Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 87

Thread: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

  1. #11
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    As usual, Raw Story is twisting the facts to make it seem much worse than it is. If you read his statement in context, he's not saying that there are "too many jews" on the SC, but simply that it's disproportionately populated by jews, leading other groups to be underrepresented.

    We've heard the exact same things said by people who said the court was disproportionately white, disproportionately male, or disproportionately catholic. No one seemed to get riled up over those statements, so I'm not sure why this is a big deal.
    Umm for a couple reasons:
    1. White males are not an historically oppressed group.
    2. Pat Buchanan is not on record making many other nasty comments about white males.

    If you don't see why this is offensive, then it's because you are choosing to cover your eyes to it.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  2. #12
    free market communist
    Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Last Seen
    09-30-17 @ 12:27 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    26,661

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    As usual, Raw Story is twisting the facts to make it seem much worse than it is. If you read his statement in context, he's not saying that there are "too many jews" on the SC, but simply that it's disproportionately populated by jews, leading other groups to be underrepresented.

    We've heard the exact same things said by people who said the court was disproportionately white, disproportionately male, or disproportionately catholic. No one seemed to get riled up over those statements, so I'm not sure why this is a big deal.
    There is a disproportionate amount of sophistry in your reply.
    "you're better off on Stormfront discussing how evil brown men are taking innocent white flowers." Infinite Chaos

  3. #13
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Umm for a couple reasons:
    1. White males are not an historically oppressed group.
    2. Pat Buchanan is not on record making many other nasty comments about white males.

    If you don't see why this is offensive, then it's because you are choosing to cover your eyes to it.
    Quote Originally Posted by Gardener View Post
    There is a disproportionate amount of sophistry in your reply.
    Read the actual article rather than the Raw Story summary: Are liberals anti-WASP?

    It's standard partisan crap, directed at accusing the left of being bigoted against Christians while pushing their own twisted version of diversity. It's not particularly well written, nor is it insightful. However, nothing in that article even comes close to claiming that there are "too many Jews" in the way that people in this thread are claiming.

    Activists on the left said nearly identical things about Catholics when Roberts and Alito were nominated, but nobody seemed to give a **** then.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #14
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post

    No, it's absolutely not. "Too many" is a normative statement, while "disproportionately populated" is a factual statement.

    Again, why doesn't anyone bat an eye when people point out that there are disproportionate numbers of whites, men, and Catholics on the court? Could it be because people such as yourself don't want to score political points against the speakers of those statements?
    BS!
    "Too many" is a Relative statement, OBVIOUSLY, "too many" relative to the total number
    and he says in the article in question... lest there be any doubt:

    "...If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2% of the U.S. population, will have 33% of the Supreme Court seats.
    Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?..."


    So he IS saying "Too many" relative to the total/IN PERCENT. Percent is NOT 'Nominative', it's Relative.
    And even without his specifically stated percent.... There is no "too many" without knowing there are Nine total.

    I believe the current term of art is "Duh!".


    I don't particularly like Pat Buchanan and don't give a **** about the other things he's said. I'm pointing out the hypocrisy on display, regardless of who's being smeared.
    And I don't care who on the board says it, a mod or not. I'll point out Doublespeak when I see it.
    -
    Last edited by mbig; 05-16-10 at 02:46 AM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  5. #15
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by mbig View Post
    BS!
    "Too many" is a Relative statement, OBVIOUSLY, ("too many" relative to the total number) and he says inj the article in question... lest there be any doubt:

    "...If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2% of the U.S. population, will have 33% of the Supreme Court seats.

    Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?..."


    So he IS saying "Too many" relative to the total. There is no "too many" without knowing there are Nine.
    I believe the current term of art is "Duh!".
    How hard is this to understand?

    "If Alito is confirmed, Catholics, who represent less than 24% of the country, will have a majority of the seats on the Supreme Court."

    1) Is that a statement of fact or is it a bigoted slur against Catholics?
    2) How is that statement different from Buchanan's statement, if at all?

    And I don't care who on the board says it, a mod or not. I'll point out 100% Dishonest Doublespeak when I see it.
    And I'll point out poorly reasoned faux outrage wherever I see it.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  6. #16
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,868
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    oh noes, dem jews are at it again
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  7. #17
    onomatopoeic
    mbig's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    04-20-17 @ 08:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,350

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    How hard is this to understand?

    "If Alito is confirmed, Catholics, who represent less than 24% of the country, will have a majority of the seats on the Supreme Court."

    1) Is that a statement of fact or is it a bigoted slur against Catholics?
    2) How is that statement different from Buchanan's statement, if at all?

    And I'll point out poorly reasoned faux outrage wherever I see it.
    And how is this a Reply to what I said.. Busting your BS wide open.

    His statement wasn't just nominative, it was specifically/in percent.. Relative.
    And as I said, even if so-called 'nominative'. It's senseless without knowing there are 9 Justices, which Everyone does. "Too many" doesn't stand alone, 'nominatively'.

    I, and obviously others, find you not only wrong, which is acceptable, but Disingenuous, which Isn't for a mod.

    EDIT: I'm Finished with this now. Post on tho.
    -
    Last edited by mbig; 05-16-10 at 02:44 AM.
    I'm personally sick of not being able to dunk a basketball because of racism.
    anon

  8. #18
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by mbig View Post
    And how is this a Reply to what I said.. Busting your BS wide open.

    His statement wasn't just nominative, it was specifically/in percent.. Relative.
    And as I said, even if so-called 'nominative'... it' senseless without knowing there are 9 Justices. "Too many" doesn't stand alone, 'nominatively'.
    I don't have the slightest clue what you're trying to say here.

    I and obviously others find you not only wrong, which is acceptable, but Disingenuous, which Isn't for a mod.
    I'm sorry that you feel that way.
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  9. #19
    User Queen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    05-26-10 @ 02:46 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    98

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post
    ....he's not saying that there are "too many jews" on the SC, but simply that it's disproportionately populated by jews, leading other groups to be underrepresented.....
    Which means there are too many Jews.
    Enough with the dirty, deadly and disgusting oil and coal. Let's get clean, let's go green. Enough is enough!!

  10. #20
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Buchanan: With Kagan, too many Jews on Supreme Court bench

    Quote Originally Posted by Queen View Post
    Which means there are too many Jews.
    Please read the rest of the thread.

    No, it's absolutely not. "Too many" is a normative statement, while "disproportionately populated" is a factual statement.
    It's standard partisan crap, directed at accusing the left of being bigoted against Christians while pushing their own twisted version of diversity. It's not particularly well written, nor is it insightful. However, nothing in that article even comes close to claiming that there are "too many Jews" in the way that people in this thread are claiming.
    I'll ask you the same questions that mbig has declined to answer:

    "If Alito is confirmed, Catholics, who represent less than 24% of the country, will have a majority of the seats on the Supreme Court."

    1) Is that a statement of fact or is it a bigoted slur against Catholics?
    2) How is that statement different from Buchanan's statement, if at all?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

Page 2 of 9 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •