• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Steeley Mike=' No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor

F107HyperSabr

DP Veteran
Joined
May 12, 2009
Messages
2,617
Reaction score
375
Location
Connecticut
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
CNN Political Ticker: All politics, all the time Blog Archive - Steele: No ’slammin and rammin’ Sotomayor - Blogs from CNN.com

Mickey Mike Steele says there ain't gonna be No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor as Mikey Mike disagrees with The Drug Addict.

Must be a new day at the GOPPER'S house of cards since Mickey Steele appears to have found, bought, or stolen a pairs of balls from Wall MART or he had a quickie transplant of a set of twins since Mickey Mike is 180 degrees opposite of the Drug Addict on this one. The drug addict said ""way get promoted in the Barack Obama administration" is "by hating white people."

Now you guys who have implants from the RNC control center was Mickey Mike talking about the sex acy when he said "be No 'slammin and rammin' Sotomayor. " ? Just asking !!!!
 
Last edited:
Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh took an opposite turn from the party chairman, saying that the "way get promoted in the Barack Obama administration" is "by hating white people." Limbaugh also suggested that her nomination would be like picking former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke for the position.

Limbaugh is such a ****ing douche bag.

I commend Steele for cautioning everyone to show some class and intelligently discuss her qualifications. Good for him. The right doesn't need to sink to Limbaugh's level to argue against her nomination.
 
Limbaugh is such a ****ing douche bag.

I commend Steele for cautioning everyone to show some class and intelligently discuss her qualifications. Good for him. The right doesn't need to sink to Limbaugh's level to argue against her nomination.

The SCOTUS has no room for racist trash, nor activist judges who claim to "create policy" from the bench, nor someone who doesn't believe the bill of rights applies to indviduals. What ever qualificatons she has are trumped by these massive disqualifications. Although her fascism must delight Adolph Obama and his jackboot throng.

Steele, mealy-mouthed and confused as a newborn, is quickly turning into an idiotic caricature of everything that is wrong with the Republican party.
 
The SCOTUS has no room for racist trash, nor activist judges who claim to "create policy" from the bench, nor someone who doesn't believe the bill of rights applies to indviduals. What ever qualificatons she has are trumped by these massive disqualifications. Although her fascism must delight Adolph Obama and his jackboot throng.

Steele, mealy-mouthed and confused as a newborn, is quickly turning into an idiotic caricature of everything that is wrong with the Republican party.

There is no evidence in terms of her long track record, only emotional "trash" and name calling to support your contention in order to accuse her of:

-racism
-policy creation
- bill of rights applies to indviduals

What you have spouted is only an intellectually degraded version of the flatulance that eminates from the mouth of the Drug Addict. Michael Steele in a rare display of testicular fortitude has put what the level of discourse should be on the nimination process.

Listen to what the Michael has to say at this point before his is dragged back to the GOP plantation for his slave wipping and changes his mind again and appologizes to 'masta'.

You have the audacity to accuse them of trash talk after farting out this line "her fascism must delight Adolph Obama and his jackboot throng."

You really must be joking.
 
There is no evidence in terms of her long track record, only emotional "trash" and name calling to support your contention in order to accuse her of:

-racism

Are you calling her a liar, then? Her own words reveal her to be a racist, and Ricci versus DeStefano doubly confirms it.


- bill of rights applies to indviduals

Are you calling her a liar, then? She has written it herself and doubly confirmed it in U.S. versus Sanchez-Villar.

-policy creation

Are you calling her a liar, then? Her own words reveal her to believe she creates policy and Ricci versus DeStefano and U.S. versus Sanchez-Villar doubly confirms it.

As an aside, I suggest you see a shrink about your odd anal fixation. And maybe a proctologist, too, for the foot I just shoved up your ass.
 
Last edited:
I read an article on Fox News about how Republicans are approaching the Sotomayer confirmation. Seems to be a bit of division here, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

Republicans Divided Over How to Oppose Sotomayor - Political News - FOXNews.com

"The GOP doesn't want to give Sotomayer a free ride, because they believe she is a judicial activist who will legislate from the bench.

But they're also concerned that if they launch a no-holds barred attack on Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to be nominated to the court, they risk alienating a growing minority they want on their side in the voting booth."
 
Can we move this thread to the: "People who like to admonish the GOP while they themselves are vapid left-wingers who would never vote for a Republican" forum?
 
Man, Steele makes me laugh. Its not necessarily what he says, its how he says it. He's really convinced himself that talking like a suburban housedad trying to relate to a bunch of kids is the way to connect to the young voters. Nobody takes what he says seriously anymore so whats the point of even discussing what he said? You really think the republicans are going to change their strategy because Steele objects? Your dreaming.
 
I don't blame him, from looking at her pictures, I wouldn't want to slam or ram anything into Quotamayor either.
 
Are you calling her a liar, then? Her own words reveal her to be a racist, and Ricci versus DeStefano doubly confirms it.




Are you calling her a liar, then? She has written it herself and doubly confirmed it in U.S. versus Sanchez-Villar.



Are you calling her a liar, then? Her own words reveal her to believe she creates policy and Ricci versus DeStefano and U.S. versus Sanchez-Villar doubly confirms it.

As an aside, I suggest you see a shrink about your odd anal fixation. And maybe a proctologist, too, for the foot I just shoved up your ass.

any refernce to anything anal was strictly reflective of the Drug Addicts words and your posts !
 
Are you calling her a liar, then? Her own words reveal her to be a racist, and Ricci versus DeStefano doubly confirms it.




Are you calling her a liar, then? She has written it herself and doubly confirmed it in U.S. versus Sanchez-Villar.



Are you calling her a liar, then? Her own words reveal her to believe she creates policy and Ricci versus DeStefano and U.S. versus Sanchez-Villar doubly confirms it.

