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.

[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.

[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?

[deepimpact2]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

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.

That is information YOU have. I have never heard about her expressing interest in men in the early years and it is irrelevant. I know several women who used to like men, but now they are gay.

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

Here we go again with this.

*SIGH*

The demanding tone never gets anywhere with me, especially when it is coupled with the argument that I'm "blaming everyone else."

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.

You have noted no such thing. I have continued to use them. Your comments will never stop that. The thing is that I use them when I wish. I was never using them to "punctuate" many of my comments in the first place. You saw one main post with them and translated that to punctuating my statements.

In addition, I believe that I also stated that I had issues with her lack of experience. So don't try to say that this is all about a Black candidate over a white one. Again, this is why I can't have mature discussion with people on here because they always reduce it to this simplified explanation which is beyond ignorant.

Unfortunately, it appears that what people really want is a person who agrees with them on the issues.

No, that is not unfortunate. That is reality. And I think it is ridiculous for you or anyone else to act as though that is problematic.

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?

I always rise about the people you say I "mock." While they act like they are in the sandbox, I keep it moving when I see that they can't have a legitimate conversation without acting juvenile. Although people on here don't like to recognize it, the fact is that in the past, when someone has responded to me in a reasonable manner, I respond in kind. For instance when YOU originally asked why I opposed it, because you seemed to be asking in a genuinely interested and mature way, I responded. When the stupid insults start, that's when I don't provide further explanations.

And for the record, my credibility is not in your hands or the hands of anyone else on here. Your opinion about my thoughts and feelings on this or any other matter are of no concern to me.

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.

And this is a problem when they otherwise criticize someone when that person "guesses." That is called being hypocritical.

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.

No, it appears that YOU and others on here weren't expecting to participate in a discussion. Had I not intended to do so, I would not have responded to your original question.

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?

I thought I stated one good reason. But what is stopping you from doing your own research?

[Drolefille]

Originally Posted by deepimpact2

That is information YOU have. I have never heard about her expressing interest in men in the early years and it is irrelevant. I know several women who used to like men, but now they are gay.

The information was posted in this thread, and is publicly available. I did not claim it was evidence of her sexual orientation, just that it was the information we knew about her. Yet thought you replied in depth to my whole post, you still did not answer the question. Therefore from this point forth I shall assume that you assume she's gay because of superficial reasons and not logical thought process. Should you desire to correct this impression I'll be happy to re-evaluate based on the evidence.

Here we go again with this.

*SIGH*

The demanding tone never gets anywhere with me, especially when it is coupled with the argument that I'm "blaming everyone else."

Demand: "DO THIS"
Advice: "If you want X, do Y"
Blaming everyone else: "I could tell you but I won't because you're being childish."

You have noted no such thing. I have continued to use them. Your comments will never stop that. The thing is that I use them when I wish. I was never using them to "punctuate" many of my comments in the first place. You saw one main post with them and translated that to punctuating my statements.

I did indeed note it. I don't expect to change your behavior, it was simply a recommendation.

In addition, I believe that I also stated that I had issues with her lack of experience. So don't try to say that this is all about a Black candidate over a white one. Again, this is why I can't have mature discussion with people on here because they always reduce it to this simplified explanation which is beyond ignorant.

I suggest you reread. I did not suggest it was "all about a black candidate over a white one." But you failed to provide any reason why the black female candidate on the 'shortlist' would have been a better choice. For example: She was Chief Justice of the Georgia Supreme Court and thus would have much greater experience. That is how you have a 'mature discussion.'

No, that is not unfortunate. That is reality. And I think it is ridiculous for you or anyone else to act as though that is problematic.

Reality and unfortunate are not contradictory by any means. I think it is problematic. It means that the Court is always about politics and not about qualifications. For example, Chief Justice Roberts. I don't like his views, but he is highly qualified to lead the court. Therefore I didn't oppose his nomination.

I always rise about the people you say I "mock." While they act like they are in the sandbox, I keep it moving when I see that they can't have a legitimate conversation without acting juvenile. Although people on here don't like to recognize it, the fact is that in the past, when someone has responded to me in a reasonable manner, I respond in kind. For instance when YOU originally asked why I opposed it, because you seemed to be asking in a genuinely interested and mature way, I responded. When the stupid insults start, that's when I don't provide further explanations.

Mock, degrade, whatever word you prefer. Quite frankly you stopped providing "further explanations" after you first, so I'm not truly surprised.

And for the record, my credibility is not in your hands or the hands of anyone else on here. Your opinion about my thoughts and feelings on this or any other matter are of no concern to me.

Your credibility is always in the hands of those you speak to. Certainly this does not affect your credibility or respect outside of this arena, it is a relatively contained environment. However, at least for here, you've lost a lot of credibility quickly. Perhaps you don't care, perhaps you do, that doesn't change the unfortunate reality.

And this is a problem when they otherwise criticize someone when that person "guesses." That is called being hypocritical.

No, it's called trying to figure out what you are basing your argument on when you refuse to provide it. It's also closer to a straw man fallacy than hypocrisy.

I thought I stated one good reason. But what is stopping you from doing your own research?

That she was black and female? I'm uncertain how that is a 'good reason.' For example, I think she is qualified but her extensive judicial record would make her a hard sell in an incredibly partisan confirmation hearing.

So whenever you're ready to have a real discussion, let us know.

[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.)

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by Drolefille

KNEEL BEFORE ZOD. *cough*



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.)

That's Kente!!!!! Damn...you think you people would know better by now!!! HAHAHAHA.

There is an extra reason why I am laughing at the Zod reference right now!

So, she is straight...well next we have to dispel the myths of her selection because she is a white woman and over 50.

Sigh.


Oh noes....wait! WAIT....hold on a moment!!!!

She finished HLS around 1986....Obama went to Harvard in 1988.

Y'all don't think that she got the ....because he also went to...and because they are...and possibly Obama tapped dat a...

OOOhhhhh Noooooooo