The way the Republicans put forward Sarah Palin to get the Hillary vote? ("Same plumbing, right? What could go wrong?") The way Michael Steele was placed at the "helm" of the RNC since the Democrats had Obama? ("Same color, right? What could go wrong?") How unfortunate that the Republicans couldn't even properly do the put-your-finger-to-the-wind, "no-brain-power" stuff you refer to. Wouldn't you say?
Huh? The republicans have had the presidency for 20 of the last 28 years. That seems pretty dominate to me. I notice we have a Canadian "meddling" in the US's affairs.
Why don't you listen to what Obama's preacher says and tell me how it is not overt, hardcore racism. There is simply no other way to describe it.
It's a pretty obvious situation, which is why the left is trying so hard to cover it up. Imagine if it were the other way. A bunch of firefighters take a promotion test, and only blacks rise to the top. The adminstrators say "Woah, this can't be right" and throw the results in the trash because no white people made the list. Would the Supreme Court uphold that? #@*&^ no! And with good reason. It's so obvious that it never would have reached SCOTUS. But you can bet the decision would have been 9-0. One group thinks discrimination is wrong. Another thinks only certain kinds of racial discrimination is wrong, other kinds are fine.
I applaud this decision, but the real problem is an old decision called Gregg v. Duke Power or something similar. The Court there ruled that an apparently neutral test or promotion method that yielded racially disparate results was evidence of discrimination. The EEOC later issued a finding that such results created a presumption of discrimination that the company had to disprove. I may have the details slightly wrong but that is the basic legal structure. Sotomayor's decision applied this framework to the Ricci situation. The result may not have been compelled, as there was no direct precedent, but clearly the spirit of the Duke Power case was that a test that produced only white promotions was suspect. The city could have gone ahead, and been sued by blacks, or startd over, and get sued by whites. Probably they lose either way, which is a hell of a legal system to have to live under. The eirony of sotomayor's decision is that it seemed tobe the exact opposite of what Obama claimed to be looking for in a justice. Her decision was letgally supportable but totally unfair and unjust in practice. I doubt it caused her any anguish however. She is clearly from the racial spoils system theory of justice. I don't think the Supreme Court's reversal of her decision is necessarily grounds to vote against her, standing alone. That said, she is a terrible candidate and there are plenty of respectable reasons to reject her.
I don't think the overturn is grounds to vote against her, but it sure is great seeing the Obama admininstration eating crow. They ought to have grown accustom to it.
Karma? What usually follows the disenfranchisment of the capable ruling class is collapse of the culture... we are headed for Warlord territory with these goodie goodie biatches we have in charge killing off incentive and redistributing the profits to anybody that can vote for them... it's just a stage in the collapse, where women and children run the culture...
The people you quote not only think that disenfranchisement of whites is justice, but that it may even result in a better society. They have to bury their heads in the sand and not look at places like Zimbabwe and see what happens when you take from the <s>rich</s> whites, and give to the favored classes, whether it be unions or people of color. Or others seem to think they'll just be an observer of the mess that results and not subject to its hellish consequences. Obama policies are taking us down the very same path as Zimbabwe and the Entire nation suffers for it, not just subjects of so called 'karma'.
Did I say that Rev. Wright was not a racist, from what I have heard? But, let's deal in perception because perception for the Buffalo are 90% of reality. It is perceived that blacks can b mad about their past and vent about inside their churches. The fact is that most whites who would not use nigger in public sling it around like lemonade when at home. But those same folks will swear on a stack of bibles that they are not racist. So, yes, Rev. Wright's sound bites appear to b racist in nature.