As an aside, I suggest you see a shrink about your odd anal fixation. And maybe a proctologist, too, for the foot I just shoved up your ass.

You have not actually read either decision have you? Ricci vs DeStafano is actually an easy read, since it is one paragraph, upholding a lower court decision. How exactly not overturning a ruling is "making policy", I will let you explain. By the way, you are wrong on all counts here.
 
-racism
-policy creation
- bill of rights applies to indviduals

Oh really I suggest you go and read her oppions on the 2nd Adm. also as someone else has pointed out her ruling on the Firerfighter test prove that she is a Racist if it was a White person then all hell would have broken out by now Uncle Jessy would be screaming for Whiteys Head on a silver plate

Her stance on 2nd Adm should have made her not even on the list you can't tinker with the Bill of rights end of discussion unless your all for an Armed Uprising.
 
I read an article on Fox News about how Republicans are approaching the Sotomayer confirmation. Seems to be a bit of division here, so it will be interesting to see what happens.

Republicans Divided Over How to Oppose Sotomayor - Political News - FOXNews.com

"The GOP doesn't want to give Sotomayer a free ride, because they believe she is a judicial activist who will legislate from the bench.

But they're also concerned that if they launch a no-holds barred attack on Sotomayor, the first Hispanic to be nominated to the court, they risk alienating a growing minority they want on their side in the voting booth."

The great hypocricy of the extreme GOPPERS is that those you wish to overturn R vs W are ACTIVISTS !!!! and also those who wish to reduce the application of affirmative action.

It is this simple if you agree with the way a Judge rules you call him fair and balanced if you don't agree you call him an activist.
 
You have not actually read either decision have you? Ricci vs DeStafano is actually an easy read, since it is one paragraph, upholding a lower court decision. How exactly not overturning a ruling is "making policy", I will let you explain. By the way, you are wrong on all counts here.

She is clearly making policy. You have no legal right to violate someone's rights merely because you are affraid if you do not violate their rights that you may get taken to court by someone other party.

In a worst case scenario, both options will lead to litigation. There is no pragamatic nor constitutional leg to stand on.
 
Oh really I suggest you go and read her oppions on the 2nd Adm. also as someone else has pointed out her ruling on the Firerfighter test prove that she is a Racist if it was a White person then all hell would have broken out by now Uncle Jessy would be screaming for Whiteys Head on a silver plate

Her stance on 2nd Adm should have made her not even on the list you can't tinker with the Bill of rights end of discussion unless your all for an Armed Uprising.

I am very aware of the firefighters case in New Haven Conn since I will in Connecticut. I also do not agree with her. She is wrong in my opinion about that case yet she was not the only one who went that way in that case. I also do not believe that she ruled the way, she did, even if some of us feel she ruled the "wrong way " , as a racist.

Was the court racist in it's ruling in "Brown v. Board of Education" since it ruled in favor of BLACKS over Whites ?


I think that her tilt in the Firefighters vs NEW HAVEN was a hyperactive application of afirmative action.

As years go by there will cases where any one of us will not agree with any one judge does that make them automatically bad or incompetent or racist ? The reasonable person like myself would not beleive so but not all of us are reasonable!!
 
She is clearly making policy. You have no legal right to violate someone's rights merely because you are affraid if you do not violate their rights that you may get taken to court by someone other party.

In a worst case scenario, both options will lead to litigation. There is no pragamatic nor constitutional leg to stand on.

just because you or I or Yashu Zasrowski does not agree with a ruling does not make that ruling setting policy or it does not make it "unconstitutional".

She may indeed have ruled in a way that you and/or I do not agree with but that does not not her rulings unconstitutional. You see judges make many rulings over a long career and some of tjose ruling some people will disagree with.

What I am saying it's ok to oppse her nimination but do it with honest reasons and not some knee jerk "she's a racist" blurtation.
 
Last edited:
just becasue you or I or Yashu Zasrowski does not agree with a ruling does not make that ruling setting policy or it does not make it "unconstitutional".

She may indeed have ruled in a way that you and/or I do not agree with but that does not not her rulings unconstitutional. You see judges make many rulings over a long career and some of tjose ruling some people will disagree with.

What I am saying it's ok to oppse her nimination but do it with honest reasons and not some knee jerk "she's a racist" blurtation.

There are other racist comments that she has made over the years any of these sort of comment were made by any White person would be attack and that person would have been run out of DC faster then Mr. Clinton eating a Big Mac
 
Arguments on either side would carry a lot more weight if they were expressed in well-written English.
 
There are other racist comments that sh ehas made over the years any of these sort of comment were made by any White person would be attack and that person would have been run out of DC faster then Mr. Clinton eating a Big Mac

She did use poor wording in that 2001 speech but how does one instance of a poor choice of words make her a racist ?
 
She did use poor wording in that 2001 speech but how does one instance of a poor choice of words make her a racist ?

This is not her first comment she has made. I suggest you go and do some research on her.
 
This is not her first comment she has made. I suggest you go and do some research on her.

This is a debate forum. Part of the process is to actually substantiate you own case.
 
This is a debate forum. Part of the process is to actually substantiate you own case.

Oh and i didn'tknow this thanks for the news skippy :roll:
 
She is clearly making policy. You have no legal right to violate someone's rights merely because you are affraid if you do not violate their rights that you may get taken to court by someone other party.

In a worst case scenario, both options will lead to litigation. There is no pragamatic nor constitutional leg to stand on.

When I read the initial decision she and another 2 judges left intact, it looked to me that the problem is in the applicable laws. To put it another way, the laws need to be changed. One of our lawyers around here(you guys know who you are) could probably give a more accurate and informative look at the ruling...I know I would be interested.
 
Back
Top Bottom