sikis
porno izle
sikis

southernRacistMoron :

After reading comments like this I wonder who’s the racist???? SG
<<<<<<<<<<<

I dont wonder, I KNOW, you and Rush are the racists. Glad to be of help

I see you are still being yourself ED. Are you as ugly as you are foul-mouthed. PS I don’t support Rush or his comments. SG

Obama, his administration, and now she herself have said the words were bad, and yet in her history she used these words OVER AND OVER. She’s a racist, by definition. The problem, I think, is that you can’t see far enough past that word. If someone is a racist, and wants to see people who are like them, or them based on their race get ahead, that doesn’t necessarily mean they are bad. Again, I support Sotomayor’s nomination, just deplore the constant defense of her racist statements. If a white man said the reverse, it would be decried as racist. Hell, I honestly believe that with only a slightly different judicial record, THIS nominee would be called a racist by most progressives/leftist if George Bush (either) had nominated her to the high court. However, since she’s Obama’s, well we must defend her every statement vigorously. I made no statements concerning Limbaugh, or Savage, or other’s NOT being racist. Certainly you could put up information that would lead me to that exact same conclusion. STILL doesn’t me that she ISN’T, or can’t be. She is. Oh well. I don’t care, put her on the court, and it will be more variably populated, and I feel she will rule according to law.

ElBruce – So, by your logic, African-American/Black doesn’t indicate a race, as they can be anything from a very light almost imperceptible tan, through almost jet black. Guess there reallly AREN’T races after all?? And you suggest that I can’t be taken seriously about race???

Yes, she hopes. She decideds NOT to discuss the also obvious likelihood that said person could judge POORLY by seeing prejudice where there is none. Hence, in her speech, raising the latina woman with her experiences above the white male based on that. Were she not a latina (yes, effectively a race), and/or female, you’ve taken away the statement entirely. She put those like herself, due to their race and sex, above white males (but just most of the time right… I mean, slave owners weren’t ALWAYS on plantation, just “most of the time”).

I am not a racist bigot. I have no agenda. But I do love to point out hypocrisy when I see it. Had a white male made the same statement, he would be eviscerated by the left (and I would hope some/most of the right). Her statements WERE racist, but irrelevant. I will concede that a racist statement does not a racist make (necessarily). I believe she is, at least in specific circumstances, but not in such a way as to be afraid of her on the SCOTUS. She’s a good judge. Seat her, and move on.

She says her background makes her more eligible than a white male. Why, because she grew up poor in New York City

That’s not what she said at all. This one’s not even remotely close to her words. Now you’re completely authoring original statements to put in her mouth, way to go.

.

JonW Says:

“Latina” does indeed signify race (it is synonamous with Hispanic other than it’s gender reference).

Go to the Dominican Republic, then go to Spain, and tell me that again. Latinos/latinas run the gamut of completely black to pasty/blonde, and everything in between. You can’t be taken seriously talking about race if you don’t understand that simple consequential fact.

.

JonW Says:

I would actually AGREE that it’s POSSIBLE that a latina woman could come up with a better judgment due to having the experience (and that experience would be of a RACIAL bias recipient), BUT I would also say it’s possible she could come up with a WORSE ruling due to the same.

… so if it were a factor, one would hope it was helpful rather than harmful, right?

.

JonW Says:

Obama and SOTOMAYOR HERSELF have admitted that the words that she used probably weren’t the best; clearly they understand they can be taken to be racist.

… by racist bigots with an agenda to twist them around. She probably should have said something more bulletproof so your job would be a little harder.

The reason I’m calling the people who call her racists racists is that actual KKK/neo-Nazi/Aryan-Nations types have long had an agenda of equating their virulent racism with perfectly reasonable discussions on race. Whenever anyone of a minority race opens their mouth on the subject – no matter how innocuously – the true hatemongers and their apologists (that’s you) are immediately out the front lines screaming “racism! racism!”

When everybody’s racist then nobody is, and then the real racists get to make a comeback. As they are among the Republican party today. With your active help.

That still doesn’t mean she is, does it?

It only means she acknowledges her words can be misconstrued as such by smarmy little twits like you, that’s all.

He associates only white males with racism, and then only those whom his beloved media depict to him as such.

Right, because *I* said only white males can be racist, and Limbaugh, Savage, etc. are not racist at all. Limbaugh never told a Black caller “take that bone out of your nose”. Oh no, that never happened. Ever.

And even more telling of his maturity and personal wisdom, his use of the “witty” cuts against opponents obviously places him above all.

Again, I don’t speak babble. If you object to my posts, stop responding. It’s as easy as that.

You don’t understand the word hypothetical.
You can’t see the difference between using the word latina, and not, or the difference between comparing to white males versus people in general.
You apparently can’t read the dictionary (although accuse me of needing one, even though I quoted from one)

As close minded as you clearly are, I don’t see why you continue to post. Even Obama and SOTOMAYOR HERSELF have admitted that the words that she used probably weren’t the best; clearly they understand they can be taken to be racist. But no, Gregor knows better than all!! His mastery of the cut and paste, and directly addressing posts with the same responses over and over CLEARLY indicates an intelligent mind. He associates only white males with racism, and then only those whom his beloved media depict to him as such. And even more telling of his maturity and personal wisdom, his use of the “witty” cuts against opponents obviously places him above all.

The entire statement was a hypothetical.

Let’s review your statement, shall we?

“If I said that I would hope a white would come up with a better judgement based on his mental abilities (or Asians, etc based on test scores), it would be a racist comment, despite being true.”

There was nothing hypothetical in the “despite being true” part.

it’s only racism if you say it is, and then it’s a sure thing.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Again, she could easily have used the words that she hopes SOMEONE with her EXPERIENCES would come to a better judgement than those sitting.

Which is what she did. Her experience, of course, being that of that a Latina judge. What was your point again?

That would not DIRECTLY allude to her sex and her race.

Oh right, because she should hide the fact that she is Hispanic & a woman -specially at a conference called “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”

Maybe she should change her surname to Smith or something, lest it be clear she’s Latina.

And again, what is her race, exactly?

Minorities are NOT unable to be racists, in fact some of the most flagrant CURRENT racists are minorities.

What? Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, and Michael Savage are minorities?

Wow.

Or maybe “blowhard” became a protected minority when I wasn’t looking.

I also submit you need to work on your reading comprehension,

Well, at least I am able to understand caveats such as “I would hope”, “more often than not”, and “lived that life” in the context of a sex & racial discrimination talk.

But no, it’s a strong, defiant stance, one which I have above shown would clearly NOT be yours if the speaker were a white… Racist.

I am sorry; I don’t speak babble. A white what? And who are you calling racist?

Whatever you think you have clearly shown, you haven’t.

I’ll give you that a hope and a belief are different, but are along the same lines. You could say she HOPES the wise latina would be a better judge because she BELIEVES it. They can be used interchangeably in this instance.

This slow-witted foe clearly acknowledges your refusal to see racism when it is apparent. It’s a shame that someone as bright and quick-witted as you has such a glaring deficiency. Especially someone astute enough to notice that I’m a racist white who opposes Sotomayor (for clarification, this is sarcasm, as none of those is true). I also submit you need to work on your reading comprehension, as clearly you take a stance and are unable to change from it, despite clear evidence of AT LEAST QUESTIONABLE nature. But no, it’s a strong, defiant stance, one which I have above shown would clearly NOT be yours if the speaker were a white… Racist.

No, I didn’t. It wasn’t a hypothetical question; it was a statement. Let me paste it here again for you:

“If I said that I would hope a white would come up with a better judgement based on his mental abilities (or Asians, etc based on test scores), it would be a racist comment, despite being true.”

No, it is not true. Caucasians don’t have the market cornered on mental abilities.

In case you missed it, once again, it doesn’t matter WHAT THE SITUATION IS.

Yes, it does, my slow-witted foe because she didn’t say that Hispanics are better as a blanket statement. She was trying to say that, based on past personal experiences with discrimination, minorities & women may have more a sensible approach to racial and/or sex discrimination cases.

That is clear when you read the speech, if you don’t have reading comprehension problems -which you seem to have.

If you believe, based on RACE, that someone would do BETTER in anything, you have racism.

And what race are Hispanics, exactly?

BUT I would also say it’s possible she could come up with a WORSE ruling due to the same.

Right. That’s why Sotomayor said she’d hope a wise Latina woman would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.

That you missed the caveats above mean that you either a) didn’t read the speech as you claim, and/or b)you need to work on your reading comprehension.

She professes a belief that the hispanic female would be BETTER, thus race and gender is played, with a resulting difference in outcome. This is racism. Plain and simple.

No it isn’t because that is not what she said. She didn’t say she believes anything. Again, she said she’d hope -see above for the rest of the explanation.

And I suggest you use of a dictionary next time you read a text for grown ups.

After reading comments like this I wonder who’s the racist???? SG
<<<<<<<<<<<

I dont wonder, I KNOW, you and Rush are the racists. Glad to be of help

There was NO racism and it isnt complicated. She is saying she HOPES her life as a latina would enable her to make better decisions than a white male in context of race and gender discrimination suits. So what she is saying is she hopew her EXPERIENCE living as a latina would help her make better judgements than those without that EXPERIENCE then goes on to aknowledge that all white courts had made wise judgements in such suits and said she wasnt myopic enough to think differently. NOTHING RACIST.

Gregor – You jumped immediately to the fact that I’m a racist and opposed to Sotomayor, based on a hypothetical question. She made a statement of her direct feelings regarding how a minority female would make a BETTER judgement than a white male. So my hypothetical question qualifies me more than her direct belief? You are truly ridiculous. I’ll also add “twit” to the list of random names I’ve been called due to not agreeing with someone on this site. It truly advanced your cause, and gave you the intellectual high ground.

Your typing is, rather too SLOW for me. Or perhaps it’s the thinking behind it. In case you missed it, once again, it doesn’t matter WHAT THE SITUATION IS. If you believe, based on RACE, that someone would do BETTER in anything, you have racism. I would actually AGREE that it’s POSSIBLE that a latina woman could come up with a better judgment due to having the experience (and that experience would be of a RACIAL bias recipient), BUT I would also say it’s possible she could come up with a WORSE ruling due to the same. I don’t believe, in general, that it would trend either way, but both possibilities exist. Taken SINGLY, (ie in all cases, or most, it would be white better, or hispanic better), it would be racist. But I don’t claim that EITHER would be better, just that a possibility exists. She professes a belief that the hispanic female would be BETTER, thus race and gender is played, with a resulting difference in outcome. This is racism. Plain and simple. But not what I would consider flagrant…

Great point but then that only makes the larger context of Sotomayor statement that much more important. She was mindful enough to acknowledge when White justices differed from the prevailing White-think. Notice she didn’t include Justice Rehnquist in that group (i.e. views on race rarely, if ever, stopped the nomination of a White [male] justice).

And you have no clue what you are talking about. “Eligible”? She didn’t even hint at the word, and the speech was delivered several years ago, in a completely different context that had nothing to do with being appointed as a Supreme Court Justice.

That’d be in you own mind. You were the one who said that a statement about white males having better mental abilities would be true, not me.

Also, just for informative purposes, I’m half hispanic, half white.

I couldn’t care less. You are still a twit.

[...]attributing a greater value to that ability entirely due to one’s race/sex/sexual orientation/religion what have you is prejudice,[...]

WTF are you talking about? You obviously have reading comprehension problems. Once more: She didn’t make a blanket statement. Once again, (or perhaps I am typing too fast for you?) she said that a minority and/or woman could come to a more sensible ruling in race or gender discrimination cases.

And why would that be? Because someone who hasn’t faced such discrimination has obviously harder time relating to the experience (because they are someone who “hasn’t lived that life”). Again, this the reason why it took a female justice to uphold a sex discrimination claim, and a black justice to finally do away with segregation.

Awesome. He’s a house-negro on steroids. He not only sells out fellow African-Americans but people of color in general. Nothing quite as uplifting as seeing a member of one oppressed group slam other oppressed groups. Maybe him and my fellow Chicano Alberto Gonzalez should go out for a drink and brainstorm how to overturn “Mendez vs. Westminster School District” or “Brown vs. Board of Education” while they’re at it. Despicable.

Roket Says:

What do you expect from a man owned by massa Boss Limbaugh?

After reading comments like this I wonder who’s the racist???? SG

1. The belief that race accounts for differences in human character or ability and that a particular race is superior to others.

The phenomenon of racism is a little more complicated than a simple dictionary definition is likely to provide.

She never said any race was “superior to others.” Not even close. Note that the definition is blanket for all cases.

Saying that some of her life experiences might help her come to a better decision in certain kinds of cases not only does not reference race (”latina” is not a race), it’s narrowly focused to cases relevant to the experience.

Furthermore, she didn’t say that she was more biased than a white male judge; in fact, Alito said much the same thing at his own confirmation hearing. It has long been accepted by everybody that there’s at least a slight degree of judicial bias in all judges’ rulings, and that their personal background can influence the outcome. While judges try to minimize their bias, the better ones tend to be aware of it.

.

JonW Says:

We’re not “there yet” because the minorities still achieve “victim” status despite clear indicators with hard work, even WITHOUT the programs in place for assistance, minorities can indeed “make it”.

Not very many. But in a large part, I agree. Obama completely stayed away from the “we must have an apology for history before we can move forward” politics of previous black politicians like Jackson and Sharpton, and it worked wonderfully – “let’s just move forward now.” Although we should never forget the past, we shouldn’t dwell on it either; the future is where we’re going to make a better world. If we’re too busy crying over spilt milk to clean it up, then it’s just going to lay there on the kitchen floor.

However, that doesn’t mean we should do nothing. To the contrary, it means we should do more to guarantee equality of opportunity for all. Setting the past aside is not merely an excuse to ignore the inequalities that still remain today.

.

JonW Says:

My question to them is this: How can you feel that whites are ALL racist when you’re one of them? Do YOU have racist feelings?

I can answer this question best by referring you to this brief entertaining and instructive video presentation. It’s actually informed my thinking on the subject quite a lot.

.

JonW Says:

Personally, it wouldn’t suprise me for Sotomayor to be the liberal’s Souter: not exactly what they were expecting.

I’m pretty much expecting her to be exactly like Souter; not just for us, but in general. Her judicial record is remarkably similar to his in terms of what’s not there. She rules very narrowly and avoids controversy. She’ll probably rule pretty much as he would if he stayed.

While I would like a more liberal Justice, I can live with that.

With Souter, conservatives were hoping he’d be much more conservative than his no-drama case record would indicate. With Sotomayor, we have no such hopes. So we’re not likely to be too disappointed.

.

JonW Says:

This is why Lady Justice is blindfolded. She shouldn’t see a Latina, or an Asian, or a man or a woman before her. Neither should she “put herself in their shoes”. She should evaluate the facts UNBIASED, and judge the PERSON. In her case history, which I personally have not evaulated, but numberous blogs have, it seems she is unbiased, but in her PERSON, she clearly is not.

Actually, all judges try to rule on the facts as best they can. But even after applying all of the relevant law as written on all of the facts as presented, there’s still going to be a certain amount of wiggle room for bias. It’s only in that space that she’s discussing it.

I appreciate that you note her record. I’d like to point out that there’s no such thing as someone who is unbiased “in their person.” If you believe otherwise, let me give you my address and you can send me all of your future paychecks. No? You prefer to keep them yourself? That’s an example of personal bias then.

But if you’re saying she’s “personally biased” against all white males, I suppose that can be either refuted or explained by the fact that she was married to one for many years.