 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Toyota / Toyota Cars / May 2009{OT} First an affirmative action Prez....now an AA SC justice?
Can't you libs find anyone of value?  SignatureScott in Florida > Can't you libs find anyone of value? AA? Be specific about how you're using that abbreviation. >> Can't you libs find anyone of value? > > AA? Be specific about how you're using that abbreviation. You're right. I think he meant a.s. >>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >> >> AA? Be specific about how you're using that abbreviation. > > You're right. I think he meant a.s. Whatever. I doubt he meant "affirmative action", even though the words are in the subject line. >>>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Whatever. I doubt he meant "affirmative action", even though the words are > in the subject line. Why would you think anything other than affirmative action? >>>>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Why would you think anything other than affirmative action? In the past, he's made it perfectly clear that he thinks Obama would never have gotten into his college without affirmative action. The sot believes blacks can't do anything without affirmative action. >>>>>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > have gotten into his college without affirmative action. The sot believes > blacks can't do anything without affirmative action. That makes no sense when it follows what you said earlier -- "Whatever, I doubt he meant affirmative action." AND Sotomayor herself has said that affirmative action is good, AND she ruled that a minority that failed a test that would lead to his promotion within the fire department should be promoted anyway, even though he failed the test. He should be promoted BECAUSE he's a minority, and the white guys that passed the test should not be promoted because they are not minorities. There is no other way to describe her other than, affirmative action. Well, Liberal describes her, too. >>>>>>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > There is no other way to describe her other than, affirmative action. > Well, Liberal describes her, too. The Sot meant to say nigger. You know that as well as I do. We're talking about the same old crank who called the president "Black Berry", and then tried to claim he was calling him a communications device. > The Sot meant to say nigger. You know that as well as I do. We're talking > about the same old crank who called the president "Black Berry", and then > tried to claim he was calling him a communications device. Call the nurses, you need more meds. >> The Sot meant to say nigger. You know that as well as I do. We're talking >> about the same old crank who called the president "Black Berry", and then >> tried to claim he was calling him a communications device. > > Call the nurses, you need more meds. How do YOU interpret his use of "Black Berry", when you combine that with his comments about how Obama couldn't have gotten where he is now without affirmative action? >>> The Sot meant to say nigger. You know that as well as I do. We're >>> talking about the same old crank who called the president "Black Berry", [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > his comments about how Obama couldn't have gotten where he is now without > affirmative action? Nobody is talking about his use of Black Berry except you. We're talking about Sotomayor and affirmative action. Try to keep up, will you? FOR THE RECORD If he was talking about Obama, he'd have used the term, Black Barry. I'm offended that you used the word, nigger, to describe the President of the United States. You really should consider more carefully any inference you wish to make. I find it far better to stick to facts than invent sh.t from thin air. >>>> The Sot meant to say nigger. You know that as well as I do. We're >>>> talking about the same old crank who called the president "Black [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > wish to make. I find it far better to stick to facts than invent sh.t from > thin air. Read the last 8 messages and see if you can figure out how we got the this point. There is absolutely NOTHING out of context AT THIS POINT. You get lost too easily. >>>>> The Sot meant to say nigger. You know that as well as I do. We're >>>>> talking about the same old crank who called the president "Black [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > point. There is absolutely NOTHING out of context AT THIS POINT. You get > lost too easily. JOE SAID AA? Be specific about how you're using that abbreviation /Joe You forgot what you are talking about. >>>>> The Sot meant to say nigger. You know that as well as I do. We're >>>>> talking about the same old crank who called the president "Black [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > point. There is absolutely NOTHING out of context AT THIS POINT. You get > lost too easily. Try talking about Sotomayor, not Scott. >>>>>> The Sot meant to say nigger. You know that as well as I do. We're >>>>>> talking about the same old crank who called the president "Black [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Try talking about Sotomayor, not Scott. Why? Let the Sot off the hook for his racist remarks? Not a chance. The Sot uses the no-archive feature to make sure his sewage vanishes quickly. Luckily, there are still ways to find his sewage. ==================== Scott in Florida wrote: > On Sat, 28 Feb 2009 22:24:39 -0800 (PST), "larry moe 'n curly" > <larrymoencu...@my-deja.com> wrote: > >> It could not be affirmative action....could it? > >He didn't take advantage of affirmative action. > Oh? > Cite....... ==================== http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.toyota/browse_thread/thread/c1b3d36c149 ac6a3/2fab93ceb97aca1b?lnk=gst&q=%22black+berry%22#2fab93ceb97aca1b >> Try talking about Sotomayor, not Scott. > > Why? Let the Sot off the hook for his racist remarks? Not a chance. The > Sot uses the no-archive feature to make sure his sewage vanishes quickly. > Luckily, there are still ways to find his sewage. I don't know anything about letting Scott off the hook -- I'm not even sure he was on the hook, but I digress as you do. The issue here before us is that Scott started the thread with an attack on the nominee for the Supreme Court by asserting she is a product of affirmative action. YOU asked him to clarify his use of AA to denote affirmative action. YOU didn't even challenge whether she is a product of affirmative action, YOU only asked him to clarify his use of AA as shorthand. Now you are off on an entirely different tangent that you drug out because you could not support your ludicrous position with regard to Sotomayor and AA (affirmative action). YOU are the one that has gone off the deep end here, not Scott. So, try talking about Sotomayor and her benifitting from AA. More importantly, talk about her use of AA to screw people ... Clearly Obama is a product of affirmative action. So is Michelle. Malia and Sasha are not products of affirmative action, yet. I hope they never become products of affirmative action. >>> Try talking about Sotomayor, not Scott. >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > and Sasha are not products of affirmative action, yet. I hope they never > become products of affirmative action. Why do you think Obama is CLEARLY A PRODUCT OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION? In what way, and what is your source of information? >> The Sot meant to say nigger. You know that as well as I do. We're talking >> about the same old crank who called the president "Black Berry", and then >> tried to claim he was calling him a communications device. > >Call the nurses, you need more meds. Boy these liberals are hung up on race. They can't see that they elected an incompetent arse hole... Nobody can call Bambi what he really is,,,,,cause he is BLACK? SignatureScott in Florida >>> The Sot meant to say nigger. You know that as well as I do. We're >>> talking [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Nobody can call Bambi what he really is,,,,,cause he is BLACK? Pay attention, Strickland. This is the Sot you're trying so hard to protect from his own words. >>>>>>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > There is no other way to describe her other than, affirmative action. Well, > Liberal describes her, too. Interesting. I've always thought the left-wing were those who thought blacks couldn't make college without affirmative action. Me? I've always thought those who scored best on entrance exams should be admitted. Make the tests "color blind". No problem. >> AND Sotomayor herself has said that affirmative action is good, AND she >> ruled that a minority that failed a test that would lead to his promotion [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > No problem. The good Judge herself seems to not be color blind at all, indeed her own statements are such that she would weigh her ruling against the color of the participants. Justice is blind, except for Sotomayor. > AND Sotomayor herself has said that affirmative action is good, So did Republicans Jack Kemp and George Schultz. >> AND Sotomayor herself has said that affirmative action is good, > > So did Republicans Jack Kemp and George Schultz. Don't forget Don Simmons, another happy AA Republican. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WICfZ4_V-ys > >> AND Sotomayor herself has said that affirmative action is good, > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WICfZ4_V-ys Not as hip as ten-time adulterer and acne-medication fraudster Pat Boone: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoMwhm-OOg8 Another sketch I like from Amazon Women on the Moon is Reckless Youth, a parody of 1930s health films (former title: Are These Our Loins?). The only version I've found on YouTube is in Spanish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eZNBCYmaeFc >> >> AND Sotomayor herself has said that affirmative action is good, >> > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoMwhm-OOg8 Oh no.... This is what my guitarist calls "white guy syndrome", but way over the top. >>>>>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >have gotten into his college without affirmative action. The sot believes >blacks can't do anything without affirmative action. Wrong moose breath. There are MANY blacks that can and do great things. This empty suit Bambi ain't one of them. SignatureScott in Florida >>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >> >> AA? Be specific about how you're using that abbreviation. > > You're right. I think he meant a.s. We talking about Joey again? <SEG> Charles Grozny >> Can't you libs find anyone of value? > > AA? Affirmative Action. >>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >> >> AA? > >Affirmative Action. Ding Ding Ding..... SignatureScott in Florida > Can't you libs find anyone of value? Did you hear her acceptance speech? She's an idiot. She said, our laws are the basis of our freedoms. The reality is, our freedoms are the basis of our laws. We constrain the law under our system, she says the law constrains us. >> Can't you libs find anyone of value? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >freedoms are the basis of our laws. We constrain the law under our system, >she says the law constrains us. She is more than an idiot.... SignatureScott in Florida >> Can't you libs find anyone of value? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > freedoms are the basis of our laws. We constrain the law under our system, > she says the law constrains us. Not really. Based on your logic, there's no need for the Supreme Court. >>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not really. Based on your logic, there's no need for the Supreme Court. We're free because we're free. We need the Supreme Court because the law encroaches on our freedom. If we were free because the law said so, THEN we'd not need the Supreme Court. Based on MY logic, we most certainly do need the Court because without the court, the law would take our freedom away. With Sotomayor, we are on the edge of the law taking our freedom because she says that our freedom is derived from the law. >>>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >>> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > edge of the law taking our freedom because she says that our freedom is > derived from the law. OK. > > Can't you libs find anyone of value? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > freedoms are the basis of our laws. We constrain the law under our system, > she says the law constrains us. I'd be surprised if she were to be confirmed, but with the dimmies in firm control, she most likely will. Had a white guy said some of the things she's said, he would not even get into the running, not to mention saving his job at a lower court. But, she's a woman and a minority. So the rules don't apply. In 30 or 40 years (or less) the white minority will once again rule. Signature"What we've got here is failure to communicate" "The Captain" >> Can't you libs find anyone of value? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > freedoms are the basis of our laws. We constrain the law under our system, > she says the law constrains us. Excellent response. >>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Excellent response. It'll take Hannity and Limbaugh a couple of days to catch up to that one. >>>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It'll take Hannity and Limbaugh a couple of days to catch up to that one. No matter. You'd have to be a moron to disagree with your statement. The Constitution and Declaration are corroborative. >>>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > It'll take Hannity and Limbaugh a couple of days to catch up to that one. If only it was as simple as you crave. > "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> It'll take Hannity and Limbaugh a couple of days to catch up to that one. > > If only it was as simple as you crave. I can't wait to see the Republican party alienate even more voters, if that's even possible, by opposing her just for the sake of opposing her. Compared to someone like Clarence Thomas, her qualifications are far higher. >> "Jeff Strickland" <crwlrjeff@yahoo.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Compared to someone like Clarence Thomas, her qualifications are far > higher. I was referring to Stickland's desperate screams for simplicity when he attempted to sound like a legal scholar. > Can't you libs find anyone of value? Forget the supposed affirmative action baloney. GWB's nomination of Harriet Miers ring a bell? One has to assume that this nomination was more thoroughly thought out than that one was. Cathy > > Can't you libs find anyone of value? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Cathy After her, GWB with his infinite wisdom and intellect rolled out his REAL FIRST choice and he was confirmed with little doubt. LOL!! The idiot dims should have gone with her, for their own sake. They were too dumb to see it however. We conservatives were elated. Signature"What we've got here is failure to communicate" "The Captain" >> > Can't you libs find anyone of value? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > After her, GWB with his infinite wisdom and intellect rolled out his > REAL FIRST choice and he was confirmed with little doubt. LOL!! Did you type that with a straight, deadpan face? Cathy > The idiot dims should have gone with her, for their own sake. They were > too dumb to see it however. We conservatives were elated. > Forget the supposed affirmative action baloney. > > GWB's nomination of Harriet Miers ring a bell? One has to assume that this > nomination was more thoroughly thought out than that one was. Rather amusing that GWB set the bar so low for Supreme Court justices that we marvel at the fact that Obama has nominated someone that is actually qualified to sit on the court. Let's just hope that during his eight years he's able to nominate several more justices, and not ones like Clarance Thomas! >> Forget the supposed affirmative action baloney. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Let's just hope that during his eight years he's able to nominate several > more justices, and not ones like Clarance Note: Clarence (looked too much like "clearance"!) > Thomas! Never mind the hearings that went along w/his nomination! Cathy >>> Forget the supposed affirmative action baloney. >>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >Cathy The left showed their true selves during that fiasco. SignatureScott in Florida >>>> Forget the supposed affirmative action baloney. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > The left showed their true selves during that fiasco. They started Borking nomimees when Robert Bork aka the guy responsible for the Saturday Night Massacre in the Nixon administration was nominated. The Loonie Liberal Left couldn't forget their hatred of him, they never forgave him for the Massacre. That's where it all started. Serves them right if the Repubs Bork their nominee. Charles Grozny >> Can't you libs find anyone of value? > >Forget the supposed affirmative action baloney. It is NOT baloney.... She is a terrible pick. >GWB's nomination of Harriet Miers ring a bell? One has to assume that this >nomination was more thoroughly thought out than that one was. This woman that Bambi picked is FAR worse than the terrible choice of Harriet Miers. Now will Bambi withdraw her nomination? If he is as smart as you think he is....he will. >Cathy > SignatureScott in Florida >>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > She is a terrible pick. Why, exactly? Enumerate the reasons she's so horrible. >>GWB's nomination of Harriet Miers ring a bell? One has to assume that >>this >>nomination was more thoroughly thought out than that one was. > > This woman that Bambi picked is FAR worse than the terrible choice of > Harriet Miers. Why? Cathy Now will Bambi withdraw her nomination? > If he is as smart as you think he is....he will. > >>Cathy >>>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Why, exactly? Enumerate the reasons she's so horrible. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfC99LrrM2Q http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us/15judge.html http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=45d56e6f-f497-4b19-9c63-04e10199a085 >>>GWB's nomination of Harriet Miers ring a bell? One has to assume that >>>this [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >>>Cathy > SignatureScott in Florida >> Can't you libs find anyone of value? > > Forget the supposed affirmative action baloney. > > GWB's nomination of Harriet Miers ring a bell? One has to assume that this > nomination was more thoroughly thought out than that one was. Oh, it was. It was. It was a masterful piece of misdirection. Roberts and Alito are the result. >>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >It was a masterful piece of misdirection. Roberts and Alito are the result. Could Bambi be doing the same? Nah....he does not have the brain power...... SignatureScott in Florida >>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > It was a masterful piece of misdirection. Roberts and Alito are the > result. Oh, right; let's look like an idiot first time out so that I can get in who I really want in there. Uh-huh... Cathy >>>> Can't you libs find anyone of value? >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Oh, right; let's look like an idiot first time out so that I can get in who > I really want in there. Uh-huh... Yeah. THAT'S the accurate analysis. Uh-huh. >Can't you libs find anyone of value? So when Bush nominated her and the republicans confirmed her she wasn't of value? NEAT! Signaturegburnore@databasix dot com --------------------------------------------------------------------------- How you look depends on where you go. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³ | ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³ Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase =========================================================================== Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com =========================================================================== |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.