And I have asked you to clarify that twice now. You’re saying they “appear” to be guilty, but when I ask you if you THINK they are guilty, you come back at me with the chickenshit, “Guilt is determined by the courts.”

And the supreme court decided to interfere with a state recount while saying at the same time that there decision was not setting a president. Hmmm… not exactly trustworthy in these cases.

Bush v. Gore has nothing to do with the two cases that I cited. That’s a complete strawman.

By the way, what happened to attacking the Supreme Court as being filled with activists?

Not sure what you mean here.

Additionally, Spakovsky was linked to the attorney scandal as well.

I call bullshit. Prove it.

You should be studied in Vienna by a team of psychiatrists because you’re unlike anything I have ever seen.

Once again, I am not asking you to determine their guilt. This is not a court. It’s a fucking comment section of a blog. You have no problem saying that it “appears” they are guilty, yet you’re too chickenshit to answer the question as to whether or not you think they’re guilty.

I wonder why that is.

Jay: “Wrong wrong wrong.”

You said… “Oh please! It was Democrats who demanded all or nothing.”

This is wrong.

Why the fuck should I give a damn about what else you have to say on the subject, when you got this part wrong? Your credibility is zero.

“And you have the audacity to talk about my English skills?”

Yeah, cause your language skills suck. You accused me of calling these two guilty three times in this thread alone, which can only be the result of poor language skills, or a deficiency in honesty.

Which is it?

“If you’ve ever said, “I was wrong” in these comments, I’ve never seen it.”

By, ‘in these comments’ do you mean in this thread, or on this site?

“He was attacked and tarred as a person that was “hostile” to “voting rights” because of his views in the Texas redistricting controversy and because of his support of Georgia’s voter ID law, both of which were validated by Supreme Court decisions.”

And the supreme court decided to interfere with a state recount while saying at the same time that there decision was not setting a president. Hmmm… not exactly trustworthy in these cases.

By the way, what happened to attacking the Supreme Court as being filled with activists?

Additionally, Spakovsky was linked to the attorney scandal as well. Since the GOP has already admitted to breaking the law in that department, perhaps people even indirectly involved shouldn’t be given government positions anymore.

“Their job is to determine whether or not a nomination is qualified for the position and make their determination based on that and whether or not he would execute his or duties in accordance with the law.”

And they did. They felt he wasn’t fit and refused to vote for him. They felt that since he wasn’t vigorously defending civil rights with regards to voting before, he wouldn’t protect voting rights as part of the FEC.

Jay: “I didn’t ask you to ‘determine’ their guilt. I asked you:

‘Do you think they’re guilty?’”

Wow. Just when I thought you could not get dumber.

Guilt is determined by the courts. Until they are tried, they are innocent.

Got it?

Fucking retard.

I didn’t ask you to ‘determine’ their guilt. I asked you:

“Do you think they’re guilty?”

Yes or no?

Wrong wrong wrong. The Democrats blocked consideration of the vote for all the candidates. They wanted a one by one vote and why? This way they could tilt the FEC in favor of Democrats. It was an underhanded tactic and election year political nonsense, nothing more.

You didn’t originally say extent. If you had said extent, we wouldn’t be having this debate.

Yes, I DID SAY “TO THE EXTENT” when I said SUCH which means “TO THE EXTENT”

And you have the audacity to talk about my English skills?

Are you claiming I’ve never admitted a mistake? Are you sure you want to go on record about that?

If you’ve ever said, “I was wrong” in these comments, I’ve never seen it.

You’re wrong here and you won’t admit it. Hell, you don’t even have to say, “I was wrong.” All you need to do is say, “I wasn’t sure what you were saying Jay. Now I do.”

By the way, Jay, what smears?

He was attacked and tarred as a person that was “hostile” to “voting rights” because of his views in the Texas redistricting controversy and because of his support of Georgia’s voter ID law, both of which were validated by Supreme Court decisions.

What is their job, and how can it not include judging whether certain nominees are right for the job they have been nominated for?

Their job is to determine whether or not a nomination is qualified for the position and make their determination based on that and whether or not he would execute his or duties in accordance with the law. von Spakovsky’s viewpoints while at the civil rights division of the Justice Department are in no way relevant to whether or not he could enforce election laws. He was qualified for the job. The Democrats were doing nothing but playing election year politics.

Me: “That’s there fucking job, idiot.”

Jay: “No, that’s not the fucking job jackass.”

What is the job of congress? I would love to hear your educated opinion on this. What is their job, and how can it not include judging whether certain nominees are right for the job they have been nominated for?

They are if you actually understand how the system works.

Question: Do you think they’re guilty, yes or no? It’s a VERY SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION.”

Guilt is determined by the courts. Appearance is determined by the limited evidence available.

