# Sotomayor is prejudice..really? you think?



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0609/24322.html

long read, but the gist of it is Sotomayor's ruling was NOT correct. 
it's all about race for her, not equality before the law...bad news


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Saying Sotmayer is prejudice or even racist is like saying the sun rises in the east. It should be obvious to everyone, but unfortunately it isn't. Well, let me rephrase that. Everyone should care, but they don't. They don't care because there may be something in it for them if they are a minority. Then there is the liberals (some of them) who are terrified to say anything against her because she is a minority and a woman. 
Reverend Wright was wrong the chickens are already home and they have been roosting for a long time. The evidence is how deep the chicken crap is in this nation. There is so much people are afraid to speak their mind.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

exactly, which is indicative of political correctness, which has its roots in Marxism.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

It was 5-4, meaning there must be at least 4 other racists on the court, now. Of course, if that's the case, it's going to be a push, since Souter must be a racist, too.

My point, by way of some sarcasm, is that it can't be a completely outlandish decision, if 4 of the justices agree. The margin doesn't necessarily refute the "racist" claim. However, it can't be a terrible legal decision.

As far as racism in this decision, it all boiled down to the question of if it's discrimination if nobody gets ahead, relative to anyone else. I'm glad I'm not the one who had to decide. My default position is "not discrimination", which would have had me in the minority. It's tough, though. I don't think this case is as damning as you guys seem to think it is.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It should eliminate her, but unfortunately it will not. I simply think the vote in the Supreme Court means that no one takes reverse racism serious.


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

seems to me the u.s.a. ran allot smoother before the minorities started getting elected. and if they keep getting elected i see us in BIG trouble in the years to come.


----------



## fhalum (Oct 7, 2008)

bearhunter said:


> seems to me the u.s.a. ran allot smoother before the minorities started getting elected. and if they keep getting elected i see us in BIG trouble in the years to come.


Wow, bearhunter, I think I'm going to call you on that one.

How is it that our country "ran allot [sic] smoother" prior to election of some nonwhites? I don't understand that claim. Are you saying that only white males are capable of making informed decisions about political matters?

How will our country be in "BIG trouble" if people of color are elected to office? It is my understanding that in the next forty years or so, the demographics of our country will be such that people of color will outnumber whites. Why would it not follow logically, then, that more people of color will be elected to office?

I would appreciate a little clarification of your comments.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Bearhunters post is just as Racist as Sotomayor's statement that she is more qualified to be a judge because she is hispanic. Racism is wrong whether you are white or not.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

bearhunter said:


> seems to me the u.s.a. ran allot smoother before the minorities started getting elected. and if they keep getting elected i see us in BIG trouble in the years to come.


It's not that they are minorities, it's that they just happen to be liberal. None of them are as dumb as Nancy Pelosi and she is white, but don't tell anyone. I don't want anyone judging me after knowing about her.


----------



## DecoyDummy (May 25, 2005)

Sotomayor has had (as I unsderstand it) seven decisions go to SCOTUS for review.

Six of the seven have been overturned.

With the Senate now at a full sixty Democrate majority ... Franken is now going to be seated ... the Conservative cause has nary a leg to stand on in that body.

With Sotomayor, the only mitigating circumstance is that she will replace an existing "liberal bent" Justice.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

agree, when she was over ruled 6 of 7 times, that should tell you all you need to know about her judicial qualifications....


----------



## fhalum (Oct 7, 2008)

swift said:


> Bearhunters post is just as Racist as Sotomayor's statement that she is more qualified to be a judge because she is hispanic. Racism is wrong whether you are white or not.


:thumb:


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

swift said:


> Bearhunters post is just as Racist as Sotomayor's statement that she is more qualified to be a judge because she is hispanic. Racism is wrong whether you are white or not.


Swift, let's say that a judge is needed to settle cases for SW North Dakota. Would a judge that is already from SW north dakota be better or worse equipped than a judge from Boston, MA? Let's say the cases in SW ND are largely over land disputes and that sort of thing. Would a person from that area have a better grasp on the subject?

I'm not saying who would be better, but its pretty easy to see the arguement from both sides. You could argue that a person from rural ND would be better at such cases because they have grown up there and are more familiar and more sensitive to such problems. On the other hand, you could argue that a person from SW ND would be more likely to be biased and that an out-of-stater would be better.

I think that Sotomayor's statement is much more to do with the fact that she (a minority) is likely more sensitive to minority rights than, say, a white person is likely to be. I don't think this is racism. I define racism as the idea that a certain race is better than another. Is that what Sotomayor is really saying? I do not think so.


----------



## omegax (Oct 25, 2006)

hunter9494 said:


> agree, when she was over ruled 6 of 7 times, that should tell you all you need to know about her judicial qualifications....


Are you aware that Alito was overturned 100% of the time? There's more to it than that.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

there is more..........



> Ruling could tarnish Sotomayor
> Tags:Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor, Firefighters Back to top Listen Print Comment Email Recommend Subscribe By JOSH GERSTEIN | 6/30/09 10:11 AM EDT Text Size- + reset
> 
> The Supreme Court's reversal of Sotomayor's decision on the New Haven 20 could hurt her nomination.
> ...


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

omegax said:


> hunter9494 said:
> 
> 
> > agree, when she was over ruled 6 of 7 times, that should tell you all you need to know about her judicial qualifications....
> ...


there damn sure is more to it...read the above post!


----------



## bearhunter (Jan 30, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> bearhunter said:
> 
> 
> > seems to me the u.s.a. ran allot smoother before the minorities started getting elected. and if they keep getting elected i see us in BIG trouble in the years to come.
> ...


 plainsman put it into words much better than mine :thumb: and the liberal minorities will keep voting for liberal minorities :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

fhalum and swift I am happy to hear you fellows are that sensative to racism. Can I take it you will not support Sotomayor?

Seabass, when she said as a Hispanic woman she was better equiped to make better decisions than a white male she is clearly racist and sexist. 


> Are you aware that Alito was overturned 100% of the time? There's more to it than that.


You would have to prove that to me before I will believe it. That sound to way out there to be real.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman,

Have you read her speech? Do you really find that she is "racist" given careful consideration to what she says before and after her speech? Or are you just parroting what you have heard on this board and conservative talk radio? Do you not conclude as she does that gender or national origin will influence _any_ judges judgements?



> Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.
> 
> Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.
> 
> ...


Plainsman, read the article in this link, especially Alito's statement that is called out:

http://mediamatters.org/research/200905290049

I think the conservatives are grasping at straws to try to make her look badly on this score... and by doing so are making themselves look foolish.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

Plainsman you are correct I do not support Sotamayer.

Seabass, The question you raised is really not accurate. A judge is suppose to rule on the laws. Like them or not. Therefore anyone that can read and comprehend the law and stay objective about it could be a good judge. It shouldn't matter if a Boston judge was ruling on a rural ND dispute or not. It is not the job of the judge to legislate but to uphold the writings of the law. NOBODY is more qualified for a job than anyone else because of their race or gender or place they live.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.


This has nothing to do with law and everything to do with Latina and female. You need not lead any particular life to interpret the law. She is openly racist and sexist. 
It isn't talk radio or conservative blogs that brought me to my conclusion. It is the very speech you posted.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Sure its accurate. These people are not robots. They are humans with a history of experiences that help guide their decisions, like it or not. Alito points that out with his comments in the link I posted above. Just as Sotomayor noted in her speech,


> Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.


 I think you would have to be pretty naive to not believe that is true.

I want to add that I believe her statement is in fact not true and it was a reckless thing for her to say. However, her main point in the speech is that one's experiences, like it or not, help guide the decision making process.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman said:


> > She is openly racist and sexist.
> > It isn't talk radio or conservative blogs that brought me to my conclusion. It is the very speech you posted.


  (yeah right!)

You guys are grasping at straws on this one. To think that you are hanging her out to dry by pulling a single sentence out of context from an entire speech she gave years ago. If this is all you've got, I believe she will be confirmed with no problems, whatsoever.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> out of context


What's out of context? You posted the entire speech. I only listed the offensive part. You know as well as I do that if it was a white male that said because he had grown up rich and wealthy he would make better decisions than someone who had not experienced his life. The minorities would be marching in the streets. If that's the game they want to play fine, but lets all play by the same rules. 
I once heard an idiot on the evening news in Phoenix say that minorities could not be prejudice, that you could only be prejudice if you were white. Try to wrap your mind around that statement. Oh, and the guy was white. Here is what happened.
The blacks and Hispanics have their turf areas at the high school. They got into a fight when blacks invaded the Hispanic turf. At first they reported racist violence on the news. Later they retracted saying that no whites were involved therefore there was no racism or prejudice. Then he gave the above reason. What a bunch of political correct bs. Lack of meaningful thought and statements like that will cause more conflict than it solves. The problem is the mentally challenged will believe it.


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

Plainsman, of course it's only offensive _if_ taken out of context.

Again, she doesn't say that her race is _better _than another race (i.e. racism), she is basically saying that her growing up as a minority will give her insight that a non-minority perhaps would not have. I cannot figure out why that is hard to believe.


----------



## Bowstring (Nov 27, 2006)

seabass said:


> Plainsman, of course it's only offensive _if_ taken out of context.
> 
> Again, she doesn't say that her race is _better _than another race (i.e. racism), she is basically saying that her growing up as a minority will give her insight that a non-minority perhaps would not have. I cannot figure out why that is hard to believe.


 Do you feel that, growing up as a minority can give her a biased insight?
Like a biased insight that society didn't give minorities opportunities like the majority. Some minorities must have been given opportunities to better their lifestyle. Some might have not taken those opportunities. I don't believe she can or will be fair in her rulings if the race card is played.

JMHO


----------



## seabass (Sep 26, 2002)

She shouldn't have made that statement, I agree with that.

Everyone is biased, that's the whole point. I do feel that her growing up as a minority will give her insight that differs from others, yes. I believe thats why we have a supreme court system where several judges consider and then vote on a single case... to even out those differences.

On another thread perhaps we can discuss the issue of whether minorities have an equal playing field with the majority.


----------



## fhalum (Oct 7, 2008)

Bowstring said:


> Do you feel that, growing up as a minority can give her a biased insight? Like a biased insight that society didn't give minorities opportunities like the majority.


No matter what cultural/social/economic background someone has, he or she will have their world view at least partially based on that background. And I would not consider it "biased insight" that non-whites have had (and continue to have) fewer opportunities than whites. I would consider that a basic fact.



Bowstring said:


> I don't believe she can or will be fair in her rulings if the race card is played.


I think her race will play at least _some _part in her decisions, but the same would be true for a white person as well. We are all shaped, in part, by our race, our culture, our heritage, our upbringing, our religion, our socioeconomic status, etc. It's part of what makes each of us who we are. As such, we will all view the world through that particular lens or filter, including our interpretation of the law. That's not the "race card." It's just one piece of who she is.



seabass said:


> On another thread perhaps we can discuss the issue of whether minorities have an equal playing field with the majority.


I would love that. We had some good discussion about race a few threads ago, and it was great to see the different opinions offered. (But of course, my opinion was always right, and everyone else's was wrong.)  (kidding, of course)


----------



## Sportin' Woodies (Jun 26, 2006)

seabass.
think if all the roles were reversed in the fireman case.

blacks were scoring higher than whites and thus were the only ones being promoted (simply because of their scores)
white male judge comes in and basically demotes some blacks and promotes some whites, based on nothing but the fact that no whites were previously being promoted.

do you think that white male judge would get a pass into the SUPREME COURT?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Sportin' Woodies said:


> seabass.
> think if all the roles were reversed in the fireman case.
> 
> blacks were scoring higher than whites and thus were the only ones being promoted (simply because of their scores)
> ...


That is a very good example of her racist view.



> she is basically saying that her growing up as a minority will give her insight that a non-minority perhaps would not have. I cannot figure out why that is hard to believe.


Why is that insight any better than a man's or a white. The law should be followed period. There would be riots in the streets if it was the other way around as Sportin' Woodies alluded to.



> No matter what cultural/social/economic background someone has, he or she will have their world view at least partially based on that background. And I would not consider it "biased insight" that non-whites have had (and continue to have) fewer opportunities than whites. I would consider that a basic fact.


If it enters into decisions it is racist no matter if a white or minority does it. As far as non-whites having fewer opportunities that was a long time ago. Now we have affirmative action which is abused and has become a legal prejudice. People are people and color, sex, religion, all should be left out of any decision.


----------



## fhalum (Oct 7, 2008)

Plainsman said:


> As far as non-whites having fewer opportunities that was a long time ago. Now we have affirmative action which is abused and has become a legal prejudice. People are people and color, sex, religion, all should be left out of any decision.


We've been down this road before, and I continue to disagree. Non-whites still have fewer opportunities than whites. We had quite a discussion about white privilege and what not on an earlier thread, so I won't go into all of it again.

Affirmative action, when understood and utilized properly, can help be a catalyst for leveling the playing field for all involved. The ideal scenario would be that affirmative action would no longer be needed, but until that point is reached, it is a means of getting closer to that goal.

"People are people" and I continue to agree with you on that statement. However, I still maintain that race cannot and should not be ignored as part of what makes up a person's whole being. Some say "race does not matter" but it is naive to think that race does not matter in today's society. Life is more difficult for people of color than it is for whites.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

> I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.


She should have never made this comment. It does show reverse racism. Because she is saying her race and sex makes her better to come to conclusions than a white male. If she would have said "I would hope my experiences would more often than not help me reach a conclusion better than people who have not lived the life I have" would have been way better than saying the words "LATINA, WOMAN, WHITE, and MALE" in her little speech. Now that is poor judgement.



> No matter what cultural/social/economic background someone has, he or she will have their world view at least partially based on that background. And I would not consider it "biased insight" that non-whites have had (and continue to have) fewer opportunities than whites. I would consider that a basic fact.


If people still think that minorities have it as bad as they did in the past are way out of line.....we have had minorities as supreme court justices, a minority in the white house, minorities as congressmen and women, judges, mayors, police chiefs, executives in large companies, fire chiefs, etc.

I will contend racism is still alive. But it is both ways.....blacks racist against whites, hispanics, asian, etc. Whites towards blacks, hispanics, asians......asians towards hispanics, whites, blacks.....etc.

----------------- Side note----------------------------

One of the biggest problems is when "hate crime" laws were put into place. If you murder someone don't you have hate for that person... regaurdless of race, sexual orientation, etc. You have hate for them that is what drove your action.

Any gang violence should be considered a hate crime. Because the rival gangs hate each other. The crime is only based on color of the gang. But will that ever come to court and be judged that way.....NOPE.

Sorry I will get off my soap box.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I will contend racism is still alive. But it is both ways.....blacks racist against whites, hispanics, asian, etc. Whites towards blacks, hispanics, asians......asians towards hispanics, whites, blacks.....etc.


Your correct Chuck, and until we stop the foolishness racism will not stop. Hate crimes is another of the dumbest things I can think of. People don't murder people unless they hate them. If a white kills a white he hates him just as much as if he kills a black. Also, a few years ago a couple of Native Americans drug a white guy behind their car for miles killing him. This happened in South Dakota. We heard nearly nothing on the news and no hate crime was filed. Until everyone is treated the same this game will continue.

Currently our politicians are throwing gas on the fire with bills like hate crimes. Are they telling us a minorities life is worth more, or just that mine is worth less? Many bad things happened in the past, but two wrongs will not right those bad things that are history now.


----------



## Sportin' Woodies (Jun 26, 2006)

> Life is more difficult for people of color than it is for whites.


boo hoo typical liberal BS.
show me some proof of that statement.

there is physical proof that if anything, it's easier to be black female than anything else in this country....from small business loans, to full ride collegiate scholarships, based on nothing but skin color and gender.

notice how successful blacks are embarrassed by affirmative action.

continually holding the hand and propping up a certain demographic, well meaning or simply wanting votes (*see entire democratic party) only hurts them in the long run. govt dependence = poverty + wasted tax dollars


----------



## fhalum (Oct 7, 2008)

Sportin' Woodies said:


> > Life is more difficult for people of color than it is for whites.
> 
> 
> boo hoo typical liberal BS.
> ...


Seriously? You need proof that it is more difficult to be a person of color than to be white? I'm assuming you're white (as I am) based on your comments. You and I have white privilege, my friend, and a LOT of it. Just do a basic google search on the topic and you will see many, many advantages that you and I have that we have done nothing to earn - they are advantages offered to us simply based on the color of our skin. Life is generally easier for you and me than for people of color. That's not "typical liberal BS." That's a fact.

If being a black female is this country is so easy, and if they have so many advantages, then why are they not elected more often to local, state, or national government? Why do they not have higher graduation rates from prestigious colleges? Why are they not represented in greater numbers in Fortune 500 companies? People of color and women have both been marginalized by society in the past, so being a woman of color is a "double whammy," for lack of better terms.


----------



## Sportin' Woodies (Jun 26, 2006)

> Life is generally easier for you and me than for people of color. That's not "typical liberal BS." That's a fact.


no, that's an opinion. a liberal white-guilt-loaded opinion. "generally easier" is about as opinionated a phrase as i've seen.

my race is none of your business, as it holds no merit either way in such a discussion.

why are fewer black women elected into office?
probably because fewer black women attempt to get elected.

but im sure that's white people's fault to for not voting for black candidates simply because there aren't as many as there are white candidates.

do you feel obama would have gotten elected had he been white?
be honest. reverse racism in its highest form. before you label me racist (only conservative whites are), understand i would have voted for alan keyes before i voted for mccain. color simply should never matter.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> understand i would have voted for alan keyes before i voted for mccain. color simply should never matter.


Same here Sporting Woodies, and I like your attitude. I don't wake up every morning with a guilty conscience over slavery. I never owned one, and some of my ancestors fought to free them. Them meaning blacks in the 1860's. Of course there are none alive today that have ever been slaves so that whole argument appears mute to me. 
I also don't wake up every morning with a guilty conscience because I am going to breath some oxygen that could have gone to a round eyed cuddly, furry, little animal. There is enough oxygen for us all, and evidently enough guilt for everyone also. 
We laugh at those countries in the mid east who have been fighting for two thousand years, yet liberals here keep whites and blacks separated by guilt and bolster memories of things they can only read in history books. It's time to move on and become civilized.

fhalum I have a female minority friend who wrote a letter looking for a federal job. At the time a white male could not get a job, but she had seven offers within the month. You tell me how fair affirmative action is. I have seen it in action in the federal arena and I know it's abused every day. Mostly so some bureaucrat doesn't fail his performance standards for the year for not hiring a minority. I watched this in the federal system since affirmative action was adopted.

Let me give you an actual example. A GS 11 comes up and it requires one year experience in wetlands and one year experience in aerial photography. Now you have to be at least a GS5 to even apply. A GS9 with 18 years experience in wetlands and 18 years experience in air photography applies. A female minority GS5 gets the job. No experience in wetlands and no experience in aerial photography. Just like the white firemen who got high grades, but were turned down for the job. In most cases if these people complain they are black balled next time they look for a job.

If we are ever to become just simply Americans this crap has to stop. Judge individuals by their character, their abilities, etc, but not by skin color, sex, religion, etc. You know all the things it says at the bottom of a federal job application, but they don't really follow.


----------



## fhalum (Oct 7, 2008)

White privilege is not about guilt. An individual should feel guilty because of actions or words, not because of the color of his or her skin.

I'm not asking white people to feel guilty for being white. I'm also not asking white people to feel guilty for what their ancestors did or who their ancestors mistreated.

However, I do feel that white people more often than not fail to recognize that they (we) have countless unearned privileges that come just because of the color of our skin. Likewise, non-whites have faced (and continue to face) disadvantages that come from the color of their skin.

Racism in our society still exists, of course. Sure, there are some folks here and there that are overtly racist. However, the majority of racism exists on an institutional level and is systemic in nature. Recognizing the influence of white privilege is one of the first steps in addressing the problem.

I still maintain that life is easier in America for whites than for non-whites. Just because a white person fails to recognize the advantages of being white, does not mean those advantages do not exist.

And it's easy for a white person to say that race does not/should not matter, because, in general, we have not had to continually face obstacles as a result of our whiteness. I would be willing to bet, though, that if we were on the other side of the equation, we would feel differently about the situation.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Fhalum...

I have one question for you. In what Sotomayor said in her speech and the ruling in this case. Are they not a form of reverse racism?

The facts.......

Court Case: Blacks scored low on test and they threw out the test and did not give any promotions.

Speech....



> I would hope that a wise *Latina woman* with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.


Now are these correct and fair? Is this a kind of reverse racism?


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

fhalum said:


> Sportin' Woodies said:
> 
> 
> > > Life is more difficult for people of color than it is for whites.
> ...


hmmmm... 8)


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I still maintain that life is easier in America for whites than for non-whites. Just because a white person fails to recognize the advantages of being white, does not mean those advantages do not exist.


There may be some advantages, but I notice you don't talk about the advantages of being minority. Both exist I think. Try to compete with a minority for a job if you have only a slightly better test score. Go to a bank and try get a loan with the same credit rating. The there is government. Go try get help from the government with the same income level. Then come back and tell me about white advantage.

Oh, if you had white music awards do you think anyone would complain. If you could donate to a white only college fund do you think anyone would complain. I don't advocate prejudice against minorities, but I don't like prejudice against whites either. I would like a color blind government and nation. It will not happen because of people who constantly judge on race. I think it's primitive for people to still be judging by race and sex in 2009.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

fhalum, a few questions for you, are non white Asians considered a minority. If so how do you explain their success in virtually every endeavor or field they enter into? In some colleges there is such a high percent of Asian students that whites have become the minority. Why is this happening? Because of the cultural drive to better ones self that exists in this race. If this group of non whites can be this successful in a world of white priveledge, why can't others?


----------



## Sportin' Woodies (Jun 26, 2006)

checkmate.


----------



## hunter9494 (Jan 21, 2007)

game, set, match.


----------



## fhalum (Oct 7, 2008)

Lots of things out there since I last posted. I'm headed for some vacation/family time, so I might not address everything people have asked in the last few posts, but I'll give it a quick shot.

There was a question to me about whether her comments were racist or not. That particular statement, taken without the context of the rest of her comments, could certainly be seen as racist. However, it has already been addressed earlier in the thread that that one sentence was not the whole of her speech, and if the whole thing is taken in context, it comes across much differently. Sort of like when I called out bearhunter earlier on. He's probably not racist, but his comment sure did sound as such if taken out of contect of other comments.

Someone might argue that there are advantages to being a non-white, and in some select cases that might be true. However, I do not think those particular advantages come anywhere close to outweighing the advantages of being white. If you and I play a baseball game, and my team gets to have 45 outs per inning instead of the regular 3, and your team gets to have an extra strike before being called out, one might argue that your team has an advantage. In the area of strikeouts, yes. But overall, that one small advantage is no where near the advantage my team has of having 45 outs per inning. Not the best example, but I think you see my point.

As far as non white Asians, I would like to see more data. In other words, there are probably some colleges in which Asian students outnumber whites, but there are also colleges in which Latino/a students and/or black students outnumber whites as well. I don't know that the statement "success in virtually every endeavor or field they enter" is necessarily true. I don't deny that there are successful Asians, I'm just saying I don't have enough information about this particular issue.

There are a few other things I'd like to get into, but I'm already late as is. I"ll be away for a couple of days, but would love to continue this discussion (or others about race) in the future. Please just know that a few days of silence from me doesn't mean that its "checkmate." Far from it.  We'll pick up here or in another thread later down the road.


----------



## Bore.224 (Mar 23, 2005)

fhalum said:


> Sportin' Woodies said:
> 
> 
> > > Life is more difficult for people of color than it is for whites.
> ...


That has got to be the largest steaming heap of **** I have ever seen in nodak outdoors and I can only assume that is what you have between your ears. Why are they not elected more often to local , state or national goverment you ask? Well I guess you have concluded it is discrimmination, not the fact that it is not uncommon for black woman to have a pack of kids with five different guys and just dont have time to run for office but I guess that is discrimminations fault as well? Then you ramble on about colleges and fortune 500 companies, the fact that blacks are not represented in some numarical value leads you to belive that racism is the reason. Possibly , but then why do folks from India and China shine in prestigious colleges , you think white racists like little ************ and cow worshiping Indians any better? REALLY start asking your self why, why are all black neiborhoods a disgrace, why do they fail at everything? Guess the the right ansewer is racism because the only other reason this could be, has no good remidy. Think of this as a possibility, what if our forfathers were right, blacks are mentaly inferior and can not function in modern society . I would say all the eviedence so far points to this, that is why we have a double standard now , hope is being held together with a string of racism in favor of the lessor race. We are hoping , praying that the blacks will get their **** together! It is 2009 and folks thats the way I see it !


----------



## willythekid (Jan 21, 2008)

Wow... does someone have a spellchecker they can teach this guy to use? I would think that if one was going to make a personal attack on someone's intelligence, the sh!t between the ears remark, he might want to try doing a better job at spelling so he does not come across as the moron he probably is.... that is the way I see it. :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

End of story.


----------

