Rim Jobinson Lays Down The Law (GOP Senators and Sotomayor)

[WeDidIt]

Any GOP Senator who does not fight tooth and nail against Sotomayor does not deserve our support!
July 16, 2009 | Jim Robinson

Posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:04:10 AM by Jim Robinson

Any Republican Senator who does not fight tooth and nail against the Sotomayor confirmation does not deserve our support!

Any Republican who votes aye on Sotomayor gets a NO vote next election!


We send these bastards up there to fight for us, to fight for our constitution, to fight for our rights!


If they roll over for one of the most important votes in a generation, then what good are they?


Call, write or visit your Senator's office today and make sure they understand the score:

And in a moment of something approaching clarity, one poster sums up what the result of this sort of "eat your own" strategy leads to:

To: Jim Robinson
Any GOP Senator who does not fight tooth and nail against Sotomayor does not deserve our support!

Agreed!

Unfortunately, I no longer HAVE any GOP Senators... and the two democrats we have here appear to be lap-dogs for the Obamessiah.


3 posted on Thursday, July 16, 2009 10:06:44 AM by WayneS (Respect the 2nd Amendment; Repeal the 16th)
< Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies>

:rofl:

WARNING: Vile Excrement Present At The Other End Of This Link!

I love it when they eat their own. I encourage Freepers to primary all moderates in purple states ASAP.

:evilgrin:

[Earth Bound Misfit]

1. "Any Republican who votes aye on Sotomayor gets a NO vote next election!"

How does that work? Is that like "unrecommend"?

:evilgrin:

:hide:

Edit spelling.

[elehhhhna]

23. what? he didn't write "eye" instead of "aye"???? Sign o' Armageddon!

[HopeHoops]

2. You have to love empty threats like that.

You know damn well they'll vote for anything with an (R) next to it if the alternative is something with a (D) next to it. The Republican candidate can admit to raping a goat in front of children while on LSD and they would STILL vote for him - ESPECIALLY if he is an old white guy with ties to domestic terrorist groups.

[Atman]

3. I don't get it...what "right" is Sotomayor taking from them?

Their perceived right to have everything controlled by ignorant old white males?

:shrug:

Fucking idiots.

.

[Hepburn]

4. +1...n/t

[Yavin4]

15. Yes, That's The One

They're losing control, and they know it.

[Richard Steele]

20. You. Nail. Head. *thumbsup* nm

[Javaman]

5. That's why I call t them The Donner Party. nt

[lpbk2713]

6. WTG RimJob

Fragment the rethuglican party even more. As if a 28% plurality is way too much.

[surrealAmerican]

7. Right, because "your support" was so important in the last election.

:sarcasm:

[blondeatlast]

8. Lindsey Graham is so a-skeered, you can tell.

:rofl:

[Kahuna]

9. I never thought I would be in agreement with Rim Jobinson..

:patriot:

[Old and In the Way]

10. Thanks Jim!

Make sure you get your troops to primary out my 2 Republican Senators, Collins and Snowe.

I get a chuckle how such assertive demands are backed by no reasons.

[malaise]

11. Poor fool

He hasn't seen the November election results yet?
You were whipped king of the Freepers.

[tandot]

12. I consider their NO vote for a Republican a YES vote for a Democrat

Thanks, Jim :hi:

[callous taoboy]

13. Get behind a mule, Jim.

:kick:

[Earth Bound Misfit]

14. Get a Brain, Moran...

http://www.entertonement.com/clips/nsvdjzkfdz--What-a-maroonBugs-Bunny-Looney-Tunes-usmc-

[orwell]

16. Unfortunately...

...we often have the same all or nothing approach by some posters on DU as well.

Those on both ends of the spectrum don't see the damage done by this myopic strategy. It is very difficult to build governing coalitions when intransigence for its own sake is viewed as a sign of strength.

Keep it up RimJob. Eventually you will be leading a party of one.

[depakid]

18. Actually-

There aren't always two sides to every story.

For example, if you or I perform an experiment- and we get a result and report it properly, then other sets of people perform the same experiment- and report the same results, we have something there.

Then some fools come along and simply say: your experiments suck- we believe the opposite. Should they get equal billing?

Should we, the folks who actually did the observations and followed the protocol be inclined to "compromise" our results with those who haven't?

Is that what "building a coalition" means?

And if so- what does that portend?

Getting back to the subject matter- Alito was- and is an unethical jurist. In his first confirmation hearings as a federal judge, he got a pass on a fairly simple matter.

A fair question was asked:

If called on as a federal judge- dealing with _____, would you recuse yourself?

He said he would.

Yet when tried- he didn't. Instead, he chose to be a part of a ruling granting ________ a money judgment.

That's objective stuff- not subject to much ideological disagreement.

Has Judge Sotomayor ever behaved this way?

One would hope that might be the point of confirmation hearings.

[orwell]

21. Actually...

...you've missed my point entirely.

I am commenting on the all or nothing strategy as exhibited by RimJob's call to arms. I said nothing about whether there are two sides to every story, because I don't believe in Hegelian constructs.

[depakid]

25. The way I read it was

...we often have the same all or nothing approach by some posters on DU as well.

Those on both ends of the spectrum don't see the damage done by this myopic strategy.

No need to drag Hegel into this business.

Just sayin' there really aren't "two sides" to every story. The American corporate media tosses out he said/she said deals- ostensibly to show that they have "objectivity."

You and I and everyone reading this can find a fool who will say the opposite of any given thing for some motivation or another.

Robertson and his site- well, I don't know.

What can one say about that sort of deal?

I mean really.










:shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug: :shrug:

[orwell]

26. I would posit...

...that there are n sides to every story. It is the destructive nature of one's automatic assumption of opposition, the "win or die" strategy, the win/lose dialectic that was at the heart of my original post.

If your point is that there are more than two sides to every story, I would obviously agree. If your point is that some people argue erroneous facts (the earth is flat) and that therefore their facts should be dismissed in a debate I would also agree.

The point of my original post addressed how commonplace the entrenched position of win or die is shared by those whose viewpoints are in the extreme, some of whom post here on this website. This, in my mind is more destructive than constructive to the realization of political goals. It alienates rather than illuminates.

Zealots never discuss win/win outcomes because they have accepted the zero sum model of game theory. It is this model which is at the heart of the ongoing destruction of our political discourse.

Complex problems and societies need to be viewed within a non zero sum framework. I believe such a framework is also more conducive to a progressive or liberal worldview.

Thanks for the respectful dialogue.

[depakid]

27. I guess I'm saying that, in order to create understanding

we need universally understood premises to work from.

Now, we can find those empirically- or we can fuss about them through belief systems.

You mention game theory- which is pretty cool stuff, as it helps to explain lots of behaviors.

Iterative "games" especially.

Thanks also for the respectful dialogue. Seems to me at least that this is something we can use a lot more of -for everyone's advantage.

[chat_noir]

17. 3rd quarter Fleeceathon going on

RimJob usually tries to fire up the troops during these fun(dy)raisers.

He's on target to match last quarter's fleeceathon...which took almost 2 months to reach the goal.





(Chad Castagana)

[Contrary1]

19. It was Jimbo's first campaign speech:

:rofl:

[dmallind]

22. And that over the top purism and lack of realpolitik is very familiar

How often have we seen the exact same idea about being willing to stand up and die for a politically unwinnable cause or no longer be considered a REAL Democrat have we seen on these very pages?

[Dr Fate]

24. Correction: His name is Jim Thompson.

;)