Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'very troubling'

This article again misses the point, but SHOCKER!, it's from Salon.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the President has the right to disagree with the SC decision, to criticize, to lambaste it, hell, to use it as a campaign tactic to get dems to vote for him to keep putting liberals on the bench. But, under the circumstances, you have "invited" a group to sit at the very front of the chamber and listen to a speech where they are supposed to sit politely and listen. They are supposed to act non-partisan. To criticize them in such a setting, with the democrats standing up and roaring behind them is incredibly distasteful.

 

If corporations can spend whatever they want on American campaigns then can foreign governments spend whatever they want to influence American elections? If the Chinese National Petroleum Company decides it is in their interest to elect anti-offshore drilling proponents in US races can they spend a billion dollars on campaign contributions? Can OPEC help elect congressmen opposed to alternative energy plans?

How do you identify the citizenship of a corporation?

 

By the law of the state of incorporation and/or the location of its principal place of business. Of course, armed with $100 and internet access, you can organize all manner of business entities in any US state in the space of about 30 minutes.

Interpreting this question with regard to campaign finance and the newly-created 1st amendment rights of business entities creates a gigantic new group of problems of this sort that courts are going to have to invent solutions too - it wil be a great big mess for years until the supreme court sorts it all out - Thank you Supreme Court.

 

vlaurelio: does saying all black voters are dumb count?
uolj: No.
vlaurelio: he did make that statement

So? I just said it doesn't count in and of itself, so I don't understand your point.

...

By the way, a closer look at that thread (or at least the first page) actually backs up my contention. Did you notice this post? Note specifically the part of the post where basso states that the idea that blacks only vote on the basis of party ID is offensive. Also notice how he makes clear his issue is with the DOJ. He believes the DOJ is implying that blacks are dumb, and that such an implication is wrong. The whole point of him posting that thread is to take a dig at the Obama administration by claiming that they were saying black voters are dumb.

Maybe you have other evidence to back up what you "know" about basso's racism? Because as far as I can tell the only thing that thread shows is that you jump to incorrect conclusions as quickly as he does.

 

This argument between uolj and vlaurelio is one of the silliest of all time.

Let me try to end it.

As a general matter, basso does sometimes try to inflame people with disguised and undisguised race baiting. However, he probably was not doing it in this instance.

/argument.

 

I'll also bet he doesn't start threads 2 hours after someone has started a thread with almost the exact same article

talk about reading

--->

 

I asked him which DOJ statement/s made him believe that. I never got a response.

Maybe you can tell me.

 

doesn't every thread you post basically demonstrate your lack of reading comprehension?

 

I don't really remember, do you want me to go back and look it up? It honestly shouldn't matter. If I remember correctly, I thought he was wrong in his analysis of the story and the department of justice's actions.

But it does not matter if he was wrong on the details, he clearly was criticizing the exact thinking that you ascribed to him, and that invalidates your entire premise that such thinking shows he is racist.

Are you still claiming that thread shows he is racist?

 

someone say's black voter's are dumb from out of nowhere, I call him out for it, and you can't get over with what I said?

1) he put in the thread title "DOJ says all black voter's are dumb"

2) then he cannot specify the exact DOJ quote/statement he based his assumption on

3) which means the DOJ didn't really say it but he simply wanted to say it/race-bait

4) unless basso or you can explain 2, then there was really no basis for 1

 

You're taking significant leaps in logic.

"He cannot specify the exact DOJ quote/statement he based his assumption on" is incorrect. He chose not to try, possibly because the statements he based his assumptions on didn't actually support his conclusion. Or possibly because there were a bunch of people responding and he didn't have the time and/or desire to respond to all of them. Maybe you're on his ignore list and he didn't notice your question. I don't know why, but "didn't" is not the same as "couldn't".

And even if he could not provide the source of his claim, that doesn't imply that he made the claim because he believed it to be true. I think you are correct when you say he simply wanted to race-bait (depending on what exactly you mean by "race-bait"). I said that a while ago. That doesn't mean he believes the statement to be true, and it doesn't mean he's racist.

Are you ignoring the fact that the entire point of the thread was to criticize somebody else for a racist view? Why are you not addressing this obvious point?

 

I'm pretty sure he's got time. Or you can help him. It's not that hard of it's really there unless he's just wants an opportunity to call black voters dumb. Here's the article. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/oct/20/justice-dept-blocks-ncs-nonpartisan-vote/

I'm calling him out as a race-baiter. He can simply answer my question. Not sure why you find the need to defend him.

 

I tried to avoid this discussion several times, but you pressed on. I don't mind having it, but asking why I feel the need to defend him implies I went out of my way to do so, when in fact it was the opposite: you are going out of your way to accuse him (and derail the thread, which was my point in the beginning). I only "defend" him here because I think that your accusation is inaccurate and misguided, and because I think making it in this thread hurts the quality of this forum. Also, "racist" is a serious charge to level at someone, and I had hoped that you wouldn't be so adamant about it without serious proof.

Please note that you complain about him ignoring your question, and yet you have ignored my question to you several times already. Why? To repeat: the entire point of his thread was to criticize somebody else for a racist view. How does that fact not contradict your claim that basso was making that racist view?

It is kind of awkward for me to provide a source for his assumptions, when I think his assumptions were faulty. As I said before I think it's irrelevant, because the content of the thread makes clear that he disagreed with the claim that he attributed to the DOJ, so the fact that his claim was incorrect shouldn't imply that he made it because he agreed with it. But because you asked, I'll do my best:
[rquoter]The Justice Department's ruling ... went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their "candidates of choice" - identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.[/rquoter]
Note that if one reads just that statement and ignores or overlooks the other parts of the article that explain that the party affiliation was deemed necessary because of its effects on white voters, then one might come to the same erroneous conclusion that basso did. In addition, if my previously stated guesses about basso's true motivations are correct, then it shouldn't be too hard to imagine somebody who desires to criticize Obama and his administration at all costs might make such an oversight.

Note that you weren't calling him out as a race-baiter, you were calling him out as a racist. There's a difference. Do you not agree or are you back tracking a bit and saying you were wrong about the racism charge? Seriously, there's no shame in doing so. It won't mean you like basso. It won't mean you agree with his political beliefs, or that you condone his posting habits here. It will just mean that maybe you jumped to conclusions based on the thread title (which is exactly what race-baiting does) and fell for the trap. By not admitting that, you are adding a wrong to basso's wrong. If you could just concede that small misjudgment, then you are being the bigger man, and basso's actions are again left to be judged on their own.

 

so from that single statement both you and basso conclude that black voters are dumb? how?

 

Please read my post again. Just off the top of my head there are three huge problems with your response. I could list them off, but I'm afraid that it would divert the discussion and everything I just said would be ignored. I'd prefer if you just re-read my post and try again. Sorry to sound like an ass, but this response is pretty disappointing.

 

To make it simple, let's go through the points one-by-one. Are you saying the original reason why Basso started the thread was to point out that DOJ were being racist against blacks correct? Basically Basso thought that the the DOJ was inferring inferiority of the black race as a whole correct? So he started a thread accusing the department of goverment as being racist correct?

 

Correct. (He thought they were inferring inferiority of blacks in that particular city, but basically your premise is correct.)

 

was the DOJ racist?

 

I don't think so.