America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 9 months ago by Sunoverbeach. 157 replies replies.
4 Pages<1234>
From just seeing her picture, I can tell that Ketanji Brown Jackson
frankj1 Online
#51 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
tailgater wrote:
I'm down with that.

I laffed.
izonfire Offline
#52 Posted:
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,491
frankj1 wrote:
isn't it even more amazing that for the same reasons she wouldn't have been considered for 2 and a half centuries though?

and by amazing, I mean inexcusable.

And so replace one inexcusable practice with another.

Bravo…
bgz Offline
#53 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
izonfire wrote:
And so replace one inexcusable practice with another.

Bravo…


Why do people like you again?

Most your posts you seem like a d*ck.
RMAN4443 Offline
#54 Posted:
Joined: 09-29-2016
Posts: 7,683
RayR wrote:
I don't think "uppity" isn't a word that I have ever used. So why is Frank asking me why I didn't use it?
Uppity entrapment? Prolly.

Maybe "uppity" is a word they use in Frank's White Boston Brahmin Yankee Limousine Liberal Society? I hear peeps in Boston can be pretty uppity.

Wat choo tawkin 'bout, Willis...I grew up in the town next to frank(23 years or so), and people have called

me a lot of things, but "uppity" ain't one of them...come to think of it, I've never been called

Boston Brahmin, or Liberal either...Not talking
RayR Offline
#55 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,460
RMAN4443 wrote:
Wat choo tawkin 'bout, Willis...I grew up in the town next to frank(23 years or so), and people have called

me a lot of things, but "uppity" ain't one of them...come to think of it, I've never been called

Boston Brahmin, or Liberal either...Not talking


I didn't say you resembled that.
No need to get all uppity about it.BigGrin
RayR Offline
#56 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,460
frankj1 wrote:
isn't it even more amazing that for the same reasons she wouldn't have been considered for 2 and a half centuries though?

and by amazing, I mean inexcusable.


So what's so "amazing/inexcusable about it? Are you woke Frank?
Do you believe a person's race and gender should be the primary qualifications for appointment of a judge, that the court needs to look like Amerika like that racist pig Biden thinks? (even though he dissed Asians and Native Americans)
bgz Offline
#57 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
RMAN4443 wrote:
Wat choo tawkin 'bout, Willis...I grew up in the town next to frank(23 years or so), and people have called

me a lot of things, but "uppity" ain't one of them...come to think of it, I've never been called

Boston Brahmin, or Liberal either...Not talking


Welcome to the club!!!

Once Ray labels you a commie leftist, that's what you are... or so the story goes.
frankj1 Online
#58 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
RayR wrote:
So what's so "amazing/inexcusable about it? Are you woke Frank?
Do you believe a person's race and gender should be the primary qualifications for appointment of a judge, that the court needs to look like Amerika like that racist pig Biden thinks? (even though he dissed Asians and Native Americans)

clearly I have overrated your intellect, even though I separated it from your beliefs.

you got it in reverse yet again. Lordy this is getting tired, Ray.

It's absolutely NOT that race and/or gender should be the primary qualifications for the appointment of a judge, it's that race/gender should not be the primary reasons to DISqualify a person from said appointment.

two
and
a
half
centuries

simply not possible for any valid reasons, whether or not it's made you happy.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#59 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 13,221
So, taking Frankie's statement as a whole, we see reference to the racist/sexist practices, widely deployed throughout the country for several decades, described as "more amazing" and/or "inexcusable" than the practice of these same measures used to consider her more qualified than other possible candidates. Yet that would still leave the preferential treatment for gender/race as amazing or inexcusable with outright discrimination being more so.

From that, we can deduce that Frankie sees any preferential treatment one way or the other in a negative light, with exclusion due to discrimination being the worse of two evils.

In Ray's rebuttal, we see that Frankie's view of racism/sexism being poor practice, is responded to in a vehemently negative fashion. This would indicate that Ray fully supports racism/sexism since this elicited such a response to a condemnation of the same.

Following this chain of logic to it's conclusion, Ray is apparently a racist and may possibly be accurately described as "woke."

Reading comprehension. It's a wild and crazy thing.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#60 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 13,221
We can also deduce that Frankie types faster than I do
Sunoverbeach Offline
#61 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 13,221
Spring is nature's way of saying, "Let's party!"
- RW
izonfire Offline
#62 Posted:
Joined: 12-09-2013
Posts: 8,491
bgz wrote:
Why do people like you again?

Most your posts you seem like a d*ck.

You just always have di.ck on your mind.
And you’re obviously still hurt. Why do you gotta be such a pus.sy?

And what sweet irony coming from CBid’s very own mega-troll bitch…
bgz Offline
#63 Posted:
Joined: 07-29-2014
Posts: 13,023
izonfire wrote:
You just always have di.ck on your mind.
And you’re obviously still hurt. Why do you gotta be such a pus.sy?

And what sweet irony coming from CBid’s very own mega-troll bitch…


Oh... I was just seeing how you respond to your own style jabs...

What am I hurt over? I never cried about your mad sh*t talking skillz to anyone...

But you have about mine, lmfao
RayR Offline
#64 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,460
Sunoverbeach wrote:
So, taking Frankie's statement as a whole, we see reference to the racist/sexist practices, widely deployed throughout the country for several decades, described as "more amazing" and/or "inexcusable" than the practice of these same measures used to consider her more qualified than other possible candidates. Yet that would still leave the preferential treatment for gender/race as amazing or inexcusable with outright discrimination being more so.

From that, we can deduce that Frankie sees any preferential treatment one way or the other in a negative light, with exclusion due to discrimination being the worse of two evils.

In Ray's rebuttal, we see that Frankie's view of racism/sexism being poor practice, is responded to in a vehemently negative fashion. This would indicate that Ray fully supports racism/sexism since this elicited such a response to a condemnation of the same.

Following this chain of logic to it's conclusion, Ray is apparently a racist and may possibly be accurately described as "woke."

Reading comprehension. It's a wild and crazy thing.


Frankie speaks in riddles, he straddles the fence, so I can interpret what he writes anyway I choose.
frankj1 Online
#65 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
backpedal faster
RayR Offline
#66 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,460
Is that another riddle? I've heard youuuuz guys talk funny in Massachusetts too. Like you pronounce CAR as KA.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#67 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 13,221
A lot of people straddle the fence, or even cross back and forth over it. It's a sign of a rational mind to think critically and make decisions based on both logic and empirical evidence.

It's the extremists in the world, who are set in their way of thinking to a near fanatical level, blindly ignoring any argument or evidence presented to them, that are the frightening ones. They're the type that can be filled with rage, or even become violent when challenged. They're the people that become radacalized. They're the type that becone flat earthers.
frankj1 Online
#68 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
Sunoverbeach wrote:
A lot of people straddle the fence, or even cross back and forth over it. It's a sign of a rational mind to think critically and make decisions based on both logic and empirical evidence.

It's the extremists in the world, who are set in their way of thinking to a near fanatical level, blindly ignoring any argument or evidence presented to them, that are the frightening ones. They're the type that can be filled with rage, or even become violent when challenged. They're the people that become radacalized. They're the type that becone flat earthers.

well, yes and no...HA!
Sunoverbeach Offline
#69 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 13,221
^^See? Rational. I don't care what the stories about him say
RayR Offline
#70 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,460
Sunoverbeach wrote:
A lot of people straddle the fence, or even cross back and forth over it. It's a sign of a rational mind to think critically and make decisions based on both logic and empirical evidence.

It's the extremists in the world, who are set in their way of thinking to a near fanatical level, blindly ignoring any argument or evidence presented to them, that are the frightening ones. They're the type that can be filled with rage, or even become violent when challenged. They're the people that become radacalized. They're the type that becone flat earthers.


So...are you saying it's OK for Frank to go both ways? Anxious
Sunoverbeach Offline
#71 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 13,221
Like forward and reverse...up and down... East and West?

I don't see why not
tailgater Offline
#72 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,068
frankj1 wrote:
isn't it even more amazing that for the same reasons she wouldn't have been considered for 2 and a half centuries though?

and by amazing, I mean inexcusable.



You can't undo past injustices by adopting present day racism.

I assume she's qualified. But it's not a legitimate hire when 75% of the field was considered ineligible due to gender and/or race.

As a good friend recently said: "it's inexcusable".

rfenst Offline
#73 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 37,174
Sunoverbeach wrote:
Like forward and reverse...up and down... East and West?

I don't see why not

I object on Frank's franking behalf.
frankj1 Online
#74 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
tailgater wrote:
You can't undo past injustices by adopting present day racism.

I assume she's qualified. But it's not a legitimate hire when 75% of the field was considered ineligible due to gender and/or race.

As a good friend recently said: "it's inexcusable".


nope, can not undo the past. can't pretend it hasn't been true until recently either, maybe still exists, though a lot less, but if we ran the world it would be gone altogether.
But we don't.

I honestly don't know if she's qualified beyond reasonable doubt, but I could believe it.

I agree no one should be disqualified for any reason other than their job related qualifications, or rather lack of same.
That's exactly how I want the world to work.
So how do we get the world where it should have been for two and a half centuries?

I have to say I am more than amused when I hear stuff that sounds like white guys can't get a break. Not from you but it's been growing as the pushing for and the gains are made for wider inclusion.

If he never said he planned to appoint a Black woman and then did so, wouldn't many of the same claiming outrage just accuse him of it anyway? Honestly?

Stuff like this never gets fixed without pressure from those being subjected to persecution.
Never. Those in power don't normally change their minds because of an epiphany...it takes pressure to break the ice.
And then it starts to...just...kinda...feel...normal...

How else can it be made right? Cuz I don't know but I want it to be better.


JGKAMIN Offline
#75 Posted:
Joined: 05-08-2011
Posts: 947
Problem is when you announce that you will only consider somebody that fits a specific race and gender, that is just plain wrong anyway you slice it. It wasn’t necessary to telegraph the intention, just go ahead and do it and like you said would complain anyway, but at least the process wouldn’t scream of such improprieties. How many here would like working for a company and waiting for a vacancy and then hearing “sorry, we’re only hiring somebody that is a (gender) (race)”? In 2022 that reaks of racism and sexism and a slam dunk EEO suit, but since this is a political appointment it’s ok. The last time Joe chose off those prerequisites certainly didn’t result in the best person for the position.
Sunoverbeach Offline
#76 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 13,221
We're a heavily medicated society. All the drugs we take: Prozac, Effexor, Valium. I thought for the last ten years, we've been on some weird f**king drug... called ****itol
- RW
frankj1 Online
#77 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
JGKAMIN wrote:
Problem is when you announce that you will only consider somebody that fits a specific race and gender, that is just plain wrong anyway you slice it. It wasn’t necessary to telegraph the intention, just go ahead and do it and like you said would complain anyway, but at least the process wouldn’t scream of such improprieties. How many here would like working for a company and waiting for a vacancy and then hearing “sorry, we’re only hiring somebody that is a (gender) (race)”? In 2022 that reaks of racism and sexism and a slam dunk EEO suit, but since this is a political appointment it’s ok. The last time Joe chose off those prerequisites certainly didn’t result in the best person for the position.

I get all that, I really do. In a world without a history of hate this would never happen, nor need to happen.

But then aren't we also just saying ignore what went unsaid for (excuse me if I've said it before) two and a half centuries? It went unsaid that a chunk of America's population can never be appointed no matter their qualifications because of those specific races and genders? That is what was happening all those years, no?

But it all changes starting....NOW! Huh?

Those crushed for 250 years should shut up while those in control are now being mistreated and it hurts, for one appointment?

It shouldn't have come down to this.

I don't really have the solution on breaking the logjam. But I can't take the cries of unfairness seriously either.

I appreciate you taking me seriously. I'm just talking here...
BuckyB93 Offline
#78 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 12,819
Listing for a job opening -

Minimum requirements: Black female, all else need not apply.

Sounds fair and to me.
BuckyB93 Offline
#79 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 12,819
Seven Dee NINE!
frankj1 Online
#80 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
BuckyB93 wrote:
Listing for a job opening -

Minimum requirements: Black female, all else need not apply.

Sounds fair and to me.

it's definitely not right, I totally agree.

But I'm having trouble figuring out our options in light of history.
It feels like now the majority is speaking out against racism and sexism.
250 years later?

