There's only one problem with the ignore function--it tempts you to peek at the hidden posts. Alright Oxlar, in the interests of giving you a fair hearing, I'll respond and explain why I took offense, but I hardly think you and I are ever going to understand each other.
WTH? Let me break down what I said and try to find out what it is that upsets you so much that you feel the need to put me on the ignore list and try and besmirch my opinion by equating me to a fan of Rush.
There is no question that the robbery was a crime.
You don't think the robbery was a crime? Maybe its just a couple of kids playing cops and robbers?
I think the robbery was a crime. The pharmacy is in a bad neighborhood. It's been robbed before. It will be robbed again. You can shoot all the black teenagers you want, but you won't change that until you change the reasons it's happening.
Those kids are old enough to know right from wrong.
You some how find it offensive that someone would think a 15 year old kid would know right from wrong?
More debatable, but I didn't find this assertion offensive, just oversimplified.
Do the crime, do the time.
You must then believe that some people should be allowed to do 'the crime' without being held accountable? This statement is offensive to you?
Must I then believe that? I don't think so.
Your interpretation of what I said is totally twisted. You'll not find one word in any of my posts that says I think people should commit crimes and not be held accountable. What I said was I thought it was hard to say the boy deserved to die because he went into a pharmacy with a gun he never fired. (I also said the druggist had a clear right to defend himself, btw.)
And while being killed in the execution of a crime by a civilian is a consequence of the kid's action for which he has certainly been held accountable, it's completely different from being convicted in a courtroom and serving a sentence('doing the time.') But I wasn't offended by the illogic of the terms as the gist was understandable.
Equal justice means equal justice regardless of race, social status, or money. I don't want rulings based off of them being black or living in a poor neighborhood or that they didn't have a father at home. Thats all garbage.
So you don't believe in the oath taken by supreme court justices? This is what the lady of scales represents in our justice system. She is blind and should apply the law with no regard to such factors.
Where did I ever say the law shouldn't be applied regardless of color or whatever? I do find the words ending in"That's all garbage" to be judgmental and offensive, and that's where I started to get mad, yes. Are you saying a teenager being shot down by a druggist is a case of our justice system applying blind justice? Because vigilanteism is not the rule of law, it's the rule of the jungle.
This is the kind of social based rulings that I fear from someone like sotomayor being confirmed.
Fear, indeed. I'm sure you do. Since this is pretty much a straight Limbaugh quote, and the talking point of every right wingnut blog and talk show, I think I can be excused for my reference. And this is where I began to get
extremely offended.
This happens to be a very relevant topic right now.
Yes, it is, but not to this thread. But since you started it...
You started espousing reprocations based off of social, educational, economic, and racial status. This is the ideology that Judge sotomayor has implied exists via her own words or actions.
No, I didn't. (WTF is a reprocation? Whatever it is, I can't recall espousing one.) And no, it isn't. There's not one shred of proof that Sotomayor has made legal decisions due to an identity politics ideology. To the contrary:
From a piece by Tom Goldstein on the
SCOTUSblog(My bold)
I’ve now completed the study of every one of Judge Sotomayor’s race-related cases that I mention in the post below. I’ll write more in the morning about particular cases, but here is what the data shows in sum:
Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.
Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous...Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissent’s point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.
Link to full article
But of course, to those who are demonstrating the knee-jerk negative response, her actual rulings in 96 cases, how she applies the laws, etc aren't as important as a gaffe she made 8 years ago.
And somehow, I am equated to someone who you feel has negative social connotations. Well I don't like rush, never have.
Glad to hear it--hard to tell from your remarks, which as I said, are almost word for word Limbaugh or other winger quotes. There's no one out there you could find that has more negative social connotations to me.
But just because I have an opinion that differs from you does not mean that you hold a trump card on my relevance.
No indeed, and I uphold your right to freedom of speech. Your views would be the trump card regarding your relevance, which to me is nonexistant, but I defend your right to hold them regardless. I just don't find it productive to try to talk people out of mindsets that diverge so dramatically from mine, and my blood pressure is an issue these days, hence the ignore thing.
Should I assume that your a student of William Ayers because of your views? No. That would be preposterous.
Correct. I never had the money to attend the University of Illinois and study under Professor Ayers.
I'm stunned that you would take offense to those things I said.
Somehow I doubt that. I think the point of what you said was to get my goat.
The only thing I can think of is that your a HUGE obama fan and feel you must attack anyone who doesn't fall in line with his agenda. Thus when I say I disagree with the sotomayor appointment, you went all ape nutz on me. ....
It has nothing in particular to do with Obama, though I do like him. I'm more a huge fan of keeping an open mind and keeping in touch with reality. I dislike race, class and gender bias intensely. It's a hot button for me, and it's on obvious display in the "empathetic, activist, racist" criticisms of Sotomayor, whether you can see it or not. There may very well be genuine reasons why Sotomayor isn't the right person for the job, but gender-biased accusations of "emotional, social based" rulings are not one of them. Your disdain for her is far more revealing of you than her--you can't even bring yourself to capitalize her name.
And that's enough off-topic for me, and enough explanation.
