You guys are fucking retarded. Who the fuck cares, honestly?
I'm just defending myself against an accusation. I expect people to back up their accusations, especially when they are libelous!
I was accused of 'altering a wikipedia text/entry' <- <em>note the apostrophes not quotation marks?
Did I say you edited Wikipedia? I said you altered a wikipedia entry, which is exactly what you did when you put this quote on the board.
...
That's not what the real Wikipedia says. Now, it makes no difference to me at all now whether Cardozo came from Portugal or whether you altered the quote on Wikipedia itself or when you placed the quote on this board because I can draw a conclusion from your most recent shenanigans.
Observation 1: You altered the quote. Observation 2: This is the third piece of proof that you are a dishonest piece of shit. Conclusion: You are a dishonest piece of shit.
I'm not going to ignore such an easily disproven accusation against me. I would also expect the other forum members to call someone out for these actions.
Joe can either apologize for accusing me of altering wikipedia content or he can back up his claim.
Back to the discussion at hand.
The Portuguese question is an interesting one because the definition has changed over time and by some definitions of the term a person of Portuguese decent would be considered to be Hispanic. I do think we can all agree that Sotomayor is the first Latina to be nominated to SCOTUS.
I was accused of 'altering a wikipedia text/entry' <-<em>note the apostrophes not quotation marks?
Actually, the accusation is that you are dishonest and/or a liar. This is at least the third instance of you being dishonest on this board. You're a liar, plain and simple.
When Steve looked at it approximately 13 hours ago, the quoted information was correct. When you looked at the entry roughly 5 hours ago, the information had been edited. In between the time that you each looked at the same entry, it was changed. This is one of the troubles you encounter when using Wikipedia as a source; the knowledge is living, so what you're saying may be supported one minute and unsupported the next.
Here's some text from the current entry:
Cardozo was the second Jew, after Louis Brandeis, to be appointed to the Supreme Court. By some[weasel words] definitions[which?][who?] Cardozo could be considered the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice,[11] even if Andrew Kaufman, of the Harvard Law School (author of a 1998 biography of Cardozo[12]), says "Well, I think he regarded himself as a Sephardic Jew whose ancestors came from the Iberian Peninsula"[13], and the fact that most definitions of Hispanic and Latino Americans exclude people of Portuguese origin or hailing from a Portuguese speaking country, as Cardozo believed his family origin to be. In this sense, being a Sephardi Jew of probable remote Portuguese origin, Cardozo was not Hispanic according to the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials.[14]
That footnote 11 goes to this article, which comments on the debate as to whether or not Portugese people are considered Hispanic. The issue here is that nobody actually knows where his parents came from; he believed that his parents were Portugese, but that can only be considered conjecture in the absence of evidence.
So, nobody knows what his actual ethnicity was, so we can't say for certain one way or another if he was the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice or not. We know for sure that the new appointee is.
Somebody tell me why any of this matters, other than having a contest regarding epeen size.
EDIT: tl;dr: Basically, you're both wrong. He may have been Hispanic or he may not have been, and nobody knows.
Who doesn't know that Wikipedia is constantly being edited by users? Quotes of old information may not reflect exactly what it currently says. That doesn't make the old quote a lie. That is why there is a record for edits that were made. Don't Rym and Scott talk about that very thing on the podcast fairly regularly? Do we really need a recap of why Wikipedia is not a reliable source on it's own?
Any thoughts on Sotomayor's comment: "I hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experience would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasnÂ’t lived that life," and/or 'appeals court makes policy' line in regards to ABA Model Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 4?
A JUDGE SHALL SO CONDUCT THE JUDGEÂ’S EXTRA-JUDICIAL ACTIVITIES AS TO MINIMIZE THE RISK OF CONFLICT WITH JUDICIAL OBLIGATIONS
A. Extra-judicial Activities in General. A judge shall conduct all of the judgeÂ’s extra-judicial activities so that they do not:
(1) cast reasonable doubt on the judgeÂ’s capacity to act impartially as a judge;
(2) demean the judicial office; or
(3) interfere with the proper performance of judicial duties.
Commentary:
Complete separation of a judge from extra-judicial activities is neither possible nor wise; a judge should not become isolated from the community in which the judge lives.
Expressions of bias or prejudice by a judge, even outside the judgeÂ’s judicial activities, may cast reasonable doubt on the judgeÂ’s capacity to act impartially as a judge. Expressions which may do so include jokes or other remarks demeaning individuals on the basis of their race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, age, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. See Section 2C and accompanying Commentary.
I don't. "Czar" is a Russification of the Latin "Caesar," which implies dictatorship. I don't think the United States should be placing czars in authority of any aspect of government.
That poster just emphasizes how little people understand socialism. It is only dangerous in that it perpetuates an ignorance. Moreover, it is fairly poorly rendered and lacks any interesting graphic design. Overall, it is ridiculous on every level.
Also The joker is an anarchist, a bit different from a Socialist.... Crappy reference.
Did the Joker portray himself as an anarchist to the gangsters he conned or did he hide who he truly was when he sold his plan to them?
They definitely knew he was the joker, but I doubt they knew he was going to kill everyone of them (I think he may have told each that he was going to kill the others though to maximize profits.
Regardless I've seen enough Bush as Chimps to not get offended by relatively stupid politicial humor.
Regardless I've seen enough Bush as Chimps to not get offended by relatively stupid politicial humor.
True 'dat. Now we're on the other end of the fun-making, I guess that I can deal with people ragging on Obama. I gotta say, though, I think that the conservatives aren't as good at satire as the liberals. We've got a lot of good comedians on our side. I think part of the reason is that liberals tend to prefer wittier, more intellectual humor and conservatives more direct jabs.
I just saw a poster board of Obama as Hitler, that was raging about the "Socialist Healthcare Plan!" and "Wallstreet needs the money!" I just thought it was stupid. I've seen enough Bush as Hitler to think that it's just an uncreative way of saying "He's mean! We don't like him!"
I heard a comedian say it's easier to satire those who are richer or more powerful; Ragging on asylum seekers and the poor doesn't work too well. [It's meant to be ragging, not raging. English slang.]
That poster just emphasizes how little people understand socialism. It is only dangerous in that it perpetuates an ignorance. Moreover, it is fairly poorly rendered and lacks any interesting graphic design. Overall, it is ridiculous on every level.
Yeah, the Joker a representation of socialism? I admit I don't know a whole lot about socialism, but I can tell that that comparison just doesn't work.
I'm unoffended. People have done this kinda crap indiscriminately to every president. I think that jabs like this usually come off as a little corny and lame.
Yeah, the Joker a representation of socialism? I admit I don't know a whole lot about socialism, but I can tell that that comparison just doesn't work.
It isn't just the less than accurate Joker association that belies the misunderstanding of socialism; it is labeling Obama as a socialist that more profoundly indicates that the designer(s) of the poster and those that agree with with the poster's message do not understand the difference between socialism (both in concept and in application) and individual social programs.
I wouldn't mind hearing more of your opinion on that topic. It's an argument I hear used against him constantly, and I'd like to have a more educated basis to disagree with it.
Regardless I've seen enough Bush as Chimps to not get offended by relatively stupid politicial humor.
True 'dat. Now we're on the other end of the fun-making, I guess that I can deal with people ragging on Obama. I gotta say, though, I think that the conservatives aren't as good at satire as the liberals. We've got a lot of good comedians on our side. I think part of the reason is that liberals tend to prefer wittier, more intellectual humor and conservatives more direct jabs.
I just saw a poster board of Obama as Hitler, that was raging about the "Socialist Healthcare Plan!" and "Wallstreet needs the money!" I just thought it was stupid. I've seen enough Bush as Hitler to think that it's just an uncreative way of saying "He's mean! We don't like him!"
The problem is that most conservatives today make the most irrelevant and shallow criticisms of Obama. There is plenty of material to rag on Obama for, but for some reason all they stick to is a birth certificate and McCarthyism. I would be much more receptive to the conservative line if they were at least original and poignant in their objections to the current administration. Instead, they just keep using red herrings and non-sequiturs.
The problem is that most conservatives today make the most irrelevant and shallow criticisms of Obama. There is plenty of material to rag on Obama for, but for some reason all they stick to is a birth certificate and McCarthyism. I would be much more receptive to the conservative line if they were at least original and poignant in their objections to the current administration. Instead, they just keep using red herrings and non-sequiturs.
