How did we get back to Rush? I'm not a Dittohead but I've heard enough Rush to know he's not racist. I also know it's pointless to try and explain him to the other side... they don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
|
How did we get back to Rush? I'm not a Dittohead but I've heard enough Rush to know he's not racist. I also know it's pointless to try and explain him to the other side... they don't get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
It's true. It IS pointless to explain. I DON'T get it.
Maybe I should humm a few bars of Rush's favorite tune, Barack the Magic Negro. It's such a pretty song. Perhaps, if I sang it enough, it'll dawn on me...
But, I doubt it.
excon
He combines political opinion with entertainment.. same as Jon Stewart and Bill Mahr and Al Franken. Al Franken is about to become a Senator . If either of the other 2 were to run they would probably garner a pretty decent electoral following from the left.Rush at least does not take his act seriously enough to think it qualifies him for elected office.Quote:
also know it's pointless to try and explain him to the other side... they don't get it.
The problem here is that Rush says something in parody and the left takes him seriously .
As an example ;Nobody should take it seriously when Rush said slavery was a good thing because the streets were safe at night.... it is an absurd comment and was meant to be .
I don't listen to him all that often because his schtick is getting stale and I have better things to do during lunch hour (the only time I would be able to tune him in).
But this talk about Rush is a diversion. In the end his opinion doesn't matter .He is not a candidate for SCOTUS ....Sonya Sotomayor is .It is her philosophies,attitudes ,and temperment that need examination.
Perfect example of what I am talking about. He took a commentary by black columnist David Ehrenstein ,and parodied it.Quote:
Maybe I should humm a few bars of Rush's favorite tune, Barack the Magic Negro. It's such a pretty song. Perhaps, if I sang it enough, it'll dawn on me...
Here was the op-ed .
Obama the 'Magic Negro' - Los Angeles Times
Now everyone thinks Rush is the origin of the phrase and it's relevance to Obama ,even though it first ran in the LA and NY Slimes . The song that was produced for Rush's show imagines Al Sharpton's envy at the success Obama has attracting the white voter.. seemingly without effort... while black politicians like Sharpton have made a career at the effort.
From the op-ed :
The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.
To take the song as anything more than a comic parody is taking it out of context.
I believe he calls it "illustrating the absurd by being absurd." The left can't seem to recognize that the absurdity he's demonstrating is usually their own... or they know it and use it as a diversion as tom said.
In my opinion her remark about the old white man/Latina woman was not her finest moment. What the intent in her heart was, I don't know. None of us do. From day one, every time I was channel surfing, that one remark would be the topic of conversation. My thoughts were, "what else you got?" In her long career, is this statement all that the conservatives could come up with to use against her. Just my thoughts.
I think he means every word he says. He uses the absurd illustration to be able to get away with it. I believe that he has a mean and nasty heart and his job description as an entertainer, allows him to put it all out there. He is a small person. Remember what he said about Michael J Fox, pitiful. It backfired on him though because it magnified Michael's message.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hello tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I don't know. I really thought you paid attention. You don't. You find race based humor on their shows?? No you don't. Not even close. How could you miss it??
Could it be that you miss it, because you harbor those racist thoughts too?? I think it could.
excon
You've got to be kidding me.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
No one said he was perfect, but he's certainly not what the left wants you to think about him. It's still beside the point, as tom said he's not a candidate for SCOTUS which is what this thread is about.Quote:
I believe that he has a mean and nasty heart and his job description as an entertainer, allows him to put it all out there. He is a small person. Remember what he said about Michael J Fox, pitiful. It backfired on him though because it magnified Michael's message.
The left doesn't want me to think anything. I think it myself. You are right, he is not a candidate, just a big jerk.Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
No, I think you are kidding yourself.
Quote:
No one said he was perfect, but he's certainly not what the left wants you to think about him. It's still beside the point, as tom said he's not a candidate for SCOTUS which is what this thread is about.
Do you include hick,hillbilly and red neck comments as racists ?Quote:
You find race based humor on their shows??
Bill Maher said Bobby Jindal clicked his heels to turn 'into a cobra' . He also made more 7-11 type remarks. You will recall no doubt that he was smacked with a $9million palimony settlement in no small part because he used "insulting, humiliating and degrading racial comments" .
Franken being a former talk show host himself has plenty of lines that can be passed off as schtick in his career; like :
"There were times when there was not as much food as there could have been when I first started out.' 'C'mon, I went to school at Harvard. I didn't have two kids or a disability or live on an Indian reservation.'"
When he was interviewing Bob Woodward during his radio show Woodward talked about a dark horse in the race and Franken asked... “J.C. Watts?"
Or how about this gem ?
"It's not preppies, cause I'm a preppie myself. I just don't like homosexuals. If you ask me, they're all homosexuals in the Pudding. Hey, I was glad when that Pudding homosexual got killed in Philadelphia."
Maybe you should pay attention also.I recognize this as comic schtick and not the measure of the person.Bad comedy no doubt ;but comedy .
I'll accept your apology for suggesting I harbor racist thoughts.
Quote:
There was a Supreme Court ruling recently about a 13 year old girl being strip searched... The old white men on the court didn't understand how humiliating it was until Ruth Bader Ginsberg told them.
The "empathy" THEY showed, of course, was for the COPS who did the searching...
So, if the blindfold is OFF for the RIGHTY'S, you betcha I want it OFF for the ordinary people.
Excon
The justices got it right . In an 8-1 decision today they said the search violated her rights. Dissenting was Clarence Thomas who thought the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.Quote:
Breyer also spoke from personal experiences and his comments were shallow and as irrelevant to the issues in Safford Unified School District v. April Redding as Ginsbergs . This case will be decided on 4th amendment issues ;not on the sensitivities of Breyer ,Ginsberg ,or Savana Redding. A strip search can be humiliating to anyone regardless of age or gender. The question is ;was it constitutional ?
My own opinion ? I think the search went beyond what was "reasonable" .
As I predicted ;the case was decided on the 4th amendment issues alone.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Cool.
But, I wonder if it could be argued that the lone dissenter has a little empathy for the cops and "school officials"?? You certainly couldn't argue that his dissent was based on the Constitution. Because the guys who ARE originalists said something else.
Look. Here's' my point. I admit that people have empathy. I say they carry their empathy to work. I say that when a liberal judge makes a decision, his empathy is showing. I say that when a conservative judge makes a decision, HIS empathy is showing.
YOU, on the other hand, say that when a conservative judge makes a decision, it's based on the Constitution, and that no way, no how was any EMPATHY employed, because the right just doesn't do that.
I, of course, think you're flat wrong about that, and I think my question points that out. I'll bet you have something else to say about it, though.
excon
First of all, I think you have an incorrect definition of the term "empathy". Empathy is not just "feeling bad" for one side or the other. That's SYMPATHY, not empathy. Empathy is when you put yourself in the shoes of the other party and actually FEEL WHAT THEY FEEL (or a close approximation of it). Sympathy is all fine and good, but it doesn't usually cloud sound judgement. EMPATHY takes you out of yourself and puts you in the situation of the other party, which by its nature clouds your ability to judge fairly what the LAW says about the situation. EMPATHY has no place on the court.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Thomas MIGHT have been sympathetic to the law enforcement officials and school administrators in this case (though I tend to doubt it... their position isn't one that lends iteself toward sympathy), but he was not EMPATHETIC to their plight.
Second, the question of whether empathy is part of the decision-making process of the court is evident in the written decisions and written disents. If the argument being forwarded is based on the law and the Constitution, then it is a LEGAL argument. If the argument mentions the feelings of the judge or the principals of the case and has no legal argument OR a very tortured legal argument, then it is based on empathy. There have been lots of cases that have been decided based on empathy rather than law.
Thomas' dissent was based on a LEGAL argument, and one that the SCOTUS has cited in the past. It was a different interpretation than the rest of the court came to, but it was not based on EMPATHY. It was based on a valid legal point... one that everyone else disagreed with, but no less valid for it.
Elliot
Hello again, El:
So you want it BOTH ways, huh? I'm used to that.
excon
I can't read Thomas' heart . What he put on paper is a rationale based on his interpretation of the 4th Amendment . He went on further to say that it would not have been the 1st time someone tried to hide something by stuffing it down their shorts. That is also factually true . It does not surprise me that the originalists don't always agree because the founders and the authors of the amendments did not always agree. Originalism is not easy .It requires a deep understanding on the intent and the written and stated positions of the author's of the Constitution. It is also not perfect by any means and I have found Justices I admire wrong in their reasoning more than once.
But it beats the hell out of making decisions with a predetermined outcome in mind ;or the idea that you can "make policy ."
Not sure how you come to that conclusion based on what I posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Empathy is a bad trait in a judge. Whether SYMPATHY is also a bad trait in a judge is open for debate. Thomas' decision shows neither empathy nor sympathy, but rather legal reasoning that the others on the court happened not to agree with. I'm not sure how that leads to me "wanting it both ways".
Elliot
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
I can't read his heart either... But, what he SAID indicates that his empathy lies with the drug warriors. In my view, if the Fourth Amendments' words were what he was trying to decifer, he wouldn't have written about HER and WHAT the search was for. It didn't MATTER what the search was for. It mattered HOW the search was conducted.
Yet, Thomas wrote about HER and the drugs the school officials thought she was hiding... He lamented further about kids and drugs and hiding them when he wrote "nor will she be the last after todays decision which announces the safest place for secret contraband in school"...
I think his empathy is clear. In fact, I don't think it could be CLEARER.
excon
Hello again, El:Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
So, you think, that I think, judges rule or SHOULD rule because they "feel bad" for one side or the other...
Actually, my legal thinking HAS progressed beyond the 5th grade level. To intimate that it hasn't, isn't very becoming of you.
excon
I can't defend Thomas's dissent because I think he got it wrong in that there was not enough probable cause to call the search reasonable.
The funny thing is that in his dissent he accuses the majority of a double standard in that a few of them would've probably joined him if the issue had been illegal drugs instead of an OTC pain killer.
We can spin the word "empathy " forever... but I see nothing in his dissenting opinion that relies on anything more than an interpretation of the 4th and previous SCOTUS decisions.
Hello again, tom:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
OMG!! What he wrote is the CLASSIC definition of empathy for drug warriors. Thomas HAS it, is PROUD he has it, and he WISHES the others had it too.
Yet, you can't see it... Oh, well.
excon
I never said that. Nor did I even intimate it. Your hostility is causing you to read stuff into what I have posted that isn't there.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
All I did was point out the difference between empathy and sympathy, and state that I believe that you are confusing the two. I also pointed out why empathy is a BAD thing for a judge to have, while it can be argued (though not by me) that sympathy is a good thing for a judge to have to a limited degree. Finally, I pointed out how one can tell the difference between a decision based on empathy and one based on legal interpretation.
I never said that you were arguing that all judges should make decisions only based on how they feel. I don't think that is what you believe. I DO think that you believe that empathy plays a more important role in how judges do their jobs than it actually does or should do. But again, you are reading something into my post that isn't there, was never intended, and that I wasn't even considering.
Why are you being so hostile?
Elliot
Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
We can't see it because it isn't there.
Have you even read the decision?
Hello again,Quote:
Originally Posted by ETWolverine
Well, there just ain't nothing more to be said about that.
excon
One of the most brilliant minds available for SCOTUS was just overruled... again.
She now has 1 victory in SCOTUS and 6 decisions overturned .
This Kossack get's it right .
Daily Kos: State of the Nation
According to Ginsberg's dissent ,cities should not give tests for promotions but instead should rely on the subjective evaluations of "assessment centers " when deciding who to promote . These rely more on video simulation and oral Q and A than objective examinations .
But the New Haven test also had an oral section as well as a written section . The city used various resources to ensure the test was fair. The education “experts” and race experts gave it their stamp of approval. It only became a problem after the results came in and the results the city wanted did not happen.The only reason Ricci
(who has learning disabilities of his own) passed the test was due to his hard work ;studying extra,and hiring a tutor at his own expense. Can those who did not pass it make the same claim ?
What is Ginsberg saying ? That minorities can't do well in written exams? Other professions rely on written exams . Does she make the claim that lawyers ,doctors ,accountants ,and many other professions should also scrap their exams because they discriminate ?
I think Alito's concurrent opinion is right on :
“Petitioners were denied promotions for which they qualified because of the race and ethnicity of the firefighters who achieved the highest scores on the City's exam. The District Court threw out their case on summary judgment, even though that court all but conceded that a jury could find that the City's asserted justification was pretextual. The Court of Appeals then summarily affirmed that decision.
The dissent grants that petitioners' situation is “unfortunate” and that they “understandably attract this Court's sympathy.” But “sympathy” is not what petitioners have a right to demand. What they have a right to demand is evenhanded enforcement of the law—of Title VII's prohibition against discrimination based on race. And that is what, until today's decision, has been denied them”.
Hello Righty's:
I assume that because they didn't agree with her, you think she was wrong...
But, you didn't think Thomas was wrong when all 8 of 'em disagreed with him just two days ago. You thought his dissent was brilliant AND Constitutional.
Now, you want it both ways... I understand,
excon
Huh ? Here was my comment on the decision:
The justices got it right . In an 8-1 decision today they said the search violated her rights. Dissenting was Clarence Thomas who thought the search legal and said the court previously had given school officials "considerable leeway" under the Fourth Amendment in school settings.
As I predicted ;the case was decided on the 4th amendment issues alone.
Hmm, I didn't say anything about Thomas' dissent. Which righty's are you referring to?
Hello Steve:Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Hang on. I'll find 'em
excon
The difference, excon, is that Thomas' dissent was based on a legal argument with some merit, just from a logical point of view. Sotomayor's decision and Ruth Ginsberg's dissent of the SCOTUS decision was based on their personal political positions, and their arguments were clear cases of grasping at straws in order to make a political statement. That's the difference.
Context is everything, excon.
Elliot
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:26 AM. |