For those of you keeping score at home, expecting A-Level students to know words and stuff is a sign that you're a degenerate elitist who wants to ride down the masses with your polo horse, but dealing with chemical spills, car crashes and burning buildings is just like working at a car wash, but with higher-pressure hoses.
Hmmmmm..... is anyone keeping track of just how many moron professions there are out there? It goes without saying that libs think Sandhurst is just a finishing school for the thick but rich. Ditto, the Five-oh. Businessmen? Fast-talking barrow boys the lot of them.... Apparently, whole swathes of the country aren't nearly as smart as the people who fall for the cunning Cadbury's Gambit.
Then again, if Sonia Sotomayor's point is so defensible, why do liberals have to lie about it?
Hey, if libs are so smart, how come their arguments fall apart as soon as they're forced to state them honestly?
Hmmmmm..... is anyone keeping track of just how many moron professions there are out there? It goes without saying that libs think Sandhurst is just a finishing school for the thick but rich. Ditto, the Five-oh. Businessmen? Fast-talking barrow boys the lot of them.... Apparently, whole swathes of the country aren't nearly as smart as the people who fall for the cunning Cadbury's Gambit.
Then again, if Sonia Sotomayor's point is so defensible, why do liberals have to lie about it?
It is, however, worth making two points about Sotomayor and the Ricci case. First, although some Republican senators and conservative pundits are likely to portray it this way, it would be silly to argue that reversal by the supreme court means that Sotomayor was legally "wrong". The case presented a genuinely difficult issue, and as reflected by the fact that it was supported by four supreme court justices, New Haven's arguments were perfectly plausibleI believe the legal term for that is 'garabage'. Here's reformed lawyer, and actual smart person, Ann Coulter:
This week, the Supreme Court ruled 5-4 for the white and Hispanic firefighters, overturning Sotomayor's endorsement of racial quotas.In other words, every judge distanced themselves from Sotomayor's goofy reasoning. It was a 9-0 wipeout for the wackadoodle 'any chance of a lawsuit' test.
But all nine justices rejected Sotomayor's holding that different test results alone give the government a green light to engage in race discrimination. Even Justice Ginsburg's opinion for the dissent clearly stated that "an employer could not cast aside a selection method based on a statistical disparity alone."
Indeed, the dissenters argued that the case should be returned to the lower courts to look for some hidden racial bias in the test. For Sotomayor, the results alone proved racial bias.
Hey, if libs are so smart, how come their arguments fall apart as soon as they're forced to state them honestly?
No comments:
Post a Comment