This is the only true post I've ever seen from you. It would have been more appropriate if you had added the word "anything" to the end.
Encouraging groups that often sit out midterm elections to vote is demonizing the opposition? Only in your warped mind could that be worse than his predecessor telling critics that they wanted the terrorists to win.
sam, i've challenged you multiple times to support your criticism of CT's intellect, with an in-depth exegesis of his opinions. you've declined. one can only assume you object to intelligent black men on the supreme court.
He has done it, he's declined to do it over and over again. If you asked him to do it, and declined to read it, then perhaps a search function would serve you well.
it would require a Cray Supercomputer to compile the list of unanswered challenges, nonresponses, threadbandonments, and diversionary trainwrecks that basso has compiled here. It would clog every last one of Ted Stevens' beloved tubes. Lie. rebuttal. "link?" Link provided. Crickets Since I don't want you to post in this thread anymore, and since you want to discuss something new about Clarence "my 10 cent law degree made me million$" Thomas, I'm going to ask you a question. Are you familiar with his opinion on cross burning?
i assume you're referring to Black, and yes, i'm marginally familiar with both the case, and Thomas' dissent. i assume from your smug framing of the question you find something about his argument intellectually deficient- perhaps you could share what that might be? and, recall, the question before us is Justice Thomas' intellect, as you and the rest of the doubting thomases (reid, blade, et al) have made it clear that you view this Thom as just an uncle and intellectually inferior to his brethren (and your selves).
I find his insistence that racial history and symbolism with respect to a form of speech targeted at certain minority groups, to the point where it means a form of speech can be prohibited as not even speech, to be relevant to this thread. I wonder if anybody can guess why.
What? You mean basso doesn't play the race card equally? We know that Steele has long been a hero of basso's. It's all very intriguing. By that, I mean predicting and boring coming from basso.
What if Palin said: "It will be up to each of you to make sure that old people, Anglo Americans and men who powered our victory in #### stand together once again" Wonder if we'd be getting rowdy about it...just tryin to think from the other's PoV...
Well just thinking that maybe he shouldn't have said specific groups. If his ideology matches more that of african americans, women, and latinos (minorities in general), then so be it. No reason to call for them specifically. Realistically speaking, I know he has to counter the opposite view point of the Tea Party which is 99% Anglo Americans. But stating the way he did just gives peeps like Basso more fuel to get angry about.
But Palin did state in hypothetical statement about old people. Let's say she also included "rich" people in her statement. Would people defending Obama's statement also think Palin's (fake) statement is ok?
honetsly, people like Basso will be angry until another consevative gets elected. Had it been Colin Powell, you would not heard a peep from him/them
No, because the norm is for white people and in fact white older voters to vote in mid term elections. Why emphasize what is already happening, unless it is to imply some kind of threat against that group? Again Obama did not exclude any race from his statement. He spoke to groups that were heavily in favor of him, and traditionally have low turn out during midterms.
