View Full Version : Report: Justice David Souter to retire
Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193)
NPR has learned that Supreme Court Justice David Souter is planning to retire at the end of the court's current term.
The court has completed hearing oral arguments for the year and will be issuing rulings and opinions until the end of June.
Souter is expected to remain on the bench until a successor has been chosen and confirmed, which may or may not be accomplished before the court reconvenes in October.
At 69, Souter is nowhere near the oldest member of the court, but he has made clear to friends for some time now that he wanted to leave Washington, a city he has never liked, and return to his native New Hampshire.
Now, according to reliable sources, he has decided to take the plunge and has informed the White House of his decision.
Souter's retirement would give President Obama his first appointment to the high court, and most observers expect that he will appoint a woman.
The court currently has one female justice — Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is recovering from cancer surgery.
Obama was elected with strong support from women.
An Obama pick would be unlikely to change the ideological makeup of the court. Souter, though appointed by the first President Bush, generally votes with the more liberal members of the court, a group of four that is in a rather consistent minority.
69? Damn...that is really young for a Supreme Court Justice to step down.
Ah, he's just some socialist little faggot who does his little hate Republican dance and throws money at horrible socialist programs.
I thought David Justice retired a long time ago. :unsure:
LordJezo
05-01-2009, 02:02 AM
Supreme Court Justice Souter To Retire (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=103694193)
69? Damn...that is really young for a Supreme Court Justice to step down.
It just goes to show you that things go on in the top levels of power that us normal folks will never be aware of.
Obama gets in office then boom, some young guy retires in order to give Obama a chance to appoint someone from his circles. I suppose stuff like this has always been done but they are not even trying to hide it anymore.
Oh well. Once he runs the courts he'll have all three branches of government under his control and be able to do whatever he wants with no one to stop him.
SatCam
05-01-2009, 02:39 AM
It just goes to show you that things go on in the top levels of power that us normal folks will never be aware of.
Obama gets in office then boom, some young guy retires in order to give Obama a chance to appoint someone from his circles. I suppose stuff like this has always been done but they are not even trying to hide it anymore.
Oh well. Once he runs the courts he'll have all three branches of government under his control and be able to do whatever he wants with no one to stop him.
too true. First the economic crisis, then swine flu, now this? anyone else besides me and jezo think these happenings might not be just coincidences? Just more panic and fear to help get Barry more power. In fact, I hear some people down at the gym talking about how Obama helped orchestrate 9/11 so Bush would take the hit for going into Iraq. Then when Obama became president he already had the army in the middle east and now the next step is to give that whole area of the world to Israel. Open your eyes people and take a stand!
LordJezo
05-01-2009, 03:23 AM
Now that Obama stands unopposed in congress he can put whomever he wants into the judge position. There is no way to stop anything he does now. All three arms of government now belong to him, checks and balances are completely defeated and we now live in a country where one person has complete control over everything we do.
"Not Souter!!!"
http://www.springfield-u.com/images/framegrabs/1F02/1F02-154.jpg
It just goes to show you that things go on in the top levels of power that us normal folks will never be aware of.
Obama gets in office then boom, some young guy retires in order to give Obama a chance to appoint someone from his circles. I suppose stuff like this has always been done but they are not even trying to hide it anymore.
Oh well. Once he runs the courts he'll have all three branches of government under his control and be able to do whatever he wants with no one to stop him.
By replacing the very liberal Souter with any liberal judge, the end result is still a liberal judge. The EXACT same split will remain on the court.
Learn to read.
Jujubees2
05-01-2009, 04:46 AM
Now that Obama stands unopposed in congress he can put whomever he wants into the judge position. There is no way to stop anything he does now. All three arms of government now belong to him, checks and balances are completely defeated and we now live in a country where one person has complete control over everything we do.
I've been living the past 15 years with one person in complete control of everything I do. She's called my wife.
underdog
05-01-2009, 04:50 AM
It just goes to show you that things go on in the top levels of power that us normal folks will never be aware of.
Obama gets in office then boom, some young guy retires in order to give Obama a chance to appoint someone from his circles. I suppose stuff like this has always been done but they are not even trying to hide it anymore.
Oh well. Once he runs the courts he'll have all three branches of government under his control and be able to do whatever he wants with no one to stop him.
I really cannot wait for Obama to put epo's 3 point plan into place.
razorboy
05-01-2009, 04:53 AM
I thought David Justice retired a long time ago. :unsure:
First thing that came to mind when I saw the title as well.
"Not Souter!!!"
http://www.springfield-u.com/images/framegrabs/1F02/1F02-154.jpg
:clap: You beat me to it... I had the "ohhh no not Souter" all lined up..
PhishHead
05-01-2009, 05:08 AM
It just goes to show you that things go on in the top levels of power that us normal folks will never be aware of.
Obama gets in office then boom, some young guy retires in order to give Obama a chance to appoint someone from his circles. I suppose stuff like this has always been done but they are not even trying to hide it anymore.
Oh well. Once he runs the courts he'll have all three branches of government under his control and be able to do whatever he wants with no one to stop him.
By replacing the very liberal Souter with any liberal judge, the end result is still a liberal judge. The EXACT same split will remain on the court.
Learn to read.
Not just that, Souter was originally appointed as a Republican and decided during his tenure that he was going to be more moderate/liberal. If you want to blame anyone blame Bush Senior for appointing him in the first place.
Second, Souter has wanted to retire for about 5 years, as he has stated time and time again he hates DC and wants to move back to New Hampshire already. I mean for god sakes the guy refuses to use a computer to type his opinions and writes everything long hand he just wants to relax and not be a judge anymore. I have nothing against Souter or Stevens or Breyer for that matter, the only problem I have is as justices they are not vocal enough and let others drown them out. Plus if Souter was really doing this for Obama he wouldn't have retired as the only reason he retired is because Stevens and Ginsberg said they would not and he did not want to leave 2 seats open.
And Epo is exactly right, if you replace a liberal with a liberal absolutely nothing has changed.
LordJezo
05-01-2009, 05:29 AM
Second, Souter has wanted to retire for about 5 years,
5 years, so that's lots of GW, and a tiny amount of Obama. He waited right until the liberals were back in charge of everything and is now stepping down to make sure another extremist is put in his place.
PhishHead
05-01-2009, 05:31 AM
5 years, so that's lots of GW, and a tiny amount of Obama. He waited right until the liberals were back in charge of everything and is now stepping down to make sure another extremist is put in his place.
You are a complete idiot and this is coming from somebody who thinks Scalia is the best Judge on the court.
The Jays
05-01-2009, 05:34 AM
Originally Posted by LordJezo
5 years, so that's lots of GW, and a tiny amount of Obama. He waited right until the liberals were back in charge of everything and is now stepping down to make sure another extremist is put in his place.
You need to stop acting mildly retarded. Souter voted with the liberal side of the court on most issues. He voted in the majority in Kelo vs New London, for Christ sake's. I say thank god he's leaving.
PhishHead
05-01-2009, 05:38 AM
You need to stop acting mildly retarded. Souter voted with the liberal side of the court on most issues. He voted in the majority in Kelo vs New London, for Christ sake's. I say thank god he's leaving.
If this is in reference to me, I am just arguing with Jezo based on the fact that he did this because Obama is in charge. It still doesn't matter because as Epo said the court is split the exactly same way, with Kennedy being the swing vote.
When Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas or Kennedy retire then you guys can worry the court will change, but until then for the most part it will be...Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas on one end, Ginsburg, Stevens, Breyer, Vacant, on the other and Kennedy playing the most crucial role. Also remember like Souter anyone can change their mind while on the court that is my point, nominated by a republican and switched over to moderate/liberal. It can happen to any justice.
The Jays
05-01-2009, 05:41 AM
No, it's in reference to LordJezo, you know, the one acting midly retarded.
The Jays
05-01-2009, 05:42 AM
Ah, he's just some socialist little faggot who does his little hate Republican dance and throws money at horrible socialist programs.
I just saw this. I LOL'd.
I'm going to love "socialist little faggot" references.
PhishHead
05-01-2009, 05:43 AM
No, it's in reference to LordJezo, you know, the one acting midly retarded.
Jezo confuses my brain and makes me think I am retarded.
EliSnow
05-01-2009, 05:57 AM
5 years, so that's lots of GW, and a tiny amount of Obama. He waited right until the liberals were back in charge of everything and is now stepping down to make sure another extremist is put in his place.
Thare are NO extremists on the US Supreme Court! Not on the left or the right. Some may lean a good deal more one way than the other, but none of them are extremists.
Do you even know what an extremist is?
PhishHead
05-01-2009, 05:59 AM
Thare are NO extremists on the US Supreme Court! Not on the left or the right. Some may lean a good deal more one way than the other, but none of them are extremists.
Do you even know what an extremist is?
is LordJezo?
The Jays
05-01-2009, 06:06 AM
An extremist is one who advocates for affordable healthcare, to help out struggling vital national industries, and who favors letting tax cuts expire in order to help pay off current budget deficits.
EliSnow
05-01-2009, 06:07 AM
is LordJezo?
I don't even think he's an extremist. He's either a 1) very deluded soul with a loose grip on reality or 2) a person doing a bad board character who with a deluded soul with a loose grip on reality.
LordJezo
05-01-2009, 06:10 AM
An extremist is one who advocates for affordable healthcare, to help out struggling vital national industries, and who favors letting tax cuts expire in order to help pay off current budget deficits.
Yeah, so socialism to replace capitalism, nationalization of failing industries that should die if they can't compete, and taxing the rich just because they make more money.
Great.
Enjoy Venezuela Russia North Korea branded USA.
Freitag
05-01-2009, 06:15 AM
Do you even know what an extremist is?
"I'LL TAKE 'EM BOTH, I'M HARDCORE!!!"
Misteriosa
05-01-2009, 06:19 AM
"I'LL TAKE 'EM BOTH, I'M HARDCORE!!!"
http://fridays.toonzone.net/ppg-bubbles.gif
(any one who saw the episode will get it :happy: )
foodcourtdruide
05-01-2009, 06:23 AM
I don't even think he's an extremist. He's either a 1) very deluded soul with a loose grip on reality or 2) a person doing a bad board character who with a deluded soul with a loose grip on reality.
There is no way he's real. I'd say board character, however it is fun talking to him.
The Jays
05-01-2009, 06:23 AM
Yeah, so socialism to replace capitalism, nationalization of failing industries that should die if they can't compete, and taxing the rich just because they make more money.
Great.
Enjoy Venezuela Russia North Korea branded USA.
Holy shit, can you take any position that does not require you to label the opposite as compete ludicrous? Why don't you just call me Hitler and state how I throw babies out the windows of hospitals?
foodcourtdruide
05-01-2009, 06:29 AM
Holy shit, can you take any position that does not require you to label the opposite as compete ludicrous? Why don't you just call me Hitler and state how I throw babies out the windows of hospitals?
Shhh, don't tell him about the secret liberal plan!
TheMojoPin
05-01-2009, 07:55 AM
There is no way he's real. I'd say board character, however it is fun talking to him.
Exactly.
Please don't stoop to personal attacks on Jezo, folks. It's all in good fun.
foodcourtdruide
05-01-2009, 08:19 AM
Exactly.
Please don't stoop to personal attacks on Jezo, folks. It's all in good fun.
Yeah, we should treat GVA.. err Jezo with respect :P
Crispy123
05-01-2009, 08:33 AM
Yeah, so socialism to replace capitalism, nationalization of failing industries that should die if they can't compete, and taxing the rich just because they make more money.
Great.
Enjoy Venezuela Russia North Korea branded USA.
You cant seriously call the last 8 years capitalism. GWB had his boys loot not only Iraq but this country as well turning any economy theyve touched to shit.
LordJezo
05-01-2009, 09:58 AM
You cant seriously call the last 8 years capitalism. GWB had his boys loot not only Iraq but this country as well turning any economy theyve touched to shit.
In the past 8 years capitalism worked fine. My stocks in Northrop, Haliburton, and ATK all went up, I cashed out, and made some money.
Now all of the free market forces that allowed some of us to cash in on the good this country was doing around the world are being halted and only Obama will call the shots on who profits and who pays.
EliSnow
05-01-2009, 10:01 AM
Now all of the free market forces that allowed some of us to cash in on the good this country was doing around the world are being halted and only Obama will call the shots on who profits and who pays.
My company's stock is doing well and Obama has no say in it.
The Jays
05-01-2009, 10:19 AM
In the past 8 years capitalism worked fine. My stocks in Northrop, Haliburton, and ATK all went up, I cashed out, and made some money.
Now all of the free market forces that allowed some of us to cash in on the good this country was doing around the world are being halted and only Obama will call the shots on who profits and who pays.
Everything all went up because the system was fucked up, not because capitalism worked fine. To you, it was fine because the system made you a profit, but when everyone realized this mortgage-backed securities was crap, it all went to shit.
All you are saying is unnecessary wars are good because people can make money on defense contractors stocks, and people who try to fix the broken economy are the enemy because they want to stop people from losing money from a system that was tainted by shitty mortgages that the previous administration endorsed.
Crispy123
05-01-2009, 10:31 AM
In the past 8 years capitalism worked fine. My stocks in Northrop, Haliburton, and ATK all went up, I cashed out, and made some money.
Now all of the free market forces that allowed some of us to cash in on the good this country was doing around the world are being halted and only Obama will call the shots on who profits and who pays.
Just because you made money doesnt make it capitalism. There hasnt been a free market for quite a while is my point, which youve missed entirely. Blame Obama its fine with me youre just delusional and I think you & everyone else knows it.
BTW unfortunatley heres another point on which youre wrong,
Specter's Defection Could Help Republicans Block a Nominee to Replace Souter (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/01/specters-defection-help-republicans-block-souters-potential-replacement/)
MacVittie
05-01-2009, 10:35 AM
Obama should appoint David Justice to replace Souter. Then everyone can call him Justice Justice.
Obama should appoint David Justice to replace Souter. Then everyone can call him Justice Justice.
I prefer Buford T. Justice.
I prefer Buford T. Justice.
His dissenting opinion would always lead with "You sombitches".
hey lordjezo I hate to break it to you buddy but socialism is closer to the constitution than is capitalism
little thing called the commerce clause
sorry to burst your randian fantasy bubble
drjoek
05-01-2009, 11:32 AM
J D Souther to retire?
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/TRpYM9bNfUY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TRpYM9bNfUY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
His dissenting opinion would always lead with "You sombitches".
Shut your aaaaassssssssssssssss.........
By replacing the very liberal Souter with any liberal judge, the end result is still a liberal judge. The EXACT same split will remain on the court.
Learn to read.
These threads about souter stepping down really outs people who never really pay attention and just react to bullshit, even though souter was appointed by HW Bush he was not conservative. For anyone to be more liberal than souter would have to be someone on the fringe left.
foodcourtdruide
05-01-2009, 12:39 PM
These threads about souter stepping down really outs people who never really pay attention and just react to bullshit, even though souter was appointed by HW Bush he was not conservative. For anyone to be more liberal than souter would have to be someone on the fringe left.
