What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Racism is everywhere, certainly not just countries with slave history.

You can't changebitbwith laws, but by changing people.
And people are complicated.

All you can do is change yourself.

At least bubba liked to nail colored girls too. So bubba isbalright with me.

You posers who just marry white women cause they are attractive to you are closet racists.

Walk the walk. Don't just talk the talk.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
I don't think you are a racist, and I think you understand the situation better than the average white American, who will say something like, "You know, I'm not a racist, but I wish the blacks would just settle down and stop committing crimes and/or acting like violent gangbangers" Which is just 21st century racism.
Click to expand...

Grouping people with stereotypes certainly falls under the definition.
Any group identifier in fact, positive or negative, shows an inclination to think racially.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Brenthoven said:
It's been 400 years.
Click to expand...
It ended in 1865.

And I'm sorry but nobody is buying this, "I'm not racist but..." nonsense after you all but dismissed the existence of structural racism for 4 pages.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Laynette was less well-traveled — the farthest away she had ever lived was Lincoln, across the state
Click to expand...

Well there's your problem!

She's never even left Nebraska. I can think of only one other person I've run into who was more provincial than that. A waitress in Circleville, Ohio who had never traveled more than 30 miles outside that town. And that was 15 years ago.

Christ.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Brenthoven said:
You can be second in line behind Scoobs, then, in the blind loyalty. No, not the right side of the lot where Flaggy is, the left side.

I want nothing to do with the whole lot of you. It's amazing that few can actually see the middle ground and discuss. For God's sake, FTLT and I are just about on common ground. That would get us killed on the D1 side.
Click to expand...

Sorry Brent but that isnt what they said. You are looking at it backwards. You think by saying "treat everyone the same" that means you are being "fair" and in a logic sense you are. If Person A is treated like dirt and Person B is treated like dirt technically that is equality. The problem is that if Person A has the means to deal with that and Person B doesnt it is inherently not fair. If you have the opportunity to help out Person B so their situation doesnt destroy them you should do that. By doing so you arent saying they arent capable, you are just evening the playing field because Person A already doesnt need that help. Helping out Person B isnt tipping the scales in any way, it is just giving Person B the same fighting chance Person A has.

Think about the handicapped. Many of them dont require us to help them yet we make concessions for them all the time. Are the healthy being discriminated against because the Handicapped are given extra help? Of course not. Its the same thing here.
 
Last edited:
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

So if Kav is turned down, will he get to keep his current job ?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Do we want Kavanaugh confirmed or not? He's definitely a problem in many ways. But any other replacement would be bad - and probably special consideration would be given towards finding a super radical Clarence Thomas-extremist based on how this went (Kanye?).

Strictly for the purposes of the midterms, I would guess a Kavanaugh confirmation with Jeff Flake voting against him would be ideal.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

5mn_Major said:
Do we want Kavanaugh confirmed or not? He's definitely a problem in many ways. But any other replacement would be bad - and probably special consideration would be given towards finding a super radical Clarence Thomas-extremist based on how this went (Kanye?).

Strictly for the purposes of the midterms, I would guess a Kavanaugh confirmation with Jeff Flake voting against him would be ideal.
Click to expand...

If you are looking for what will most benefit the Dem's for the mid-terms, then I agree a Kavanaugh confirmation would help the most. I'm not sure how Flake votes matters... although perhaps seeing him and perhaps Murkowski or Collins vote no would help pull over some right leaning moderates who are not Trump fans.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

walrus said:
So if Kav is turned down, will he get to keep his current job ?

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I'd think so. There won't ever be 67 votes to remove him from office from the DC Court of Appeals, assuming anyone would want to take the time to do so.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

dxmnkd316 said:
The thing a lot of righties seem to forget is this is a job interview.
Click to expand...

About that ..

Aren't there a lot of "no go" questioning areas (marital status, kids, religion, etc) during a job interview? If this was a job interview weren't some of those areas crossed? Naughty-naughty.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Like I said yesterday at about this time, if it can be proven that Kavanaugh willfully lied to the SJC that's disqualifying. And frankly it should trigger a review of his position on the DC Circuit.
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

Let me help Brent out, seeing as I'm bisexual and trans and I got the right to marry my partner in 2015:

2 years ago, Brent... Republicans were all of a sudden concerned about sexual crimes in bathrooms by my people. The LGBT community... we've been labeled pedophiles, rapists, sick, criminals, and before Stonewall, we went to jail for being LGBT. In the 50s and 60s, we went to psychiatric hospitals and received electric shock therapy from people hoping to "cure" us. There's been a rash of trans people getting murdered, and then the murderers can claim "trans panic," and get off. Then I get labeled "intolerant" because I refuse to stand for this bull****.

All we're asking is for people to stand with us and fight against this stuff. Instead, I read through a few pages of "minorities want the world on a nice platter."
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

The Sicatoka said:
About that ..

Aren't there a lot of "no go" questioning areas (marital status, kids, religion, etc) during a job interview? If this was a job interview weren't some of those areas crossed? Naughty-naughty.
Click to expand...

I don't remember anyone asking him about marital status, kids, or religion
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

BassAle said:
I don't remember anyone asking him about marital status, kids, or religion
Click to expand...

I do not know the full list of "no gos", so please don't consider that list inclusive, and don't claim to know everything he was asked. But if it was an interview were the appropriate laws regarding queries followed?
 
Re: SCOTUS 13: Confirmation consternation contemplation

BassAle said:
And then Brent would say the tall person is discriminating against the little kid because he gave him his box
Click to expand...

I didn't understand the "equity v equality" conversation until someone showed me that image.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top