New SCOTUS nominee

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I'm prejudiced against people who think they can tell others how they can live their lives.

WHOA WHOA WHOA WHOA...

Tell people how they can live their lives? This is where I realized that you were simply stereotyping instead of thinking.

Where have I told someone "how they can live their lives"? I'll be waiting.

Oh and I'd be interested in your answer to this question:

How do you feel about the redistribution of wealth as pertains to welfare or other "safety nets"?

The question has everything to do with this discussion, even if it doesn't appear to be.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

How do you feel about the redistribution of wealth as pertains to welfare or other "safety nets"?

The question has everything to do with this discussion, even if it doesn't appear to be.

And how does this pertain to Elena Kagan? I see how it pertains to a discussion of liberal vs conservative ideology but not to this particular thread. I'm clearly a liberal Democrat, so go ahead and stereotype me to your heart's content. I'm not really interested in having an in depth discussion with a misguided libertarian about these topics. Thx.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

When you are done making assumptions about how people make assumptions maybe we can have a real discussion.

All could be avoided if you had just explained yourself.

Your explanation is probably not as contrary to our assumptions as you are pretending it is. When people jump through hurdles as you are it usually means that the rest of us aren't missing anything.

[Elephant Walk]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

I didn't say you were telling anyone how to live their lives. Quit reading into things what isn't there. I said you were an idiot. I just continued to list people I'm prejudiced against. If you recognized another trait of yours, so be it!

I'm impressed you were able to get out of that, after realizing you were wrong. Good cop out.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

As usual you have nothing to contribute. Obviously you haven't educated yourself on the Black women available for the nomination. And now you're trying to play it off. Before you ask if I'm serious, why don't you educate yourself.

Nah nothing to add all the good comments and comebacks were taken.

Talk about playing it off...

Since you put it out there, why don't you educate us and just give ONE name of someone of color who you find more qualified.


And what's messed up is Kevin already put one out there...can you do better??

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

Nah nothing to add all the good comments and comebacks were taken.

Talk about playing it off...

Since you put it out there, why don't you educate us and just give ONE name of someone of color who you find more qualified.


And what's messed up is Kevin already put one out there...can you do better??

You're right. That is messed up because for all your attempts at witty sarcastic comebacks, it is painfully clear that you don't know anything about this issue.

I can put names out there, but some of these names are already either on the short list or just out there in general. If you know so much, seems like you should already be able to produce some names and have an intelligent discussion about it. smh

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

All could be avoided if you had just explained yourself.

Your explanation is probably not as contrary to our assumptions as you are pretending it is. When people jump through hurdles as you are it usually means that the rest of us aren't missing anything.

The problem is that you all just DEMAND explanations as I owe you one. I don't. And I certainly don't feel inclined when the conversation always takes such silly turns.

It is funny how you and some others think you are so enlightened and open-minded, but the reality is that when someone does have a opinion that is outside of the "norm" you start making ridiculous statements turning it into a pissing match.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

You're right. That is messed up because for all your attempts at witty sarcastic comebacks, it is painfully clear that you don't know anything about this issue.

I can put names out there, but some of these names are already either on the short list or just out there in general. If you know so much, seems like you should already be able to produce some names and have an intelligent discussion about it. smh

But...I'm not the one whining and bitching about Obama not naming any Blacks to SCOTUS....that's you.

You race card is in my back pocket, reach in and get it.

[DrPhil]

Deepimpact2 sure does cry a lot and make excuses. Goodness gracious. LOL.

No one on a message board owes anyone anything. Because, like I reminded you, I don't give a shit about you. LOL But, you surely thought I owed knowing you because I told you to (figuratively) get out the house more based on the open ended statement that you made. LOL. Within the context of the topic and the thread discussion (you did read how this thread began, right?), you are smart enough to know when you may be inviting snark. Perhaps your explanation would have gone over better than you assumed it would. Afterall, you know us as well as we know you.

It is interesting because I'm almost certain that such open ended statements, that even remotely appear stereotypical, would not go over well with deepimpact if they were made regarding a group that she relates to such as Blacks or women.

Oh well. LOL. Slow news day.

[DrPhil]

Rachel Maddow's show is pretty good tonight. She discussed Kagan's(sp) track record going back to 1993 when she worked with Joe Biden. Maddow talked about her two successful academia gigs that she left to work with politicians.

I forget the politician whose hypocrisy was called out. He criticized Kagan for not having judicial experience but years ago he supported another nominee without judicial experience. He said something like "you don't need previous experience as a judge to be a Justice."

Also, some liberals have an issue with Kagan (sp) because they feel she may be centrist.

Kagan is just catching it...no surprise....

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Elephant Walk

I'm impressed you were able to get out of that, after realizing you were wrong. Good cop out.

It's not my fault if you have difficulties with reading comprehension. As far as being prejudiced against you, you're already in that group so why would I need to cop out? I already have more than one reason not to like you so I don't really need to invent them. Thanks for making my posts more interesting than they really are! It brings a lot more drama to GC, especially on a particularly boring news week. As for being wrong...not likely.

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Kagan may not have CONFIRMED her homosexuality, but it seems kind of obvious. And from what I have learned, she is big on not really confirming too much stuff anyway. No one really knows her views on too mnay hot button issues because she has carefully kept them under wraps.

You've stated that you would be willing to explain if you had a mature conversation. I would like to know what exactly you find obvious about her sexuality. For the record, here's the information we have: She is single. She has short hair. She played softball. She is/has been a lawyer, a professor, the Dean of Harvard law, a SG. She went to an all girls school. Her friends/classmates state that she expressed an interest in men throughout high school/college/young adulthood.

If you want a serious discussion, back up your claims rather than blaming everyone else.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

While we should not get caught up in assuming that EVERY move is made to gain votes, it isn't that farfetched to say that these women fit that bill.

Right because that particular smiley is never used by others on this board.

No, the comments weren't contradictory. I think that some people just want to twist things.

Frustration at the lack of an appointment of a qualified black female candidate is one thing, opposing a candidate because she is not a black female is another. The more you use emoticons to punctuate your comments, the less seriously you're taken. I've noted you've stopped since then.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

I think most people in this country want to have an idea of where a person stands on these issues. I have yet to see otherwise. I don't think that is a good thing.

Unfortunately, it appears that what people really want is a person who agrees with them on the issues. Because of this, the successful nominee must basically say nothing about his/her opinions. In fact, Kagan herself has criticized the process because of how shallow it is.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

How do you make the leap that because I think the woman is gay that I need to get out of the house? Especially since you know nothing abuot me. My line of thinking is not entirely traditional or stereotypical. On some issues, yes, I am traditional. And?

However because you have not provided anything that explains your line of thinking, people will presume.

Originally Posted by MysticCat

That is just pathetically lame. Just go ahead and say you don't have an answer.

And what do you know about Kegel that enables you to form opinions about her sexual orientation? Or about me that enables you to form opinions about what I would or wouldn't get?

I laughed MC.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

Seems like YOU need to get out of the house because you seem incapable of having a civilized conversation without allowing it to go down hill on rollerskates.

Newsflash: you are not as evolved or culturally sophisticated as you think. Get over yourself.

If I could have a conversatin on here without people acting stupid, I would be more than happy to explain. But becayse you and others always get into juvenile antics, it isn't even worth it. smh

Ok so you brought back the emoticons. Unfortunate. However your credibility falls as you blame others for you lack of explanation. Wouldn't it be better to rise above those you mock and show us exactly how you came to your conclusion?

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

When you are done making assumptions about how people make assumptions maybe we can have a real discussion.

Again, until you explain your line of reasoning, people are attempting to engage you by guessing at your thought process. Only you can clear this up, yet you refuse.

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

You're right. That is messed up because for all your attempts at witty sarcastic comebacks, it is painfully clear that you don't know anything about this issue.

I can put names out there, but some of these names are already either on the short list or just out there in general. If you know so much, seems like you should already be able to produce some names and have an intelligent discussion about it. smh

This is unfortunate. It appears that you weren't really expecting to participate in a discussion just impress people with your intellectual superiority. However I think you'll find you've not been successful. Also you should try to shake your head less. You start off as dismissive, you just end up rattling the brain.

Also I challenge you, it is stated that Leah Ward Sears was considered for appt. Is there a specific reason why she should have been chosen over Kagan that you are familiar with?

[DaemonSeid]

hot damn...the Great Translator has returned!!!

[VandalSquirrel]

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/its-o...ht/#more-17153

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

hot damn...the Great Translator has returned!!!

KNEEL BEFORE ZOD. *cough*

Originally Posted by VandalSquirrel

http://abovethelaw.com/2010/05/its-o...ht/#more-17153

Yeah suuuuure. She's straight and Obama's not a super secret Kenyan Muslin from Connecticut. (All idiocy in the previous sentences is intentional. Yes including calling the president a type of cloth.)