Originally Posted by Grace
Thank you for posting the article. I loved it.
p.s. Here one that I found interesting too. The author is a frequent guest on some MSNBC shows I watch.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notio...ic_humiliation
Friend of Animals
Thank you for posting the article. I loved it.
p.s. Here one that I found interesting too. The author is a frequent guest on some MSNBC shows I watch.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notio...ic_humiliation
(505) 503 4455
MSNBC just had Elliot Spitzer on. I wonder what he thinks about political humiliation, effing moron.Thank you for posting the article. I loved it.
p.s. Here one that I found interesting too. The author is a frequent guest on some MSNBC shows I watch.
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/notio...ic_humiliation
--------------------
Back to the article?
I refuse to believe that the author can compare a black woman walking thru a cordon of white people yelling and screaming-and very well threatening her with bodily harm - to some hack judge who doesn't show any emotion while she's being grilled by some idiot senators.
(I have to tell the joke from Red Eye now.....How many senators can fit up the rear of a Supreme Court nominee?)
As some of the people have posted, thre is no comparison.
Eckford walked the gaunlet with little protection from the crowd. How dangerous was her walk to get a little education? Do you think that SS was subjected to the same kind of animosity on her walk to a higher paying job?
EFF NO. She'll ride into that position on Eckford's coattailsand fear.
That is one of the problems with the bleeding heart bloggers who try to find a common link to people who really were the leading edge of the civil rights/EO fight.
As an American of Mex descent, I find that her touted as the First Latina SCJ a laugh. She's going to be a judge, so what?
Why does her 'latina-ness' have to be an issue?
To use the 'peeing puppy' analogy again?
She'll be welcomed into the fold by the 'peeing puppy faction'.
The PPF is the small dog that greets you at the door and is so happy to see you it pees on the floor and all over your shoes. IT does not care about anything thing else other than the fact that you are there. The media and politicians really don't care about this woman and her qualifications, they just want to be seen as the champions of women and race.
----------------------
DO we really want a person that shows no emotion as a SCJ? A wet pile of newspaper also has the same persona, so why not nominate that? I would rather see some passion, not a person who hides who they really are.
It's like that new BF/GF you think is really cool, until they show up at your house at three a.m. in the morning, asking why you haven't called them in the past 6 hours.
Nice at first, but effing creepy when you get to know them!
----------------------
Last week a young black gal became the first "Black Woman to solo/fly across the U.S."
What about the "youngest white boy to circumnavigate the world in a sailboat" from last week?
The more we "color" the world of news,the more obvious our 'racism' becomes apparent.
It looks worse in "hi-def".
Registered User
Damned if you ....damned if you don't....
Sotomayor was grilled ....are you a hothead? Do you have a short temper? Are you emotional (man speak for have an opinion that is different from mine...)?
Now we get....So if she expressed emotional she is a hothead...if she doesn't she has the same persona as a wet pile of newspapers!A wet pile of newspaper also has the same persona, so why not nominate that? I would rather see some passion, not a person who hides who they really are.
Some people just LOOK for reasons to knock others!
Friend of Animals
MSNBC just had Elliot Spitzer on. I wonder what he thinks about political humiliation, effing moron.
--------------------
Back to the article?
I refuse to believe that the author can compare a black woman walking thru a cordon of white people yelling and screaming-and very well threatening her with bodily harm - to some hack judge who doesn't show any emotion while she's being grilled by some idiot senators.
(I have to tell the joke from Red Eye now.....How many senators can fit up the rear of a Supreme Court nominee?)
As some of the people have posted, thre is no comparison.
Eckford walked the gaunlet with little protection from the crowd. How dangerous was her walk to get a little education? Do you think that SS was subjected to the same kind of animosity on her walk to a higher paying job?
EFF NO. She'll ride into that position on Eckford's coattailsand fear.
That is one of the problems with the bleeding heart bloggers who try to find a common link to people who really were the leading edge of the civil rights/EO fight.
As an American of Mex descent, I find that her touted as the First Latina SCJ a laugh. She's going to be a judge, so what?
Why does her 'latina-ness' have to be an issue?
To use the 'peeing puppy' analogy again?
She'll be welcomed into the fold by the 'peeing puppy faction'.
