- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,933
- 10,816
- 147
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
Cause I live here. You? If you hate it so much why don't you get 1 way ticket back to Europe? You brought this on yourself. Don't play naive with me.
gaidensensei
Banned
- May 31, 2003
- 2,851
- 2
- 81
EXman
Lifer
- Jul 12, 2001
- 20,079
- 15
- 81
Please. Pushing for having ONE black woman on the Supreme Court is interest group, identity politics far more than it is RACISM. Get a grip.
Was pushing for a woman on the SC primarily sexism? Also no!
Was pushing, in the past, for the one Jewish guy also ZIONISM? Also no!
Stop being so hysterical! Again, a grip, get it!
You want to see one example of therealfucking face of racism?
Here ya' go!
OK here is another face of Racism
On the right
Please don't throw up Racist pics that imply white people are racist only. If anyone needs proof that Jeremiah Wright is a racist because you cannot read his t-shirt like the racist hillbilly douchebag Perk posted google is your friend. I also would love to see that hillbilly dropped off in Harlem with that shirt on a la Die Hard 2.
I posted this while listening to rap by 3 dope Jews! Just keepin it real...
Last edited:
- Oct 9, 1999
- 46,933
- 10,816
- 147
That's the point, asshole, I don't hate America, YOU do.
My country has faults, every country does, but I love the United States of America.
And yet you, who hates America . . . your BIG reason for staying in this country you hate with all your puny might is . . . because you are here?
C'mon, you puerile hater hypocrite, WHY haven't you scampered like the rodent you are to one of your commie Asian paradises so full of superior people?
Is it more because you're a yellow-bellied coward or because you're a flaming, whining, hating, infantile idiot?
My money's on both.
You hate America and everything she stands for? Fine. Be a MAN and stand up for your "values" and get the fuck out of here.
rjl said:
I'm sorry, but just because it's insufficient evidence doesn't mean it's not evidence. As I've quoted previously from the article as there's certainly more than "allusions, vague impressions, and innuendo".
You can be an intellectually dishonest jackass just like CycloWizard, claim it's not really evidence when the fact certain actions happened, individuals were silent and civil rights rights leader becoming disappointed and in turn not fund raising for the democratic party.
Then claim, well we don't know for sure if Obama didn't ignore all of them, claim it's not solid evidence even though all we really need is evidence that'll give us something beyond a reasonable doubt - which is something the author and many other black leaders seem to feel this substantial enough to be upset - true or not.
Last edited:
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,612
- 33,331
- 136
Look, rjl and Cyclo, it is really quite simple when you stop to think about it:
1) Cyclo sees the title 'Why no black female court nominee?'
2) Cyclo then reverse engineers this to mean 'It should have been a black female nominee' when it could just as easily be interpreted as 'Here are some reasons why there was no black female nominee.' If you read the rest of the article, you see that the author is arguing the 2nd meaning rather than the first.
3) We call out Cyclo for misinterpreting the article.
4) Cyclo calls us illiterate.
5) We call Cyclo illiterate.
6) Cyclo cries that calling him names shows that we can't refute his argument and calls us illiterate again.
7) Repeat steps 5&6 ad nauseam.
1) Cyclo sees the title 'Why no black female court nominee?'
2) Cyclo then reverse engineers this to mean 'It should have been a black female nominee' when it could just as easily be interpreted as 'Here are some reasons why there was no black female nominee.' If you read the rest of the article, you see that the author is arguing the 2nd meaning rather than the first.
3) We call out Cyclo for misinterpreting the article.
4) Cyclo calls us illiterate.
5) We call Cyclo illiterate.
6) Cyclo cries that calling him names shows that we can't refute his argument and calls us illiterate again.
7) Repeat steps 5&6 ad nauseam.
Now we're getting somewhere. The "evidence" is insufficient, yes. It's also not evidence of the claim. Obama not interviewing a specific candidate is not only insufficient, it's not evidence. It doesn't go toward proving anything one way or the other.
Look, if I tell you I ordered a pizza last night, that statement functions in no way to prove that I didn't at least consider getting a cheeseburger and fries. You have no way of knowing what I considered, what I ignored, etc., you only know that I ordered a pizza. Similarly, nothing in that article indicates that Obama and his administration (me in this analogy) didn't consider a qualified black female judge (cheeseburger and fries), before deciding to interview others (a pizza).
But if you want to persist in believing that somehow the failure to interview one candidate is evidence in any way of a greater plan to ignore qualified black female candidates, go right ahead.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,612
- 33,331
- 136
You are still looking at our point from the wrong angle. It would like if I made a post about an article called "Why no cheeseburger?' claiming the author is stating you should have had a cheeseburger when all he is really saying is that you didn't fully consider your choices.
Now, I am not saying the author of the article Cyclo posted is right. I don't think that is what anyone here is claiming, so we do not need to provide evidence one way or the other since we do not care. All I am saying is that Cyclo posted a non sequitur.
Interesting interpretation of events. Here's what really happened, as evidenced by the body of posts in this thread:
1. I posted an opinion piece written by a black guy who complained that no black woman was nominated (or, for the reading challenged, "seriously considered") for the opening on the Supreme Court. My commentary indicates that I think this is racist because he is using race as a basis for nomination.
2. Some posters decided that it's not racist to use race as a basis for selecting someone for a job. They attempt to cherry pick definitions from selected websites to define racism in a very narrow, PC way that agrees with their perspective.
3. I point out that there are more definitions which are less narrow which agree with mine. I then give up because dictionary.com is apparently considered the only reputable site on the entire internet when defining the word racism. Instead, I attempted to demonstrate my point by invoking the principle of justice. Dictionary.com people quickly leave the thread.
4. More people come in claiming that I only posted this because I'm racist.
5. More people came in claiming that Roland isn't mad that a black woman wasn't nominated - only that a black woman wasn't seriously considered.
6. I posted the short list of nine candidates, two of whom were black women, thereby demonstrating that black women were seriously considered.
7. Same idiots from #5 keep saying that Roland is pissed that no black woman was considered, never addressing the facts.
8. Repeat #7 for two pages' worth of posts.
You are in the group of people in #5 and #7. You said I was misinterpreting the article. I posted facts showing that either A) I was not misinterpreting the article or B) Roland wrote the article without considering the facts of the case. You ignored the title of the editorial because it's damning, then tried to pick up on a subtext of the article which was simply intended to support the title (i.e. not only did Obama not appoint a black woman, but he didn't seriously consider one). You then ignored the fact that Obama did indeed seriously consider black women. You then called me illiterate, among other things, in an effort to draw attention away from your inability to form an opinion based on facts, all the while continuing to ignore the facts. Are you going to dispute my interpretation of events as well? There are plenty of posts in this thread which serve as a transcript.
This is why I called you illiterate. The title was not, "Why no black woman?" It was, "Why no black female court nominee?" As with any article, the title sets the stage for what follows. What follows is outrage that, not only did Obama not appoint a black woman (the primary source of outrage, as evidenced by the title), but that he did not even seriously consider a black woman (a claim which I have already proven false). The latter point could be interpreted as Obama's not considering one particular black woman for the job, but as others have pointed out, it's absurd to consider every eligible, qualified candidate for such a position as the list is a mile long.
I haven't really read CycloWizard's post that thoroughly, but I have seen the claim that, based on the contents of this article, the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black female candidates for the upcoming vacancy on the SC. That claim is the only thing I have addressed, because it is completely unsupported by the article.
I'm pointing out that there is a leap in logic when someone says the administration did not have a face to face interview with this one particular person therefore they deliberately ignored qualified black female candidates. The administration COULD have considered qualified black female candidates and not given them an interview. Maybe they didn't. We don't know either way.
I don't really care one way or another because I know that any pick will usually trash the Constitution in order to fit their political agenda. And that goes for so-called conservative picks too.
Heh. Aside, from mentioning insufficient previously, no it is evidence.
Yes, but we don't make decisions on things we don't know. For all we know Obama thinks this lady isn't black enough!
What we do know is this qualified/more than qualified judge(cheese burger and fries) didn't even make the cut for interview which is good as other candidates (pizza). Which is awkward.
Plus, there more to it than just the interview such as the Martin talking to black leaders voicing having to silence their frustration, civil rights leaders being told by Obama leaders "less talking, more listening", etc.
All of this evidence together definitely gives at least the impression that Obama is ignore black candidates. Granted, I don't think it's that great but it's still evidence of that.
rjl said:
Again, with the absurd notion this is somehow my argument. It's not it's the authors. I don't believe Obama is ignoring black candidates, though after reading the article it appears that Obama certainly has an public relations problem when it comes to black political leaders and they've certainly got a reason to be upset as it certainly appears he's not taking their candidates seriously.
Exactly.
Last edited:
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,612
- 33,331
- 136
That is the whole point of my argument. There is a big difference between 'nominated' and 'seriously considered' which you are ignoring to try to make your original point stick.
You're actually making my point for me. We don't know. Maybe they contacted her and she declined. Now I'm not saying that happened, but it seems plausible as long as we're just gonna run around making assumptions about what happened and calling it awkward.
What does a bunch of hand-wringing by self-appointed "black leaders" have to do with the price of tea in China?
Got it. The evidence that Obama is ignoring black candidates is the failure to grant Leah Ward Sears an interview and the histrionics of self-appointed, self-aggrandizing race profiteers.
