Gingrich Shifts Rhetoric On Sotomayor, Calls Her A ‘Racialist’
Gingrich Shifts Rhetoric On Sotomayor, Calls Her A ‘Racialist’
Newt Gingrich attracted a great deal of attention for himself last month when he said that Judge Sonia Sotomayor should withdraw her nomination because she is a “Latina woman racist.”
That rhetoric proved too much for even right-wing Sens. John Cornyn (R-TX) and Jeff Sessions (R-AL), both of whom distanced themselves from Gingrich.
So Gingrich pretended to back down. “The word ‘racist’ should not have been applied to Judge Sotomayor as a person, even if her words themselves are unacceptable,” he wrote.
But this morning on CBS’s Face the Nation, Gingrich again used the word “racist” but suggested that what he really meant is that Sotomayor is a “racialist”:
When I did a Twitter about her, having read what she said, I said that was racist — but I applied it to her as a person. And the truth is I don’t know her as a person. It’s clear that what she said was racist, and it’s clear — or as somebody wrote recently, “racialist” if you prefer.
Watch it:
A spokesman for Gingirch told Politico recently, “nothing has changed in the structure of his argument, he is just retracting the word racist.” And apparently replacing it with the word “racialist.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
It’s funny and/or ironic how those like Newt an Rush, who are probably the worst racists, are the ones shouting ‘racism’.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:43 amIt’s even sadder that they are listened to.
What’s a racialist?
June 7th, 2009 at 11:44 amNear as I can tell, it’s a “racist”, but because there’s an extra syllable, you can claim that you didn’t play the “racist” card.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:46 amGo away!!
June 7th, 2009 at 11:46 amA racialist is a racist – that is no shift in his words – he just thinks it sounds less offensive.
You can fool some of the people some of the time…….
This racist moron makes me wanna puke.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:46 amI gotta say, I’m not sad about the G-NO-P allowing their most divisive and unpopular figures — Newt, Cheney, Rush — to act as the faces and voices of The Party.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:47 amGod these people are so dumb and the thing that makes me mad is they think we are as well.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:47 amThis is getting out of control and the networks really need to grow up and not allow him anywhere near a camera. How embarrassing!
June 7th, 2009 at 11:49 amKeep talking Newt. The more you show what a real racist is, the rethug party will never see another vote from people of color or women. You just keep driving that truck over the cliff.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:50 amRacialist? This is what the talking heads in the main stream media call pulling back? What a bunch of crap. Newt hasn’t pulled back at all. He is still calling Sotomayor a racist. plain and simple.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:57 amGingrich Shifts Rhetoric On Sotomayor, Calls Her A ‘Racialist’
– - I call shenanigans. Gingrich cannot infringe on Colbert’s domain
June 7th, 2009 at 11:58 amof inventing pop culture words. Gingrich lacks the truthiness and isn’t internetty enough.
As long as Corporate Media puts these cretins on my teevee, I am censoring them and their ads from my home by turning their propaganda OFF. If I want to get the progressive, truthful perspective the only place for me is the internet.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:03 pmAnd Newt is an adulterist.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:03 pmMosaic, I was a “Neilson” household a few weeks ago – one of those households that does the ratings. Suffice to say, I gave Colbert a “bump.”
June 7th, 2009 at 12:04 pmA racist is someone who believes in racism. The definintion of racism contains the following elements: A belief that race is the primary determinate of human traits and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race. First off, Latina is a culture and not a race and that fact alone makes Gingrich look like a complete fool. MSM should call him on this and expose him for the fool that he is. Second, Sotomayor has said that her Latina background give her a different outlook on certain issues. Different does not mean superior. Different means different. It is Gingrich that is being the racist in this exchange simply by attempting to make an issue of culture into an issue of race.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:05 pmThere are 2 things about all this that bothers me..First, that the media is running these people day after day on our air ways and .Second, few liberals are saying anything on the same air ways to counter act all the lies….
I know there are few left leaning broadcasting stations but there are a few and still the silence from the left as usual is defening…..P. B & J.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:11 pmat least he could respect her latina heritage and call her a “racialista”…
June 7th, 2009 at 12:13 pmThis is a racist in it’s purest form. Newt Gingrich is part of the racist underground in the United States. He is an angry old white man who is losing power and does not have a clue as to why and surely has no clue how to stop the decline of his party. He continually grasps for the things that worked in the 1980’s and 90’s. Keep in mind those dirty tricks and lies worked before the internet.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:14 pmAnd by projection also a pagan.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:15 pmRacialist-
1.a. An emphasis on race or racial considerations, as in determining policy or interpreting events.
b. Policy or practice based on racial considerations.
2. Chiefly British Variant of racism.
BRITISH VARIANT OF RACISM?!?!?!
why does Newt hate america?
now he’s siding with the brits?
what would our founding fathers think?
Note: my point is no more or less stupid than newts
hahahaha
June 7th, 2009 at 12:18 pmI think Newt Gingrich is an AS$ILIST.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:20 pmNewt is also an Ignoramalist.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:25 pmA spokesman for Gingirch told Politico recently, “nothing has changed in the structure of his argument,…”
Meaning, of course, there is no structure to his “argument,” but that it is just a baseless assertion by a logic challenged, pseudo intellectual.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:31 pmWhen I did a Twitter about her, having read what she said, I said that was racist — but I applied it to her as a person. And the truth is I don’t know her as a person. It’s clear that what she said was racist, and it’s clear — or as somebody wrote recently, “racialist” if you prefer.
“”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”"”
Gingrich states “It’s clear that what she said was racist”
June 7th, 2009 at 12:33 pmI am to assume that Newt is our expert on clarity? In the last few months newt’s message has been anything but clear. Now we have a play on semantics to clarify. The old axiom “Say what you mean, mean what you say” applies here. The message I am reading from Newt is sexism and racism.
#13 Briseadh na Firefly Says:
And Newt is an adulterist
Clearly substantiated with verifyable proof and historical evidence.
Here it is again taking one phrase out of context and ignoring all the evidence to the contrary, but that’s what makes it so clear. Let’s see a minority not get confirmed because of being a racist radicalist.
When all rs vote against her, will that be their reason?
June 7th, 2009 at 12:34 pmI just can’t tolerate the idiocy level of these morons who are masquerading (and who the MSM is treating as) as the GOP brain trust. They are worse than the very worst of the Nazi Party. I’d rather deal with an Adolph Hitler (I think) than these mental midgets!
June 7th, 2009 at 12:38 pmWHY is this nozzlehead still on my teevee?
He has nothing new to add to any discussion…same old rhetoric on old issues…getting REAL tired of listening to this grumpy old coot..
After considering some additional data – WHY IS THE MEDIA STILL COVERING THIS JACKASS??
June 7th, 2009 at 12:40 pm“Racialist” is the British word for “racist.” The term “racialist” is used in England, while Americans use the term “racist.” Newt was just putting on his Brit hat.
O/T:
Caught a couple of minutes of Iraq-war-cheerleader David Axelrod on Fark the Nayshun this morning. He thought that the Bush war crimes in Iraq: one million murdered Iraqis was some how “worth it.” His ass wasn’t over there, dying or being maimed for life for a Bush war of choice… . Four thousand dead Americans is “worth it” to an imperial pig, no doubt…
Never mind that our CIA put Saddam in power. Never mind that our country was giving Saddam poison gases (WMD) to be used against the Iranians during another “war of choice.” Eight years of murder and aggression by Saddam, who was egged on and supported by the US.
US out of Afghanistan now. US out of Iraq now. Stop US war crimes of murder by drones and missiles in Pakistan.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:44 pmRACIST: 1 : a belief that race is the PRIMARY* determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an INHERENT SUPERIORITY* of a particular race
RACIALIST: a theory that race determines human traits and capacities ; also : racism
*added for emphasis
There is a difference, but Newt’s obviously splitting a fine hair here(not coarse hairs like those on Clarence Thomas’s—now there’s Supreme Court justice we can be proud of— Coke can) in an attempt to weasel his way out of what he really said. We’ll see if Limbow follows or continues to distance himself from the Republican mainstream and the rest of the human race.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:44 pmNewtie is an idioticist.
*eyes rolling*
June 7th, 2009 at 12:45 pm3 1/2 years of Newt and Bible Spice trying to “out radical” each other might be more than I can stand.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:47 pmWhat’s with this dumb-think that you have to know someone as a person to know whether they are racist or not? People need to make up their mind. Typically, people like Gingrich want to insert a picture of the KKK in the dictionary next to the definition of racist.
Ummm… I guess the black people the Klan terrorized never could have known whether the Klan was racist or not since pointy hoodies and sheets got in the way of them knowing the Klan members *personally*.
The burning lawn crosses and lynchings, apparently, never could tell you what was in the Klansman’s heart. Maybe the Klan was more of an AA-like group for guys trying to help each other through varying stages of severe depression (see Bay Buchanan).
June 7th, 2009 at 12:47 pmWell, the racist meme is working so well for them, why wouldn’t they continue? After all, they’re solidifying that white male vote! At least the ignorant white male vote… I find most men I know are disgusted and appalled that these people are trying to speak for them.
Keep talking, Newt. You can find more groups to alienate.
PEACE
June 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pmSince there is massive written evidence of Sotomayor’s opinions over the last 17 years—if all they can come up with is this one vague quote—-then she is NOT a racialist. There is a lot more evidence that Sessions, Barbour, or Lott is a racialist.
Ease up conservatives. Of the 110 Supreme Court justices, she will only be the third woman and it will be 7-2 in favor of men. Of the 110, she will be the first Latino and it will be 8-1 in favor of non-Latino. That is a close fit for our population. There is not even any evidence she is as liberal as Souter. It will be 5-4 in favor of conservatives. On many issues, the country is 60% liberal.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:48 pmNewt is best known for being a fake Britishalist and Catholicalist.
June 7th, 2009 at 12:57 pmAnd Newt is an adulterist.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:04 pmNewt’s new motto “Keep the ‘Twit’ in Twitter.”
June 7th, 2009 at 1:04 pmSay, Newt. If you want to know what a racist is, go out and have a few drinks with the ranking Rebub on the Judiciary Committee, Jeff Sessions. He’ll make it black and white for you.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:04 pmHmmm. He’s a falsist too. A lialist. A hypocrisist.
(hey, this is fun!)
June 7th, 2009 at 1:06 pmA nincompoopist. ;o)
June 7th, 2009 at 1:07 pmNewt Gingrick (which is how the rest of his family pronounces his last name) is still playing the politics of personal destruction that took him all the way to being the Speaker of the House. He deliberately uses inflammatory language when speaking of those he opposes politically, often going way too far in his choice of words. The worst part is that he knows that the things he says are not true – even if you stretch the definitions of words, as he likes to do. Newt is a pathological liar. And it’s time for the media in this country to stop bestowing credibility on Newt that he has never earned. They need to understand that when they give him a platform to speak, he will say things that are untrue just to get people to drop their support for his opponents. And for someone whop is paid to be a history professor, his knowledge of American history would be suspect at best if you went by the things he says on TV.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:08 pmJohnM must be out golfing at his all-white country club.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:08 pmAs a grammarianalist, I call “foul” on most words coming from the lovely Mr. Gingrich.
Keeeeep talkin’, Newt; the tapes are rollin’, what with the ethernet that Norm Coleman encourages and the internets so loved by your former president and the leftwing loonie blogs that Bill O’Reilly so often mentions.
I predict the lovely Alaskan governor won’t miss a wink in time in adopting Mr. Gingrich’s mastery of vocabularyalist.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:10 pm.
Q U E S T I O N:
Why won’t anyone ask Newt why he thinks America should be attacked…
… A-G-A-I-N?
.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:11 pmThe Republican Party has two options for survival:
1. Stage a false flag terror event.
2. Make up another language to suit their obtuse arguments.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:16 pmI am very please to report that it may be too late for them for a very long time once again:
GOP Losses Span Nearly All Demographic Groups
June 7th, 2009 at 1:19 pmI don’t like the sounds of these here boncentration bamps…
June 7th, 2009 at 1:19 pmWhere’s b-cup? We need him to explain what Gingrich really said and how it was taken out of context.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:22 pmNewt is also the Head Irrationalist of the American Taliban.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:27 pmGingrich = idiotically idiotic.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:30 pmI wouldn’t call her a full blown racist, but she has said some things in the past that are racist towards white people, and so has obama. Of course for liberals, it is impossible for a minority to be racist……….
June 7th, 2009 at 1:37 pmFINALLY! A troll shows up.
Unfortunately, he ain’t got no game.
Nice try, Jimmy Big Bucks.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:39 pmralph,
I wish they would send us a troll who actually read the entire statement she made in context. Instead we always get the ones whose knickers were twisted by the usual right-wing media liars.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:41 pmOkay. lets use Fib Newtons latest spouting:
SO, Newt, is Sotomayor a citizien of the US? Is she not, then, by your logic, have the same creator as you? And if you agree with your latest statement, which you should, then there is no such thing as racism or racialism or racialist as your all from the same creator, which starts with citizenship, correct?
June 7th, 2009 at 1:41 pmAnd again Jimuh Blows Bucks shows up blowing hard with no links or proof.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:42 pmHispanics are not a race, in case anybody cared to notice. Many so-called races are included under this definition, but their one overarching commonality is their LANGUAGE and SOME CULTURAL PRACTICES. There is no race involved. Won’t someone ever inform this man of this matter?
June 7th, 2009 at 1:47 pmOkay, I read where you said, on a previous post, that you believed in God? So do you also believe that part in Genesis where the world was flooded and only the family of Noah survived? And if you follow that then we are all descendants of Noah, correct? And if thats the case then Sotomayor is of the same family as you?
It appears to me Sotomayor is talking of cultural differences and not racial ones.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:48 pmOkay, this should be interesting. Tell me what I think and why.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:49 pmWho is “we?” Are you represented a group of people w/o telling up who?
Defending her reputation is not pushing her nomination. Get it straight!
June 7th, 2009 at 1:50 pmSomeone did a special on the bush admin?
June 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pmYou know that McCain invented the blackberry with your money, right?
/snark
June 7th, 2009 at 1:51 pmso, now newt is speaking “ebonics” which he was screaming and crying about in the 90’s.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:52 pmSorry…
“Are you represented a group of people w/o telling up who?”
Should read “Are you representing a group of people w/o telling up who?”
June 7th, 2009 at 1:52 pmAh, the cheer leading troll from Liberty is here too.
Blah, blah, blah, goooo Liberty!
June 7th, 2009 at 1:52 pmIs this something like the distinction between a torturer and a torturist?
June 7th, 2009 at 1:53 pmBecause she is supremely qualified, especially when you compare her to roberts, alito, etc.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:53 pmsooo……, go liberty,
June 7th, 2009 at 1:56 pmare you also in favor of gays and lesbians having the “liberty” to marry and have equal protection under the law?
Jelly beans were good but M&Ms are bad…
Gooooo Liberty, blah, blah, blah.
June 7th, 2009 at 1:56 pmMy Twitter response: “racialist: Chiefly British variant of racism.” Thanks for the clarification, Newt.
@jurassicpork59
June 7th, 2009 at 1:59 pmJimmy Big Bucks Says:
——————————————————————————–
I wouldn’t call her a full blown racist, but she has said some things in the past that are racist towards white people, and so has obama. Of course for liberals, it is impossible for a minority to be racist……….
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Jimmy Big Bucks,
June 7th, 2009 at 2:00 pmYou are absolutely correct except for the person’s motivation and audience. I have read what she has said and written and she was trying to clarify a point to an audience that may lacks the first hand experience of racism. I fully
understand the intentions of Newt and the conservatives, and it is not honorable or principled. Judge Sonia Sotomayorit appears to be extremely qualified for the judgeship. Two Republican Presidents also thought so. Newt’s position is
painfully obvious and it is neither principled nor ideological.
Oppose Judge Sonia Sotomayorit because is Obama choice.
I think its something along the lines of Luntzian lunacy
June 7th, 2009 at 2:01 pmIf George H W Bush were to have nominated Sotomayor at this time Newt, or Limbaugh, would not have any qualms whatsoever.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:03 pmGo Liberty Says:
odd dynamic here – the libs say she isnt further enough to the left but push her nomination anyway. we know why you’re pushing it.
Because she’s the nominee and supremely qualified.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:06 pmWell, she does like allot like Captain Morgan – arrrrrrgh, matey!
June 7th, 2009 at 2:10 pmWell, she does look allot like Captain Morgan – arrrrrrgh, matey!
June 7th, 2009 at 2:10 pmHey Liberty, did you see the Onion’s piece on you:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/pentagon_reports_army_mascot
June 7th, 2009 at 2:12 pmWhy is this lying, worthless bag of sheet even on TV? Who cares? Gingrich is irrelevant. He is no longer a member of Congress so whatever he says is nothing but self-serving chatter.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:44 pmOne would think that being a disgraced ex-leader of a party that has no elected black Congressman or women, no Senators or Governors would be more humble about speaking on race issues but this is the face of new Republican Party.
June 7th, 2009 at 2:51 pmWe are racist,ignorant and proud.
We NEED to continue to have Newtie, Palin, Cheney and Rush speaking out on the important issues . . . in time the Log Cabin will be a small closet with only Craig and Graham, and Steele and Ron Christie will be left to decorate the “Big Tent” shots . . .
June 7th, 2009 at 2:56 pmPalin/Mittens 2012 . . . OH PLEASE OH PLEASE!!!!!
I’ve noticed how racist Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, and others are being towards the first Hispanic woman to the SCOTUS. Anyone else notice this? Funny how the trolls don’t, especially since none of them can name of case where Sotomayor said she ruled against a white guy because he was white and no other reason than being white.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:08 pmJimmy Big Bucks:she has said some things in the past that are racist towards white people
B*llsh*t. Of course it’s impossible for you to actually sustain this bs claim by citing the things she said that were supposedly “racist towards white people.”
Like comments White candidates for any position, elected or appointed, said “in the past” (which, for some, included membership in or support for Segregationist racism), let alone a judicial decision or policy the supported “in the past” was ever a litmus test for them. GTFOoH!!
June 7th, 2009 at 3:10 pm“Gingrich Shifts Rhetoric On Sotomayor, Calls Her A ‘Racialist’”
Racist, racialist, whatever… King Solomon Newt’s new made up word still has “race” in it. King Newt has nothing better else to do and no job. King Newt is the Lord of Fornicatorist.
June 7th, 2009 at 3:18 pmNEWT GINGRICH STOLE THAT FROM SASHA BARON-COHEN’S CHARACTER, ALI G!!!!!!!
June 7th, 2009 at 3:34 pmNEWT: Well, maybe not a ‘racialist,’ but perhaps she’s a ‘racialite’ if you will. Too strong? How about ‘racialoid?’ You could call her a ‘racialian,’ maybe? No? I could go with ‘racifarian’ if that’s not too weird…
.
Jimmy Big Bucks Says:
I wouldn’t call her a full blown racist, but she has said some things in the past that are racist towards white people, and so has obama
That’s a lie, what you did there. Flat out, blatant untruth. No such fact exists.
Sotomayor and Obama like white people far more than you’ve proven to deserve. Why I don’t know, but they give y’all way more credit than I would have, given your behavior lately.
.
markfrommanhattan Says:
One would think that being a disgraced ex-leader of a party that has no elected black Congressman or women
They’ve got a few black House Reps, but no Senators. They’ve got a couple uppity broads up in there too.
June 7th, 2009 at 4:02 pmPerhaps Newt should look at the latest poll which shows that
June 7th, 2009 at 4:05 pmSotomayor has a higher approval rating than Rush Limbaugh, AMONG REPUBLICANS !
Hosts of Hate America radio are still using the racist attack on Sotomayor… enough so maybe Nwety thinks it is catching on.
They go on and on usually interviewing another rightie, to such ridiculous depths as why in their mind Sotomayor is a racist. Don’t these white racists know they are only inflaming a huge voting block and as a result will see even lower ratings for their party of NO?
June 7th, 2009 at 4:09 pmElBruce: They’ve got a few black House Reps, but no Senators.
List the current Black Republican congresspersons. I’m not aware of any.
Re: “no Senators”… that’s not much of an indictment. It’s not like the Democrats have very many at all (only 1 currently and 3 or 4 in the modern era and I guess there’s only been 3 Black governors since Reconstruction as well).
June 7th, 2009 at 4:51 pmSesli Sohbet
June 7th, 2009 at 4:58 pmSesli Chat
Görüntülü chat
Jimmy Big Bucks Says:
I wouldn’t call her a full blown racist, but she has said some things in the past that are racist towards white people, and so has obama
You’re a racist white supremacist pig. Go back to stormfront.com you loserist.
June 7th, 2009 at 5:12 pmAlso Jimmy blows big chunks of vomit, prove your claim that Sotomayor has said racist things from the past.
You broke the needle of my hypocritometer. It’s interesting you say this considering that a racist lowlife such as yourself would puke out such a claim from your rotted vagina.
June 7th, 2009 at 5:15 pmAs usual Jimmy Sucks Big Dicks has nothing to prove his assertions. No surprise coming from a socialpathic liar.
June 7th, 2009 at 5:21 pmIf somebody were to asked why we had to listen to the likes of Newt yapping on TV so much; my response would be…
We’re listening only because the Sunday Talk Shows, along with the Cable News Outlets PRIMARILY put UNelected or Out-Of-Office people on their shows.
Think of the past few weeks and WHO you have seen on your television – OVER and OVER and OVER AGAIN.
Newt, Limbaugh, O’Rielly, Liz Cheney, Dick Cheney.
Today, Newt was on Face The Nation. Why not some ELECTED Senator on the Judiciary Committee?
Need I say anymore about The “LIBERAL” News Media? They want the RATINGS and the only way they are going to get it is by putting controversial figures on – - day after day.
The only way to shut them up is by making the network “news” ratings plummet and turn off any television “news”.
Instead, the Mainstream “Opinion” Networks keep putting the people I mentioned on a pedestal – and on the tube.
June 7th, 2009 at 5:48 pmOf course what Sotomayer said was racist. Anyone with a brain knows this. The very definition of racist includes assuming superiority due to racial traits.
If her statement was so harmless Obama wouldn’t be back peddling.
At least have the integrity to admit what’s so blatant.
June 7th, 2009 at 5:50 pmHey Newt, you’re a hatetilist a oldfartilist, a nobodylist, a screwballist, a turdilist, oh yeah and you’re a racialist too.
June 7th, 2009 at 6:03 pmI’m so tired of hearing what these loser neocons have to say.
As usual liberals resort to name calling when they know they are wrong!
June 7th, 2009 at 6:10 pmNo one can take seriously anything that a serial adulterist says.
June 7th, 2009 at 6:20 pmIf her statement was so harmless Obama wouldn’t be back peddling.
Tortured logic. The politics of any given situation says nothing about whether or not bs charges of racism, in this case, are true or not. The politics is only concerned with how many people in the public will buy into such propaganda.
If backpedaling was any indication of the truth-value of something then the only thing we have here is a stalemate given Gingrich’s et al supposed “walking back”, hedging, etc. That’s not counting clear declarative statements by Republican office holders saying emphatically that Sotomayor is not racist.
Sorry, but the one-eye-open approach of yours is not compelling.
June 7th, 2009 at 6:27 pmGingrich is irrelevant, he had to resign due to ethical lapses and is, himself, unelectable.
June 7th, 2009 at 7:35 pmJimmy Big Bucks Says:
-
I wouldn’t call her a full blown racist, but she has said some things in the past that are racist towards white peopl
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
No she hasnt you are a brainwashed moron
June 7th, 2009 at 7:36 pmGo Liberty
My GOD you are stupid. Why is it you punkass trolls are SO proud to be SO stupid?
June 7th, 2009 at 7:36 pmRomartin16985 Says:
Of course what Sotomayer said was racist.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it wasnt you are a liar a fool and a brainwashed moron
Anyone with a brain knows this
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
How would you know. You dont have a brain. You have a tape recorder. You regurgitate what you are told to think. AND I use the term think in its broadest possible application
June 7th, 2009 at 7:41 pmRomartin16985 Says:
As usual liberals resort to name calling when they know they are wrong!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
As usual you say something extrordinarily stupid then snivel like the little punk you are WWWWAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHH. Its OK for Newtie to call people names but I am going to throw a little girls hissy fit that you do the same thing to him WWWWWAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH. STFU PUNK
June 7th, 2009 at 7:43 pmWhenever Eugene posts, I get the awful feeling of spittle….. ugh……
Anyway, what Sotomayer said WAS racist. There’s no denying that. Those that do show themselves to be extraordinarily dense or unable to see reality through their liberal fog.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:00 pmRomartin16985 Says:
I am sure you imagine all kinds of really stupid things Ro. I mean what else you are inconcievably stupid. No what she said was not in any way racist. Anyone reading it in context can see that easily. Those morons like YOU that only know what you are TOLD to think are just repeating what you are programmed with. Notice I AM denying that what she said is racist. The fact you are a moron far too stupid to understand anything more complex than a mudpuddle in no way changes reality so you can CLAIM it was racist a few dozen more times in the vain hope it will magically become true but see we arent as stupid as you so it wont work on us. Those arent the droids you are looking for only works on the simpleminded…LIKE YOU
June 7th, 2009 at 8:07 pmEugene
Deny away that what Sotomayer said was racist.
Your inability to support your views with anything other than spittle shows you for what you truly are.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:14 pmHe’s manipulating language to say the same thing repeatedly, while adjusting the volume in a way that makes his base think he’s saying something different. Republicans have an amazing ability to distance themselves from what they are saying as they are saying it, so that they can make their points and deny responsibility for what they’ve said at the same time. I associate this with Karl Rove.
Newt could downgrade her to “racialistish”, and his base would say that he’s not calling her a racist.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:18 pmRomartin16985 Says:
My GOD you are stupid. You have done NOTHING to support your views. You made NO argument whatsoever only baseless assertions you CLAIM what she said was racist. We were all over this in detail a dozen times. NONE of you brainwashed morons were able to refute our arguments in context what she said was not racist only by taking a snippet OUT of context could it even be ARGUED it was racist. YOU are stupid and you are a punk. Put up an argument I will shred it like the newspaper on the bottom of a birdcage but after YOU spend several posts doing NOTHING but CALLING her a racist then to snivel like the punk you are that I didnt make detailed arguments why you were wrong is weak. Your stupidity didnt CALL for anything more than calling you a liar. You ARE. You are a liar and a fool and a brainwashed moron. I cite your posts as proog. QED
June 7th, 2009 at 8:22 pmEugene
You just don’t understand the definition of racist, look it up.
It is assuming superiority due to a racial trait.
Sotomayer said she could come to a better decision as a judge due to her race.
You just can’t face the truth of what was said because your little liberal brain may explode, its sort of like self-protection.
June 7th, 2009 at 8:28 pmRo
Of course I understand it the fact you cant READ doesnt mean I cant face the truth. What she said was she HOPED her life as a Latina would help her come to better judgements than a white male in the context of speaking about racial and gender discrimination suits. So she wasnt SAYING her race would make her better in that context but that she HOPED her EXPERIENCE would help her make better judgements than those without that experience she went on to aknowledge that all white courts HAD made wise judgements on those issues and said strait out she wasnt myopic enough to think other wise. Try to keep up
You shouldnt even talk about other peoples little brains as abjectly stupid as you are. See this is simple. It has also been gone over a dozen times. You just cant get past what you were TOLD to think because you are stupid. You are astonishingly stupid and you KNOW you are stupid so you just repeat what you were TOLD to think
June 7th, 2009 at 8:39 pmSotomayer said she could come to a better decision as a judge due to her race.
Was she referring to all decisions or just one particular decision? Let’s check the context……. Yup, just one particular decision. Looks like my brain is functioning properly. Context Romartin, it’s about context. Do you know what context is?
June 7th, 2009 at 8:40 pmlivelongandprosper Says:
He doesnt know ANYTHING Rush didnt tell him to know
June 7th, 2009 at 8:42 pmDid Ro run away once his weak attempt at a point had been pummelled like the foolishness it is?
June 7th, 2009 at 8:55 pmNewt’s not a moron, he’s just “moron-ish”…
June 7th, 2009 at 9:21 pmRomartin16985, you tried to “support” your position by rolling out that boomerang logic. Hmm… I guess it came back and hit you so hard you can’t remember floating that pre-school logic but I do:
If her statement was so harmless Obama wouldn’t be back peddling.
Once, again, with that as your “support” for your position… Well, no win for you. Newt’s line dance, following your logic, by itself means that his claim (and yours) are bs because of the double backpedaling (i.e. two times) he’s done on the issue.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:26 pm@ Romartin16985
My GOD you are stupid. You have done NOTHING to support your views.
See above.
June 7th, 2009 at 9:27 pmSotomayer said she could come to a better decision as a judge due to her race.
Stop lying. She referred to the EXPERIENCE of women of her ETHNICITY (do you know the difference??) being something she HOPED would drive them to make better decisions than White males who haven’t had a similar EXPERIENCE — i.e. someone who haven’t LIVED a similar life.
So her statement was about her EXPERIENCE of which her ETHNICITY is an inseparable part. Plus, there was nothing absolute in here statement but there were plenty of conditions and qualifiers. You show RANK DISHONESTY when you ignore those conditions/qualifiers.
Then, out of all this noise, not once have I heard you clowns make a peep about the blatant racism where someone with her academic credentials was labeled an “affirmative action” pick which, by definition, says White [males] are “better”… no qualifiers involved especially since the anti-affirmative action logic labels said “picks” as undeserving and “taking a spot” from someone White=entitled/deserving/better/superior.
That’s something that’s claimed all the time with SAT scores, etc. and, again, I don’t hear a peep from people who are now heavily invested in trying to play gotcha by labeling Sotomayor as “racist.”
June 7th, 2009 at 9:53 pmYou are all really in self-protection mode! Here’s how you see it -
Sotomayor’s use of the word “hope” means she’s not saying that she WOULD reach a better conclusion than a white male, only that she’d hope she would, so it’s not racist!
She only said such a thing on one occasion, so it’s really not racist!
This is what Sotomayer said -
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Support for my claim that this is a racist statement would include the statement itself and a dictionary!
June 7th, 2009 at 9:57 pmUsing the words “Republican” and “nonsensical” in the same sentence is just redundant.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:07 pmthomas,
That exactly what I expected as a response, as I know its difficult to refute facts!
We don’t want your head to explode so keep slamming those mean old Republicans!
June 7th, 2009 at 10:09 pmRomartin16985:
June 7th, 2009 at 10:20 pmSo about that climate stuff you ran away from….
No running away, I’m not afraid of the likes of you dbadass!
There are reputable scientists on both sides of the issue, and as such there IS NO consensus! Before we allow politicians to take whatever actions they see fit to correct a problem that may or may not be part of a cycle, and may or may not be man-created, I would like to see an actual debate. Of course there are those who have made millions and stand to make millions more off of the so called global warming CRISIS, but that can’t be part of their motivation.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:29 pmThen get over there and refute the US military’s stance. Face it it reads like you ran away and that is the conclusion readers will draw if you don’t go and defend your crap about a lack of consensus and failure to link to anything.
June 7th, 2009 at 10:42 pmShe only said such a thing on one occasion, so it’s really not racist!
Proof that you have NO support for your claim. You’re so convinced that your claim is bs that you have to make shit up!
I know I said nothing about how many times she said “such a thing” but you’re on record saying stupid shit like…
If her statement was so harmless Obama wouldn’t be back peddling.
Stupid shit that blew up in your face. And your #126 retorts explodes in your face because you’re clutchin’ you wittle pillow playing make believe, pretending you didn’t see the word EXPERIENCE, because you’re afraid of that boogeyman called truth.
Again, you show RANK DISHONESTY when you ignore the conditions/qualifiers in Sotomayor’s statement and the main idea which centers around (here’s that word again) EXPERIENCE.
Now let’s play the quoting game:
Again, you show RANK DISHONESTY by taking her statement OUT OF CONTEXT. A context wherein she explicitly and pre-emptively countered your stuck-on-stupid nonsense as she advanced a solid, nuanced, CONDITIONAL argument that centered around EXPERIENCES.
But here’s your chance to redeem yourself from the embarrassing self-boomerang and nonsense of yours. State the problems you have with this statement:
“…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.”
Also, please explain why you’re not calling her a sexist or reverse sexist. Her statement was as much about gender/sex as it was about “race”/ethnicity/national origin.
RANK and TRANSPARENT DISHONESTY, indeed.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:28 pmRomartin16985 Says:
There are reputable scientists on both sides of the issue, and as such there IS NO consensus!
Consensus it not unanimity. Please use a dictionary.
And most scientists with relevant knowledge, background, and experience (ie, climate scientists) do agree that Global Climate Change is a reality.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:32 pmNow speak up, Romartin… What part of this statement is “racist”?
“Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.”
Don’t tell me you’re trying to say Justice Holmes wasn’t White. Don’t tell me your position is so bankrupt you’re still playing make believe, pretending not to see every word Judge Sotomayor said because you’re afraid another boomerang is going to smack you in the face.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:35 pmI, 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.
We can do this all night long.
June 7th, 2009 at 11:37 pmHey dbadass,
I really don’t give a hoot what the other posters over on another thread think of me but thanks for your “concern”!
That report you keep harping on pretty much takes the so called global warming crisis as a given and goes from there……..
June 8th, 2009 at 12:04 amNquest,
The fact is that Sotomayor has said the same thing more than just this once.
You are all so desperate to make it not so, but sorry it is.
I don’t know the woman, I don’t know what’s in her heart, but we MUST take her words seriously.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:07 amRomartin16985 Says:
This is what Sotomayer said -
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
Support for my claim that this is a racist statement would include the statement itself and a dictionary!
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Sure you would. Because you are STUPID. She said because of her EXPERIENCES not her race, that she would reach better conclusions, that would be in the context of racial and gender discrimination cases than someone without that experience. That isnt even in the BALLPARK of racist. Is there any reason to claim that experience WOULDNT make one hope that they would make wiser decisions on cases where that experience is at the heart of the matter? My GOD you are stupid.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:10 amRomartin16985
No consensus???? My GOD you are stupid. Apparantly you dont konw what the word consensus means there is no QUESTION that there is a consensus on the matter you MORON
June 8th, 2009 at 12:11 amRomartin16985 Says:
We arent desperate MORON. YOU are stupid. Take the entire quote in its entirity and there is NOTHING racist there. Add to that the fact she dissented in the firing of a Police dept employee for mailing out racist literature saying he should NOT be fired on first amendment grounds and it shows that you are both stupid and brainwashed. What she said when taken in context flatly is NOT RACIST.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:15 amFor anyone who is interested (in case it hasn’t been posted already) here is a link to Sotomayor’s 2001 speech. It helps to read the paragraphs before and after the small bit quoted so often by Sotomayor’s critics. It really does put it in perspective, and it is not “racist” or “racialist” (which is the same thing).
June 8th, 2009 at 12:19 amNquest Says:
List the current Black Republican congresspersons. I’m not aware of any.
Huh, I was wrong. They don’t seem to have any. They used to have J.C. Watts, but he retired in 2003.
Wow, it’s worse than even I thought…
.
Mathazar Says:
Perhaps Newt should look at the latest poll which shows that
Sotomayor has a higher approval rating than Rush Limbaugh, AMONG REPUBLICANS !
I’d be interested in seeing a citation on that. Got link?
.
Romartin16985 Says:
Of course what Sotomayer said was racist. Anyone with a brain knows this.
It’s interesting how you keep saying this, using pretty much the exact same words ever time, after we provided extensive references and logical argumentation to debunk it last time. “Anyone with a brain” would address the debunking information, rather than just repeating themselves mindlessly.
You’ve already lost this argument. At this point, you’re just the walking dead on this topic, too thick to even know he’s been killed.
.
Romartin16985 Says:
This is what Sotomayer said -
“I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion (as a judge) than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”
… referring to minority discrimination cases. Alito also stated that his parent’s immigrant experience is an empathetic factor in relevant cases. Sotomayor also immediately pointed out that all-white SCOTUSes have made correct and empathetic rulings in minority discrimination cases in the past.
Talking about race isn’t racist. The fact that you don’t know what real racism sounds like indicates you’re a complete racist bigot behind all of your code words and desperate finger-pointing.
I’m not going to bother repeating the lengthy, well-researched rebuttals we already gave you. Instead, I invite you to go back to the last thread where we discussed this and actually READ OUR RESPONSES. If you have to, ask somebody there to explain them to you.
There’s no point in repeating our exhaustively reasoned text to you this time when you just won’t read them again. In fact, in the last thread I actually predicted that you’d run away and start repeating yourself in a future thread as if none of that happened, as you have here.
.
Romartin16985 Says:
There are reputable scientists on both sides of the issue…
Having “Exxon” on your paycheck doesn’t automatically make you “reputable.”
June 8th, 2009 at 12:23 amEugeneDebs Says:
What she said when taken in context flatly is NOT RACIST.
I was just in another thread making the same point to another intellectually challenged conservative -but I repeat myself.
To twist what she said as being racist, they have to ignore the fact that a) she caveated her statement with “I would hope, “more often than not”, and “lived that life”, b) she said it in the context of a sex and racial discrimination talk, and c) women and racial minorities have historically been discriminated.
In other words, they do really have to lie, distort, and misrepresent what Sotomayor said. Not that I am surprised.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:26 ameugene
You are really not worth my effort to type but one letter, but your stupidity must be answered.
Being a Latina does NOT automatically make your life experiences ANY “richer” than anyone else in this world, white males included. There are white males who have had to struggle through their lives with 10 times the effort of Sotomayor.
Your little liberal brain can only function by putting people in groups. And you’ve put white males lower than Latina’s. Where would you place gay, white males? Above or below Latina’s? How does a black woman rate?
Sorry but smarter people than you don’t assume someone, just by virtue of their race, has had a “richer” life and is therefore better qualified for ANYTHING, let alone being appointed for life to the US Supreme Court.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:34 amThinkprogress has called older white men from the south racist with scant evidence numerous times. I don’t know if they are or not, but the reasoning thinkprogress used was flimsy. Here, they are taking the opposite stance on someone that clearly is, by definition, racialist and making fun of the person saying it. I agree that Newt Gingrich probably shouldn’t be talking on TV at all, but it does appear Sotomayor places undue weight on race. Just from this wapo article, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/26/AR2009052600914.html, you can see it is used repeatedly by her.
The thing that irritates me is not that she points out her heritage is important, but that she implies there is some sort of universal experience had by someone of a particular race or sex. All black males don’t think the same or have the same experience. All Latina women don’t think the same or have the same experience. All white males don’t think the same or have the same experiences. It’s a disservice to intellectual honesty to imply they do, yet she has on numerous occasions done just that. I do not, however, feel the makes her a bad choice, just that for whatever reason she hasn’t figured out how little race actually matters in shaping your views and experiences. Socio-economics would be a much more relevant topic to discuss when referencing common experiences. People living under the poverty line probably share more of the same experiences than just people of Latina heritage do. Think about it. It’s like saying a Somali immigrant has the same experiences as a black male in LA just because they both are black. Or that a Latina woman from the Bronx will have the same experiences as a Latina woman from seattle. It’s ridiculous and for some reason we can’t think about it objectively since Newt’s dumbass was the one saying it. Putting an undue amount of importance on race is not the most horrible thing in the world, but it certainly shows a prejudice that you would have hoped would be gone by this point in a person’s life. I support her nomination as I haven’t seen any bad ruling from her, but it’s obvious she places a whole lot of weight on her race and sex, and really very little weight should be placed on those things as any sort of sole deciding factor.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:36 amI don’t know the woman, I don’t know what’s in her heart, but we MUST take her words seriously.
Okay, take these words seriously and tell me what makes them racist:
1. “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.”
2. “Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.”
3. “…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.”
Not a single person seriously considering what Judge Sotomayor said would arrive at the conclusion you have.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:44 amEugeneDebs Says:
Sure you would. Because you are STUPID. She said because of her EXPERIENCES not her race, that she would reach better conclusions, that would be in the context of racial and gender discrimination cases than someone without that experience.
——————–
Well, eugene, she did tie her experiences in with being a Latina woman. So although your point about it not being racist (holding that racist means feeling superior) is correct, she does appear to put a lot of weight on her race and gender. A lot of people do, it’s certainly nothing new. Normally when white people do, they’re labeled as racist, and most other races just as proud. But that’s beside the point. We all throw out the term racist too much probably. Sotomayor clearly is NOT racist. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, she believes her race does, however, play a more than significant role in shaping her experiences. I would argue that. Actually, I would argue that you could not determine the basics of someone’s experience based solely on their race – Which I guess is different in a nuanced way.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:47 amRomartin16985 Says:
Being a Latina does NOT automatically make your life experiences ANY “richer” than anyone else in this world, white males included.
Yeah, good thing nobody ever said it did, huh?
.
Romartin16985 Says:
There are white males who have had to struggle through their lives with 10 times the effort of Sotomayor.
None of them are on the SCOTUS or were qualified to be nominated to it.
.
Romartin16985 Says:
Your little liberal brain can only function by putting people in groups. And you’ve put white males lower than Latina’s. Where would you place gay, white males? Above or below Latina’s? How does a black woman rate?
Let’s put everybody equal. Are they equal now in opportunity and practical treatment? Oh no, I guess they’re not! You’d rather just ignore that, because you prefer the status quo.
.
chaking Says:
…on someone that clearly is, by definition, racialist…
And I’m sure it will be “clearly by definition” whatever word Newt makes up tomorrow after he has to backtrack on this one too. Clearly by definition, it’s whatever you want it to be, huh?
The rest of your point just reiterates the same stuff we debunked yet again.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:49 amRomartin: “The fact is that Sotomayor has said the same thing more than just this once.”
So what? I don’t care if she said it a thousand times. Nothing changes with my position based on how many times she said it. This is your statement, not mine:
She only said such a thing on one occasion, so it’s really not racist!
While you might be entertained by your shadow boxing exhibition… I’m thoroughly underwhelmed. Anytime you actually want to address points I’ve made vs. nice little strawmen you’ve set up to conveniently knock down while you avoid addressing what I posted… I’ll be here.
No. I’m right here. Not over there. I’m right here. Stop shadow boxing and chasing your own shadow. I’m right here.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:51 amElBruce – I don’t care about Newt, I’m not republican and I highly doubt you debunked “the rest of my point” seeing as the rest of my point is something I’m sure we can all agree on….
June 8th, 2009 at 12:52 amYou can’t determine someone’s experience by race or sex.
That is just the kind of crap that I would expect from Newt Gangrene. What is up with all these white male Repukelicans being SSSOOOOO intimidated by people who don’t look like they do??? The Supreme Court could use some people of different of different cultures. As it stands right now it’s not an accurate representation of the American public.
June 8th, 2009 at 12:57 amAll Latina women don’t think the same or have the same experience.
Hence the qualifiers “wise Latina” and “more often than not.” Hence the lack of a modifier in Sotomayor’s statement specifying that ALL LATINAS would do X, Y or Z.
She didn’t say ALL Latinas and took great pains to make sure her full(er) statement, her larger point didn’t look like she was saying ALL WHITE MEN. In fact, she said:
1. “In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant…”
2. “Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society.”
3. “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.”
4. “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.”
June 8th, 2009 at 12:59 amchaking Says:
You can’t determine someone’s experience by race or sex.
Nobody was saying you can know everything about someone by their race and/or sex. But you’re saying race and sex don’t influence experience? If that’s so, then you would be congenitally incapable of noticing any racial discrimination that happens in America, as long as nobody talks about it. That’s pretty much the definition of soft bigotry.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:00 amNquest
Someone else made the point that Sotomayer referred to her race as helping to make better decisions in regard to just one ruling.
Why don’t you try to follow the conversation, as I wasn’t talking to you.
And yes I’ve read the entirety of her speech. She agrees that others of different BACKGROUNDS and EXPERIENCES can certainly understand those of people from a different GROUP, great.
But when it comes to RACE, she specifically says a Latina will hopefully make a better decision than a white male.
Do you see the difference? She specifics when speaking of RACE that a Latina will (as she hopes) make a better decision than a white.
THIS IS A RACIST STATEMENT!
June 8th, 2009 at 1:06 amElBruce – That’s not what I was saying. I can see how you might infer that though…
Her comments about the richness of her experiences as a Latina woman imply there is a common experience as a Latina woman. This is not true, as you agreed with above. I would think it would be more proper to say that the richness of her experiences help her in her rulings. Just leave out the latina woman part, as that implies nothing relating to experiences…
I’m still supporting the nomination
June 8th, 2009 at 1:07 amOkay, now that we’ve actually looked at what Judge Sotomayor has said, IN CONTEXT (for the umpteenth time)… For everyone who has said she is “racist” or made a “racist” statement, what part of her concluding statement do you disagree with or find racist:
“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.”
Clarence Thomas’ personal experiences have obviously affected the facts he chooses to see. This whole fake issue with all the phony outrage proves her statement to be true, especially this part:
June 8th, 2009 at 1:08 am
chaking Says:
You can’t determine someone’s experience by race or sex.
Nobody has said that, certainly not Sotomayor.
What is being said, however, is that one’s ethnicity, race, and/or gender weight in one’s own life experiences and influence the decision making process, and that this would be relevant in a sex and/or race discrimination case -which is what Sotomayor was talking about.
Because, like it or not, minorities and women are more likely than Caucasian males to encounter discrimination in the workplace, whether regarding hiring, promotions, and pay raises.
I hope I am not conveying any new information to you…
June 8th, 2009 at 1:09 amNquest – Yes, she refutes her own points. I agree she is intelligent and qualified. For whatever reason she tagged the Latina on her experiences though. It really doesn’t matter if “wise” is used in front of it – That still implies all wise Latina’s share similar experiences, which is ridiculous. “More often than not” seems to just add credence to what I’m saying, as here she’s explicitly implying “more often than not” wise latinas share the same sorts of experiences or possess the same sort of reasoning.
I hate arguing this – It makes me feel like I’m making too big a deal out of simple remarks (quite possibly I am), but I can’t honestly rectify the statements within myself. To me it certainly sounds like she’s placing undue weight on race and gender.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:12 amchaking Says:
To me it certainly sounds like she’s placing undue weight on race and gender.
Do you think that race & gender being precisely the topic of the conference would have had anything to do with it? No?
June 8th, 2009 at 1:14 amGregor Samsa – I agree, and you’re most certainly not teaching me anything. The point, however, was not that gender and race don’t play a part in your personal experiences, rather you can’t tell what part they play based on gender and sex.
You’re trying to say that a black somali immigrant would have similar experiences as a black guy from LA. That’s not true. Just because they are both the same race and gender does not mean they share experiences. Just as a white kid from croatia would have a much different view than a white kid from seattle. Again, gender and race do affect your personal experiences, but there is no commonality involved… and that seemed to be what she was implying.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:16 amI’m surprised Newt Gangrene isn’t somehow calling Obama racist, too. Since he had the audicity to nominate someone who isn’t a white male. He would be saying this same crap about ANYBODY Obama picked because he’s pissed that the Repukelicans lost the election.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:17 amGregor Samsa –
“Do you think that race & gender being precisely the topic of the conference would have had anything to do with it? No?”
I read a wapo article which referenced her saying the quote multiple times in different circumstances. Not to mention, it shouldn’t matter if the conference was about race and gender, if she places undue weight on it, then she places undue weight on it. I’m not accusing her of talking about race too much, I’m accusing her of putting too much weight into it as a deciding factor in someone’s experiences.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:20 amNewt will probably be referring to her as a Pagan next.
Oh whoops!! I meant AUDACITY. My bad.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:22 amWhy don’t you try to follow the conversation, as I wasn’t talking to you.
Who were you talking to then? Your post came right after mine and you kept acting like you were talking to me in your #134 post where you said:
Nquest,
The fact is that Sotomayor has said the same thing more than just this once.
Please stop the RANK DISHONESTY (or admit that you lost your way and wasn’t following the conversation all that well) because this claim you’re making now doesn’t even begin to make sense. ONE RULING (and, more precisely “one decision”) is different from your “she said it one time” strawman.
Besides, you need to either learn how to read. Livelongandprosper said NOTHING about “ONE RULING”, s/he was referring to the CONTEXT in terms of what Judge Sotomayor’s speech was supposed to address. The “one decision” Livelongandprosper was referring to had something to do with the theme for the symposium she was asked to speak at: “Raising the Bar: Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”
Honest people who have examined her judicial record on discrimination cases alone differ from your fake, strained, phony outrage and bogus idea that she is racist or hands down rulings like a racist.
Anyway, seems to me Livelongandprosper’s point was that Sotomayor, at most, said she felt that a “wise Latina” would “more often than not” (read: NOT ALWAYS or not in every situation) make a better decision on RACE and SEX (why are you leaving out gender/sex? you race/color struck?) discrimination cases… race and sex discrimination decisions. That one type of decision.
So, for all other kind of cases, say, regarding torture, abortion, etc. Sotomayor’s statement would hardly apply which means here statement was never the kind of absolute statement you poor desperate people want it to be.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:33 amchaking Says:
You’re trying to say that a black somali immigrant would have similar experiences as a black guy from LA.[...]Just because they are both the same race and gender does not mean they share experiences.
**sigh**
And I never even hinted that.
When it comes to racial discrimination, then yes -your immigrant and your guy from LA would have similar experiences, as would someone from Vietnam, Bangladesh, or Nigeria… or even someone of Latino descent. Like Sotomayor.
Not to mention, it shouldn’t matter if the conference was about race and gender, if she places undue weight on it, then she places undue weight on it.
Wha? By touching on the very topic of the conference, she is placing undue weight on it? Pray tell, what would you have her talk about in a conference called “Latino and Latina Presence in the Judiciary and the Struggle for Representation.”? The latest Disney movie?
June 8th, 2009 at 1:37 amI’ll admit I haven’t read the whole thread, was Romartin16985 saying she had racist rulings? That would be false from what I read. Definitely agree with Nquest there. I don’t think she is racist either. I think that one comment was probably not wise and maybe mis-stated, but she’s made clear with other comments that she’s not racist.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:38 amTo me it certainly sounds like she’s placing undue weight on race and gender.
What does that mean? Who determines what is “undue weight” on race and gender and why then has the gender aspect of her statement been largely ignored (she rarely, if ever, been called a “sexist”) while all this huffin’ and puffin’ had gone on with regards to race?
I think her statement about understanding other people’s values and experiences are instructive here. You can certainly disagree with her argument but, as far as why she placed weight on race and gender… Well, she clearly made her points on that by referring Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley and Justice Ginsburg.
What’s you thoughts on that? Did she get her facts wrong?
June 8th, 2009 at 1:45 amGregor Samsa – You’re having some comprehension issues here buddy.
1. No, when it comes to racial discrimination the guy from Somalia would not have the same experience as the guy from LA. Black people in somalia are the majority – that alone would cause some deviation on the way one sees racial discrimination. Not to mention you’re assuming both have been actively discriminated against because they’re black.
Moreover, you’re trying to say anyone of color (as implied by naming african, asian and s. american countries) would have similar racial discrimination experiences… That would be categorically false. sigh…
2. How you inferred that I said by touching on the topic of the conference made her place undue weight on it, I’ll never know. And I won’t even try to guess.. 1 more time:
I said nothing about how often she talked of race or gender, I said that she placed to much weight on race and gender as being some sort of commonality that decides experiences. Two completely different things. sigh…
June 8th, 2009 at 1:46 amNquest –
“What does that mean? Who determines what is “undue weight” on race and gender and why then has the gender aspect of her statement been largely ignored (she rarely, if ever, been called a “sexist”) while all this huffin’ and puffin’ had gone on with regards to race?”
I’m using “undue weight” to mean that it seems she thinks that being the same race and gender means that you have a commonality of experience. That’s not true, and that’s why I said undue weight.
I do not think she got her facts wrong when she said that it was pointed out to her that white men have decided some profound civil rights cases. I would wonder why someone would need to point it out in the first place, but she clearly understands in that statement that people of different genders and races can have empathy for others or even just see what is right and what isn’t. However, all that statement does is refute what she said. So she has two kind of contradictory statements she’s made. That’s fine with me. She’s intelligent and has a nuanced view of things – which is good. The quote that she has made a few times (latina woman’s experiences) also implies, though, that she feels a commonality in experience. I think that’s wrong. That’s all. I’m not calling for her head or tyring to get her nomination thrown out, I just think that statement is wrong. And apparently she agrees with me based on your quote. People can say contradictory things – It’s been known to happen.
I believe I’ve included gender most of the time.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:53 amchaking: You’re trying to say that a black somali immigrant would have similar experiences as a black guy from LA.
How do you figure that? Sotomayor actually used the term NATIONAL ORIGIN in part of what you said and so-called Hispanics (and Asian-Americans) readily point out whether they are Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican… So you’re being obtuse here for no reason or perhaps because you have some kind of race aversion.
June 8th, 2009 at 1:57 amNquest – I don’t quite understand your point.
Sotomayor said that National origin had a role? Is that what you’re saying? Quite possibly I am being “obtuse” here, but that’s only because I don’t know what you’re saying.. otherwise I think my points are logical and not really obtuse.
If your point is about identifying based on national origin I would think that would still be inaccurate… just as someone from la is probably going to have a different experiences than someone from atlanta… the same holds true no matter what scale
June 8th, 2009 at 2:06 amchaking Says:
You’re having some comprehension issues here buddy.
I obviously beg to disagree.
Black people in somalia are the majority – that alone would cause some deviation on the way one sees racial discrimination.
We’re talking about life in the US, yes? We are talking about a Somalian immigrant in the US, yes? Otherwise, your example makes no sense whatsoever.
Not to mention you’re assuming both have been actively discriminated against because they’re black.
In a society full of stereotypes about black people, then yes, it is likely. Look no further than the “cute” watermelon post card sent to Pres Obama.
you’re trying to say anyone of color [...] would have similar racial discrimination experiences… That would be categorically false. sigh…
And I think you are wrong.
How you inferred that I said by touching on the topic of the conference made her place undue weight on it, I’ll never know.
Uh… because you put the words “conference”, “race and gender”, and “undue weight on it” in the same sentence, perhaps?
I said that she placed to much weight on race and gender as being some sort of commonality that decides experiences
“too much weight”? How exactly does she put too much weight on it? Because she hopes that a woman would relate to a sex discrimination plaintiff who is also a woman?
June 8th, 2009 at 2:08 amWhat Sotomayer said was racist. Let’s try this on. A wise White man/woman would more often than not reach a BETTER – not different – but BETTER conclusion than a black male/female or Latino male/female who hasn’t lived that life. Sounds pretty damn racist to me!
June 8th, 2009 at 2:10 amI’m using “undue weight” to mean that it seems she thinks that being the same race and gender means that you have a commonality of experience.
People of the same race/gender don’t have commonality of experience?
Okay, how did G. Gordon Lilly figure out that Sotomayor could possibly have a menstruation?
And, really, what part of common don’t you understand? The U.S. is diverse with racial/ethnic groups with regional differences on top of that but few people would argue that Americans have common values, etc.
Note: Common/commonality doesn’t mean every individual has the same exact experience or even if it did, that they all would respond to the influences, the same way. What you’re trying to project onto Sotomayor, etc. is absurd and in no way depicts what was meant/said.
The fact that you went reaching for an immigrant, which by definition, says their experience will different from someone born and raised in the U.S. shows how absurd this is getting.
Funny thing is, though, there is research other there that says after so many generations “immigrant” behavior in groups studied begin to fall more in with Americans who are “natives.”
June 8th, 2009 at 2:11 amchaking Says:
Sotomayor said that National origin had a role? Is that what you’re saying?
So you haven’t read the speech that started this so-called controversy!?
If your point is about identifying based on national origin I would think that would still be inaccurate… just as someone from la is probably going to have a different experiences than someone from atlanta…
She was making a reference to the number of judges who are the children of, or immigrants themselves. It does make a difference.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:17 amSotomayor said that National origin had a role? Is that what you’re saying?
You tell me. You tried to use the case of an immigrant to make a non-point. An immigrant’s national origin indicates they have a difference experience from someone whose nation origin is in the USA.
just as someone from la is probably going to have a different experiences than someone from atlanta… the same holds true no matter what scale
Yet, people from the same racial/ethnic group no matter where their from find things that they have in common and form communities, organizations, etc., etc.
For decades, immigrants have had ethnic enclaves and forged bonds because of the common experience. Your idea flies right in the face of the reality. You’re trying to stretch the idea of “commonality” into total, exact sameness which is the height of absurdity.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:23 amconserve01A wise White man/woman would more often than not reach a BETTER – not different – but BETTER conclusion than a black male/female or Latino male/female who hasn’t lived that life.
A better conclusion about what?
June 8th, 2009 at 2:26 amYes this is absurd, you’re right. We won’t ever agree because pride is at stake apparently… or maybe just ignorance.
My point about the immigrant was apt for numerous reasons. The most glaring was that even though the person was the same race and gender, they would absolutely have completely different experiences. You really didn’t get that??? THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT!!!
And talk to a somalian (I’m from columbus ohio which has the 2nd highest population of somali immigrants, which is why I’m using them as an example probably) and ask him if he relates to the black boy from the city the somalian immigrant is now in. Night and day difference even though they are both male and black. They might feel more drawn to black culture (just as a lot of white boys do) or not, it really depends more on the neighborhood and financial situation they find themselves in.
Gregor Samsa –
“you’re trying to say anyone of color [...] would have similar racial discrimination experiences… That would be categorically false. sigh…
And I think you are wrong. ”
You can think I’m wrong all you want to, doesn’t make you right. I mean this is common sense Gregor! Someone from China is not going to have the same discriminatory experiences as someone from India or Guatemala etc. That’s assuming that they even have any overt discriminatory experiences. You aren’t really this ignorant so I’ll just assume you think I’m the enemy here and just one to refute anything I say… whatever.
The rest of your comments just get more absurd. I clearly explained how your comment about being at the conference was absurd. You’re not getting it.
I’m done. My point was that I think she thinks race and gender can accurately prejudge a person’s experience. I don’t think race and gender can prejudge a person’s experience.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:30 amGregor Samsa, when was the last time you’ve heard Republicans/conservatives b*tch about Sean Hannity, etc. talking about “the American people” like its some kind of monolith?
June 8th, 2009 at 2:30 amThe problem for Republicans who make any statement on her nomination is their clear legacy of oppression of folks not white or from the wrong side of the tracks. So that when they make some comment like Newt’s, we all cringe remembering the racism practiced in Georgia.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:35 am“For decades, immigrants have had ethnic enclaves and forged bonds because of the common experience. Your idea flies right in the face of the reality. You’re trying to stretch the idea of “commonality” into total, exact sameness which is the height of absurdity.”
Yes, SOME immigrants have formed groups that share common experiences. Not all the immigrants with those common experiences have joined those groups and not everyone in those groups share the same views. You’re simplifying things when things are not simple.
