General Discussion

ProSense

(116,464 posts)

44. Well,

Mon Apr 9, 2012, 01:45 AM

Apr 2012

You asked

why not keep the the SCOTUS all white male as long as they're liberal?

I dunno, god knows I don't have a problem with it just as long as they uphold the constitution of the US. As a black man, do you think the presence of Clarence Thomas in the SC has done anything to improve my life? We got to start judge this people by the content of their character not the color of their skins.

...there are people to this day who don't believe Clarence Thomas is qualified. I mean, I don't think Herman Cain should be an elected official at any level. Hacks aside, increasing Congress', the Court's and the corporate hierachy's diversity is an asset, not a detriment.

There was a reason why this hearing sparked outrage

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101453029

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

114 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Obama: �Congress Would Get More Done If There Were More Women� [View all] ProSense Apr 2012 OP

And this isn't a sexist argument? badtoworse Apr 2012 #1

So you ProSense Apr 2012 #2

Hmm Dokkie Apr 2012 #3

It's a ProSense Apr 2012 #4

Bull Dokkie Apr 2012 #7

What? ProSense Apr 2012 #9

But Dokkie Apr 2012 #11

We have more spending power? how's that? robinlynne Apr 2012 #15

That's what I'd like to know, too. eom BlueCaliDem Apr 2012 #27

This is what am talking about Dokkie Apr 2012 #38

You got a link for that? n/t TriMera Apr 2012 #76

60% of personal wealth, 51% of stocks. I seriously doubt that. Oprah may scew the statistics robinlynne Apr 2012 #80

I'm all about the data, so I'd like to see a link too nevertheless... mathematic Apr 2012 #90

Let's look at one statistic, new cars bought. robinlynne Apr 2012 #97

I'm not talking about cars and neither were you. mathematic Apr 2012 #110

the article talks cleafrly about cars. The so called statistics. Most stocks are not owned by women robinlynne Apr 2012 #113

Here is the "stat" quoted on new cars: 68% of new car purchase the US are made by women robinlynne Apr 2012 #114

I think I meant to say Dokkie Apr 2012 #28

Women 'out earn' men? ProfessionalLeftist Apr 2012 #36

This is a recent development in the US Dokkie Apr 2012 #39

10 women working @ minimum wage make more than 1 unemployed man who used to make $200,000/yr? uppityperson Apr 2012 #77

Do you want to rephrase this? lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #85

No, I don't. Do you want to look again and think again? If a woman makes 10% of what a man makes, uppityperson Apr 2012 #103

Women do not out earn men. Purchaisng at the mall is not wealth. buying real estate, stocks, and cor robinlynne Apr 2012 #81

Women make 91% of real estate decisions. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #86

Women do not buy 91% of new homes. That is just plain inaccurate. robinlynne Apr 2012 #88

I think this conference had a clear agenda, and uses wrong/misleading statistics to prove a point. robinlynne Apr 2012 #89

It was considered a useful set of stats to push a Limbaugh boycott. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #96

Dokkie said it wrong. Zalatix Apr 2012 #34

A more logical argument would be that Zalatix Apr 2012 #19

By the same token Dokkie Apr 2012 #30

Ayup. Agreed. Zalatix Apr 2012 #31

See that's ProSense Apr 2012 #35

Not really. Zalatix Apr 2012 #37

Actually, ProSense Apr 2012 #40

Indeed, Republicans aren't very diverse anyway. Zalatix Apr 2012 #42

You asked Dokkie Apr 2012 #41

That's taking things too far. Zalatix Apr 2012 #43

Well, ProSense Apr 2012 #44

This message was self-deleted by its author Kath1 Apr 2012 #51

Agreed! Kath1 Apr 2012 #52

There are countries that guarantee a certain number of women in office. Zalatix Apr 2012 #53

I wouldn't have any problem with that. Kath1 Apr 2012 #55

The assumption that more women would translate to greater productivity strikes me as sexist. badtoworse Apr 2012 #5

Well, ProSense Apr 2012 #6

I will ask you a question I asked to another DUer Dokkie Apr 2012 #10

Well ProSense Apr 2012 #12

Um, just answer "no" to her post and be honest. Zalatix Apr 2012 #20

Please ProSense Apr 2012 #23

at the end of the excerpt, he specifies, "democratic women" BlancheSplanchnik Apr 2012 #84

You're speculating. Maybe you're right, maybe not badtoworse Apr 2012 #16

I think ProSense Apr 2012 #17

I think the "war on women" is not a good measure of Congress' productivity badtoworse Apr 2012 #18

Thanks for ProSense Apr 2012 #22

I'm not dismissing women's rights badtoworse Apr 2012 #58

Actually, ProSense Apr 2012 #62

and I can tell that women's rights are the only item on your list. badtoworse Apr 2012 #63

That's ProSense Apr 2012 #64

i actually agree with you. but to play devil's advocate I do want to note robinlynne Apr 2012 #98

are you veganlush Apr 2012 #8

No. badtoworse Apr 2012 #13

I BEG TO DIFFER Skittles Apr 2012 #14

Are you attacking the poster and not their arguments? Zalatix Apr 2012 #21

Did ProSense Apr 2012 #24

Actually I read it as sexist as well. vaberella Apr 2012 #32

What I find ProSense Apr 2012 #33

Prosense I understood the context of the President. vaberella Apr 2012 #100

No. joshcryer Apr 2012 #105

Women are underrepresented in Congress. That's a fact. RZM Apr 2012 #25

Well, ProSense Apr 2012 #26

It would only be different if those new women Congresspeople were mostly from one party RZM Apr 2012 #91

It would have to appreciably different, simply because Congress would represent the population more. joshcryer Apr 2012 #109

Congress would get more done if get money out of it, and quit electing religious fundamentalists. Initech Apr 2012 #29

After watching the behavior of the women in the feminist forum zappaman Apr 2012 #45

Well, that settles it. n/t ProSense Apr 2012 #48

Yes, but DonCoquixote Apr 2012 #46

Thanks for ProSense Apr 2012 #49

Women like Sarah Palin & Michelle Bachman? Angleae Apr 2012 #47

No ProSense Apr 2012 #50

Do we need more women in Congress, yes. MadHound Apr 2012 #54

You know ProSense Apr 2012 #56

So you have a sexist title headlining this piece, MadHound Apr 2012 #57

Nonsense ProSense Apr 2012 #59

Wait a minute here Dokkie Apr 2012 #60

Let the misogynists cry about it if they want... redqueen Apr 2012 #61

This is a valid argument for the same reason that "there should be more male teachers" is. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #65

LOL redqueen Apr 2012 #66

No. You have a point. lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #67

Notice the difference in phrasing... redqueen Apr 2012 #70

a) The op doesn't question, it asserts lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #71

The OP is one person's opinion.... redqueen Apr 2012 #74

LOL redqueen Apr 2012 #79

I really loved my first male teacher. DevonRex Apr 2012 #68

Although I do think more men should teach lumberjack_jeff Apr 2012 #69

I know it was. DevonRex Apr 2012 #72

Oh, the drama... redqueen Apr 2012 #73

The President is not saying women are better than men. joshcryer Apr 2012 #106

are we color/gender blind, or not? bart95 Apr 2012 #75

We would like the female vote this election Rosa Luxemburg Apr 2012 #78

That's my President! KamaAina Apr 2012 #82

Says the guy who defeated the woman with the first realistic chance hughee99 Apr 2012 #83

My same thoughts......... Beacool Apr 2012 #87

. ProSense Apr 2012 #93

Laugh all you want, but there are plenty of people fed up with the whole lot of them. Beacool Apr 2012 #101

Yes ProSense Apr 2012 #102

Yeah, ProSense Apr 2012 #92

If he's suggesting that the problem is there's not enough women, hughee99 Apr 2012 #94

Where ProSense Apr 2012 #95

My mistake, he's not suggesting anything... hughee99 Apr 2012 #99

There ProSense Apr 2012 #104

The point is, hughee99 Apr 2012 #107

Relevance? He's talking about Congress not the Presidency. joshcryer Apr 2012 #108

Of course he is. Beacool Apr 2012 #111

That does not make the statement untrue. joshcryer Apr 2012 #112