Why now?

Was all it would have taken to fix it simply be to have the ruling class be victims of discrimination to make them rise up and denounce this historic evil?

what a terribly worded question...but is my point clear?
HockeyDad Offline
#81 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 44,242
RayR wrote:
So...are you saying it's OK for Frank to go both ways? Anxious


We would name a street after him out here.
frankj1 Online
#82 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
I am humbled, but I will not take a bow.
RayR Offline
#83 Posted:
Joined: 07-20-2020
Posts: 6,460
But you can curtsy. Frank.
BuckyB93 Offline
#84 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 12,819
frankj1 wrote:
it's definitely not right, I totally agree.

But I'm having trouble figuring out our options in light of history.
It feels like now the majority is speaking out against racism and sexism.
250 years later?

Why now?


Was all it would have taken to fix it simply be to have the ruling class be victims of discrimination to make them rise up and denounce this historic evil?

what a terribly worded question...but is my point clear?


The majority of the people today were not alive 250 yrs ago. I would even venture to say 100% of the people today were not alive 250 yrs ago but there is always an exception to the rule - take Keith Richards for example and I'm still not sure Betty White actually died, I think it's fake news.

Social and societal norms back then can't be fixed today by swinging to the opposite extreme. If we want all to be treated equal, then let's treat all as equal and not swing to the opposite extreme in attempts to right a wrong and play catch-up.
frankj1 Online
#85 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
BuckyB93 wrote:
The majority of the people today were not alive 250 yrs ago. I would even venture to say 100% of the people today were not alive 250 yrs ago but there is always an exception to the rule - take Keith Richards for example and I'm still not sure Betty White actually died, I think it's fake news.

Social and societal norms back then can't be fixed today by swinging to the opposite extreme. If we want all to be treated equal, then let's treat all as equal and not swing to the opposite extreme in attempts to right a wrong and play catch-up.

OK, how about 60 years?
Still took peaceful marches followed by water cannons just to integrate buses and Woolworth lunch counters, though I would have boycotted Woolworth lunch counters without national news coverage.

The point is not that we did anything 250 years ago, it's that it wasn't changing without unrest...it appears.
Every step of the way.
frankj1 Online
#86 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
RayR wrote:
But you can curtsy. Frank.

true, true.
I've been known to bend over backwards for good friends too!
HA!
HockeyDad Offline
#87 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 44,242
frankj1 wrote:
OK, how about 60 years?
Still took peaceful marches followed by water cannons just to integrate buses and Woolworth lunch counters, though I would have boycotted Woolworth lunch counters without national news coverage.

The point is not that we did anything 250 years ago, it's that it wasn't changing without unrest...it appears.
Every step of the way.


Don’t punish me for the horrible things you did 60 years ago.
tailgater Offline
#88 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,068
frankj1 wrote:


If he never said he planned to appoint a Black woman and then did so, wouldn't many of the same claiming outrage just accuse him of it anyway? Honestly?




Honestly? No.
The guy literally eliminated the vast majority of the field due to skin color and plumbing.
You've already given him a bye on this.
First, by saying it's been the opposite for 200 years.
Now, by saying he would catch outrage anyhow.

Stop.
Just stop.

He doesn't deserve a pass.
Not when he clearly employed a racist hiring tactic, and it was embraced by the woke left.

We're now well past pathetic and it's barely past year one.
tailgater Offline
#89 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,068
frankj1 wrote:
it's definitely not right, I totally agree.

But I'm having trouble figuring out our options in light of history.
It feels like now the majority is speaking out against racism and sexism.
250 years later?

Why now?

Was all it would have taken to fix it simply be to have the ruling class be victims of discrimination to make them rise up and denounce this historic evil?

what a terribly worded question...but is my point clear?


Here's a concept:
Hire based on qualifications for the job.
Nothing else.

If SCOTUS goes back to all white dudes, so what?
Same if it's all transgender midgets of mixed decent.

Leave the stuff that doesn't matter out of the equation.

You say "now" we're speaking out against racism?
That's a backwards viewpoint.

If Trump said "I'm going to hire a white male", what would the outrage be?
Hint: a lot worse. From both sides. Whether you believe it or not.

frankj1 Online
#90 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
HockeyDad wrote:
Don’t punish me for the horrible things you did 60 years ago.

63 years ago I got accused of cheating at CandyLand in kindergarten!
George told Miss Strum (real name) I rigged the cards to pick a double blue, exactly what I need to win.
She took me to the principal's office where the receptionist lied and said he wasn't in and to just sit near her.
But I could see him at his desk cuz the door was cracked a bit and figured if I acted askeered they'd go easy on me.
tailgater Offline
#91 Posted:
Joined: 06-01-2000
Posts: 26,068
I notice you haven't denied stacking the deck.
You sly dog.
You just wanted to sit next to that receptionist.

Krazeehorse Offline
#92 Posted:
Joined: 04-09-2010
Posts: 1,873
Was that Karen Strum by chance?
BuckyB93 Offline
#93 Posted:
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 12,819
I think the ultimate selection should be based on Drafter's review after seeing her boobs
frankj1 Online
#94 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
BuckyB93 wrote:
I think the ultimate selection should be based on Drafter's review after seeing her boobs

that's not crazy
Sunoverbeach Offline
#95 Posted:
Joined: 08-11-2017
Posts: 13,221
And I'd you want a linguistic adventure, go drinking with a Scotsman. Cause you can't f**king understand them before.
- RW
frankj1 Online
#96 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
tailgater wrote:
Honestly? No.
The guy literally eliminated the vast majority of the field due to skin color and plumbing.
You've already given him a bye on this.
First, by saying it's been the opposite for 200 years.
Now, by saying he would catch outrage anyhow.

Stop.
Just stop.

He doesn't deserve a pass.
Not when he clearly employed a racist hiring tactic, and it was embraced by the woke left.

We're now well past pathetic and it's barely past year one.

the larger issue is not specifically if Biden this or if Biden that. That faux outrage issue is in the Warhol 15 minutes of fame category. I'm talking 250 years.

I just can't rally behind the majority claiming how unfair things are NOW to us. That just feels like a way to ignore how we got here and you know what they say about those that fail to learn from history...

I know you personally, I know you would look at resumes, even do blindfolded interviews and pick the best. But you and I are not born into the ruling class, and they just aren't real amenable to change until there's simply no getting away from it. They aren't like us. They count on your defense though.

If you do believe in fair play, how is it acceptable that we have never had anyone from certain categories deemed qualified? It's certainly not the fault of the rejected candidates, it's that the fix is in.

Doesn't mean the White race as a whole is responsible for this, it's the marionettes that pull the strings.
Stuff just doesn't change itself.

Oh yeah, and I am not going to accept being the defender of reverse prejudice either. I'm asking how this crap ends and we can be assured America will select the best available from the whole pool.
frankj1 Online
#97 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
tailgater wrote:
I notice you haven't denied stacking the deck.
You sly dog.
You just wanted to sit next to that receptionist.


yechhh, she was waiting to meet Jesus. Had it been a thing back then, I would have welcomed social distancing.

And if you must know, George was right.
HockeyDad Offline
#98 Posted:
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 44,242
frankj1 wrote:

Oh yeah, and I am not going to accept being the defender of reverse prejudice either. I'm asking how this crap ends and we can be assured America will select the best available from the whole pool.


This crap doesn’t end. Reverse prejudice is acceptable and has been for a while so there is no reason to not defend it. You cannot be assured America will select the best available from the whole pool because you are being told that we will not. That’s about as far away from the assurance that you seek!

Time to accept it and maybe get a Covid booster shot as well. Deal with it you white male devil.
rfenst Offline
#99 Posted:
Joined: 06-23-2007
Posts: 37,174
The pool of qualified candidates is HUGE. No one protentional nominee can be the "best." There is no "best" to find.

And, if you don't think all judicial appointments are political/socially motivated, you are dreaming. The experiences, race, religion, education, accomplishments, expertise, background, etc., are all factors that are considered when picking a SCOTUS Justice.

The wider the variety of attributes and experiences among SCOTUS, the better the court.
.
frankj1 Online
#100 Posted:
Joined: 02-08-2007
Posts: 42,718
Robert, Tom called me a white male devil.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
4 Pages<1234>