Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Sesli Chat
Sesli Sohbet
Seslikent
SesliChat
SesliSohbet

What’s next? Pres. Obama holding secret meetings with energy companies in the WH and denying the press the log of visitors? Oh wait, that’s already happened!

Or will it be the Justice Dpt. denying access to the Supreme Court to a group of anti-terrorist Cuban agents seeking to prevent terrorist acts against their country from Fascist Cuban exiles acting under the protection of local Miami authorities? Oh wait, that’s already happened too!

You do realize that there is a difference between interpeting what she said and quoting her don’t you? I never misquoted her…

OK, so you “misinterpreted” her. Big difference. You’re still ascribing beliefs and motivations to her that do not exist.

The facts are, Alito has said the same thing about his immigrant parents. It’s been commonly accepted for a long time that having a broad diversity of backgrounds on any team leads to better decisions. It brings broader experience to the team with less overlap, and it prevents groupthink situations where everybody agrees with a stupid idea just because they identify with the person who said it. This was all common knowledge until wingnuts got their latest bout of amnesia.

And just because Sotomayor admits that her background may influence her decisions somewhat doesn’t mean that white male backgrounds don’t influence their decisions too. They just would prefer not to say it out loud. Besides, her record shows no such favoritism as you claim.

Thanks for playing, JohnM. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Yes everybody does know who had the more compelling argument, unfortunately your like-minded sheep will agree with you without regardless of facts.

You’d think after being de-horsed the third time he’d call it a draw, and move on.

I think everyone who reads is capable of determining whether JohnM’s argument, such as it is, is at all compelling or convincing.

JohnM’s continued and vociferous insistence that he’s right and everyone else is wrong, ignorant and stupid certainly adds a great deal of intellectual rigor to what is otherwise a simple example of intellectual rigor mortis.

Thanks for playing, JohnM. We have some lovely parting gifts for you.

Suffice to say, JohnM, you’re not nearly as bright as you seem to think you are, and it’s obvious to anyone viewing your posts. But please, keep up the pretense. It provides all of us with some good entertainment.

Everybody should congratulate Ralphy boy for the most pitiful post of the day! He tries to play a game of semantics, but anybody with a brain knows that I never misquoted Sotomayor in any post, because the evidence is there. The fact that she said she would hope does not qualify her statement, it simply shows her racial bias. You can’t seem to graps this, or you whoose not to. She obviously does believe that a women that is Latina would come to a better conclusion than a white male in certain cases(no that is not quoting her).

I have not in any way taken her out of context or changed what she has said. Your conditional argument does not apply because her saying she hopes is not a qualifier. Her hoping for something does not make it a condition as the rest of the statement is not dependent on it. It merely shows her overall bias in that she hopes a Latina woman with all her experiences would come to a better conclusion than a white male.

Maybe one day you will understand racism on your own without a progressive site telling whether or not it is. Until then I am more than happy to show your ignorance. As for the analogy by CTH, it missed by a mile. Keep digging into my posts, maybe you will one day actually find something that will work as an analogy for my astute observations on the racist judge.

JohnM Says:

You do realize that there is a difference between interpeting what she said and quoting her don’t you?

Yes, I realize that, and I also realize that “interpreting what she said” carries the bulk of your argument (such as it is).

If you are going to characterize a statement, then you have an obligation to include any conditionals on it if you’re going to make a definitive judgment (which you are prone to do).

Yet in your very first citation of the judge’s statement in this thread, you stated that it was a definitive statement of racism, completely ignoring the conditional that you say you “NEVER” cut out.

CTH made the point that your repeated characterization of the Judge’s statement — that she believes that a Latina would make better decisions than a white male, almost always ignores the case-specific nature of the original remarks as well as the conditional “I would hope” sentiment that necessarily destroys the validity of your declarative.

As it is, you seem content to parse words as usual and not deal with the scope and import of language in its broader sense. No matter; we’ve come to expect that from you when it suits your purpose.

In addition, you continue to claim the statement is “racist” when in fact it is and always was focused on the Judge’s cultural experience and history, not her “race”. This shows another fundamental misreading of the text and you can ignore it all you want, but it glares up at anyone who cares to pay attention.

You are quick with the ready insults, once again, I must admit. I guess you figure it gives your argument (such as it is) intellectual heft, hm?

