zeldas
|
posted on December 16, 2000 12:32:55 PM new
I always turn to political humor to show some wisdom here. What is great about it is that the humor represents the whole country,not just one isolated opinion. I am afraid this is a racial thing. One political humorist went so far as to say, its a good thing the minorities don't speak This is how they view Justice Thomas. The blacks hold dear to them their right to vote,and being a minority group,they feel that Justice Thomas did not stick up for that right.....
|
toke
|
posted on December 16, 2000 12:42:46 PM new
krs...
I don't think they are segregated by party so much as they are by ideological bent. Everyone must have some sort of personal philosophy as a base, no? That does not imply a concrete party loyalty as far as I can see.
A president just has to hope his nominee's POV will give him the judgements he hopes for in the future. I think Suter's (sp) been confounding his appointer...big time.
Because I'm Libertarian at heart, does not exclude a little Utopian hope.
|
gravid
|
posted on December 16, 2000 12:45:06 PM new
My first thought was that his silence was a sign of disapproval - that he probably did not feel the question should be before them at all so it was not his place to comment at all because he did not approve of the others taking up the case. Does anyone know how many justices are needed to accept a case?
|
krs
|
posted on December 16, 2000 12:47:11 PM new
Networker,
In fairness to Toke, it has been my presentation of the court as a representative entity that has brought forth her objections to a racial aspect having sway or not in that court.
|
toke
|
posted on December 16, 2000 12:53:49 PM new
networker67...
I guess it was this part...
"We just had a case before the high court which although not really played into by the
media that heavily, involved serious issues involving African Americans. I personally
think the Gore legal team shouldhave giventhose ballots faces. But I can respect and
see the reason why they didn't. But whether they gave the ballots faces or not. let's just
say that 9 out of 10 of those faces were Black. So how is it that he doesn't have any
questions? How can the swing vote on an issue involving African Americans be Sandra
Day O'Connor.
He is an insult to the thousands of African-Americans that practice law and sit on the
bench in this great country of ours. He insults them by not having or expressing a legal
opinion on anything."
edited for quotes
[ edited by toke on Dec 16, 2000 12:54 PM ]
|
donny
|
posted on December 16, 2000 01:04:46 PM new
KatyD, Gullah is sort of like Creole, but not the same. Gullah's from the islands off of South Carolina and Georgia (Thomas was born around Savannah).
I saw Thomas' high-school kid interview after the decision. Speech impediment? What a bunch of hooey, he has less of an accent than I do, and I wasn't even born here.
Toke, the blood pressure card's becoming as predictable as the race card. Take some pills.
|
toke
|
posted on December 16, 2000 01:07:50 PM new
Now, now, Donny. Search for that elusive sense of humor. I just know it's in there somewhere...
|
lotsafuzz
|
posted on December 16, 2000 01:14:40 PM new
Personally, I think it is an insult to ALL Americans that a judge who was/is not qualified is sitting on the Supreme Court.
I don't think Justice Thomas is a stupid man, far from it.
|
networker67
|
posted on December 16, 2000 01:38:58 PM new
toke - I still can't see where the impression that I felt Justice Thomas should have voted along racial lines could be construed. My largest hang up with Justice Thomas is his failure to ponder any of the legal issues before the court since his appointment.
I can't buy the gulla language argument. Because to reach high court justice status means he has to be a lawyer first and a judge second. And in order to succeed in both of those endeavors as they pertain to the courts requires talking. And if I might add a great deal of it.
toke understand this I am one of those few rare birds in our society that has evolved past viewing every issue as merely Black or White. I don't blame White America for slavery, segregation, Jim Crow Days, or anything else used to split us along racial lines.
I blame it on a failure of the United States Government and its Courts to properly interpret our Constitution. When I hear a person speak of Conservative Values. All I can historically see is America pre 1955. Because with the exception of desegregation and the new found womans movement circa 1967. Absolutley nothing else in America has changed. So what exactly is a return to conservative values. A return to pre 1955 America, well sorry can't have any part of that. So if a Conservative will kindly reflect what those values are. I am perfectly willing to entertain those values as something I might want to hold. History tells me that they are something that I couldn't hold and be of sound mind and judgement.