How do you define "finge left"? Souter definitely leaned to the left, but he is extremely far from "fringe left".
Also, HW Bush intended him to be a conservative judge. He gradually went left over time.
How do you define "finge left"? Souter definitely leaned to the left, but he is extremely far from "fringe left".
Also, HW Bush intended him to be a conservative judge. He gradually went left over time.
I said for his replacement to be more liberal then they would have to be fringe left, reading is fundamental.
And souter was never a conservative by most of their standards, he was a northern republican which is the way the party should have stayed and that kind of thinking got the whole country on board. Lately they have let the religious people basically take over the party and until they get rid of their controlling influence they will continue to lag behind. They have always leaned toward a christian influence but lately they are just over board on that agenda.
But dont fool yourself, souter was always liberal, him retiring will not help any agenda pelosi wants to push, the one they want off will not retire for years and thats scalia.
foodcourtdruide
05-02-2009, 09:24 AM
I said for his replacement to be more liberal then they would have to be fringe left, reading is fundamental.
Thanks for the insult in the first sentence. I am saying that he is FAR from fringe left, so for you to say that if someone was further to the left they'd have to be fringe left is INCORRECT. They could be more left than Souter and not be fringe.
foodcourtdruide
05-02-2009, 09:31 AM
Seriously dude, you act like 90% of the left is fringe. Think about it, if I said
"For anyone to be more CONSERVATIVE than MCCAIN would have to be someone on the fringe RIGHT."
Wouldn't I sound completely ridiculous?
That's why I asked you to define what "fringe left" was, instead you gave me a sarcastic comment.
The Jays
05-02-2009, 09:41 AM
Well that does sound odd, because McCain is one of the most liberal Republicans, but it's correct, because the current state of the party is right wing wackadoos who think that swine flu is caused by illegal immigration, waterboarding is on par with drinking water, evolution is the acceptance of atheism, and imposing bans on assault weapons equals a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
foodcourtdruide
05-02-2009, 09:49 AM
Well that does sound odd, because McCain is one of the most liberal Republicans, but it's correct, because the current state of the party is right wing wackadoos who think that swine flu is caused by illegal immigration, waterboarding is on par with drinking water, evolution is the acceptance of atheism, and imposing bans on assault weapons equals a repeal of the 2nd Amendment.
Republicans who believe that swine flu is caused by illegal immigration, waterboarding is not torture, evolution is fake and a less intrusive 2nd amendment are not the fringe though! Here is the definition of the term fringe
1: an ornamental border consisting of short straight or twisted threads or strips hanging from cut or raveled edges or from a separate band
2 a: something resembling a fringe : edge, periphery —often used in plural <operated on the fringes of the law> bchiefly British : 4bang c: one of various light or dark bands produced by the interference or diffraction of light d: an area bordering a putting green on a golf course with grass trimmed longer than on the green itself
3 a: something that is marginal, additional, or secondary to some activity, process, or subject <a fringe sport> b: a group with marginal or extremist views c: fringe benefit
I could be incorrect here, but the fringe of a party aren't simply people who have stupid positions on swine flu. I wouldn't consider Lou Dobbs to be on the fringe with his beliefs. Just because I disagree with something I don't just label it fringe.
His dissenting opinion would always lead with "You sombitches".
And he'd make it a fast one because he's in a goddamn hurry.
Thanks for the insult in the first sentence. I am saying that he is FAR from fringe left, so for you to say that if someone was further to the left they'd have to be fringe left is INCORRECT. They could be more left than Souter and not be fringe.
Jesus you really have no grip on understand the fundamentals of the written word, do you?
These threads about souter stepping down really outs people who never really pay attention and just react to bullshit, even though souter was appointed by HW Bush he was not conservative. For anyone to be more liberal than souter would have to be someone on the fringe left.
Which was in response to:
Originally Posted by epo View Post
By replacing the very liberal Souter with any liberal judge, the end result is still a liberal judge. The EXACT same split will remain on the court.
Learn to read.
So, what that means is that even though souter was appointed by HW bush, he is no conservative and is very liberal, a point I was agreeing with epo about, then I simply post for someone to be further left of him that person would have to be fringe left, meaning a member of weather underground or some shit like that.......you see the word play was insinuating that souter is liberal.....
God after reading about your stupid analogy with mccain its just easier to call you stupid and ignore your posts in this thread.
foodcourtdruide
05-02-2009, 10:17 AM
Jesus you really have no grip on understand the fundamentals of the written word, do you?
Which was in response to:
So, what that means is that even though souter was appointed by HW bush, he is no conservative and is very liberal, a point I was agreeing with epo about, then I simply post for someone to be further left of him that person would have to be fringe left, meaning a member of weather underground or some shit like that.......you see the word play was insinuating that souter is liberal.....
God after reading about your stupid analogy with mccain its just easier to call you stupid and ignore your posts in this thread.
I really said nothing to you to get such a vile response.
I'm done with this argument. This may not be the board for you. I have no interest in talking to someone who is unable to debate like a human being.
I really said nothing to you to get such a vile response.
I'm done with this argument. This may not be the board for you. I have no interest in talking to someone who is unable to debate like a human being.
Funny, there was no debate. I never called souter fringe left, I merely stated and agreed that he is very liberal, which he is, the biggest point is how people believe for some reason this sways the court one millimeter. This makes no difference in the make up from a conservative or liberal point of view, souter voted liberal on almost all votes.
underdog
05-02-2009, 10:37 AM
JSo, what that means is that even though souter was appointed by HW bush, he is no conservative and is very liberal, a point I was agreeing with epo about, then I simply post for someone to be further left of him that person would have to be fringe left, meaning a member of weather underground or some shit like that.......you see the word play was insinuating that souter is liberal.....
God after reading about your stupid analogy with mccain its just easier to call you stupid and ignore your posts in this thread.
Your statement came out as though if Souter has one little more ounce of liberalism in him, he'd be fringe left.
What you fail to comprehend is that foodcourtdruide is just saying that Souter is no where close to the fringe left. Therefore, you could have someone more liberal than him and still not fringe.
foodcourtdruide
05-02-2009, 11:00 AM
Your statement came out as though if Souter has one little more ounce of liberalism in him, he'd be fringe left.
What you fail to comprehend is that foodcourtdruide is just saying that Souter is no where close to the fringe left. Therefore, you could have someone more liberal than him and still not fringe.
Thank you for clearing this up. I thought I was going insane and not reading my posts or his posts correct. I don't know why this point makes him so angry.
underdog
05-02-2009, 11:09 AM
Thank you for clearing this up. I thought I was going insane and not reading my posts or his posts correct. I don't know why this point makes him so angry.
Everything makes him angry. He travels the country fighting people.
Your statement came out as though if Souter has one little more ounce of liberalism in him, he'd be fringe left.
What you fail to comprehend is that foodcourtdruide is just saying that Souter is no where close to the fringe left. Therefore, you could have someone more liberal than him and still not fringe.
Thank you for clearing this up. I thought I was going insane and not reading my posts or his posts correct. I don't know why this point makes him so angry.
You are going insane, underdog just dislikes me.
Souter is very left, not even a hint of being conservative in any of his rulings, for anyone to be further left they would have to be fringe left. Thats not an opinion, its a fact. One that both of you could see if you had ever read any of his rulings or even paid attention to politics in the slightest, most republicans think HW was tricked into picking him by democrats since they knew he would not follow a conservatives agenda even though he was considered a republican.
Again, those arguing the point that this will change the make up of the courts rulings one bit, is either crazy or just ignorant.
foodcourtdruide
05-02-2009, 11:14 AM
Everything makes him angry. He travels the country fighting people.
So, I'm not really stupid? And Souter isn't close to being "fringe left"?
underdog
05-02-2009, 11:16 AM
So, I'm not really stupid? And Souter isn't close to being "fringe left"?
If you're arguing against SP1!. you're usually right.
disneyspy
05-02-2009, 11:17 AM
If you're arguing against SP1!. you're usually right.
HEY! Just because you live in reality,dont make him out to be the bad guy
foodcourtdruide
05-02-2009, 11:20 AM
I'm kind of amazed he hasn't been banned. He blatantly called me stupid and was unprovoked. If we go to messageboard court I want GVAC to represent me.
razorboy
05-02-2009, 11:22 AM
I'm kind of amazed he hasn't been banned. He blatantly called me stupid and was unprovoked. If we go to messageboard court I want GVAC to represent me.
New thread?
disneyspy
05-02-2009, 11:23 AM
i'll be SP1's councel,we'll destroy you and the other stupid guy
foodcourtdruide
05-02-2009, 11:25 AM
i'll be SP1's councel,we'll destroy you and the other stupid guy
If I had to take a reading comprehension test I would probably fail, lol.
foodcourtdruide
05-02-2009, 11:27 AM
New thread?
Who would be the Judge? Mikey Boy? Are Saints allowed to be Judges?
razorboy
05-02-2009, 11:29 AM
Who would be the Judge? Mikey Boy?
You don't want to give that fascist killjoy absolute power.
Crispy123
05-02-2009, 11:32 AM
i'll be SP1's councel,we'll destroy you and the other stupid guy
Hey!
:glurps:
The Jays
05-02-2009, 12:17 PM
Funny, there was no debate. I never called souter fringe left, I merely stated and agreed that he is very liberal, which he is, the biggest point is how people believe for some reason this sways the court one millimeter. This makes no difference in the make up from a conservative or liberal point of view, souter voted liberal on almost all votes.
There is no debate because you can't argue normally. You are on par with knowledged_one, who called a poster a "socialist little faggot."
sailor
05-02-2009, 12:19 PM
There is no debate because you can't argue normally. You are on par with knowledged_one, who called a poster a "socialist little faggot."
the cub fan?
The Jays
05-02-2009, 12:20 PM
I'm not saying the fringe of the party would have stupid positions on swine flu, in fact, that is the majority of the party. The fringe of the party are those who are more conservative than all of them, such as Ron Paul, the good conservatives who actually want to get the government out of everyone's business and stop with this craziness the rest of the party has. The fringe of the party is more conservative because the fringe of the party does not believe in shitload of spending and increasing the size of goverment just to protect us from terrorism.
disneyspy
05-02-2009, 12:22 PM
the cub fan?
probably,but comparin someone to KO is pretty fuckin low,bannable even
EliSnow
05-02-2009, 12:32 PM
I'm kind of amazed he hasn't been banned. He blatantly called me stupid and was unprovoked. If we go to messageboard court I want GVAC to represent me.
Actually, the comment I saw called your analogy stupid, not you.
However, as a reminder to everyone, keep the insults down, please.
underdog
05-02-2009, 12:37 PM
the cub fan?
Nope, the Brewer fan.
disneyspy
05-02-2009, 12:39 PM
Nope, the Brewer fan.
shouldn't you be travelin around the country beatin guys up?
razorboy
05-02-2009, 12:39 PM
Nope, the Brewer fan.
However, as a reminder to everyone, keep the insults down, please.
Quit the name calling.
underdog
05-02-2009, 12:47 PM
shouldn't you be travelin around the country beatin guys up?
I travel the country and get beat up.
Quit the name calling.
Whatever, Reds fan.
foodcourtdruide
05-02-2009, 12:49 PM
Actually, the comment I saw called your analogy stupid, not you.
However, as a reminder to everyone, keep the insults down, please.
I'd feel like an idiot sitting here and making a case for a banning, so I'll just leave this as is.
underdog
05-02-2009, 12:49 PM
I'd feel like an idiot sitting here and making a case for a banning, so I'll just leave this as is.
Please stop the name calling.
foodcourtdruide
05-02-2009, 12:50 PM
Please stop the name calling.
I'm sorry if I come off as an asshole by calling myself an idiot.
disneyspy
05-02-2009, 12:51 PM
I'm sorry if I come off as an asshole by calling myself an idiot.
its ok,at least you didn't compare yourself to KO
razorboy
05-02-2009, 01:59 PM
Whatever, Reds fan.
Lies.
sailor
05-02-2009, 02:18 PM
Nope, the Brewer fan.
i always assumed he liked girls. hmm.
i'll be SP1's councel,we'll destroy you and the other stupid guy
If that qualifies as an insult then its insulting to message board flame wars, it would be laughed out of internet court.
There is no debate because you can't argue normally. You are on par with knowledged_one, who called a poster a "socialist little faggot."
It wasnt about arguing, it was me agreeing with 99% of the people here and one person yelling saying that I said souter was close to fringe, all I said was he was liberal and to be left of him means all the way to fringe, otherwise its someone just like souter.
It was all about following the conversation which some just refuse to do.
TheMojoPin
05-02-2009, 09:17 PM
It wasnt about arguing, it was me agreeing with 99% of the people here and one person yelling saying that I said souter was close to fringe,
This:
all I said was he was liberal and to be left of him means all the way to fringe, otherwise its someone just like souter.
...is saying that he's close to the fringe. If you're saying anyone to the Left of someone is "fringe Left," that's saying that Souter is some kind of uber-liberal instead of just leaning to the Left.
This:
...is saying that he's close to the fringe. If you're saying anyone to the Left of someone is "fringe Left," that's saying that Souter is some kind of uber-liberal instead of just leaning to the Left.
No its not, christ if I wanted to say he was fringe I would have said it, there is never anything to insinuate about what I post, everyone should know that by now. Souter doesnt lean left, he is firmly entrenched in those policies and his rulings reflect that, its a fact that cant be denied.
Hes not close to fringe but he is liberal and votes that way, the main point is still that this does nothing to help the left like some in the internet world have been saying, even though he was appointed by HW bush and was supposedly conservative his votes have not shown their principles. The only way to help them is to get further left, of which there is not a whole lot of room left, he voted liberal, not centrist, not even close to conservative, he is left, to get any further than that is getting a whacked out leftist on the court, it wont happen but thats the only way it helps dems.
Again I cant say it enough but every single post has simply stated the same fact, I never said he was fringe but that he was voted liberal on almost every issue, keep picking on every little tidbit it just shows that most really have no set ideals.
TheMojoPin
05-03-2009, 05:56 AM
No its not, christ if I wanted to say he was fringe I would have said it, there is never anything to insinuate about what I post, everyone should know that by now. Souter doesnt lean left, he is firmly entrenched in those policies and his rulings reflect that, its a fact that cant be denied.
Hes not close to fringe but he is liberal and votes that way, the main point is still that this does nothing to help the left like some in the internet world have been saying, even though he was appointed by HW bush and was supposedly conservative his votes have not shown their principles. The only way to help them is to get further left, of which there is not a whole lot of room left, he voted liberal, not centrist, not even close to conservative, he is left, to get any further than that is getting a whacked out leftist on the court, it wont happen but thats the only way it helps dems.
Again I cant say it enough but every single post has simply stated the same fact, I never said he was fringe but that he was voted liberal on almost every issue, keep picking on every little tidbit it just shows that most really have no set ideals.
You keep saying you're stating facts when you're not actually doing that. You're stating your opinion.
I also don't understand how you think getting a "whacked out Leftist" on the Court would help the Democrats.
foodcourtdruide
05-03-2009, 07:34 AM
You keep saying you're stating facts when you're not actually doing that. You're stating your opinion.
I also don't understand how you think getting a "whacked out Leftist" on the Court would help the Democrats.
This is kinda what I was trying to get at with him before he called me stupid and got angry. The democrats in government are EXTREMELY far from the "fringe left" and its dishonest how some of the right simply labels the majority of the left as fringe left. Obama has more in common with George Bush than he does the fringe left.
The Jays
05-03-2009, 09:44 AM
If the government was full of extreme leftists, then it would be full of socialists, which the right keeps saying has happened, but, by the actions so far (trying to give a helping hand to banks, trying to keep GM around until they are back on their feet), it would seem that they want capitalism to work but just need to give it a boost after falling down a hole that the markets have been digging for years.
IMSlacker
05-03-2009, 09:50 AM
If the government was full of extreme leftists, then it would be full of socialists, which the right keeps saying has happened, but, by the actions so far (trying to give a helping hand to banks, trying to keep GM around until they are back on their feet), it would seem that they want capitalism to work but just need to give it a boost after falling down a hole that the markets have been digging for years.
Exactly. That's just the way they explained it to me in the re-education camp. Welcome, comrade.
You keep saying you're stating facts when you're not actually doing that. You're stating your opinion.
I also don't understand how you think getting a "whacked out Leftist" on the Court would help the Democrats.
This is kinda what I was trying to get at with him before he called me stupid and got angry. The democrats in government are EXTREMELY far from the "fringe left" and its dishonest how some of the right simply labels the majority of the left as fringe left. Obama has more in common with George Bush than he does the fringe left.
Im not angry, far from it. Its amazing that you say Im stating an opinion and not facts mojo when his legal rulings are out there for all to read, its not an opinion its a fact that all his votes were very liberal and proves that not only did W make bad choices but his daddy did as well.
I would disagree on your assumption that the dems in control right now are far from fringe left, have you even read what pellosi and feistein really want? The only thing keeping them in check right now are the huge contingent of dems representing middle of the road dems that would vote them out if they pulled some of the same shit.
I am not labeling most of the left fringe left, most are in the middle(like souter) which keeps the fringe in check and from making idiotic changes to the government, it should be the same on the right though, most of the right arent whacked out religious nutjobs but they all get labeled that way. The problem is the fringe elements on both sides scream the loudest and get the most publicity.
The thing that's been highlighted in this and a couple of other threads is the hyperbole in today's conservative rhetoric. "Fringe Left", Socialist, Communist?
Seriously, you kids need to look at a political spectrum once and understand that a slight shift from center-right to center-left is not a gigantic change in our governance, rather a change in policy.
weekapaugjz
05-03-2009, 04:26 PM
you're all a bunch of socialist little faggots.
TheMojoPin
05-03-2009, 04:46 PM
I am not labeling most of the left fringe left, most are in the middle(like souter) which keeps the fringe in check and from making idiotic changes to the government, it should be the same on the right though, most of the right arent whacked out religious nutjobs but they all get labeled that way. The problem is the fringe elements on both sides scream the loudest and get the most publicity.
The "fringe" doesn't need to be kept in check because the "fringe" has no ability to change the government. Saying someone like Pelosi is "fringe left" would be like saying someone like Gingrich was a Right Wing extremist.
underdog
05-03-2009, 05:03 PM
The thing that's been highlighted in this and a couple of other threads is the hyperbole in today's conservative rhetoric. "Fringe Left", Socialist, Communist?
Seriously, you kids need to look at a political spectrum once and understand that a slight shift from center-right to center-left is not a gigantic change in our governance, rather a change in policy.
Stop being such a fascist.
foodcourtdruide
05-03-2009, 05:09 PM
The "fringe" doesn't need to be kept in check because the "fringe" has no ability to change the government. Saying someone like Pelosi is "fringe left" would be like saying someone like Gingrich was a Right Wing extremist.
This was the original point I was trying to make when I asked him to define fringe left.
foodcourtdruide
05-03-2009, 05:10 PM
Stop being such a fascist.
Stop being racist.
underdog
05-03-2009, 05:17 PM
Stop being racist.
Easy with the insults there, KO.
foodcourtdruide
05-03-2009, 05:18 PM
Easy with the insults there, KO.
Ok, anarchist.
The thing that's been highlighted in this and a couple of other threads is the hyperbole in today's conservative rhetoric. "Fringe Left", Socialist, Communist?
Seriously, you kids need to look at a political spectrum once and understand that a slight shift from center-right to center-left is not a gigantic change in our governance, rather a change in policy.
I am not conservative, at best I lean right, at worst I am in the middle. I was merely exaggerating to make a point but someone had to get their panties in a wad.
This was the original point I was trying to make when I asked him to define fringe left.
Pelossi is a good place to start, I will never agree with her on 99% of her social agenda or maybe even hillary's socialized medicine agenda, there is work to be done but that doesnt mean you cripple everyone else to achieve goals just to keep you in office.
Fringe is a broad term but the point was that souter was always liberal in his rulings, not defining fringe left.
Pelosi is just another center-right pro-business politician. I wouldn't categorize her as anywhere near a leftist.
TheMojoPin
05-03-2009, 08:01 PM
Pelosi is just another center-right pro-business politician. I wouldn't categorize her as anywhere near a leftist.
Eh, I'd definitely say she's solidly to the Left, but she's pretty damn far from being "fringe" or Far Left.
keithy_19
05-03-2009, 09:16 PM
Ok, anarchist.
There's nothing wrong with that. Minus the fact that it's so idealistic that it would never work.
foodcourtdruide
05-04-2009, 02:45 AM
I am not conservative, at best I lean right, at worst I am in the middle. I was merely exaggerating to make a point but someone had to get their panties in a wad.
Pelossi is a good place to start, I will never agree with her on 99% of her social agenda or maybe even hillary's socialized medicine agenda, there is work to be done but that doesnt mean you cripple everyone else to achieve goals just to keep you in office.
Fringe is a broad term but the point was that souter was always liberal in his rulings, not defining fringe left.
Can you please explain how I got my panties in a wad? You are the one that randomly started throwing insults out when I asked you to define fringe left. This is one of the worst political conversations I've ever had with anyone. You did not respond to the point I was making, then you insulted me, and now you are reversing the events of this thread.
foodcourtdruide
05-04-2009, 02:46 AM
There's nothing wrong with that. Minus the fact that it's so idealistic that it would never work.
I think you can nake that statement about every political ideology.
Breaking: White House to name Sonia Sotomayor (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22962.html)
President Barack Obama will select New York federal judge Sonia Sotomayor to be the next Supreme Court justice, naming the first Hispanic justice to the high court and adding a second woman to the panel.
Sotomayor was seen as the leading candidate throughout the process to replace Justice David Souter, both for her judicial experience and because she would make history by adding to the diversity of the court, long dominated by white men.
In choosing Sotomayor as his first Supreme Court nominee, President Barack Obama is choosing a judge with a compelling up-by-her-bootstraps personal narrative who could embody the kind of common touch the president has said he is eager to have reflected on the court.
And since I know jackshit about this person, I'll withhold all judgment for the confirmation process.
I throw babies out the windows of hospitals?
Mod Quote?
Jesus you really have no grip on understand the fundamentals of the written word, do you?
Which was in response to:
So, what that means is that even though souter was appointed by HW bush, he is no conservative and is very liberal, a point I was agreeing with epo about, then I simply post for someone to be further left of him that person would have to be fringe left, meaning a member of weather underground or some shit like that.......you see the word play was insinuating that souter is liberal.....
God after reading about your stupid analogy with mccain its just easier to call you stupid and ignore your posts in this thread.
Why are you such an angry man?
LordJezo
05-26-2009, 10:11 AM
Breaking: White House to name Sonia Sotomayor (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0509/22962.html)
And since I know jackshit about this person, I'll withhold all judgment for the confirmation process.
Look up the New Haven 20 ruling.
She supports racial quotas and reverse discrimination. Having the best man for the job is not important as long as the person you hire is a non white. She thinks that the court is the place where "policy is made", not a place where laws are upheld and acted upon.
At least Obama is living up to expectations with this pick.
Sotomayer effectively ended the 1994-1995 MLB strike. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Major_League_Baseball_strike)
On March 29, the players voted to return to work if a U.S. District Court judge supported the National Labor Relations Board's unfair labor practices complaint against the owners (which was filed on March 27). By a vote of 26-2, owners supported the use of replacement players. The strike ended when federal judge Sonia Sotomayor issued a preliminary injunction against the owners on March 31. On Sunday, April 2, 1995, the day before the season was scheduled to start, the 232 day long strike was finally over. Judge Sotomayor's decision received support from a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which denied the owners' request to stay the ruling.
Take your seat on the Supreme Court lady.
SatCam
05-26-2009, 04:32 PM
My mom went to high school with this woman. She graduated valedictorian, went to princeton.......... my mom....... not so much
Look up the New Haven 20 ruling.
She supports racial quotas and reverse discrimination. Having the best man for the job is not important as long as the person you hire is a non white. She thinks that the court is the place where "policy is made", not a place where laws are upheld and acted upon.
At least Obama is living up to expectations with this pick.
Thanks Rush Limbaugh.
Thomas Merton
05-26-2009, 05:32 PM
I wish I knew the context of her quote that(paraphrasing) a Latina women with life experiences was more capable of making a sounder judgement than a white male could; probably some kind of social welfare program ruling
Hope she's empathetic enough for Fearless Ruler
foodcourtdruide
05-26-2009, 05:43 PM
Thanks Rush Limbaugh.
Right now rush limbaugh is the voice of the republican party. If I was a republican I'd be pissed about this.
TheMojoPin
05-26-2009, 06:42 PM
Sotomayer effectively ended the 1994-1995 MLB strike. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Major_League_Baseball_strike)
Take your seat on the Supreme Court lady.
Damn, she's a national fucking hero. Anyone who talks shit about her after knowing this needs to be put on a boat for Saudi Arabia because they're some motherfuckers who hate freedom and America.
tanless1
05-26-2009, 06:58 PM
im not sure that is fair. for one whos job it will be to decide constituitionality , it is very important they dont read their own "how it should be's" in. interpert .
I wish I knew the context of her quote that(paraphrasing) a Latina women with life experiences was more capable of making a sounder judgement than a white male could; probably some kind of social welfare program ruling
Hope she's empathetic enough for Fearless Ruler
Oh NO SHE HAS EMPATHY! Conservatives can't stand a person with empathy...can they?
"He is a delightful and warm, intelligent person who has great empathy and a wonderful sense of humor."
That was George H.W. Bush on July 1, 1991 when talking about his nomination of Clarence Thomas.
Let's kill the childish "mocking of empathy" talking point.
badmonkey
05-27-2009, 02:41 PM
Oh NO SHE HAS EMPATHY! Conservatives can't stand a person with empathy...can they?
That was George H.W. Bush on July 1, 1991 when talking about his nomination of Clarence Thomas.
Let's kill the childish "mocking of empathy" talking point.
Source? http://mediamatters.org/research/200905260034
Nobody's said it's bad for her to have empathy.
LordJezo
05-28-2009, 10:34 AM
Thanks Rush Limbaugh.
Great response to a racist issue that this judge has created. No longer will the best man be hired for a job, as long as you're not white you're pretty much in.
I'm sure having a fire department based on quotas instead of skill would make anyone feel safe.
foodcourtdruide
05-28-2009, 10:40 AM
Great response to a racist issue that this judge has created. No longer will the best man be hired for a job, as long as you're not white you're pretty much in.
I'm sure having a fire department based on quotas instead of skill would make anyone feel safe.
Thanks Sean Hannity.
Jujubees2
05-28-2009, 10:55 AM
Great response to a racist issue that this judge has created. No longer will the best man be hired for a job, as long as you're not white you're pretty much in.
I'm sure having a fire department based on quotas instead of skill would make anyone feel safe.
Where in the decision did it say that the city could not promote white people? All the decision declared was that the city could throw out the results of the first test and administer another test.
Nobody seems to mention the fact that solely using a written exam to determine promotions for firefighters was a really stupid idea to begin with.
badmonkey
05-28-2009, 12:05 PM
Where in the decision did it say that the city could not promote white people? All the decision declared was that the city could throw out the results of the first test and administer another test.
The reason they were throwing out the results is because the top scorers were white. If the top scorers had all been black or some other race it would be celebrated that they had done so well. I think that says enough.
Nobody seems to mention the fact that solely using a written exam to determine promotions for firefighters was a really stupid idea to begin with.
You don't think they probably had some sort of other requirements that they had to meet in order to qualify to take the written exam in the first place?
The reason they were throwing out the results is because the top scorers were white. If the top scorers had all been black or some other race it would be celebrated that they had done so well. I think that says enough.
You don't think they probably had some sort of other requirements that they had to meet in order to qualify to take the written exam in the first place?
Yeah they did which is why I shouldn't have used solely and now am wondering why I did. But it was the primary way they decided and, just from a practical perspective, it seems like a bad idea for almost any job, especially firefighters. But from a legal point of view her conduct here was proper. It's not her job to decide right or wrong but to decide on existing law. Whether you agree with it or not it is settled law under Title VII that any test used to determine employment that where minorities as a group are failing a test a far greater rate than whites is discriminatory and therefore illegal to use. Whether you agree with this or not has nothing to do with the District Court that decided this or Sotomayor and her appeals court that reaffirmed that ruling. The District Court found that while the white firefighters had proven their case that New Haven had discriminated New Haven had a legitimate reason for doing so: that the test they used was discriminatory and illegal and had they used the test they would just be subject to a lawsuit from the minority firefighters.
But to target Sotomayor over this is useless. She wasn't making up the law as she went along. She didn't even initally decide the case. She reaffirmed a previous decision in line with the law. If she did anything different she'd actually be one of those dreaded "activist judges." But my main point is that even if she is somehow derailed from the Supreme Court because of this case it changes nothing because the law behind it remains.
silera
05-29-2009, 06:37 PM
Regarding the New Haven case,
http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/
If anyone cares to understand the ruling instead of just using it as a reference to some proof of racism on her part.
New Haven's decision may sound like blatant racial favoritism, but in fact the city rejected the firefighter exam because the test violated Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that's inadvertent as well as intentional.
Take it for what it's worth.
I'm not sure I've read anything so far that makes me for or against her. I'd love to find the context of the "latina" statement. I don't get it either. I also don't get why she likes being called a latina- it just seems out of place for someone from the east coast.
KatPw
05-29-2009, 06:53 PM
Regarding the New Haven case,
http://www.slate.com/id/2219062/
If anyone cares to understand the ruling instead of just using it as a reference to some proof of racism on her part.
Take it for what it's worth.
I'm not sure I've read anything so far that makes me for or against her. I'd love to find the context of the "latina" statement. I don't get it either. I also don't get why she likes being called a latina- it just seems out of place for someone from the east coast.
