1 - 6
In response to:

Sotomayor's Ties to La Raza

A68 Wrote: Jul 31, 2009 12:11 PM
In case you didn't notice, NCLR and MEChA are different organizations, just like the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation are. Different organizations, different approaches, etc.

Like you, Chip, I also hate liars. Especially those that have to lie to themselves to continue believing idiocies.
In response to:

Sotomayor's Ties to La Raza

A68 Wrote: Jul 31, 2009 12:04 PM
Do you actually *speak* another language than English fluently? I guess not.

The very first thing you need to understand when translating is that you need to translate thoughts, not words. If you plan on using literal translations as your attack point, you'll get laughed at, and rightfully so.

Let's take a phrase from your own writing, Talent Scout: "red faced". If you translated literally to Spanish, you'd get either "enfrentando rojo" or "cara roja", neither which makes sense. However, there is a way to translate it: "avergonzado", which literally translated means ashamed, or embarrassed.

And taking that last word (embarrassed) a step further, someone might think another way to translate it to Spanish would be...
In response to:

Sotomayor's Ties to La Raza

A68 Wrote: Jul 31, 2009 12:15 AM
Here's some information you should read, but you'll most likely ignore:

The term “La Raza” has its origins in early 20th century Latin American literature and translates into English most closely as “the people” or, according to some scholars, as “the Hispanic people of the New World.” The term was coined by Mexican scholar José Vasconcelos to reflect the fact that the people of Latin America are a mixture of many of the world’s races, cultures, and religions. Mistranslating “La Raza” to mean “the race” implies that it is a term meant to exclude others. In fact, the full term coined by Vasconcelos, “La Raza Cósmica,” meaning the “cosmic people,” was developed to reflect not purity but the mixture inherent in the Hispanic people....
In response to:

Equality on Trial

A68 Wrote: Jul 03, 2009 1:08 PM
It isn't Pappas vs DeStefano, it's Pappas vs Guglianni.
In response to:

Equality on Trial

A68 Wrote: Jul 03, 2009 11:48 AM
Of the top of my head:

Pappas vs DeStefano
Maloney v. Cuomo
In response to:

Equality on Trial

A68 Wrote: Jul 02, 2009 12:03 PM
So you are telling me that 3 cases reversed, from over 300 cases authored constitute a majority of her cases? You need to get help on math.

I'm omitting the Ricci vs DeStefano since the "60% reversal rate on Judge Sotomayor" myth is on the majority opinions she authored, not all the cases she's reviewed. You don't call a double a home run in the middle of the game.

By your standard, Justice Alito must resign, since he was reversed 4 times in his 15 years as a Judge. Even one of them was 9-0! And Chief Justice Roberts must also resign since he was also reversed a couple of times in his 4 year tenure, one of them AFTER he assumed his position as Chief Justice.

Please, don't come with hypocrisy, half truths and just...
1 - 6