Go to Why Obama Is Unfit To Be "King"
- Add a comment
- Go to Required Reading: Why Martin Luther King, Jr. Was Republican
Re: @ Mousehop...
Actually, I'm working without a net. I remember the Thomas hearings. Conservatives still defend his arguments regarding 'natural law', but I find it an unacceptable attempt to let his religion guide his judicial opinions. As for the rest, history is history. Read up on Thomas's use use of pornography. The record is based on sales receipts along with eye-witness accounts. And his rating by the ABA is also a matter of public record.
And then there's the whole scandal of Bush v. Gore. Thomas's wife worked for Bush while he decided his fate, in a decision that contradicted all his previous judicial philosophy. One might, under normal circumstances, call that conflict of interest. But I'm sure you think, in this case, it was clearly justified, right? I mean, consider the alternative.
posted by
mousehop
on September 25, 2008 at 4:32 PM
| link to this | reply
@CL
Dude, you never take up space, you're always welcome here...we want Uncle Nuge for Prez!
posted by
NewYorker_in_Sicily
on September 24, 2008 at 4:01 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Re: Dems support minorities only when they have the right (left) agenda.
With all due respect, many of the things you claim here, as if they were facts, are either speculation or pure mythology. Justice Thomas
"was a known sexual harasser?" To whom was this
"known?" To anyone who was inclined to believe it regardless.
When you say opposition to him had nothing to do with his race, I agree. My whole point was that liberal Democrats use the race card (or the minority card) when it is to their advantage, but their socialist agenda supersedes the canard of championing the minority. So, when a black man or a woman deviates from the manifesto, they're just as much of a target as anyone else. Whether you're black or white, once you venture outside of the Marxist message, you are redmeat thrown to the wolves.
I apologize to NewYorker_in_Sicily for taking up so much of her comments space, but I have to say one more thing.
I'm also tentatively pro-choice, however, Barack Obama opposed legislation to protect infants born alive after surviving abortions, essentially giving the OK to let them die in some doctor's closet after a botched abortion attempt. Some would consider that inhumane.
posted by
CunningLinguist
on September 24, 2008 at 3:13 PM
| link to this | reply
@ Mousehop...
All I'm hearing from you are pre-packaged, pastiched talking points lifted word-for-word from some liberal blog written with the syntactic and lexical capacities of a 12-year-old. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if you were one of the 400 bloggers on Obama's payroll. Come back and digress when you've got a tangible argument, m'kay?
posted by
NewYorker_in_Sicily
on September 24, 2008 at 2:13 PM
| link to this | reply
@ Xeno-x
Ehm, there's no need to shout, as I'm not warping anything - I'm not the author of the piece but I do agree fully with it. When you can tell me why Al Gore, Sr filibustered the Civil Rights Act in 1964 for over a month, and what the Democrats have EVER done for minorities in general, I'll stick my foot in my mouth.
The Republicans make no apologies for being a big buisness party, unlike the Democrats, who claim to help the downtrodden but wouldn't be caught dead sitting at a table with them, being the stuck-up elitists they are. Why is it such a scandal that McCain owns more than one house but the fact that the Obamas spend $10,000 a year on their daughters' extra-curricular activities acceptable? Mind you, I don't care how people spend their cash so long as it's theirs and hard-earned but you shouldn't throw stones if your own house is made of glass, IMHO.
posted by
NewYorker_in_Sicily
on September 24, 2008 at 2:03 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: Dems support minorities only when they have the right (left) agenda.
Clarence is not one of the country's most brilliant minds, and many of us opposed him for good reason. He was graded unqualified by lawyer organizations, he was a known sexual harrasser, and he claimed that "Natural Law" took precedence over the Constitution. His version of natural law was not the laws of nature, however, but his religious beliefs. So he had, and has, no business on the Supreme Court. But opposition to him had nothing to do with his race.
Opposition to Sarah Palin can also be based on her positions. Most women (and most men) think her position, that rape victims should be denied choice when pregnant, is inhumane and far too extreme. And then there's her belief in Creationism, which she seems to consider equal to science. And banning books. And firing anyone who disagrees with her. Women's rights activists want to increase, or at least maintain, rights women have won in hard-fought battles over the last two hundred years. Palin wants to turn many of those rights back. So, whose side should women's rights advocates be on? Principle takes precedence over personality every time.
posted by
mousehop
on September 24, 2008 at 1:27 PM
| link to this | reply
Re: @ mousehop
I don't deign to claim the ability to read minds. I cannot speak for the interests of others, and state that those are their reasons for voting as they do. However, the Democrats were the party in power that passed the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act, and they have been more supportive of laws against discrimination in hiring and other activities. Plus, they built the welfare state, which provides benefits to the poor, in which blacks are over-represented. Traditionally, the Democratic Party has been on the side of the working class and unions, where blacks are also strongly represented.
Whether the policies of, for example, the Great Society are in the long-term interests of anyone, in the short and intermediate term, they do benefit many from the lower socioeconomic strata of our society. Such programs are generally the product of Democratic initiatives.
But I suggest that if you want to know why blacks mostly vote Democratic, ask them.
posted by
mousehop
on September 24, 2008 at 1:20 PM
| link to this | reply
YOU LIKE TO WARP THINGS DON'T YOU?
Your history is fairly accurate. Blacks voted Republican because of Emancipation, and Southern Whites voted solidly Democrat. It was for so long called, "The Solild South"just because of that. Southern Democrats certainly were the enemies of Civil Rights at that time. And it was quite difficult for the Democratic Party to stand for Civil Rights because of that.
To retain the support of this large bloc of voters, the Democratic Party drug its feet on Civil Rights Legislation. And the fear was justified. For, when a Southern Democrat in the White House (LBJ) championed and got enacted the Voting Rights Act, the South turned Republican (Jesse Helms, Strom Thurmond switched parties), and the Republican Party became the opposition to African-American causes.
So now, the situation is turned.
But, more than that, the Republican Party has historically been the party of Big Business, supporting corporate profits at the expense of common people.
posted by
Xeno-x
on September 24, 2008 at 12:41 PM
| link to this | reply
@CL
Thanks for bringing up the wiretapping story. Amongst all the other Demobrats' (deliberate typo) shenanigans I forgot about that one!
posted by
NewYorker_in_Sicily
on September 24, 2008 at 9:57 AM
| link to this | reply
Dems support minorities only when they have the right (left) agenda.
Clarence Thomas is one of the most brilliant minds in the country, and we all remember how the hypocrite-Democrats went ballistic trying to prevent him from getting on the Supreme Court, despite his politically preferred pigmentation.
And all these so called women's rights activists tearing into Sarah Palin like she's the new girl in school, threatening to steal their boyfriends; they always wanted a strong, intelligent female leader -- what happened? She's not a socialist, that's what happened. There's the problem.
I remember a couple years ago hearing the Hypocrates bashing the president because he was wiretapping "the same way Martin Luther King was illegally wiretapped." None of them bothered to mention who it was that was wiretapping MLK in the early 60s. Do you think it slipped their minds? Or do you think maybe they didn't want to mention that it was John and Bobby Kennedy wiretapping Martin Luther King? Democrats.
posted by
CunningLinguist
on September 24, 2008 at 9:14 AM
| link to this | reply
@ mousehop
What if blacks are Democrats for good reasons? And those reasons are......? Please state your case.
posted by
NewYorker_in_Sicily
on September 24, 2008 at 8:16 AM
| link to this | reply
Recent History
Much of the history presented here is accurate, but the presentation implies that blacks are not capable of making their own choices of which party currently represents their interests. What if blacks are Democrats for good reasons?
Despite his personal racism, Lyndon Johnson did sign the 1965 Civil Rights Act, and at the time, he predicted the shift in the South from Democrat to Republican. When the Democrats took up the cause of civil rights in the late '40's, the shift began. The author claims it was based on 'Christian values', but having lived in the South, I know better. It was, and is racism, pure and simple. Many former Democrats in the South now see the Republicans are more pro-white and anti-black, and that is how they vote. According to my former neighbors.
posted by
mousehop
on September 24, 2008 at 7:50 AM
| link to this | reply
@ EX TURPI
I'm glad to see we're on the same page. Racism should have nothing to do with it.
posted by
NewYorker_in_Sicily
on September 24, 2008 at 6:54 AM
| link to this | reply
Not voting for the Senator must be based on his pronounced policies and the perception of his asbility to serve. Racism should play no part whatsoever.
posted by
EX_TURPI
on September 24, 2008 at 6:46 AM
| link to this | reply
@fiercequeen
Well, instead of blindly hurling insults while comfortably hiding behind a computer monitor and keyboard, as is the wont of the typical Obama supporter, and since all you Obama people are supposedly exceptionally intellectual and knowledgeable, why don't you point out where the author is wrong? I'm waiting.....
posted by
NewYorker_in_Sicily
on September 24, 2008 at 4:43 AM
| link to this | reply
@ Justi...
I'm tired of the Democrats and the media distorting the truth. I'm tired of them claiming that MLK was one of their own. I'm tired of them not specifying why Condoleezza Rice's father registered as a Republican. I'm tired of them ignoring the fact that Al Gore, Sr, filibustered the Civil Rights Act for more than one month. I can't believe I wasted my time with these hypocritical freaks.
posted by
NewYorker_in_Sicily
on September 24, 2008 at 4:39 AM
| link to this | reply
you're funny! as well as delusional,
ignorant, dangerous, and downright WRONG
posted by
mejustme
on September 23, 2008 at 7:50 PM
| link to this | reply
New Yorker in Scisily
This is an awesome post. I am going to post a link here as my only information on my political post tonight. This shows all the facts right out front.
posted by
Justi
on September 23, 2008 at 7:04 PM
| link to this | reply