The Face of Racism

[Moonbeam]

I cannot speak for everyone else, but I am not claiming that she was qualified or not. Just pointing out that Cyclo can't read past the title to see what the article is actually claiming. It's like he has never seen a misleading title before. On top of that, he calls *us* illiterate when he is the one not comprehending his own mistake.

Yup, and now we have to be the idiots because we can read and embarrassed him.

 

[Tab]

What is the evidence? Can you or anyone else PROVE that qualified, female, black candidates for the pending vacant seat on the SC were deliberately ignored by the Obama administration? Memos? E-mails? Taped conversations?

If this administration isn't worried about pissing off the right, then why on Earth would they ignore qualified black candidates? Now there's no evidence that they deliberately ignored qualified black candidates--that I've seen anyway--but let's just say they did deliberately ignore qualified black candidates. Why would they do that?

You need to read before posting and you should probably read the actual article.

I said previously the article gives the impression and some evidence that the Obama Administration is ignoring qualified black candidates angring the black political leaders and the community that follows.

Maybe the administration is ignoring these candidates because it feels that it'll look bad and maybe more people will vote for conservative political leaders, hell maybe they're racist!

Though, it's interesting as this doesn't have anything to do with the OP.

 

[CycloWizard]

I cannot speak for everyone else, but I am not claiming that she was qualified or not. Just pointing out that Cyclo can't read past the title to see what the article is actually claiming. It's like he has never seen a misleading title before. On top of that, he calls *us* illiterate when he is the one not comprehending his own mistake.

I already directly addressed this concern in a post which you quoted above. That post gave a link to the rumored "short list" of Obama nominees. On that list were two black women. You quoted that post and in your reply claimed that the outrage was that Obama didn't consider qualified black women, offering no refutation of the apparent facts of the case. Therefore, you either:
1. willfully neglected the facts,
2. don't understand the facts, or
3. couldn't read the facts.

So, which is it? Or are you simply an idiot who doesn't let facts get in the way of his opinions?

 

[Tab]

I already directly addressed this concern in a post which you quoted above. That post gave a link to the rumored "short list" of Obama nominees. On that list were two black women.

Ahh yes, the oh so reliable rumored list!

EDIT - Re-reading the article this doesn't appear even be the authors issue, but more the fact that Obama didn't have face-to-face time with her - obviously giving the impression he isn't interested in black candidates.

2nd EDIT - And your list, aside from being rumored isn't complete and merely just a list. Obama could have a list of a several black candidates but not meet with any of them and that would still give the author and the black community plenty to be angry about.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Please. Pushing for having ONE black woman on the Supreme Court is interest group, identity politics far more than it is RACISM. Get a grip.

Was pushing for a woman on the SC primarily sexism? Also no!

Was pushing, in the past, for the one Jewish guy also ZIONISM? Also no!

Stop being so hysterical! Again, a grip, get it!

You want to see one example of therealfucking face of racism?

Here ya' go!

It IS racists when your only supporting validation as to why someone should be in a position is based on RACE.
Once again it's the typical liberal hypocracy shining through for all to see.
Libs are just afraid to call a non white person anything bad, but they'll be 1st in line to say things like tea-bagger and call any person that didn't vote for Obama a racist.

 

[rjl]

You need to read before posting and you should probably read the actual article.

I said previously the article gives the impression and some evidence that the Obama Administration is ignoring qualified black candidates angring the black political leaders and the community that follows.

Maybe the administration is ignoring these candidates because it feels that it'll look bad and maybe more people will vote for conservative political leaders, hell maybe they're racist!

Though, it's interesting as this doesn't have anything to do with the OP.

Maybe you should read the actual article. You say there is some evidence that the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black candidates. I'll ask for a third time, what is the evidence? I read the article. There are allusions, vague impressions, and innuendo, but nothing demonstrating that the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black candidates.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but to simply presume either way doesn't make sense. And I'm not trying to belabor the point, but it would be noteworthy if such evidence existed, which you have repeatedly claimed it does. So what is it?

 

[CycloWizard]

Maybe you should read the actual article. You say there is some evidence that the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black candidates. I'll ask for a third time, what is the evidence? I read the article. There are allusions, vague impressions, and innuendo, but nothing demonstrating that the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black candidates.

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but to simply presume either way doesn't make sense. And I'm not trying to belabor the point, but it would be noteworthy if such evidence existed, which you have repeatedly claimed it does. So what is it?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the easiest way to win an argument is to be right in the first place. When one side learns it doesn't have a leg to stand on, the solution is to yell and scream until the other side walks away from the temper tantrum.

