NY Senate Seat

Watermark said:
I think one seat in every state should be reserved for a woman.
Click to expand...

Water I see a lot of sex in your future. lol

No, I wouldn't go that far. But it's a pretty simple idea. We have, I believe at this time, 1 black senator left. You simply do not APPOINT (we are not talking about electing) a white person to take a senate seat that one of the two black senators in existence, were elected to.

The same holds true in NY, and with a woman-held seat.

It's funny that liberal men have nooo problem grasping this. I ran this by my bf, very subtly, not taking any position. He was like, nah, I'd appoint a woman for that seat, and he completely balked at the idea that you would give one of two black-held senate seats to a white person!

DH obviously has no problem. Yet certain chimp-type brains, cannot grasp this very simple concept. No, they need it simpler.

Me = MAN
You = woman

Man good. Why man can't have seat?

Fucking duh!
 
Superfreak said:
Bullshit. When you eliminate someone based on their race, it is racist.

When you eliminate someone based on their gender it is sexist.

When you eliminate someone based on their religion or sexual preference, it is bigoted.

Being a white guy doesn't automatically disqualify me from understanding racism. Just because YOU want to attempt to justify racist and sexist behavior against white guys doesn't change the fact that it would still be racist and sexist to do so.
Click to expand...

080110-chimps-dirt-02.jpg
 
Yeah there are a lot of politics involved when you are trying to appoint someone to a position vacated by an extremely underrepresented group.

Republicans tried, but they failed with Clarence Thomas, who was quite literally a token black only appointed because he was the only black conservative they could find. They tried again with Miers, and failed, and said, fuck it, we'll just throw a white guy in.
 
Darla said:
Much like SF, you don't know what sexism is.
Click to expand...

translation "you don't know what Darla's definition of sexism is"

sex⋅ism   /ˈsɛksɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sek-siz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women.
 
Well, I support Caroline Kennedy, not just because she's a woman, but also because her last name is Kennedy, and I like saying the word "Kennedy" when conservatives are around, and it will give me a good excuse to say it more often.

"Kennedy"...it sounds cool. It doesn't even really rhyme with anything.
 
Onceler said:
Well, I support Caroline Kennedy, not just because she's a woman, but also because her last name is Kennedy, and I like saying the word "Kennedy" when conservatives are around, and it will give me a good excuse to say it more often.

"Kennedy"...it sounds cool. It doesn't even really rhyme with anything.
Click to expand...

It does rhyme with something, kinda, Onceler.

i was playing around with some Stones' lyrics:

I'm gonna tell ya how it's gonna be
You're gonna get a Kennedy
 
Darla said:
Water I see a lot of sex in your future. lol
Click to expand...
YAYZ!

Darla said:
No, I wouldn't go that far.
Click to expand...

A lot of countries do require every third or second person on the list to be a woman, etc...

That's why Afghanistan actually supercedes the US in representation of women. But yeah, I think it wouldn't fly. But I think it's something we should aspire to, if not by requirement then by tradition.

Darla said:
But it's a pretty simple idea. We have, I believe at this time, 1 black senator left. You simply do not APPOINT (we are not talking about electing) a white person to take a senate seat that one of the two black senators in existence, were elected to.

The same holds true in NY, and with a woman-held seat.

It's funny that liberal men have nooo problem grasping this. I ran this by my bf, very subtly, not taking any position. He was like, nah, I'd appoint a woman for that seat, and he completely balked at the idea that you would give one of two black-held senate seats to a white person!

DH obviously has no problem. Yet certain chimp-type brains, cannot grasp this very simple concept. No, they need it simpler.

Me = MAN
You = woman

Man good. Why man can't have seat?

Fucking duh!
Click to expand...

Patterson has sense. He's a Democrat; there's a plethora of qualified Democratic women and minorities out there. Why would he appoint a white man? There's no reason to.
 
I think that religious representation is important, so the new NY State seat should be filled by a Buddhist because there aren't any in the Senate and we are underrepresented in government. And since they can't have a penis, it should be a female Buddhist.

The one in CO should be filled by a Native American, as it was before Salazar hit the scene, and they can be hispanic as well. So, a Native American, Wiccan, Man (because whether or not there is a penis is of the utmost importance, I have it on high authority.)

The one in Illinois must be a Black Man, but it shouldn't be a Christian... They are overrepresented in government. Hopefully he'll be a Jainist. Because they are cool.
 
Watermark said:
Yeah there are a lot of politics involved when you are trying to appoint someone to a position vacated by an extremely underrepresented group.

Republicans tried, but they failed with Clarence Thomas, who was quite literally a token black only appointed because he was the only black conservative they could find. They tried again with Miers, and failed, and said, fuck it, we'll just throw a white guy in.
Click to expand...

