Only Republicans are allowed to have Ethnic Backgrounds

That study says more whites than blacks go to prison for drugs.

no, it says "more whites, fewer blacks" and talks about a change in an ongoing trend.

In fact, by reverse engineering the percentages and population figures in the article, you can come up with 124,000 blacks incarcerated, as opposed to 73,000 whites. These are the current numbers, the previous ones being even worse, with 155,000 blacks and 52,000 whites.
 
That study says more whites than blacks go to prison for drugs.

no, it says "more whites, fewer blacks" and talks about a change in an ongoing trend.

In fact, by reverse engineering the percentages and population figures in the article, you can come up with 124,000 blacks incarcerated, as opposed to 73,000 whites. These are the current numbers, the previous ones being even worse, with 155,000 blacks and 52,000 whites.

This is why I don't believe right wing stories. They always slant/spin the information or don't tell us all the facts.

Thanks for pointing this out.
 
That study says more whites than blacks go to prison for drugs.
which is conveniently ignored by the racist likes of Bobo

She and you are wrong you little ****. It said LESS blacks are going to prison and more whites are going to prison than before. But still more blacks than whites are going to prison, as the one gentleman pointed out. Are you going to apologize or admit you are wrong? Never!!!

And they only make up 10% of the population.

But it does show that things are getting more balanced. At least statistically.

And meth being one reason makes sense. Thats more a white crime. Just ask Palin. She was mayor of the meth capital of Alaska.
 
If you'd read my post you'd know that's not what the study says, but whatever.

Maybe that's asking too much.
thats what the headline said

you mean you dont trust CNN headlines?
;)

The headline says "more whites, less blacks" which does not mean the same thing as "more whites than blacks".

I bet he will not admit he was wrong. He'll just move on and forget he was wrong again.
 
Maybe context would help?

Sotamayor said:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

Context pretty much damns her as a racist.
 
Maybe context would help?

Sotamayor said:
In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, 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.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see.

Context pretty much damns her as a racist.

:clap2: I have never seen a more cut and dry statement of racism than this.
 
more lies from spiderman....

they umbrage taken is NOT with the ethnic background, it is with her claim that her ethnic background will or should more often than not give her the ability to make better conclusions or decisions than white males

i am not at all surprised by your lies, many on the left are desperatately trying to spin this as being solely about ethnicity when in fact it is about superiority of one ethnicity over another.

We didn't bring this up, you guys did.

Or you are making more out of something that was said than you should.

She will have a different perspective because of where she came from.

I'm sick of old white dudes ruining this country. And I didn't misspell that word.

so then what?....ill guess we will wait until a bunch of old minorities start ruining the country....and i did not misspell that word....in California we are going to be more like Mexico....i can hardly wait....:razz:
 
thats what the headline said

you mean you dont trust CNN headlines?
;)

The headline says "more whites, less blacks" which does not mean the same thing as "more whites than blacks".

I bet he will not admit he was wrong. He'll just move on and forget he was wrong again.
what the fuck do you think this means, you fucking asshole


http://www.usmessageboard.com/1243935-post50.html

btw, i wasnt wrong
that is exactly what the fucking headline said
 
That study says more whites than blacks go to prison for drugs.
which is conveniently ignored by the racist likes of Bobo

She and you are wrong you little ****. It said LESS blacks are going to prison and more whites are going to prison than before. But still more blacks than whites are going to prison, as the one gentleman pointed out. Are you going to apologize or admit you are wrong? Never!!!

And they only make up 10% of the population.

But it does show that things are getting more balanced. At least statistically.

And meth being one reason makes sense. Thats more a white crime. Just ask Palin. She was mayor of the meth capital of Alaska.
you are the fucking liar
Wasila was NOT the meth capital or called that
you just get your news from fucking lying lib sites
 

Forum List

Back
Top