If this idiot really think Obama hates white people, seeing that he truly hasn't done anything for black people at all, then this dick forgot to check for facts.
The Racist Attack on Sotomayor
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
If this idiot really think Obama hates white people, seeing that he truly hasn't done anything for black people at all, then this dick forgot to check for facts.
Yes you did. Rather than condemn the action, the first words out of your mouth is to look for parity to justify it to support your white racist brethren. Which makes you just as culpable as those who started on this bullshit path of very personal insult. Talking about the woman's heritage as if its' some kind of play toy. Did you guys just give up on behaving like Men? It's easier to put your hands in the toilet, swirl it around until you find the most disgusting diseased fecal matter you could find and show the world?
I ask you again since you tossed out Clarance Thomas once again, was this attack on this woman, Judge Sotomayor's heritage, and personal hygiene to defend a 17 year old beef?
I already have my answer but there is something really unpleasant about the ease and swiftness at which your party attacks women and children.
-VG
co-sign
Obama got these people scare........
Conveniently avoids my ENTIRE post!
Hopefully when we cut back the military to a real and manageable size it will hurt hypocritical Texas and stop them for getting that bad old government money that they say is costing everyone so much! Texas and the south in general receive more government money than the North East and Mid West and the pay less for it! Time to get off of the dole.
You and your hypotheticals. The republican/right wing tactic; take an argument to its most outrageous extreme, pose it as a legitimate question and then judge their opponents on that that hyperbole. The fact is, GW came in to office with distrust. The entire Florida 2000 presidential election, vote counting was a case study in partisan politics. Taking it to the Supreme Court instead of letting Florida, the state, decide it, just as Coleman and Franken are doing in Minnesota . The Democrats are letting that race take its legal course. Why didn’t the republicans allow the 2000 presidential question takes its legal course? The Republicans set the seeds of distrust at the beginning of GW’s term. There were many democrats willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Just look at how many Democrats voted to give GW the authority to attack Iraq. You are every confused youngster.
Last edited:
Conveniently avoids my ENTIRE post!
Hopefully when we cut back the military to a real and manageable size it will hurt hypocritical Texas and stop them for getting that bad old government money that they say is costing everyone so much! Texas and the south in general receive more government money than the North East and Mid West and the pay less for it! Time to get off of the dole.
You and your hypotheticals. The republican/right wing tactic; take an argument to its most outrageous extreme, pose it as a legitimate question and then judge their opponents on that that hyperbole. The fact is, GW came in to office with distrust. The entire Florida 2000 presidential election, vote counting was a case study in partisan politics. Taking it to the Supreme Court instead of letting Florida, the state, decide it, just as Coleman and Franken are doing in Minnesota . The Democrats are letting that race take its legal course. Why didn’t the republicans allow the 2000 presidential question takes its legal course? The Republicans set the seeds of distrust at the beginning of GW’s term. There were many democrats willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Just look at how many Democrats voted to give GW the authority to attack Iraq. You are every confused youngster.
you do know that Texas has a lot of natural resources right?
<font size="4"><center>Why Don't We Start to Set the Record Straight</font size></center>
- <font size="3">Clarence Thomas didn't come to his nomination without preexisting controversy:</font size>
In 1984 (7 years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court) while Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"), Uncle Clarence said:that black leaders are "watching the destruction of our race" as they "bitch, bitch, bitch" about President Reagan but fail to work with the administration to solve problems.
So, Black people, irrespective of anyone else including the Democratic Party, had a bone to pick with Uncle Clarence from the day he was nominated.
- <font size="3">Also recall, it was the NAACP and other national organizations, i.e., NOW (a "womens" interest group) and the Urban League (a non-partisan interest group) that had major problems with Uncle Clarence.</font size>
The NAACP had problems because Uncle had strongly criticized affirmative action;
NOW hated his azz because they thought Uncle would strike down Roe v. Wade (the Justice Blackmon's abortion case); and
NONE OF THESE OBJECTIONS WERE BASED ON "RACE" OR WERE EVER CALLED "RACIST" ATTACKS ON UNCLE.
- <font size="3">AND THEN, right in the middle of the confirmation of Uncle, an apparent skeleton fell from the Cabin's closet.</font size>
Come here woman, step forward and re-introduce yourself:
Hi, my name is Anita Hill, you remember me; I testified at Uncle's confirmation hearing . . .
You remember Ms. Anita Hill, do you not ???. A Black woman, not the damn Democratic Party -- Mr. Party-Label-Dropping-Man, LOL.
