Republicans, you're going to be a "Republican donor" (even if you're a Democratic voter).

It's not their right to give money to candidates or causes, Thrillho. Not if they want to do business in California.

I'm confused. How is this relevant to the Chrysler closings?

[Tank]

An interesting coincidence.

So, 25% of the dealerships are closing—close to 800—and a "partial list" of 40 of their owners gave money to politicians not named Barack Hussein Obama?

RED ALERT!

I have thus far found only a single Obama donor (and a minor one at that: $200 from Jeffrey Hunter of Waco, Texas) on the closing list.

Okay.

But what about on the list of dealerships staying open? How many owners of those donated to Obama? And how many, like those on the close list, donated to someone else like Russ Feingold?

Seems like something I would have looked at before declaring these numbers "interesting" (let alone "significant").

Honestly, all I see is that these business owners gave donations to politicians, local politicians especially. As is their right and their wont.

It's not their right to give money to candidates or causes, Thrillho. Not if they want to do business in California.

Okay.

But that's a totally separate issue. A flip sentence on my part that had nothing to do my central point at all.

Here's a more comprehensive list. Far more than 80 dealers here.

This is a fair question. More important is how the dealers are being closed. Chrysler (and the government) are going to see a fight from the dealers, especially those who went into debt at Chrysler's insistence over the last couple of years, and now will be left with nothing.

I had looked at that briefly. And, again, all I see at this point is what I said before: a lot of business owners who have given donations to a variety of politicians. Just scrolling through it, I immediately see quite a few donations to Democrats.

I'm still looking for the correlation being alleged, TJ. Where is it?

This is a pointless exercise until someone looks at the other side of the ledger. Are the dealerships of Obama donors being kept open while those owned by donors to Russ Feingold and Dick Durbin are being shut down?

But, no matter. I'm sure this will be lighting up Hannity's show or Fox and Friends today, so it will be well on its way to being considered legit news in many quarters—real news that just serves to confirm everything we already assumed about "Obama and the Chicago Way."

[MikeC]

I am not sure I understand your point.

I think you got it correct with this sentence

Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I assume that you meant that terrorists resent the existence of Americans and the existence of the Jews.

[morpheus]

She will indeed sail through - the Senate composition makes it pretty much inevitable - but I'd like to think that statements such as these would at least be discussed during the confirmation hearings.

They should be discussed.  As was this quote:

I realize that it is an unpopular and unhumanitarian position, for which I have been excoriated by liberal colleagues, but I think Plessy v. Ferguson was right and should be reaffirmed... To the argument ... that a majority may not deprive a minority of its constitutional right, the answer must be made that while this is sound in theory, in the long run it is the majority who will determine what the constitutional rights of the minority are.

That's William Rehnquist stating his preference for separate but equal.  And for the "relax and enjoy it" angle to the tyranny of the majority.

People don't have to be perfect to serve.  If they had to, we'd have anarchy.

Perhaps that would be good?

Was this meant to address what I posted?  I'm guessing no.