Does this make any sense to anyone?

[brainshrub]

I wrote:

Me: "Repealing the filibuster for judge nominations is a stupid idea that will backfire on conservatives. It's like chopping off the tree limb that you're sitting on. Have fun."

Reply from a Con: "Oh we will have fun. Lots. Even more fun than Ted Kennedy on CSPAN preachin' hate.

As to ending filibustering, I will hold you equally to account then for Bork, Thomas, Pickering and Brown while Ginsburg passed Go. What democrats do to people of integrity and minorities, no less, is not only low rent, but insidiously becoming a political crime vis-a-vis libel.

The democrats rip people up and shit them out. The republicans let even their enemies become Supreme Court Judges. It is a mistake of course considering their hypocritical adversary. Ginsburg was the head, THE HEAD of the ACLU. Got that? And her ass sits on SCOTUS. Who's your mama?"

###

Does anyone care to translate this?

I'm not trying to make fun of the conservative poster, I just don't see what logic he's using. Is s/he insane or is there something I'm missing here?

[cornermouse]

1. The lesson is that you don't bother to talk to someone like that.

You can't reach them with reason.

They believe what they believe, anything contrary to their beliefs is heresy and not to be listened to. That comes in very handy for certain people. I expect the word heresy to become fashionable again.

[benburch]

2. ...

[cornermouse]

4. No.

I am unalterably opposed to killing people.

[benburch]

5. I'm not recommending that...

Just saying that they will take their ignorance to the grave.

[DIKB]

6. That doesn't

negate his argument. That there is NOTHING that will penetrate that neanderthal's skull, aside from your standard solid object meeting propulsion.

In other words, give up. The person is a lost cause and can't be reasoned with <sigh> like too many others in our country.

[brainshrub]

8. ...

[brainshrub]

7. I know that.

I know that, but this particular conservative poster is usually able to write cohesive sentences.

I've been following the arguments for ending the filibuster for judges... and I don't understand the logic. Frankly, I'm starting to think that if this passes, it will be a huge long-term boon to Liberals.

My understanding of filibuster history is that, most of the time, the filibuster has been used to stymie progressive goals. Without a filibuster, Democrats are going to have a much easier time marginalizing Conservatives when we re-take the govt.

The only reason I can think that the Republicans are willing to do this is if they are confident enough in the BBV machines and the turnout of the religious-right.

[benburch]

10. Consider this;

Once they control the Supreme Court there is no end of things they can do to suppress the right to vote itself. Never mind the machines that count it!

If they gain control there, no civil remedy will ever dislodge them from power.

[DIKB]

12. I'm reminded of quotes from great men.

"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable."

And a quote from Ghandi, "When I despair, I remember that all through history the way of truth and love has always won. There have been tyrants and murderers and for a time they seem invincible but in the end, they always fall - think of it, ALWAYS."

They will receive their just rewards, not in any imagined next world, but in this one. One day.

[brainshrub]

13. Hypothetically there is:

The BBV machines are all installed at the state and local level. Already here in Asheville, Progressive are going to be running several very strong city-council candidates who are opposed to the BBV and have vowed to remove them as soon as possible.

Heck, even most local Republicans don't like the machines!

Even a conservative Supreme court won't be able to overturn local initiatives to guarantee a verifiable paper ballot.

Once the BBV issue is resolved at a local level, Progressives will take the congress & white house.

In a worst-case scenario, a Progressives majority could attempt to do what FDR tried to do when the SCOTUS blocked him from implementing the programs he needed to pull us out of the depression:

Ask the congress for more Supreme Court justices.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/5092/

I know that sounds radical today; But I'm pointing out that there ARE civil remedies if we elect leaders with enough wisdom to see them.

[benburch]

15. Sadly, yes, the Supreme Court can change everything about voting.

They can abuse "equal protection" just as they did in Bush v. Gore.

Remember that they will not be constrained to follow Stare Decisis or even the actual words in the Constitution; We will have no remedy.

[cornermouse]

11. The key is the religious believer system that is based on

faith or to put it more biblically, "faith on things not seen." (imo)

The republicans have locked in on this and you just can't argue with that segment of society. They know what they believe and that's all there is to the argument for them.

[radfringe]

3. he's high on kook-aid

he's just channeling ditto-head-kook-aid talking points all at the same time

[GoBlue]

9. It's impossible

to clearly understand someone with their head up their ass. But it sounds for all the world like he/she is saying "I'm full of shit". And I would agree.

[James T. Kirk]

14. Translation!

What he is trying to say is that liberals block conservative judge nominations, but conservatives let liberal judges such as Ginsburg fo through. Bork got "borked", but Ginsburg, the anti-Bork, went through.

Of course, his "we're nicer than you" argument is negated by his angry tone.

Hope that helps.

[brainshrub]

16. It did.

Thanks.

I don't think the congress was conservative when Ginsburg was approved. Was it?

[James T. Kirk]

19. Ginsburg was approved 97 to 3.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruth_Bader_Ginsburg

I forgot who had the majority then, but it wasn't too far from 50-50.

[batsauce]

17. I think I can translate:

1.Reply from a Con: "Oh we will have fun...
He is criticizing Ted Kennedy
2.As to ending filibustering..
He is saying both sides consider some judges extremist.
He seems to feel that the judges considered extremist by the right (Ginsberg et al) get treated much better than the judges considered extremist by the left.

3. Same as 2. A lot of conservatives feel that judges like Bork and Thomas were attacked unfairly.

I don't think the post is particularily well written, but I don't see what is so hard to understand.

He's wrong on this, but it is not so hard to decode what he says.

[bemildred]

18. Not about making sense.

About attempting to bludgeon the opposition into submission with words.
A fruitless enterprise it is, too.

Making sense requires one to do more than paste various unrelated
ideas together with fake outrage.