This is the closest I've ever seen you come to saying, "I was wrong," when you clearly are, so I'll consider this a victory. How do you think Democrats respond to Republican ideas? Appeals to identity politics are most of what they have. "Racists!" "War on Women!"

The Reid money quote was further down in the article:

I guess you'd try to weasel out of this one like you did for welfare.

How about the leader of the party, or maybe the chair of the DNC or Senate Majority Leader? Are those examples official enough?

That was after a really quick search. I can also find stuff about water being wet, if that would help. I would add that smitty's examples of non-official Democrats point out how much worse it is than simply professional partisans (though probably MSNBC should be included there) using such ridiculous arguments with straight faces.

I'm familiar with smitty and how he writes. And he's absolutely correct that the official response of the Democratic Party is racism accusations, though they've diversified their fallacious shrieks lately by blaming the Koch brothers.

But I don't see that smitty considers Aaron to be part of the Democratic Party. That still seems like a fiction you've created in order to have a nice straw man to beat up on. Can you see the difference between noting that official Democrats say something and that others say something?

The only one talking about Hank Aaron's status as a politician is you. I'm not sure what your point is, either. Maybe you're just continuing a different argument in a place where it doesn't belong.

I would rather have remained ignorant about his remarks, because he seems like a pretty decent guy (and a hell of a ball player) otherwise.

Yep, it's a private organization, and they certainly have the right to decide whom to employ. I disagree with his previous political donation, but I also disagree with the people who think he's a terrible person who shouldn't be running Mozilla.

I guess now leftists can stop pretending that black balling communists was a bad thing for anything but themselves. Hopefully, we can use this tragedy to resurrect that policy and then something good will have come from this after all.

What you're saying is that it needs a catchier catch phrase to see what difference it makes?

Oh, sorry, I didn't realize this was the "making shit up" about others thread. I'll stop posting now.

Yes, I explicitly said I wanted some of that extra liberty to rub off. Why is that bullshit? I cannot make sense of such an argument, except to the extent that you seem to want bad things to happen to certain people.

Then I guess I must not really care about their liberty either, but since my increased liberty is a side effect of their increased liberty, I'm OK with that. OTOH, as Soros gets more influence, my liberty is decreased. Whatever the motives, the two "sides" of billionaires are not the same. That you are blinded by your envy says a lot about you.

You're not reading (or at least not responding to) what I wrote. Are you dodging the question or can you really not tell the difference between the rule of law and policy preferences? Do you think the law, however you want to characterize it, is the law or not?

Whatever the Supreme Court upheld, it didn't say the President could rewrite the law by himself. I think that each branch attempting to stay within its Constitutional lanes (e.g., signing statements to that effect) are legitimate and probably necessary. I think the Executive openly contradicting plain language in a statute for political purposes is authoritarian bullshit and should be punished by impeachment and conviction, a clear violation of his oath.

So you're saying that directly contradicting obvious and unequivocal and uncontroversial things in statutes like dates is the same as interpreting a law based on the Constitution? I admit to not having an encyclopedic knowledge of signing statements, but this is definitely different than my recollection of them. We went from "settled law that cannot be changed!" to "I have a pen!" to "I can do whatever I want!"

Is your position that Obama is now calling his signature accomplishment unconstitutional? Maybe he was paying attention to his lectures on Constitutional law after all!

You're right, making personnel decisions is exactly like extra-Constitutional rewriting of legislation.

Yes, the only thing guaranteed about watching him is that he's sure he's right. Sometimes he even is.

Whenever I hear this, I know that I can safely ignore the rest of the comment, because it's already wrong. O'Reilly is all over the place.

It's inspirational, you mean. It takes not RTFA to a new level, and adds in a lot of other ignorance. It's a model /. comment.