Thomas just a token black? BWAHAHAHA!!!! I take it that you only feel this way because he is a conservative?

As it is, Thomas has been a freedom lovers best friend on the bench, as far as non wartime goes that is. Did you ever read his dissent in Gonzalez v. Raich?
 
Damocles said:
I think that religious representation is important, so the new NY State seat should be filled by a Buddhist because there aren't any in the Senate and we are underrepresented in government. And since they can't have a penis, it should be a female Buddhist.

The one in CO should be filled by a Native American, as it was before Salazar hit the scene, and they can be hispanic as well. So, a Native American, Wiccan, Man (because whether or not there is a penis is of the utmost importance, I have it on high authority.)

The one in Illinois must be a Black Man, but it shouldn't be a Christian... They are overrepresented in government. Hopefully he'll be a Jainist. Because they are cool.
Click to expand...

Reductio ad absurdum.
 
Watermark said:
YAYZ!



A lot of countries do require every third or second person on the list to be a woman, etc...

That's why Afghanistan actually supercedes the US in representation of women. But yeah, I think it wouldn't fly. But I think it's something we should aspire to, if not by requirement then by tradition.



Patterson has sense. He's a Democrat; there's a plethora of qualified Democratic women and minorities out there. Why would he appoint a white man? There's no reason to.
Click to expand...


There you go. The situation in a nutshell.
 
Superfreak said:
translation "you don't know what Darla's definition of sexism is"

sex⋅ism   /ˈsɛksɪzəm/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [sek-siz-uhm] Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. attitudes or behavior based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles.

2. discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, as in restricted job opportunities; esp., such discrimination directed against women.
Click to expand...


Okay, selecting a woman for the NY senate seat does not fit either of those definitions. Selecting a woman over a man because there are very few women in the Senate and lots of men in the Senate isn't making a selection based on traditional stereotypes of sexual roles. It isn't as though men do not traditionally serve in the Senate. For Christ's sake man.

On the second definition, "discrimination" is much too lose of a term and devaluation is more in line with what sexism actually is. It is devaluation based on a person's sex. Selecting a woman does not by definition devalue men. At all.

The issue, in short, is sex-based animus.

Oh, and stop using gender and sex interchangeably. They do not mean the same thing.
 
Damocles said:
I think that religious representation is important, so the new NY State seat should be filled by a Buddhist because there aren't any in the Senate and we are underrepresented in government. And since they can't have a penis, it should be a female Buddhist.

The one in CO should be filled by a Native American, as it was before Salazar hit the scene, and they can be hispanic as well. So, a Native American, Wiccan, Man (because whether or not there is a penis is of the utmost importance, I have it on high authority.)

The one in Illinois must be a Black Man, but it shouldn't be a Christian... They are overrepresented in government. Hopefully he'll be a Jainist. Because they are cool.
Click to expand...



Whatever, "penis envy." You're too smart to just casually throw that out there. It was quite revealing. Your opinion on these matters is less than worthless.
 
Superfreak said:
I have no idea what most of your rambling was about. But I live in Colorado, I voted for Salazar, I am happy with the way he has represented the state and in the fact that his staff is pretty damn good at getting back to me when I question his positions or provide input on topics of interest to me. While I do not always agree, they at least are respectful enough to respond and explain why he disagrees.

As far as voting percentages, it is kind of retarded to use that to determine if a Dem is liberal/moderate.

It is ALL about WHICH issues they agree/disagree on. Not on how many.
Click to expand...

Ok sounds like Salazar is a responsive rep and now that I think on it, in a swing state it makes sense. I can see part of your point and I don't usually go strictly on percentage, I do try and look at what issues they voted on, but as I've observed the vast majority of bills either in the senate or the house are spending bills, votes on issues like abortion or religion are fairly rare. And as well given that most reps tend to be socially AND economically either left or right (ie: exceptions like Ron Paul are rare), one can still get a fairly decent idea of someone's political ideology based on their ranking.


Also I'd add again you are missing the weakness in your alternative way of judging them - they could lie to you or sound like they agree with you, how would you really know unless you check their voting record?
 
Dungheap said:
Whatever, "penis envy." You're too smart to just casually throw that out there. It was quite revealing. Your opinion on these matters is less than worthless.
Click to expand...
LOL. You are embarrassed because suggesting that it be a requirement that the person be of a certain sex is what you are defending. Seriously. The content of the character... it's all just a bunch of words to you.

I was poking a bruise, trying to get the person who said she was "done here" to speak. It worked. I would note that I tried to draw that person out before using the same reference, but that one went unnoticed, I had to do it again...

You are right about one thing. I am too smart to casually throw it out there, it was done with a purpose.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top