Bueller, pay attention! They have a really good African American history class at TU that you should attend to learn more about this. It’s real simple. African-American.........The term African American generally denotes „descendants“ of enslaved black people. From America, not the Carabian and certainly not from India. My family has been here for the last 400 years! I sir am African American! She is first generation immigrant.
The Title Card Has Been Announced
- Thread starter astonmartin708
- Start date
Denying immigrants, in the land of the immigrants. African American denotates descending from Africa, and being American. It denotates the color of your skin. Quit being so tribal in your definition. You wouldn't be this way, if she was a black republican being nominated for VP. And you wouldn't be that way if she was a man.(NASTY)
My favorite candidate for President is female, and Indian.
(Condoleeza would be #1 if she would ever run.)
I'll let you guess who she is, it ain't a hard guess.
Now that would be a helluva ticket. Condoleeza/'yet to be named, or vice versa.
(Condoleeza would be #1 if she would ever run.)
I'll let you guess who she is, it ain't a hard guess.
Now that would be a helluva ticket. Condoleeza/'yet to be named, or vice versa.
You are so dumb. You know that Jamaica was a slave colony right? It’s not like a bunch of black people just moved there for the beaches. American just denotes that you are now an American. Kind of like a person who’s parents are from Mexico but now resides in America would be called a Mexican American. Or a person who’s parents are from Asia are Asian American.
Look how much she has accomplished as a ‘first generation immigrant’ in comparison to you or your family in even 100 years. Maybe you should try harder.
Bueller, you thinking that African Americans categorize Africans or people from The Caribbean as part of us is possibly the most ignorant thing I have ever seen you write! Africans to include the descendants of Africans who were brought to the US have always been tribalistic and will always be tribalistic. Go to any predominantly black neighborhood and you will see the areas divided by gangs, church communities, classes, and every way under the son bc being tribalistic never left our DNA even though we left the African continent! We even separate ourselves by shades of black. There were Tons of black people who would even accept Obama as African American. Wake up Bueller! Sleeping in class is starting to reflect poorly on you!
Nobody's gonna name my candidate?
Alright, I will name her, Haley.
Nikki/Condoleeza, Condoleeza/Nikki would be a dynamite combo.
Alright, I will name her, Haley.
Nikki/Condoleeza, Condoleeza/Nikki would be a dynamite combo.
Condoleeza is legit. Haley not so much! My non partisan dream team would be Tulsi and Dan Crenshaw!
There's talk of Trump ditching Pence and picking up Haley. The problem with that is that I don't think Haley really does much in terms of stabilizing a Trump white house anymore than Pence does. On the positive side, it would finally be a guaranteed victory for a woman in the presidential election.
Gen Flynn come on down! There is no better person right now equipped to help Trump drain the swamp and bring innovation to our government than him! By far the best boss anyone could ever ask for!
She does bring some of the female vote back to Trump, as well as some of the more moderate voter. That's why I don't want her to run as Trump's VP. I want her to run later. Anything that doesn't work to get Trump out of office, I'm against.
I can't believe you are under the mis-impression that Trump is doing anything but increasing the swamp.
Bueller, you never spent a day in your life working in DC. How could you possibly Think you know or understand who the swamp is?
Rational analyses. Everybody doesn't have to be in DC to see the swamp, with some clarity. Quit disavowing everybody's opinion cuz they don't work for the government.
I have a good friend (best man at my wedding) who works in Washington. Worked in the Senate under McConnell and was appointed by Trump at a federal agency.... he's painted a pretty clear picture of some of the swampiness from both parties for me. You don't need to be in Washington to realize how much of a swamp it was prior to 2016, and how much more it's become after 2016.
I don’t have to be a mechanic to be able to fix a F22 fighter but it sure helps!
Yeah, he's also disavowing personal sources like that one. He just called the entire voting public as outright ignorant on that.
Let me be clear, if you put globalism before your country, you are part of the bipartisan swamp!
I think it would be more appropriate if you made that analogy with a 3/4 ton Ford, but yes it helps. That doesn't stop the shady tree mechanic from doing a little work on the ford, successfully
In my opinion, Biden's choice of Harris may go down as being as bad as McCain choosing Sarah Palin in 2008. Generally, the choice of a Vice President acts to balance the ticket and perhaps help win states that the Presidential candidate is weak in, i.e., Kennedy and Johnson in 1960 for example. Lately, the Vice-Presidential picks have been somewhat bland, i.e. Tim Keane and Pence in 2016.
Biden's pick is strange. Many of the swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota have a heavy Catholic vote. During her short time in the Senate Harris has been anti-Catholic almost to the point of bigotry. She and one of the Senators from Hawaii on the Judiciary Committee went overboard against a Federal Judge appointee who belonged to an "extremist group" (their terminology) the Knights of Columbus. Either Harris was ignorant about the Knights of Columbus or she is anti-Catholic but she took the position that being Catholic and being a member of the Knights of Columbus was a reason to deny a Federal Judgeship. Her argument did not fly because the U.S. Constitution guarantees that there is no religious test for public office. Her offensive however, resonated with rank and file Catholics particularly those of us in the Knights of Columbus. After her pick as Vice President nominee there were a number of articles about her misplaced arguments. There have been a number of Facebook posts bringing it up. I am sure that her misguided position will be a campaign argument in the Catholic swing states.
The Knights of Columbus is not an "extremist group". We (I am proud to be a 4th Degree Knight) are Catholic men who do charitable works, we fix the fence around our Church, give winter coats to kids that cannot afford, and help with the Special Olympics. We are also Catholic and believe in the moral teachings of our Church.
Please don't argue that Biden is a devout Catholic and he will capture the Catholic vote. I am not a judge of his faith but he is not getting support from the clergy because of his change of position on abortion.
Some may argue about all the bad things with the Catholic Church recently. I agree that there were bad people involved. That does not take away the power of the Catholic vote. There are 40 million United States Catholic voters. Sixty years ago the majority of those voters were with the Democratic Party. Those numbers have changed somewhat. I don't think Harris' views will sell to the Midwestern swing state's Catholics.
Biden's pick is strange. Many of the swing states like Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota have a heavy Catholic vote. During her short time in the Senate Harris has been anti-Catholic almost to the point of bigotry. She and one of the Senators from Hawaii on the Judiciary Committee went overboard against a Federal Judge appointee who belonged to an "extremist group" (their terminology) the Knights of Columbus. Either Harris was ignorant about the Knights of Columbus or she is anti-Catholic but she took the position that being Catholic and being a member of the Knights of Columbus was a reason to deny a Federal Judgeship. Her argument did not fly because the U.S. Constitution guarantees that there is no religious test for public office. Her offensive however, resonated with rank and file Catholics particularly those of us in the Knights of Columbus. After her pick as Vice President nominee there were a number of articles about her misplaced arguments. There have been a number of Facebook posts bringing it up. I am sure that her misguided position will be a campaign argument in the Catholic swing states.
The Knights of Columbus is not an "extremist group". We (I am proud to be a 4th Degree Knight) are Catholic men who do charitable works, we fix the fence around our Church, give winter coats to kids that cannot afford, and help with the Special Olympics. We are also Catholic and believe in the moral teachings of our Church.
Please don't argue that Biden is a devout Catholic and he will capture the Catholic vote. I am not a judge of his faith but he is not getting support from the clergy because of his change of position on abortion.
Some may argue about all the bad things with the Catholic Church recently. I agree that there were bad people involved. That does not take away the power of the Catholic vote. There are 40 million United States Catholic voters. Sixty years ago the majority of those voters were with the Democratic Party. Those numbers have changed somewhat. I don't think Harris' views will sell to the Midwestern swing state's Catholics.
At times, The Catholic Knights seem to have a more conservative view on politics than does even the Pontiff himself.
Both Biden and Kaine before him are Catholics. Kaine was a pretty devout Jesuit. I don't think the Midwest is in quite as much peril this election cycle as you think. The battlegrounds will likely be Arizona, Florida, and North Carolina.
I will firstly say that Harris never called the Knights of Columbus an extremest group from any transcript I can find. The Senator from Hawaii, Hirono did say,
"You reported that you have been a member of the Knights of Columbus since 1993. The Knights of Columbus has taken a number of extreme positions. For example, it was reportedly one of the top contributors to California’s Proposition 8 campaign to ban same-sex marriage. If confirmed, do you intend to end your membership with this organization to avoid any appearance of bias?"
I think this letter to the editor of the LA Times sums up my opinion on the matter pretty well...
To the editor: Rabbi Mitchell Rocklin calls out Sens. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) for questioning whether a judicial nominee who is a member of the Knights of Columbus can serve on the federal bench. Rocklin calls their concern a constitutionally prohibited religious test, but it is not.
The senators do not claim that nominee Brian Buescher is unfit to serve on the bench because he is Roman Catholic. Their concern is whether his membership in the Knights of Columbus may affect his ability to judge impartially.
Roman Catholicism is a religion. There is no religion called Knights of Columbus, which is in fact an organization that takes political positions that should be of concern to the Senate.
It is entirely appropriate for senators to query a judicial nominee about his membership in an organization that advocates elimination of both marriage equality and a woman’s right to choose before they reward him with a lifetime appointment to the federal bench.
I.E. if someone was asking a person of Ismalic faith skeptically questioning their previous membership in a conservative Islamic group which had fundamentalist doctrinal opinions about some beliefs of the faith., that would be different than questioning their belief in Islam as a whole.
Last edited:
The Catholic church is against gay marriage, divorce, &
abortions. A politician/judge is supposed to support those positions as a member of the catholic church. He also must abide by the law in his position.
The Knights of Columbus is a fraternal order of the Catholic Church, fully supported by the Catholic Church. Just because you, or Harris, or anybody else, wish to separate a subordinate group of the Catholic Church, does not make it true, or affect whether it is against their constitutional rights. It is.
I believe it’s appropriate to be able to separate a subsection from the greater entity which is why I don’t associate Islam strictly with the beliefs of the Muslim Brotherhood or Hezbollah or even the Shah’s sect in Iran. Same goes for Orthodox Jews. If I was interviewing an Orthodox Jew to be a federal judge, I would like to know that they’re able to separate their religious beliefs from their view on the law at large
Even when the entire denomination believes something, I think people should still be able to differentiate their religious views from the law. I wouldn’t want a Baptist interpreting laws to disfavor dancing and drinking. I wouldn’t want a Mennonite to interpret laws to disfavor technology. I wouldn’t want a Mormon to interpret laws to disfavor caffeine. I don’t want a catholic to interpret laws to disfavor condoms. I think it’s a legitimate question whether you can separate your religious beliefs from your legal ones in organizations that have strict (fundamentalist) opinions about some activities.
Last edited:
Those organizations are much less integrated and not under as direct of authority and the auspices of the parent organization, as the Knights of Columbus. So no, you did not make your point.
That would be like saying that if a Franciscan Friar were appointed to a position within the government or the Pope gave a special dispensation for an Augustinian Friar to receive the same appointment, that he could be denied that position, based purely on him being a member of that group within the church, without taking away his constitutional rights.
You cannot question any of those candidates based on religious beliefs, any more than you can question a Catholic judge who is a practicing member of the church. She had no right to question the candidate because of him being a member of the Knights of Columbus. She could have questioned him on issues that were law, without mention of the church. But she stepped out of bounds when she mentioned the organization.
You are a little out of your depth here. A Canon lawyer would tear you apart on this argument.
Last edited:
Side note: Even as a member of the Catholic church, I might be a little out of my depth here. I assume that a Franciscan Friar could receive an appointment to a Judgeship without need of a special dispensation by the pope. But I might be wrong there. He might need the same special dispensation, as an Augustinian Friar would. I'm not 100% certain of the limitations or lack there of, for a Franciscan Friar. But that's not germane to the point being made.
Because it was specifically biased towards him being a Knight of Columbus. They can ask questions separate from him being in the Knights of Columbus. It is somewhat of a semantic argument, but important none the less.
The following is an excerpt of an article shortly after Harris and the Hawaii Senator ganged up on the Catholic nominee for Judge:
"In considering the confirmation of Brian Buescher to a federal judgeship last month, Harris and Hirono submitted written questions that raised alarms about his membership in “an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men.”
“Were you aware,” Harris asked, “that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” And: “Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights?” And: “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”
For those who know the Knights of Columbus, this is a bit like accusing your Aunt Harriet’s knitting circle of being a Mexican drug cartel.
In most of the country, the Knights are a respected fraternal organization consisting of men who hand out coats to needy children, promote devotion to the Virgin Mary, support crisis pregnancy shelters and protest doggedly each year in the March for Life."
The particular candidate had joined the Knights when he was 18 years old. It was also years before Roe v. Wade. He answered with that information. There are many Catholic Federal Judges. There are even several at our Federal Courthouse in Tulsa. The Supreme Court is made up of 5 Catholic Justices. Judges are bound to follow the Constitution and legal precedents. Those concepts are somewhat fluid sometimes.
The Constitution prohibits a religious test to hold office. Shortly after the Harris/Hirano episode the Senate passed a Resolution with unanimous consent that it would be unconstitutional to conside4r membership in the Knights of Columbus as a disqualifying criteria for public office. Unanimous consent means that no one, including the Democrats objected.
Harris and Hirano were either naive and uneducated about Catholics, the Knights of Columbus etc. or they are Anti-Catholic.
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/...xf0WWng1OmA94WTmOIXvZQ4kEphRL8c#storylink=cpy
"In considering the confirmation of Brian Buescher to a federal judgeship last month, Harris and Hirono submitted written questions that raised alarms about his membership in “an all-male society comprised primarily of Catholic men.”
“Were you aware,” Harris asked, “that the Knights of Columbus opposed a woman’s right to choose when you joined the organization?” And: “Have you ever, in any way, assisted with or contributed to advocacy against women’s reproductive rights?” And: “Were you aware that the Knights of Columbus opposed marriage equality when you joined the organization?”
For those who know the Knights of Columbus, this is a bit like accusing your Aunt Harriet’s knitting circle of being a Mexican drug cartel.
In most of the country, the Knights are a respected fraternal organization consisting of men who hand out coats to needy children, promote devotion to the Virgin Mary, support crisis pregnancy shelters and protest doggedly each year in the March for Life."
The particular candidate had joined the Knights when he was 18 years old. It was also years before Roe v. Wade. He answered with that information. There are many Catholic Federal Judges. There are even several at our Federal Courthouse in Tulsa. The Supreme Court is made up of 5 Catholic Justices. Judges are bound to follow the Constitution and legal precedents. Those concepts are somewhat fluid sometimes.
The Constitution prohibits a religious test to hold office. Shortly after the Harris/Hirano episode the Senate passed a Resolution with unanimous consent that it would be unconstitutional to conside4r membership in the Knights of Columbus as a disqualifying criteria for public office. Unanimous consent means that no one, including the Democrats objected.
Harris and Hirano were either naive and uneducated about Catholics, the Knights of Columbus etc. or they are Anti-Catholic.
Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/opinion/...xf0WWng1OmA94WTmOIXvZQ4kEphRL8c#storylink=cpy
The Midwest is in play. Believe it or not Trump is actually running ahead in those areas then he did in 2016. Harris is not going to play well in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan and even Minnesota. Those are all states with a large number of Catholics. Biden should have picked someone less offensive to Catholics.
Pretty much this. The people that give them money told them they had to go out there and attack the nominee’s views on certain issues. They didn’t have the courage to say no, so they had to come up with a gimmick to do it, The nominee’s views are informed by his religious beliefs and experiences. They can’t constitutionally attack those beliefs, but want to. So they attack the membership in an organization affiliated with the Church that doesn’t comport with their own view of what being a Catholic means. The goal is to subtly desensitize, over time, the public’s awareness of the illegality of their desired attack on persons whose religious experience informs their judicial temperament that they don’t agree with. It’s bone chilling. The next nominee or the next one after that may be attacked for being Catholic because the public starts to think it’s ok. I can’t believe she went along with it and I’m alarmed someone so easily manipulated who knows better was nominated. These guys go to Church and make pancakes. They aren’t either building or not building bombs as the absurd comparison above tried to argue. You are either attacking the Church or the pancakes. And if you are attacking the pancakes, every adult in the room knows you are attacking the Church, especially if you voted to keep abortion legal for mothers who don’t want their babies born alive.
Last edited:
The Knights of Columbus are not under direct control of the Catholic religion or the Pope. The Knights of Columbus is a fraternal organization of Catholic men. We have a headquarters office in New Haven, CT with a Board of Directors. Of course the Knights of Columbus follows Catholic moral teaching. The organization would not be able to attract membership from practical Catholics.
I moved to Tulsa 50 years ago this month to attend law school at the University of Tulsa. The law school was much more humbler and was not on campus, it was in a small building downtown on South Cincinnati across from the former location of the Iron Gate.
My aim with the TU law school was to get into the oil and gas business and ultimately assist my father in Western Pennsylvania in that business. I did well at the TU law school, I was 7th in my class of 58, I was a member of the Board of Editors of the TU Law Journal, I received tuition scholarships for several semesters, I was on the Dean's Honor Roll for most of my 7 trimesters. The law dean called me into his office and told me that I had done well and I could use his name as a reference. He even arranged for a couple of interviews for me.
I had 14 interviews with law firms, several oil companies and several county and city offices. At two of the interviews I was asked if I was Catholic. I suppose they saw my Irish last name and wanted to make sure I was not Scottish. At another two interviews I was asked if I was married. I did not find a job but the students who finished 57 and 58 did. I wanted to stay in Tulsa because my girl friend was from here and was in law school one year behind me.
I borrowed $1,500.00 and opened a small office. It took me many years to really make a living. Over those years from time to time I ran into those who had asked if I was Catholic in the interviews. I actually had law suits against some of them and sometimes I won. I worked my practice into a field that at the time few attorneys were in. Many of the people I interviewed with actually became my friends and referred their clients and family members to me.
Often I attend donor dinners at TU. My wife is deceased and I go by myself and ask people who are seated if I may sit with them. I am gregarious and I introduce myself and during the conversation they ask what I do. I tell them I am an attorney. In every case they ask "What firm are you with?" When I say I am not in a firm they usually say "OH". I sometimes ask themn do you want the short version or the long version.
Looking back over my career I discovered that in 1973 there was only one Catholic partner in a law firm in Tulsa. There was not one woman partner in a law firm in Tulsa. There was not one black partner or associate in a non-black law firm in Tulsa. There was not one Jewish partner or associate in a non-Jewish law firm in Tulsa. Obviously things have changed. I have told this story to Catholic partners in large Tulsa law firms. They do not believe me but it is true.
Because of my life experiences I am overly sensitive to anti-Catholic (or any religion for that matter) job requirements. I feel like I was a better candidate then the students who finished 57 and 58 in my class. I just did not get the opportunity to prove it.
I moved to Tulsa 50 years ago this month to attend law school at the University of Tulsa. The law school was much more humbler and was not on campus, it was in a small building downtown on South Cincinnati across from the former location of the Iron Gate.
My aim with the TU law school was to get into the oil and gas business and ultimately assist my father in Western Pennsylvania in that business. I did well at the TU law school, I was 7th in my class of 58, I was a member of the Board of Editors of the TU Law Journal, I received tuition scholarships for several semesters, I was on the Dean's Honor Roll for most of my 7 trimesters. The law dean called me into his office and told me that I had done well and I could use his name as a reference. He even arranged for a couple of interviews for me.
I had 14 interviews with law firms, several oil companies and several county and city offices. At two of the interviews I was asked if I was Catholic. I suppose they saw my Irish last name and wanted to make sure I was not Scottish. At another two interviews I was asked if I was married. I did not find a job but the students who finished 57 and 58 did. I wanted to stay in Tulsa because my girl friend was from here and was in law school one year behind me.
I borrowed $1,500.00 and opened a small office. It took me many years to really make a living. Over those years from time to time I ran into those who had asked if I was Catholic in the interviews. I actually had law suits against some of them and sometimes I won. I worked my practice into a field that at the time few attorneys were in. Many of the people I interviewed with actually became my friends and referred their clients and family members to me.
Often I attend donor dinners at TU. My wife is deceased and I go by myself and ask people who are seated if I may sit with them. I am gregarious and I introduce myself and during the conversation they ask what I do. I tell them I am an attorney. In every case they ask "What firm are you with?" When I say I am not in a firm they usually say "OH". I sometimes ask themn do you want the short version or the long version.
Looking back over my career I discovered that in 1973 there was only one Catholic partner in a law firm in Tulsa. There was not one woman partner in a law firm in Tulsa. There was not one black partner or associate in a non-black law firm in Tulsa. There was not one Jewish partner or associate in a non-Jewish law firm in Tulsa. Obviously things have changed. I have told this story to Catholic partners in large Tulsa law firms. They do not believe me but it is true.
Because of my life experiences I am overly sensitive to anti-Catholic (or any religion for that matter) job requirements. I feel like I was a better candidate then the students who finished 57 and 58 in my class. I just did not get the opportunity to prove it.
Still true in Florida. It’s shocking to me the number of firms still named Wasp, Wasp, and Agnostic. And then you drive across town and you see the signs for firms that would appear to have surnames consistent with traditionally Jewish surnames. Right next to them is Vitello, DeMaria, and Castaldi.
I have a first and last name that is historically Jewish. I went to a majority Jewish law school. My legal studies were distinguished. My grades were acceptable, but my leadership, writing and advocacy won national awards. I received many interviews with Jewish firms. None from wasp firms. Every Jewish interview worked religious practice into the interview. I told them all I was Catholic. I got no offers. I didn’t care. I really wanted to put criminals in prison anyway and did that effectively for several years. I got a lot of calls from head hunters. To go to Jewish big firms. Which I did because I needed the money. The level of contempt for the firm name and our advocacy from both judges and opposing counsel was tangible. This is in the 2000s. In South Florida. I can only imagine what you went through.
Similar threads