The PPF is the small dog that greets you at the door and is so happy to see you it pees on the floor and all over your shoes. IT does not care about anything thing else other than the fact that you are there. The media and politicians really don't care about this woman and her qualifications, they just want to be seen as the champions of women and race.
----------------------
DO we really want a person that shows no emotion as a SCJ? A wet pile of newspaper also has the same persona, so why not nominate that? I would rather see some passion, not a person who hides who they really are.
It's like that new BF/GF you think is really cool, until they show up at your house at three a.m. in the morning, asking why you haven't called them in the past 6 hours.
Nice at first, but effing creepy when you get to know them!
----------------------
Last week a young black gal became the first "Black Woman to solo/fly across the U.S."
What about the "youngest white boy to circumnavigate the world in a sailboat" from last week?
The more we "color" the world of news,the more obvious our 'racism' becomes apparent.
It looks worse in "hi-def".
Richard, I can't even begin to tell you how much I disagree with your
statements.
(505) 503 4455
And that is a good thing. It means that we can agree to disagree and still remain civil and courteous.
I do appreciate that.
If I said that I was entitled to my opinion because I was a 'wise Latino male' and can come up with better opinions because of my life experiences, I hope you would give me a hearty "Heigh ho Silver-god, are you full of crap!"
Why?
To believe that my "background" makes me smarter or more 'able' to figure things out-did I mention my gender?-is way too phony and elevates my sorry arse above and beyond any real life experiences I have had.
Can we play a really dishonest game?
Because you do not agree with my statements I am going to pick a part of my statement and say that you....
Don't like sailors.
Don't like white sailors.
Don't like men/teens.
That is patently untrue! Unless, I have you on tape saying that do indeed hate seafaring folks!
Having people yell racial slurs at you, threatening you with bodily harm and other crap to get an education is different that wanking your way thru a cordon of arse kissing politicians is a stretch of reality.
I have had some experiences with people being 'racially insensitive'-it hasn't made me any smarter. It just reminds me how stupid people are and how stupid I would be if I walked around telling people that my heritage and testicular fortitude make me a better person that anyone else.
It would not fly for me, so why should I be star struck by some judge that wants to be a bigger judge.
If I said you misread my comments, that would be a slap in your face.
So, why should I take that from a "wise Latina woman"?
She said, she should own it.
P.S. Everyone lies during a job interview.
Registered User
There you go again...maybe you do, maybe some people do...but NOT everyone lies during a job interview.
P.S. Everyone lies during a job interview.
Abrupt and Abrasive.
RICHARD is right. Trying to equate the softball questions fielded by Sotomayor to the risk of bodily harm, and possibly death that Mrs Eckford faced is insulting to Mrs Eckford and the equal rights movment, Rev Martin Luther King Jr would be outraged. Mrs Sotomayor "herself deplores metaphor and analogy", yet the writer of the op-ed Liz linked not only ran with it but expounded on it even dissing Clarence Thomas while she was at it. To call what Sotomayor recieved by the commitee a grilling is an insult to sandwiches.
The person who brought race and sex into the confirmation hearing was Mrs Sotomayor by repeating and standing by her wise latina statement. Ginsburg and O'Connor would repeat the line "at the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same judgment", I dont see any sexism or racism in that quote.
I wouldnt wouldnt say she has the same persona as a wet pile of newspapers, but I get RICHARDs point.
We finaly get a minority, a relatively young one as well, as the POTUS and he makes appointments based on race and sex, not character.
Are you sexist (equal rights speak to a sexist question)?
Your posts about Sarah Palin are very good examples of this type of behavior.
Last edited by blue; 07-21-2009 at 01:40 AM. Reason: Had to add to the post.
(505) 503 4455
Hillary, doll?
Are we to blame for all the global warming?
I like Kool-Aid on a hot day, but you are apologizing to the world because you THINK we are the bad guys in the Global Warming problem?
You didn't hook up with Al Gore to get even with Bill, didja?
Abrupt and Abrasive.
Al Gore may not have invented the internet, but he sure invented global warming.
Abrupt and Abrasive.
The exceptions prove the rule.There you go again...maybe you do, maybe some people do...but NOT everyone lies during a job interview.