Getting back to Justice Thomas, when you look at the above paragraph. How can any African American say they want a return to Conservative Values. That forces them to seperate the values into two groups post 1955 and pre 1967. Which means they want to go to the part of history after Civil Rights but before the Woman's Movement. That makes them sexist at the least and greedy at best. They want the rights for the Blackman but not the Black or White for that matter woman.
So what exactly is conservative values. And in what historical reference are we attributing these values too. So all you Republican/Democrat Conservatives out there the line is drawn place those conservative values in a historical reference. I challenge you to find one that makes them sound great and not sexist or segregationist. Someone teach me something today, I am waiting.
|
donny
|
posted on December 16, 2000 01:45:54 PM new
Now, now, Donny. Search for that elusive sense of humor. I just know it's in there somewhere...
Yah, it's right next to the pony in the barnful of manure.
|
toke
|
posted on December 16, 2000 01:52:03 PM new
Good. I knew you could find it...
|
krs
|
posted on December 16, 2000 01:52:31 PM new
I had a dog named "Butch" in 1955. Did that cause a predisposition to lesbianism?
networker,
I don't buy that one, specifically the set-court deliniation of values as you have posited here. It just isn't that simple. You can't make a separation of values by date because to try to do so denies a setting of personal values at any point in a life continuum. Peoples values are instilled into them by prior people and there's no lightswitch which changes dark to bright in a psyche as there is in a room.
Besides that, where does the 1955 year come from as regards civil rights? We white folk didn't have to give you civil rights until 1965.
(when I was in Alabama in 1968 there were several nearby establishments that maintained three restrooms)
|
toke
|
posted on December 16, 2000 01:57:49 PM new
krs...
Please. Just stop it.
|
krs
|
posted on December 16, 2000 01:59:32 PM new
Why?
|
toke
|
posted on December 16, 2000 02:00:27 PM new
To please me.
|
krs
|
posted on December 16, 2000 02:03:34 PM new
LOL!
You're in Maine, or somewhere such as, right?
|
toke
|
posted on December 16, 2000 02:06:49 PM new
A little south. I'm glad you're laughing and not aiming...heh.
|
krs
|
posted on December 16, 2000 02:11:07 PM new
I was thinking that you were in a place where the population is predominently white anglo saxon.
|
toke
|
posted on December 16, 2000 02:20:15 PM new
Massachusetts.
Seriously...I know what you're doing amuses you. Personally, I find a good deal of it cruel...whether you mean it to be, or not. That is why I wish you'd stop. Goading people to some kind of public display of emotion is not funny to everyone.
This is not a laboratory.
|
krs
|
posted on December 16, 2000 02:29:39 PM new
Nonsense. I actually think that it is worthwhile to discuss, confront, and resolve issues between peoples rather than put them into a category that is 'not talked about'.
If you feel as though I'm goading, as you like to put it, then I'd have to assume that your response indicates that you've been goaded. But look to your own feelings for why that is, don't blame me.
|
toke
|
posted on December 16, 2000 02:38:59 PM new
No. I see you. I am goad-free, as it were.
You know what you're doing. I just thought I should be honest with you, instead of flippant, as is my wont. I have no illusions that I will affect your behavior.
|
krs
|
posted on December 16, 2000 02:43:41 PM new
Careful not to mispell 'goad'.
I'm out for a while anyway. Have to alter some steel molecules and get too dirty for typing.
|
networker67
|
posted on December 16, 2000 02:48:56 PM new
krs - You don't buy it because it forces a decision. Largest part of the problems is nobody wants to make a decision. Your conservatives want to flaunt this broad word C O N S E R V A T I V E V A L U E S. Without any reference to what said values are or when we held them historically. As such they like the laws of the land themselves are subject to interpretation.
Now I pick 1955 (which actually is 1954) which is the year Brown vs Board Of Education. That began the Civil Rights Movement, depending on how you choose to interpret the Constitution. Blacks have always had Civil Rights, its just the courts didn't render an intelligent interpretation to that fact until 1954. Intelligent interpretation led to Executive Branch Enforcement. Which by the Constitution enforcing the same falls on the shoulders of the President.
So in the context of today you have to assign a time when America held these CONSERVATIVE VALUES. Absent a time when the values were held the statement "a return to" loses its impact if no one wants to place a time when we lost those same values.
