Founder of Judge Curiel's Group: Whites Should Go Back to Europe, CA To Be 'Hispanic State'

originally posted by: Sargeras

Lol, they are exactly like the KKK.

Really??? The "La Raza Lawyers of California" are exactly like the KKK are they???

Ya, I kinda doubt that.

There is more than one La Raza Group ya know.

originally posted by: alldaylong
a reply to: Gryphon66

is best translated into American English as "The People" or "The Community.

That's not " American English ", it's just English.

LOL ... you say crisps I say chips.

You say chips I say fries.



(Point taken, correction observed.)

originally posted by: Gryphon66
He's a racist because he said something you didn't like on two occasions?

He openly promoted the ethnic cleansing of white people. WTF is wrong with your brain?

And you defend speech after speech of Donald J. Trump saying similar and worse things? LOL. Ooookay. Talk about mind-blowing dishonesty, LOL.

I'm at about my limit on dealing with you alternate reality, delusional twits. Trump has never said anything even remotely similar to what the founder of the group this judge is a member of said. And yet, here you are defending the more extreme position as usual. You defend violent rioters and you defend racists who want to ethnically cleanse white people. Congrats to you.

The differences between the NCLR and the San Diego group? Totally different groups, different members, different mission statements, different activities, different scope, etc.

You completely dodged the question here. You keep saying they're different, but won't explain HOW they are different. They do not have different names. They both are named "La Raza". They have the same goals. They both work for illegals.

Really you should look it up if you're confused.

I've clearly done a lot more research than you.

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
where are judge curiels quotes ?

I can't find them

Woah, woah, woah, so now it's not enough that someone can associate themselves with a group lead by someone who has been caught with openly anti-American and anti-white (racist) objectives which are quoted in the OP, they now have to be caught saying the same or you refuse to believe it?

That isn't how it works with conservatives. You get caught associating even in the smallest six degrees of Kevin Bacon way with anyone or any group who might possibly have said something that anyone on the left considers to be racist/sexist/homophobic/Islamophobic/etc. then you have to disavow it and apologize for life, the universe, and everything and likely resign too, and then you are considered notorious forever after.

This is why Trump is so popular. He doesn't care and I think a large part of the country has just plain stopped caring, and you guys have only yourselves to blame for this.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Glad to see you took it in good humour.

On topic, this Hispanic geezer could start a trend. He want's California back for the Mex, next someone will want Louisannna back for The Frogs. Then a Ruskie will want Alaska back for the Russians All were paid for by The U.S. i believe?

This needs to be nipped in the bud before it spreads .

originally posted by: TheBulk

Mexican isn't a race no matter how mad you want it to be and Trump turned out to be right. Even if Mexican was a race, his comment was about the judges biases (which he clearly has), not his "race".

Trump is claiming that the judge can't due his job as a judge because of his bias which stems from his Mexican Heritage. That is exactly what Racism means.

There is also nothing "clearly" showing the judge is bias. Trump is saying that because he's talking about building a wall on the boarder that this judge doesn't like him because of his heritage coming from Mexico which will be blocked with the wall.

But this judge isn't Mexican, he's American and his parents came here Legally. Remember when everyone was calling Trump Racist for his remarks about Mexican's being Rapists and Murderers?? Well his defense was that he was only talking about illegal immigrants not the legal ones. That what all his supporters around here were saying too. Well, then why all of a sudden is Trump against Legal Immigrants now too???

Besides, anyone who's ever gone before a judge will always tell you that the judge didn't like them and it was unfair. Trump is no different. That doesn't mean they're right. It just means they don't like to lose a court case. Trump is just being a whiny baby because he got caught scamming people with his stupid University which isn't even a University for starters. Face it, he's a Fraud plain and simple.

What does he expect anyway?? That because he's building a wall that means nobody with Mexican Heritage is then capable of doing their job if Trump is somehow involved??? I guess Trump gets to just establish who does and doesn't have a bias against him now in all matters??? So only White Guys who he agrees with are capable of doing their jobs around him from now on???

Give me a Break.

a reply to: TheBulk

Now now ... just because you don't like me poking holes in your windbag doesn't mean you have to sputter and spit and use all this faux-profanity.

(Seriously, the filter will catch it if you want to actually use the "dirty word." LOL Don't be such a nebbish.)

If you're at your limit, stop responding, because I assure you, my own opinion of your ... abilities are not complementary.

The founder said this, a guy at the first meeting had been in jail with a gang member ... absurd non-existent connections!

Quote Judge Curiel's "racist rants." If you can't at least man up and admit you've got nothing here that's relevant to the Judge.

You're blatantly lying about my defending violent rioters and you know it.

I have always condemned violence by any side in any form. You're the one who justifies political violence, bub, not me.

I didn't dodge any question ... I answered it far more fully than it deserved in it's continual repetition. Why don't you draw some links with evidence beyond "They're all racist" Their name means "The Race"!

Which is exactly the same snowflakey crap you argue against on Donald J. Trumps behalf.

Good god, at least be consistent in your irrationality.

a reply to: mOjOm

Trump is saying that because of this judge's associations and apparent sympathies with radical open borders groups it might be difficult for him to be impartial when the defendant in the case is a presidential candidate with a platform antithetical to the interests of his radical ties.

In other words, conflict of interest.

It's like wondering how the Ginsberg and Kagan could rule impartially on Obergafell when both of them officiated gay marriages prior to the ruling.

originally posted by: mOjOm
There is also nothing "clearly" showing the judge is bias.

Your entire post and you neglect to address the topic of this thread, the fact the judge is a member of a group that uses the name "La Raza" and was started by a Mexican who followed the La Raza objectives and wanted to ethnically cleanse white people from Cali and parts of America.

lets say this again so you can't miss it.

THE JUDGE IS A MEMBER OF THIS GROUP.

originally posted by: ketsuko

It's like wondering how the Ginsberg and Kagan could rule impartially on Obergafell when both of them officiated gay marriages prior to the ruling.

Yet, you never wonder about five Catholics arbitrating concerns about church and state, or abortion ...

... if I didn't know better, I'd think you weren't exactly being objective in this matter.

EDIT: Well, one less Catholic in the future, but still ...

a reply to: theantediluvian

How dare you bring logic and reason into this discussion, you invading my safe space!

a reply to: ketsuko

Yeah, I know what he's saying but he has nothing to back up that statement. Part of being a Judge is the ability to separate the job from personal issues. So far this judge has a great record and there is nothing to substantiate such claims. Especially when they come from the Defendant in the case where there is evidence that he did do something wrong.

I mean come on. There is clear evidence showing that this university was a scam. First of all, it wasn't even a valid University to start with. Which is why it's not called that anymore because they had to change it.

You've got nothing but assumptions and theory based on nothing more than the opinion of the Defendant in a case. Of course he's going to say the judge is unfair. What did you expect him to say???

a reply to: TheBulk

The guy who Co-Founded that group hasn't been a part of it since the mid 70's. He's also the founder of a whole handful of other institutions as well.

So are you saying that even though he hasn't been part of that institution since the 70's that everyone in that group, every single lawyer and everyone they're associated with are also activist racists??? Is that how it works now???

The name La Raza is used by a bunch of different groups. They aren't all connected. Even the ones that are doesn't mean they are all following the orders of this one guy.

Do you know how many Universities, Businesses, Organizations, Foundations, etc. were founded by Racists and Bigots??? A butt load of them. Does that mean that all their members over the years are too????

You've got nothing but conjecture at this point. Nothing but paranoid conspiracy theory from the guy who Pushes any and all conspiracy theories that suit his agenda, Trump.

originally posted by: mOjOm


The guy who Co-Founded that group hasn't been a part of it since the mid 70's. He's also the founder of a whole handful of other institutions as well.

So it's just a coincidence that he wanted to expel white people from the country, which is exactly what La Raza wants to do, and he named the group La Raza and even though it started out as a racist group it isn't anymore for some reason.

You've got nothing but conjecture at this point. Nothing but paranoid conspiracy theory from the guy who Pushes any and all conspiracy theories that suit his agenda, Trump.

Do you know where you are?

Claiming this judge is Racist because of that co-founder is like when everyone was saying Chic-fil-ay (sp?) was a anti-gay establishment simply because the owner and founder was against Gay Marriage. Which wasn't true at all. He separated his business and personal life and although he didn't approve of the Gay Marriage idea and the Gay lifestyle that didn't mean he ran his business that way.

I think if you want that kind of non-judgemental perspective there you have to give it elsewhere as well. Otherwise it's just you showing your bias toward what suits your agenda.

a reply to: TheBulk

What that co-founder of that group thought doesn't apply to this judge. Show me where this judge has said that same thing and you've got something, but until then you've got nothing.

Like I said before, do you even know how many institutions were created by Bigots and Racists that are still operating today???? That doesn't mean those institutions and everyone in them think like it's founder.

I mean this guy you're talking about isn't even alive anymore.

originally posted by: mOjOm
Claiming this judge is Racist because of that co-founder is like when everyone was saying Chic-fil-ay (sp?) was a anti-gay establishment simply because the owner and founder was against Gay Marriage.

First off I'm not even arguing racist (although if roles were reversed you would take that position). I'm arguing that being a member of this group makes being a judge in a case of the guy who is the most vocal visible critic of illegal immigration is a huge conflict of interests.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Considering Sotomayer is Catholic and reliably rules the way you think these things should go ... I don't hear you wringing your hands about it, either, though.

And the other three judges in "your" voting block are Jewish with one, Kagan, calling herself a conservative Jew.

So this so-called argument doesn't fly from you because if it did, you'd be filling every SCOTUS thread with whining about how NONE of the justices could reliably rule on matters related to faith because they have it or at least claim to.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: TheBulk

What that co-founder of that group thought doesn't apply to this judge. Show me where this judge has said that same thing and you've got something, but until then you've got nothing.

Honestly, WTF are you talking about? The founder is using the name of a group that want to take parts of this country for Mexico. He also publicly supported those goals! The group is clearly meant to be part of the La Raza movement. The judge is a member of that group and has a record of helping and promoting illegal immigrants.

There is seriously something going on in that brain of yours that isn't normal. If this judge was a white guy who was a member of the Klu Klux Lawyers group and was seeing over the cases of black men, you would most definitely take issue (as you should). You're just rationalizing because you hate Trump so much.

Like I said before, do you even know how many institutions were created by Bigots and Racists that are still operating today???? That doesn't mean those institutions and everyone in them think like it's founder.

Are those groups and institutions created for the racist purposes? Are they still tied to those racist objectives? You're not making any sense.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Considering Sotomayer is Catholic and reliably rules the way you think these things should go ... I don't heat you wringing your hands about it, either, though.

And the other three judges in "your" voting black are Jewish with one, Kagan, calling herself a conservative Jew.

So this so-called argument doesn't fly from you because if it did, you'd be filling every SCOTUS thread with whining about how NONE of the justices could reliably rule on matters related to faith because they have it or at least claim to.

Dance that sidestep Ketsuko! Yee -haw ...

Should a Catholic judge recuse themselves from any decisions having to do with religion, abortion, birth control, the death penalty, etc?

That's the question. Should they?

We're not talking about me because I don't make silly arguments like the one you made about officiating at same-sex weddings (god that epic loss STILL rankles you don't it? LOL)

You made the argument; you make the justification that any thing that any criminal, accused, defendant or whatever doesn't like about a judge should disqualify them.

Go ahead. I'd love to see an actual argument from you that doesn't go along the lines of "So, what you really meant was ..."