Far-from-Fenway
Interesting article from the N.Y. Times -
David BrooksJuly 21, 2009
Op-Ed Columnist
Liberal Suicide March
By DAVID BROOKS
It was interesting to watch the Republican Party lose touch with America. You had a party led by conservative Southerners who neither understood nor sympathized with moderates or representatives from swing districts.
They brought in pollsters to their party conferences to persuade their members that the country was fervently behind them. They were supported by their interest groups and cheered on by their activists and the partisan press. They spent federal money in an effort to buy support but ended up disgusting the country instead.
It’s not that interesting to watch the Democrats lose touch with America. That’s because the plotline is exactly the same. The party is led by insular liberals from big cities and the coasts, who neither understand nor sympathize with moderates. They have their own cherry-picking pollsters, their own media and activist cocoon, their own plans to lavishly spend borrowed money to buy votes.
This ideological overreach won’t be any more successful than the last one. A Washington Post-ABC News poll released Monday confirms what other polls have found. Most Americans love Barack Obama personally, but support for Democratic policies is already sliding fast.
Approval of Obama’s handling of health care, for example, has slid from 57 percent to 49 percent since April. Disapproval has risen from 29 percent to 44 percent. As recently as June, voters earning more than $50,000 preferred Obama to the Republicans on health care by a 21-point margin. Now those voters are evenly split.
Most independents now disapprove of Obama’s health care strategy. In March, only 32 percent of Americans thought Obama was an old-style, tax-and-spend liberal. Now 43 percent do.
We’re only in the early stages of the liberal suicide march, but there already have been three phases. First, there was the stimulus package. You would have thought that a stimulus package would be designed to fight unemployment and stimulate the economy during a recession. But Congressional Democrats used it as a pretext to pay for $787 billion worth of pet programs with borrowed money. Only 11 percent of the money will be spent by the end of the fiscal year — a triumph of ideology over pragmatism.
Then there is the budget. Instead of allaying moderate anxieties about the deficits, the budget is expected to increase the government debt by $11 trillion between 2009 and 2019.
Finally, there is health care. Every cliché Ann Coulter throws at the Democrats is gloriously fulfilled by the Democratic health care bills. The bills do almost nothing to control health care inflation. They are modeled on the Massachusetts health reform law that is currently coming apart at the seams precisely because it doesn’t control costs. They do little to reward efficient providers and reform inefficient ones.
The House bill adds $239 billion to the federal deficit during the first 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office. It would pummel small businesses with an 8 percent payroll penalty. It would jack America’s top tax rate above those in Italy and France. Top earners in New York and California would be giving more than 55 percent of earnings to one government entity or another.
Nancy Pelosi has lower approval ratings than Dick Cheney and far lower approval ratings than Sarah Palin. And yet Democrats have allowed her policy values to carry the day — this in an era in which independents dominate the electoral landscape.
Who’s going to stop this leftward surge? Months ago, it seemed as if Obama would lead a center-left coalition. Instead, he has deferred to the Old Bulls on Capitol Hill on issue after issue.
Machiavelli said a leader should be feared as well as loved. Obama is loved by the Democratic chairmen, but he is not feared. On health care, Obama has emphasized cost control. The chairmen flouted his priorities because they don’t fear him. On cap and trade, Obama campaigned against giving away pollution offsets. The chairmen wrote their bill to do precisely that because they don’t fear him. On taxes, Obama promised that top tax rates would not go above Clinton-era levels. The chairmen flouted that promise because they don’t fear him.
Last week, the administration announced a proposal to take Medicare spending decisions away from Congress and lodge the power with technocrats in the executive branch. It’s a good idea, and it might lead to real cost savings. But there’s no reason to think that it will be incorporated into the final law. The chairmen will never surrender power to an administration they can override.
That leaves matters in the hands of the Blue Dog Democrats. These brave moderates are trying to restrain the fiscal explosion. But moderates inherently lack seniority (they are from swing districts). They are usually bought off by leadership at the end of the day.
And so here we are again. Every new majority overinterprets its mandate. We’ve been here before. We’ll be here again.
Posting Permissions
Copyright © 2001-2013 Pet of the Day.com
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks