One day we'll actually find something we agree on...LOL...(sm)
Posted By: Just the big bad on 2009-05-29
In Reply to: There are just as many ignorant - Trigger Happy
but not today....
First of all the statement she made about making better decisions than a white man has been taken way out of context. The topic she was speaking about at the time was how she dealt with racial and sexist issues in her position. Granted, it didn't come out very well, but what she was referring to was a quote from Sandra O'Connor -- "a wise old man and a wise old woman would reach the same conclusion when deciding case." I don't think her statement is racist in the least.
As far as the firefighter suit, I think she went strictly by the law, and remarkably (and which goes against everything you are saying) she did not let race impact her decision. Here's a little insight into her decision:
http://newmexicoindependent.com/28292/sotomayors-connecticut-firefighter-decision-upheld-civil-rights-law-stanford-prof-argues
This week, President Obama’s U.S. Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor has been called a “racist” by both conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and former Speaker of the U.S. House Newt Gingrich.
But in a story on Slate, Stanford law professor Richard Thompson Ford argues Sotomayor rejected a discrimination suit brought by white and Hispanic fire fighters in New Hampshire because it “threatened to burn down civil rights law.”
The case is one of Judge Sotomayor’s decisions that has added fuel to conservatives’ fire concerned with a group of firefighters in New Haven, Connecticut, who say that the city discriminated against them when it said it would use the results of a written exam to help choose candidates for promotion, but then threw out the test when none of the black candidates, and very few of the Hispanic candidates, scored high enough on the test.
The firefighters sued and lost, and Sotomayor was part of the panel that heard their appeal. The same case is now before the U.S. Supreme Court.
Professor Ford’s explanation is pretty wonky, but for all of us non-lawyers, it is a fascinating explanation of the way civil rights law works. As he writes:
New Haven’s decision may sound like blatant racial favoritism, but in fact the city rejected the firefighter exam because the test violated Title VII, the federal civil rights law that prevents discrimination in employment. Title VII requires employers to consider the racial impact of their hiring and promotion procedures in order to prevent discrimination that’s inadvertent as well as intentional.
…There are two ways an employer can discriminate according to Title VII. He can intentionally discriminate by making race a factor in employment decisions — choosing a black candidate over a white candidate because he is black. Frank Ricci claims the city intentionally discriminated when it threw out the exam results because most of the people who scored high were white. An employer can also discriminate by using a selection process that has a disparate impact — in other words, that screens out a particular group for no good reason. New Haven claims that the test it tossed out had a disparate impact. Eight black, 25 white, and eight Hispanic firefighters took New Haven’s test for promotion to captain; three black, 16 white, and three Hispanic candidates passed. Nineteen black, 43 white, and 15 Hispanic firefighters took the test to become lieutenant; six black, 25 white, and three Hispanic candidates passed. This result counts as discriminatory under the rules of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. New Haven was right to worry about the possibility of a lawsuit from black firefighters if it accepted the results of the tests.
___________
As for the other junk that's being thrown her way, check this out: I know you hate MSNBC, but this one is worth noting.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
I'll be happy when I find out more ... sm
about her. I'm not voting for someone just because we are the same gender.
I guess we'll all find out next week, huh?
If you look hard enough you'll find ignorance on both sides...(sm)
It's not a question of ignorant people voting for Obama, its a point of ignorant people in the US, regardless of which way they vote.
http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/125753.html
What I'll be doing in 2011 is trying to find out which moderates will be running for office in 20
X
Whoopi would probably have a fit to find out she and Rush agree on
I am an atheist and yet I agree with Patty so find
a different name to call me. In your small world you believe that anyone who is against O is a far right, Bible thumping conservative and that is just not the case, as I am proof of it. Yes, I voted for him, worked on his campaign for 2 years because I truly believed every word that he spewed but with every passing day I regret that.
I'll agree with you on that one....
Hannity is a bit much these days. Can't stand to listen to him rant and rave some days when he gets on his soapbox...go figure those darn conservatives.
On the flip side, Colmes is a real piece of work, liberal that is. They balance each other out pretty well sometimes. But both are hard to watch anymore.
Bye now...
I'll agree with you on that one
Sorry to disappoint you but I cannot stand Bush, etc, but this post was not about Bush.
Sorry, but I'll just have to agree to disagree with you...sm
I'm entitled to my own opinion and feelings and I'm NOT looking to make an issue out of a nonissue. I'm not the only one in America who thinks this is *glaringly* wrong, or else we wouldn't be having this conversation, so you can lay off of chastising me.
I'm smart enough to know that people will think and believe differently and while you can praise these remarks because you *know* everyone is just taking this out of context I don't think so. I think people slip the lip, and especially with his tone, and say what they mean every once and a while. I think Bennett was caught with his pants down.
Yeah, Alan Coombs is intelligent, but also a softy. He debates to politely with people who would just as soon bite his head off. That's what I don't like about him, and this is not just limited to his debate with Bennett.
With people throwing ideas like abortion of a race to reduce crime, I want to hear the the Bill Mahers type to tell them as plain as they can speak, take that trash and shove it.
This is the last post I will respond to about this because there is no sense in us going back and forth about this. I respect your opinion that this man has a right to say what he wants because he was just throwing ideas around and hypothetically speaking, but I don't agree and nothing you can say will make me be OK with it. Sorry.
Yep, I'll agree with you there....he is likable...sm
and goofy...but that's just him. He probably is a great grandfather.
Okay, I'll agree to disagree n/m
I'll agree with you on one thing
the American people are, for the most part, ignorant sheep.
Well, I'll agree with you on that, Amanda.
This bail-out stuff should have stopped before it started. After the Wall Street bail-out has the news gotten any better? No. It is worse on a daily basis. It will be the same if the auto industry is bailed out. I say no bail outs. For those of us who make bad decisions we're left to suffer the consequences. Let the businesses do the same. First Wall Street, then auto industry, who's next? It won't be Joe the (honest) Plumber, that's for sure.
I'll agree with you - not on the crow thing
But the disturbing fact that he is surrounding himself with the Clintonites. I thought the O kept running on the platform of Change. This is not change. This is the same ol same ol. The Clinton presidency was so nauseating and so much damage was done. Even though I didn't want the O to win I at least had hopes he would bring in new people. Not the same bumbling bubble heads.
Change recession to depression and I'll agree with you.
They just signed America's death warrant.
find out. I find sam's posts to the point
nm
I'll double that 'amen', and I'll raise you one!
amen
Oh. Well, they'll have to kill me before they'll censor
We'll see who'll be laughing tomorrow.
Bet it's me!
I couldn't find that one but I did find this
S.Amdt.4170: To protect families, family farms and small businessees by extending the income tax rate structure, raising the death tax exemption to $5 million and reducing the maximum death tax rate to no more than 35%; to keep education affordable extending the college tuition deduction; and to protect senior citizens from higher taxes on their retirement income, maintain U.S. financial market competitiveness, and promote economic growth by extending the lower tax rates on dividents and capital gains.
NAY: Biden and Obama YEA: McCalin
I.E., this is in the voting record in the public records. There are not too many voting records there for the O since he started his campaign and most of those he voted NAY or say Not Voting.
Well, then, please find me one that you find to be racist.
If O "fails", then you'll probably like him more cuz he'll
So when the terrorists come, you'll just say STOP or I'll say STOP again? nm
Find it yourself...
I used to answer all of these posts requiring that I go back and find the names and dates and places of anything that I posted to prove what I was saying. What usually happened was that it would still be discounted for some reason or another as biased, meaningless or just untrue so I have stopped reresearching for the nonbelievers. I read papers. I watch news shows. I watch senate proceedings. David Gergen, Ed Gillespie, William Buckley, Susan Collins, Peter King, Bill Bennett are a few off the top of my head but if you need proof, you do the legwork. I assure you it is out there. C-SPAN is a good source. You can see and hear them in action.
You know what I find to be
OFF-THE-WALL mindboggling about the king's apologists/cultists is that they shriek about illegal immigration with *They're breaking the LAW!*....hmmm, so they don't hold their king to the standard they expect from noncitizens of this country? It's hard work drinking all that Kool-Aid!
Meanwhile, Cheney claims he hasn't seen the senate report re: no connection between Osama and Saddam, and Rice insists there WERE ties and it was all Tenet's fault. HUH?! So now I'm wondering, does this mean Tenet has to return his medal of freedom? After all, it's not like he said he was pressured to manufacture the intelligence to suit Bush and Co.
Took me a while to find this....
And Clinton is a serial rapist. So what is your point? sm
[Post a Reply] [View Follow Ups] [Politics] --> [Conservatives]
Posted By: Brunson on 2006-05-03,
In Reply to: Hitchens is a public and private severe alcoholic - Mind
Everyone knows that Hitchens is an alcoholic. You are adding nothing to this conversation. Act like an adult or leave.
I cannot find it
but I have also seen a picture where Obama is standing on a platform with other people who are pledging allegiance to our beautiful flag with their hand over their hearts, and Obama is just standing there. This is the picture that really made me wonder what this guy is made of, where he is coming from, and where he wants to take us!
I find it odd.....
I find it odd that people won't follow the constitution written about 200 years ago by our founding fathers (people we know what they looked like). They say it's old and archaic and has no place in today's world - times have changed.
Yet...they will follow the bible word for word that was written around 1500 to 400 BC. - which by the way was written by men keeping in the parts they wanted to and not putting in other parts they didn't want to.
Where is the sanity?
why can't they find them?
They have to put the info into a computer somewhere? Why can't it just tell them that it is invalid - my local office was able to tell me within 24 hours that I was okay to vote this year.
Where did you find this?
xx
Once again, you only want to find something to
X
Won't be able to find you and your ilk. You;ll be
living under the same rock you crawled out from under. Bye-Bye, sad Brad.
If you can't find them...well (sm)
you obviously have a problem already. Sources I've used include a direct link to the US Senate, factcheck.org (an organization that even Fox uses), going to bills/legistation directly....etc.
We can find these all day...
long, but until you actually look at McCain's voting record, posts like this (including the one below) are nothing but opinion.
http://vetsforobama.org/
The ones I find concerning:
AIDE TO IRAN'S AYATOLLAH ALI KHAMENEI, ALI AGHAMOHAMMADI
"The president-elect has promised changes in policies. There is a capacity for the improvement of ties between America and Iran if Obama pursues his campaign promises, including not confronting other countries as Bush did in Iraq and Afghanistan, and also concentrating on America's state matters and removing the American people's concerns."
In other words, sit down with us with no preconditions and let's powwow.
RUSSIAN DEPUTY FOREIGN MINISTER GRIGORY KARASIN
"The news we are receiving on the results of the American presidential election shows that everyone has the right to hope for a freshening of US approaches to all the most complex issues, including foreign policy and therefore relations with the Russian Federation as well."
In other words, come into my parlor said the spider to the fly...
The rest kind of backs up his citizen of the world mantra. Will wait and watch for how that plays out.
The one I find amusing:
SUDANESE FOREIGN MINISTRY SPOKESMAN ALI AL-SADIG
"We don't expect any change through our previous experience with the Democrats. When it comes to foreign policy there is no difference between the Republicans and the Democrats."
LOL
They won't find it. LOL (nm)
I always find that the most
vociferous against religion are the ones who are so afraid there is a God that when their time comes and their life is judged, they know what's coming, and feel guilty for the life they are leading.
I don't want to find out what comes after
trillion but if our government continues to spend the money, I fear we may find out the hard way. All I've heard about is how Bush doubled our deficit in 8 years. Well, Obama has been in office not even a full month and wants to add 1 trillion dollars to it....although he continues to say 800 billion in his charismatic speeches. I'm also so tired of the blame game. Obama himself made sure in his speech last night at the democratic retreat (which, BTW, taxpayers helped pay for, thanks O) to mention that government is a group of people throwing out ideas and it isn't one person dictating everything. Yet he continues to blame one person, Bush, for our crisis. This crisis has been a long time coming people and started before Bush, although he didn't help either. I blame government as a whole and I intend to hold both dems and pubs feet to the fire and since the dems are currently in control......they are most definitely getting more criticism from me because they are in charge at this point. Doesn't mean I'm not keeping an eye on the pubs too cuz Lord knows there are crooks in both parties.
Find it For Yourself
.
what I did find out
Each province administers their own so perhaps what I said in jest is actually true. Montreal has figured out something Ontario has not. It seems some provinces have got this down pat, no long waits, no refusal of particular cares, etc., etc., etc., and their residents are extremely satisfied. Costs are quite low, can be as low as $98 per month for a family of four, which covers basically everything except prescriptions. Not to worry, however, as prescription costs are much lower in Canada. Plus most employers cover the full cost for their employees (not the prescriptions but the insurance). All the things we hear of as awful are just not true - in some provinces. However, in other provinces they are true - long waits, no care, etc., etc., etc. If we could but have the good parts of their plan!
Does anyone else find it
interesting that Obama ridiculed McCann for taxing healthcare benefits during his campaign and yet that is now something on the table Obama is considering to help fund his healthcare reform. Funny how something that was once ridiculous to him is now something okay to do and how dare we question him.
Once again.....why aren't democrats holding Obama's feet to the fire here? Lie after lie and broken promise after broken promise. If anyone from any other party flip flopped and lied like this....you guys would crucify him/her. What gives?
Okay, now that I know where to find it...
has anyone read this crap? I'm about 100 pages in and none of it sounds good yet.
Have I just not gone far enough to get to the good part?
Where did gt do that? Show me please because I can't find it.
I find it hard to believe you don't see it.
Couldn't find it.
All I could find on that board was complaining and whining about liberals and how they're all terrible and godless, etc., etc. 'Nuff said.
I I find it difficult to take anything that ..
O'Reilly says to heart. His demeanor is the true definition of a blowhard bully. I tend to tune out when people are screaming at me or really dishing out the hate stuff. Having said that, I do not believe that the Marine thing is about **good** or **bad** apples. War is an unnatural state. War without end is even worse. I don't know any details - none of us do - but in a setting where soldiers are deployed and redeployed and redeployed over and over in a hostile tribal environment where they do not know who is friend or foe, this tragedy does not come as a surprise. I certainly don't condone this, no one would, but I understand how it could happen and I believe that if it did happen that those involved are not necessarily **bad apples.** Everyone keeps saying that 99.9% of the military are exemplary soldiers. I am not so sure that those involved are not as well. Gross mismanagement of the troops, a complete lack of understanding of the tribal nature of Iraq, in other words, a failure from the Pentagon on down would be the culprit in my opinion. These are the people who should be held accountable but that, of course, will not happen. A few very low-on-the-totem-pole soldiers will be the scapegoats in this and generals and civil service Pentagon folks will just walk away. I am still waiting for the dogs from Abu Ghraib to be indicted. That is just about how inept and ridiculous the management of the war has been. As far as Murtha goes...I believe he truly believes what he says and is extremely concerned about the troops themselves, the real people fighting on the real ground in real Iraq. I think he speaks from his heart and could care less about payback or whatever. I think that he is frustrated and angry and feeling helpless as many of us are over a situation that has good outcome possible.
Where did you find this story? sm
I can't find anything anywhere on this. Thank you!
If they can find the right spin they will..sm
But they have to be careful how the approach active duty soldiers you know. Especially since they have spent the last 3 years saying liberals were not supporting the troops.
Encouraging? How anyone could find any...
of this encouraging...sigh.
I just find it amusing .....
that the same kind of journalism, as long as it puts forward liberal junk as opposed to conservative junk, the site is fine. As I explained in a later post, I do not read Front Page and did not "check it out" to see which way it leaned, as I already knew the facts. That was the first site I saw who printed the facts. I posted from there because it covered the topic of the thread. When Taiga complained, I went and copied the same thing from Common Dreams, an extremely liberal page. My point is, if something is factual, it does not matter which side of the political fence prints it. Some of you are just so fast to pile on because of the site something comes from, without even bothering to check the facts before assuming if it is on a "conservative" site it has to be a lie. What is up with that anyway?
Help me find what you refer to...
I am trying to figure you what you meant by Beyond Belief. I went to the website and searched under Berlin speech but nothing came up. I am interested to know what you are trying to say. What did you read that gave you this reaction?
|
