But that is good segregation, not the bad kind.I didn't know Hillary considered these people Trump supporters.
'Black Only Housing' in California State University Offers Segregated Housing for Black Students : College : University Herald
But that is good segregation, not the bad kind.I didn't know Hillary considered these people Trump supporters.
'Black Only Housing' in California State University Offers Segregated Housing for Black Students : College : University Herald
But that is good segregation, not the bad kind.
The judge doesn't seem impartial to me, by definition of the word La Raza. Someone said, "responsible for their rhetoric, and how it is viewed, regardless of their intent."
However, to qualify, I've been called deplorable.
Liberals call Trump a racist all time. I have yet to see any proof.
What's next on the grasping of Trump racist straws?
But that is good segregation, not the bad kind.
But that is good segregation, not the bad kind.
No. Its too subjective and hard to prove. How do you prove what is in a person's heart? For example, Do I dislike Kut because he is black, or because he is an agitator? How do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt which is the reason? You cant. (I dont dislike him really)
Besides, we already have too many laws on the books.
OK, so the judge needs to recuse himself for impartiality concerns that he brought upon himself.
Next "Trump is racist" hoax?
You were the one who said that people are responsible for their rhetorical associations, regardless of intent, right?Judge Curiel is part of the Latino Bar association La Raza Lawyers Association. It has no affiliation with the National Council of La Raza. But, I guess people will believe what they want.
A candidate is responsible for their rhetoric, and how it is viewed, regardless of their intent.
You were the one who said that people are responsible for their rhetorical associations, regardless of intent, right?
Does the same not apply to a federal judge who joins and supports an organization sharing the same name as an openly racist organization?
The judge did himself no favors here, his actions lend themselves to the appearance of bias which is something judges have to religiously avoid.
If one wanted a stronger argument to criticize Trump as racist over the whole thing, I would go with his statements that no person of Mexican descent could sit as a judge on it.
What noteworthy difference?Did I? I seem to remember a noteworthy difference.
A candidate is responsible for their rhetoric, and how it is viewed, regardless of their intent.
What noteworthy difference?
If you can't see that one's choices of association are just as important as ones words in determining character and reputation, I don't think there is a purpose in continuing.Im still trying to figure out how membership in an organization is counted as rhetoric.
If you can't see that one's choices of association are just as important as ones words in determining character and reputation, I don't think there is a purpose in continuing.
Found the "Carmel Black Panthers" with some friends and do charity work. See what it does for your resume.
C'mon kut, that's not what he said and you know it. You also know what you said. How else should one be responsible for his own rhetoric regarddless of intent? You're saying it doesn't matter what one says, how people view it is what matters. So, logically, why would it matter whether the message is said through speech or action?So you consider the Black Lawyer's Association and the New Black Panthers as spiritually the same thing? Ok, got it.