crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 1:00 PM

crr you are hilarious. LOL You refuse to answer any questions. You misquote, you torture logic, you mislead, and attempt to engage in debate by constantly expanding and contracting the parameters of the argument.

Anthony Kennedy is trending left that is too funny for words.

I called a friend of mine and told him that he is still laughing. He is a professor of law and the constitution I just had to tell him.

You have been a nice and comical diversion from a very busy day.

You never answered any of my questions. You attempted to parse and spin your way through a question that was obviously above your pay grade. Good luck in the future trying to impress people in the future with your ability to copy and paste from Wikipedia.

Anthony Kennedy will vote against AA. If you had bothered to read the Michigan case you would know he will. He voted with Scalia, Thomas, and Berger.

Also, the opinion I cited is from 2007, yours is from 2003. Which is a better indicator? We all know Kennedy has been trending left.

Also, you seem to love the Jim Crow quotes, so you must be familiar with this one…

Indeed, it is a cruel distortion of history to compare Topeka, Kansas, in the 1950’s to Louisville and Seattle in the modern day.to equate the plight of Linda Brown (who was ordered to attend a Jim Crow school) to the circumstances of Joshua McDonald (whose request to transfer to a school closer to home was initially declined).

Better check the West Law Review…lol

So your whole argument is pretty much dependent on Kennedy changing his mind because of Obama’s election. I think he’s a bit more intellectually sophisticated then that. If Obama is elected the inequalities between blacks and whites in income, education and wealth will not disappear. I’ll now patiently await for your reply blaming these inequalities on blacks, playing the tired old game of assigning negative traits to an entire race.

Still waiting on a response Jdripper….why would Obama’s presidency mean the immediate invalidation of AA?

OMG! A Conservative blog that tracks down a possible Obama embarrassment and clears Obama. Can you point me to a lefty blog that tracks down possible Palin embarrassments and clears her?
-
What a concept. A blog that puts truth ahead of ideology.

Mark30339 on September 29, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Newsbusters is still saying that the mother asked Obama not to wear the bracelet. According to them, the AP is posting misleading headlines. I think it is still up in the air as far as the truth goes.

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 12:27 PM

crr well if you could read you would have seen that in the post I made. I was curious how anyone would use the Seattle case as evidence that this court would uphold AA with Barry O sitting in the white house.

By the way, way to equate AA with Jim Crow laws. Classy.

Also you do know who it was that first said Affirmative Action Laws are just Jim Crow in reverse? You do know who I was quoting. I did not say who I was quoting because I had a feeling you would pounce on that. I do so thoroughly enjoy making fools of people who believe themselves to be wise.

Anthony Kennedy will vote against AA. If you had bothered to read the Michigan case you would know he will. He voted with Scalia, Thomas, and Berger.

I tell you dude, you got that West Law Review. By the way since it is painfully obvious that you are not an attorney what set aside program are you employed under?

You are wrong crr6 and you know it. I wondered where you were getting your information about court cases and I found that you quoted word for word from Wikipedia.

Wait…why were you on wikipedia??

haha I read the opinions of Roberts, Breyer and Kennedy in their entirety last year. I just needed to find that specific quote though to back up my point.

crrr6 I had a feeling that was the case that were you going to cite. You are way off base comparing that case to Bollinger.

Plus you choose willful ignorance I guess in Supreme Court cases in regards to discrimination and affirmative action. At no time has the Supreme Court or any justice to my knowledge not described affirmative action as discrimination. In all cases that have settled AA actions all 9 justices have always written that AA is discrimination based upon race.

All cases dealing with discrimination have also been time specific. In other words they have all stated that there must come a time when these laws are not necessary. Every justice that has written a decision from either side has stated this.

Also all cases dealing with AA or discrimination have referenced the political landscape whether past racial discrimination or present. They have always stated that any significant change in such will cause reverse racism (affirmative action) to be dumped on the trash heap of history along with the Jim Crow laws.

So your whole argument is pretty much dependent on Kennedy changing his mind because of Obama’s election. I think he’s a bit more intellectually sophisticated then that. If Obama is elected the inequalities between blacks and whites in income, education and wealth will not disappear. I’ll now patiently await for your reply blaming these inequalities on blacks, playing the tired old game of assigning negative traits to an entire race.
By the way, way to equate AA with Jim Crow laws. Classy..

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 10:31 AM

I did not believe you would respond to the questions that I put to you. You are wrong crr6 and you know it. I wondered where you were getting your information about court cases and I found that you quoted word for word from Wikipedia.

I might in the future suggest you use the West Law Review.

We can criticize Obama for his delivery and for forgetting Jopek’s name in that moment of the debate, but Obama didn’t disrespect Tracy Jopek’s wishes.

I think most folks realized the “mother’s wishes” thing was a non-starter, but the problem with how O! handled the bracelet issue in the debate was deeper than delivery, it was the contrast to McCain’s story about his bracelet.

For O! soldiers are props to be used as photo opportunities or as illustrations about the horrors of war to support O!’s own defeatist policies.

McCain cares about the soldiers. Their stories are his story, which is why he is so at ease when he talks about soldiers and their families. McCain doesn’t have to use them as props and he certainly knows about the horrors of war.

For Obama, the bracelet was a prop in a scene from this scripted play we call his campaign for the White House. He did not know about the soldier whose bracelet he wore because that soldier was not what was important to him — what was important to him was the affirmation he got from a grieving mother that his foolhardy desire to cut and run from Iraq was somehow justified.

It was a powerful moment in the debate, but not in the way Obama’s handlers wanted.

I got a bracelet too. Nanny nanny nanny goats… Me too Me too

FACT: Then who led John McCain’s sorry white a$$ back to the campaign and the debate podiums?

jay12 on September 29, 2008 at 8:32 AM

No class, you racist.

Open post for those with something to share, updated through the day. New, complete posts come in below this one. Note: If trackbacking, please acknowledge this post in your post. That’s only polite.

********************************

This is getting …

Personally, I would have preferred if neither candidate brings up another “real-life” person’s story in their debates and speeches. It’s OLD and hackneyed. There may be another way to work it in, but they haven’t figured it out yet. It just makes me, and I believe the average voter, TUNE OUT.

I’ll give you a hint. Black voters started abandoning the Republican party in the mid 60’s. What was going on around then? Which party was doing what?

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 10:58 AM

The democrats were starting the social engineering of minorities to move them into slum areas, keeping them at odds with whites, and teaching them to not work and the government will house and feed them for free.

Aside from hoping the guys will post it, I’m still disappointed in Ed for not having returned to correct himself on this post. Again, the mother admits to having asked Barry not to do this, and only now (to save his campaign some heat) is saying she’s okay with the fact that he did it.

RightWinged on September 29, 2008 at 10:44 AM

Bingo!

haha seriously dude what is up with you and the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories? Weren’t you showcased on C&L’s last year because of one about Hillary?

crr6 on September 29, 2008 at 10:56 AM

First of all, STFU troll. Second of all, if I remember what you’re talking about correctly, the portrayal of what I said was dishonest, as is your portrayal of what I said as “tinfoil hat conspiracy theory”.

The mother asked Barry not to do exactly what he did, and somehow she’s now fine with it? Well, considering the scandalous and arguably most dishonest campaign in history that Barry is running, all of his shady associations, etc. etc. the point is, I wouldn’t put it past his campaign to throw her some hush money. That’s not a “conspiracy theory”. I didn’t assert that he did this, or that there is any evidence to suggest he did… Just that I wouldn’t be shocked to learn he did at all. This was the same with the Hillary thing when there was a standoff at some NH campaign headquarters with some whacked out gunman. She was coming off a shocking defeat in Iowa, where she was destroyed and that was the beginning of the end of her run, in reality. You’ll recall that she sunk to crying to pull out a win in NH. I only suggested, in the midst of the standoff, that I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that it was something staged by the Clinton Machine. Was I suggesting it was or that there was any evidence of a “conspiracy”, no, it was simply a commentary on the dishonest of the Clintons (the latest example is them claiming to support Obama, yet clearly not).

So again, STFU. To say I wouldn’t be surprised to see some underdog team with the World Series doesn’t mean I’m insisting there is a conspiracy involving umpire payoffs. Get a grip.

Also in the case that you cite Anthony Kennedy voted with Scalia, Roberts, Alioto, and Thomas against the Seattle School district. That is why I find it odd that you chose to cite that case.

Jay-I’ll bite-it’s the black community…for reasons I’ll never understand because it is the Republican party who has done more to advance the causes of the black community ex: civil rights act in the 60’s…Civil war etc. Colin Powell, Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas, should I go on?

Static21 on September 29, 2008 at 10:32 AM

I’ll give you a hint. Black voters started abandoning the Republican party in the mid 60’s. What was going on around then? Which party was doing what?

Secondly, the moron could not remember the soldier’s name, or the Mother’s name. A Gold Star Mother at LGF said she would have been devastated over Obama not remembering, or stammering out her son’s name. And she reminded us that it was Gold Star Mother’s Day this past weekend. This was a slap across the face of our military families that have lost loved ones in this war on terror. We can debate until the cows come home about whether or not the war in Iraq was justified, but one thing should be abundantly clear to Obama, but it obviously was not, and that is our fallen soldiers are not to be used in such a despicable manner. They are there serving this nation. They are doing good, and they deserve much better from Obama than what he is doing to them by using them as political ploys. This whole move smacked of Murthaisms and reminded me of what Obama said after 9-11 and how the Democrats in both Houses have slimed our military men and women for the past five years. For that, I guess we should be grateful to Obama, because that moment alone, in one fell swoop defined Obama. Self-centered. Do you really want a man like that in the White House? One that would stoop that low? One that would use a dead soldier in order to win something solely for himself? How revolting!

I wouldn’t be surprised if she’s getting some cash or something in order to keep her saying what she’s now saying)

RightWinged on September 29, 2008 at 9:39 AM

haha seriously dude what is up with you and the tinfoil hat conspiracy theories? Weren’t you showcased on C&L’s last year because of one about Hillary?