• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

4 of 9 SC justices need to read the constitution

You have to understand it goes both ways. The Establishment Clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era. They wanted to not only protect religion but also protect the Gov from religious influences and keep both entities pure and separated.
 
Cajun83 said:
Yikes... not one mention of Sotomayor. I can understand your dislike for some of the judges but you can't sit there for one second and defend that woman. Sotomayor needs to go.
Click to expand...
:eek: The racist "wise Latina" that is a member of La Raza? Wash your mouth out with soap, young man! Hate and racism for whites by other races is encouraged by liberals.
 
Fenga Papit said:
:eek: The racist "wise Latina" that is a member of La Raza? Wash your mouth out with soap, young man! Hate and racism for whites by other races is encouraged by liberals.
Click to expand...

"...by other races..."

What race do you think Associate Justice Sotomayor is?
 
Soooo, anyone else happy that Chicago's ban of protecting your families in your own home is now unconstitutional? They're still trying to regulate the hell out of it though. I need to track down the article, but I read that handgun purchases will be limited to one per month, and I'm sure they'll enact the same "Assault Weapons" regulations Liberalfornia and New York have.
 
You need more than one handgun a month to protect your family? You can reload a handgun, you know...
 
hakr100 said:
"...by other races..."

What race do you think Associate Justice Sotomayor is?
Click to expand...
You're trying to bait me into your game of, "But Hispanics are not a race." Sorry, you're not a master debater. Or maybe you are. :D

It doesn't matter if "Hispanic" is genetically a different race or not when it comes to Political B.S. - oops, I mean "Correctness" - and an ethnicity's own way of self identity. Sotomayor described herself as "a wise Latina." It is very clear she doesn't want to be seen as white, genetics be damned. then there is her racist nature by her membership in La Raza (The Race)....

hakr100 said:
You need more than one handgun a month to protect your family? You can reload a handgun, you know...
Click to expand...
But why spend the extra time to reload the same gun? :cool:
 
Fenga Papit said:
You're trying to bait me into your game of, "But Hispanics are not a race." Sorry, you're not a master debater. Or maybe you are. :D

It doesn't matter if "Hispanic" is genetically a different race or not when it comes to Political B.S. - oops, I mean "Correctness" - and an ethnicity's own way of self identity. Sotomayor described herself as "a wise Latina." It is very clear she doesn't want to be seen as white, genetics be damned. then there is her racist nature by her membership in La Raza (The Race)....
Click to expand...

Once again, "wise Latina" does not connote race, any more than "wise Jew" does. If you say "Felix Frankfurter" was a "wise Jew," what does that tell you about his "race"? Answer...nothing.

Here's another question for you...why does anyone want to be "seen" as white? Or some other color? Why is this so important to you?
 
hakr100 said:
Once again, "wise Latina" does not connote race, any more than "wise Jew" does. If you say "Felix Frankfurter" was a "wise Jew," what does that tell you about his "race"? Answer...nothing.

Here's another question for you...why does anyone want to be "seen" as white? Or some other color? Why is this so important to you?
Click to expand...
Her membership in La Raza exposes her as a racist that hates white people. Try defending that. Your diffusion with Felix is because you are losing again and your argument is weak.

As for your other question, you assume something I never said. What I have said before is that "Race matters most who claim that race does not matter." Since you admitted before that my statement puzzled you and you didn't understand it, take a look at you and your fellow progressives. They claim they are the party of tolerance. They are liars. They are intolerant of anyone with an opposing view or that thinks for themselves and refuses to drink the Kool-Aid. But Sotomayor being a racist that hates whites is easily acceptable and keeps her in good standing with progressives because she is a Kool-Aid drinker and can be counted on to vote the party line on the SC. She will use her seat on the SC to advance the Kool-Aid, regardless of the rule of law or the Constitution.
 
hakr100 said:
You need more than one handgun a month to protect your family? You can reload a handgun, you know...
Click to expand...

