When it comes to civil rights the liberals only care about what happens to the Democratic Party leadership, not what happens to minorities
( Read more... )
what kills me most is that they'll STILL argue with you about it.
i have yet to have a minority rights activist tell me why it's ok to trash condi or colin, when they are obviously people of color who have risen to extreme heights, unless it's just plain and simple bigotry about their ideology.
I'm pretty sick of government bribes and corruption myself. Up here in Canada, there's the Sponsorship Scandal that was the last straw in forcing a vote of non-confidence from the House, toppling Paul Martin's minority Liberal government. (Took the other parties long enough to actually DO it, the idiots.)
That's why a sign is going on my lawn during the election period:
Undecided Voter Inquire Within Bring LOTS of Sponsorship MoneyNo, I'm not soliciting bribes, I hate those things. I want to remind people every day before the election that these bastards have *very* soiled hands, and if one shakes hands with the likes of these, one's hands get equally soiled
( ... )
You know, non-minority individuals are capable of acting in favor of minority interests. As such, trying to gauge minority voting rights just by looking at how many minority members are elected is a weak argument (especially when you don't say anything about who was running in the elections before and after redistricting). For example, if the 6 individuals who lost their seats to Republicans had strong minority support...there's no way you could say that one more black member being elected shows that their voting rights were preserved.
It seems pretty reasonable to question why the senior official approved the plan when the other Justice Department officials were unanimously against it. With the news of late, it's not surprising that people want some form of accountability from political appointees.
(btw, I didn't comment earlier about this....but way to spin the vote in Canada as being about Iraq instead of the corruption scandal, I was quite impressed)
rying to gauge minority voting rights just by looking at how many minority members are elected is a weak argument
Tell that to the Democrats. Their argument against the redisticting plan was that it would lead to fewer minorities being elected.
The fact that reality went against them is just icing on the cake.
It seems pretty reasonable to question why the senior official approved the plan when the other Justice Department officials were unanimously against it.
On the other hand it seems odd that the bureaucrats at Justice were unanimously against something that was upheld by the courts.
(btw, I didn't comment earlier about this....but way to spin the vote in Canada as being about Iraq instead of the corruption scandal, I was quite impressed)
Nah, I just skimmed the post too quickly since it seemed to be making a mountain out of an irrelevant molehill.
It'd be interesting if liberals really did have nonexistent reading comprehension skills. I'm sure the impact on the educational system in the country would be astounding.
Way to fight racism with ad hominems, straw men, stereotypes and illogic.
Your logic would dictate that the person of color should win because they should vote for their own.
Where did I say that?
It just isn't so. The world isn't as simplistic as you're painting it. Given the choice between a female version of Alan Keyes or Barak Obama, a lot of women would vote Obama because of his politics because in that case, gender doesn't matter.
But you insist that "invisible male privilge" trumps gender. You can't have it both ways. Clearly (by your logic) they are voting for the man because of this "invisible" patriarchy.
Also, token representation is just that token.
Thanks for the tautology.
Token representatives are frequently viewed as Uncle Toms in their communities.
By racists.
Till then, your argument is poorly constructed. Try again.
When you can construct an argument that isn't full of logical fallacies and racism, you can try again. Until then, feel free to continue to read, and hopefully learn.
Comments 10
i have yet to have a minority rights activist tell me why it's ok to trash condi or colin, when they are obviously people of color who have risen to extreme heights, unless it's just plain and simple bigotry about their ideology.
Reply
That's why a sign is going on my lawn during the election period:
Undecided Voter
Inquire Within
Bring LOTS of
Sponsorship MoneyNo, I'm not soliciting bribes, I hate those things. I want to remind people every day before the election that these bastards have *very* soiled hands, and if one shakes hands with the likes of these, one's hands get equally soiled ( ... )
Reply
It'd be something hilarious to watch....
Reply
For example, if the 6 individuals who lost their seats to Republicans had strong minority support...there's no way you could say that one more black member being elected shows that their voting rights were preserved.
It seems pretty reasonable to question why the senior official approved the plan when the other Justice Department officials were unanimously against it. With the news of late, it's not surprising that people want some form of accountability from political appointees.
(btw, I didn't comment earlier about this....but way to spin the vote in Canada as being about Iraq instead of the corruption scandal, I was quite impressed)
Reply
Tell that to the Democrats. Their argument against the redisticting plan was that it would lead to fewer minorities being elected.
The fact that reality went against them is just icing on the cake.
It seems pretty reasonable to question why the senior official approved the plan when the other Justice Department officials were unanimously against it.
On the other hand it seems odd that the bureaucrats at Justice were unanimously against something that was upheld by the courts.
(btw, I didn't comment earlier about this....but way to spin the vote in Canada as being about Iraq instead of the corruption scandal, I was quite impressed)
That's not what I said, but thanks. ;)
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Nah, I just skimmed the post too quickly since it seemed to be making a mountain out of an irrelevant molehill.
It'd be interesting if liberals really did have nonexistent reading comprehension skills. I'm sure the impact on the educational system in the country would be astounding.
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Way to fight racism with ad hominems, straw men, stereotypes and illogic.
Your logic would dictate that the person of color should win because they should vote for their own.
Where did I say that?
It just isn't so. The world isn't as simplistic as you're painting it. Given the choice between a female version of Alan Keyes or Barak Obama, a lot of women would vote Obama because of his politics because in that case, gender doesn't matter.
But you insist that "invisible male privilge" trumps gender. You can't have it both ways. Clearly (by your logic) they are voting for the man because of this "invisible" patriarchy.
Also, token representation is just that token.
Thanks for the tautology.
Token representatives are frequently viewed as Uncle Toms in their communities.
By racists.
Till then, your argument is poorly constructed. Try again.
When you can construct an argument that isn't full of logical fallacies and racism, you can try again. Until then, feel free to continue to read, and hopefully learn.
Reply
Leave a comment