"Anita Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, came forward with accusations that Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her. Hill had worked for Thomas years earlier when he was head of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. Hill charged that Thomas harassed her with inappropriate discussion of sexual acts and pornographic films after she rebuffed his invitations to date him. A media frenzy quickly arose around Hill's allegations and Thomas's denials. When Thomas testified about Hill's claims before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he called the hearings, "a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks." The incident became one person's word against another's. In the end, the Senate voted 52-48 to confirm Clarence Thomas as associate justice of the Supreme Court."
HEY by the way, you will recall it was the recent Republican Turncoat, LOL, your boy Arlen Specter (you haven't forgotten him so soon, now have you?), who put Ms. Hill to through the Third Degree -- which earned him the nickname: Snarlin Arlen.
QueEx
<font size="4"><center>Why Don't We Start to Set the Record Straight</font size></center>
- <font size="3">Clarence Thomas didn't come to his nomination without preexisting controversy:</font size>
In 1984 (7 years before he was nominated to the Supreme Court) while Chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (the "EEOC"), Uncle Clarence said:that black leaders are "watching the destruction of our race" as they "bitch, bitch, bitch" about President Reagan but fail to work with the administration to solve problems.
So, Black people, irrespective of anyone else including the Democratic Party, had a bone to pick with Uncle Clarence from the day he was nominated.
- <font size="3">Also recall, it was the NAACP and other national organizations, i.e., NOW (a "womens" interest group) and the Urban League (a non-partisan interest group) that had major problems with Uncle Clarence.</font size>
The NAACP had problems because Uncle had strongly criticized affirmative action;
NOW hated his azz because they thought Uncle would strike down Roe v. Wade (the Justice Blackmon's abortion case); and
NONE OF THESE OBJECTIONS WERE BASED ON "RACE" OR WERE EVER CALLED "RACIST" ATTACKS ON UNCLE.
- <font size="3">AND THEN, right in the middle of the confirmation of Uncle, an apparent skeleton fell from the Cabin's closet.</font size>
Come here woman, step forward and re-introduce yourself:
Hi, my name is Anita Hill, you remember me; I testified at Uncle's confirmation hearing . . .
You remember Ms. Anita Hill, do you not ???. A Black woman, not the damn Democratic Party -- Mr. Party-Label-Dropping-Man, LOL.
"Anita Hill, a law professor at the University of Oklahoma, came forward with accusations that Clarence Thomas had sexually harassed her. Hill had worked for Thomas years earlier when he was head of the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission. Hill charged that Thomas harassed her with inappropriate discussion of sexual acts and pornographic films after she rebuffed his invitations to date him. A media frenzy quickly arose around Hill's allegations and Thomas's denials. When Thomas testified about Hill's claims before the Senate Judiciary Committee, he called the hearings, "a high-tech lynching for uppity Blacks." The incident became one person's word against another's. In the end, the Senate voted 52-48 to confirm Clarence Thomas as associate justice of the Supreme Court."
HEY by the way, you will recall it was the recent Republican Turncoat, LOL, your boy Arlen Specter (you haven't forgotten him so soon, now have you?), who put Ms. Hill to through the Third Degree -- which earned him the nickname: Snarlin Arlen.
QueEx
You know you missed my point right?
I wonder who found Anita Hill? Again find me a Democrat that thought that the treatment of Clarance Thomas wasn't fair? I can find Republicans that do not like how some conservatives want to paint Sotomayor. One name comes to mind is John Cornyn out of TEXAS.
No. I didn't miss your point.
You don't have a point.
You just don't know it.
QueEx
My stance on this situation is to just be fair about everything. You can't get mad at some republicans when democrats do things either equally, or worst. That's my whole point in a nutshell.
I know you don't like the republican vs democrat thing, but it exist. Look at Liebermann, for example. Liebermann is a lifelong democrat. He supports the war, then he is the enemy. I can say the same about Spector. The only way you look at the individuals if there was NO parties *in which that would never happen in this country*.
(1) I'm not mad (LOL)
(2) I hear you trying to make a "Fairness" argument; but my problem is that you think the Republican Hacks pulling the "Race Card" out on Senorita Sotomayor -- is fair -- when I don't see where the Democrats did the same thing when Justice Alito talked about his background:
ALITO: Senator, I tried to in my opening statement, I tried to provide a little picture of who I am as a human being and how my background and my experiences have shaped me and brought me to this point. … And that’s why I went into that in my opening statement. Because when a case comes before me involving, let’s say, someone who is an immigrant — and we get an awful lot of immigration cases and naturalization cases — I can’t help but think of my own ancestors, because it wasn’t that long ago when they were in that position. [...]
