SCOTUS - Supreme Court of the United States

The quote you used is both incomplete and taken out of context. I don't doubt that when you first posted it you weren't lying, just regurgitating from whatever right-wing cesspool serves as your source of news information, but I posted the whole context and the entirety of the quote for everyone to read, so continuing to play dumb about it just makes you look like a clown and really should be regarded as spam but who's counting.

Well, thanks for not calling me a liar for quoting him I guess. His argument was this woman can still be a racist because white colonizers took black babies to hide their racism. Why is that a fair comparison and why is it lying to quote him making it? Did he accuse these Hollywood celebs who adopt multi-racial families of hiding their racism like those evil white colonizers?

I think his 'rebuttal' detached humanity from her, turned a sacrifice few people make into evil for the sake of political partisanship. I dont know much about her but if I opposed her nomination I wouldn't point at adopted black babies. That message is people shouldn't adopt babies from other races and that wont make the world a better place.
 
That's a straight agree across the entire post, Sommer.
 
His argument was this woman can still be a racist because white colonizers took black babies to hide their racism. Why is that a fair comparison and why is it lying to quote him making it?

Because, he's not comparing Barrett to the white colonizers, he's using that example as an exception to the "adopt nonwhite children, therefore cannot be racist" rule that Barrett's defenders are positing.

I think his 'rebuttal' detached humanity from her, turned a sacrifice few people make into evil for the sake of political partisanship. I dont know much about her but if I opposed her nomination I wouldn't point at adopted black babies. That message is people shouldn't adopt babies from other races and that wont make the world a better place.

*blows whistle* Stop trying to limit his freedom of speech by saying that his words were harmful!
 
Because, he's not comparing Barrett to the white colonizers, he's using that example as an exception to the "adopt nonwhite children, therefore cannot be racist" rule that Barrett's defenders are positing.

For his exception to be relevant the nominee must share the same motive, thats the comparison he made. This is politics 101, turn your opponent's strength into a weakness. Bush 43 avoided Vietnam, John Kerry was there. So he was Swiftboated.

*blows whistle* Stop trying to limit his freedom of speech by saying that his words were harmful!

I didn't say he should be fired, just the opposite. That would limit his free speech (and ours).
 
...and don't let just dying stop ya.
 
Sometimes I sits and thinks, and sometimes I just sits.
 
I stuck them on the boxes my parents were in before I threw them off the side of the ship.
When my father died, I was riding in the funeral limo with my oldest nephew, maybe 6 at the time... and when we got to the cemetery and he sized up the situation, he said to me, with a look of confused disbelief... "We're gonna put Papi down in a muddy hole?!?"

All I could say to him was "Yes... we are." When he asked why, all I could say was... "That's just what we do, bud."

I've thought about his question for many years since then... and I still don't have a better answer.
 
You can be given back to earth, given back to sea, or given back to sky, but it's mostly all the same difference. I don't think there is a better answer. Is there? Because we revere? Maybe?
 
Try getting out of bed before shooting from the hip. The Republican position was that no state had ever left the union; ratification by some southern states was therefore necessary. The postwar wrangling was over admitting state delegations to congress (a question of sufficiency of rehabilitation), not readmission of the states.

That was Lincoln's position, the Republicans in Congress argued that the Southern States had lost their statehood by seceding, and that it was up to Congress to determine what was required for the former states to rejoin the union.
 
You can be given back to earth, given back to sea, or given back to sky, but it's mostly all the same difference. I don't think there is a better answer. Is there? Because we revere? Maybe?
I think that's what my nephew thought, and that's why he asked the question.
 
When my father died, I was riding in the funeral limo with my oldest nephew, maybe 6 at the time... and when we got to the cemetery and he sized up the situation, he said to me, with a look of confused disbelief... "We're gonna put Papi down in a muddy hole?!?"

All I could say to him was "Yes... we are." When he asked why, all I could say was... "That's just what we do, bud."

I've thought about his question for many years since then... and I still don't have a better answer.

Yeah, probably none better than that. Maybe reference the whole stones and grass thing to get around the "just a muddy hole" part. The youngster may not have realized the stones represented other people so it wasn't like a uniquely poor proposition...it really just is what we do...with everyone.
 
Top Bottom