BF2S Forums Obama picks Hispanic Woman for Supreme Court.

Man With No Name wrote:

lowing wrote:

Man With No Name wrote:

lowing, your first post in this thread addressed something you brought up.  you were looking for an argument just so you could play that same broken record.

Nope, I was looking for an explination as to how a poor person could achieve her level of success. Affirmative action didn't do it. It just opened doors. SHe still had to be self motviated and ambitious and hard working. Something you all atribute to mere luck or fortune. Because rich people are just lucky or fortunate and drive ambition work ethic etc.... does not play a part in massing wealth.

The woman worked hard, did not let or wait for a socialist to hand her anything that belonged to someone else ( except opportunity based on race)

again,  dont be a fucking prick and bunch me up with the rest of "you all" bullshit.  dont be a jerk

you were looking for an explanation to something no body even brought up in the thread.  You started off abrasive, arguing with an authorless post.

The report button is not a chat button.

If you take offense to the term La Raza you should be arguing against the nominee as she is a member. Do you even know what they are about or is this just the usual trolling non-sense?

Okay, I warned you. I asked you nicely. I reported your troll nonsense instead of dealing with it myself.

You can't quit, can you?

Now I just helped you quit.

Good luck in life and God's speed.

lowing wrote:

The woman worked hard, did not let or wait for a socialist to hand her anything that belonged to someone else ( except opportunity based on race)

Your forgetting the housing project she grew up in...

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

The woman worked hard, did not let or wait for a socialist to hand her anything that belonged to someone else ( except opportunity based on race)

Your forgetting the housing project she grew up in...

Tell ya what Aussie, from here on out, either address the post and the point made, and in the context it was made or leave it alone. I can't lie, I am growing tired of your bubbalo approach to debating.

ATG wrote:

NCLR is engaged in many immigration issues including Comprehensive Immigration Reform, state and local police enforcement of immigration laws, the DREAM Act, AgJOBS, driver’s license access for immigrants, and post 9-11 civil liberties.

http://www.nclr.org/content/topics/detail/500/


Fucking hell.

In addition to her work on the bench, Judge Sotomayor is an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law and a lecturer-in-law at Columbia Law School. She is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York Women’s Bar Association, the Puerto Rican Bar Association, the Hispanic National Bar Association, the Association of Judges of Hispanic Heritage, and the National Council of La Raza.

http://www.abanet.org/publiced/hispanic_s.html


La Raza. This fact make her not just a bad choice, but a dangerous one.

She's an activist judge.  And a bad one too.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Please tell us again why you're not:

A) The richest man in America

B) President

The doors are there - why did you not walk through them?

A) didn't work hard enough for it

B) not a personal goal

chose not to, laziness, different goals, and failure.

There is not law in place that forbids me the opportunity to become anything I want. It is all choice.

Your choices determain your opportunities or do you think you should not be held accountable for your choices. Do you feel you should reap the rewards for someone elses choices that were made for themselves?

Ya see I believe in equal opportunity, not equal results. What do you believe in?

Last edited by lowing (2009-05-29 07:29:34)

lowing wrote:

Already did, be it affirmative action, or being white ( in your eyes) the opportunities are there, it is STILL up to the individual to make the choice to embrace that opportunity and succeed.

IF she did not do so, and some how her life came into discussion, you would be arguing that she had no chance, "the man" keeps her down.

In fact, the chance and the choice is there for all of us, in many forms. Take advantage of it and succeed or let it go and bitch about how you have nothing and how life isn't "fair", or how the rich are greedy. This woman made her choice, and others make theirs.

The advantage she took was a public housing system paid for by the tax payers.

I thought you didn't like the concept of the poor stealing from the rich. You even said that now she is rich, her money is being stolen by those below her.

So are you for or against the types of programs that she was able to gain fair footing, and then obviously exceed based on her own merits? Is all I'd like to know from you.

There would be no chance and opportunity or fairness had she not been given government assistance as a child.

Last edited by AussieReaper (2009-05-29 07:46:50)

lowing wrote:

You are trying to distort my point. Which is affirmative action for better or for worse is an opportunity, it is not a choice. THe choice still belongs to the individual. and you should live and die by your choice, not the choice of others.

Sorry, I was not trying to distort your point of affirmative action, it just seems you can't give much constancy to your "it was personal ambition" "it was affirmative action" or "it was a hard working family" explanation as to how she managed to make it to her current position.

And what affirmative action was it that got her through school and into law school?

lowing wrote:

Now to address YOUR point ( which is different from mine). I am against any program that is set up to favor one race over another, this is called discrimination. Yes even for white people.

She wasn't favoured over one race or another when her family received housing affordability from the government. Paid for by the tax payer. Out of the pockets of hard working income earners. "Stolen" - I believe is the term you've often used to describe such a scenario.

lowing wrote:

I have never said anything that suggests I am against helping people that help themselves. From what I have read, this family lost their father when she was 9 and her mother WORKED two jobs and puched positive work ethic and values on her children. This family without a doubt contributed to their own success. This was not a handout. It is a success story.

But she did get a handout, her whole family got a handout. Read above. They would be living on the street without leeching off the tax payers. Correct?

lowing wrote:

Now I will thank you to explain to me how every family given the same affirmative action opportunites are not supreme court judges. My opinion is, is because individual choice did not allow for such an outcome. What is your opinion?

Individual choices did not allow for such an outcome? If you think that all families are given the same affirmative opportunities, then you've gone back again to your all it takes is ambition line. Which is odd, considering a paragraph ago you said "From what I have read, this family lost their father when she was 9 and her mother WORKED two jobs and puched positive work ethic and values on her children. This family without a doubt contributed to their own success. This was not a handout. It is a success story"

So, my argument is that personal ambition is rendered totally useless if a) the government does not provide opportunity to the less fortunate. In this case it was affordable housing. And that b) personal ambition fails when the family cannot contribute to their own success as hers did. Her mother pulled off an extremely difficult job no doubt. But not every mother is able to do that. You are spot on when you said it was a success story. It was a success story because it is so difficult to achieve.

But it was a success story built on the success of others before her. Those who had given tax dollars to her and her family when they were below the average income and were struggling. Personal ambition alone could not have given her the opportunities she was afforded without help from the government and her family.

usmarine wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Personal ambition alone could not have given her the opportunities she was afforded without help from the government and her family.

she could have joined the military.  been a lawyer and had law school all but payed for.

And shot and killed in the line of duty.

What-ifs are fun.

usmarine wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

usmarine wrote:

she could have joined the military.  been a lawyer and had law school all but payed for.

And shot and killed in the line of duty.

What-ifs are fun.

erm...your example is a what if.  what combat would she have been in?

My example was not a what if, but moving on...

Would you have wanted her to join the military at age 9? Because that was when she was living in a housing project.

Yeah, I guess they would accept her these days. But back then? Man, I don't know.

AussieReaper wrote:

lowing wrote:

You are trying to distort my point. Which is affirmative action for better or for worse is an opportunity, it is not a choice. THe choice still belongs to the individual. and you should live and die by your choice, not the choice of others.

Sorry, I was not trying to distort your point of affirmative action, it just seems you can't give much constancy to your "it was personal ambition" "it was affirmative action" or "it was a hard working family" explanation as to how she managed to make it to her current position.

And what affirmative action was it that got her through school and into law school?

lowing wrote:

Now to address YOUR point ( which is different from mine). I am against any program that is set up to favor one race over another, this is called discrimination. Yes even for white people.

She wasn't favoured over one race or another when her family received housing affordability from the government. Paid for by the tax payer. Out of the pockets of hard working income earners. "Stolen" - I believe is the term you've often used to describe such a scenario.

lowing wrote:

I have never said anything that suggests I am against helping people that help themselves. From what I have read, this family lost their father when she was 9 and her mother WORKED two jobs and puched positive work ethic and values on her children. This family without a doubt contributed to their own success. This was not a handout. It is a success story.

But she did get a handout, her whole family got a handout. Read above. They would be living on the street without leeching off the tax payers. Correct?

lowing wrote:

Now I will thank you to explain to me how every family given the same affirmative action opportunites are not supreme court judges. My opinion is, is because individual choice did not allow for such an outcome. What is your opinion?

Individual choices did not allow for such an outcome? If you think that all families are given the same affirmative opportunities, then you've gone back again to your all it takes is ambition line. Which is odd, considering a paragraph ago you said "From what I have read, this family lost their father when she was 9 and her mother WORKED two jobs and puched positive work ethic and values on her children. This family without a doubt contributed to their own success. This was not a handout. It is a success story"

So, my argument is that personal ambition is rendered totally useless if a) the government does not provide opportunity to the less fortunate. In this case it was affordable housing. And that b) personal ambition fails when the family cannot contribute to their own success as hers did. Her mother pulled off an extremely difficult job no doubt. But not every mother is able to do that. You are spot on when you said it was a success story. It was a success story because it is so difficult to achieve.

But it was a success story built on the success of others before her. Those who had given tax dollars to her and her family when they were below the average income and were struggling. Personal ambition alone could not have given her the opportunities she was afforded without help from the government and her family.

1. I am consistant, affirmative action is different than personal choice. I explained this clearly. The opportunity could have still been there WITHOUT the choice of taking advantage of it.as a result of that CHOICE, she could have easily stayed ghetto trash. She didn't. Her ambition and drive is still the key to her success, not the affirmative action. Affirmative action did not get her through law school, it might have gotten her to it, but again the choice was hers to go to law school as well as exel at it. Affirmative acion had nothing to do with it. It is time you give up struggling with this fact.

She was favored over another race through affirmative action, this is unmistakeable. THe right or wrong of it might be in dispute, but that fact is not.
I am for helping anyone that helps themselves, I have said this in every thread on this topic. In fact you will not see any inconsistency to that point. If they are living in govt. housing and are making no attempt to better themselves, they should be tossed out on the street, with a big fuck you. This family helped themselves.

Any family that works along with the taxpayer trying to help is not getting a handout, they are working for it, it is  hand up.

lowing wrote:

If they are living in govt. housing and are making no attempt to better themselves, they should be tossed out on the street, with a big fuck you.

I guess it was too much to expect anything better than such a fascist remark coming from you.