USVI-On-Line

Jorge wrote:Hey Soxfan,
By no means am I getting in the middle of this. But I am curiuos. Do you mind if I ask you what you do for a living. Man you remind me of my brother. I am enjoying all this banter. Luvya, Jorge[/b]

No problem Jorge. I am an attorney for the ACLU and I moonlight at both Planned Parenthood and the UN.

Kidding - I'm in biotech sales. Now, as someone said earlier, let the real generalizations begin!

Pete (Mr. Marcia) wrote:

cypressgirl wrote:Hey Pete, Hillary is out because her party turned on her. You can't blame that on the GOP.

I have 2 daughters. Explain again why I'm suppose to be ashamed????

Because the republicans obviously picked Palin solely because she is a woman. It's pretty clear that she was not selected based on her intellect or qualifications. I think that sends a bad message to our daughters.

I can't tell you how many people I've heard say they are going to vote for Barry because he's black. It's clear he was not chosen for his intellect or qualifications, but his skin color. I could care less if he's pink, he's still a Socialist and a danger to this country.

I believe the real thorn in the side of liberals is that Hillery, in their minds, should have been the first female president, or at least VP. Barry didn't choose her for obvious reasons, and their mad as hell because McCain chose a woman who is totally the opposite of what they invisioned as the first female in the White House. Any woman who is pro life, in the minds of libs, is a traitor to her gender. I believe that's the nuts and bolts of it. The venom the left has for Palin reassures me that McCain made a smart choice. If McCain/Palin loose this election, we're still going to see a lot of Sarah Palin in National politics. There is a God in heaven.

BTW, my 20 year old college daughter is going to vote for the first time and loves Sarah Palin and will vote for the GOP ticket. She is by no means socially conservative, but she sees the bigger picture.

By soxfan22: "Again, just like in the 80's when the NAACP didn't support the nomination of Clarence Thomas. Because he is a conservative judge who did not in any way benefit from Affirmative Action."

Once again, your facts are wrong. Clarence Thomas did get benefit from Affirmative Action, but one he got up the ladder, he decided he ought to pull the ladder up with him so no one else could come up.

There's an obvious contradiction here: Clarence Thomas benefited enormously from the kind of affirmative action programs he now seeks to kill.

See following links:

http://www.jeffcohen.org/docs/mbeat19950621.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/15 ... kirchick15

Good tailgate day and nice USC victory, make my life good.

Lots of banter. So let's see what I missed.

Soxguy talks about Biden mistakes but someone says it doesn't matter.

Some folks think Palin's pretty stupid. But I'll bet if it was Hillary and Chelsey was 14 years old, she's be a genius at balancing priorities. Just saying since there's no proof.

Now to get some breakfast. A big old breakfast burrito after a long day of tailgating and football. A few jalapenos will bring the world back in order.

bayer40601 wrote:By soxfan22: "Again, just like in the 80's when the NAACP didn't support the nomination of Clarence Thomas. Because he is a conservative judge who did not in any way benefit from Affirmative Action."

Once again, your facts are wrong. Clarence Thomas did get benefit from Affirmative Action, but one he got up the ladder, he decided he ought to pull the ladder up with him so no one else could come up.

There's an obvious contradiction here: Clarence Thomas benefited enormously from the kind of affirmative action programs he now seeks to kill.

See following links:

http://www.jeffcohen.org/docs/mbeat19950621.html

http://articles.latimes.com/2007/oct/15 ... kirchick15

Good articles...But your arguement (likewise that of Mr. Cohen), is purely conjecture.

You, nor I, are capable of saying whether or not Thomas would've gotten into Yale Law on his own merits.

Also, your man Cohen has a clear bias:

"In the early 1980s, Cohen earned a law degree from the Peoples College of Law in Los Angeles, and worked as an ACLU lawyer. He was a board member of several civil rights groups, including the ACLU of Southern California and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference/L.A.

In 2003, he was Communications Director of the Kucinich for President campaign."

BTW, you said "Once again, your facts are wrong". Please tell me, what other facts that I've offered are "wrong".

And I will even grant you that whether or not AA helped Thomas is debatable.

Where else have I "erred"?

soxfan22 wrote: "And I will even grant you that whether or not AA helped Thomas is debatable."

Maybe debateable to you, but not to Justice Thomas:

When Thomas applied to Yale Law School, his race was taken into consideration. He wrote in his book, "I asked Yale to take that fact into account when I applied, not thinking that there might be anything wrong with doing so."

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3667079&page=1

bayer40601 wrote:soxfan22 wrote: "And I will even grant you that whether or not AA helped Thomas is debatable."

Maybe debateable to you, but not to Justice Thomas:

When Thomas applied to Yale Law School, his race was taken into consideration. He wrote in his book, "I asked Yale to take that fact into account when I applied, not thinking that there might be anything wrong with doing so."

http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=3667079&page=1

Again, nobody knows if he would've been admitted had he been a white candidate. For someone who has come out so strongly against AA, you have never heard him say that his accomplishments are a direct result of AA.

You never hear him say "Damn...Because I'm black, I got into Yale, and it has stigmatized meever since..."

No, he says that it is people's perception that he has achieved what he has with the help of AA. In the court of public opinion, perception is reality.

This Thomas discussion is way off the original topic and probably lends nothing to the discussion relating to Palin, etc., but I have to throw something in here. As I understand it, Justice Thomas's argument against AA doesn't have anything to do with whether or not he could have been accepted at Yale Law School without its existence. Thomas blames the stigma attached to AA on his inability to obtain the employment he felt he deserved after graduating from Yale and passing the bar. He's certainly entitled to his opinion about that.

But, here's an article that includes interviews with other African-American students who attended Yale during the same time period.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1 ... s=newswire

CAG said, "Where's that horse animation pj?" I haven't felt the urge to whip it out here, CAG. But I do love that little fella!

I'm enjoying seeing different viewpoints. As long as it doesn't turn personal, I'm all for exchanging opinions and information.

Again, nobody knows if he would've been admitted had he been a white candidate. For someone who has come out so strongly against AA, you have never heard him say that his accomplishments are a direct result of AA.

You never hear him say "Damn...Because I'm black, I got into Yale, and it has stigmatized meever since..."

No, he says that it is people's perception that he has achieved what he has with the help of AA. In the court of public opinion, perception is reality.

1. I am still looking for the transcripts from his SC hearing. I think he did state during those hearings that he did benefit from Affirmative Action policies at Yale and elsewhere.

2. There are plenty of aritcles out there in which Justice Thomas does say just what you say above. In fact, he claims his Yale degree was worth 15 cents and hindered him getting employment because of the perception he had benefitted from AA.

soxfan22 wrote:

Maryanne wrote:Here you will find many female voices articulating why they are not for Sarah Palin:

http://womenagainstsarahpalin.blogspot.com/

Wat's your point?

Here you will find many female voices in support of Sarah Palin:

http://womenforsarahpalin.typepad.com/

Don't actually read it though, you might send the "women's movement" back 40 years.

It's a joke. A woman has a chance to ascend to the 2nd highest poisition in the land, but because she does not agree with your personal ideology, you condemn her.

Women's movement my ass.

My point?

Someone asked why women would not be for Sarah Palin. I provided a response.

I love the passion here. As I stated before, just be sure to vote, no matter which way you go. But before you vote, check out all the earmarks in the 700 B. bailout. I'll be riding my bike to work with my arrow and drinking lots of rum along the way. My car is being transformed into a race car and I'm investing in Movie stocks!

Oh by the way, I have two very educated daughters. I do not talk politics with them unless they bring it up. They are in very high end jobs making 6 figures. They make their own decisions, and I have to share that Palin is not one of their choices. Sorry Sara. Tina Fey would do a better job.

Terry wrote:I love the passion here. As I stated before, just be sure to vote, no matter which way you go. But before you vote, check out all the earmarks in the 700 B. bailout. I'll be riding my bike to work with my arrow and drinking lots of rum along the way. My car is being transformed into a race car and I'm investing in Movie stocks!

Now that we can agree on! Toy wooden arrows?

I do have to say that I am very happy that they took the ACORN pork out of the bill.

This bill began as a 3-pager that was an "emergency". Had to heppen ASAP.

Ended up a week and a half later with millions in pork included.

Speaking of pork...I have some pulled pork cooking away in the crock as I type. Yummy.

The bill is 451 pages. I can assure you that it is filled with pork belly fat that all of us will be paying for in years to come. But the point is how did we get here? Clinton years were a money maker. Bush has spent over a trillion on a war that didn't need to happen. If we had that money back, we wouldn't have this bailout problem. I support troops, but don't believe this money was the best spent.