zbdent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-16-09 02:00 PM
Original message |
Would the Repukes be so behind Vargus & Ricci if they were |
|
refused their jobs because they were gay?
|
The Velveteen Ocelot
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-16-09 02:03 PM
Response to Original message |
|
Gay people, people of color, women, are not "normal" people who want jobs. They are "special" people who want "special" rights to have some of the jobs that the "normal" people -- straight, white men -- have always had and are therefore entitled always to have.
Right?
:puke:
|
imdjh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-16-09 02:04 PM
Response to Original message |
2. Make a case for your equation, if you wouldn't mind. |
|
Are you asking if they would be behind these men if they were refused promotions because the only people who scored well enough on the test were gay?
|
zbdent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-16-09 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
4. no, I am asking if the Repukes would be supporting these two if |
|
they were gay, and due to "discrimination" by Sotomayor, they were denied the job that they, otherwise, were more than qualified to do.
You know, like a bunch of Arabic-fluent translators ...
Would the Repugs stand behind them if Judge Sotomayor was the deciding vote which denied them the job?
|
imdjh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-16-09 03:27 PM
Response to Reply #4 |
5. Probably not, but that doesn't make them wrong about this. |
|
If those firefighters were denied promotions because they were gay, then hopefully the Democrats would be trying to take a piece out of Sotomayor for it.
Look, they have one righteous and one irritatingly supportable complaint about her. They're working it. That's all it is. Lindsey Graham, POS that he is, is correct that if he had made the "wise white man" remark, his ass would be chewed six ways to Sunday by the press ad by liberals. Do you deny that?
So they have two griping points- one of which is irrelevant because she was overruled, and appellate judges are overruled all the time. One of which is a social faux pas which hardly rises to the level of disqualification. Don't get worked up about it, but also don't go out on a limb on it at the expense of reason.
|
zbdent
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-16-09 03:42 PM
Response to Reply #5 |
6. what cracks me up is that the case could be made that she was |
|
discriminating against non-whites ... since they found ONE case where they could make this come even close to sticking ... like a dog with a bone ...
As I understand it, there were a huge number of cases where she ruled against the "minorities" ... many of them, probably "Wise Latinos/Latinas" in their own respects ...
Imagine if the majority of her decisions were FOR the plaintiffs in those cases ...
|
imdjh
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-16-09 03:52 PM
Response to Reply #6 |
7. It's like Oscar Wilde allegedly said- |
|
Paraphrasing him: You can make love to women all your life and no one calls your a lover of women, but suck one dick and you’re a queer forever.
|
BOSSHOG
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jul-16-09 02:04 PM
Response to Original message |
3. Republicans are way too funny |
|
They bring Ricci in for EMPATHY!!
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Mon Oct 06th 2025, 12:25 AM
Response to Original message |