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.
Same could be said about the Minutemen, which many on this board are convinced are a racist organization, which I believe are in absolutely no way racist. To each his own.
You see no difference between a group teaching Irish culture and heritage, and a group that advocates electing "Latino " leadership and providing amnesty to millions of illegal alien criminals? That's quite a stretch.
Have you gone to their website and read what their goals are?
And are you honestly suggesting that Irish-American groups during most of the last century didn't advocate the election of Irish-Americans?
Look, this is not a debate over the NCLR. You have your views and are entitled to them. But Sotomayor's membership does not mean she agrees with every tenet of the NCLR agenda. Just like belonging to the Catholic Church does not mean you agree with the Pope on every detail. If you are arguing that Sotomayor is a racist (or bigot), and if she indeed is, then surely there must be more evidence of that bias than one sentence from a speech from years ago, and membership in a group that advocates an end to discrimination against an ethnic group. She's been a judge for 17 years. She's not a spring chicken. To make your case, you need to produce more evidence than a poorly worded remark, and guilt by association. Can you?
Well Obama is going to use the same thing she did to screw over and make the wrong decision with the firefighters and allow affirmative action to put her in a job she should not be considered for.
Will Sotomayor get the job because of affirmative action then?
The same crap she just screwed up on herself?
I thought we were not suppose to put racist pigs in important jobs like this?
Do you think it's okay to be offensive like this?
Could you make your point by actually quoting things she's said? Could you tell us all which judge currently serving on the Supreme Court had more judicial experience that Sotomayor has when nominated? Just one name will do. One judge who was cited by other judges more than Sotomayor in published opinions? Just one name. Let us know.
Have you gone to their website and read what their goals are?
I have seen many of the "causes" they push for, and the sides they take on issues. Shows their true colors, not the "goals" posted on their website.
Quote:
And are you honestly suggesting that Irish-American groups during most of the last century didn't advocate the election of Irish-Americans?
I responded to the context of what YOU POSTED!
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
Wanting to address that by educating people and by celebrating Hispanic culture doesn't seem all that different than Irish groups wanting to educate people about Ireland and Irish customs and Irish holidays and Irish poetry and music and so on.
Quote:
Look, this is not a debate over the NCLR. You have your views and are entitled to them. But Sotomayor's membership does not mean she agrees with every tenet of the NCLR agenda. Just like belonging to the Catholic Church does not mean you agree with the Pope on every detail. If you are arguing that Sotomayor is a racist (or bigot), and if she indeed is, then surely there must be more evidence of that bias than one sentence from a speech from years ago, and membership in a group that advocates an end to discrimination against an ethnic group. She's been a judge for 17 years. She's not a spring chicken. To make your case, you need to produce more evidence than a poorly worded remark, and guilt by association. Can you?
To make a case for an opinion is not plausible. I can make a case for her being a bigot as much as you can make a case for her not being one. I don't "need" to do anything, if you don't like my "poorly worded" remarks, then simply don't respond to them.
I have seen many of the "causes" they push for, and the sides they take on issues. Shows their true colors, not the "goals" posted on their website.
I responded to the context of what YOU POSTED!
To make a case for an opinion is not plausible. I can make a case for her being a bigot as much as you can make a case for her not being one. I don't "need" to do anything, if you don't like my "poorly worded" remarks, then simply don't respond to them.
I POSTED "and so on" which might therefore include Irish Americans advocating the election of other Irish Americans to political office.
And I wasn't saying that your remarks were "poorly worded". I was saying that Sotomayor's remark on the wise Latina was poorly worded. It just seems to be the only remark she's ever made that could be interpreted as bigoted, because it's the only remark that keeps getting spotlighted.
I'm saying that to make a case that she is a racist or bigot, you should have, in the 17 years she's been on the bench, in the 50+ years she's been on the planet, some additional evidence of that bigotry. Guilt by association, and one poorly-worded remark that could be interpreted in several ways, is not sufficient when we're talking about smearing the reputation of a well-respected jurist. And she is well-respected. She is one of the most cited judges serving on the federal bench today. Scholars and other judges cite her opinions in articles and their own decisions. She deserves better treatment, and the people smearing her owe themselves better reasoning and better support for their arguments.
Doesn't change the fact that Sotomayor is a blatent racist and has no place being on the supreme court. Obama chose her for latino support, period.
You've earned your handle.
She's not a racist in the least. If you have to go back to one sentence in one speech to make your case, you don't have one.
I'm sure that President Obama is proud to be nominating the first Latina to the court. And most reasonable people agree that it's a good idea to have diversity on the court. However, you see through that logic and you know that he has different motives.
That is a very high rate of reversal, one that should not be ignored.
You clearly have no idea how the court system works in this country.
Here are some facts for you.
Sotomayor has written over 200 opinions as an appellate judge. Of those, only five were deemed worthy for consideration by the Supreme Court. Of those five, three were overturned. Therefore, only three out of more than 200 opinions she wrote were overturned by the Supreme Court. That is an extremely GOOD record, and, in your words, "one that should not be ignored".
Doesn't change the fact that Sotomayor is a blatent racist and has no place being on the supreme court. Obama chose her for latino support, period.
So you think all those white males were chosen for white male support?
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.
for overturning the New Haven FD decision.
