The General Terrorist Rampage Thread

[gourimoko]

No, but he's asked to rule on a case where the dude was running for president and was diametrically opposed to his agenda.

This is pretty open and shut.

What is the basis upon which you've determined what Curiel's "agenda" is and what he would or wouldn't be opposed to?

 

[gourimoko]

I said Trump's claim was racist. You argued it wasn't. That's defending it whether you want to admit it or not.

You have, however, stated that it was "stupid as hell," which sounds like another cop out of yours. "Hey, I don't LIKE Trump, I'll just defend everything he says and does." What do you mean it was stupid as hell? What does that mean?

It was racist, because he's a racist. And I know you and many that share your perspective want to attack the left for always bringing up racism. I get that, I see that. But if this is the story of the boy who cried wolf, this is the real wolf showing up.

It was clearly a racist claim, one that even conservatives themselves have called racist.

It's sad to see Q-Tip attempt to toss out this rather ridiculous defense...

 

[gourimoko]

Well, certainly that his true of the people taken as slaves. But in terms of their descendants, and especially since the 14th Amendment, I had no more choice as to my cultural heritage than does a descendant of slaves.

What does this mean though?

The reason we use the term "Black Pride" is because most of us have no idea what ethnicity we are. The 14th Amendment has literally nothing to do with the fact that the vast majority of African-Americans have no obvious ethnic heritage or cultural link to Africa other than an assumed one.

It isn't about a choice of a descendant, but a lack of knowledge about one's roots.

So there is only "Black;" and that's it. African-Americans only have a racial identity, there is no ethnic component to it since it's simply unknown.

 

[David.]

What is the basis upon which you've determined what Curiel's "agenda" is and what he would or wouldn't be opposed to?

His involvement with LA Raza. We've ready discussed this.

If you disagree or have a new arguement about it feel free to just state it rather than playing 20 questions.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

That's ridiculous...

You literally just said that, in your anecdotal experience, Latino judges and lawyers have obvious biases towards pro-Latino positions in immigration cases.

Some do Some don't. Also should have mentioned that I've read more things than I can count on how white or male judges are biased in favor or white or male parties as well. Again, that's an argument that comes from the left. That entire issue itself has been written about/talked about for a long time -- just one example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...iminal-justice-system/?utm_term=.aa830fac2b03

It's an absurd claim, and one that attempts to stereotype a federal judge based on his or her race; such that, any and all cases they hear, should be viewed through the lens of a supposed bias, based on their race.

No, cases should not be viewed that way, and Trump was wrong to stereotype that judge because as I specifically said in my initial post:

Now, it was stupid as hell for Trump to say what he did because he had no knowledge that this particular judge had such biases.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of some on the left on this issue. They specifically advocate for judges based on ethnicity/gender, specifically advocate/expect that they rule in certain ways because of their ethnicity/gender, but go apeshit if there are accusations that judges may be biased because of their ethnicity/gender. They're fine with stereotyping and biases as long as the stereotyping and biases are viewed favorably.

I've freaking been to La Raza functions where the election of Hispanic judges is urged. You can't advocate racial solidarity but then get outraged if someone calls you out for racial solidarity.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

What does this mean though?

It means that modern black Americans have no more cause to gripe about not having a choice in their heritage than does anyone else. None of us do.

 

[gourimoko]

His involvement with LA Raza. We've ready discussed this.

What's his involvement with LA Raza, btw?

If you disagree or have a new arguement about it feel free to just state it rather than playing 20 questions.

Sure, the claim is racist. It's obviously racist, and even Republican lawmakers have said it's racist.

How is this even debatable? It's absurd.

 

[Cavatt]

Well, certainly that his true of the people taken as slaves. But in terms of their descendants, and especially since the 14th Amendment, I had no more choice as to my cultural heritage than does a descendant of slaves.

I can't understand your point at all.

 

[gourimoko]

It means that modern black Americans have no more cause to gripe about not having a choice in their heritage than does anyone else. None of us do.

This is pretty ridiculous Q-Tip; I mean.. c'mon. It isn't about "choice in heritage." No person EVER has ever chosen their parents.

If you mean, reason to gripe... My mother was a teenager during segregation, during Jim Crow; my maternal grandparents moved from Alabama to Ohio to escape that shit. I'm not sure who these "modern" Black Americans are, but the effects of slavery, segregation, discrimination and racism are very current attributes to everyday life for African-Americans.

With that said, you still have missed the point as to why the term "Black" is used rather than some specific ethnicity. Many of us simply do not know what ethnicity we are, and it's not something that's even determinable for millions of Black Americans. Hence the unique reliance on the racial categorization of "Black" rather than an ethnic background.

 

[David.]

What's his involvement with LA Raza, btw?



Sure, the claim is racist. It's obviously racist, and even Republican lawmakers have said it's racist.

How is this even debatable? It's absurd.

So if someone claims a statement is racist, that makes it racist? That does not prove the claim.

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/01/j...sity-case-is-member-of-la-raza-lawyers-group/

 

[gourimoko]

So if someone claims a statement is racist, that makes it racist?

That does not prove the claim.

Do you really think that's my argument?

C'mon...

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...uriel-record-reveals-little-back-trump-attack

Is there some confusion here? Again, I ask, can you explain how Curiel's agenda can be defined by some association with LA Raza?

 

[gourimoko]

Some do Some don't.

That could be said of anybody at any time, literally anywhere in the world.

Also should have mentioned that I've read more things than I can count on how white or male judges are biased in favor or white or male parties as well. Again, that's an argument that comes from the left. That entire issue itself has been written about/talked about for a long time -- just one example:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...iminal-justice-system/?utm_term=.aa830fac2b03

And there is a racial bias in the criminal justice system; it's not an argument that 'comes from the left'...

No, cases should not be viewed that way, and Trump was wrong to stereotype that judge because as I specifically said in my initial post:

Great.

I'm pointing out the hypocrisy of some on the left on this issue. They specifically advocate for judges based on ethnicity/gender,

That's ridiculous. Asking for diversity among all judges in the country is not equivalent to asking for a judge of a specific race to be recused because of that person's race.

C'mon man, WTF is this.. it's a childish argument that's frankly beneath your intellect.

I've freaking been to La Raza functions where the election of Hispanic judges is urged.

Can you be more specific about how this relates to Curiel?

You can't advocate racial solidarity but then get outraged if someone calls you out for racial solidarity.

Yeah, again, can you be more specific about how this relates to Curiel, or...?

 

[David.]

Do you really think that's my argument?

C'mon...

http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...uriel-record-reveals-little-back-trump-attack

Is there some confusion here? Again, I ask, can you explain how Curiel's agenda can be defined by some association with LA Raza?

If i write something, I consider it part of my argument. If it's flawed logic, it should be refuted.


The National Council of La Raza advocates for Latinos in the areas of civic engagement, civil rights and immigration, education, ...

The article I linked showed evidence of his involvement. He speaks at events, he's honored by the association, he has funded their scholarships.

You are free to disagree, but I believe this is conflict of interest.

 

[Cavatt]

You want diversity of judges not for specific instances where they have cases dealing with people of those races, but to make sure the pool of decisions doesn't come from a single perspective. You want diversity of judges so that people who have previously been closed off to that opportunity can have upward mobility and can be role models to the community to aim higher. You want them also to influence the culture of judges so it isn't a good old boy network that were all friends in college.

You don't want Latino judges so they can go easy on Latino defendants. What the hell is going on here?

 

[gourimoko]

If i write something, I consider it part of my argument. If it's flawed logic, it should be refuted.

Not sure what this means?

The National Council of La Raza advocates for Latinos in the areas of civic engagement, civil rights and immigration, education, ...

The article I linked showed evidence of his involvement. He speaks at events, he's honored by the association, he has funded their scholarships.

You are free to disagree, but I believe this is conflict of interest.

Sure; can you demonstrate this conflict of interest please?