T1B

Here we have yet another example of that mentality as I described it there...

This is Democrat Dick Durbin as he attempts to smear a Bush judicial nominee not on his qualification or judicial temperament, but on his skin color: (from a rush transcript)

IT IS THEIR BELIEF, MANY OF THEM, THAT THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD RULE ON THESE DECISIONS OR ITS ISSUE OF VOTING RIGHTS, MR. PRYOR HAS URGED CONGRESS TO TO TAKE STEP IT'S SO UNDERMINE THE RIGHTS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS TO VOTE. HE URGED CONGRESS TO CONSIDER SERIOUSLY THE REPEAL OF THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 5 OF THE VOTING RIGHTS ACTS. THIS IS A KEY PROVISION ENCOURAGING EQUAL OPPORTUNITY IN VOTING. IT REQUIRES CERTAIN STATES TO ACHIEVE PREAPPROVAL FOR CHANGING — CHANGING VOTING RIGHT STANDARDS. IT IS CLEARLY A S. RES. TAJ OF AN AMERICAN IN TRANSITION FROM RACIAL DIVISION OF STKHREUPL NATION TO A MORE OPEN EQUAL POLICY. MR. PRYOR RAISE QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHOULD CONTINUE TO TRY TO MEET THAT STANDARD. I DISAGREEMENT WITH THIS SENTIMENT. HE CALLED SECTION 5 — QUOTE — "AN AFFRONT TO FEDERALISM AND AN EXPENSIVE BURDEN THAT FAR OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS." I MIGHT SAY TO MR. PRYOR AND TO OTHERS WHO ARE WHITE AMERICANS THAT WE CANNOT POSSIBLY UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH THIS MEANS, WHAT IT MEANS TO AN INDIVIDUAL TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE, PARTICULARLY A PERSON OF COLOR, A MINORITY IN AMERICA. AND SECTION 5 IS THERE TO GUARANTEE IT. AS ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ALABAMA, MR. PRYOR TESTIFIED THAT IT HAD OUTLIVED ITS USEFULNESS. I DISAGREE WITH HIS SENTIMENT. THANKFULLY, SO DID THE SUPREME COURT AND MOST MEMBERS OF CONGRESS.

Absolutely pathetic...can you believe these people???

No.

(That was an answer to the first question)

Additionally, I must take issue with the assertion that we have ever been a stkhreupl nation.

Mikey wrote:No.

(That was an answer to the first question)

Here it is...

Bear in mind that this was a ruch transcript, too...

Not surprised that you would duck condemning this type of absurd crap though.

You're just saying that to "TAKE STEP IT'S SO UNDERMINE THE RIGHTS OF AFRICAN-AMERICANS TO VOTE."

Whoever typed that transcript must've had a third thumb or something.

Detard,

Ever been forced to pay a poll tax? Ever had to take a poll test?

Have you?

STFU, then...

BTW - has Durbin? He's a white guy commenting on how another white guy doesn't get minorities because he's white.

How Durbin could even level that type of criticism despite being white is beyond me.

It's noted that you ignored that.

DrDetroit wrote:Have you?

I see you went to the Lawrence Taylor school of debate.

STFU, then...

Oooh, I be shaking in my boots.

BTW - has Durbin? He's a white guy commenting on how another white guy doesn't get minorities because he's white. How Durbin could even level that type of criticism despite being white is beyond me.

Yea, it is just amazing how Durbin could acknowledge reality. You should try it sometime.

WTF are you babbling about, B?

Here we have a white guy admonishing another white guy about white guys not understanding what it's like to be a minority in this country...

That doesn't ring a little hollow with you?? At all?

Of course it doesn't. It's reflective of the Democratic paternal arrogance disease.

And what "reality" is Durbin acknowledging?

So...have you paid poll taxes, B?
Have you ever had to take a poll test?

Well?

Your argument seems to be that since I haven't been confronted by either I certainly cannot understand minorities.

I can only presume then that you'll admit then that you, yourself, do not similarly understand minorities...

Well?

Never had to take a poll test or pay a poll tax, but I have had to find polling places in peoples' garages that were on some bizarre impossible to locate "Not a through street" cul-de-sac. When I lived at the emu house, my local polling place was so out of the way that I thought they had started discriminating against crackers living in the suburbs.

DrDetroit wrote:And what "reality" is Durbin acknowledging?

The reality that white Americans have a view of race relations that is not informed by the same events as non white Americans.

Your logic, as usual, is what's astonishingly pathetic.

You're arguing that because somebody has never had to pay a poll tax or take a poll test they have no right to condemn the practice?

I guess then if you've never been murdered you shouldn't be criticizing murderers. If you've never been aborted then you have no foundation to claim an anti-abortion position, etc., etc.

Dumbshit.

Variable wrote:Never had to take a poll test or pay a poll tax, but I have had to find polling places in peoples' garages that were on some bizarre impossible to locate "Not a through street" cul-de-sac. When I lived at the emu house, my local polling place was so out of the way that I thought they had started discriminating against crackers living in the suburbs.

So, it always comes down to the emu, right?
When are you going to stop using that bird as an excuse?

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:And what "reality" is Durbin acknowledging?

The reality that white Americans have a view of race relations that is not informed by the same events as non white Americans.

And how would Durbin know this??? He's white you retard...

So, it always comes down to the emu, right?
When are you going to stop using that bird as an excuse?

When it quits looking at me like this:

Mikey wrote:Your logic, as usual, is what's astonishingly pathetic.

You're arguing that because somebody has never had to pay a poll tax or take a poll test they have no right to condemn the practice?

Who argued that?

Here we go again. Unable to actually address the point being made you have to resort to the typical, "So what you're saying" bullshit.

Of course I am not arguing what you think I am.

I was criticizing Durbin for his argument that Pryor couldn't understand minorities because Pryor is white.

B's response was merely, "Ever been forced to pay a poll tax? Ever had to take a poll test?"

Where do you get this idea that I am arguing that people cannot condemn such practices as poll tests and taxes??

Either you are blatantly mischaracterizing my posts or are you are simply making it up.

I guess then if you've never been murdered you shouldn't be criticizing murderers. If you've never been aborted then you have no foundation to claim an anti-abortion position, etc., etc.

Dumbshit.

No, you are the dumbshit for blatantly lying about my argument, Mikey.

B's question to me about poll taxes and tests was clearly intended to demonstrate that because I had never been confronted by them I certainly couldn't understand minorities.

So I turned it around on him, dipshit. And it makes him look like a fool. He certainly has not confronted them, hence, it only follows that he doesn;t similarly understand minorities.

DrDetroit wrote:

BSmack wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:And what "reality" is Durbin acknowledging?

The reality that white Americans have a view of race relations that is not informed by the same events as non white Americans.

And how would Durbin know this??? He's white you retard...

Where did he ever state that he knew what it was like to be a minority?

Or is that more of that "reading between the lines" you're so famous for?

Where did he ever state that he knew what it was like to be a minority?

What??

First, read what has been written. Forget it, I'll just tell you...I didn't say that Durbin stated that he knew what it was like to be a minority. The issue is Durbin's argument that Pryor's prior judicial record regarding voting rights should be suspect because he doesn't understand minorities.

How could he level such an accusation without himself believing that he understands minorities?

In order to tell someone that they don't understand something, doesn't that require the person leveling the charge to understand that thing???

DrDetroit wrote:In order to tell someone that they don't understand something, doesn't that require the person leveling the charge to understand that thing???

I don't know a damn thing about quantum physics. But I bet I know enough to know whether or not you were talking out your ass on the subject.

Next?

Are you going to offer a take on Durbin's absurd comments??

Of course not. You can't. You're a boot-licking Democratic lackey, B.

If you agree with Durbin's line of reasoning, B, how can you possibly expect us to believe that you have a credible take on Republicans. You're not a Republican, therefore, you certainly cannot offer a valid opinion on Republicans or Republican behavior.

I suspect your posting here will substantially decrease, right?

DrDetroit wrote:Are you going to offer a take on Durbin's absurd comments?? Of course not. You can't.

I agree with them.

You're a boot-licking Democratic lackey, B. If you agree with Durbin's line of reasoning, B, how can you possibly expect us to believe that you have a credible take on Republicans. You're not a Republican, therefore, you certainly cannot offer a valid opinion on Republicans or Republican behavior.

I was a registered Republican from 1984 to 1988.

You were saying?

I suspect your posting here will substantially decrease, right?

Not likely. :twisted:

Of course you agree with them.

I was a registered Republican from 1984 to 1988.

Being registered as a Republican means that you understand Republicans??

LMAO!!!

Now I understand why you agree with Durbin.

So...if Frist was to say something similar to Durbin, you'd agree with Frist?

DrDetroit wrote:

Let me know when you get down to under 3000 rpm.

BSmack wrote:
I was a registered Republican from 1984 to 1988.

:roll: :roll:

Back then Republicans loved unions, right?

What am I spinning, B?

Durbin's comments are nothing short of the typical racial warfare that you people engage in.

Durbin's comments are intended to be seen as criticism of Pryor as a white person who judicial opinions are suspect merely because he is white. It's intended to scare minorities and nothing more.

And here's the larger point...Taking Durbin's comments to their logical conclusion he would have us believe that judicial decisions re: minoroties that do not conform to his opinion are automatically suspect if the judge(s) is white.

Come on...this is not serious debate on the judicial qualifications of a judicial nominee. It's called race-baiting and it's absurd.

If you had any integrity you'd call it the same thing, but since you're a boot-licking minority you'll suck this guy off.

If you'd like I'll purchase you some new knee-pads, bitch.

DrDetroit wrote:Durbin's comments are nothing short of the typical racial warfare that you people engage in.

Why do you make idiotic statements like this? "You people" implies that I agree with what he's said. Why do you constantly make these types of assertions without having a fucking clue?

Using your logic I could attribute every outrageous statement ever uttered by a conservative and assert that it represents your beliefs.

Why do you lie?

Why do you always come across like a genome experiment gone horribly awry.

Why does it always appear that you've been swimming at the shallow end of the gene pool?

Why?

Why do you make idiotic statements like this? "You people" implies that I agree with what he's said. Why do you constantly make these types of assertions without having a fucking clue?

Because "you people" keep making them.

BTW - my statement in no implies that you agree with he said.

My statement explicitly asserts that "you people" typically engage in similar racial warfare...

How did you misunderstand that?

Using your logic I could attribute every outrageous statement ever uttered by a conservative and assert that it represents your beliefs.

"You people" already do this.

Why do you lie?

About what?

It's hilarious how go from revising my assertion/statement and then calling me a liar...

Why do you always come across like a genome experiment gone horribly awry.

Why does it always appear that you've been swimming at the shallow end of the gene pool?

You are in no position to ever question anyone's credibility, intelligence, or otherwise, D.

Now...are you going to actually post a take on this issue?

And quit blatantly revising my posts...

DrDetroit wrote:What am I spinning, B?

Read your own posts. Nothing but deflect and spin.

Durbin's comments are nothing short of the typical racial warfare that you people engage in.

You people?

Durbin's comments are intended to be seen as criticism of Pryor as a white person who judicial opinions are suspect merely because he is white. It's intended to scare minorities and nothing more.

No, his judicial opinions are suspect because it is clear that Pryor does not take into account the experiences of those who suffered under the abuses corrected by the Voting Rights Act. He offers only regression, no positive change to both protect the rights of states and the rights of those denied rights by those same states.

And here's the larger point...Taking Durbin's comments to their logical conclusion he would have us believe that judicial decisions re: minoroties that do not conform to his opinion are automatically suspect if the judge(s) is white.

That is both absurd and untrue.

Come on...this is not serious debate on the judicial qualifications of a judicial nominee. It's called race-baiting and it's absurd.

Awww, the poor wittle Dittohead fall down go boom.

:roll:

Read your own posts. Nothing but deflect and spin.

What am I deflecting? I directly addressed your comments. Meanwhile you still have not even had the courtesy to directly address mine.

Typical.

BTW - you asking me about poll taxes and exams is not deflecting??

Hypocritical, too.

You people?

Yes. You Democrats play the racial warfare game, B. And by not criticizing it nor disagreeing with it you, B, are part of it.

No, his judicial opinions are suspect because it is clear that Pryor does not take into account the experiences of those who suffered under the abuses corrected by the Voting Rights Act.

He doesn't take into account those experiences?

You've read his opinions and have determined this?

Or is this you simply taking Durbin's opinion re: Pryor's prior rulings as a proxy for casting suspect on those opinions?

He offers only regression, no positive change to both protect the rights of states and the rights of those denied rights by those same states.

Huh?

You have not read a single Pryor opinion let alone the one Durbin is referring to. The nerve.

And talk about deflecting. Rather than address the validity of Durbin's philosophy you're now trying to discuss Pryor's opinions while never having actually read a single one.

That is both absurd and untrue.

How so? You could have the courtesy that many others here display and actually explain my error.

Durbin's criticism rests solely on Pryor's skin color.

Awww, the poor wittle Dittohead fall down go boom.

And this is expressly why you Democrats are losing this judicial nomination issue.

mvscal wrote:

BSmack wrote: it is clear that Pryor does not take into account the experiences of those who suffered under the abuses corrected by the Voting Rights Act.

Link?

As if you know the first fucking thing about Pryor or his rulings. What a pathetic dumbfuck you are.

Was I talking about his rulings? This controversy is a result of Pryor's testimony as AG of Alabama that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act had "outlived it's usefulness".

Detard, feel free to read this and amend your above post to reflect the truth.

Was I talking about his rulings?

You had to be ebcause that single case cannot possibly be completely representative of his legal career...

This controversy is a result of Pryor's testimony as AG of Alabama that Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act had "outlived it's usefulness".

How that has anything to do with voting discrimination that happened decades and decades and decades ago escapes me...

Detard, feel free to read this and amend your above post to reflect the truth.

What truth???