How come...

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

How about one god damn time, instead of lobbing a vague insult and scurrying off with your tail between your legs, you tell me exactly the difference between what she said, and what I claimed she said.

How is asking you to read your own link an insult? And why do you need to constantly be telling yourself you think you're somehow winning an argument?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

How is asking you to read your own link an insult? And why do you need to constantly be telling yourself you think you're somehow winning an argument?

Well, for starters, you are implying that I didn't read it. Here it is, an exact quote...it's not very complex or ambiguous.

"a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

She is saying that the experience of being a white man, somehow leaves one less qualified to render quality legal opinions, than one who is Latina and female (all other things being equal, I suppose).

It's racist. It's sexist. And it's absurdly stupid. I know it's stupid, because I don't see white, male, Georgetown Law School graduates risking their lives to float on rafts to emigrate to Latino nations, in search of "that life", which according to this dolt, would instantly make them superior jurists.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Well, for starters, you are implying that I didn't read it.

Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

Oh, I see! We should ignore what people actually say, and focus on their likely intent! And who determines the intent of what everyone says? Liberals!!

Let's re-state your handiwork on this post, in terms of gauging "intent".

"Trump's insinuation was that his heritage would compromise his ability to uphold the law"

So even though Trump never explicitly said as much, you are able to determine that his insinuation, or "intent" was racist. His statement isn't racist. But you are able to conclude that his intent is racist.

Sotomayor, on the other hand, comes right out and says that in terms of judicial ability female Latinas are superior to white males. That is textbook racism. Fortunately for her, you can see past that to her "intent", which even though you chose not to share it, was certainly something worthy of a Nobel Prize.

In other words, according to you, (1) conservatives are racist even when they are not, and (2) liberals aren't racist, even when they are.

Cue the 'Twilight Zone' music...

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

Spence, in that link, the quote is what we KNOW she said. The rest of the link, was the self-serving liberal spin, from a liberal drone, telling me why she didn't mean what she said. If I used another link, written by Glenn Beck, explaining why that quote makes her unfit for night court let alone SCOTUS, would you buy into that?

We all know what she said. Try to spin it any way you want. Those words aren't open to a lot of different interpretations. I chose a liberal link, because if I chose The Blaze, you might have claimed they were making it up.

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by spence

Had you read it you would likely have had an understanding of her intent.

Everything was going well until you spouted this stupidity. Did your children steal your password Jeff, wife perhaps?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[spence]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Everything was going well until you spouted this stupidity. Did your children steal your password Jeff, wife perhaps?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Huh?