Sotomayors 'La Raza' called Latino KKK

I suggest, for what good it may do, that people write their reps in federal government and inform them of these issues. La Raza is clearly racist, her comment about Latin woman's experience being superior is clearly racist. The fact that Obama wants her means she's a puppet.

The media obviously plays the issue without substance or common sense. Help your reps see through this. I think a lot of them are still unhappy with their situation and relationship with the fed. The need input.

People should be judged by the quality of their character, not by the color of their skin.
Dr. Martin Luther King.

Thanks Obama by setting back civil rights by 50 years!

Originally posted by mikerussellus
People should be judged by the quality of their character, not by the color of their skin.
Dr. Martin Luther King.

Thanks Obama by setting back civil rights by 50 years!

I think some people are starting to get fearful, because white is quickly becoming the minority and some Republican commentators are stoking those fears.

La Raza literally translates to "the race" however, many of us are putting the same stigma on that term that is held when white supremicists use the term "the race" to identify themselves. It is disengenous to think that it has the same veiled meaning. La Raza was first coined in 1925 to identify the "mixed race" that people of Mexican decent are. They are a mixing of Spanish and Native Central Americans. It is a term that many Mexican American and Mexican people use to identify themselves.

I think that when you merely translate "la raza" into "the race" there is something lost in translation.

Now, whether Sonia Sotomayor is racist is totally unrelated. I don't think she is. Her quote about being able to come to a better conclusion than a white male is one sentence in a very long speech. Here is the full speech

I urge you to read it if you really hope to know who she is. As a liberal, I'm not thrilled about her. She is moderate.

That's my two cents.

ya know what I,m very curious as to why wiki doesn't have anything on La raza.
I'm thinking maybe because its being blown out of proportion!!, any way Any of you that have always wanted to start a page"diction" on wiki (like me) this would be a great one!!

Its ok. I have my firearm ready for when Americans gets the most hurt by the illegal enemies coming in to take us over from Mexico. They are really selfish crook folks. They hate us citizens and black folks in particular. Although some of the black folks buy some of their illegal drugs, they still don't like their egotistical conceited views they have of themselves. I live a great piece of stirring trouble with alot of illegals living around here who do nothing but look for laws to break all around here. It's getting tiresome to turn their crimes into police while I watch them, but can't stop at least putting in the work and loyalty to this city, state, and nation.

Oh, by the way; if you see the illegals BREAKING the LAW, turn them in to your local POLICE!

Originally posted by ZenaV
Oh, by the way; if you see the illegals BREAKING the LAW, turn them in to your local POLICE!

First off, how exactly do you identify an "illegal" by looking at them? Is ther some identifying mark I didn't know about?

Second, are you advocating that crimes by "legal" citizens arent as important as those committed by "legal" ones?

reply to post by its bologna


My comment was meant more towards his pick soley on the fact that she is a woman, and hispanic. If the Supreme Court is supposed to just interpret the law based soley on the Constitution (If I'm wrong on this please let me know) then why do we have "liberal" or "conservative" judges in the first place? -I know this sounds naive, but I'm trying to be serious here-
Obamas' pick was purely for political reasons. He has an agenda. He doesn't care if she is a racist or not. She is going to get in because the dems are a bunch of spineless weasels and the GOP is. . . well they're a bunch of spineless weasels too.
There is NO, I repeat NO judgement on her character, thus the reference from MLK.
It's all a big damn game, and for one, I am getting sick of it!
They (all of DC as far as I'm concerned are treating something honored and sacred as a $#@%ing game!

Sorry, rants over now. . .

The main reason that I think that people have a dislike for wet backs, has to do with the way they can wake before sunrise, pack an affordable lunch, walk out the door and off to work for ten or twelve hours and still be smiling...... I really think that gringos are terrified by this and think that the same may apply them if they want to be competitive in the work place..... I had to compete with them as a child at my fathers business and I developed a much better set of work ethics than most other gringos that I have ever known.... A lazy Mexican is an extreme exception akin to finding a gringo that doesn't require supervision.

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by its bologna

 

My comment was meant more towards his pick soley on the fact that she is a woman, and hispanic. If the Supreme Court is supposed to just interpret the law based soley on the Constitution (If I'm wrong on this please let me know) then why do we have "liberal" or "conservative" judges in the first place? -I know this sounds naive, but I'm trying to be serious here-
Obamas' pick was purely for political reasons. He has an agenda. He doesn't care if she is a racist or not. She is going to get in because the dems are a bunch of spineless weasels and the GOP is. . . well they're a bunch of spineless weasels too.
There is NO, I repeat NO judgement on her character, thus the reference from MLK.
It's all a big damn game, and for one, I am getting sick of it!
They (all of DC as far as I'm concerned are treating something honored and sacred as a $#@%ing game!

Sorry, rants over now. . .

I think many are jumping to conclusions on her character based off a snippet in a long speech. The reports are that Obama met with her and was impressed by her character.
As far as Supreme Court interpreting the law--there are liberal interpretations and conservative interpretations. That is why there is so much debate on constitutional issues. The Constitution is a "guideline" so to speak and in many cases does not spell out what is allowed and disallowed. Most constitutional issues are surrounding the bill of rights..these are the least spelled out of all the amendments, but they are what gives us our liberties. It is then subject to interpretation..

reply to post by ZenaV


Well that's them....I don't know which city you live in but it's probably bad if people are breaking laws "all the time" which could be anyone.....Why do you say just Mexicans do it? I'm Mexican and i haven't commited any crime in my life....I'm just saying everyone's different and it shouldn't matter about race...It's their own decision to break the law...not a race..
AND i'm not racist towards African Americans and i'm Mexican so your statement means crap....

reply to post by its bologna


Good points, but, where as her character issues (I didn't read the speech) was more towards her getting over-turned 80% of the time, her ruling on the firefighter case, and the fact that while Obamas character is in question (at least on my part) his and her judgement on abortion issues, second ammendment right issues leads me to think that there is more political posturing than actual judicial prudence involved here.

Originally posted by Sonya610
It is such blatant, over the top racism, yet it goes unquestioned.

It's not unquestioned.

There are plenty of articles and comments about her odd racial statement all over the web.

The president was even forced to respond to it.

- Lee

Originally posted by mikerussellus
reply to post by its bologna

 

Good points, but, where as her character issues (I didn't read the speech) was more towards her getting over-turned 80% of the time, her ruling on the firefighter case, and the fact that while Obamas character is in question (at least on my part) his and her judgement on abortion issues, second ammendment right issues leads me to think that there is more political posturing than actual judicial prudence involved here.

Actually it was 60%. Here is the source. And there were some justices on the bench who agreed with her decisions. This is where interpretation comes in to play and your interpretation is conservative, hers not as conservative. (Her only case on abortion ruled where you would have wanted her to rule,).

reply to post by its bologna



Ok, well she's short! Too short to wear the robes correctly!


It's obvious I'm going to have to read more on the issue then.

Originally posted by its bologna
I think that when you merely translate "la raza" into "the race" there is something lost in translation.

Definitely, "La Raza" means "The People" in this case, all people in general. You may say something like "Hey Raza!' for say Hi to a group. It is often used to refer to people with low economic capacity. Groups using the "Raza" in their name are likely declaring an alliance with the common and/or poor people.

It is in no moment, used to refer to any particular racial group.

reply to post by FlyersFan


Ya La Raza is the mexican equivalent of southern christian republicans...

I don't care for the views of either.

But the Socialistisms really?

God you guys don't learn -

Skeleton riding

La Raza is to the Mexican Mafia (La Eme) what the Italian American Anti-Defamation League was to the Italian Mafia (La Cosa Nostra). A way to infiltrate/influence the political process, and make money.

reply to post by FlyersFan


I read and heard that the latest SCOTUS candidate has said she "chose the wrong word". In regards to her initial statement, what was the wrong word? White? Man? Anyother "word" that was wrong? I know what I think. She's racist. How about, "I, as a white man, who has been raised in the traditions of this country, and understanding from where the basics of our legal traditions lie, am most assuredly able to make a wiser decsion than a woman, hispanic, black, blah, blah, blah, (insert whatever you want here)..........Yep. I would be embraced because I struggled to where I got to. Heh. I would have a harder time getting to where this woman has found herself. Why? Because I was a white male. And I didn't have an influencial family. I did not have money. Let me tell you something. I was raised by a poor, single white woman, with 4 kids. I was not eligible for financial aid. Why? My mommy earned 12,000 dollars a year. Oh, did I mention I was a white male? We are talking late 60's early70's. Yep. I had a white daddy, who was not present, but his income was considered. I didn't do well enough in high school to receive a scholarship. I was just a regular kid. Oh, yeah. white. and male. No real talent. Just reasonably intelligent. No disabilities. Anyway, I worked full time, went to school full time. You know the story. Soneone who did it themselves.

Don't anybody try to tell me I didn't experience suffering or on the other hand, a delightful exposure to other cultures. No, I wasnt raised in Brooklyn in the projects. Instead I was raised in the country, right next to a community of black people, who had no money, too. And Ofwe all drew our water from wells to take a bath or to drink.

I am so privileged as a white man that I don't know suffering, even though at the time I didn't know it was suffering, until somebody told me I was suffering.

Yep. I have no empathy because I am not hispanic and a woman.

Meanwhile, I do realize that the states have no right to infringe upon my right to bear arms, nor does the federal government. According to the U.S. Constitution, not my empathy. Nor should I be refused a promotion for a job, just because the guy that lived down the road from me, didn't pass the test that I passed. Hey, we both had the same education opportunities, the same school classes. In the same school building. We both lived pretty much the same identical lives. Although his family chose to eat cornbread and mine chose to eat flour biscuits. And I add that his family had a newer and bigger car than mine. And...............his mommy was sweet as hell, while mine was a (**&&^.

Let's get back to the constitution, blind justice for all, and equal opportunities for all to seek happiness.

Meanwhile, rant over.

This Latina will most assurdely be our next new Supreme Court member. It's just the way of the world for now. I wish her the best of luck, and the wisdom to make decisions based on laws, and not background, culture and empathy. Leave the empathy for the penalty phase of the trial, not for deciding the legality of the case.

By the way, I would do Sotomayur. But not Ruth Ginsberg.

I think the biggest threat to a nation, ours in particular is people that defend this kind of behavior. To people defending La Raza, Satomayor and her racist comments I say shame on you. We are clearly moving backwards, it seems as though it has become ok to step on the backs of white men.

I was thinking today how this could be, why is this discrimination against white men allowed and I wondered if the puppet masters saw how quickly and effectively white men were progressing that they saw this as a threat to NWO domination, thus oppressing the white man was the most effective fix to keeping the masses oppressed and by stifling such a progressive race their control over all races is much easier. And I'm not being dramatic, their are more laws in place which discriminate against white males than you might know. From discounts on bids for minority owned construction companies to "points" being taken off for white male candidates at jobs and schools, it's insanity and it is an attack against human rights.

Whatever, I suggest labeling me a racist, it is a most effective tactic.