Some people are collectors or competition shooters who prefer to have several of the same gun set up in different ways. Also, the more guns I have pointed towards someone breaking into my house, the better. I'd like my girlfriend to have one in her hand too in case something happens and she can't get to mine. Have you ever tried to quickly reload a handgun while under stress, much less try to hit anything? You're going to fumble that magazine all over the place. Luckily in most states it isn't illegal to have a handgun that holds almost 20 rounds, but I'm sure that won't be the case in Chicago.
 
dpizzo said:
Do you prefer the term "ethnocentric" when referring to Sotomayor?
Also, one can be racist against a segment of their own race.
Click to expand...

Being "ethnocentric" is a hell of a lot lower on the scale of obnoxiousness than "racist."

Sorry, I don't see Associate Justice Sotomayor as "racist."
 
hakr100 said:
Being "ethnocentric" is a hell of a lot lower on the scale of obnoxiousness than "racist."

Sorry, I don't see Associate Justice Sotomayor as "racist."
Click to expand...


Personally, I think the word "racist" gets tossed around with too much ease these days anyway. I did not like her comments, completely disagree with them as well. You don't see her as racist, that's fine. But do you not think she is discriminatory towards white?
 
That's fine. Agreeably disagreeing is the way adults are supposed to handle being on different sides of political positions.
 
hakr100 said:
:rolleyes:

...lotsa snips...

Thanks for the morning giggles...:D
Click to expand...
Unsurprising that you just respond with snarky comments - AGAIN - because you can't debate my points. What was that you were saying about how adults respond?
nydxcw.jpg


hakr100 said:
Being "ethnocentric" is a hell of a lot lower on the scale of obnoxiousness than "racist."

Sorry, I don't see Associate Justice Sotomayor as "racist."
Click to expand...
So you, like most liberals, approve of and endorse bigotry, discrimination, and racism when it is against whites. That still makes you a racist. :rolleyes:
 
Fenga Papit said:
Unsurprising that you just respond with snarky comments - AGAIN - because you can't debate my points. What was that you were saying about how adults respond?
nydxcw.jpg
Click to expand...

Sorry, but I don't believe your points are points that are worth debating with you.

Many of your posts show a pattern of continuously personally insulting posters who disagree with you. A poster in another thread here pegged you properly.

I prefer engaging in badinage with posters who play nicely with each other.
 
hakr100 said:
Sorry, but I don't believe your points are points that are worth debating with you.

Many of your posts show a pattern of continuously personally insulting posters who disagree with you. A poster in another thread here pegged you properly.

I prefer engaging in badinage with posters who play nicely with each other.
Click to expand...
And so you engage again in attacking me personally while claiming you play nicely. No wonder you are devoid of any credibility.

I challenged your fellow liberal to read liberal posts and judge them objectively in contrast to mine. Your own posts are a treasure trove of Hate & Hypocrisy™, to say nothing of your inability to grasp simple points and create worthwile (tee-hee) arguments in response. As a result you fail every time I expose and embarrass you by offering no responses to most of my responses to you. Unsurprising. Debating with me is clearly much, much more than you can handle and blows you away, unlike the liberal sycophants that agree with much of the lame "arguments" you post.

But I must agree with you from the way you began this post of yours....you sure are sorry.
 
My understanding to the "Right to bear arms" is not only for defense but also to overthrow any tyranny. Historically, one of the first things that dictatorships do is to forbid their citizens to bear arms.
It is said if we have strict gun control, then only the "bad guys" will have guns since they obtain them unlawfully anyway.
Another argument is if everyone had guns, people would be reluctant pulling a gun on someone cause everyone around them would also be strapped.
If I were a robber, I wouldn't try to steal a car or break into a house in Texas, I know they have guns and will use it. I would probably have better luck in San Fran since they are full of hippies who probably wouldn't be packing.
 
South Carolina and Texas rank #1 and #2 in violent crime, according to the FBI.

State Rankings--Statistical Abstract of the United States--Violent Crime Rate

Houston has a higher violent crime rate than San Francisco. Dallas, too...if memory serves.

United States cities by crime rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have firearms, but I don't believe possession of firearms by individuals makes a big city "safer." I've seen some "gunfan" sites put up numbers and studies by those who favor guns, but there always seems to be something "funky" about the research.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom