The Awesome Obama Thread II

We seem to have lost the right to watch our poorer brothers and sisters keel over and die for lack of health care. It's as if Aesop's fable about the grasshopper and the ant had never been written.

Most likely, pursuing the holes in the reasoning gives this scum more respect than is deserved.Nonethelesss...The logic, such as it is, does not go quite that far. Even under the pre-14th Amendment Constitution, states could still grant citizenship to whoever they wanted to, and the federal government could then offer national citizenship.Further, the application of the "logic" is quite questionable for any black person who doesn't draw citizenship by way of being a direct descendant from a black person born in American prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment. The "logic" would not apply to Obama, although it might apply to his wife.What this goofy person seems to forget is that Obama could possibly have been a citizen based on his white heritage even prior to the passage of the 14th Amendment. And there is of course no such thing as being natural born only for civil rights purposes only. Being natural born does not grant any civil rights at all.A better attempt would be to simply claim that Dred Scott has never been explicitly appealed, and that white people simply don't have to respect any rights that black people might try to assert. At least that would be honest.

The judge acknowledged that the joke was racist.

quote:

---

I didn’t send it as racist, although that’s what it is. I sent it out because it’s anti-Obama

---

His defense is that racism was not his motivation for sending a joke that he believed to be racist to his buddies.I take it that you are okay with that.I'm never sure anymore when you are being humorous or not, and perhaps some subtle joke has "wooshed" over my head. On the other hand I do see that you've jeered Dr. Adequate for being absolutely correct about the judge.

So your statement that you agree with the judge, who acknowledged that the statement was racist, really meant that you agree with some unstated sentiment which you postulate that the judge really intended.And, no I don't agree that the joke was not racist or that bias is required to see that the joke is racist. No special sensitivity is required to see the racism.All that is necessary to come to that conclusion is to read the joke and what the judge said without any need to find an excuse for the judge.The whole point to the joke was that the woman got so drunk she screwed a black man and might have done even worse. Yes it was a slam at his mother, but it was also racist. You are welcome to believe otherwise, but I doubt you'll convince anyone who isn't looking to excuse a judge.

No, "we" haven't all done that.

Fine. I assume that your statement above means you are backing off of the comment below, given that the two statements are cannot be reconciled:

Whether or not you agree, I think it is pretty clear what people are finding objectionable. I don't believe anyone is truly as obtuse as your statement implies that you are.

iNobody here is talking about the judge's rights. But just because your behavior is within your rights, doesn't make criticism of your behavior off limits.If you indulge in this kind of behavior, then you have to accept the social and political consequences for having your behavior exposed. It's fairly apparent from the judge's own apologies and back pedaling that the good judge wasn't quite prepared for that.I believe that the judge's behavior reflects on his character. If you like to indulge in the same behavior, I'm willing believe the same about you.Whatever your opinion on the behavior, I still think that pretending that you didn't understand that others are expressing a different opinion was quite silly.

I fully understand that some people engage in rude behavior and then blame others for taking offense. I don't ever expect to convince such people that they are wrong.ABE: Given that you don't believe there was anything wrong with the behavior, why is exposing it wrong?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes. And people who blow the whistle on crimes taking place in their neighborhood are called snitches. What's your point?Not everybody who is in the emailing chain started by the judge is going to appreciate receiving offensive, racist, nonsence. And once an email chain is started, it is highly likely to get out of control. I suspect that's how we happen to know about this issue.

Obama and his mom aren't the only people who would find the joke offensive.

The idea that it is okay to tell racist jokes, and somehow not okay to complain about such jokes when they are sent to you is just flat out ridiculous. If you don't want complaints, then do a better job of sending the jokes where they ought to go.

Yes, I read what you wrote. And as I note, you seem completely unwilling to criticize the judge for his actions, but completely willing to detail exactly how someone who receives the message is supposed to act. I don't understand the logic. Why is the judge beyond criticism, yet the person who reports the message some kind of wuss.Further, if the judges email is to be considered simply good clean fun, then he need not complain when we find out about it.

I don't think that's the issue at all. Anger with the judge is not the issue either.Some people get together with their buds and tell racist jokes and others don't. I personally don't have very much esteem for such jokes, and now I know which group the judge is in. I appreciate having the info that has leaked.I don't have any intention of preventing the judge from making further comments, public or private, but I appreciate knowing what I know about the judge. If I have to deal with the fool, the knowledge may affect those dealings. It is also possible that the remarks may affect the judge's ability to hear certain cases in the future.And the leaking of a joke circulated by email ought to be perfectly forseeable. Surely the judge, when determining liability for negligence would apply a similar standard to people who appear before him. If the judge were hearing an EOE case, what would he make of remarks made in a private boardroom?Further, nobody has any duty to protect the judge from his own folly. That is the part of Jar's position that makes the least sense to me. There is no secret joke society that we are all sworn into.Edited by NoNukes, : I make many grammar errors, but I cannot stand affect/effect mistakes.