You have repeatedly claimed that the original article provides evidence (which you later said might be insufficient) that the Obama administration is ignoring black female candidates. I'm saying the article proves no such thing and nothing in it is evidence either way.
FWIW--
http://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-politics-elections/sears-on-obamas-short-456881.html
From the link:
"Sears' name now is among more than half a dozen candidates being considered by the president to replace Justice John Paul Stevens, who is retiring this summer." emphasis added
Sears, as you'll recall, is the exact candidate in discussion. It appears she was not deliberately ignored, was considered, and didn't get an interview.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,612
- 33,331
- 136
LOL now you are just reaching.
We have claimed no such thing. We have claimed that the author did not say anywhere that 'a black woman deserved to be nominated' which is what Cyclo claims. The author said 'a black woman was not considered' which may or may not be a valid claim. Nobody here (except you) cares if the author's claim is valid.
The original point is the original point of the article. It's the title of the article. It's what the entire article addresses. Your point is simply based on one sentence of the article in which Roland claims that he is pissed that one particular black woman was not considered for the position. To clarify, a nominee (that big word at the end of the title of the article) is someone who has been nominated (in this case, not a black woman). Thus, if his headline didn't have to fit in the tiny space allotted by CNN's website design, it could have equivalently been stated, "Why wasn't a black woman nominated for the opening on the Supreme Court?" This statement has the exact same meaning as the original title, "Why no black female court nominee?" The entire article attempts to address this question. Perhaps if you read it in this context, you'd understand it. But, based on the reading comprehension abilities you've demonstrated thus far in this thread, I'm not holding my breath.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,612
- 33,331
- 136
Yes, because the title couldn't possibly have been a rhetorical question.
"Why wasn't a black woman nominated for the opening on the Supreme Court?" can be asked 2 ways, directly and rhetorically. You believe it was asked directly, as if the author is directly asking Obama why he didn't nominate a black woman. You then follow up with your own claim that the author also believes a black woman should have been nominated regardless of her qualifications, which would indeed be a racist claim.
I believe the title was a rhetorical question. I believe many people were asking questions about why black females weren't seriously considered for the nomination and the author wrote this article with his own guesses as to why. He phrased it with the rhetorical opening:
'Why no black female court nominee? [I'll tell you why.]' followed by his reasons why he thinks black nominees were deliberately cut from the list solely because of the color of their skin.
You're a little slow on the uptake. I didn't say that Sears declined. I said it's perfectly possible, but we don't know. We know Obama didn't grant an interview to Leah Ward Sears. We know black leaders are pissed about something (what else is new?). That's really all the article says. Tab has argued that those two points are "evidence" that Obama ignored qualified black candidates. I have said that those two facts are not evidence that the administration ignored qualified black females. That's the only argument I am having. But hey, project on that whatever you want.
Well, I've been arguing one simple point of logic with Tab, not you. Incidentally, the author's claim that "a black woman was not considered" is false per the article I posted, which reported Leah Ward Sears to be on Obama's short list for Stevens' soon-to-be vacant seat.
AzN
Banned
- Nov 26, 2001
- 4,112
- 2
- 0
You obviously didn't get it.
You bring your hate upon yourselves. No? What has Americans have been doing since the birth of your stolen land of opportunity? I thought so. Rape and pillaging other nations of different races. Worse rape and pillaging Americans who live here.
If you don't like me saying all this things than you should get out where you don't have to hear it. Plain and simple. Be a man and leave back to caves of Europe where you were beating each other with sticks and pulling hair.
Here I thought US has freedom of speech. At least not without bunch of American nationals telling you to get out of the country.
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,612
- 33,331
- 136
F-you and your insults, to even suggest that someone would decline the nomination or even the interview is blatent retardation. Thank you for agreeing with my point in bold though. That is all the article claims. It does not claim that she deserved the nomination.
That is the problem with your argument, you don't see the difference between consideration and serious consideration. We don't know if they were handed a list with names for consideration and they immediately went down the list crossing off black candidates, which is what the author claims. He can't prove they did and you can't prove they didn't so you are wasting your time even arguing about it.
It could be a rhetorical question, but the text of the article doesn't support your interpretation. He spends most of the space stating why Obama should have nominated someone - to placate the people asking this question. He frames his point of view by citing anecdotes pulled from his conversations with others, but I think it's a misinterpretation to say that this means the article does not capture his viewpoint (i.e. that he is also asking the question) rather than simply regurgitating the summary of other viewpoints (which would imply that he was addressing a rhetorical question).
dank69
Lifer
- Oct 6, 2009
- 37,612
- 33,331
- 136
I dare you to quote something from the article that can even remotely back up the bolded statement. Since 'he spends most of the space stating' that, it shouldn't be hard for you to produce one quote.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter