Bottom line... Menendez is a lying, crooked ,statutory rapist. He was playing the RACE card trying to deflect criticism of his behavior... not because of his carefully crafted wording ,but because of the audience he was addressing them to. But you'll never admit it.

Tom, I thought you had given up on this one. I already know your opinion on this and you know my opinion. Perhaps you can make me admit I am wrong by providing some evidence that Menendez was playing the race card and not the ethnic card.

Honestly, if you can provide hard evidence I will admit that I am wrong.

Tut

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

Nice deflection from the fact that a liberal PAC is openly attacking a minority female. Funny how that never seems to bother your side when you do it.

As for Scalia, the offending quote:



And in context:



Apparently you guys on the left are just unwilling to consider the hard questions, one of which is when does guaranteeing nondiscrimination become preferential treatment? if we can't even discuss such things how the hell do we ever get come to an agreement?

---

Surely, you are not supporting a SCOTUS judge who is attempting to poison the judicial well. You rightly complain your Constitutional rights are being eroded, yet you seem to support a man who takes to the floor in order to try and bend public and judicial opinion by criticizing the Act in question.

Scalia says,'"...quote It's been written about. unquote"

I didn't realize that SCOTUS handed down its decisions based on opinions; popular or otherwise. If this type of thing happens on a larger scale then you will have a Constitutional ruling subject to popular opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

bottom line ... Menendez is a lying, crooked ,statutory rapist. He was playing the RACE card trying to deflect criticism of his behavior ...not because of his carefully crafted wording ,but because of the audience he was addressing them to. But you'll never admit it.

---

Ok, Tom you win. But keep in mind that I was never supporting his questionable behaviour. I was only supporting good journalism.

Tut

Quote:

---

NK had to pull it out of their bum

---

You seem to mention things in bums an awful lot, not sure why.
Anyway I did not in any way refer to homosexual republicans/christians, I was referring to heterosexual ones who like to fondle young boys.

Sorry if my post was confusing.

Carry on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

From you maybe.

---

So you've gone to making even less sense than usual.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Surely, you are not supporting a SCOTUS judge who is attempting to poison the judicial well. You rightly complain your Constitutional rights are being eroded, yet you seem to support a man who takes to the floor in order to try and bend public and judicial opinion by criticizing the Act in question.

Scalia says,'"...quote It's been written about. unquote"

I didn't realize that SCOTUS handed down its decisions based on opinions; popular or otherwise. If this type of thing happens on a larger scale then you will have a Constitutional ruling subject to popular opinion.

---

Geez Tut, it was a normal part of oral arguments at SCOTUS. If anyone is poisoning the well it's the leftist blogosphere with their collective hissy fit over Scalia making a reasonable point... if you're going to treat some states differently you better have a good reason.

Writing laws that keep people from voting, exercising their constitutional rights is a good reason.

Supreme Court Hears Voting Rights Act Challenge Brought By Shelby County, Alabama

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Writing laws that keep people from voting, exercising their constitutional rights is a good reason.

Supreme Court Hears Voting Rights Act Challenge Brought By Shelby County, Alabama

---

Keeping America shackled to a mindset that perpetuates racial tension and disregards the progress we've made is poisonous.

Progressives isn't very progressive. They craft legislations that are perhaps justifiable... and then decades later ,these polices are etched in stone unmovable despite the changing realities . They always accuse the right of making changes to programs "as we know it" ,as if that is always a bad thing .
Take a case in point . Mississippi is still on the Sec 5 list even though the state has more black elected officials than any other state in the union . In comparison ,Massachusetts has one of the worse . The disparity between black and white election participation has virtually disappeared in the covered states and is better than in many other parts of the country that are not covered by Section 5.

One would think that if Sec 5(which was meant to be a temporary remedy ) was even necessary in a time when the US has a 2 term African American President ,then the relevant question should be... why isn't sec 5 universally applied (equal protection under the law and all that )?

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

Keeping America shackled to a mindset that perpetuates racial tension and disregards the progress we've made is poisonous.

---

Seems to me it's the Voting Rights Act that is RESPONSIBLE for all the progress we've made. What?? You think it would have happened WITHOUT it? Why would you want to stop something that is WORKING?

There WILL be a time for its repeal.. That time ISN'T now.

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Writing laws that keep people from voting, exercising their constitutional rights is a good reason.

Supreme Court Hears Voting Rights Act Challenge Brought By Shelby County, Alabama

---

It clearly looks like the system is working the way it is suppose to do. That section of the law was never meant to be permanent. Also it does have an expiration date in it too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:

Seems to me it's the Voting Rights Act that is RESPONSIBLE for all the progress we've made. What??? You think it would have happened WITHOUT it? Why would you want to stop something that is WORKING??

There WILL be a time for its repeal.. That time ISN'T now.

excon

---

For people who think they're progressive you sure do hate to embrace progress.

Hello dad:

To ME, 8 hour waits to vote indicate anything BUT that the system is working.

excon

I think laws such as this were designed to be reviewed, revised, or discontinued. And the congress has acted. Quiet as its keep, a state or district can apply through the process to be let out of this oversight. Alabama and Shelby county have not applied and chosen a lawsuit instead.

Hello again, Steve:

Quote:

---

you sure do hate to embrace progress.

---

We've come a long way. But, we've not YET reached our destination.

Excon

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

I think laws such as this were designed to be reviewed, revised, or discontinued. And the congress has acted. Quiet as its keep, a state or district can apply thru the process to be let out of this oversight. Alabama and Shelby county have not applied and chosen a lawsuit instead.

---

What's good for the goose...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, Steve:



We've come a long way. But, we've not YET reached our destination.

excon

---

And we never will as long as you intentionally perpetuate racial tension. I don't believe for a minute the left wants to reach that destination, it's not in their political interest to have racial harmony. As I've said many times, we aren't the ones injecting race into every situation. We have embraced minorities, and like the incident with Elaine Chao (and any other conservative minority) your side attacks them as inauthentic or devious traitors.

Hello again,

So, you think WAITING in line for 8 hours to vote is EMBRACING minorities?? And, if I mention it, I'M the one who's injecting race??

Dude!!

excon

The gander in this case is the same guy who tried this in Texas, and lost.

Supreme Court Hears Voting Rights Act Challenge Brought By Shelby County, Alabama

Quote:

---

Both Shelby County and Alabama were the subject of a federal block on voting-related changes and named parties in a federal civil rights suit in 2008, when 180 of the state's counties and municipalities refused to alter their at-large election districts. The absence of distinct geographic districts –- which often cluster voters by both race and class –- made it virtually impossible for the state's growing black and Latino populations to ever win city-wide elections for seats on hundreds of county commissions and city councils, school boards and water districts, Haygood said.

“Shelby County was and is the very kind of place for which the Voting Rights Act was written,” he said. “So, it's pretty unbelievable that this case has come from this community.”

---

Quote:

---

In 2008, Gray was involved in the suit against 180 Alabama counties. Last year, the problem came even closer to home. Gray, a long-time active voter, discovered that a new county election official had removed his name and about 500 others from the voter rolls in Evergreen, Ala. the small 4,000-person town and boyhood home to which Gray retired. The most recent census found that the city is 63 percent black, but the majority of the city council's seats are held by white politicians who live in largely white sections of town.

“Listen, it's plain to see that when Shelby County decided to take up this fight, they didn't ask anybody who would be in a position to know if there are still real problems,” he said.

When the Justice Department became aware of Evergreen's changed voter rolls and new district lines, which the city council had also failed to submit for approval, it used Section Five to stop the town's planned August 2012 county elections. Federal officials asked the town for more information.

Elections have not been held.

---