Here we go again ...

She said, QUOTE: "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."

How do those words mean anything different than... "A female latina judge can judge better than a white male"?

Please, do break it down for all of us who seem to understand the obvious, Mr. You-Can't-Comprehend.

Rather good piece on this ruling - http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/30/op...html?th&emc=th

She said exactly what she meant. I agree aramike, there is not skirting what she really meant.

Need a shovel to get your head out of the sand?

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/au...sotomayor.html

Need help reading much?

Its called paraprhasing its the interwebs get over it.

No doubt in my mind that is what she meant.

But again I risk looking a fool by arguing so have a nice day. :salute:

Notice how Tribesman completely ignored KSII's post explaining the entire paragraph. Furthermore, clearly he doesn't understand what paraphrasing is.

Alas, it is Tribesman's MO to claim "context" despite the fact that the context is correct, and then claim that everyone BUT him can't read, comprehend, etc.

So yeah, you're right. It's pointless to debate something with Tribesman, as it is clearly difficult to explain simple concepts to someone who cannot grasp that a sentence has a meaning unto itself.

It is not ignored at all.
:har::har::har::har:
What was she talking about aramike?
What are you ridiculously claiming she was talking about?
:har::har::har::har:
Even when it it is surrounded by conditionals.
Even when it doesn't mean what you claim it means and isn't even about what you think it is.
Read the statement again and try and understand why it cannot possibly mean what you claim it means .




What specificly is she talking about?

:yawn:

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that part of Tribesman's MO - use copious amounts of :har: to disguise the fact that he has no idea what he's talking about.

To quote KSII (who you claim to not have ignored):Oh lookie: CONTEXT.

Kinda back on topic, my chief problem with Sotomayor is that she seems to drag the issue of race everywhere she goes.

I believe that someone on the Supreme Court of the US should NEVER look at skin color and/or heritage when judging a case, or even characterizing a person. There is nothing more irrelevent to someone's actions and qualifications than the tone of their skin.

You demonstrate that you havn't the faintest idea what you are talking about, you also demonstrate that you don't know what Soto was talking about .
Not surprising really.

Why does that word baffle you ?
Its a simple word to understand, just like quote and fact are simple to understand

In the post you just quoted I wasn't referring only to the Sotomayor speech in question. Didn't understand the context, huh?It doesn't. You're the one saying that the context is different than what it is agreed to be, by nearly everyone here, the media, the White House, and - guess who - Sotomayor! http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ple-occasions/

I refuse to discuss this further with someone who's disillusioned enough to actually believe that everyone else is wrong (including the originator of the quote) and he's right. She said a sentence. It meant what it said. In the context of the paragraph, it STILL meant what it said. No one but you is arguing context, and you're making a fool out of yourself by insisting upon doing so. Her speech may have made a couple of contradicting points regarding this, but that doesn't change the context - that just means she was poorly communicating her point (which she has since stated).

That's all I have to say on this subject. The proof is there, and the fact that it was a poor choice of words, and NOT context, is the explanation from the originator of the quote herself.

Game. Set. Match.

:har::har::har::har:
And in each case she has been refering to one specific thing.
Thats called context.

Come on Aramike its an easy question , what was she talking about?
Is the fact that if you actually answer that question your whole line of "reasoning" falls apart what is holding you up ?
Or is it that you simply can't answer the question?

Since she never said it meant what you said it meant then you are just showing your lack of comprehension again.

Yes she did , but you cannot understand what it meant or what it was about which is where the problem arises.

Congratulations , you just shot yourself in the foot.:up:

Sure, buddy.

Anyone who makes sense want to talk about this?

Well did not take long for this thread to bottom out. :nope:

Yeah but it's funny! :haha:

Its a shame really.

Seems like a couple of people got into a epeen measuring contest and totally lost sight of the issue at hand.

Personally I recognize futility when I see it.

But thats buisness as usuall around here it seems.

Hey man, I do what I can to kill time when the workload is light. :cool:

But yeah, at some point I should stop responding to the guy pointing at the sky insisting that it's purple, as it is useless to keep arguing with such a person. :up: