Trump nominated 2 white men.
-
Yermom_Is_God — 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 03:14 AM)
And? How is any of that relevant? Trump's nominees support the Constitution as written, which is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. Obama's nominee, by her own words, believes the court is where law is made, which is extremely bizarre and wrong. So he clearly made an awful decision. Judging things on race and gender, which is what you're doing, is very racist and sexist, and leads to electing terrible leaders like Obama.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
ProjectError
— 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 04:34 AM)Oh God, shutup. You don't get to reverse the sexism racism, sexo-racist. Jesus Christ. It doesn't work like that. God, shutup. You earn no points there but A for effort.
Anyway, conservative-appointee Clarence Thomas ruled that denigrating the flag was not covered by free speech.
So much for interpreting the "constitution as written," eh? Do you disagree with Thomas' ruling? I didn't ask if you are against flag burning, but do you believe it's covered under free speech?
Gorsuch's opinion on the baker case was proof that he didn't interpret as written. He wrote it as a Christian with a Christian perspective.
Sottomayer wasn't stating they make policy. She was speaking in de facto, as in, their rulings do affect policy.
The Supreme Court also ruled that Child Porn was not covered under free speech. As written, it would be, as the Constitution doesn't say anything about child porn, nor give any restrictions for speech.
Also, Dred Scott:
Persons of African descent cannot be, nor were ever intended to be, citizens under the U.S. Const. Plaintiff is without standing to file a suit.
You're cray if you think Scotus interprets the Constitution literally "as written." There wouldn't need to be human justices nor cases - just plug in 9 computers to scan the constitution, and it'll have the result instantaneously.
I am addicted to you; I have tasted your mind, and I cannot forgo its flavor. -
Yermom_Is_God — 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 04:42 AM)
In the OP you literally made your judgement on justices based on race and gender. That is the definition of racism and sexism.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
ProjectError
— 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 05:33 AM)No, it isn't.
sexism refers to a belief in traditional gender role stereotypes and in the inherent inequality between men and women, and this refers to explicit and overt beliefs that men are superior to women in a variety of skills and tasks.
Racism
Racism in the U.S. is the normalization and legitimization of an array of dynamics – historical, cultural, institutional and interpersonal – that routinely advantage whites while producing cumulative and chronic adverse outcomes for people of color.
It is a system of hierarchy and inequity, primarily characterized by white supremacy – the preferential treatment, privilege and power for white people at the expense of Black, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Arab and other racially oppressed people.
I am addicted to you; I have tasted your mind, and I cannot forgo its flavor. -
Yermom_Is_God — 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 05:45 AM)
No, you deranged animal, we are not using made up leftist definitions.
Sexism
prejudice or discrimination based on sex
Racism
a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Source:
https://www.merriam-webster.com
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
ProjectError
— 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 05:54 AM)I don't think you're interested in learning. You're biased, and you're trying to hold on to your position regardless if I tell you you're wrong.
Let go of politics for a second. I'm telling you you're wrong. This is where you say, "ohhhh thank you, I didn't know that before."
And genuinely, you know you're wrong, too, and trying to use the vague dictionary definition to signify you're right, but
you yourself
don't even believe you're right. I believe you're trying to marginalize minorities on purpose, or simply don't care if they are, and trying to rationalize it.
The dictionary gives you a general idea of what things mean, but it doesn't have the time to give details on why they mean what they mean.
Take for instance, human.
hu·man
adjective
1.
relating to or characteristic of people or human beings.
"the human body"
synonyms: anthropomorphic, anthropoid, humanoid, hominid
"in human form"
noun
1.
a human being, especially a person as distinguished from an animal or (in science fiction) an alien.
Now we both agree that a HUMAN, our biology, anatomy, our culture, makeup, what defines humanness, is much more complex than these two simple sentences we get in the dictionary.
Potential doctors in medical school have to study humanness on a much deeper level than simply reading how the dictionary defines human. Just as a lawyer has to read more than what "law" means in the dictionary, just as a psychologist or sociologist has to study sexism and racism in further detail.
If you want to know what a human truly is, you have to read more than the dictionary. They have tons of books on the subject of anatomy.
It is impossible for a white man to be racist or sexist against white men. It's factually impossible. I'd have to hold a certain racial and gender authority over the minorities about whom I'm speaking which isn't possible.
Two, before Gorsuch and Kav, did you genuinely there was a historical underrepresentation of white men on the Supreme Court? No. Congrats, not sexism or racism.
I am addicted to you; I have tasted your mind, and I cannot forgo its flavor. -
Yermom_Is_God — 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 06:00 AM)
The problem is you're not expanding on the definitions, you're completely cutting and limiting them to fit your political agenda.
It is impossible be racist or sexist against white men. It's factually impossible.
That's the dumbest ****ing thing I've seen you say, and it's a sad place we're in when this type of evil, idiotic mentality is a mainstream view of the left.
No, you're wrong. Simple as that. You can't alter definitions of words to fit your agenda.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
ProjectError
— 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 06:16 AM)I don't have an agenda. It's what the concepts objectively mean.
You'd know this because you know what you're feeling, as in that you could become powerless at any moment, isn't genuine. You're genuinely not threatened by sexism and racism. it's never been a factor that has held you back in life. Get it?
I am addicted to you; I have tasted your mind, and I cannot forgo its flavor. -
Yermom_Is_God — 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 06:30 AM)
You can keep trying to spin it any way you want, you're wrong. You can't just change definitions to fit your social justice agenda.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
ProjectError
— 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 07:22 AM)Was Kavanaugh being sexist here? He singled out men in favor of women.
"I've worked hard throughout my career to promote the advancement of women. Women still face many barriers in the workplace. And all of us have a responsibility to address that problem. I'm proud that all my newly hired law clerks are women, a first in the history of the Supreme Court."
What if Kav had said, "I'm proud that all my newly hired law clerks are men." Because by your logic on sexism, that men and women are equal victims to sexism, that's the same as what Kavanaugh said, but with the genders reversed.
I am addicted to you; I have tasted your mind, and I cannot forgo its flavor. -
Yermom_Is_God — 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 04:08 PM)
Yes, by definition that is sexist. Again, I live in reality, not a progressive social justice fantasy land.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
Yermom_Is_God — 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 04:09 PM)
Because by your logic on sexism, that men and women are equal victims to sexism
Please show me where I said that.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
Yermom_Is_God — 7 years ago(October 12, 2018 01:26 AM)
I take it your silence means that you and I both agree that I never said nor implied this.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
Yermom_Is_God — 7 years ago(October 12, 2018 02:35 AM)
You're actually trying to suggest that me pointing out the actual definition of sexism is me saying this:
Because by your logic on sexism, that men and women are equal victims to sexism
Really? That's what you're trying to say? Are you serious?
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
Yermom_Is_God — 7 years ago(October 12, 2018 05:20 AM)
So we can agree that I never said or suggested what you're claiming, right?
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
ProjectError
— 7 years ago(October 12, 2018 06:17 AM)Yermom_Is_God said...
So we can agree that I never said or suggested what you're claiming, right?
You're pretending that you'd hear both of these comments equally: " I've worked hard throughout my career to promote the advancement of men. I'm proud that all my newly hired law clerks are men" as ""I've worked hard throughout my career to promote the advancement of women. I'm proud that all my newly hired law clerks are women."
The truth is, you'd be shocked if you heard a politician say the first. But the second sounds normal. These are not equal comments just because you swap the genders, and you know they aren't. You wouldn't infer/process them the same way.
I am addicted to you; I have tasted your mind, and I cannot forgo its flavor. -
Yermom_Is_God — 7 years ago(October 12, 2018 01:05 PM)
ProjectError
said...
You're pretending that you'd hear both of these comments equally: " I've worked hard throughout my career to promote the advancement of men. I'm proud that all my newly hired law clerks are men" as ""I've worked hard throughout my career to promote the advancement of women. I'm proud that all my newly hired law clerks are women."
The truth is, you'd be shocked if you heard a politician say the first. But the second sounds normal. These are not equal comments just because you swap the genders, and you know they aren't. You wouldn't infer/process them the same way.
What in the **** are you talking about? Are you just making things up now? I never implied any of this. Of course women are victims of sexism far more than men. That doesn't mean men can't be victims of sexism. Wow, you suck.
"I am Kamala Harris, my pronouns are she and her, and I am a woman sitting at the table wearing a blue suit." -A fucking idiot -
ProjectError
— 7 years ago(October 10, 2018 06:26 AM)Besides, I quote
Kavanaugh:
"I've worked hard throughout my career to promote the advancement of women. Women still face many barriers in the workplace. And all of us have a responsibility to address that problem. I'm proud that all my newly hired law clerks are women, a first in the history of the Supreme Court."
Was Kavanaugh being sexist?
I am addicted to you; I have tasted your mind, and I cannot forgo its flavor.