The statment she made implied there was an overwhelming “sameness” to the latina woman experience. I was the one arguing against that. Now you’re telling me it’s the height of absurdity. I guess I don’t know why you’re still arguing.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:37 amNquest – I really want to end this, and I’m not saying I’m right or you’re wrong or anything.
I’m glad we didn’t call each other too many names and I’m sure we see eye to eye on 80 percent of the issues out there.
I’m done responding (unless something glaring comes up haha) and I respect your opinion.
For the record, my gut says you’re right. My logic can come to grips with it.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:40 amYou really didn’t get that??? THAT’S THE WHOLE POINT!!!
You had no point outside of an absurd, anal literalist idea that had no relevance to the issue and then got caught in the over-reach.
Again, being absurd you equated the idea of “commonality” with total, exact sameness which is obtuse. Gregor Samsa pointed out how Black immigrants and American born Blacks do, in fact, have similar/common experiences when it comes to race prejudice/discrimination. But, I guess you have too much pride invested in your position to acknowledge that.
ask him if he relates to the black boy from the city the somalian immigrant is now in
The question is how the hell is this bs relevant to what Sotomayor talked about. Ask the Malcolm X in New York if he could relate to the Dr. King in the South and see what they said.
They might feel more drawn to black culture
How can there be anything such a Black culture or any culture if there is no commonality based on “race”? Why have you used the term Black culture? Are you saying there are commonalities…?
Like I said… obtuse and absurd.
June 8th, 2009 at 2:48 amYes, SOME immigrants have formed groups that share common experiences. Not all the immigrants with those common experiences have joined those groups and not everyone in those groups share the same views. You’re simplifying things when things are not simple.
You’re doing it again. It’s like you don’t understand what the word common means. It’s like you couldn’t read/comprehend the last line in what you quoted:
You’re trying to stretch the idea of “commonality” into total, exact sameness which is the height of absurdity.
And notice I didn’t say ALL which indicates there is no need to comeback with saying SOME.
The statment she made implied there was an overwhelming “sameness”
No, you projected that onto her statement. If there is some “commonality” in the experiences of Latinas, if Latinas share a common culture, there is no need for Sotomayor to try to make a statement about ALL Latinas and ALL the differences among ALL Latinas. Who the hell has time to talk about all the human variables possible?
But since you’ve spoken about something you termed “Black culture”, it’s clear that we can talk about things in general terms and talk about things people have in common.
What’s simplistic is this idea that you can’t speak about general things Latinas, e.g., have in common since we can say ALL Latinas do.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:04 amNow it’s just irritating. I would hope someone with a bit more objective view (not involved in the back an forth) would see my point.
Nquest –
1. If Sotomayor implies that Latina women see things a certain way, does that mean only Latina women from the Bronx or the U.S. I thought there were latina women from all over the world. And so if there are latina women from all over the world, would it not hold true that a Latina woman immigrant would have different experiences than a latina woman from the U.S? That was the point, but for some reason that’s an absurd, or too literal point for you to concede. It’s quite true, you know it but you don’t think it applies – even though that’s pretty much what I’ve been arguing the whole time… whatever
2. Your second quote of mine and your response to it completely affirms what I’ve been saying.
3. You’re doing what you’re telling everyone else not to do. You took one thing I said “Black Culture”, devoid of the context I’ve been creating this whole time and are trying to use it against me. I do think it was probably a poor choice of words though. Probably should have said american hip-hop culture, as I’ve seen many Somalian friends either try to be gangsta, fresh or straight edge. There is no denying though, there are some cultural differences, many times dictated by race. Many black americans feel certain ways and others don’t. But there are also white people living in the “black culture” and there is also southern black culture and rural black culture and west coast and on and on. It’s different wherever you go. Was it a poor choice of words, yeah probably.
I do acknowledge difference in culture and upbringing and all sorts of things – This digresses from my point though. My whole point being you can’t know someone’s experiences based on race and sex. A white guy from atlanta could have more in common with a black guy from atlanta than with a white guy from canada or from minnesota etc. And vice versa -
June 8th, 2009 at 3:08 amMy point was that I think she thinks race and gender can accurately prejudge a person’s experience.
No, she made a statement of fact that people of the same race and gender have common experiences. Even you believe. You believe there is such a thing as Black culture.
She didn’t say anything about predicting or prejudging a person’s experiences. She looked at America, looked at how racially segregated the country is, observed common traits generally shared thorough and made a statement.
She didn’t do a lineup and say this person will think like this (or have experienced this) and the other person like that simply based on what they looked like.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:10 amI thought there were latina women from all over the world.
Latina women all over the world aren’t relevant to the very American context she was speaking about. All Latina women all over the world aren’t being impacted by the SCOTUS when it comes to discrimination cases in the US.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:13 amIt’s astounding what tortured “logic” is being used to try to prove that it’s racist for a person of a certain race or ethnic group to say that they might be more attuned to issues pertaining to that race or ethnic group than someone who isn’t. It seems that that would be patently obvious.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:14 amNquest – I don’t think I projected her implying overwhelming sameness on her statement. But that’s a hard one to argue, so if you want to leave it at that, then leave it at that. I’ll accept maybe it was projected.
If it wasn’t projected though, then my point stands. And frankly, you’ve converted your argument from saying she didn’t imply that to saying that even if she did there really are commonalities and so she was right. So whatever..
Here’s part of her speech:
Whatever the reasons why we may have different perspectives, either as some theorists suggest because of our cultural experiences or as others postulate because we have basic differences in logic and reasoning, are in many respects a small part of a larger practical question we as women and minority judges in society in general must address.
I accept the thesis of a law school classmate, Professor Steven Carter of Yale Law School, in his affirmative action book that in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought. Thus, as noted by another Yale Law School Professor–I did graduate from there and I am not really biased except that they seem to be doing a lot of writing in that area – Professor Judith Resnik says that there is not a single voice of feminism, not a feminist approach but many who are exploring the possible ways of being that are distinct from those structured in a world dominated by the power and words of men. Thus, feminist theories of judging are in the midst of creation and are not and perhaps will never aspire to be as solidified as the established legal doctrines of judging can sometimes appear to be. . . .
Hmm… seems to me Sotomayor agrees with my points. Score 1 for the home team :)
June 8th, 2009 at 3:17 amwiley – if you’re referring to my arguments, I’m most certainly not calling her a racist.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:18 amI just have to say, I feel pretty good now. A professor at Yale holds the same views I did before I read him and Sotomayor agrees too. That’s a potential SCOTUS pick and a Yale professor agreeing with me, and then you and Gregos guy disagreeing. I think the favor is on my side right now :) … completely said lightheartedly
June 8th, 2009 at 3:23 amMy whole point being you can’t know someone’s experiences based on race and sex.
The point is, you chose to act like Sotomayor’s statement implied “you can know someone’s experiences based on race and sex” when that’s not what she said. Her historical references alone renders your point… off the point.
That you chose not to view her statement in the “many black americans feel certain ways”, “Black culture” kind of way is telling.
You took one thing I said “Black Culture”, devoid of the context
Hmmm….
I guess I was supposed to read your mind and figure out that “Black culture” meant “gansta”, hip-hop culture when you made no clear references, if any at all, to music or clothing styles. Yet and still, you called it a “culture”… It’s like you missed the part where I said ANY CULTURE — i.e. there can’t be anything that can be called “culture” if we follow your race aversion logic.
Simply, we’d be so bogged down in talking about all the exceptions/differences we could never find anything that would amount to the common/general rule in terms of beliefs, customs, etc. shared.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:30 am“hat you chose not to view her statement in the “many black americans feel certain ways”, “Black culture” kind of way is telling.”
- Pretel, what’s it’s telling of? You didn’t quote the whole sentence (many black americans feel certain ways and others don’t) … the “and others don’t” was rather important. And yes, if you really were comprehending what I was saying, I have no problem with her qualifying her statement with “Latin woman growing up in the Bronx” as that adds some clarity as to what experience she may be referring to. When I state a black boy living in the city, there are a lot of similarities growing up in the same neighborhoods and going to the same places etc… There will still be diversity of opinion, but it does add a lot more to the equation.
No you weren’t supposed to read my mind. I clearly stated it was a poor choice of words… what in the world is your problem? Do you really want to be right that badly?
June 8th, 2009 at 3:39 amthat in any group of human beings there is a diversity of opinion because there is both a diversity of experiences and of thought.
HUH???
More from the diary of the absurd and obtuse.
Again, you’re confusing the idea of “commonality” with total, exact sameness. That’s the only way a statement about “diversity of opinion” among a group makes any kind of point for you. But keep fighting that strawman, though. One day you’ll get him really good.
PS:
Acknowledging “commonality” and diversity are not mutually exclusive. The concepts are not at odds with each other. In fact, this statement of yours pretty much said both in the same sentence:
Many black americans feel certain ways and others don’t.
If anything, Sotomayor said “many Latinas feel certain ways” which automatically implies that “others don’t.” And I’m pretty sure “wise Latina[s]” was meant to specify a certain select group of Latinas as opposed to ALL.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:40 amSesli Sohbet
June 8th, 2009 at 3:42 amSesli Chat
Görüntülü chat
SesliSohbet thnks good
No you weren’t supposed to read my mind. I clearly stated it was a poor choice of words… what in the world is your problem? Do you really want to be right that badly?
Don’t blame me for addressing your accusation that I took your statement out of context; hence me quoting your accusation before my response. A response that included your new choice of words “hip hop culture”…
Again, there can’t be anything that can be called “culture” if we follow your race aversion logic.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:48 amI’m not confusing commonality with exact sameness. That’s a favorite meme of yours, however it’s not accurate.
How about this statement – Many americans feel the same way and many don’t? It’s a stupid statement, just like when I said many black americans feel the same way and many don’t. It’s completely obvious and should never need to be said. The only reason it was said was because you seemed to not get it for whatever reason. It speaks nothing of having a commonality or sameness, rather it speaks only of having different views within a group.