But your blatant ignorance of the sharp analogy CTH played on you is pretty amusing.

Suffice to say, JohnM, you’re not nearly as bright as you seem to think you are, and it’s obvious to anyone viewing your posts. But please, keep up the pretense. It provides all of us with some good entertainment.

You don’t really get to claim anything “official” here, JohnM. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your level of self-delusion.

You do realize that there is a difference between interpeting what she said and quoting her don’t you? I never misquoted her and I never took the beginning part (or any part) out of her sentence. So as I stated before the little game played earlier when my sentence was cut does not apply to anything I said about Sotamayor.

You really are pathetic when you try and weasel out of this argument. I am amazed that you continue to cling onto the false comparison of my quoting of Sotomayor and the quote used against me.

Yes it is official, the game has been called on part of your ignorance, please take your free t-shirt and move on.

JohnM Says:

Wow you really are dense. This shows that I never took out the I hope part from her quote.

No, JohnM, it doesn’t show that I “really am dense”. it shows that you either have no concept of framing an argument or you have no interest in others understanding what you post. Your comment was confusing in the way it set up its rather lame premise, it changed direction sharply and it failed to focus attention on its reference.

But let’s address your argument, such as it is; you say “I never took out the I hope part from her quote”. I’d like to emphasize the “NEVER” part, because, taken literally, as you are fond of doing, it means that every single time you mentioned the Judge’s statement, you included the “I hope” part in your quote or description.

All I have to do is find a single instance of you characterizing the Judge’s statement but leaving out that part, and your claim is debunked.

Like when you said above:

She clearly stated that a female Latina would come to a better conclusion on certain cases because of her race and gender multiple times.

No mention there of of any conditional phrase, no “she clearly stated she would hope”, no mention of that part at all — just a simple declarative description of the Judge’s statement.

Boy, that was easy.

Here’s a tip, JohnM: never say “NEVER” when you mean “that one time”.

So once again, I have proven that the little game of taking part of a sentence out of my quote did nothing but show how ignorant CTH is and obviously how ignorant you are.

No, JohnM, once again you have proven how sloppy and short-sighted a debater you are. But you are good on the insults, I’ll grant you that.

Game, set, match. You have officially been worked over and the ref has called the fight.

You don’t really get to claim anything “official” here, JohnM. Your arrogance is exceeded only by your level of self-delusion.

For someone who continually slams the intelligence and/or education level of others, you seem to have a difficult time both grasping certain concepts and expressing your own positions in a cogent manner.

Wow you really are dense. This shows that I never took out the I hope part from her quote. The only part I quoted from you was the part I was responding to. You stated that I took the I hope part of her sentence out in her quote, which I clearly did not. So once again, I have proven that the little game of taking part of a sentence out of my quote did nothing but show how ignorant CTH is and obviously how ignorant you are.

Game, set, match. You have officially been worked over and the ref has called the fight.

If it is a comment of your own, I gotta tell ya, it’s not a very convincing addition to your case, since you’re not exactly a credible witness.

I do notice, however, that you again commit the same sin against me that you wailed against CTH for committing; you quoted a part of my statement and simply ignored the rest after “I would hope”, and you did for no clear purpose.

For someone who continually slams the intelligence and/or education level of others, you seem to have a difficult time both grasping certain concepts and expressing your own positions in a cogent manner.

You did not do this, because you DID take the statement out of context. Simply removing the “I would hope”

On the day Sotomayor was nominated by President Obama.

——————————————————————————–

May 26th, 2009 at 7:50 pm

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/05/26/sotomayor-inhofe/#comments

Tme to move along, you have been proven wrong once again.

mopped, soaked

and mopped again.

sorry johnm.

…

care to try again?

:)

JohnM Says:
ralph the wonder locust Says:

Given your woeful performance here today, you might want to rethink calling anybody else an “idiot”.

You clearly are delusional as to what transpired today.

Thanks for your clinical diagnosis, but as I pointed out, your reputation here for either insight or intellectual integrity is kind of nonexistent.

That is okay, because you are expected to follow the sheep here because original thoughts and intellectual conversations are taboo here.

You are clearly misinformed. Original thoughts and intellectual conversations are very welcome here. You’re just not capable of providing either one, as todays’ events demonstrate.

To restate what happened:

Somebody misquoted me when they took the beginning part of my sentence out.

No, not misquoted. You typed those words in the exact order in which they were quoted, with nothing taken out (unlike what you did to my quote). So, no misquote. It was truncated in order to misrepresent what you typed, to make a point.

It was a dramatic example of what yourself had done with the judge’s speech in order to make her one statement sound like a declaration of racist attitude. You not only ignored the larger context of the speech (crafted around a theme of Latina identity in the judiciary) but also removed the first part of her sentence “I would hope” in order to eliminate the conditional nature of the statement and make it sound more declarative.

The fact that CTH drew you into such a clever trap, and that you are unable to admit even now the similarity of the acts is what is so amusing.

This individual clearly knew that this would not fly as truth and he eventually said he did this because he believes that I took Sotomayor’s quotes out of context.

No “believes” about it. You gave us a textbook example of taking a quote out of context. Everyone here with any intellectual integrity knows it.

After showing him that nothing was taken out of context from her speech

You did not do this, because you DID take the statement out of context. Simply removing the “I would hope” and presenting it as a declarative takes it out of context, and that error is compounded when you insist on ignoring the previous paragraph in which the judge describes a specific case to which she later refers in the statement you claim is a declaration of racism.

and that she was clearly saying that she would hope a white man would not come to better conclusions than a Latina woman in deciding some cases (an obvious racist statement)

No, not in some cases — in the specific case she was discussing. True, she was seeking to generalize this example to similar cases of discrimination, but the statement that you insist on misinterpreting was focused on a specific case in Minnesota.

Nor is this the “obvious racist statement” that you insist it is — unless you refuse to acknowledge that a judge would have a better ability to decide a case in which he or she has some familiarity through common culture or experience. Because THAT is what the Judge was referring to: cultural experience, not race. Your assumption that it’s about “race” rather than upbringing and background not only proves that you did not read (or at least, comprehend) the entire speech, but also that by focusing on race YOU are the closest thing to racist in the whole discussion.

all of the sheep here decided that they cannot win this argument due to flawed reasoning.

I know you love to namecall as a means of regaining some of the acres of ground you’ve lost, but it really doesn’t help your case. It probably makes you feel better for the moment, but delusion is not a long-term strategy, JohnM.

Then they tried to deny the fact that I wiped the floor with the competition and made everybody look immature and uninformed.

The only one who looks immature and uninformed is JohnM.

Oh, and American Parrot, too.

But the only thing you wiped the floor with is your face. Sorry, them’s the facts.

Given the way you stubbornly insist on clinging your own alternate reality, it comes as no surprise that your reaction to the truth is recoiling in fear.

Then they tried to deny the fact that I wiped the floor with the competition and made everybody look immature and uninformed.

…

such courage.

:)

Given your woeful performance here today, you might want to rethink calling anybody else an “idiot”.

You clearly are delusional as to what transpired today. That is okay, because you are expected to follow the sheep here because original thoughts and intellectual conversations are taboo here. To restate what happened:

Somebody misquoted me when they took the beginning part of my sentence out.

This individual clearly knew that this would not fly as truth and he eventually said he did this because he believes that I took Sotomayor’s quotes out of context.

After showing him that nothing was taken out of context from her speech and that she was clearly saying that she would hope a white man would not come to better conclusions than a Latina woman in deciding some cases (an obvious racist statement) all of the sheep here decided that they cannot win this argument due to flawed reasoning.

Then they tried to deny the fact that I wiped the floor with the competition and made everybody look immature and uninformed.

I-O-K-I-F-Y-A-R…

It’s Okay If You’re A Re-Pub-Li-Can!!!!

Puh-leeeeeeze…as if Republicans never attached unrelated legislation to a military appropriations bill!

All kidding/sarcasm aside…I think that a bill should be put before Congress to stop them from attaching unrelated pieces of legislation to each other. I think we all know that one of the biggest reasons why they do this in the first place is in the hopes of forcing legislation through by manipulating — or even outright blackmailing — each other into approving measures which they would otherwise want to debate/review further or even simply vote down. In all honesty, I think that another reason why they do it is in order to shorten the amount of time that they spend in session so that they have more time to themselves…despite the fact that their first responsibility is (or should be) to us.

Since I seem to be the only one with an education beyond the 5th grade, perhaps I should.

…

but you don’t.

:)