[tomder55]

Sorry ,you are wrong... he was making that statement to an African American audience to specifically play the race card. But to end this ridiculous debate... let's call it the minority card and end it there .

[Tuttyd]

sorry ,you are wrong ... he was making that statement to an African American audience to specifically play the race card. But to end this ridiculous debate ... let's call it the minority card and end it there .

Well, feel free to go through my above post and point out where I am wrong.

Prove that he went there to play the race card. And not his own ethnic card. Obviously you can't. You can no more prove that he went there for play the race card any more than I can prove that he went there to play the ethnic card.

It is not a trivial issue as you like to point out. It represents a difference between good journalism and sensationalist and misleading journalism.

[tomder55]

No it represents your nit picking . Have a great day

[speechlesstx]

There is nothing to nitpick, he was playing the race card and blaming his problems on conservatives.

[speechlesstx]

From the race to card to a race baiting war on women, Progress Kentucky has launched an attack on an honorable woman, former Bush admin Labor Secretary and wife of Mitch McConnell, Elaine Chao, in their effort to unseat McConnell.

Apparently Kentuckians don't know she's "Chinese", discriminated against American workers and shipped your job to China.

She was actually born in Taiwan and moved here when she was 8 years old and as I've pointed out before, was another first in Bush's diverse administration as the first female Asian-American appointed to a Cabinet position. But hey, we all know she can't be an authentic minority or female as a Republican, so she's fair game for such attacks, right?

[talaniman]

Okay, I will see your race baiting argument, and raise it with my own race baiting argument.

Scalia's Racial Entitlement Argument Reveals Ugly Truths, But No Surprises

Voting is a racial entitlement? What the hell is he talking about? Wingers on the right please explain?

While Rosa Parks was being honored, SCOTUS judge was talking this crap?

[smoothy]

Rosa Parks didn't deserve the cult status she has... but then... look who is in the white house and have completely screwed up all the rest of his priorities are as well explains it all.

When is the :"Homie" Memorial coming? A Statue of a black man with his pants halfway to his knees honoring the inner city criminals that have fallen to the evil police and the Armed victims that took them down unfairly.

What do you expect from a man from a culture that praises welfare ho's for having 9 kids from 9 different fathers none of whom pay child support because Whitey owes them all a free ride for something that happened many generations ago.

[speechlesstx]

Okay, I will see your race baiting argument, and raise it with my own race baiting argument.

Scalia’s Racial Entitlement Argument Reveals Ugly Truths, But No Surprises

Voting is a racial entitlement? What the hell is he talking about? Wingers on the right please explain?

While Rosa Parks was being honored, SCOTUS judge was talking this crap?

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:

“Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.”

And in context:

The problem here, however, is suggested by the comment I made earlier, that the initial enactment of this legislation in a — in a time when the need for it was so much more abundantly clear was — in the Senate, there — it was double-digits against it. And that was only a 5-year term.

Then, it is reenacted 5 years later, again for a 5-year term. Double-digits against it in the Senate. Then it was reenacted for 7 years. Single digits against it. Then enacted for 25 years, 8 Senate votes against it. And this last enactment, not a single vote in the Senate against it. And the House is pretty much the same. Now, I don’t think that’s attributable to the fact that it is so much clearer now that we need this. I think it is attributable, very likely attributable, to a phenomenon that is called perpetuation of racial entitlement. It’s been written about. Whenever a society adopts racial entitlements, it is very difficult to get out of them through the normal political processes.

I don’t think there is anything to be gained by any Senator to vote against continuation of this act. And I am fairly confident it will be reenacted in perpetuity unless — unless a court can say it does not comport with the Constitution. You have to show, when you are treating different States differently, that there’s a good reason for it.

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?

[tomder55]

When is the justice Dept going to investigate over 100% turn out in some inner city districts ?

[tomder55]

Sec 5 of the Voting Rights Act is the preclearance requirement that targets specific states for past discrimination . What Scalia was saying was that perhaps over time reality has changed in these states .
But it is less likely that the law will be changed in Congress because there is no advantage for a Senator to vote against the provision ,even when preclearance for the state is no longer warranted .
As Justice Alito said ;"There is no question that the Voting Rights Act has done enormous good. It's one of the most successful statutes that Congress passed in the twentieth century," But, he said, Congress may have failed to demonstrate that preclearance remains justifiable today—or that only some states should be selected for special scrutiny.

2009 SCOTUS gave Congress the chance to revisit this provision . They chose not to . The American population is far more mobile than it was in 1965 . Every section of the country ,especially the South has seen tremendous demographic shifts . Amending Sec 5 would not void the rest of the Voting Rights Act . It is something that needs a more serious scrutiny than a rubber stamp vote by Congress because that's the safe vote.

[Tuttyd]

There is nothing to nitpick, he was playing the race card and blaming his problems on conservatives.

Demonstrate by way of evidence that he was playing the race card. You can no more demonstrate this than I can demonstrate he was playing the ethnic card.

Tut

[speechlesstx]

One doesn't stand in front of a black crowd at a Black History Month celebration , evoke the words and memory of Martin Luther King and play the "ethinic" card. He was clearly playing the race card.

Bedeviled Menendez confronts accusations with words of Martin Luther King | NJ.com

[speechlesstx]

And speaking of the war on Women...

Connecticut state Rep. Ernest Hewett (D) made an inappropriate remark to a 17 year old girl testifying about a program that helped her overcome her shyness and get over her fear of snakes, the New London Day reports.

Said the girl: "I am usually a very shy person, and now I am more outgoing. I was able to teach those children about certain things like snakes that we have and the turtles that we have... I want to do something toward that, working with children when I get older."

According to an audiotape of the hearing, Hewett replied: "If you're bashful I got a snake sitting under my desk here."

He, uh says he meant to say something else...

Hewett said his remark came out wrong and he understood how it could be misconstrued. According to The Day of New London, he said Thursday: “What I meant to say was, if you are shy then I have an acre of land in the Everglades.”

I can see how that could be misconstrued...

[NeedKarma]

At least he likes women unlike many of the republican/christian types who wander. :D

[speechlesstx]

At least he likes women unlike many of the republican/christian types who wander. :D

Cute, but I understand, Democrat perverts get a pass.

[NeedKarma]

From you maybe.

[smoothy]

At least he likes women unlike many of the republican/christian types who wander. :D

Like


Barney Frank of Massachusetts,
Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin
Jared Polis of Colorado.
Mr. David Cicilline of Rhode Island;
Mr. Takano of California;
Sean Patrick Maloney of New York;
Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who is bisexual
Mark Pocan of Wisconsin.

[talaniman]

Being gay is a bad thing?

[smoothy]

Being gay is a bad thing?

NK had to pull it out of their bum... I just pointed out some of the Democrats that are...

[Tuttyd]

One doesn't stand in front of a black crowd at a Black History Month celebration , evoke the words and memory of Martin Luther King and play the "ethinic" card. He was clearly playing the race card.

Bedeviled Menendez confronts accusations with words of Martin Luther King | NJ.com

Of course one does. A person with an ethnic background who knows the difference between biology and sociology chooses their words carefully. This is why he doesn't mention any type of racial discrimination. He only talks about discrimination and the affinity he shares with his audience when it comes to discrimination. Menendez knows that when one talks about ethnic discrimination it is very similar to racial discrimination in terms of outcomes.

When you find the quote whereby Menendez claims he knows what it is like to be racially discriminated against, then you have your evidence. Until then the media opinion is just that- an opinion. It is an opinion in exactly the same way as my claim that Menendez know the difference between biology and sociology is an opinion
.