:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by mookie2001
Printable View
:lolQuote:
Originally Posted by mookie2001
are u a meat smoker jack?Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
Seriously. It raises a pretty big question that this guy can't get through a single post, on any topic, without launching into a hate filled screed against "fags".Quote:
Originally Posted by George Gervin's Afro
Normal, healthy, hetero men just aren't that threatened by homosexuality that they need to remind everyone, every time they have an opportunity, that they full on hate gay people.
Which would suggest (more than suggest IMO) that Jack has some untoward, yet powerful, homoerotic thoughts bouncing around in his skull that he's extremely afraid of and obviously agitated by.
IDK definitively, but if I had to set the over/under on whether or not jackoff sommerset meets men in rest-stops for butt-sex, I'd say the odds are pretty good. And I'd say it's almost a lock that he secretly fantasizes about it.
And I'm not saying this to be funny or to mock the guy, it's just that I do seriously think he's a self-loathing gay man. And I'm sick of seeing that self-loathing presented in such an ongoing and public fashion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
If only wise latinas wrote our constitution.
Irony. Oh, such delicious irony.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
Where did the 1971 come from? I was refering to the fact the article mentioned Sotomayor being the first Latino nominated to the supreme court, and point out that she wasn't. Sure, it did specify Latino woman, but so what. Besides, why are liberals always so bent on race and gender? Why cannot they judge people by their works?Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000
Does that help?Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000What hatred?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild CobraAll you have to do is step up and shed your hatred towards us.Quote:
Originally Posted by jman3000Man it must be nice being white. I could only dream of living in your fantasy world.Quote:
Originally Posted by jack sommerset
It's not a fantasy world. Most of us whites have no feelings of racism. I am one that gets really annoyed by those crying "racist" and blaming the past, instead of realizing the measure of a man is his own works. Losers live in the past. Living in the past also prevents you from having a good future.
So step up, grab opportunity by the horns, and run with it.
Stop blaming my white ass and others like me.
And avoid black surgeons.
Is that your new schtick, WC? Past is the past, doesn't matter anymore?
Did 'Republicans good, Democrats bad' wore itself out?
At any rate, 'those that don't learn from the past are condemned to repeat it' (or something like that). I'm definitely looking forward, but hoping to have learned from the mistakes made in the past.
When it comes to minorities hating whites. Yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ElNono
Let it go.
You honestly feel that Sotomayor hates whites?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
No, I don't think that. I was referring to the to the hatred that so many blacks have towards whites. Always blaming the white man for their problems.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Sure, there's types like that. And then there are whites who say that all blacks are looking for handouts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I think you'll find that the majority of blacks don't 'hate' whites. It's just that those who do hate or blame whites are more vocal than the rest.
WC, do you have involvement with the black community? If so, I think you'd find that it's probably about 5 to 10% of the black community that believes notions like the government created AIDS to kill black people.
I interact with some black people, and have been seeing a black girl for the last several weeks. When I was in the Army, I heard plenty about how things were the white mans fault and I really got sick of it. Even the girl I've been dating has the idea she is owed affirmative action because of the sins of us white people. She actually comes from a family that's well off, but it's still the white man's fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
:lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
I worked with a black troop who thought the AIDS thing was government-funded. But then again, I've worked with white troops who thought that UFOs and ghosts were real, that we didn't land on the moon, and that the Bible is completely literally true.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
The lesson? Alot of people believe stupid things.
However, to paint the majority of people due to the beliefs of a few is wrong. It seems to me you do such at times with blanket statements or implications.
I will agree with that. It's hard to set aside our own biases. The vocal few in any case often leave the impression for all of any group. That is a case where I will agree I am prejudiced in believing one way until shown otherwise. That should not be taken as being racist. That, I definitely am not. But you know what. My prejudices don't affect others. I'm not a court nominee.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
You did see that bit where I posted the data showing that in discrimination cases, she ruled that of every 9 cases, she argued against the 'discrimination' claim 8 times?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
You're using one case's outcome to determine that she is racist or predisposed against a certain color. ONE CASE. Without looking at the rest of her cases.
I'd have to see a summary case by case. Otherwise, how do I know if the other 8 were right or not. What if she ruled for a case that should have never been a discrimination suit? I'm not going to bother with the time of researching it. This one case to me was so blatantly obvious, I'm comfortable saying she is not qualified to try such cases. I'm already bored with the subject. Besides, I pointed out before, I can live with her getting in the court. I actually agree with rulings she has had like first amendment issues, and how often do racial cases come to the SC? I fear, if she doesn't get appointed, we will get worse. Someone who is less open, but more liberal. At least she has been an open book.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
No, she has repeated the "Latino woman" theme on several other occasions. I honestly believe she is an affirmative action activist, and that really bothers me. I say the city dismissed the test for numeric outcome reasons, and she ruled with them for numeric outcome reasons. I have seen cases in the past where this selection by outcome is no longer accepted by the SC. The white litigants claiming reverse discrimination have always won in recent cases. Maybe you remember the specifics a few years ago having to do with college admissions, there a more qualified white was not accepted to make room for a less qualified black? That went to the SC, and the schools had to change their admission policies, removing racial preference.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
I just think that you choose strange standards for your skepticism. You are quick to discredit facts from sources you don't agree with, but don't seemingly turn the same critical eye on other biased sources.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
As has been pointed out before, Alito and other judges have been unanimously overturned by SCOTUS. Does that mean they're not fit to serve? Of course not.
Yes, but the reasons were different. We already discussed that.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Again, this case was a no-brainer. I can only see someone with an agenda to rule against the firefighters in this case.
Again, I fail to see how a 'no-brainer' can be such, when two tiers of courts ruled differently from the way you see it, and the final decision was 5-4.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Cobra
This, in light of the fact that MANY analysts have described how she was bound by precedent, and the only reason that SCOTUS overturned the case was because they set a new precedent. Meaning that Sotomayor's panel HAD to rule the way they did, due to the previous precedent. (In fact, if she had ruled a different way, she would have been 'activist'.)
Yet, you disregard all this information because you believe that the answer was 'obvious'.
Perhaps, just maybe, even though the correct 'moral' answer was obvious, there could be a chance that the correct LEGAL ruling was applied, and you are out of your depth here?
Just shows how many judges we have in the system that rule by agenda or bias rather than law.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
And many analysts have the revers opinion. Precedent was set that such cases follow a strict review process, which none of the lower courts did. Precedent was set that whites are not to be discriminated against in favor of minorities. The city did not follow it's own law to have a thourough review of the test befor dismissing it, and I believe they even stated themself it was because they achieved the wrong outcome.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
It was absolutely obvious.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
There were no legal hurdles to keep the test. All conceivable race problems were addressed prior to administering it. And again, the city failed to do a comprehensive aftermath review before dismissing the results, as required. Had they done an aftermath review, and found problems in the test, I wouldn't be so adamant.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
So, every judge/justice who ruled opposite of what you thought is merely biased or have a clear agenda, because the case was so blatantly obvious.
Yeesh, why do we even have a Supreme Court? We should just have WC rule on each case!
You are taking that to in incorrect extreme. I would never presume I know more about all subjects to make proper rulings. I have simply paid attention to other reverses discrimination cases.Quote:
Originally Posted by LnGrrrR
Why don't you address what I said? Especially the city's failure to do a post assessment of the test?
I will likely be accurate in assuming they didn't do that because it would prove there was no bias in the test. They didn't like the outcome, so they threw the test out.
Again, if they did the post review, and found problems, I would not be so adamant.