By now, we’ve all heard about Sonia Sotomayor’s view of race and deciding issues of law as a jurist. No doubt, most find it disturbing.
As the NY Times reports:
“I would hope that 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,” said Judge Sotomayor, who is now considered to be near the top of President Obama’s list of potential Supreme Court nominees.
Off course, this brings up all sorts of issues. Isn’t it a tad bit racist to think a latina woman is somehow superior in matters of law than a white man? What life is it exactly that a latina woman has lived that a white male has not, and how does it improve her ability to decide matters of law?
Like most liberals, Sotomayor has an obsession with gender and race. Racial and gender politics are old, and most Americans have grown weary of both. If a conservative justice had made such a comment that as a white male he could better decide cases than a latina woman, there would be national outrage, and he’d never have a chance at being confirmed by any senate on earth. This double standard is old, tired, and disgusting. Yet, the left consistently uses these arguments and is never held accountable.
The biggest problem of all with Sotomayor’s comment? Notice lady justice below. Check out her eyes. Yeah, that’s right, in case you didn’t recall, justice is SUPPOSED to be blind. Not so with liberals like Sotomayor, and not so with liberals like Barack Obama.
The media will turn this into an argument against conservatives, and they will, no doubt, make it out to be a racial issue. Hispanics nationwide will rejoice that someone sharing their skin tone is nominated, to hell with the disturbing values Sotomayor seems to have regarding the role of the courts. Liberal hypocrisy will win the day again, and Americans will be just as dumb as they ever were.
So, The California Supreme Court has 3 possibly sane justices and 4 bat shit crazy justices. In their infinite wisdom, they decided it’s now legal for people to sue those who come to their aid in an emergency. The ruling is the result of a suit brought by the world’s biggest idiot (and possibly the devil in human form), Alexandra Van Horn who sued her friend after they were both involved in a high speed car accident. The friend says she thought she saw smoke and had a feeling the car would catch fire. So, she pulled Van Horn from the vehicle. Van Horn’s (scumbag) lawyers argue that the friend yanked Van Horn out of the car like a rag doll. Van Horn is now paralyzed– from all the information I could find, she’s probably in this state because of the crash itself, but of course her whores for attorneys want the dough, and they argue the friend caused the paralysis.
Let’s hope karma is real…here’s hoping the next crash Van Horn is in causes serious injury, someone hears about the case and decides not to help her for fear that this bitch will sue them like the piece of shit she is, the car explodes and she burns to a crisp. I’m sorry, but wouldn’t that be the ultimate irony?
Van Horn– perhaps you need to look into acquiring a life? And maybe a soul while you’re at it?
CA Supreme Court– maybe you idiots can get your heads out of your asses with inane legal rulings like this? As if your state isn’t enough of a national embarassment already, you go and pull shit like this.
This world is going to hell in a handbasket in a hurry.
This link here shows us why lawyers cannot be trusted, and why most of them need to be taken out back behind the shed and put down like ol yeller. How these dirtballs sleep at night is a mystery.
UPDATE: I found more information on this story, and it seems it was two cars. Van Horn in one and the friend in the second car. 4 co-workers…they went back to one of their houses to smoke pot on Halloween then went out to a bar. I take it back– I hope they all die for being so f’ing stupid. Here’s a question– were the drivers arrested for driving while intoxicated? Are young people (and people in general) really this stupid? If there’s one thing I truly despise, it’s a pot smoker. Dear Lord, it’s scary to be surrounded by idiots on all sides.
One of the dumbest arguments I hear from supporters of gay marriage, and lately protesters of proposition 8 in California- marriage for ALL people is a human right. To oppose proposition 8 is to somehow stand up for human rights.
Jesus H Christ, this is the dumbest argument on the planet.
So, let me get this straight. Marriage is as old as mankind itself. Marriage, recognized by leaders of various communities throughout history has been 1 man and 1 woman. That has been the inherent definition of the entire institution. Gay marriage, which has existed for a couple of years (in some states) is somehow a basic human right? Nonsense. Clearly if a ”right” has only existed in any form for a mere handful of years, it isn’t much of a right to begin with. Human rights? To claim gay marriage is a human right is a slap in the face to all people. It’s offensive to the very idea of human rights. The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. These are the basic human right as spelled out in the US Constitution, and they pretty well sum up human rights themselves, as they encompass a plethora of rights in general.
But a right to gay marriage? People have the basic human right to love whoever they choose to love, but to have the state recognize a union between two people. One, not only is that not a human right in any sense of the word, it’s surely not a right to be extended to any group of people, whether they be 2, 3, 4, or more together, just for the sake of supporting “human rights.” Two– allowing any group of people to join in any union they so choose and demanding that the state recognize it as a “marriage” degrades the instution of marriage and the right to that institution for one man and one woman. Marriage is sacred in that it IS unique. It is solely between one man and one woman. To allow gay marriage would, in theory and surely eventually in practice, demand that we extend this right to all people who join together in some sort of union, no matter how weird most of us think it is. Being weird shouldn’t exclude someone from gaining legal status under certain laws, but to come into a system thousands of years into the process and demand that the world kowtow to your demands that you completely and irreversibly change the very basic definition of that system is ludicrous.
Gay can marry already. There are literally thousands of churches who will be glad to violate the basic tenants of their religion to marry you as a couple. Why the state has to recognize that union and has to recognize it with the words “marriage,” I’ve no idea. And to rebut the argument that we not support gay “marriage” but rather gay “unions”- that idea is insanity that doesn’t even pretend to make any sense. A marriage is, in the eyes of the state, nothing more than a union. Supporting gay unions but not gay marriage (I support neither) is a laughable attempt at obfuscation. Marriage is, no doubt, the foundation of our society. But the important aspect is the religious, cultural, and societal message it sends, as well as the impact the recognization has on all of us as a nation. Gay union is a slipperly slope magic trick. You call them unions, you get people to accept them with that name, then you simply come in with the obvious argument that the state recognizes the union in a marriage, they don’t specifically recognize the religious implications that go along with it. Soon enough people are realizing that gay unions are, in fact marriages, just without the same title, so they soon allow that supporting unions is, in both in theory and practice, the same as supporting marriage itself. Thus, gay marriage across the land.
Gay marriage is clearly not a basic right. It most certainly is not a human right in any sense of the word. It’s not hate or hateful to oppose the concept as a whole, and it’s not mean to support bans to make sure the concept doesn’t turn into actual process. The rabid and the not-so-rabid protesters alike are coming up with some crazy arguments in support of what they really demand (notice I said demand and not what they want), which is total transformation of society. Down with the old order that cherished traditional core values, basic rights as promised by the founders, and the rule of common sense and reason. In with the new progressive rule complete with anything goes morality, a refusal to have any basic core values out of fear of not being totally inclusive, and the idea that as long as it feels good, go ahead and do it. The latter spells doom for our nation, and balllot initiatives like that in California are the only way to stop the constant assault on our national idenity itself.
People often talk about serious issues and use the phrase “we can argue over these issues.” This works a lot of the time, as many issues can be argued one way or another. Abortion isn’t one of those issues. Let’s be real- you can’t argue on the side of abortion. Logic tells us that some issues just can’t be argued. You can’t argue that murdering a five year old for playing on your lawn is okay, because the side that argues in support of the killing is either evil or insane. They’re not wrong, because wrong indicates that there’s even an argument to be had, when clearly there’s absolutely no chance for any argument at all.
Abortion falls into the same category. You cannot, with any rational thought, argue that abortion is okay. This is obvious when the pro-abortion side (they will claim to be “pro-choice,” but the only choice they’re arguing over is the choice to kill a yet to be born child) gives their basic reasons for supporting the murder of innocent children. They say silly things like- ‘the woman wasn’t ready for a child’ or ‘punishing a girl with a baby for making a mistake [having sex] isn’t fair.’ Really, folks? I’m not ready to deal with the results of my actions, so it’s somehow my right to take a life that hasn’t even fully begun? A baby is somehow a punishment for my decision to have sex (Barack Obama actually used this argument, talking about how it wouldn’t be fair if his daughters made a mistake and were burdened with an unwanted child), so it’s okay to kill it?
None of the arguments in support of killing millions of babies simply because the mother doesn’t want them make any sense at all. They all fly in the face of rational thinking. That way live in a society that devalues life to such an extent is truly the edge of insanity. That we even think there’s an argument at all is completely insane. If murdering a 5 year old for trespassing on your lawn is an out-of-this-world crazy idea, aborting a living person because it happens to be inside of your body is worse.
Yet, we somehow live in a world where a minority claim that it’s a woman’s constitutional right (yes, they claim that the US Constitution holds that a woman has a right to murder a baby because it’s inside of her body, when it’s obvious that no such right exists in any part of the constituion) to murder any child she wants…as long as that baby is still in the most vulnerable state it will ever be in- wholly inside the mother’s body, wholly dependent on that mother for its ability to even survive at all. When we’re completely fine with allowing the murder of the most helpless among us, we’ve totally lost our way as a society with any morals whatsoever. There’s just simply no argument to be had here.
Bill Clinton Loses Temper, Lashes Out at Pro-Lifers
How on EARTH was this man ever president?! He’s killing his wife’s campaign with his constant insanity. Anymore, he just comes off as a sad angry old man who needs to bully others.
It is rich to see Clinton claiming to have stopped more abortions with his policies than pro-life groups and their advertising efforts. It might be funny if not for the fact that this guy is really serious.
Not all passenger airlines are offering flights in favour of passengers interest. The flights to rome and the flights to thailand were never this expensive. This holds true for flights to phoenix as well.
Drudge had this story linked on the main page…
Some idiot college kid from Central Connecticut State University wrote a piece for the school newspaper where he rants that Bush has taken away our civil liberties (nonsense- none of you can name a single person who has been denied any of his civil rights since 9/11)…he complains that we’re more apt to be attacked because of Bush’s actions (yes- islamic fundamentalists loved us until the Iraq war…ummm wrong!) He then says he basically agrees with much of what bin laden says:
As of late, if you were to bring up the president in a discussion you would find that many Americans disapprove of the decisions he has made. At the same time, Osama bin Laden presents many good arguments against the president and many of his reasons for disapproving of Bush are similar to those of anti-Bush Americans. Would it be wrong to assume that there is some kind of connection between feelings of the American people and those of Osama bin Laden? As I would love to make this connection, I ultimately cannot because of the actions of our president. If I were to say I agree with bin Laden, that would mean that I agree with a terrorist; under the Patriot Act, I could be labeled a potential terrorist and my phone could be tapped, and every move I make could be watched and analyzed.
Newsflash- the only possible way anyone would be listening to your phone conversations would be if you were talking to foreign terrorists. Now, if you don’t want the govt listening to foreign terrorists hatching plots with US citizens…well, let’s hope you never have any power, because we’d all be in a hell of a lot of trouble with your idea of security! No one is listening to a damned thing you say, because you’re too stupid to hatch any evil plots. So, no- you can agree with bin laden all day and the only thing anyone thinks is- “this guy is a nutjob.”
College kids can be so damned stupid sometimes.
I’ve seen major liberal blogs bring up this Pew poll, claiming that it shows Fox News viewers are the dumbest on a scale, knowing the least about currnt events, while viewers of the Daily Show know the most, and are, in turn, the smartest on the scale.
Unfortunately, Fox News-hatred-syndrome is alive and well. And it’s turned some people into blind zombies.
If you look at the stats, they list The Daily Show at the top, though its viewers score the highest in only one major category listed. The other winners are major newspaper websites, O’Reilly, and the Newshour on PBS.
In fact, the O’Reilly Factor (Fox News) scored the highest on some of these points. Why they listed Fox News as a different group then O’Reilly, I’ve no idea. I perused most of the findings, but didn’t read every single word (yet). They didn’t seperate any other group like this…
Also neglected (by the blogs, not the polling data) is the fact that the viewers who watch the Daily Show skew much younger, and the younger the audience member, the more likely they are to have attended college. Some numbers list an increase of more than 800, 000 more college students each year than a generation ago. So, Fox News (in general) tends to skew to the common American, older, more likely to not have attended college than those who watch the Daily Show. This makes sense, as the DS is comedy, not news. Younger audience members usually skew more liberal, and no one is going to deny the DS has a heavy leftward tilt.
So, you have 2 platforms (let’s compare daily show with fox news in general, as they have)- they both average the same number of viewers depending on what time of day you talk about with fox news. A comedy show that has a liberal bent, and a news network that caters to traditional American values. As I’ve said- younger demos skew more liberal and are more likely to attend college (simply because they have more opportunity to do so). So, younger demos are going to go with a liberal show. They’re going to have the benefit of having attended college. How this is some revelation, I’ve no clue.
The O’Reilly Factor scored nearly identical to DS audiences. So, why they have Fox News down at the bottom, I also do not know.
I see no data for any other cable news net besides Fox, which makes me suspicious as to the reasoning here. Maybe the data is in a fuller polling report, but I don’t see it listed.
As Colbert said about these results- he doesn’t think anyone learns anything from his show…if they didn’t already have knowledge on the subject matter, they wouldn’t get the jokes.
I tend to agree, and that makes a lot of sense.
The Factor views were some of the most knowledgeable on the list. Fox News viewers, who skew older and more traditional, (thus having fewer college grads by simple demographics) tend to be about average. They score right at the avg for the nation overall. Rush Limbaugh listeners score near the top, and his audience has more college grads than nearly all the others listed.
Unfortunately, most people will look at this data, ignore half of it, and come away with “fox news viewers are idiots”. I’ve actually seen that very headline and others very similar to it. Digging a bit deeper shows that such a headline is nonsense.
Apparently, in the United States, an evil young woman can murder 2 babies and there’s absolutely no punishment for her crimes. California judges can just toss the cases out. Who the heck cares about defenseless babies anyhow? What sane people actually value life anymore? I mean, what an antiquated idea!
Seems like Holly Ashcraft is going to be free. Free to kill another baby in the near future, I can assume. She apparently had a child in 2004, showed up at the hospital, claimed the baby was stillborn and they never found a body. No big deal, right? Apparently not, as it seems she was never charged with any crime for that action. So, she has another baby…she claims it was stillborn as well. What does she do? She puts the body in a box and puts the box in a dumpster.
Two acts like this- only a crazy person will claim she’s innocent of murder. No one, and I mean NO ONE, has this happen to them twice! No one who isn’t evil (this woman IS, in fact, evil if the facts are as they seem) tosses their baby into a box and into a dumpster. That’s the act of an evil person.
I guess there’s often times no justice in this country. As the culture of death continues to be spread by secular forces around the nation and the world- we’re only going to see more of this. I see a day in the future where unwanted babies are simply murdered by their mothers who are ‘burdened’ by these infants…and the law won’t do anything to stop them.
Finally- how evil is Mark Geragos? This guy will try his best to get any murderer off as long as he can rake in the dough! What a despicable human being.
This stuff is actually sort of a joke…ten candidates on a stage is absurd. I was sort of torn on this- why allow only the top candidates? I feel the media is partly responsible for the top spots as it is…they push a few candidates all the time, no wonder they have the most support in current polls. All should get a chance to give their opinions and share their views. But, when you see them all together- you see this just doesn’t work.
A few thoughts- Giuliani…don’t much like him. The fact that he’s on his third marriage is upsetting to me personally. The fact that he’s pro-abortion is another aspect of his views I dislike a lot. I don’t think I can vote for a supporter of abortion. I also find his evasion of questions annoying. McCain and Romney are guilty of this as well. Sadly- the most open and honest candidates are those on the bottom of the polls. I’m sick of seeing a question asked and the top 3 guys dancing around with their answers.
Ron Paul- this guy is out of his mind. He doesn’t want us to lead the world basically…that’s the feeling I got from him. He wants an America that doesn’t intervene in international fights? Too bad our actions doing just that in WWII lead us to the spot as super power! I’d never support an anti-war “conservative.”
McCain- he just looks like a zombie to me. He’s constantly got this weird stare on his face- looks as if he’s staring at one spot or something. It’s a bit creepy. That and I forgot he voted against Bush’s tax cuts twice.
Tancredo has good ideas on immigration.
Personally- I think the best bet would be a Fred Thompson candidacy.
The top 3- McCain, Giuliani, and Romney are stepping over each other whining they wall want 30 seconds. Ugh…
I’m not very impressed at all. Out of this group- I’d vote for tough talking Tancredo.
UPDATE: I should mention I find Giuliani’s adoption blathering stupid when asked about abortion. He refuses to be clear and straight on his support for abortion, instead going on a tangent about how adoptions in NYC rose when he was mayor. I see that in the May 3 debate he claimed a 70% increase- I think tonight he said it was a 130% increase. It turns out, he’s full of it either way. FactCheck.Org has more info.
Note to Rudy- when asked about your support of killing soon-to-be-born babies…don’t go on and on about fictional adoption rates! ‘I support mothers killing babies, but hey- I’ll claim adoptions were up when I was mayor!’ Insulting.
I often hear the following argument when discussing illegal immigrants:
We shouldn’t separate families…so, when an illegal alien has a child in the US- that child is automatically a US citizen. That kid won’t be deported, because they’re not illegal. The mother, however, can be deported, but illegal advocates argue the system is broken, because or current laws would break this family apart.
Now- this line of reasoning is just downright silly. If this your argument, you’re basically making a loud declaration to all future illegals- ‘all you have to do is come into our country and have a child…then you can claim you should stay because to deport you would mean we’re breaking up a family.’
No shocker that the illegal alien advocates who call for people to break the law don’t see the obvious insanity with their argument. Then again, I think they do, in fact, see the insanity, but because they’re advocates of breaking the law- they just don’t care.
People will continue to use this argument and many others…but, breaking the law is breaking the law. Unfortunately, even our president has refused to show an ounce of leadership in regards to this issue and is supporting an amnesty plan, which will do nothing but hurt all of us.