If there is anyone I take less seriously than damn_registrars, it is Harry Reid. He actually said the Koch brothers "are about as un-American as anyone that I can imagine."

Oh, I can think of someone far more un-American than they are. Looking right at you, "Senator."

Is there a bigger asshole in politics than Harry Reid? OK, Alan Grayson ... I mean someone with power and importance, though.

No one takes damn_registrars seriously. The left says this all the time, especially on MSNBC. Every week, probably. Maybe every day.

I was at, and performed in, one of the very first Tea Party events. I also performed at another shortly after the first. I attended a third shortly after. Black people were on the stage at each of the three (in particular, an elected representative, the wife of the organizer, and an MC). I guess they all hated black people.

Kristol is right: it's bullshit.

That's not to say there aren't some racist people who associate with the Tea Party. But then again, there's a bunch of liberal racists around here in Seattle (in particular, there are anti-Israeli racists, and there are racists who think that blacks are required to think a certain way or else they are "Uncle Tom").

Racists are everywhere. Yes, including in the Tea Party. But there is zero substantive evidence that racism played a significant role in the rise of the Tea Party. It's all circumstantial: it happened when a black man became President. But it would've happened if Edwards or Clinton had won the election, too. I know this because I am one of them, and I know lots of them.

Yep, and now to the non sequiturs. And you think I am predictable?

Predictably, you lied about having ever done that.

You're still refusing to ever provide any evidence to back up any of the claims you've ever made against me?

It's really cute how you resort to all manner of non sequitur to avoid defending your false claims. And then you pretend to think you actually made a point.

Adorable.

Hm.

I predicted you would not give evidence.

You did not give evidence.

Given that you do not provide evidence, it is likely you have none.

Which part do you incorrectly think is a lie?

Predictable, and predicted: you supply no evidence, most likely because you have none.

When? Where's your evidence that ever happened? It didn't.

It's funny how most times when I ask you trolls for evidence, you pretend that you've done it before, and that I ignored it.

What's even funnier is when damn_registrars says I've responded to evidence provided, and links to a discussion where I responded to the evidence in precise detail ... and provided evidence of my own, that he didn't respond to.

If anything, it's well-known that I regularly engage presented evidence, in probably far too much detail.

What's funniest of all is that it really seems like you think you're fooling anyone.

Hm. Let's see if you provide any evidence.

Nope, you don't.

It's not even really arguable: the obvious fact is that Democratic presidents universally pick judiciary candidates who don't respect the rule of law. Like Justice Breyer, they try to mold the interpretation of the law to fit their desired outcomes. His book Active Liberty explains why and how he does this, but the bottom line is that he will violate the text and clear meaning of the Constitution if he thinks it's for the good of the country. A clear example of this is where he says that political speech -- not money, speech -- may be restricted if the net result of that speech is that it -- in his view, not necessarily in the facts -- can drown out other speech. That's how he justifies supporting a law (like McCain-Feingold) that says political speech may be restricted, because he feels that if corporations can engage unfettered in political speech, that harms the democratic process. (Again, there's no evidence of this, it's just his feeling.)

But what Breyer fails to recognize is that the government literally has no authority to restrict such speech, regardless of how beneficial such a restriction might be, in his mind. Instead, he pledges fealty to his bastardized notion of "judicial modesty," which means he defers to the government of the people, instead of enforcing the people's mandated restrictions on the government. True judicial modesty means following the text and clear meaning of the law, not making up your own interpretations to justify letting the government do what it wants.

He is what Democratic presidents put on the bench: people who refuse to restrict government to the limits put in place by the law of the people.

Hm. Let's see if you provide any evidence.

Nope, you don't.

So you admit you're wrong, then.

Or do you really not know the fact that our system was designed to NOT be majority rule? That's what (again) the Democrats have been working hard to change. They want majority rule, because majority rule allows them to more easily violate the law. That's the whole point of the 17th Amendment. The Senate and House were designed to restrict the power of Congress, by giving them different interests. By putting both of them into the hands of the people, you give both houses of Congress the same interests, and you get majority rule ... something that violates the design of the system.

It's odd that you say there's no doubt I am wrong, despite the fact that you still refuse to provide any evidence that I am wrong.

Well, by "odd," I mean "completely expected."

I wanted to meet you at your level.

You're lying. In fact, you can't come up with a single example of this ever happening. You're completely full of shit.

Now, if you s/reasonable person would see as implying/troll or moron would claim implies/, then you might have the beginning of a point. But you didn't, so you don't.

If the approvers are Democrats, absolutely. If they are Republicans, maybe, and maybe not.

But that's because that's what the people want: they want a judiciary that will violate the law. That is part of what has to be taken into account, and wasn't, in the design.

True.

False.

False.