On another note some of us have had our Civil Rights respected long before 1965. And we didn't all live in the North. And we weren't given anything. We peaceably demanded our due under that Constitution and Democratic Principles you were so busy trying to force down the throats of people in Southeast Asia to no avail. As a student of history and the things in history that serve as catalyst to other things. African Americans can give a small measure of thanks to the Viet-Cong and North Vietnamese people for Civil Rights. Because America looked sort of STUPID fighting for principles in far flung places that they didn't fully embrace at home themselves.
Couldn't have that could we? LOL....lol..lol
|
toke
|
posted on December 16, 2000 02:54:21 PM new
krs...
Careful not to misspell, misspell! LOL!
edited because I spelled goad correctly and krs scammed me big time! He is good...heh
[ edited by toke on Dec 16, 2000 02:57 PM ]
|
Zazzie
|
posted on December 16, 2000 05:15:41 PM new
|
networker67
|
posted on December 16, 2000 05:31:30 PM new
Zazzie - Those political cartoonist always seem to sum up the matter in a way that the message isn't lost in the words. Were would we be without them.
|
krs
|
posted on December 16, 2000 08:31:14 PM new
Networker,
Been waiting long?
I don't know, but sometimes you do seem to not have an idea of what you're asking. Do you really believe that there IS such a thing as conservative values?
The phrase is political jargon, nothing more. At least nothining more in terms of a definable set of rules to live by that an individual can adopt.
Politically it's a vote getter, latest of many, designed to instill a promise of a promise to return everything to whatever sort of good old days any dissatisfied voter may hold dear in remembrance. It's a given that time softens memory, and so even that yearning voter cannot remember much less define what it is he or she yearns for.
Is it those shads of worth derived by their parents or grandparents during the universal adversity of the great depression? Is it more simply the mom and pop simplicity depicted in entertaining shows such as "The Waltons"?
The plain truth is that the largest portion of the group crying loudest for a return to 'conservative values' was not even alive during the times when those mythical values were supposedly obtained.
It's simply a desparate cry for change. Maybe for a leader who will promise to show the way back to the womb, where it's safer, and it was simpler.
Next year there will be a new catchphrase. You gotta' keep the people in the bleachers
interested.
Conservative values is about show business.
|
networker67
|
posted on December 16, 2000 09:51:01 PM new
krs - you summed it up quite well. Trust me on this one I already knew the answer before I asked the question. I just was hoping to see some of the things that people think are conservative values. Heck I was even ready to deal with the more radical ones.
From the time I asked the question to this post. I called both my oldest living relative and my wife's oldest living relative. I asked both these seniors what they thought conservative values were. Before I get to their answers a little background.
My oldest relative is my Uncle Len (85 years old). Migrated to Chicago in 1936 from Marks, Mississippi. Worked 45 years for US Steel, married to the same woman for 60 years and death did them part. Educationally, didn't get past the 8th grade.
My wife's oldest relative is her grandmother. 86 years old, lived her entire life in Jackson, Tennessee. Married for 54 years to the same man. Death did them part as well. Is the first person in my wife's family to earn a college degree. Taught school and raised cotton.
Both said they felt America has gotten too fast. They both remember simple times when neighbors looked out for one another. When kids minded their manners. People went to church regularly etc and so on. Asked them both what about the changes since the 60's. Uncle Len said he hoped it would make for better opportunities for his grandkids because his children were set in their lives. Wife's grandmother said she hoped it would make for better opportunity for her grandkids because her children were already set in their lives.
I found it strange that two people from exactly different African-American backgrounds gave the exact same answers. Neither welcomed the changes for themselves or their children. They only saw the possibilities for the future.
By the way both feel Justice Thomas is an ignorant SOB.
|
krs
|
posted on December 16, 2000 10:24:52 PM new
Networker,
By the way both feel Justice Thomas is an ignorant SOB.
LOL. Maybe not ignorant, but certainly a poor choice for the court if not so poor for the appointee. I think poor Clarence is a piece of political fodder.
So, I'll take it that you have an answer, or at least a point of agreement, and as this thread has wandered into the areas explored in a new one that you've started, as well as into other areas not addressed, I'll ask LindaAW to close it for having become redundant. I'm sure that the moderation staff will appreciate the phrase as an addition to their battery of reasons for closure which, I'm sure even they would agree, have also become redundant.
|
LindaAW
|
posted on December 16, 2000 10:31:27 PM new
Thread locked at the request of the originator.
Linda
Moderator
|