“Yes you fucking stupid jackass because…”

… English? Do you speak English.

“You get that “ignore” shit from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT statement”

… What other statement? I am interested in seeing where this line of attack leads.

“And as I said, voting for FEC confirmations in blocs is something that the Senate has done for a long time.”

Again I ask, do you speak English. Your use of the language is imprecise, at best.

By the way, you said…

“Oh please! It was Democrats who demanded all or nothing. Democrats blocked consideration of ANY replacements because of their objections to one nominee.”

So you were wrong. The evidence clearly shows it was the GOP who demanded all or nothing. You. Were. Wrong.

“How can they have the same kind of limits?”

It’s a simple dollar figure.

“The maximum that can be donated to a candidate in a calendar year is $2300.”

Actually, it’s per election cycle, not calendar year. (You could be maxed out now, and donate again after the convention.) Although this has little to do with the nature of the debate right now.

“There you have it. In other words: Donations to the party are not limited to the extent….”

Ahhhh-stop right there. You didn’t originally say extent. If you had said extent, we wouldn’t be having this debate.

“You misunderstood why I wrote. Is it EVER possible for you to admit that you’re wrong? EVER? Or will you keep arguing for the sake of arguing?”

Two points…

1.) Are you claiming I’ve never admitted a mistake? Are you sure you want to go on record about that?

2.) What did you think SpiderJ said when you responded with ‘That’s what per 100,000 means’? (I’m sure I’ll be explaining that comment next time, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt for now.)

No I was not “a lying.” It’s amazing how “It looks like they’re guilty” and “They’re guilty” are two totally separate things.

Question: Do you think they’re guilty, yes or no? It’s a VERY SIMPLE YES OR NO QUESTION.

And if so, why?

JGW says, “Let me know when it actually is a violation.” and I say he’s going to ignore it. And that is a lie.

Yes you fucking stupid jackass because “Let me know when it is actually a violation” does not mean, “Just ignore it.”

You get that “ignore” shit from a COMPLETELY DIFFERENT statement, yet below you’re arguing that my use of the word ’such’ makes my statement completely different. You’re fucking unbelievable.

Yes. Your source implied that the Democrats refused to vote on any of them individually because of one guy. This is not true. The GOP wanted one vote for the group, which included someone the Democrats felt was unfit for the job.

And as I said, voting for FEC confirmations in blocs is something that the Senate has done for a long time.

That’s there fucking job, idiot.

No, that’s not the fucking job jackass.

Your first definition completely agrees with me. The other two only make sense if you added more context your statement. For instance, ‘…doesn’t have such strict limits.’ After all, they have the same kind of limits.

I don’t have to add more context to the statement because people with brains can understand what I was saying. If I had written, “Donating to the RNC doesn’t have any limits” then you would be right. But by saying, “The bulk of the money was donated to the RNC which doesn’t have such limits” simply means that limits don’t fall under the same constraints as individuals.

After all, they have the same kind of limits.

How can they have the same kind of limits? The maximum that can be donated to a candidate in a calendar year is $2300. The max to the party is $28500.

‘Such’ is an adjective, at least it is in the way we were using it. You used it to describe the limits. I’m saying you should have used it to describe the size of the limits, not the limits in general.

And that is what I did. Remember, here is what Duros said:

Be that as it may, I thought the limit was $2800 per person or something. How do they legally get to donate $61,000?

I responded:

The individual donations were of the legal limit to McCain’s campaign. The bulk of the money was donated to the RNC which doesn’t have such limits.

There you have it. In other words: Donations to the party are not limited to the extent that they are to the individual candidates.

You misunderstood why I wrote. Is it EVER possible for you to admit that you’re wrong? EVER? Or will you keep arguing for the sake of arguing?

‘Such’ is an adjective, at least it is in the way we were using it. You used it to describe the limits. I’m saying you should have used it to describe the size of the limits, not the limits in general. Otherwise you are comparing the nature of the limits.

Jay: “No, that’s not what he said. And I don’t care what you think your crystal ball powers tell you, it’s not what he said. It’s a lie.”

Me: “I never said they were guilty. I said they looked like they were in violation.”

Jay: “Oh…So you never said they were guilty, you just said they LOOKED LIKE they were guilty. I’m glad that’s such a big distinction to you.”

…. Hmmmm….

So I said they looked like they were in violation, and you said I said they were guilty. And you were not a lying.

JGW says, “Let me know when it actually is a violation.” and I say he’s going to ignore it. And that is a lie.

Is English your second language?

Me: “Strange… But they have it wrong.”

Jay: “No, they didn’t.”

Yes. Your source implied that the Democrats refused to vote on any of them individually because of one guy. This is not true. The GOP wanted one vote for the group, which included someone the Democrats felt was unfit for the job.

