 sj |
||
|
||
BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court...
|
|
|
Subject: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Bobert Date: 05 Jun 06 - 07:48 PM Well, well, well... I thought given the low approval ratings of the Bush foplks and the Republican Party in general that the Supreme Court would have had the wisdom to lay off a year before beginning to dismantle the ideals of the Great Society but not this bunch... They have taken up Affirmative Action right out of the gate??? Yep, that hiest of the 2000 election is going to pay some big dividends with a new court that is packed to the gills with right winged ideologues... Heck, given their appetite to turn back the clock it wouldn't be a surprise to see them also take up Roe v. Wade... In a strictly political sense, this was a stupid move on their part... Sure, it will play to their base in this election year but with gay marriage, affirmative action, flag burning and perhaps Roe being brought into play all at the same time, the other side is going to be strongly motivated... Kicking sand in the face of the3 opposing party is never a good idea and will come acrss as terribly arrogant and arrogance is the one thing we keep hearing over and over from moderates in defining the Republican Party... Well, last time we heard "Bring it on", that's exactly what happened... Bad move politically speaking and a worse ove from a social standpoint... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: GUEST Date: 05 Jun 06 - 08:05 PM "By GINA HOLLAND WASHINGTON Jun 5, 2006 (AP)— The Supreme Court agreed Monday to decide whether skin color can be considered in assigning children to public schools, reopening the issue of affirmative action. The announcement puts a contentious social topic on the national landscape in an election year, and tests the conservatism of President Bush's two new justices." From here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 05 Jun 06 - 08:07 PM The only saving grace with arrogant twits is that they usually stir up enough fuss to speed up their lynching party. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Amos Date: 05 Jun 06 - 10:48 PM May it so prove, good Robin! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: gnu Date: 06 Jun 06 - 06:15 AM Sickening. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: JohnInKansas Date: 06 Jun 06 - 01:16 PM The US Supreme Court has just rendered (is this a pun?) their decision that employees of the government are not entitled to the protections of the First Amendment's Freedom of Speech clause when they report suspected legal or ethical abuse within government channels (i.e. to their superiors or co-workers). An explanatory opinion appears to assert that this "probably" doesn't deprive them of freedom to speak "in public" when they do not act in an official capacity. This latter opinion overlooks the fact that many government agencies prohibit, either in an oath taken at the time of employment and/or in the employment contract, any comment on the affairs of the government "outside the agency," usually whether or not the comments relate to the agency employing them. This "contractural" prohibition largely (and confirmably) has been applied to prevent "government employees" from active support of or opposition to political candidates by participation in campaign organizations, and this bar has also been upheld, I believe, in some US District Courts; although there are also decisions holding that it is illegal. My personal experience (admittedly some years ago) was that members of the military are pretty much prevented from any political campaign involvement while assigned to active duty, even when "on leave," and are (were) uniformly told - emphatically - that disciplinary action would be applied if they did so. It seems there was an "Executive Order" on this even 'way back in the early 60s. I have only a brief newspaper notice on this decision at present, but it apparently "supports" opinions expressed and implemented by our President in recent weeks, that numerous legal practitioners and theorists have contested, and appears to have been(?) swayed from the opposite earlier opinions of lower (US District) Courts by the most recently appointed Justices. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Barry Finn Date: 06 Jun 06 - 02:14 PM How will this effect on the whistle blower's act, if at all? It does look like it'll take a good bite out of it, if not swallowing it whole. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Jun 06 - 08:09 PM Remember, Hitler and sufficient other members of his Party were properly 'democratically elected' in the beginning, no ballot box manipulations needed... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Bobert Date: 06 Jun 06 - 08:34 PM The problem I have with this Supreme Court is that it seems to be made of of people who are terribly partisan... Even in the days of Earl Warren it wasn't so much partisan but ideaological... There is a difference... With both parties very close in ideologies it seesm that theis court will do what it can to protect the Republican's grasp on power... The idea that one cannot blow a whistle on wrong doers becuase of some contratc or pledge isn't what my Unite3d Sates is about... Wrong is wrong and folks shlouldn't be afraid to say so... That is the essence of democracy... Yeah, I'm not sure how the power of the Republican party has so drastically entangled its way into every branch of governemnt at a time when the ASmerican people are clearly fed up with this "federalist" governemnt or even how one goes about wrestling the power out of their hands but one thing is for sure, when the Supreme Court is reduced to doing political in-fighting to protect the corrup folks from being outed, there's something drastically wrong with the US government... Drastically wrong... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Ebbie Date: 06 Jun 06 - 08:54 PM Hear, hear, Bob. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: robomatic Date: 06 Jun 06 - 09:05 PM I think affirmative action was never intended to last indefinitely. It was an idea whose utility rested on its successfulness and whose successfulness, or lack thereof, may certainly redound back to its applicability. Not that I necessarily agree with the way things are going, but I certainly think those affected negatively by affirmative action have recourse to the courts just like anyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 06 Jun 06 - 09:19 PM "the power of the Republican party has so drastically entangled its way" It's not the 'Political Party' itself Bobert, but the greedy narrowminded powermongers who have hijacked it... same sort of thing has happened here in Aus too... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Bobert Date: 06 Jun 06 - 09:47 PM Yeah, Folles-t, yer right.... Make that, ahhh, correct... Now as fir Robo's comments: Yeah, Affirmative Action should have a "sunset" provision that allows it a timely death when the racial abuses of over 300 years of US history have been addressed.... Been to any inner city in the US lately... We ain't even got warmed up yet, let alone ready to cut 'n run... Yeah, there are alot of white folks who can rightfully say, "Hey, I din't do this to black folks" and they can get all righteous about what they feel... But look around you at the infastructure and wealth that has been created in this country and guess what??? Yer enjoyin' it but guess what, Part 2... A disporportionate amount of it was created by black folks whoes kids haven't had the sdame opportunities as you white folks... Hey, this isn't even arguable... This is Reality 101 here... Yet you would turn yer backs on those who have brought you your opportunites thru creating a wealthy nation??? No, Afiirmative Action, is jst the tip of the iceburg of repairations that white America owen its black population... But, hey, real easy to parrot what yer redneck daddies have said all their lives: "I din't do this to these people so why should I pay the price?"... Yeah, makes fir a great redneck soundbite... Prtoble is that it is based on complete ignorance of the history of the country... Ya know, seems that ignorance is in these days... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: JohnInKansas Date: 06 Jun 06 - 10:13 PM How will this effect on the whistle blower's act, if at all? Herr Bush has stated that the whistle blowers' act does not protect employees of the Federal Government because he says it does not. One news article I saw on the Supremes decision implied a direct statement to the effect that this act (cited by its formal title) does not apply. Another report makes the statement ("renders WBA inapplicable") as though it's an "interpretation." The full text of the decision will be of interest to see if it clarifies anything. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Bobert Date: 06 Jun 06 - 10:24 PM Bottom line is: "Shut the f**K up!!! You didn't see no wrong doing!!! And if you say you did, yer history, your family is history, yer house is history, everything you know is history!!!" Welcome to George Bush's America... Do as much wrong and shoot the friggin' folks who turn yer ass in... Yeah, and fir my Mudcat Bushites: Is this really what you all had in mind when you supported the rednecks that Bush has put on the court??? Makes me think of Germany in the 30's... If it doesn't then you ain't read much about what went on in Germany in the 30's... I know... Who cares??? We are in power and you guys ain't so blah, blah, blah... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Jun 06 - 01:48 AM "Do as much wrong and shoot the friggin' folks who turn yer ass in..." That's what Sadam did to the Kurds in the 1980s... and they haven't shot HIM yet... Move along! Nothing to see here! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Jun 06 - 03:51 AM Bobbert - Makes me think of Germany in the 30's... Not a chance, Bobbert. Take a close look at how the Nazi party obtained and expanded their power. 1. A political faction elected on a campaign promising a "return to Conservating religous values, protection of the family, and protection of the country." . . . . Nazi . . . not at all like the Republicans(?) 2. Creating, or through propaganda building a terror of, an "enemy" that requires extreme defensive measures. . . . . Soviet Communism . . . . Iraq was just 'cause we had to(?) 3. Assumption of "emergency powers" for the good of the country. . . . . Adolph (actually at first more Hermann) . . . But George really needs to be able to call all the shots(?) 4. Declaration of the need to keep actions taken under the Fuhrer's "emergency powers" secret from the people for "reasons of security." . . . . Gotta confess maybe this one's questionable. 5. "Secret" expansion of the emergency powers claimed for the Fuhrer. . . . . Oh, well, but, well 6. Enlisting of "Conservative" religion, and it's installation as the official National Religion. . . . . The first treaty the new Nazi administration made with an internationally significant power was with the Vatican, which was almost immediately declared to be the "National Religion of Germany," and which intentionally or otherwise crushed the liberal Christians, mostly Catholic, who were the principal organized opposition to Nazi policies. (Concordat of 1933.) . . . . Pat Robertson says he's responsible for the Republican success in the last election, and possibly he's right. 7. Emasculation of the Courts, by appointment of quisling judges who will follow the party line. . . . . A key here was getting judges in place who would support the Fuhrer's authority to supercede the legislative bodies, to make or revoke laws on the sole authority of the Fuhrer or his appointees. . . . . The US Supreme Court has just upheld George's assertion that his emergency powers permit him to deny protection of "whistle blowers" in direct contravention of the law passed by the Legislature granting them the same protections as any others. 8. Attacks on the unemployed and welfare recipients, labelling them as "undesirables" and propaganizing to create public resentment of them. . . . . Germany had an enormous unemployment problem. People in jail or in work camps don't appear on the unemployment roles. Problem solved. . . . . That's just Standard Republican policy(?) 9. Demonizing of segments of the population to give "the people" someone to hate. . . . . One of the first pograms against a named kind of people who were persecuted/prosecuted simply because of who/what they were was a campaign to eliminate homosexuals. Best estimate is that 300,000 of them died in work camps before Germany started on the "Jewish Problem." 10. Legislate (actually just declare) limitations on marriage, as beginning step in isolating some factions of the population for later expulsion, forced labor, or extermination. Nuremberg 1935 11. Forcible expulsion and/or imprisonment of "undesirable immigrants." 12. Aggressive action against other countries because "we need their resources," and "we deserve them because we're better than they are." 13. Occupation and forcible imposition of "our kind of government" on foreign nations. See Bobbert. It's your imagination and there are no real similarities. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: podman Date: 07 Jun 06 - 03:57 AM Wait wait don' tell me: Jesse Helms as General Hindenburg! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Bobert Date: 07 Jun 06 - 07:24 AM You missed a couple, John... Buddying up to the industrialists... Yeah, Hitler well understood that if hs didn't have the moneyed folks behind his efforts that it was going to be an uphill struggle... And you suggested "super-patriotism" that the Nazis used to kepp the sheep in control and just llok at how many sheep we have driving around with all these super-patriotism bumperstickers on the backs of their cars??? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Amos Date: 07 Jun 06 - 09:15 AM Jaysus, you guys. Out in black and white in front of everybody!! I have often wondered what I would do/would have done if I had had a chance to somehow eliminante Hitler before his arrival in power. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Amos Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:03 AM "[God] is the chairman of this party." -- Texas GOP leader Tina Benkiser, at state convention |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Amos Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:17 AM I want to know who has his finger on the button.... A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: JohnInKansas Date: 07 Jun 06 - 12:47 PM Well Bobbert, there is one significant difference between today and 1930s Germany. Adolph's "popularity" with the people remained very high until quite late in his term of office. One might expect some "manipulating" of official figures, but sources external to the Nazi government do support the notion that he "let the people have/do what they wanted," and his "approval ratings" remained high. (I think someone cited that, here or perhaps in another thread, as what someone said was an argument in favor of getting rid of the Supreme Court and passing the "Marriage Amendment." "They should let us do what the majority wants.") John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Wolfgang Date: 07 Jun 06 - 05:25 PM JohnInKansas, your Nazi comparison is a travesty of an argumentation only meant for the simple minded. Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: robomatic Date: 07 Jun 06 - 05:49 PM I think John just wants to let Bobert have his rant. There's not been any logic in this column since I last posted. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Richard Bridge Date: 07 Jun 06 - 06:07 PM Yeah, right, Wolfgang, it couldn't be that bad, could it? After all, Hitler was a one in a millennium aberration, and the guilt that it happened will never let anything compare to it? Just checking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Amos Date: 07 Jun 06 - 06:54 PM I think the list is actually true in both cases, and different only, perhaps, in context and degree. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Bobert Date: 07 Jun 06 - 08:38 PM Hey, we all are looking at Hitler with 20-20 hindsight here... And we are aslo looking at the 1939 Hitler, not the 1936 Hitler... Things change and evolve based on circumstance... Lets say that 9/11 hadn' toccured... How many folks really think that Bush would have been able to win, which is questionable, the 2004 election??? Prior of 9/11 Bush's poll numbers were allready headin' South... Like I said: "circumstances"... And I agree with John that Bush is no Adolf Hitler but his handlers have used many of the same tactics that Hityler's folks used... Problem, for Bush, is that he and his corrupt buddies have been caught too many times with their hands in the middle classe's wallets... But, their failures to match Hitler's success shouldn't over-shadow the similar tactics used by both to centralize power... And, fir the record, this ain't a rant... Just observations... Fir folks who have read my rants they know that this post is mild as branch water... Just observations... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Richard Bridge Date: 07 Jun 06 - 08:50 PM Don't you mean "...no Adolf Hitler......yet"? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Jun 06 - 09:23 PM "Lets say that 9/11 hadn' toccured... How many folks really think that Bush would have been able to win, which is questionable, the 2004 election???" One word Bobert.... Diebold! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Bobert Date: 07 Jun 06 - 09:28 PM Yeah, fooles-t, it is interesting that fir the 1st time since exit polls have been used that there was a major difference in the way folks said they voted and the vote count... Hmmmmmm??? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 07 Jun 06 - 10:15 PM Even more so than in third world countries run by nasty dictators... oooooo hush ma mouth! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Wolfgang Date: 09 Jun 06 - 11:51 AM I think the list is actually true in both cases, and different only, perhaps, in context and degree. (Amos) What is true in both cases is irrelevant when looked at in isolation. Look at what the list omits: (1) Bush has not yet put a sizable percentage of opposition congressmen and Senators into prison (we're talking about 1933). (2) Bush has not yet ordered an out of time election in which the opposition parties are not allowed to run. (3) Bush has not yet ordered governors of states to be replaced by his own men. (4) Bush has not yet ordered opposing politicians of his own party to be shot. (all that 1933/34) That list could go on for at least as long as John's list. If you set out to find list of similarities between Nazi Germany and any government anywhere you will easily get a long list which means nothing at all. It is a futile exercise only impressing the (but I said that already). Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: robomatic Date: 09 Jun 06 - 12:12 PM Actually, if you want to make somewhat more accurate comparisons, Saddam consciously modelled himself after the practices of Josef Stalin to achieve and maintain his power. The Islamic terrorists whether consciously or un- have a lot in common with Nazi and Hitlerite belief and practise, right down to the internecine strife amongst themselves. 'W' and his 'crew' are to my mind, totally American in approach, just not as advanced to the age as they could be. And a lot of posters have a lot in common with that great American hero, Charles Lindbergh and his head-in-the-sand approach to national politics. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 Jun 06 - 07:36 PM ... and the British Royal Family of the time... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: JohnInKansas Date: 09 Jun 06 - 09:30 PM Wolfgang - It's true that Bush hasn't (yet?) done many of the nasty things most people associate with the Nazi regime. My concern is with how Germany "fell into" letting all this happen. In other words, how did it get started; and how do we know it can't happen here. I don't think that even Adolph woke up one morning and decided "I think I'll take over Germany and kill all the jews and invade a bunch of countries and make myself the biggest ... thing since Attila." The power had to be built, and the ambition unfortunately rose with the power. The Nazi party ran for election, and used an appeal to "Conservativism," and were elected by the German people. It's difficult to find unbiased information on what the people of Germany found attractive in the campaigns that got the Nazi party into power; but one of the "issues" used was that the country had "lost its values" and the Nazi program would "restore old values." The Weimar Constitution did permit a "state religion" but allowed some protection for those of different faiths. The treaty with the Vatican did appear to lead to a suppression of other religious belief, in a way that looks to me very much like what some of the "fundies" in the US would like to do. The declaration of "a national emergency" was used by the Nazi party to override existing law, in a way very similar to what Bush claims