This talks about the Latina comment:
http://womensissues.about.com/b/2009/05/27/the-racist-uproar-over-sotomayors-wise-latina-comment.htm
She was asked to talk about the topic of being Latin and being a woman in law. It was at a symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation".
Serpico1103
05-29-2009, 07:02 PM
This talks about the Latina comment:
http://womensissues.about.com/b/2009/05/27/the-racist-uproar-over-sotomayors-wise-latina-comment.htm
She was asked to talk about the topic of being Latin and being a woman in law. It was at a symposium titled "Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation".
I prefer the Newt-Rush method of simplifying it. Otherwise, my head starts to hurt when I try to analyze and draw my own conclusions.
silera
05-29-2009, 07:07 PM
So basically she took this statement
Justice [Sandra Day] O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases.
and did a play on words. Not a very good choice of words, honestly. Even trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, I'm not sure "better" was the right word. Either way, her intent was that she would hope her experience might give her the empathy and compassion to come to a different conclusion that might be more just. Way to wordy to be "catchy" in public speaking.
She might as well wear a hood I guess.
KatPw
05-29-2009, 07:12 PM
So basically she took this statement
and did a play on words. Not a very good choice of words, honestly. Even trying to give her the benefit of the doubt, I'm not sure "better" was the right word. Either way, her intent was that she would hope her experience might give her the empathy and compassion to come to a different conclusion that might be more just. Way to wordy to be "catchy" in public speaking.
She might as well wear a hood I guess.
Silera, that is just your life experience talking. We'll have none of that! Besides, according to G. Gordon Liddy, you may menstruate so your judgment is suspect.
The Jays
05-29-2009, 07:19 PM
And Justice Thomas might get a boner from a hot blooded Latina serving on the high court, and you do know that a man will think with his penis before he thinks with his brain. Before this new broad came along, all he had was some Betty White-looking chick and some Jewish broad, so it'll be a challenge for him, as well as the rest of the court, to not think about the new broad's delicious cans and her judicious pussy when weighing some heavy cases.
Recyclerz
05-29-2009, 07:48 PM
I wish I knew the context of her quote that(paraphrasing) a Latina women with life experiences was more capable of making a sounder judgement than a white male could; probably some kind of social welfare program ruling
Hope she's empathetic enough for Fearless Ruler
Full text of the "controversial" "wise latina" speech (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?_r=4&pagewanted=all)
You can read the whole thing and judge for yourself but I would highlight this passage, which, to my mind qualifies and enhances the bit that has the Limbaugh Chorus' panties in a twist
I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.
I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? ... For all of us, how do (we) change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?
Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.
Emphasis added.
The Jays
05-29-2009, 07:52 PM
Listening to Limbaugh for advice on how the country is run is on par with listening to Anthony or Ron for advice on how the country is run... worthless and with no value except entertainment.
SonOfSmeagol
05-29-2009, 08:02 PM
One left-leaning justice is to be replaced with another left-leaning justice. And by all accounts of those in control of the process on both sides it’s pretty much a done deal.
But, instead of touting and celebrating and elaborating on all of the outstanding qualifications of the nominee and what a great choice it is– actually there’s no mention at all of this here - there is nothing but grousing, whining, and complaining about the totally expected yapping of the pundits, as if they really matter.
A black Hispanic women firefighter in New England vying for promotion would be outraged and disappointed.
Dude!
05-29-2009, 08:13 PM
And Justice Thomas might get a boner from a hot blooded Latina serving on the high court, and you do know that a man will think with his penis before he thinks with his brain. Before this new broad came along, all he had was some Betty White-looking chick and some Jewish broad, so it'll be a challenge for him, as well as the rest of the court, to not think about the new broad's delicious cans and her judicious pussy when weighing some heavy cases.
judicious pussy!
Clarence already
has a hot white woman
taking care of his needs
his wife sits home each day
waiting for him to return
from court
bringing with him his
enormous black cock
he then meats out
some real justice
Pelosi is just another center-right pro-business politician. I wouldn't categorize her as anywhere near a leftist.
Wow, do some people really think this or is this just trying to troll? Pelosi is about making everything even for everyone which goes against everything the nation was founded on.
Rational people really cant believe shes anything but left to far left at best, on a good day shes just to the left and usually shes just nutty left. Either way shes still a dumb cunt and rode pity into the senate seat which is barely a step up from feistein who bought her seat with all the money she spent to get elected.
Why are you such an angry man?
He refuses to bend, he refuses to crawl,
He's always at home with his back to the wall.
Not always angry, just off the meds usually
She might as well wear a hood I guess.
Well, if it was reversed and a white person said something like this they would already be crucified in the press, not just on fox news.
Personally I dont see the big deal, but then Im rational most of the time.
The Jays
05-29-2009, 08:27 PM
judicious pussy!
Clarence already
has a hot white woman
taking care of his needs
his wife sits home each day
waiting for him to return
from court
bringing with him his
enormous black cock
he then meats out
some real justice
Oh man, he's no conservative when it comes to deep dicking a bitch, I'm sure.
silera
05-29-2009, 09:24 PM
SP1!-I don't even understand your statement. I am not trying to dismiss you. I just have no idea what you're trying to say.
TheMojoPin
05-30-2009, 06:35 AM
Well, if it was reversed and a white person said something like this they would already be crucified in the press, not just on fox news.
Personally I dont see the big deal, but then Im rational most of the time.
A white man wouldn't have to think like that, nor would they even be asked questions along those lines in the first place.
Remember, they're "normal!" It's everything else that is suspect or dangerous. God forbid anyone is shaped by their lives if those lives deviate from what's been decided to be what's acceptable.
http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/426/sotomeyer.gif
Give the Republicans their due, they certainly know how to offend/splinter their own membership with their false outrage over this pick.
badmonkey
05-30-2009, 01:21 PM
A white man wouldn't have to think like that, nor would they even be asked questions along those lines in the first place.
Remember, they're "normal!" It's everything else that is suspect or dangerous. God forbid anyone is shaped by their lives if those lives deviate from what's been decided to be what's acceptable.
If a white man said that by virtue of being a white man and having the experiences of being a white man would make better decisions than a hispanic woman, he would be justifiably guilty of racism and sexism. The rest of the world should be held to the same standard. If you think that the color of your skin makes you better than somebody who's skin is different than yours, congratulations, you're a fucking racist. If you think that your sex makes you better than somebody of a different sex, congratulations, you're a fucking sexist. It really is that simple.
http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/426/sotomeyer.gif
Give the Republicans their due, they certainly know how to offend/splinter their own membership with their false outrage over this pick.
Do you really get all your information from mediamatters and dailykos? Sad.
Look for those numbers to move more to the middle soon if some of these other quotes and stories don't get cleared up pretty quickly.
On Sotomayor, Some Abortion Rights Backers Are Uneasy
In a 2004 case, she largely sided with some anti-abortion protesters who wanted to sue some police officers for allegedly violating their constitutional rights by using excessive force to break up demonstrations at an abortion clinic. Judge Sotomayor said the protesters deserved a day in court.
Robert Gibbs, was asked whether Mr. Obama had asked Judge Sotomayor about abortion or privacy rights. Mr. Gibbs replied that Mr. Obama “did not ask that specifically.”
Judge Sotomayor has also ruled on several immigration cases involving people fighting deportation orders to China on the grounds that its population-control policy of forcible abortions and birth control constituted persecution.
In a 2007 case, she strongly criticized colleagues on the court who said that only women, and not their husbands, could seek asylum based on China’s abortion policy. “The termination of a wanted pregnancy under a coercive population control program can only be devastating to any couple, akin, no doubt, to the killing of a child,” she wrote, also taking note of “the unique biological nature of pregnancy and special reverence every civilization has accorded to child-rearing and parenthood in marriage.” (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/politics/28abortion.html)
Republicans generally confirm Democratic appointees regardless and don't really have the numbers to keep her from being confirmed anyway. However, if it turns out she is actually pro-life...there's enough Republicans that would be willing to replace a liberal judge with a pro-life liberal judge to make it difficult for her to not be confirmed even without full Democratic support.
Those numbers are from Quinnipiac and Gallup. It doesn't matter who passed them on, those are two very good, highly respected pollsters.
Recyclerz
05-30-2009, 02:28 PM
If a white man said that by virtue of being a white man and having the experiences of being a white man would make better decisions than a hispanic woman, he would be justifiably guilty of racism and sexism. The rest of the world should be held to the same standard. If you think that the color of your skin makes you better than somebody who's skin is different than yours, congratulations, you're a fucking racist. If you think that your sex makes you better than somebody of a different sex, congratulations, you're a fucking sexist. It really is that simple.
Badmonkey, although I suspect that you and I have some very different ideas on fundamental political principles and policy solutions, I respect your opinions too much to see you go further out on the "Sotomayer is a racist" limb because it is too weak not to break. I posted a link to the full speech above - read it and I suspect you will agree that anybody pushing the "she's a racist" meme is either stupid (Tancredo) or lying (Gingrich, et al.)
badmonkey
05-30-2009, 03:19 PM
Badmonkey, although I suspect that you and I have some very different ideas on fundamental political principles and policy solutions, I respect your opinions too much to see you go further out on the "Sotomayer is a racist" limb because it is too weak not to break. I posted a link to the full speech above - read it and I suspect you will agree that anybody pushing the "she's a racist" meme is either stupid (Tancredo) or lying (Gingrich, et al.)
We both know that had a white man made the same statement in any context, they'd be branded a racist and their nomination withdrawn. I'm not saying that she's a racist. She probably chose her words poorly for the statement she was trying to make. When i said "thinks" earlier, I should have said "believes". I don't know what she thinks or believes in her heart. We shouldn't have double-standards when it comes to racism tho. You're either a racist or you're not. No race is exempt from that. If she believes that her race makes her superior to another race, then she's a racist. If she doesn't, then she isn't. I don't want to see her or anybody else wrongly branded as a racist if they aren't. Personally I'm sick of people on both sides being so quick to stifle debate on any subject by calling people racists.
TheMojoPin
05-30-2009, 09:05 PM
We both know that had a white man made the same statement in any context, they'd be branded a racist and their nomination withdrawn.
Again, it's a false point to say this since a white male likely would have no inkling of saying anything along these lines, nor would they be asked a question along those lines.
You can't demand that everyone speak, act and be judged on a level playing field when it has not been equal and it STILL is not equal. Being a minority or even just being a woman in this country gives someone a VASTLY different perspective and set of life experiences than someone who is born into the established dominant group that is looked at as the societal norm/ideal.
The context of those comments coming from someone who isn't male and isn't white IS different, whether you want to accept it or not. It's so ridiculous for people to suddenly declare that everything is equal and everyone needs to be "treated the same" when it's painfully obvious that that's simply not reality. That's only pulled out when it's convenient and when someone is threatening to the white supremacy system we've had in place here for centuries by not being a part of it. Demanding that the oppressed (which is a term I'm sure you'll have a fit over) be looked at as being on the same footing as white men when they're not is just ludicrous. THAT'S stifling debate and the differences that exist in this country.
Do you really get all your information from mediamatters and dailykos? Sad.
Really? A stolen graphic based upon real data makes me sad? Get a fucking clue. Seriously, its not like I've ever posted information on here that wasn't referenced or delivered by respected media.
Its the oldest rhetorical trick to attack the delivery model of the information and not the data, especially when the data tells you that you are fucked. Get over yourself and your dying political party.
And for the record, I haven't directly visited mediamatters in a couple of months. I really like Andrew Sullivan's blog for a different point of view if I must be honest.
badmonkey
05-30-2009, 09:25 PM
Again, it's a false point to say this since a white male likely would have no inkling of saying anything along these lines, nor would they be asked a question along those lines.
You can't demand that everyone speak, act and be judged on a level playing field when it has not been equal and it STILL is not equal. Being a minority or even just being a woman in this country gives someone a VASTLY different perspective and set of life experiences than someone who is born into the established dominant group that is looked at as the societal norm/ideal.
The context of those comments coming from someone who isn't male and isn't white IS different, whether you want to accept it or not. It's so ridiculous for people to suddenly declare that everything is equal and everyone needs to be "treated the same" when it's painfully obvious that that's simply not reality. That's only pulled out when it's convenient and when someone is threatening to the white supremacy system we've had in place here for centuries by not being a part of it. Demanding that the oppressed (which is a term I'm sure you'll have a fit over) be looked at as being on the same footing as white men when they're not is just ludicrous. THAT'S stifling debate and the differences that exist in this country.
Sorry Mojo. Nobody gets a pass for racist bullshit. I don't care if it is unequal. You don't like somebody because of their skin color, then you're a racist asshole. That's the playing field. It's as even as it's ever going to get. Don't want to be a racist, then stop judging people by the color of their skin. What's more racist Mojo? You saying shit like "she's hispanic and a woman so we should lower the standards to make it easier for her" or me saying judge her by the content of her character and the skills/qualifications she possesses and not by the color of her skin".
Give me a break with this white guilt crap. I am so sick of all the excuses for the racism of anybody in the world with more skin color than a light tan. I don't care what race you are...it is absolutely assinine to say that _person_ can't be racist because s/he is _race other than white_. Intolerance is intolerance and racism is racism. It's a hurdle that most of us step over easily every day without any effort at all. It's not too much to ask of anybody.
Here is the beauty of the "Sotomayor is a racist" talking point.....it appears to simply not be true. From a study of her cases by Tom Goldstein: (http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/judge-sotomayor-and-race-results-from-the-full-data-set/)
I’ve now completed the study of every one of Judge Sotomayor’s race-related cases that I mention in the post below. I’ll write more in the morning about particular cases, but here is what the data shows in sum:
Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.
Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous. (Many, by the way, were procedural victories rather than judgments that discrimination had occurred.) Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent’s point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.
Essentially this comes down to the case that some people are trying to claim that this potential Supreme Court Justice is a racist based on ridiculous data. The evidence leads one to believe that her rulings simply don't indicate such a mindset.
And here is the beauty from my viewpoint: This seems to be a good SC pick AND a perfect political trap by the President. Understanding population models and the direction of the republican party, you knew they were going to trip over their dicks to attack whomever he picked. Unfortunately for them, they not only didn't do the research, but they didn't think of the social ramifications of attacking a hispanic woman unjustly.
badmonkey
05-30-2009, 09:42 PM
Here's some quotes that might put things in a better perspective for you on your people with darker skin than me can't succeed unless we lower the standards of success myth.
I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal."
From the "I Have a Dream" speech, Aug. 28, 1963
Discrimination is a hellhound that gnaws at Negroes in every waking moment of their lives to remind them that the lie of their inferiority is accepted as truth in the society dominating them.
From a speech given to the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, Aug. 16, 1967
I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.
From the "I Have a Dream" speech, Aug. 28, 1963
Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will.
From "Letter from Birmingham Jail," April 16, 1963
Regarding the New Haven case
I'd rather talk about delicious New Haven pizza.
http://z.hubpages.com/u/831148_f520.jpg
TheMojoPin
05-31-2009, 06:57 AM
Sorry Mojo. Nobody gets a pass for racist bullshit. I don't care if it is unequal. You don't like somebody because of their skin color, then you're a racist asshole. That's the playing field. It's as even as it's ever going to get. Don't want to be a racist, then stop judging people by the color of their skin. What's more racist Mojo? You saying shit like "she's hispanic and a woman so we should lower the standards to make it easier for her" or me saying judge her by the content of her character and the skills/qualifications she possesses and not by the color of her skin".
The former isn't the case here since no standards need to be lowered for a clearly qualified person, and even if it was, the much-vaunted demon of affirmative action is simply yet another stipulation that exists in a world composed alomst entirely of them. Getting into schools or getting a new job or a promotion are all based on scores of superfluous factors that have zero to do with merit, yet people only have a problem when race suddenly comes up? Getting into a college is all hinged on where you're from and who you know that takes up thousands of slots before merit is even considered, yet the few dozen slots a university uses to ensure some minority students can get in is what everyone has a meltodnw over. Why? Why not all the gnashing of teeth over all the legacies that get in based almost totally on who they no and having next to nothing to do with merit? Why not flipping out over all the slots reserved for people out of state just so the university can make more money? Nope, it's only when race comes up that people have a problem.
The latter is is a complete strawman because nobody is asking she be judged by her gender or race. She made a statement essentially saying that because her life experiences are different from the norm that usually ends up in her spot it gives her perspectives that other judges and justices don't have to refer back to. That's not saying it makes her "better"...just different. It's hypocrticial to essentially say you want the concept of "different" ignored or erased when our country's social and power structure was founded on and still thrives on the idea of our differences. That's an inherrent part of the American experince, good and bad, that can't suddenly be switched off because some white people want to declare everything equal and fair (when it's clearly not) because the white supremacy power structure has been barely challenged. One can't demand that people be "treated equally" when you're doing so only to because the conditioned norm is challenged in scattered instances yet the power balance in this country is still drastically one-sided.
badmonkey
05-31-2009, 09:51 AM
The former isn't the case here since no standards need to be lowered for a clearly qualified person, and even if it was, the much-vaunted demon of affirmative action is simply yet another stipulation that exists in a world composed alomst entirely of them. Getting into schools or getting a new job or a promotion are all based on scores of superfluous factors that have zero to do with merit, yet people only have a problem when race suddenly comes up? Getting into a college is all hinged on where you're from and who you know that takes up thousands of slots before merit is even considered, yet the few dozen slots a university uses to ensure some minority students can get in is what everyone has a meltodnw over. Why? Why not all the gnashing of teeth over all the legacies that get in based almost totally on who they no and having next to nothing to do with merit? Why not flipping out over all the slots reserved for people out of state just so the university can make more money? Nope, it's only when race comes up that people have a problem.
The latter is is a complete strawman because nobody is asking she be judged by her gender or race. She made a statement essentially saying that because her life experiences are different from the norm that usually ends up in her spot it gives her perspectives that other judges and justices don't have to refer back to. That's not saying it makes her "better"...just different. It's hypocrticial to essentially say you want the concept of "different" ignored or erased when our country's social and power structure was founded on and still thrives on the idea of our differences. That's an inherrent part of the American experince, good and bad, that can't suddenly be switched off because some white people want to declare everything equal and fair (when it's clearly not) because the white supremacy power structure has been barely challenged. One can't demand that people be "treated equally" when you're doing so only to because the conditioned norm is challenged in scattered instances yet the power balance in this country is still drastically one-sided.
Her words said it made her better. I am not arguing that the woman is a racist. In your overzealous effort to defend affirmative action, you missed the entire point. The point is that children that grow up being told that they can't get anywhere without a "hand up", believe that shit. Successful people of all races are successful because they operate on the premise that the only thing that can keep them from being successful is themselves.
The standards I was talking about being lowered are the ones by which we judge racism, not the ones by which she is qualified to be a supreme court justice. A racist is somebody who believes that their race makes them better than another race. Somebody who hates other people due to the color of their skin. That is it. It's simple. It's a standard that can be applied equally accross the board. There is no more level playing field than that. If that's what she believes then she's a racist. If that's not what she believes, then she is not a racist. Again, it's that simple. She will be given a chance to explain herself during her confirmation hearing. I'm withholding judgement until then.
TheMojoPin
05-31-2009, 10:23 AM
Her words said it made her better. I am not arguing that the woman is a racist. In your overzealous effort to defend affirmative action, you missed the entire point.
How am I being overzealous?
The point is that children that grow up being told that they can't get anywhere without a "hand up", believe that shit. Successful people of all races are successful because they operate on the premise that the only thing that can keep them from being successful is themselves.
Our culture and society are designed as such to marginialize and minimize the economic and political impact and power of minorities. Minorities tend to live in the worst neighborhoods and attend the worst schools and are taught what essentially amounts to "aim low, you can only go so far." If a kid shows any kind of resistance to the lacadasical teaching they're getting, they're typically branding as being threating or a "bad kid" and effectively tossed to the wayside (Much of this also applies to many poor whites as well, making this also a class issue as well as a racial one). To think that everyone has the same chances and opportunities as everyone else simply is not realistic. At all.
Mind you, I'm not saying that affirmative action is some kind of magic catch-all that isn't without it's problems, but that constant charges that it serves to ONLY help people who are "unfit" or that it somehow makes life harder or unfair for anything even close to resembling a significant number of middle to upper class white males. It doesn't. It's a minute fraction of hiring and admittance critera in a sea of similar criterias that people have ZERO problem with until race comes up.
The standards I was talking about being lowered are the ones by which we judge racism, not the ones by which she is qualified to be a supreme court justice. A racist is somebody who believes that their race makes them better than another race. Somebody who hates other people due to the color of their skin. That is it. It's simple. It's a standard that can be applied equally accross the board. There is no more level playing field than that. If that's what she believes then she's a racist. If that's not what she believes, then she is not a racist. Again, it's that simple. She will be given a chance to explain herself during her confirmation hearing. I'm withholding judgement until then.
A belief that one race is better than another race without the power of the former race to do anything about it makes the idea of racism being "equal" across the board ring completely hollow. In terms of being a judge and justice, doesn't her life experiences arguably make her "better" at understanding certain aspects of minority life or gender issues in this country than someone who has no idea what's that like? To charge that idea as being racism akin to someone saying that "blacks/whites/Asians/Hispanics/etc. are inferior to my race" is so far off the mark. How is she racist? How is she even prejudiced? How is denigrating or holding down or oppressing or attacking another race with her comments?
For the AA debate, I offer up an excellent argument posed by sociologist Tim Wise:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B4ZdR1alqmM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B4ZdR1alqmM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Like he says, to teart each other as equal or neutral racially speaking, even when it comes to tagging someone as a racist, implies that our society has achieved some kind of overall racial equality.
badmonkey
05-31-2009, 11:22 AM
How am I being overzealous?
Because you're defending Affirmative Action which is not under any sort of attack. You still keep trying to tie affirmative action to everything I'm saying even after I tell you that's not what I'm talking about. You just further explained your views on affirmative action.
Let me clear it up for you. I'm not talking about affirmative action so you can stop defending it.
Our culture and society are designed as such to marginialize and minimize the economic and political impact and power of minorities.
Yes, by teaching them that their skin color is the thing standing in their way of success.
To think that everyone has the same chances and opportunities as everyone else simply is not realistic. At all.
Even if everybody on the planet was purple and there were no variants in shade, our biology would keep us from being equal in all aspects. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are more athletic. Some people are more artistic. Some people are more attractive. Short people, fat people, and ugly people (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/opinion/04dowd.html?pagewanted=print) of all races are passed up for promotions every day for superficial reasons but there's no special laws for them. They aren't told from the day it's discovered that they are short, fat, or ugly that success is going to be consistently held out of their reach. The solution is not MORE discrimination based on more things that separate us into even more categories. The solution is not tolerating this crap in the first place. Maybe instead of creating categories to divide us up finding things we have in common to bring us together.
A belief that one race is better than another race without the power of the former race to do anything about it makes the idea of racism being "equal" across the board ring completely hollow. That's just silly, especially in 2009 when we have a black President, Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice. You don't think those are positions that have power to "do anything about it"? I'm not saying the people holding those positions are racist. I just think it's silly to say that racism only comes into affect if the people holding those beliefs have some sort of political power. Racism is ugly no matter what race you are. It's not going to go away if it's excused because well... they don't have power. When you're being physically or verbally assaulted because of your race, you don't really give a shit if the guy is a janitor or the President. All you know is that some racist asshole is yelling/hitting you and you want them to stop.
In terms of being a judge and justice, doesn't her life experiences arguably make her "better" at understanding certain aspects of minority life or gender issues in this country than someone who has no idea what's that like? To charge that idea as being racism akin to someone saying that "blacks/whites/Asians/Hispanics/etc. are inferior to my race" is so far off the mark.
Her quote, and I remind you that I have not called her a racist, was "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." It doesn't say "on issues affecting latina women". That statement does bother me, but I've read her entire speech and Recyclerz quoted this part earlier, which is also relevant and the part I think is closer to what she really believes.
I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/politics/15judge.text.html?pagewanted=5&_r=1)
How is she racist? How is she even prejudiced? How is denigrating or holding down or oppressing or attacking another race with her comments?
Let's just imagine for a minute that we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that she's a racist because we've got her on tape at a rally screaming "kill whitey" or something. When she's given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, she will be given plenty of opportunity to make decisions that inflict racial damage to people she feels are inferior to her or deserving of punishment. Again, I don't think she's racist, but if she was and was given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, she could do plenty of damage.
For the AA debate, I offer up an excellent argument posed by sociologist Tim Wise:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/B4ZdR1alqmM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/B4ZdR1alqmM&hl=en&fs=1&color1=0x402061&color2=0x9461ca" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
Like he says, to teart each other as equal or neutral racially speaking, even when it comes to tagging someone as a racist, implies that our society has achieved some kind of overall racial equality.
I wonder if he's studied white guilt. He sounds like an expert on the subject.
SonOfSmeagol
05-31-2009, 12:29 PM
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=4397989
silera
05-31-2009, 03:59 PM
I think what's being argued here has nothing to do with sotomayor or the supreme court.
White men are feeling really defensive about the double standard. It scares the shit out of them.
It sucks, but I'm going to sound like a racist when I say, welcome to the double standard.
We have a long way to go. Theres ALOT of shit that white people can do, without judgement or question, that minorities can't.
Try walking the streets with your kids, and watching the smiles turn to judgement as soon as they hear you talk spanish. Pretty white family goes to over procreating spic very quickly. It's just an anecdote but I've read it too often and heard it too often and seen it too often.
You can't hide behind the mantras of equality when we're all still framed by racism. Until the census doesnt ask the race questions, we're still highly aware of skin and ethnicity and it does frame our decisions good or bad.
TheMojoPin
05-31-2009, 09:15 PM
Because you're defending Affirmative Action which is not under any sort of attack. You still keep trying to tie affirmative action to everything I'm saying even after I tell you that's not what I'm talking about. You just further explained your views on affirmative action.
Let me clear it up for you. I'm not talking about affirmative action so you can stop defending it.
I brought it up because it's one of the most common charges against her right now, both that she's a product of it and that people are critical of her because she has ruled in favor it. I'm not beholden to discussing only issues related to this matter that you bring up.
Yes, by teaching them that their skin color is the thing standing in their way of success.
So the answer is, what, act like everyone is equal and has the same opportunities?
Even if everybody on the planet was purple and there were no variants in shade, our biology would keep us from being equal in all aspects. Some people are smarter than others. Some people are more athletic. Some people are more artistic. Some people are more attractive. Short people, fat people, and ugly people (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/04/opinion/04dowd.html?pagewanted=print) of all races are passed up for promotions every day for superficial reasons but there's no special laws for them. They aren't told from the day it's discovered that they are short, fat, or ugly that success is going to be consistently held out of their reach. The solution is not MORE discrimination based on more things that separate us into even more categories. The solution is not tolerating this crap in the first place. Maybe instead of creating categories to divide us up finding things we have in common to bring us together.
You're the one bringing up pie in the sky ideas of everyone being equal or "bringing us together." I'm not wasting my time thinking this is likely to happen. It's not. What I do want is to see the disparity between ethnic groups in this country lessened so that more minorities have a legitimate shot at success. I don't expect them to ever be truly equal because that's simply not realistic. What I think we can do is give more people opportunities to be successful when they and people like them have been actively shut out for centuries.
That's just silly, especially in 2009 when we have a black President, Attorney General, Supreme Court Justice. You don't think those are positions that have power to "do anything about it"?
Explain how that's changed anything for blacks in general.
It hasn't.
In fact, it arguably makes things worse because people can point to them, the extreme exceptions, and claim that that's proof that everything is fair and everything has been "fixed."
And no, Obama can't and likely won't do "anything about it." Blacks with political power are typically tied up with the balancing act of not seeming "too black" or "favoring blacks" with their policies.
I'm not saying the people holding those positions are racist. I just think it's silly to say that racism only comes into affect if the people holding those beliefs have some sort of political power. Racism is ugly no matter what race you are. It's not going to go away if it's excused because well... they don't have power. When you're being physically or verbally assaulted because of your race, you don't really give a shit if the guy is a janitor or the President. All you know is that some racist asshole is yelling/hitting you and you want them to stop.
I just think there's a differenced between being prejudiced and being racist. Racism goes beyond yelling at or even hitting someone. If there's no larger power dynamic or context behind it, it's ultimately just someone beating up someone else. A black guy who hates white people and beats one up is a predjudiced asshole, but how is he reversing the white supremacy dynamic? He isn't. After he beats up the white guy, he's still a black guy in white America subject to the same shit as before. A white guy beats up a black guy due to his predjudices, he's reinforcing centuries of a white supremacy power dynamic that's been designed to keep certain people down or "in their place."
Look, I'm not justifying anyone here. Like I said, just because I think racism can only come from certain sources, that doesn't excuse someone from being a prejudiced scumbag. That kind of extreme hatred is unacceptable from anyone. I just see how the larger contexts are very different.
Her quote, and I remind you that I have not called her a racist, was "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." It doesn't say "on issues affecting latina women". That statement does bother me, but I've read her entire speech and Recyclerz quoted this part earlier, which is also relevant and the part I think is closer to what she really believes.
We're just going to have to disagree on this. I simply do not see anything alarming or predjudiced about her statements. The bottom line for me is that we're in a country where non-white people experience a life mostly from the outside looking in in terms of who pretty much owns and runs most everything of import. Their lives are shaped by having to work with that system, around that system, or even against that sytem. It's an inherrent part of being a minority in America. I don't see anything wrong with perspectives outside the perceived norm being brought into the established power structure.
Let's just imagine for a minute that we know beyond the shadow of a doubt that she's a racist because we've got her on tape at a rally screaming "kill whitey" or something. When she's given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, she will be given plenty of opportunity to make decisions that inflict racial damage to people she feels are inferior to her or deserving of punishment. Again, I don't think she's racist, but if she was and was given a lifetime appointment to the Supreme Court, she could do plenty of damage.
All by herself? Besides, what are the odds that someone who is truly racist or prejudiced gets appointed to the SC in this day and age?
I wonder if he's studied white guilt. He sounds like an expert on the subject.
So a white person who challenges the white supremacy power structure must be feleing "guilty?"
There is a really interesting angle to the "Sotomayor is a reverse racist" talking point, which is her dissenting opinion in a case in which she defended the rights of a hardcore racist in NYC. Check out the case Pappas vs. Giuliani for an interesting read. Here is a link to the Wikipedia page about the case. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pappas_v._Giuliani)
LordJezo
06-29-2009, 06:35 AM
WOOOOOOO!!!!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/06/29/AR2009062901608_pf.html
Too bad stuff like this will no longer happen once the court swings left with the new appointment, but at least we can go out happy remembering back when things were fair and the court stood for the people and not for pure Obama 24/7/.
TheMojoPin
06-29-2009, 08:50 AM
remembering back when things were fair
Unbelievable.
American Bar Association Praises Sotomayor (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/07/supremecourt/main5139490.shtml)
Unanimously Tabs Supreme Court Pick As "Well Qualified"; Highest Rating From Lawyer Group
The American Bar Association says Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is well qualified to serve on the high court.
The ABA committee that reviewed her qualifications came out with that unanimous rating of the federal appeals court judge. That finding is in a letter to White House lawyer Greg Craig that was released Tuesday.
The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to begin hearings on the nomination next week. Sotomayor is President Barack Obama's choice to replace retired Justice David Souter.
"You typically don’t get promoted though the federal courts unless you are indeed well qualified," CBS News chief legal analyst Andrew Cohen says.
"The Bush White House, remember, famously discarded the ABA recommendation system for federal judges but the Obama Administration has embraced the tradition and clearly officials are delighted that their Supreme Court nominee got very good grades. This only helps her chances of getting confirmed," Cohen adds.
Someone well qualified? How dare he!
Dude!
07-07-2009, 07:22 PM
American Bar Association Praises Sotomayor (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/07/supremecourt/main5139490.shtml)
Unanimously Tabs Supreme Court Pick As "Well Qualified"; Highest Rating From Lawyer Group
Someone well qualified? How dare he!
ABA rating didn't prevent Bork
from getting Borked
(i'm assuming as i don't know)
TooLowBrow
07-07-2009, 07:30 PM
ABA rating didn't prevent Bork
from getting Borked
(i'm assuming as i don't know)
bork got hammersavaged
ABA rating didn't prevent Bork
from getting Borked
(i'm assuming as i don't know)
The power of the interwebz.............
ABA Endorses Bork As Panel Splits Vote; 4 of 15 Say Court Nominee `Not Qualified' (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1342260.html)
The American Bar Association has given Robert H. Bork its top rating of "well-qualified" for appointment to the Supreme Court, but sources familiar with the vote said five lawyers on the 15-member committee dissented, with four voting that Bork is "not qualified" and one voting for the middle ranking of "not opposed."
The split vote on Bork, whose Senate confirmation hearings are to begin next week, reflects the biggest division on the influential ABA Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary on a Supreme Court nominee since a vote on Clement Haynsworth in 1969.
Dude!
07-07-2009, 07:38 PM
The power of the interwebz.............
ABA Endorses Bork As Panel Splits Vote; 4 of 15 Say Court Nominee `Not Qualified' (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-1342260.html)
thank you
now i can say with certainty:
ABA's giving its highest
rating to Bork
did not prevent Bork
from getting Borked
The Happening
07-08-2009, 12:05 AM
Our culture and society are designed as such to marginialize and minimize the economic and political impact and power of minorities. Minorities tend to live in the worst neighborhoods and attend the worst schools and are taught what essentially amounts to "aim low, you can only go so far." If a kid shows any kind of resistance to the lacadasical teaching they're getting, they're typically branding as being threating or a "bad kid" and effectively tossed to the wayside (Much of this also applies to many poor whites as well, making this also a class issue as well as a racial one). To think that everyone has the same chances and opportunities as everyone else simply is not realistic. At all.
I HATE white guilt pussies!
Yes, some people have a head start in this country. Some people are able to take advantage of the positive economic position that their families started them off in. But anyone, of any race, and any social class can succeed in any goals they have over their lives in this country. Society is setup for anyone who is willing to work hard to succeed. The fight may be harder for some than others. But millions of poor people have overcome their poor economic standings because society was fair in helping them succeed! Some choose to better themselves. Some choose to cry in self pity, and never change. And so it goes.
White guilt pussies love to bring up the struggles of the poor black people in society. It allows them to finger each others assholes in good conscience. But they conveniently forget to mention the millions of white people who are in the same boat. The white families who live in shitty areas, and go to shitty schools. These white guilt pussies would love to have everyone believe that only black people are poor. But poverty doesn't have a race, and it has no prejudices. White guilt pussies continue to have a hard time seperating social class issues, with racial issues.
As for our white guilt pussy friends who continue to hurt the progress of race relations in this country: Your ideals come from your own insecure feelings pertaining to race relations. You speak in a condescending tone, but you wrap it up in a bow in hopes that it distracts everyone. You treat minorities like the slow little brother of your best friend. You pat them on the head, and make excuses for everything they do wrong. You don't see them as an equal, so you kiss their asses, or cross the street when you see more than 2 of them in a group. You feel guilty about it, so you take up fake causes, and voice fake concerns. I see several of you everyday. From Sean Penn randomly talking about how intelligent the president is at the oscars. To the pussy at your job who condems every white person who uses the N-word. You people are easier to spot then skin tags on Rosie O'Donnell.
As for Judge Sotomayor: I'm not going to condem her for something she said a few years back. I'm going to give her the benefit of doubt, and chalk it up to poorly choosen words. She's not a racist for what she said, just overzealous. If a white guy had said something along the same lines of Judge Sotomayor, his political career would probably be over. But these overreactions and the PC speech buffers have to stop. If Judge Sotomayor is qualified, then she should get the job. Case closed!
I HATE white guilt pussies!
Yes, some people have a head start in this country. Some people are able to take advantage of the positive economic position that their families started them off in. But anyone, of any race, and any social class can succeed in any goals they have over their lives in this country. Society is setup for anyone who is willing to work hard to succeed. The fight may be harder for some than others. But millions of poor people have overcome their poor economic standings because society was fair in helping them succeed! Some choose to better themselves. Some choose to cry in self pity, and never change. And so it goes.
White guilt pussies love to bring up the struggles of the poor black people in society. It allows them to finger each others assholes in good conscience. But they conveniently forget to mention the millions of white people who are in the same boat. The white families who live in shitty areas, and go to shitty schools. These white guilt pussies would love to have everyone believe that only black people are poor. But poverty doesn't have a race, and it has no prejudices. White guilt pussies continue to have a hard time seperating social class issues, with racial issues.
As for our white guilt pussy friends who continue to hurt the progress of race relations in this country: Your ideals come from your own insecure feelings pertaining to race relations. You speak in a condescending tone, but you wrap it up in a bow in hopes that it distracts everyone. You treat minorities like the slow little brother of your best friend. You pat them on the head, and make excuses for everything they do wrong. You don't see them as an equal, so you kiss their asses, or cross the street when you see more than 2 of them in a group. You feel guilty about it, so you take up fake causes, and voice fake concerns. I see several of you everyday. From Sean Penn randomly talking about how intelligent the president is at the oscars. To the pussy at your job who condems every white person who uses the N-word. You people are easier to spot then skin tags on Rosie O'Donnell.
As for Judge Sotomayor: I'm not going to condem her for something she said a few years back. I'm going to give her the benefit of doubt, and chalk it up to poorly choosen words. She's not a racist for what she said, just overzealous. If a white guy had said something along the same lines of Judge Sotomayor, his political career would probably be over. But these overreactions and the PC speech buffers have to stop. If Judge Sotomayor is qualified, then she should get the job. Case closed!
The average black family has 11% of the wealth of the average white fami (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_6_30/ai_58411628/)ly. That isn't some bullshit white guilt, that is fact. It has been generations of structural racism that has allowed that to happen.
People like you bore me.
TheMojoPin
07-08-2009, 06:58 AM
The average black family has 11% of the wealth of the average white fami (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_6_30/ai_58411628/)ly. That isn't some bullshit white guilt, that is fact. It has been generations of structural racism that has allowed that to happen.
People like you bore me.
Pretty much.
foodcourtdruide
07-08-2009, 07:04 AM
Though The Happening lacked tact in his comments, and he simplified the argument to nearly the point of absurdity I do agree with one thing he said:
"seperating social class issues, with racial issues. "
I think that social class issues get ignored in this country, and are almost taboo to discuss unless in the context of race.
TheMojoPin
07-08-2009, 07:14 AM
I think that social class issues get ignored in this country, and are almost taboo to discuss unless in the context of race.
I don't know if they're necessarily "taboo" as that it's just hard to look at them as overarching generalizations of class vs. class when so much of it is specifically distinguished by race. I definitely agree that some areas in that are definitely "colorblind," like education: regardless of race, if you're poor you're almost certainly getting the very bottom of the barrel when it comes to schooling.
foodcourtdruide
07-08-2009, 07:51 AM
I don't know if they're necessarily "taboo" as that it's just hard to look at them as overarching generalizations of class vs. class when so much of it is specifically distinguished by race. I definitely agree that some areas in that are definitely "colorblind," like education: regardless of race, if you're poor you're almost certainly getting the very bottom of the barrel when it comes to schooling.
I think it's a bit taboo. I feel like I rarely hear a politician speak about the difficulty of class mobility unless it is put into the context of race. I was floored when Obama bought it up during the election. Like you said, in some areas (I'd argue we're moving towards "most areas") it's more about socio-economic status than simply race.
TheMojoPin
07-08-2009, 08:29 AM
I think it's a bit taboo. I feel like I rarely hear a politician speak about the difficulty of class mobility unless it is put into the context of race. I was floored when Obama bought it up during the election. Like you said, in some areas (I'd argue we're moving towards "most areas") it's more about socio-economic status than simply race.
The pessimistic side of me sees a historical pattern of the racial divide being used to the benefit of the upper classes. No society wants the poor united because then they're in trouble, hence why you've seen throughout our history poor white being convinced they have more in common with and are on the "side" of rich white people as opposed to poor non-whites. It behooves the power structure status quo for certain segments of the poor to view themselves as not as bad or even better than another group of "those people" even though at the end of the day they're largely facing the same problems and issues related to poverty. It inspires complacency so long as there at least someone else they think they're not as bad off as (even though they often are). So, yes, in that regard I suppose it is taboo.
foodcourtdruide
07-08-2009, 08:33 AM
The pessimistic side of me sees a historical pattern of the racial divide being used to the benefit of the upper classes. No society wants the poor united because then they're in trouble, hence why you've seen throughout our history poor white being convinced they have more in common with and are on the "side" of rich white people as opposed to poor non-whites.
I have always had the same thought. Convince poor whites they have more in common with rich whites, than poor blacks.
TheMojoPin
07-08-2009, 08:39 AM
I have always had the same thought. Convince poor whites they have more in common with rich whites, than poor blacks.
That's what strikes me as so remarkable about what happened in the South after the Civil War: absolutely nothing changed in terms of the power structure. The same select few with the land and the clout and the influence before the war had it afterwards. Nevermind that most of the population down South were poor farmers essentially in indentured service through sharecropping, white or black, yet the powers that be successfully played on racial fears and convinced poor whites that ultimately the only thing that mattered above all else is that their skin was the same as the rich elite. Nevermind that the poor whites were poor, stayed poor and died poor. There could have very easily been a velvet revolution in the South had the lower classes united in any kind of way even just to vote in more politicians reflective of their backgrounds and needs. It almost happened again with the Populist movement, too, but once again it was quashed when the racial divide was emphasized. Play on those fears of being like "those people" and it pretty much trounces any hope of real socioeconomic change.
Nevermind that most of the population down South were poor farmers essentially in indentured service through sharecropping, white or black, yet the powers that be successfully played on racial fears and convinced poor whites that ultimately the only thing that mattered above all else is that their skin was the same as the rich elite. Nevermind that the poor whites were poor, stayed poor and died poor.
That's why I have always hated the poor without bias.
TheMojoPin
07-08-2009, 08:58 AM
Good man.
badmonkey
07-08-2009, 11:03 AM
The pessimistic side of me sees a historical pattern of the racial divide being used to the benefit of the upper classes. No society wants the poor united because then they're in trouble, hence why you've seen throughout our history poor white being convinced they have more in common with and are on the "side" of rich white people as opposed to poor non-whites. It behooves the power structure status quo for certain segments of the poor to view themselves as not as bad or even better than another group of "those people" even though at the end of the day they're largely facing the same problems and issues related to poverty. It inspires complacency so long as there at least someone else they think they're not as bad off as (even though they often are). So, yes, in that regard I suppose it is taboo.
Where do you get all these "facts" about the south? I grew up there and the crap you say about how the poor whites think they have more in common with rich whites than they do with their neighbors of other races is completely false and ridiculous. It may have been that way once upon a time, but it wasn't that way in the 80's and 90's when I was growing up in Biloxi, MS. Have you even been to the south or do you just form your opinions from hearsay and geographic bigotry?
EliSnow
07-08-2009, 11:16 AM
Where do you get all these "facts" about the south? I grew up there and the crap you say about how the poor whites think they have more in common with rich whites than they do with their neighbors of other races is completely false and ridiculous. It may have been that way once upon a time, but it wasn't that way in the 80's and 90's when I was growing up in Biloxi, MS. Have you even been to the south or do you just form your opinions from hearsay and geographic bigotry?
The first part of his discussion about the South was the following:
That's what strikes me as so remarkable about what happened in the South after the Civil War:
Plus, throughout Mojo's post, he as clearly talking about historical patterns.
And you yourself admit it may have been that way before the '80s.
TheMojoPin
07-08-2009, 11:35 AM
The first part of his discussion about the South was the following:
Plus, throughout Mojo's post, he as clearly talking about historical patterns.
And you yourself admit it may have been that way before the '80s.
Right, I was talking about the Reconstruction era and then the post-Reconstruction Populist movement. There hasn't been anything nearly as overt since then along the lines of what was talking about, mainly because there doesn't have to be.
And yes, BM, I have been to the South. I lived down there for many years.
The Happening
07-09-2009, 01:35 AM
The average black family has 11% of the wealth of the average white fami (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1365/is_6_30/ai_58411628/)ly. That isn't some bullshit white guilt, that is fact. It has been generations of structural racism that has allowed that to happen.
People like you bore me. Pussy white people like you make me sick. Learn to treat people equal, not kiss their asses or make excuses for them. You're just another scared white person full of guilt. You try to cover up your fear and insecure feelings about minorities with false ideals.
