• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Words

sutahz

Golden Member
So if an older white man was giving a speech to a group of male law students and said "as a white man I can come to a much more wise conclusion then any woman" and then later tried to explain he was just trying to inspire the students, do you think he would get voted into the supreme court?
 
Being a white upper middle class young male with no disabilities means you are the devil. Dont you know this?


Anyway, it is just another double standard example. It isnt going to change for another generation or so. At least the SCOTUS is starting to rule against it.
 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: OCguy
Being a white upper middle class young male with no disabilities means you are the devil. Dont you know this?
No it means your are not a victim.

Ah, victim mentality. Look out, Da Man is after you.
 
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: OCguy
Being a white upper middle class young male with no disabilities means you are the devil. Dont you know this?
No it means your are not a victim.

Ah, victim mentality. Look out, Da Man is after you.
Ain't it great to be a Republican, now you too can feel oppressed.

 
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Ain't it great to be a Republican, now you too can feel oppressed.


Exactly! Now if only we can make Republican a protected class and give state-funded entities hiring quotas.

Maybe impressionable college kids wont be so liberal when they dont have to listen thier worthless leftist "teacher" spew bullshit for 2 hours?


Also, any Republican jokes will now be hate-jokes, and subject to federal punishment.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Yeah, words are so damning, she's gonna be on USSC in no time. Keep trying, losers.

it's true, what should a judge's beliefs matter when democrats have 60 votes?
 
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: senseamp
Yeah, words are so damning, she's gonna be on USSC in no time. Keep trying, losers.

it's true, what should a judge's beliefs matter when democrats have 60 votes?

Well, if they don't like her beliefs they can vote against her 🙂
 
Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

so was Alito, didn't stop Obama from filibustering him
 
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Ain't it great to be a Republican, now you too can feel oppressed.


Exactly! Now if only we can make Republican a protected class and give state-funded entities hiring quotas.

good idea. We can also put you all behind bars at the republican "zoo" and visit you on the weekends.
 
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Ain't it great to be a Republican, now you too can feel oppressed.


Exactly! Now if only we can make Republican a protected class and give state-funded entities hiring quotas.

Maybe impressionable college kids wont be so liberal when they dont have to listen thier worthless leftist "teacher" spew bullshit for 2 hours?


Also, any Republican jokes will now be hate-jokes, and subject to federal punishment.

You in particular should have at least a special bus.
 
Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

Non-issue. The dems' responsibility is to evaluate her and to confirm or deny her. If they can get the info needed to form that conclusion before the hearings, they've met their duty.

That doesn't mean the hearings shouldn't be held, even for them. They should. And more relevantly, it doesn't mean they aren't free to change their position based on the hearings.

If she said anything in the hearings that changed her qualifications to serve, every Democrat who expressed approval previous could, should and IMO would change their vote to no.

So, IMO you are trying to make an issue that isn't there, as if they were not basing their position on the right sort of information.
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

so was Alito, didn't stop Obama from filibustering him

And rightly so, Alisto is a radical who has proven the worst predictions that he'd legislate his right-wing agenda from the bench like the other radical Federalist Society justices.
 
Wow Craig, you've done your best to leave your shitposting out of this thread. Congratulations. To the OP, you have a point, but you made it poorly. Nobody will listen to you. I won't even give you credit for trying. Also, there's a thread discussing basically the same thing.......
 
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Ain't it great to be a Republican, now you too can feel oppressed.


Exactly! Now if only we can make Republican a protected class and give state-funded entities hiring quotas.

Maybe impressionable college kids wont be so liberal when they dont have to listen thier worthless leftist "teacher" spew bullshit for 2 hours?


Also, any Republican jokes will now be hate-jokes, and subject to federal punishment.

You in particular should have at least a special bus.

Separate but equal?
 
Originally posted by: sutahz
So if an older white man was giving a speech to a group of male law students and said "as a white man I can come to a much more wise conclusion then any woman" and then later tried to explain he was just trying to inspire the students, do you think he would get voted into the supreme court?

No. The white Caucasian male born after 1980 is going to be the single most discriminated against ethnic group in society.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: sutahz
So if an older white man was giving a speech to a group of male law students and said "as a white man I can come to a much more wise conclusion then any woman" and then later tried to explain he was just trying to inspire the students, do you think he would get voted into the supreme court?

No. The white Caucasian male born after 1980 is going to be the single most discriminated against ethnic group in society.

BS. But good thing the white Caucasian (as opposed to the black Caucasion) male has a century of his ancestors getting preferential treatment that leave him better off now.
 
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
No. The white Caucasian male born after 1980 is going to be the single most discriminated against ethnic group in society.
Proof?
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: soccerballtux
Originally posted by: sutahz
So if an older white man was giving a speech to a group of male law students and said "as a white man I can come to a much more wise conclusion then any woman" and then later tried to explain he was just trying to inspire the students, do you think he would get voted into the supreme court?

No. The white Caucasian male born after 1980 is going to be the single most discriminated against ethnic group in society.

BS. But good thing the white Caucasian (as opposed to the black Caucasion) male has a century of his ancestors getting preferential treatment that leave him better off now.

Hehe
 
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

Still has nothing to do with the hearings


The hearings are to confirm or deny. why have them if the majority has made up their mind?
 
Originally posted by: sapiens74
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: sapiens74
What actually bothered me was the Dems conceded to confirm her before the hearings. So much for the job interview....

She's a Court of Appeals judge, not Harriet Meiers.

Still has nothing to do with the hearings


The hearings are to confirm or deny. why have them if the majority has made up their mind?

Constitution?
 
Back
Top