Bingo. I have a few complaints about Obama's policies (usually because he is not liberal enough), but these people don't actually have a well reasoned argument against him. I want to see some fiscal conservative people write good paper on why they don't like his policies. I may not agree, but I can respect that.
Yea I have the same problem, why can't republicans complain about the real issues that Obama has... You know about how because he is so awesome, republicans look bad :-p
Yea I have the same problem, why can't republicans complain about the real issues that Obama has... You know about how because he is so awesome, republicans look bad :-p
Well since you're all bitching about it, I'll let the first volley fly.
His health care reform. He talks a lot about reducing cost and I got a news letter about what he wants to do. I will copy and paste that for you all.
Dear Friend,
If youÂ’re like most Americans, thereÂ’s nothing more important to you about health care than peace of mind.
Given the status quo, that’s understandable. The current system often denies insurance due to pre-existing conditions, charges steep out-of-pocket fees – and sometimes isn’t there at all if you become seriously ill.
ItÂ’s time to fix our unsustainable insurance system and create a new foundation for health care security. That means guaranteeing your health care security and stability with eight basic consumer protections: No discrimination for pre-existing conditions No exorbitant out-of-pocket expenses, deductibles or co-pays No cost-sharing for preventive care No dropping of coverage if you become seriously ill No gender discrimination No annual or lifetime caps on coverage Extended coverage for young adults Guaranteed insurance renewal so long as premiums are paid Learn more about these consumer protections at Whitehouse.gov.
Over the next month there is going to be an avalanche of misinformation and scare tactics from those seeking to perpetuate the status quo. But we know the cost of doing nothing is too high. Health care costs will double over the next decade, millions more will become uninsured, and state and local governments will go bankrupt.
ItÂ’s time to act and reform health insurance, drive down costs and guarantee the health care security and stability of every American family. You can help by putting these core principles of reform in the hands of your friends, your family, and the rest of your social network.
Thank you, Barack Obama
Now while a lot of those things are well and good (my heart isn't completely made of stone), I don't see how they in any way will reduce the cost of health care. In fact, I think they only stand to increase the cost substantially.
Comments
I was accused of 'altering a wikipedia text/entry' <- <em>note the apostrophes not quotation marks? I'm not going to ignore such an easily disproven accusation against me. I would also expect the other forum members to call someone out for these actions.
Joe can either apologize for accusing me of altering wikipedia content or he can back up his claim.
Back to the discussion at hand.
The Portuguese question is an interesting one because the definition has changed over time and by some definitions of the term a person of Portuguese decent would be considered to be Hispanic. I do think we can all agree that Sotomayor is the first Latina to be nominated to SCOTUS.
Here's some text from the current entry: That footnote 11 goes to this article, which comments on the debate as to whether or not Portugese people are considered Hispanic. The issue here is that nobody actually knows where his parents came from; he believed that his parents were Portugese, but that can only be considered conjecture in the absence of evidence.
So, nobody knows what his actual ethnicity was, so we can't say for certain one way or another if he was the first Hispanic Supreme Court justice or not. We know for sure that the new appointee is.
Somebody tell me why any of this matters, other than having a contest regarding epeen size.
EDIT: tl;dr: Basically, you're both wrong. He may have been Hispanic or he may not have been, and nobody knows.
I love the term "Cyber Czar'.
Elvis never did no drugs!
This is bad if it is accurate. I did not know facts were so elusive.
She also has some free speech issues...
Overall, it is ridiculous on every level.
Regardless I've seen enough Bush as Chimps to not get offended by relatively stupid politicial humor.
I just saw a poster board of Obama as Hitler, that was raging about the "Socialist Healthcare Plan!" and "Wallstreet needs the money!" I just thought it was stupid. I've seen enough Bush as Hitler to think that it's just an uncreative way of saying "He's mean! We don't like him!"
[It's meant to be ragging, not raging. English slang.]
I'm also totally jealous. If only we could have a compelling prime-ministerial candidate that Rym finds kinda sexy standing for office when the next general election rolls around.
I'm unoffended. People have done this kinda crap indiscriminately to every president. I think that jabs like this usually come off as a little corny and lame.
His health care reform. He talks a lot about reducing cost and I got a news letter about what he wants to do. I will copy and paste that for you all. Now while a lot of those things are well and good (my heart isn't completely made of stone), I don't see how they in any way will reduce the cost of health care. In fact, I think they only stand to increase the cost substantially.