4 of 9 SC justices need to read the constitution

[Cajun83]

You could've fooled me everytime I look at my skin.. pr through my mother with a white father and guess what I'm white as can be... funniest thing I've read all day ..not hard to see whos the racist in here..

Ok, wait... Puerto Rican through your mother and... what? What was that through your dad? Whi... Whit... WHITE? That would certainly explain the whiteness wouldn't it?

Ask mom if she is white. Report back.

Also, I fail to see how anything I have said in this thread would make me a racist... if you can point it out, I would love to see it.

 

[hakr100]

Ok, wait... Puerto Rican through your mother and... what? What was that through your dad? Whi... Whit... WHITE? That would certainly explain the whiteness wouldn't it?

Ask mom if she is white. Report back.

Also, I fail to see how anything I have said in this thread would make me a racist... if you can point it out, I would love to see it.

You mean, other than your obsession about trying to convince us that Puerto Ricans aren't white?




Hey, I'm sort of an olive skinned white boy...and when I had a lot of hair, it was pretty curly...

Gosh...maybe I'm less white than pure white.

My wife is about 1/8th Cherokee, ancestry-wise. Maybe she's not white, either, even though she has very, very pale "Irish" skin. Maybe that's because a lot of her ancestors were...Irish.

 

[William T Riker]

Ok, wait... Puerto Rican through your mother and... what? What was that through your dad? Whi... Whit... WHITE? That would certainly explain the whiteness wouldn't it?

Ask mom if she is white. Report back.

Also, I fail to see how anything I have said in this thread would make me a racist... if you can point it out, I would love to see it.

My mom I would consider a nice brown, but thats not me, is it?

You said ricans aren't white, and I'm telling you not only can they be white, but hell I've met black ricans too! Might even be asian ricans if you want to get into it! I actually find it funny when I tell people I'm hispanic and they think I'm lying to them, because if you look at me and want to throw me into a group I guarantee you would call me white. Everybody else does..

Of course you though the "attempts" to paint her as a racist were born of hatred for our Kenyan... I mean President.

If the rican comment wasn't bad enough I'm not even going to say anything about your intelligence on this one, you sound bitter a black man is president.

 

[hakr100]

If the rican comment wasn't bad enough I'm not even going to say anything about your intelligence on this one, you sound bitter a black man is president.

Bingo...we have a winner.

But wait...Obama is only half-black!

No, wait...he's half-white!

Skin color is such a non-starter for me. I figure some folks have better tans than other folks.

 

[Crude]

You're arguing semantics move on to some thing that isn't based in opinion. Also, I see no racism here so playing the racist card is a vain attempt to discredit each other. Move on.

 

[William T Riker]

You're arguing semantics move on to some thing that isn't based in opinion.

How is it an opinion , its a fact. You don't have to be brown to be Puerto Rican, hispanic whatever you want to call it. It's the 21st century, thought people knew that but I'll leave the idiocy in this thread now.

 

[Crude]

How is it an opinion , its a fact. You don't have to be brown to be Puerto Rican, hispanic whatever you want to call it. It's the 21st century, thought people knew that but I'll leave the idiocy in this thread now.

Do you deny that a white puerto rican can hate caucasians? So what does color have to do with racism? At best the argument could be that the word racist was the wrong term but either way it doesn't address the claim that sotomayor hates white people as made by cajun. All I'm saying is that we are off the original discussion and nothing will come from trying to define a persons dislike for another group of people.

I for one am tired of these rabbit trails. And stick to my guns that 4 sc justices apparently need to read the constitution as they wrongly dissented on this particular ruling.

 

[hakr100]

Do you deny that a white puerto rican can hate caucasians? So what does color have to do with racism? At best the argument could be that the word racist was the wrong term but either way it doesn't address the claim that sotomayor hates white people as made by cajun.

"what does color have to do with racism?"

Many times, a lot.

"the claim that sotomayor hates white people as made by cajun."

Unsubstantiated.

"they wrongly dissented..."

Unsubstantiated opinion, to which you are entitled, of course.

 

[Cajun83]

If the rican comment wasn't bad enough I'm not even going to say anything about your intelligence on this one, you sound bitter a black man is president.

I sound bitter to you because you (and another in this thread) are in a state of euphoria due to Obama's greatness. You cannot see past his public speaking (See: reading)and the symbolism of a mixed race president. Ever heard the saying "can't see the forest for the trees".

It is awesome that someone other than a white man was elected President, it absolutely is. It is fantastic that he is such a well organized public speaker, especially after the eight years dealing with mushmouth. And that is about all I can say about him that impresses me. Of course I am not going to agree with his politics, I am not a liberal. But that makes me bitter? Ohe yeah, I'm a "typical" white person right?

"the claim that sotomayor hates white people as made by cajun."

Unsubstantiated.

It is unsubstantiated to YOU because YOU refuse to see it for what it is. You won't accept it because only white males get labeled as racists in this country.

 

[hakr100]

I sound bitter to you because you (and another in this thread) are in a state of euphoria due to Obama's greatness. You cannot see past his public speaking (See: reading)and the symbolism of a mixed race president. Ever heard the saying "can't see the forest for the trees".

It is awesome that someone other than a white man was elected President, it absolutely is. It is fantastic that he is such a well organized public speaker, especially after the eight years dealing with mushmouth. And that is about all I can say about him that impresses me. Of course I am not going to agree with his politics, I am not a liberal. But that makes me bitter? Ohe yeah, I'm a "typical" white person right?



It is unsubstantiated to YOU because YOU refuse to see it for what it is. You won't accept it because only white males get labeled as racists in this country.

For a fella who keeps saying he isn't a "racist," you certainly seem to have "race" on your mind a lot, as evidenced by these remarks in your post...

"...a mixed race president..."

"...someone other than a white man..."

"...I'm a "typical" white person right?"

You are entitled to your opinions about Obama, and you are entitled to your race-based opinions about people. But please don't try to convince us that "race" isn't a pillar of your political beliefs. You discuss it or bring it up far too often for it to be otherwise.

 

[Cajun83]

For a fella who keeps saying he isn't a "racist," you certainly seem to have "race" on your mind a lot, as evidenced by these remarks in your post...

"...a mixed race president..."

"...someone other than a white man..."

"...I'm a "typical" white person right?"

You are entitled to your opinions about Obama, and you are entitled to your race-based opinions about people. But please don't try to convince us that "race" isn't a pillar of your political beliefs. You discuss it or bring it up far too often for it to be otherwise.

You brought up the mixed race president.

But wait...Obama is only half-black!

No, wait...he's half-white!

Riker brought up the "black" president.

you sound bitter a black man is president.

and Obama brought up the "typical white person"...

"The point I was making was not that my grandmother harbors any racial animosity, but that she is a typical white person. If she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know (pause) there's a reaction in her that doesn't go away and it comes out in the wrong way."

Keep looking past the things that the folks on your side are doing.

 

[hakr100]

Indeed, I may continue to poke fun at the right's obsession with race. As in:

But wait...Obama is only half-black!

No, wait...he's half-white!

I don't give a damn about anyone's skin color, but I do take delight in the right's consternation over it.

 

[Cajun83]

Indeed, I may continue to poke fun at the right's obsession with race. As in:

But wait...Obama is only half-black!

No, wait...he's half-white!

I don't give a damn about anyone's skin color, but I do take delight in the right's consternation over it.

Oh... ok... so it's ok for YOU to say "I'm not racist" but when someone on the right says it, it means they are racist? And you can "poke fun" but it is somehow wrong for a few adults to have an actual, however heated, discussion about the issue and the discussion of that issue somehow means that the person on the right has race as a "pillar" of their political beliefs?

The hypocrisy is endless.

 

[hakr100]

I'm sorry, but I do not believe "race" is an issue in re: Obama or Sotomayor. Both are well-qualified for the offices they hold. I wouldn't care if they were polka-dotted.

 

[Cajun83]

I wouldn't care if they were polka-dotted.

EXACTLY! That is my point. As long as you are on their side regarding their political leanings and opinions, you are good to go. The second you disagree with their beliefs and political agenda, you are tagged a racist. I have been dealing with it since Obama decided to run for the office of President.

Also, I don't believe that their race is an issue, the racism they have both exuded in the past, though, is.

 

[brab]

ballistic8
Your maturity level is exhibited by the skillful artistry displayed in the illustration of your avatar.

 

[brab]

Mr. Moderator
Please delete the above post!

 

[ballisticn8]

ballistic8
Your maturity level is exhibited by the skillful artistry displayed in the illustration of your avatar.

Mr. Moderator
Please delete the above post!

That's priceless, you try to judge my maturity level based on an avatar when you are the one tracking other members down to confront them in completely different threads because they havent answered your question in a different thread, you're a troll "sonny" and you just proved it...

 

[Crude]

ballistic8
Your maturity level is exhibited by the skillful artistry displayed in the illustration of your avatar.

"personal insults....blah blah blah"

 

[Cajun83]

That's priceless, you try to judge my maturity level based on an avatar when you are the one tracking other members down to confront them in completely different threads because they havent answered your question in a different thread, you're a troll "sonny" and you just proved it...

"personal insults....blah blah blah"

You guys noticed that too?

 

[ballisticn8]

I noticed it, that's why i called him out about it earlier in the thread.

Sent from my Dr0id because it does...

 

[chrisinsocalif]

I am all for the separation of church and state, the Gov should not fun religious backed programs and religion has far too much influence in this country. Religion is free to be practices by anyone but keep it out of my Government! But the supreme court doesn't seem to uphold the separation of church and state and need to read the first amendment and take "God" out of things like the pledge of allegiance.

 

[Crude]

I am all for the separation of church and state, the Gov should not fun religious backed programs and religion has far too much influence in this country. Religion is free to be practices by anyone but keep it out of my Government! But the supreme court doesn't seem to uphold the separation of church and state and need to read the first amendment and take "God" out of things like the pledge of allegiance.

Well, actually your wrong. Separation of church and state was intended to keep the state from interfering with the church... not the other way around. I agree however that the state should not in any way fund the church AND politics in a church should loose them their tax exempt status. Further more I would be ok to take God out of the pledge IF all men were treated equally....though God should by all means be left a lone if for no other reason then I don't want to see "in the president we trust" on our money.

 

[chrisinsocalif]

Well, actually your wrong. Separation of church and state was intended to keep the state from interfering with the church... not the other way around. I agree however that the state should not in any way fund the church AND politics in a church should loose them their tax exempt status. Further more I would be ok to take God out of the pledge IF all men were treated equally....though God should by all means be left a lone if for no other reason then I don't want to see "in the president we trust" on our money.

No, I am not wrong. You are partially right when you say they wanted to protect the the free exercised of religion without the interference of government, but they also didn't want religion to influence our government. A wall of separation to keep them pure. Jefferson even states that legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Keep in mind, many of the founding fathers were deists or non-believers and didn't believe in religion and made a point that our government was not established on Christianity in any way.
Also, "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 and should be taken off. "In God We Trust" was not added to money until around 1886 and I still think it goes against the establishment clause of the first amendment. The military should not employ military Chaplains, fund groups such as the "boys scouts of america" since they prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership yet vow a duty to God and country. If they want to prohibit Atheists, that is okay, just don't use GOV money.
Since the USA is still predominately Christian, the First amendment is not being enforced to its fullest due to religious influence.
I really don't mind people practicing religion on their own, but I want them to keep it out of my life and government. Like the original start of this thread, they should read into the constitution with more understanding of what our founding fathers meant.

 

[Crude]

No, I am not wrong. You are partially right when you say they wanted to protect the the free exercised of religion without the interference of government, but they also didn't want religion to influence our government. A wall of separation to keep them pure. Jefferson even states that legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
Keep in mind, many of the founding fathers were deists or non-believers and didn't believe in religion and made a point that our government was not established on Christianity in any way.
Also, "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 and should be taken off. "In God We Trust" was not added to money until around 1886 and I still think it goes against the establishment clause of the first amendment. The military should not employ military Chaplains, fund groups such as the "boys scouts of america" since they prohibit atheists and agnostics from membership yet vow a duty to God and country. If they want to prohibit Atheists, that is okay, just don't use GOV money.
Since the USA is still predominately Christian, the First amendment is not being enforced to its fullest due to religious influence.
I really don't mind people practicing religion on their own, but I want them to keep it out of my life and government. Like the original start of this thread, they should read into the constitution with more understanding of what our founding fathers meant.

That's not proof your right. You have to remember the pilgrims where here because of religious persecution. That fundamental fact is why separation of church and state even made it into the documents that same our country.