The Happening
07-09-2009, 01:47 AM
Though The Happening lacked tact in his comments, and he simplified the argument to nearly the point of absurdity I do agree with one thing he said:
"seperating social class issues, with racial issues. "
I think that social class issues get ignored in this country, and are almost taboo to discuss unless in the context of race. This isn't that hard to understand. I'm sorry you need "tact" commentary or reallly deep arguments to understand this very simple premise. But again, that's the white guilt pussy in you all. You'll give ideals that you hope people like, rather than ideals that make sense. You guys are pussies who are scared to really dive into race relations. You love to burn white guys at the stake, but excuse everything minorities do. A minority could rape a blind family of 8, and you will make an excuse for him along the " but he gew up in poverty " lines. But all a white guy has to do is say a certain word the wrong way and you guys want him to chop off his dick and kiss the ass of every minority alive. You scared white guilt pussies are the same people who laugh nervously whenever a black person makes a joke in your presence. But when you are scared and a pussy, you spend all of your time covering it up. Hence your pussy stances on race relations. You white guilt pussies hurt race relations as much as any member of the KKK does.
foodcourtdruide
07-09-2009, 03:11 AM
This isn't that hard to understand. I'm sorry you need "tact" commentary or reallly deep arguments to understand this very simple premise. But again, that's the white guilt pussy in you all. You'll give ideals that you hope people like, rather than ideals that make sense. You guys are pussies who are scared to really dive into race relations. You love to burn white guys at the stake, but excuse everything minorities do. A minority could rape a blind family of 8, and you will make an excuse for him along the " but he gew up in poverty " lines. But all a white guy has to do is say a certain word the wrong way and you guys want him to chop off his dick and kiss the ass of every minority alive. You scared white guilt pussies are the same people who laugh nervously whenever a black person makes a joke in your presence. But when you are scared and a pussy, you spend all of your time covering it up. Hence your pussy stances on race relations. You white guilt pussies hurt race relations as much as any member of the KKK does.
You nailed it. I am pro-minorities killing blind families of 8.
EliSnow
07-09-2009, 04:46 AM
This isn't that hard to understand. I'm sorry you need "tact" commentary or reallly deep arguments to understand this very simple premise. But again, that's the white guilt pussy in you all. You'll give ideals that you hope people like, rather than ideals that make sense. You guys are pussies who are scared to really dive into race relations. You love to burn white guys at the stake, but excuse everything minorities do. A minority could rape a blind family of 8, and you will make an excuse for him along the " but he gew up in poverty " lines. But all a white guy has to do is say a certain word the wrong way and you guys want him to chop off his dick and kiss the ass of every minority alive. You scared white guilt pussies are the same people who laugh nervously whenever a black person makes a joke in your presence. But when you are scared and a pussy, you spend all of your time covering it up. Hence your pussy stances on race relations. You white guilt pussies hurt race relations as much as any member of the KKK does.
If you can't make your argument without the insults, you need to make your argument somewhere else. Knock off the insults about how your opponents are "pussies" or you're getting a vacation.
You should also realize that if you need to attack your opposition in a debate, it shows that your argument is the losing one.
underdog
07-09-2009, 04:59 AM
You nailed it. I am pro-minorities killing blind families of 8.
Sweet.
Pussy white people like you make me sick. Learn to treat people equal, not kiss their asses or make excuses for them. You're just another scared white person full of guilt. You try to cover up your fear and insecure feelings about minorities with false ideals.
Facts hurt your feelings?
The Happening
07-12-2009, 08:08 AM
Facts hurt your feelings? I love how you throw a number out and think it proves your point. Instead of giving excuses to the poor minorities in this country, start holding them accountable for their economic standing. The same should be done for THE MILLIONS OF POOR WHITE PEOPLE out there. A persons social and economic environment does NOT define them. Society is structured for anyone willing to work hard, to become succesful at whatever they choose to do in life. Instead of blaming the evil white man, the poor people in this country should work harder to achieve their goals. Someone like me can say these things, because I believe that their is nothing one social class/race can do, that another can't. But people like you, out of feelings of guilt and looking for a phony label like "progressive", give minorities excuses for everything. It's much easier to kiss up, then it is to be fair. So you voice your false concerns, and continue to insinuate how awful white people are to the poor minorities of this country. I love how when people bring up racism, the first thing they bring up is white people. Wanna know the truth of the matter? MOST white people go about their days without judging minorities for who they are. Life is tough enough as it is, we have ourselves to worry about. But that's not the tale that's told. And the charge is led by the many white guilt mind sets that roam our streets(and this thread). I'd bet my nutsack that all of you own atleast one Coolio CD because you think it gives you credibility. Oh, and I garuntee that you've referred to the move "Baby Boy" as "deep". God you white guilt people suck balls!
The Happening
07-12-2009, 08:15 AM
If you can't make your argument without the insults, you need to make your argument somewhere else. Knock off the insults about how your opponents are "pussies" or you're getting a vacation.
You should also realize that if you need to attack your opposition in a debate, it shows that your argument is the losing one.
It's called "expression", nerd hall monitor.
And the white guilt thing must have really hit close to home with you. That "You should also realize that if you need to attack your opposition in a debate, it shows that your argument is the losing one" quote of yours was embarassing to read. You can never define someone by how they say something. It's what they say that counts.
Now go away and do whatever pussy nerds do.
SatCam
07-12-2009, 08:19 AM
the fucking pussies on this board, im tellin you man, it's getting out of control. atleast we have a voice of reason now. that's what's happening
KatPw
07-12-2009, 08:30 AM
You can never define someone by how they say something. It's what they say that counts.
These two sentences are contradictory to each other. What are you trying to say?
Serpico1103
07-12-2009, 09:05 AM
I love how you throw a number out and think it proves your point. Instead of giving excuses to the poor minorities in this country, start holding them accountable for their economic standing. The same should be done for THE MILLIONS OF POOR WHITE PEOPLE out there. A persons social and economic environment does NOT define them. Society is structured for anyone willing to work hard, to become succesful at whatever they choose to do in life. Instead of blaming the evil white man, the poor people in this country should work harder to achieve their goals. Someone like me can say these things, because I believe that their is nothing one social class/race can do, that another can't. But people like you, out of feelings of guilt and looking for a phony label like "progressive", give minorities excuses for everything. It's much easier to kiss up, then it is to be fair. So you voice your false concerns, and continue to insinuate how awful white people are to the poor minorities of this country. I love how when people bring up racism, the first thing they bring up is white people. Wanna know the truth of the matter? MOST white people go about their days without judging minorities for who they are. Life is tough enough as it is, we have ourselves to worry about. But that's not the tale that's told. And the charge is led by the many white guilt mind sets that roam our streets(and this thread). I'd bet my nutsack that all of you own atleast one Coolio CD because you think it gives you credibility. Oh, and I garuntee that you've referred to the move "Baby Boy" as "deep". God you white guilt people suck balls!
It is to society's benefit that everyone has an equal chance at succeeding. Do you think everyone has an equal chance? That there are no barriers that need to removed or lessened?
Just for the record, I don't own a Coolio CD and never saw "Baby Boy."
Would you have called a white person in 1970 complaining about racism that they had "white guilt?"
It's called "expression", nerd hall monitor.
And the white guilt thing must have really hit close to home with you. That "You should also realize that if you need to attack your opposition in a debate, it shows that your argument is the losing one" quote of yours was embarassing to read. You can never define someone by how they say something. It's what they say that counts.
Now go away and do whatever pussy nerds do.
You tell these socialist little faggots!
scottinnj
07-13-2009, 03:30 PM
THE HAPPENING
:banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning:
BANNED!
:banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning:
say what?
THE HAPPENING
:banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning:
BANNED!
:banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning:
say what?
Seems like such a surprise......oh wait.......
IMSlacker
07-13-2009, 04:12 PM
THE HAPPENING
:banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning:
BANNED!
:banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning: :banning:
say what?
Another victim of white liberal guilt.
scottinnj
07-13-2009, 07:27 PM
Another victim of white liberal guilt.
Eli drew the line, the happening crossed it.
RIP, you will/will not be missed.
More will not then will.
scottinnj
07-13-2009, 07:35 PM
Can I give some advice to my fellow conservatives & Republicans?
Let this go. In the long scheme of things, it does nothing to change the balance of the court, but making a big stink of it will only hurt us for 2010.
Can I give some advice to my fellow conservatives & Republicans?
Let this go. In the long scheme of things, it does nothing to change the balance of the court, but making a big stink of it will only hurt us for 2010.
It was the perfect trap...and its already playing itself out:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mPgINdA56Jk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mPgINdA56Jk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
scottinnj
07-13-2009, 07:40 PM
Just for the record, I don't own a Coolio CD and never saw "Baby Boy."
Me neither. I have been known to get jiggy with it back in the day.
Word.
scottinnj
07-13-2009, 07:43 PM
It was the perfect trap...and its already playing itself out:
If only if we had listened to the Admiral's intuition:
http://img262.imageshack.us/img262/7351/admiralackbar2jl1.jpg
scottinnj
07-13-2009, 07:50 PM
It was the perfect trap...and its already playing itself out:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mPgINdA56Jk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mPgINdA56Jk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
What gets me is how the announcer rolls off the phone number at the end,
"Ocho Cero, Ocho Cero!"
Latinas really can read the phonebook and sound sexy.
But I digress-epo is dead on. Anytime you hear the word "Republicano" on the radio, I'll bet my paycheck it's not doing conservatives any favors.
EliSnow
07-14-2009, 05:18 AM
Eli drew the line, the happening crossed it.
RIP, you will/will not be missed.
More will not then will.
He'll have the opportunity to come back. The vacation is only for a week.
Jujubees2
07-14-2009, 05:18 AM
It was the perfect trap...and its already playing itself out:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/mPgINdA56Jk&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/mPgINdA56Jk&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
And if you call the Congressman's office, tell him to get rid of the hairpiece!
So I'm listening to the hearings in my office (XM 132) and just heard Senator Sessions contradict himself.
One minute he was bitching about Sotomayor being an "activist", then he went on to bitch about her not overturning a pre-existing decision (firefighter case).
See, if she was an activist, she would've overturned the pre-existing decision...logic is so hard for some of these silly law-talking dudes!
EliSnow
07-14-2009, 06:40 AM
So I'm listening to the hearings in my office (XM 132) and just heard Senator Sessions contradict himself.
One minute he was bitching about Sotomayor being an "activist", then he went on to bitch about her not overturning a pre-existing decision (firefighter case).
See, if she was an activist, she would've overturned the pre-existing decision...logic is so hard for some of these silly law-talking dudes!
I don't think that's a true contradiction.
When I see complaints about "activist judges," I see the complaint as being those judges who create "new law" by overturning pre-existing laws, or creating "new" rights in the Constitution etc that aren't expressly stated before.
Overturning a lower court decision is not really an activist move. Sometimes it's done with then lower court is being too "activist" and the appeals court disagrees with the ruling.
foodcourtdruide
07-14-2009, 06:50 AM
I don't think that's a true contradiction.
When I see complaints about "activist judges," I see the complaint as being those judges who create "new law" by overturning pre-existing laws, or creating "new" rights in the Constitution etc that aren't expressly stated before.
Overturning a lower court decision is not really an activist move. Sometimes it's done with then lower court is being too "activist" and the appeals court disagrees with the ruling.
Really? When I see complains about "activist judges" I know they are coming from someone making a partisan point with little basis in reality that I should ignore :P
EliSnow
07-14-2009, 06:55 AM
Really? When I see complains about "activist judges" I know they are coming from someone making a partisan point with little basis in reality that I should ignore :P
Well, that is what happens a lot. And that's what the person may really mean, but according to the argument, activist judges are supposed to the judges who make law, instead of those applying it.
disneyspy
07-14-2009, 07:00 AM
Well, that is what happens a lot. And that's what the person may really mean, but according to the argument, activist judges are supposed to the judges who make law, instead of those applying it.
thanks for the clarifcation eli,i was afraid they were the ones who started all these protests
thanks for the clarifcation eli,i was afraid they were the ones who started all these protests
Damned hippies.
And it is nice to have a lawyer clarify that point.
foodcourtdruide
07-14-2009, 07:18 AM
Well, that is what happens a lot. And that's what the person may really mean, but according to the argument, activist judges are supposed to the judges who make law, instead of those applying it.
I don't doubt your definition. You would know better than me. However, the only time I ever hear about "activist judges" is conservatives referring to liberal judges. I find it hard to believe that the only judges who have ever tried to make law instead of applying it have been liberals. Or that is a thing liberals do more than conservatives.
EliSnow
07-14-2009, 07:31 AM
I don't doubt your definition. You would know better than me. However, the only time I ever hear about "activist judges" is conservatives referring to liberal judges. I find it hard to believe that the only judges who have ever tried to make law instead of applying it have been liberals. Or that is a thing liberals do more than conservatives.
Generally, the more conservative a judge, the more likely the judge will be a "strict constructionist," that is the judge will likely interpret laws or the Constitution very strictly and won't read into it. If the lawmakers/Constitution writers never intended that law, etc. to address a certain situation, then the judge can't read into it. Whereas a "living document" judge will interpet the provisions to try to meet the spirit of the law/Constitution or try to imagine what the lawmakers/writers would do in such a new situation based on their intentions.
The Supreme Court did a lot rulings in the 50's, '60's and '70's expanding constitional rights, such as establishing rights to abortion, equal rights, etc. The courts were generally liberal courts and accomplished these things by being more "living document" judges. And it's these judges that conservatives call activist judges.
But look what activist judges accomplished. The Civil Rights movement happened in large part due to US Supreme Court decisions overturning Jim Crow laws, prohibiting "separate, but equal," etc. Without these decisions, the Civil Rights movement would not have been as successful has it has been. And we definitely wouldn't have a black President now.
foodcourtdruide
07-14-2009, 08:08 AM
Generally, the more conservative a judge, the more likely the judge will be a "strict constructionist," that is the judge will likely interpret laws or the Constitution very strictly and won't read into it. If the lawmakers/Constitution writers never intended that law, etc. to address a certain situation, then the judge can't read into it. Whereas a "living document" judge will interpet the provisions to try to meet the spirit of the law/Constitution or try to imagine what the lawmakers/writers would do in such a new situation based on their intentions.
The Supreme Court did a lot rulings in the 50's, '60's and '70's expanding constitional rights, such as establishing rights to abortion, equal rights, etc. The courts were generally liberal courts and accomplished these things by being more "living document" judges. And it's these judges that conservatives call activist judges.
But look what activist judges accomplished. The Civil Rights movement happened in large part due to US Supreme Court decisions overturning Jim Crow laws, prohibiting "separate, but equal," etc. Without these decisions, the Civil Rights movement would not have been as successful has it has been. And we definitely wouldn't have a black President now.
Do you think more conservatives would necessarily interpret the constitution stricter? I always hear that, but recent history has actually proven opposite.
EliSnow
07-14-2009, 08:11 AM
Do you think more conservatives would necessarily interpret the constitution stricter? I always hear that, but recent history has actually proven opposite.
