Good for her. Why should the American people know if someone sitting on the bench thinks getting rid of separate but equal is a good idea?She showed reasonable restrain when asked instead of telling them to go fsck off and take their witch hunt elsewhere.
link? proof? What if i supported segregation just to irritate you? Does that mean I believe certain races inferior? How?
It seems to be this is increasingly what actually happens. People with resentments against 'elite liberals' decide to hit back at those liberals by attacking a vulnerable minority who aren't elite liberals. Just to irritate them.
But if you make black people pay a price just so you can work out some hostility to white people who you think are better-off than you, then, yeah, you are a racist. Because you are using black people as a means-to-an-end and assuming their well-being is less important than your own agenda. You clearly would not be viewing them as fellow, equal human beings. That's obviously racism.
Aptly named fucktard...
That's just stupid. Please read the definition.
Troll mode is for 5 year olds. Grow up.
That's not an argument. Try constructing one, maybe?
You clearly would not
link? proof? What if i supported segregation just to irritate you? Does that mean I believe certain races inferior? How?
Troll mode is for 5 year olds. Grow up.
You didn't have an argument; just a conclusion:
Which was stupid. I actually tried editing the post, desperately looking for something more to add, but came up with the same reply. You're clearly 3 months behind on your cable bill. See? Doesn't work.
If you were to use another less powerful group as a means to an end, blah blah blah, you clearly would be 3 months behind on your cable bill. It's more or less the same argument. Neither conclusions follow.You continue to make little sense. Your cable bill analogy fails badly. It seems to be missing the antecedent clause.
I'll say it again - if you were to _use_ another less powerful group as a means to an end, harming them in order to get back at someone else, you clearly would not be treating them as equal human beings. Now what in that do you disagree with?
If you were to use another less powerful group as a means to an end, blah blah blah, you clearly would be 3 months behind on your cable bill. It's more or less the same argument. Neither conclusions follow.
The clip in the OP is basically her refusing to say the SCOTUS was correct in their ruling, but she claims she'd put her personal beliefs aside and adhere to the courts decisions because they're her boss.I haven't had a chance to look into statements. Did she say she was against integration, or did she say that she thought the legal basis was in doubt? Were the questions legit or "gotchas"?
What she said (without actually saying it) Is that her personal beliefs are such that "separate yet equal" wasn't a lie all along.I haven't had a chance to look into statements. Did she say she was against integration, or did she say that she thought the legal basis was in doubt? Were the questions legit or "gotchas"?
I understand the difference, it wasn't clear if we were including voluntary segregation in the discussion. I have no issue with voluntary segregation from anyone. We should all be allowed to live with people we're comfortable with.If you cannot see the difference between state mandated segregation (Apartheid/Jim Crow) and voluntary self segregation, you don't understand the concept of freedom, law, or simple logic.
The fact is, it was a racist state mandated policy designed not only to keep races seperate against their will, but to also keep an entire race down, mired in poverty. And it only truly ended in the 1960s. It was America's version of Apartheid.
See the concept is simple, if you want to segregate yourself, that's racial animosity (if the oppressed race) or racist (if the oppressing race) but legal. If you want to segregate others against their will, that's racist and illegal.
Troll mode is for 5 year olds. Grow up.
nvm troll not worth the timeWow... projection. How unoriginal for the new right.
Good for her. Why should the American people know if someone sitting on the bench thinks getting rid of separate but equal is a good idea?
Spoken like a very fine Republican
It seems to be this is increasingly what actually happens. People with resentments against 'elite liberals' decide to hit back at those liberals by attacking a vulnerable minority who aren't elite liberals. Just to irritate them.
But if you make black people pay a price just so you can work out some hostility to white people who you think are better-off than you, then, yeah, you are a racist. Because you are using black people as a means-to-an-end and assuming their well-being is less important than your own agenda. You clearly would not be viewing them as fellow, equal human beings. That's obviously racism.
You're really delusional enough to think that a single person who doesn't want to be questioned in a witch trial, is a threat? That's ignorant.
I'm not advocating her based on any values bad or good, just the context of this topic. I don't feel she is fit for the position but it's aside from this internet trial-by-idiots.