The yale professor sotomayor cites is clearly stating that no group of people can be said to hold the same views or opinions. When Sotomayor says that being a Latina Woman grants her certain insights, you have to question what those insights might be since no group of people (latina women) hold the same or even necessarily common views or experiences.
Clearly explained, clearly laid out. It’s over. But I do love how you throw the “strawman” out there… classy. I have not been the one changing what I was arguing, you have.
“HUH???
More from the diary of the absurd and obtuse.”
And with that I’m out of here. I’ve clearly stated my case, I have a yale professor that agrees, the person you think you’re defending agrees… I’m done. You seem to be blinded by the argument aspect of this. I’m out, time to watch a movie and go to bed.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:53 amCultures are more accurate the smaller they are classified in nquest. You could say all humans behave a certain way, but it would mostly be wrong. You could say all americans behave a certain way and that would probably be mostly wrong. Then you could say all Texans behave a certain way, and you might be getting a tad itsy bitsy bit more accurate, but still probably mostly wrong. Then go to a particular city, then to a particular neighborhood and you would probably be getting more and more right, but still some things wouldn’t be right.
Having cultures and what I’ve been saying are not in conflict… good night
June 8th, 2009 at 3:56 amchaking Says:
Someone from China is not going to have the same discriminatory experiences as someone from India or Guatemala etc.
I never said the same, I used the word “similar”.
Someone has reading comprehension problems here alright, but it’s not me.
And then you go on to say (in another post):
I’m not confusing commonality with exact sameness. That’s a favorite meme of yours, however it’s not accurate.
Talk about absurd…
You aren’t really this ignorant so I’ll just assume you think I’m the enemy here and just one to refute anything I say… whatever.
I live in an area full of immigrants from all over the world. They all tell me very similar stories about their attempts at assimilation and -yes- discrimination.
But hey, feel free to think you are the only one who has ever crossed paths with immigrants.
The rest of your comments just get more absurd.
“Absurd”? Did you just discover the word?
I clearly explained how your comment about being at the conference was absurd. You’re not getting it.
Because you make no sense. You replied to my comment with a non sequitur.
My point was that I think she thinks race and gender can accurately prejudge a person’s experience.
And you thinking it doesn’t make it true. Fact is, she never said -or even suggested- that race & gender can accurately predict/prejudge anyone’s experience.
Again, someone in this thread has reading comprehension problems and it’s not me. Or perhaps you could’ve bothered reading the text of her speech -something you clearly didn’t do or you wouldn’t have been surprised by Nquest’s comment on “national origin”.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:13 amRomartin16985 Says:
eugene
You are really not worth my effort to type but one letter, but your stupidity must be answered.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
You are a moron. I am mopping the floor with you because you are a moron with NO ability to understand ANYTHING. I simply cannot believe how stupid you are. Case in point what you say below.
Being a Latina does NOT automatically make your life experiences ANY “richer” than anyone else in this world, white males included. There are white males who have had to struggle through their lives with 10 times the effort of Sotomayor.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Richer. Do I really have to take you by the hand and walk you through a point like you were a retarded four year old? REALLY? No one said her experience was RICHER nor that she struggled more. Rather that as a latina woman she would have experienced the butt end of discrimination or at least seen it among her peers. MY GOD I know you are stupid but did that REALLY have to be spelled out for you. No. Even YOU arent that stupid. Rather you KNOW you got your ass handed to you so you stubbornly made ANY argument you could think of. An inconcievably STUPID argument one where you had to act even STUPIDER than any human could possibly be to AVOID the obvious point but an argument nonetheless. No human that can feed himself could be THAT clueless so you are being dishonest. You ARE stupid though.
Your little liberal brain can only function by putting people in groups. And you’ve put white males lower than Latina’s. Where would you place gay, white males? Above or below Latina’s? How does a black woman rate?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
My little liberal mind is operating well enough to mop the floor with you here. YOU are stupid. You are a punk. You are once again repeating what you were TOLD to believe. You KNOW you are too stupid to think for yourself so you flit from programmed talking point to programmed talking point. The entire argument you make is ignorant since what she said in no way PUT one racial group above another it only pointed out the OBVIOUS fact that some racial groups are more likely to EXPERIENCE DISCRIMINATION than caucasians. Is this news to you. You really are stupid. You just have no possible capability for higher brain function. So come back tomorrow and let us know what Rush has told you to think THEN.
Sorry but smarter people than you don’t assume someone, just by virtue of their race, has had a “richer” life and is therefore better qualified for ANYTHING, let alone being appointed for life to the US Supreme Court.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
And only braindead, brainwashed morons as stupid as YOU could possibly read anything about richer life experiences in the post. If you need it explained to you why since we are talking about DISCRIMINATION cases a latina MIGHT just have more experience in gender and racial discrimination then even someone as much smarter than YOU are as I am cant really dumb it down anymore than it already has been dumbed down. Sorry. You are stupid. You are a complete and utter moron and that just isnt going to change. Till the day you shuffle off this mortal coil you will remain this intellectually challenged. My GOD you are stupid
June 8th, 2009 at 4:28 amEugeneDebs Says:
Well, eugene, she did tie her experiences in with being a Latina woman. So although your point about it not being racist (holding that racist means feeling superior) is correct, she does appear to put a lot of weight on her race and gender. A lot of people do, it’s certainly nothing new. Normally when white people do, they’re labeled as racist, and most other races just as proud. But that’s beside the point. We all throw out the term racist too much probably. Sotomayor clearly is NOT racist. Unfortunately, for whatever reasons, she believes her race does, however, play a more than significant role in shaping her experiences. I would argue that. Actually, I would argue that you could not determine the basics of someone’s experience based solely on their race – Which I guess is different in a nuanced way.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Except YOU like Ro are leaving out the context. It isnt like she is saying the shaping of her life and her experiences will make her a wiser judge overall rather that it GIVES her crucial experience in race and gender discrimination cases. I dont really see how that is in the least controversial.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:31 amEven IF somehow as a latina you managed to evade discrimination somehow. A trick akin to magic in itself when SHE was young. Being latina you would still be sensative too and see it among your peers. No question that Sotomayor did since this was an issue she raised WHILE she was at Yale.
June 8th, 2009 at 4:41 amHad he actually look up the word “racialist” before he went on television he wouldn’t have had to bother making himself look like a jack-ass.
But, then it’s so entertaining.
June 8th, 2009 at 5:15 amHow about you reconcile the statement you already made which, again, didn’t put “commonality” and “diversity” at odds with each other:
Many black americans feel certain ways and others don’t.
Hmmm… Well then, you’re fighting with another one of your statements:
“They might feel more drawn to black culture…”
Notice you didn’t say Black cultureSSSSSSSssssssssssssss.
No, instead, you referred to the idea of Black culture in the singular rather than the plural and your ALL Americans this, ALL Texans that only goes to prove my point about your obtuseness.
The Yale professors comment about diversity among groups is a non-point. It’s automatically understood but because of obtuse people like you simple shit like that has to be stated. Again, you act like you don’t know what the word “commonality” means. Commonality isn’t the opposite of diversity.
This is basic stuff.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:34 amAlso, “commonality” does not equate to being homogeneous.
This is the point that exposes your obtuseness, Chaking. It’s clear you’ve been considering the idea of “commonality” — and people who share a CULTURE are said to have values, beliefs and customs “common” among them — and transposing the idea of “homogeneous-ness” onto it as if “commonality” and “homogeneous-ness” is one in the same.
The idea of “diversity” is at odds with “homogeneity” not “commonality.”
But talk to me again about Black culture. Run that “many Black Americans” comment by me again. Deal with the idea of CULTURE. Tell me how there can be any such thing as a CULTURE if your race aversion logic makes sense.
Cite the Yale professors that talk about American culture, European culture or any other culture and see if they are as obtuse as you are acting as if ALL people in America or Europe are supposed to exhibit American/European culture by whatever description for those cultures.
June 8th, 2009 at 7:48 amOk, let’s get something straight here.
Hispanic is not a racial term, it is a linguistic distinction.
The people in former Spanish colonies are “Hispanic” only in the same sense that the people in the former British colonies are “English” because we speak the language. Like Latino, it is a hereditary descriptor related to the colonial origins of Latin American nationalities.
Puerto Rican is not a race, it is a nationality conveyed to those who originate from the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The ethnic breakdown of the Puerto Rican population includes a wide variety of white European, black Africans, and indigenous Native American groups (exactly like the US, actually). Genetic research shows that 70% of the population inherited Y-chromosome DNA from a male European ancestor, 20% from a male African ancestor, and less than 10% from a male Amerindian ancestor. 80% of Puerto Ricans self-identify as white… and why shouldn’t they? Spain, by far the single largest ethnic origin, is as white and European as the British, French, or Germans are. I’m a mutt of German and Slavic descent and my Spanish/Puerto Rican girlfriend (and Sotomayor herself, actually) is paler than I am.
We are talking about a white person racially attacking someone who, by any meaningful definition, IS WHITE. Not only that, but when you consider how racially diverse North America is, Puerto Rico is actually more homogeneously European THAN WE ARE. Why are we talking about this? Sotomayor is no more a racial minority than any Italian, Irish, Polish, German, Jewish, etc, American is.
Both Sotomayor and Gingrich should shut up about race, because neither of them know what they are talking about.
June 8th, 2009 at 9:29 amEugene debs
Only in your little mind are you mopping the floor with anyone!
What was said WAS racist, as Sotomayer said that a LATINA, by virtue of being LATINA, can make better decisions than a WHITE male. That’s what she said! So it was actually racist AND sexist. She said many other things but on the point of race she was quite specific and clear.
You seem to know a lot about Rush Limbaugh, maybe you get your anti-talking points from him so you know how to think?
June 8th, 2009 at 11:11 amOne again the right-wingnuts succeed in shooting themselves in the foot. You can kiss the latina vote goodbye Newt.
June 8th, 2009 at 11:29 amHer comments were sexist (I mean sexualist) too.
June 8th, 2009 at 3:37 pm