I said conservative judges are more likely to be strick constructionists, not conservatives in general. And I stand by that.
foodcourtdruide
07-14-2009, 08:19 AM
I said conservative judges are more likely to be strick constructionists, not conservatives in general. And I stand by that.
So a "Conservative Judge" is not necessarily a conservative?
disneyspy
07-14-2009, 08:21 AM
So a "Conservative Judge" is not necessarily a conservative?
i think they dont dress 'flashy'
EliSnow
07-14-2009, 08:23 AM
So a "Conservative Judge" is not necessarily a conservative?
He/she is a legal conservative, but not necessarily a political or social conservative.
But more often than not, he/she is.
And in what situations do you think that conservatives want an activist judge?
BTW, not all "conservatives" believe or want the same things. There are social conservatives, financial conservatives, legal conservatives and maybe other conservatives that I can't think of. They will all call themselves conservative, but it doesn't mean they all have the same ideas.
foodcourtdruide
07-14-2009, 08:27 AM
He/she is a legal conservative, but not necessarily a political or social conservative.
But more often than not, he/she is.
And in what situations do you think that conservatives want an activist judge?
Well, wouldn't a judge who ruled against separation of church and state be considered an "activist judge"?
TheMojoPin
07-14-2009, 08:33 AM
Lawyer Boy, please decipher this:
You have no reason to be troubled by her decision in the firefighters' case if you believe in stare decisis. In deciding the New Haven case the Supreme Court extrapolated a standard from the Equal Protection Clause in eventually overturning the 2nd Circuit's decision (that "strong evidence" of disp. impact liability must exist in order to justify conduct like that of the City). There was absolutely no way for her or any other 2nd Circuit judge to know they would do that. The 2nd Cir. gave proper deference to the Griggs decision and its progeny, which was controlling precedent at that time.
In sum, she followed the law as it existed at the time she made her judgment. She cannot be faulted for this in her capacity as an impartial jurist.
EliSnow
07-14-2009, 08:36 AM
Well, wouldn't a judge who ruled against separation of church and state be considered an "activist judge"?
Depends upon how it's done. As one example of a strict constructionist doing so, look at prayer in schools. While the Constitution talks about separation of church and state, it doesn't expressly talk about prayer in schools. Therefore both types of judges will have to interpret this part of the First Amendment.
A strict constructionist will do so by wondering what the writers of the Constitution meant and intended and say that those writers certainly allowed prayer in schools during that time, so those writers intended there to be prayer in schools.
A living document judge will acknowledge the above, but will try to capture the spirit of what was intended by the value and how that applies to a society that is nowhere near as Christianity or even religious oriented as it was in our early history. They see the constitution as a living document that needs to grow with changes in our society etc, but that accomplishes the general goals of the Constitution.
Furtherman
07-14-2009, 08:38 AM
Lawyer Boy, please decipher this:
Drink Ovaltine.
EliSnow
07-14-2009, 08:41 AM
Lawyer Boy, please decipher this:
Essentially, it says that she wasn't making new law. She was following established U.S. Supreme Court precedent, and as a result, applied the law as established precedent at that time did.
The recent Supreme Court decision overturned that precedent by essentially finding that the precedent applied the law incorrectly.
Stare decisis is essentially the concept that you need to adhere to previous case decisions that apply. Under stare decisis, a lower court judge can't rule that the U.S. Supreme Court incorrectly permitted abortion in Roe v. Wade. They can find areas that weren't specifically addressed by Roe v. Wade and rule however they want, but they can't go against it directly.
TheMojoPin
07-14-2009, 08:53 AM
Gotcha. Thanks.
EliSnow
07-14-2009, 09:55 AM
So I'm listening to the hearings in my office (XM 132) and just heard Senator Sessions contradict himself.
One minute he was bitching about Sotomayor being an "activist", then he went on to bitch about her not overturning a pre-existing decision (firefighter case).
See, if she was an activist, she would've overturned the pre-existing decision...logic is so hard for some of these silly law-talking dudes!
I don't think that's a true contradiction.
When I see complaints about "activist judges," I see the complaint as being those judges who create "new law" by overturning pre-existing laws, or creating "new" rights in the Constitution etc that aren't expressly stated before.
Overturning a lower court decision is not really an activist move. Sometimes it's done with then lower court is being too "activist" and the appeals court disagrees with the ruling.
In thinking about epo's original quote more, he may be right about the contradiction if the previous court decision Sessions was referring to was prior Supreme Court precedent. For some reason, I thought he was talking the lower court decision.
If she ruled based upon stare decisis, that certainly is not an activist move.
Activist just means they were ruled against.
In thinking about epo's original quote more, he may be right about the contradiction if the previous court decision Sessions was referring to was prior Supreme Court precedent. For some reason, I thought he was talking the lower court decision.
If she ruled based upon stare decisis, that certainly is not an activist move.
The ruling in question was based in precedent before the Supreme Court.
Question for you: Would that decision by the Supreme Court then be an "activist" decision?
foodcourtdruide
07-14-2009, 02:51 PM
The ruling in question was based in precedent before the Supreme Court.
Question for you: Would that decision by the Supreme Court then be an "activist" decision?
I'm on my phone so I can't look it up, but didn't the supreme court even change the wording of the original ruling? I remember reading about the exact thing epo just said.
EliSnow
07-14-2009, 04:10 PM
Question for you: Would that decision by the Supreme Court then be an "activist" decision?
Just because it overturned a prior decision of the Supreme Court?
No.
Serpico1103
07-14-2009, 05:23 PM
The ruling in question was based in precedent before the Supreme Court.
Question for you: Would that decision by the Supreme Court then be an "activist" decision?
It is "activist" if you don't like the ruling. It is not "activist" if you like the ruling.
Activism is defined by judges making law. Like that is a radical thing. Only problem is, our system is completely controlled by judge made law. Laws and statutes, including the Constitution, are always too board for real application. Judges draw the line, when one side doesn't like where that line is drawn it is called activism.
Also, the right has had an effort to make "activism" an insult, like "liberal." Unfortunately, for that line of thinking, almost every Constitutional standard we live under today was created by "activism", whether by a conservative or liberal court.
Dude!
07-14-2009, 06:42 PM
It is "activist" if you don't like the ruling. It is not "activist" if you like the ruling.
geez that's only been
said about 1000 times this week
including in this thread
Serpico1103
07-14-2009, 07:05 PM
geez that's only been
said about 1000 times this week
including in this thread
Was I 1000? Or 1001?
Sorry, I'll make sure to read every post to every thread before posting in the future.
EliSnow
07-15-2009, 05:05 AM
Unfortunately, for that line of thinking, almost every Constitutional standard we live under today was created by "activism", whether by a conservative or liberal court.
For the most part this is correct.
foodcourtdruide
07-15-2009, 05:10 AM
For the most part this is correct.
As I mentioned before, this is why everytime I hear someone called an "Activist Judge" I know it's coming from a completely partisan place that has little basis in reality.
EliSnow
07-15-2009, 05:21 AM
As I mentioned before, this is why everytime I hear someone called an "Activist Judge" I know it's coming from a completely partisan place that has little basis in reality.
I still maintain that most of the time you hear the term "activist" being thrown around, it's from a conservative politician about a liberal judge.
Liberals generally are more okay with "activist" judges, especially in light of how many liberal and/or progressive causes were advanced by court rulings, rather than enacted laws, whether it be civil rights, First Amendment rights (such as flag burning, skin books), privacy rights, rights of defendants in criminal trials, etc.
foodcourtdruide
07-15-2009, 05:26 AM
I still maintain that most of the time you hear the term "activist" being thrown around, it's from a conservative politician about a liberal judge.
Liberals generally are more okay with "activist" judges, especially in light of how many liberal and/or progressive causes were advanced by court rulings, rather than enacted laws, whether it be civil rights, First Amendment rights (such as flag burning, skin books), privacy rights, rights of defendants in criminal trials, etc.
I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. I think it's a term meant to provoke fear in ignorant people.
EliSnow
07-15-2009, 05:34 AM
I don't disagree with what you're saying at all. I think it's a term meant to provoke fear in ignorant people.
Yes, and I think that it is, at least somewhat, part of the "anti-intellectual"/populist message used often by conservatives in the last 20 years or more.
That message being, who are these judges who sit in their ivory towers and their decades of legal education and experience to make these decisions?
The Happening
07-19-2009, 11:22 AM
Would you have called a white person in 1970 complaining about racism that they had "white guilt?" White people were fighting REAL problems back then. You CAN'T compare the times. White people back then fought REAL racism. Now, everything that doesn't go right for minorities is considered racism. Today white people, like the ones in this thread, take on elitest attitudes when talking about minorities and racism. They give excuses for minorities because they don't see them as an equal. They don't understand that any minority is more than capeable of anything, and they don't need to be thrown a bone. It's the white guilt in them that makes these excuses for minorities, like the ones early on in this thread about economically poor minorities. But they don't apply the same sympathy to the MILLIONS of poor white people around our country.
I'm not a person that labels myself. But based on my beliefs i'd be considered a liberal. Liberals today take things too far. Part of that stems from white guilt. The other part stems from a feeling of missing out on times when things were terrible for minorities. So now white people who fancy themselves liberals, as well as black leaders, go overboard and knit pick things with racial spin. They wanna feel important, and wanna make a difference in society so bad, that they invent these problems out of thin air. The idea of racism exists much more then actual racism does.
The Happening
07-19-2009, 11:28 AM
These two sentences are contradictory to each other. What are you trying to say?
Look everyone, it's "Poster who disagreed with someones opinion, but they couldn't come up with an intelligent respones of their own, so they knit pick a few sentences and try to call the other person out on it. But in doing so, they look like a complete idiot, because the sentences were pretty basic in their meaning."
The Happening
07-19-2009, 11:34 AM
He'll have the opportunity to come back. The vacation is only for a week. That "white guilt" comment sure hit close to home for you. Rise above it man. Loose that guilt. Same goes for epo, mojo, and the rest of the bunch.
And you can't use the "just another conservative" excuse. I'm a liberal in my beliefs. You elitest white guilt liberals make us all look bad. Stop being afraid. It's jsut skin color. We are all equal, and can do the same things. NOBODY is better.
The Happening
07-19-2009, 11:41 AM
Real quick about Judge Sotomayor:
I have no idea if she would make a good US Supreme Court judge. I do know however that nothing she has said or done publicly suggest that she is racist. NOTHING even close. This is just a case of partisan politics like always. Democrats/Republicans, Conservatives/Liberals do this all the time. They don't even believe half the crap they speak out about. They are just trying to gain some point for their side. Typical polical BS. And so it goes .....................
Serpico1103
07-19-2009, 01:48 PM
White people were fighting REAL problems back then. You CAN'T compare the times. White people back then fought REAL racism. Now, everything that doesn't go right for minorities is considered racism. Today white people, like the ones in this thread, take on elitest attitudes when talking about minorities and racism. They give excuses for minorities because they don't see them as an equal. They don't understand that any minority is more than capeable of anything, and they don't need to be thrown a bone. It's the white guilt in them that makes these excuses for minorities, like the ones early on in this thread about economically poor minorities. But they don't apply the same sympathy to the MILLIONS of poor white people around our country.
I'm not a person that labels myself. But based on my beliefs i'd be considered a liberal. Liberals today take things too far. Part of that stems from white guilt. The other part stems from a feeling of missing out on times when things were terrible for minorities. So now white people who fancy themselves liberals, as well as black leaders, go overboard and knit pick things with racial spin. They wanna feel important, and wanna make a difference in society so bad, that they invent these problems out of thin air. The idea of racism exists much more then actual racism does.
I think both extremes are to blame. Al Sharpton types that blame everything on race, and people like you and Mr. Cumia you think racism is a none issue. There is a reasonable middle ground. But, no one will discuss it intelligently. Your side screams "white guilt" as if the white male is oppressed and the media helps Sharpton turn every event into a circus taking away any credibility for a respectable black leader.
underdog
07-19-2009, 02:40 PM
That "white guilt" comment sure hit close to home for you. Rise above it man. Loose that guilt. Same goes for epo, mojo, and the rest of the bunch.
Why can no one spell "lose" correctly?
EliSnow
07-19-2009, 02:54 PM
That "white guilt" comment sure hit close to home for you. Rise above it man. Loose that guilt. Same goes for epo, mojo, and the rest of the bunch.
And you can't use the "just another conservative" excuse. I'm a liberal in my beliefs. You elitest white guilt liberals make us all look bad. Stop being afraid. It's jsut skin color. We are all equal, and can do the same things. NOBODY is better.
Please. You were banned because you were attacking your opponents in your debate, and when I gave you a warning, you insulted me. I don't care if you're a liberal, conservative, moderate or nothing. If you're a douchebag ass who's violating the rules of the site by attacking others, you get banned.
I have no guilt, and don't care whether you think I have this guilt or not. Make your poinits without personally attacking others here. If you do, you get to keep making your arguments, if you don't, you'll get more time off.
The Jays
07-19-2009, 02:59 PM
Unfortunately, the only bi-partisan issue that both sides can agree on is douchebaggery.
EliSnow
07-19-2009, 03:02 PM
Unfortunately, the only bi-partisan issue that both sides can agree on is douchebaggery.
I do think we have had consensus on that point in this thread.
The Jays
07-19-2009, 03:04 PM
It corresponds with my theory that Earth is made up of 97% douchebag.
foodcourtdruide
07-19-2009, 03:14 PM
Please. You were banned because you were attacking your opponents in your debate, and when I gave you a warning, you insulted me. I don't care if you're a liberal, conservative, moderate or nothing. If you're a douchebag ass who's violating the rules of the site by attacking others, you get banned.
I have no guilt, and don't care whether you think I have this guilt or not. Make your poinits without personally attacking others here. If you do, you get to keep making your arguments, if you don't, you'll get more time off.
TH, you ignored everything we said and just kept calling us pussies. An interesting debating technique, unfortunately it got you banned for a week.
EliSnow
07-19-2009, 03:16 PM
TH, you ignored everything we said and just kept calling us pussies. An interesting debating technique, unfortunately it got you banned for a week.
If you wanted to make my post clearer and more succinct, I guess that's the way to do it.
scottinnj
07-19-2009, 04:55 PM
It corresponds with my theory that Earth is made up of 97% douchebag.
Theory? Haven't you read my published work?
Hicks' Law of Relative Douchebagatism?
For every 10 new humans born on this earth vs. 10 that leave, 2 more douchebags are added over the amount of douchebags who die.
EliSnow
07-19-2009, 04:58 PM
Theory? Haven't you read my published work?
Hicks' Law of Relative Douchebagatism?
For every 10 new humans born on this earth vs. 10 that leave, 2 more douchebags are added over the amount of douchebags who die.
Published in High Times, April 2007, am I right?
scottinnj
07-19-2009, 05:01 PM
Published in High Times, April 2007, am I right?
Carry on my work, good and faithful student.
The Happening
07-19-2009, 11:33 PM
Why can no one spell "lose" correctly? Thanks for bringing so much to the conversation.
vBulletin® v3.7.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.