the authority to do. This appears, from what I've been able to find, to have included "secret laws" and essentially "covert actions;" somewhat similar to what it appears may have been happening here. I do not see the German people then as a whole lot different than those in the US now, during the initial building of power by the Nazi party. Whether what's going on in the US is likely to lead to escalating abuses is questionable, but there is sufficient cause for concern, and I do not see the majority here as concerned as I think they should be. We have a Congress in which the apparent majority are willing to sacrifice the Constitution to pander to the voters in a relatively small, but organized bloc. Congress seems willing to emasculate the Judiciary "for convenience." We have a President who claims to be exempt from the oversight of both the Legislature and Judiciary. The precedents that Bush seems intent on establishing would leave him - and/or the next few Presidents - virtually free to launch almost any sort of pogram one might imagine. We have voters who have demonstrated, by amendments to State Constitutions in 37 states, that they are unconcerned with the Civil Rights of anyone that a few bigots in positions of leadership tell them are "undesirables." It has been amply demonstrated that "the votes" can be manipulated for political purposes, and I have little trust in those who've done the demonstrations. The US today is not like Hitler's Germany of 1933 or later, but it looks too much like 1928 or 1930 Germany for my comfort. We do have some "checks and balances" that were perhaps weaker in pre-Nazi Germany, but it is possible that at least a few ambitious politicians are attempting to move them out of the way. For purposes unknown. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 09 Jun 06 - 09:51 PM "For purposes unknown." Pull the other keg John... er, leg.. I meant, but come to think of it... there's bugger all I (as an Aussie) can do about it, but it IS affecting Aussie life, especially as Aussie 'Conservatives' rush to fawn over the USA, as Australian politicians have always done to the 'powerful' viz Great Britain before WWII ended... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: robomatic Date: 09 Jun 06 - 10:06 PM John: I find most of your posts to be well informed and thought-through. In this case I take exception to your comparison of Post (and Pre) war Germany of the 1920's with the US of today. The people of the United States were and are miles from where the people of Germany were in the 1920's, or even where the people of the US were in the 1920's. In the 1920's 10,000 members of the Ku Klux Klan could (and did) march through Washington D.C. The fundies of today are miles from the racist bigots of the 20's whether or not you're talking Weimar or America. They can be irritating in the extreme, many of their beliefs in my opinion, have gone too far into the American power structure, but this has happened, as you rightly say, as part of democratic expression. It is used by politicians as they use everything they can use. I am unhappy with the quality of leadership in the US, but I think it's a reflection of the electorate, and I hope for better. But what I hope for is not what a lot of other folks in this forum hope for, so the struggle continues. 'W' and his crew may not be the best available, but they're the ones who were elected and they actually could be a lot worse. A LOT WORSE. Just last week I saw some program on the rise of Goebbels, and there was a shot of Hitler addressing an open gathering of workers "Many of you are upset that I have eradicated the Marxist Party, but you must remember I have eradicated ALL THE OTHER PARTIES!" It was a grimly humorous remark but there was no humor in the soon-to-be Fuhrer. I do not think there is an analog to that left in the Western World. I find comfort that you find cause for concern, however. In that we are alike. One of my guides is that as long as people are worked up and unhappy and vocal, times are normal. It's when everyone is shouting how wonderful and perfect everything is that it's truly dangerous. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: JohnInKansas Date: 10 Jun 06 - 12:10 AM robomatic - Note that all the speeches that get into the newsreels and retrospectives came after the party was sufficiently entrenched to impose its rule. I'm interested more in what it was like when it all started. If you don't see people in the US similar to those in pre-Nazi Germany, then you're not seeing the same people I am; or you don't have the same impression of what the ordinary folk were like in Germany. Either can be very difficult to see. We do have numerous "politicians" who are determined to turn the US into a theocracy, if that's what it takes for them to get the vote. This includes large numbers in local and regional politics - not just the national set. They say so openly and proudly, because the people who will vote for them think that's a good thing. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: The Fooles Troupe Date: 10 Jun 06 - 07:15 AM All the little people who pushed strongly for, and the politicians who implemented the immensely popular concept of Prohibition truly sincerely felt THAT was 'A Good Thing' too - there was even much 'medical support' too... :-) The thing is that, unlike the Repeal of Prohibition, once the US has utterly trashed its alleged freedom oriented way of life, there will be NO EASY way back... the people making all the money will fight tooth and nail to keep the balance as it then becomes... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Bobert Date: 10 Jun 06 - 07:49 AM Well, fooles-t, behind just about evry decision being made by the folks who run the show is about money... And they understand that at times you have to spend some to get even more... The cornerstone of getting more is holding on to power and that's why when the support among senior citizens for Bush began to slip he plugged the slippage with the Medicaid perscription program... But not to fear, it isn't going to paid for by the moneyed class who continue so enjoy a redistribution of wealth to them at the expense of the poor and middle class... But back to the Supreme Court... What John has brought up about the manner in which things were "framed" in the 20's in Germany is interesting... I agree that it was a gradual process that took a lot of "freming" and "reframing" of issues until one day things which once seemed utterlu rediculous new seemed mainstream... I belive this has been happening to the United States for the last 30 or so years... Affirmative Action, once thought to be at least a beginning toward some kind of repairations, has been attacked by the right for so long that now even some folks who might consider themselves moderates are firmly against it... The sad part about this is the much of the wealth and infastructure of the country was created on the backs of black people and yet rather than have a discussion about slaver and race (which IMO is long overdue) our society is now ready to accept one of the keys of repairations... And I might add that repairation isn't strictly about blacks getting a fair shake but also in making the effort our society gains on the whole toward greatness and purpose... Yeah, for those who can't see the parrellels between the US and Germany they will never see them just as folks in Germany didn't see them either and went merrially along with what was evolving becuase the movement hadn't come after them yet or asked them to sacrifice yet... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: DougR Date: 10 Jun 06 - 02:34 PM John: I don't know why you seem to find such pleasure in pricking Bobert's balloon. I think it borders on heartless. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: DougR Date: 10 Jun 06 - 02:35 PM Just imagine, John, what Bobert is going to be posting when GWB appoints the NEXT conservative to the U. S. Supreme Court. That will be a sight to read! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: DougR Date: 10 Jun 06 - 02:38 PM Just as an aside, would anyone on this thread REALLY enjoy foreplay with Ruth Bader Ginsberg anyway? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: robomatic Date: 10 Jun 06 - 04:10 PM Mister Ginsberg, presumably. John: I appreciate your concern but don't follow your logic. Bobert has opinion but no logic- it's all a bunch of rich folks conspiring to rule the roost. As for affirmative action, it was never meant to be permanent, and has been legally challenged since the 70's in the instances where it results in people losing jobs, positions, student acceptances, and the like. There are minorities who have done well without any kind of affirmative action. A very good case can be made for affirmative action being a curse rather than a help for those given favoritism. I think more and more people across the political spectrum are taking these arguments seriously. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Amos Date: 10 Jun 06 - 04:27 PM The remark is so far aside as to be twisted. A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: JohnInKansas Date: 10 Jun 06 - 06:20 PM robomatic (et. al.) Apparently I failed to express myself clearly in the first couple of posts, and haven't helped by trying to to make additional comments. It seems everyone missed the point at first, and adding to the confusion hasn't, and won't, help. Perhaps if I can figure out a better way to pose the premise, I may make a fresh start later, but for now I don't see a way of getting there. So if you didn't see the logic, I'll take the blame for not displaying it in clearer form. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: No Foreplay with this Supreme Court... From: Bobert Date: 10 Jun 06 - 08:10 PM Dougie, As far as the court goes, it no longer matters... Your side has it packed tighter than tree bark with ultra righties who will now begin their own brand of activism by overturning law that has been on the books for the last 30 years... There won't be one decision that will come out of this court that you will faind any fault with, believe me... Actually one more right winged ideologue on the court could be very good for this country becuase it might just piss off enough folks to swing the power away from the neo-cons forever... Others: In my last post I meant to say that American are now wiklling to cast Afirmative Action aside becuase of 30 years of PR crap financed by the folks who contol the money in this country... You know, kinda like what the Nazi's did in the 20's with a constant barrage of messages...... Bobert |