Jay: “Democrats, deciding they wanted to pick a fight…”

That’s there fucking job, idiot.

Jay: “…decided that smearing Hans von Spakovsky was the way to go.”

What smears? I assume by your statement that you actually know what the smears are and you are not merely puppeting right-wing talking points. So tell me what smears the Democrats used.

Me: “‘Doesn’t have such limits.’ is not the same as ‘Doesn’t have the same limits.’”

Jay: “Such: Of the kind. To the degree. To the extent.”

… ESL? Seriously.

Your first definition completely agrees with me. The other two only make sense if you added more context your statement. For instance, ‘…doesn’t have such strict limits.’ After all, they have the same kind of limits.

No, that’s not what he said. And I don’t care what you think your crystal ball powers tell you, it’s not what he said. It’s a lie.

I never said they were guilty. I said they looked like they were in violation.

Oh…So you never said they were guilty, you just said they LOOKED LIKE they were guilty. I’m glad that’s such a big distinction to you.

Strange… But they have it wrong.</i

“Doesn’t have such limits.” is not the same as “Doesn’t have the same limits.”

Such: Of the kind. To the degree. To the extent.

I know what the hell I was talking about.

Amazing. I write a sentence that is pretty fucking clear and you say it means something totally different, but JWG writes, “Let me know when it is a violation” and you take from that he said, “I want to ignore it.”

Stunning.

No, JWG said he was going to ignore it till it was proven. Gee, if that’s everyone’s attitude, then it will never be investigate. This is not going to be touched unless people express outrage.

“Yet here you are declaring them guilty…”

And you are a fucking liar. I never said they were guilty. I said they looked like they were in violation. By the way, even if we had 100% proof, I don’t think they would be guilty. The lady’s boss would be guilty, but I’m not sure they would be.

Me: “I would love to see your source on that.”

Jay: “Right here…”

Strange… But they have it wrong.

thehill.com/leading-the-news/reid-presses-bush-to-help-end-fec-standoff-2008-05-12.html

“The first is to convince Senate Republican leaders to adopt the White House’s position that the Senate proceed to voting on each of these nominations individually.”

So it was the GOP in the Senate, and not the White House.

Me: There are limits to the national committees. They are higher than to individuals, but there are limits.

Jay: Yes, I know that. I didn’t say there weren’t limits. I said donations to the RNC don’t have the same limits as those made directly to a candidate.

Actually, you said, “The individual donations were of the legal limit to McCain’s campaign. The bulk of the money was donated to the RNC which doesn’t have such limits.”

“Doesn’t have such limits.” is not the same as “Doesn’t have the same limits.”

Well nobody said it shouldn’t be investigated. You’re moving the goalposts again. It’s something you do often when you get cornered and know you’ve been caught knee deep in your own bullshit.

And again you prove you are a fucking liar.

No I’m not. Let’s go right to your words:

Or do you think these two, who are renting an apartment and live in a CD with an average income of $58,000, could afford to give away nearly $60,0000 in campaign donations after giving away $0 in all other elections combined.

There you have it. You have no information other than what was written in this ONE story. You have no clue as to what they have in savings, investments or anything else. Yet here you are declaring them guilty for no other reason than their donations were made to John McCain. Proving you are nothing but a hack.

I would love to see your source on that.

Right here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/24/AR2008062401328.html

Democrats blocked consideration of any replacements over objections to one of President Bush’s choices, former Justice Department official Hans von Spakovsky, whom they accused of politicizing cases of voting rights.

Now, is that clear enough or is black going to turn to white again with you coming up with some asshat reason that this doesn’t count?

There are limits to the national committees. They are higher than to individuals, but there are limits.

Yes, I know that. I didn’t say there weren’t limits. I said donations to the RNC don’t have the same limits as those made directly to a candidate.

That’s not true. There are limits to the national committees. They are higher than to individuals, but there are limits.

Jay: “No, actually it would take a mind reader.”

Nope. You just are a moron and expect everyone else to be one as well.

Jay: “Man, you are a J-A-C-K-A-S-S.”

And you are a lying sack of shit. I never said anything that comes close to what you accused me of, but you are a fucking retard, so you wouldn’t know that.

If you don’t think a couple donating more than the average yearly income for their CD isn’t worth investigating, especially with the connections here, then you are a fucking ‘tard.

Me: “You must look at each instance individually and judge them according to the facts”

Jay: “Right, and you’re reaching a conclusion based on one story that these people broke the law. That’s pathetic. It truly is.”

And again you prove you are a fucking liar.

“Oh please! It was Democrats who demanded all or nothing. Democrats blocked consideration of ANY replacements because of their objections to one nominee.”

I would love to see your source on that.