Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you really upset that i misspelled her name? Do you want a tissue to blot away the tears? As for the rest of your post..you seem to suffer from the ostritch syndrome. Get help
Can you provide a link to verify this? I'm curious, because what you stipulate
flies out the window when a white male athlete is concerned. Does it apply to
state institutions and private ones equally? Knowing the controversy concerning how the creation of SAT and ACT tests tend to favor white males, I'd like to see some confirmation that such a bias no longer exists and
that white males are discriminated against unfairly. (I said I'd like confirmation
of that being the case, not that it is what I'd like to see happen...just to be
clear on the issue.)
I don't need a link. You understand perfectly well that the sole purpose of affirmative action is to discriminate against whites and more specifically white males. All the rationalizations for this institutionalized racism are just red herrings.
I have been told from several liberals that the only thing they are intolerant of is intolerance. Stotomeyer is intolerant of white people, yet i dont recall any lib calling her out on it, in fact they seem quite pleased about it. What gives?
It is the typical liberal mantra --
They are tolerant of anybody that represents their viewpoints but are intolerant of most anybody that is not exactly like them.
Libs are proud to have a black Democrat as POTUS who just nominated the female hispanic to the Supreme Court. Never mind that Sotomayor has racist tendencies and is listed as a member of La Raza. This is perfectly fine with libs because she represents a leftward shift in the Supreme Court, no matter how dangerous this is.
They are tolerant of anybody that represents their viewpoints but are intolerant of most anybody that is not exactly like them.
Libs are proud to have a black Democrat as POTUS who just nominated the female hispanic to the Supreme Court. Never mind that Sotomayor has racist tendencies and is listed as a member of La Raza. This is perfectly fine with libs because she represents a leftward shift in the Supreme Court, no matter how dangerous this is.
Typical rightwing rhetoric - throw out strawmen, hyperbole and outright propaganda.
Typical rightwing rhetoric - throw out strawmen, hyperbole and outright propaganda.
Grow up.
Your reply was a typical left-wing response --
Few words, absurd points, and lacking logic or common sense.
Liberals are the ones that need to grow up and behave in more of a mature fashion other than name-calling, finger-pointing, and wanting everything their way that breaks tradition.
Few words, absurd points, and lacking logic or common sense.
Liberals are the ones that need to grow up and behave in more of a mature fashion other than name-calling, finger-pointing, and wanting everything their way that breaks tradition
Another typical rightwing response which is ironic given the lack of logic and common sense from the rightwing.
I don't need a link. You understand perfectly well that the sole purpose of affirmative action is to discriminate against whites and more specifically white males. All the rationalizations for this institutionalized racism are just red herrings.
What's interesting is that somehow "white male" has become a measuring stick for determining equality or racism by all other groups.
When Pat Robertson or some other conservative pundit makes an objection that white males weren't in the final selection group and that connotes racism, it begs the question of all the SCOTUS nominations when ONLY white males were in the final selection group. And we're not talking ancient history.
I'm not an advocate for affirmative action, but calling Sotomayor an affirmative action nominee ignores the quantity and quality of experience that she offers. How many years has she been a federal judge? How many appeals has she heard? How many decisions has she handed down? She teaches, she lectures, and she has served the bench. If you attack Sotomayor as an affirmative action nominee, you need to demonstrate that there were others with more experience, better credentials, and who would better serve the political realities of this administration.
And saying that political realities shouldn't be involved is disingenous, because the political reality is that the attacks on Sotomayor are attacks on Obama and his administration and that regardless of who he nominated, the same people attacking Sotomayor would be attacking that nominee. The details might be changed, but the tenor and nature of the attacks would be the same. That's the political reality.
Location: Midessa, Texas Home Yangzhou, Jiangsu temporarily
1,506 posts, read 4,280,302 times
Reputation: 992
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
What's interesting is that somehow "white male" has become a measuring stick for determining equality or racism by all other groups.
When Pat Robertson or some other conservative pundit makes an objection that white males weren't in the final selection group and that connotes racism, it begs the question of all the SCOTUS nominations when ONLY white males were in the final selection group. And we're not talking ancient history.
I'm not an advocate for affirmative action, but calling Sotomayor an affirmative action nominee ignores the quantity and quality of experience that she offers. How many years has she been a federal judge? How many appeals has she heard? How many decisions has she handed down? She teaches, she lectures, and she has served the bench. If you attack Sotomayor as an affirmative action nominee, you need to demonstrate that there were others with more experience, better credentials, and who would better serve the political realities of this administration.
And saying that political realities shouldn't be involved is disingenous, because the political reality is that the attacks on Sotomayor are attacks on Obama and his administration and that regardless of who he nominated, the same people attacking Sotomayor would be attacking that nominee. The details might be changed, but the tenor and nature of the attacks would be the same. That's the political reality.
I am not really sure if you were speaking specifically to me but you quoted me so I'll respond.
I did not call Sotomayor an affirmative action nominee. As far as I can tell she is qualified for the position. I did call her racist though. And I stand by that as she is/was a member of a racist organization.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