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
And that goes down the line. When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
Do you see my point ???
QueEx
They didn't do that with Alito, but they did to that to Al Gonzales...
Still waiting.
ONE - I thought we were talking Supreme Court nominees.
TWO - I can't believe you would dare bring up the likes of Senor Alberto.
That som bitch who penned or assisted in penning the opinions authorizing Waterboarding ??? and
That som bitch that, as Attorney General, went along with the firing of United States Attorneys who wouldn't impede investigations of Republican politicians or who wouldn't unlawfully initiate investigations that would damage Democratic politicians or hamper Democratic-leaning voters ???
You see, you think because people protested a damn criminal (Gonzalez) its fair to retaliate by calling the President (Obama) and his nominee to the Supreme court (Sotomayor), racists.
QueEx
Natural gas, Oil.
1. I never limit the argument to just the supreme court. You did.
2. Like it, or not, Gonzales obeyed the law. Seriously, do you hear Gonzales serving jail time right now? BTW, didn't Janet Reno do something similar?
3. I said what I said about the situation about Sotomayor. However, if you supported any politician with a D before their name. You cannot get mad when Republicans call out your side. Sotomayor did say the shit that they are protesting. Think about it like this, if Alito would of said "an Italian man can judge a situation better than a Black man" what would be the coverage RIGHT now? Que look at how you, and some of the people on here are reacting to the Limbaugh. Please be consistent!
Nope, this one actinanass.
This confirms that you are just a parrot that doesn’t think for himself. Still waiting or are you waiting for this weeks GOP talkings points to be emailed to you for an answer.
Natural gas, Oil.
1. I never limit the argument to just the supreme court. You did.
2. Like it, or not, Gonzales obeyed the law. Seriously, do you hear Gonzales serving jail time right now? BTW, didn't Janet Reno do something similar?
3. I said what I said about the situation about Sotomayor. However, if you supported any politician with a D before their name. You cannot get mad when Republicans call out your side. Sotomayor did say the shit that they are protesting. Think about it like this, if Alito would of said "an Italian man can judge a situation better than a Black man" what would be the coverage RIGHT now? Que look at how you, and some of the people on here are reacting to the Limbaugh. Please be consistent!
This confirms that you are just a parrot that doesn’t think for himself. Still waiting or are you waiting for this weeks GOP talkings points to be emailed to you for an answer.
You're right; I did: the topic is the racist attack on Sotomayor. What was I thinking
Oh he just hasn't been (and may never be) charged. But there is no question that spineless S.O.B. wrote the torture-approving memos.2. Like it, or not, Gonzales obeyed the law. Seriously, do you hear Gonzales serving jail time right now? BTW, didn't Janet Reno do something similar?
Nevertheless, according to your illogic, its okay to bring this racist attack on Sotomayor because people attacked Gonzo for the terror memos and because he allowed the termination of federal prosecutors who wouldn't do your party's illegal bidding.
Sir, YOU HAVE NO ETHICS; and you don't appear to recognize it.
Did you read & UNDERSTAND the Alito quote above ???
QueEx
1. I was going by something she *Sotomayor* said. If she says something, she must believe in it.
2. By no means I condone putting anyone kids out there. However, where were you at when they were attacking Palin's daughter? Double standard?
You're right; I did: the topic is the racist attack on Sotomayor. What was I thinking
Oh he just hasn't been (and may never be) charged. But there is no question that spineless S.O.B. wrote the torture-approving memos.
Nevertheless, according to your illogic, its okay to bring this racist attack on Sotomayor because people attacked Gonzo for the terror memos and because he allowed the termination of federal prosecutors who wouldn't do your party's illegal bidding.
Sir, YOU HAVE NO ETHICS; and you don't appear to recognize it.
Did you read & UNDERSTAND the Alito quote above ???
QueEx
1. How do you know that I do not have any ethics? Do you find it funny that NO ONE has charged Gonzales? Maybe the same people you supported KNOWS that they do not have a solid case on.
2. I think we have too redefine what's racist, and what's "keying in on the issues". In fact, why don't you make the definition Mr/Ms. Que. Thought you can join in too like you always like doing....
BTW, why did you skip the CT argument, and bring up Alito. We both know that's an apples to oranges comparison. Nice job trying to change the argument.
White folks are going to have to get over it.
We're going towards a Socialist state and that requires that all voices of the citizens be given an equal vote in Government affairs. The Old Republic established by the white forefathers is done away it and now we have an order that will be satisfactory for everyone.
We're going towards a Socialist state and that requires that all voices of the citizens be given an equal vote in Government affairs. The Old Republic established by the white forefathers is done away it and now we have an order that will be satisfactory for everyone.
What did she say specifically? You haven’t shown me shit yet.
Reading is fundamental. You call it attacks, I call it pointing out the hypocrisy of republican/conservative moralizing. I still say and you know its true, if Obama's daughters were older and became pregnant out of wedlock, you of all people would be echoing the GOP talking’s points about the immorality of the secular Democrats! Call me a liar.
Unasked Question about Sam Alito
source: Salon
Glenn Greenwald
Monday July 13, 2009 17:14 EDT
Unasked Question about Sam Alito
At his Senate confirmation hearing, Sam Alito used his opening statement to emphasize how his experience as an Italian-American influences his judicial decision-making (video is here):
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country" . . . .
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
Two weeks ago, Alito cast the deciding vote in Ricci v. DeStefano, an intensely contested affirmative action case. He did so by ruling in favor of the Italian-American firefighters, finding that they were unlawfully discriminated against, even though the district court judge who heard all the evidence and the three-judge appellate panel ruled against them and dismissed their case. Notably, the majority Supreme Court opinion Alito joined (.pdf) began by highlighting not the relevant legal doctrine, but rather, the emotional factors that made the Italian-American-plaintiffs empathetic.
Did Alito's Italian-American ethnic background cause him to cast his vote in favor of the Italian-American plaintiffs? Has anyone raised that question? Given that he himself said that he "do[es] take that into account" -- and given that Sonia Sotomayor spent 6 straight hours today being accused by GOP Senators and Fox News commentators of allowing her Puerto Rican heritage to lead her to discriminate against white litigants -- why isn't that question being asked about Alito's vote in Ricci?
Also: if empathy is irrelevant to judicial decision-making, why are GOP Senators calling Frank Ricci as a witness at this hearing? Since he's obviously not there to testify about the strict legalistic doctrines governing his claims, but instead is only there to trumpet the facts that make him "sympathetic" so that people will emotionally react against Sotomayor's ruling (his dyslexia, the amount he spent on books and tutors, his hopes for a promotion), isn't everything he has to say totally irrelevant pursuant to the GOP's alleged judicial principles?
<iframe src="http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001783/" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
source: Salon
Glenn Greenwald
Monday July 13, 2009 17:14 EDT
Unasked Question about Sam Alito
At his Senate confirmation hearing, Sam Alito used his opening statement to emphasize how his experience as an Italian-American influences his judicial decision-making (video is here):
But when I look at those cases, I have to say to myself, and I do say to myself, "You know, this could be your grandfather, this could be your grandmother. They were not citizens at one time, and they were people who came to this country" . . . .
When I get a case about discrimination, I have to think about people in my own family who suffered discrimination because of their ethnic background or because of religion or because of gender. And I do take that into account.
Two weeks ago, Alito cast the deciding vote in Ricci v. DeStefano, an intensely contested affirmative action case. He did so by ruling in favor of the Italian-American firefighters, finding that they were unlawfully discriminated against, even though the district court judge who heard all the evidence and the three-judge appellate panel ruled against them and dismissed their case. Notably, the majority Supreme Court opinion Alito joined (.pdf) began by highlighting not the relevant legal doctrine, but rather, the emotional factors that made the Italian-American-plaintiffs empathetic.
Did Alito's Italian-American ethnic background cause him to cast his vote in favor of the Italian-American plaintiffs? Has anyone raised that question? Given that he himself said that he "do[es] take that into account" -- and given that Sonia Sotomayor spent 6 straight hours today being accused by GOP Senators and Fox News commentators of allowing her Puerto Rican heritage to lead her to discriminate against white litigants -- why isn't that question being asked about Alito's vote in Ricci?
Also: if empathy is irrelevant to judicial decision-making, why are GOP Senators calling Frank Ricci as a witness at this hearing? Since he's obviously not there to testify about the strict legalistic doctrines governing his claims, but instead is only there to trumpet the facts that make him "sympathetic" so that people will emotionally react against Sotomayor's ruling (his dyslexia, the amount he spent on books and tutors, his hopes for a promotion), isn't everything he has to say totally irrelevant pursuant to the GOP's alleged judicial principles?
<iframe src="http://www.dailykostv.com/w/001783/" width=800 height=1000></iframe>
Similar threads
