Smallc Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 You talk like Vic Toews was the only MP appointed to the judiciary. The Liberals have appointed scores of ex-MPs to the judiciary over the years - and without a single word of criticism from you, I bet. A statement like this should be followed by examples. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 A claim that is without any merit. What makes you think they are not the most qualified? Reality, statistics. Common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 Reality, statistics. Common sense. So nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted June 23, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 So nothing. I realize that reality and common sense are foreign concepts to Liberals... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 I realize that reality and common sense are foreign concepts to Liberals... Common sense is a logical fallacy. Reality is subjective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 Reality, statistics. Common sense. bullshit. Reality? What reality Argus? You're reality that there's no way females/some-ethnicity-or-other can rank way up there on jurist qualifications? My reality is that anyone can rank way up there no matter their gender or ethnicity or lack of ethnicity. Statistics? Stats say most legal types are white males therefore there is no way non-white-males could number among those most qualified? Never mind individual skills and experience. Its impossible to find 15 non-white males of the legal profession who could possibly rank way up there? Common Sense? Your common sense that claims if they're not white-males then there is something shady going on? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 You talk like Vic Toews was the only MP appointed to the judiciary. The Liberals have appointed scores of ex-MPs to the judiciary over the years - and without a single word of criticism from you, I bet. Like whom? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
?Impact Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 This is ask #4 (I should do this once a day). Other than the colour of their skin, does anyone know why these are not good choices and why others passed over would be better? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poochy Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 Some of you have a staggering ability to miss an obvious point, or ignore it and infer the person making it is a racist, it's how things are done now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 I realize that reality and common sense are foreign concepts to Liberals... ROFL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 Some of you have a staggering ability to miss an obvious point, or ignore it and infer the person making it is a racist, it's how things are done now. So prove that the 12 non white male judges aren't eminently qualified. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 Some of you have a staggering ability to miss an obvious point, or ignore it and infer the person making it is a racist, it's how things are done now. Well when someone makes a thread criticizing appointments and the only substantive point is that there isnt enough white ones... then obviously some people are going to question your motivation. Especially after being challenged for 6 pages with coming up with a single reason why any of the appointees are not qualified you come up with absolutely nothing at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andromeda Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 let's say you had 100 lawyers. 95 of them had their names beginning with the letter M while the other 5 had their names beginning with the letter T. when promotion time came along...... the group of 5 received most of the promotions. mathematically this would not suggest that the promotions were based on merit but far more likely on identity. I am eagerly awaiting the moment that JT will offer to step down and hand over the liberal leadership to a woman or some representative of a visible minority group. what's good for the goose is good for the gander is it not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter F Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 First you need to show that those whose names start with the letter T are not qualified for the promotion. The requirements aren't that the PM must choose the most qualified but that the PM chooses from among the qualified. If the PM chooses all women from among the qualified then thats what he gets to do. If the PM chooses all men thats what he gets to do. If he chooses only judges whose last name begins with T then thats what he gets to do. Whats the actual complaint? The PM chose too many women! - yes they're qualified but nevertheless.,,And a native! - yes - qualified. But com'on! A native? really?. And a few white guys, yes - but even their qualifications are in doubt because they were just added to make things look good. Thats the complaint right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 Inching towards 100 posts and still nothing but unsubstantiated garbage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 23, 2016 Report Share Posted June 23, 2016 Inching towards 100 posts and still nothing but unsubstantiated garbage. No, no... It's "common sense"! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 Common for bigots maybe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) It's because there are two separate arguments, and never the twain and all that. The accusations of racism are knee jerk reactions when there is no actual argument to be made. The argument that these people were appointed for reasons other than competence in legal issues, while most definitely not stating that they are not competent, which no-one has, to my knowledge, can't be met reasonably, so racism will have to do. It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. While most assuredly competent, (after all, I'm no jurist and they didn't ask me) their diversity and political leanings were a major reason behind the appointments. Dre got it. It's so obvious to him he found the whole thread stupid. Edited June 24, 2016 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 The accusations of racism were made because a negative conclusion was drawn based on people's race. There has yet to be a single post explaining how these judges like the qualifications for the job other than "look at their skin colour and use common sense." In other words, we're being asked to assume that they're not qualified because they're not white men. If you don't see how that's racist, then there's no amount of explaining that will get you to understand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 The accusations of racism were made because a negative conclusion was drawn based on people's race. There has yet to be a single post explaining how these judges like the qualifications for the job other than "look at their skin colour and use common sense." In other words, we're being asked to assume that they're not qualified because they're not white men. If you don't see how that's racist, then there's no amount of explaining that will get you to understand. What criteria do you think were considered when the appointments were made? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) Why do you keep asking such a silly question? Just answer the question asked back on page one. Demonstrate how they're not qualified. That's it. That's how you lay the claims of racism to rest. You actually show that these people are not qualified in some way. Edited June 24, 2016 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 Why do you keep asking such a silly question? Just answer the question asked back on page one. Demonstrate how they're not qualified. That's it. That's how you lay the claims of racism to rest. You actually show that these people are not qualified in some way. Because it's the whole point. Do you think I have the resumes of everone who was hired and everyone who was passed over? Just say you believe their competence in legal matters was the only criteria used and I'll believe you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 Because it's the whole point. You're debating against a point that no one has made! The "whole point" is that the OP (and others) claim they are unqualified and they were solely chosen because of skin colour. Others have said, "show us the evidence that they're unqualified". No one has argued that there aren't other criteria for picking a judge. You can stop setting up that silly straw man now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 You're debating against a point that no one has made! The "whole point" is that the OP (and others) claim they are unqualified and they were solely chosen because of skin colour. Others have said, "show us the evidence that they're unqualified". No one has argued that there aren't other criteria for picking a judge. You can stop setting up that silly straw man now... No, I got involved right at the beginning saying that their legal competence probably wasn't the main criteria for their appointments. Opinion. Argue or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted June 24, 2016 Report Share Posted June 24, 2016 No, I got involved right at the beginning saying that their legal competence probably wasn't the main criteria for their appointments. Opinion. Argue or not. So who argued against that? Where did cybercoma say otherwise? You're debating against ghosts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.