 

[Tab]

Maybe they did, maybe they didn't, but to simply presume either way doesn't make sense. And I'm not trying to belabor the point, but it would be noteworthy if such evidence existed, which you have repeatedly claimed it does. So what is it?

Yet this time, for highly qualified African-American female judges, such as Leah Ward Sears, the retired chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court, to never make the cut for a face-to-face interview with the president has ticked off a number of leaders I've talked with over the last several days.

While, on second thought you may have read the article you surely didn't comprehend it.

 

[Tab]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the easiest way to win an argument is to be right in the first place. When one side learns it doesn't have a leg to stand on, the solution is to yell and scream until the other side walks away from the temper tantrum.

And, yes all of you insults don't count. Nor, did you correct rjl's mistake. By your own standards I believe that makes you a hypocrite.

 

[rjl]

While, on second thought you may have read the article you surely didn't comprehend it.

That sentence you quoted is now evidence that the administration ignored qualified black candidates? Maybe they looked at her or other apparently qualified black candidates. Just because they didn't make a face to face interview with the President does not mean the administration ignored her or others. Just means they didn't make their short list. Could be any number of reasons for that.

So I comprehended the article, but unlike you I didn't extrapolate a bunch of stuff that wasn't there.

 

[CycloWizard]

That sentence you quoted is now evidence that the administration ignored qualified black candidates? Maybe they looked at her or other apparently qualified black candidates. Just because they didn't make a face to face interview with the President does not mean the administration ignored her or others. Just means they didn't make their short list. Could be any number of reasons for that.

So I comprehended the article, but unlike you I didn't extrapolate a bunch of stuff that wasn't there.

There's an ignore list feature implemented on these forums specifically so you don't have to beat your head against the wall in discussions with people like Tab. Somehow, he was un-ignored by me, a mistake which has been promptly rectified after a little head trauma.

 

[Tab]

That sentence you quoted is now evidence that the administration ignored qualified black candidates? Maybe they looked at her or other apparently qualified black candidates. Just because they didn't make a face to face interview with the President does not mean the administration ignored her or others. Just means they didn't make their short list. Could be any number of reasons for that.

Wow.

You asked for evidence from the article that the administration is ignoring qualifying black candidates.

Maybe you should read the actual article. You say there is some evidence that the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black candidates. I'll ask for a third time, what is the evidence? I read the article. There are allusions, vague impressions, and innuendo, but nothing demonstrating that the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black candidates.

In the article it states that "for highly qualified African-American female judges, such as Leah Ward Sears, the retired chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court" - this is clearly evidence that they are.

While it may be the case that they did interview other black candidates we don't know that and nor is that in the context of the discussion or the article. To be even more clear, I'm not sure if I'd say this is good evidence - which I've alluded to previously.

 

[Tab]

There's an ignore list feature implemented on these forums specifically so you don't have to beat your head against the wall in discussions with people like Tab. Somehow, he was un-ignored by me, a mistake which has been promptly rectified after a little head trauma.

Again. Cyclowizard show his excellent debate skills. I think Cyclowizard is confusing his brain damage with feelings of cognitive dissonance.

 

[rjl]

Wow.

You asked for evidence from the article that the administration is ignoring qualifying black candidates.



In the article it states that "for highly qualified African-American female judges, such as Leah Ward Sears, the retired chief justice of the Georgia Supreme Court" - this is clearly evidence that they are.

While it may be the case that they did interview other black candidates we don't know that and nor is that in the context of the discussion or the article. To be even more clear, I'm not sure if I'd say this is good evidence - which I've alluded to previously.

The article says that one seemingly qualified black judge didn't get a face to face for the upcoming SC vacancy. That's all it says in that regard. How is that evidence that this particular lady or any other seemingly qualified person was ignored? It doesn't. All we can gather from your proclaimed "evidence" is that ONE seemingly qualified judge didn't get an interview for the job.

 

[Tab]

The article says that one seemingly qualified black judge didn't get a face to face for the upcoming SC vacancy. That's all it says in that regard. How is that evidence that this particular lady or any other seemingly qualified person was ignored?

this is the second time in a year that President Obama has made a Supreme Court appointment and his administration didn't seriously consider an African-American woman for the job.

When Kagan's nomination was unveiled Monday, the only prominent African-Americans in attendance were Charles Ogletree, a Harvard professor who taught both Obamas, and Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. That's a stark contrast to Sotomayor's unveiling, when a number of civil rights leaders were there to back her bid.

It doesn't. All we can gather from your proclaimed "evidence" is that ONE seemingly qualified judge didn't get an interview for the job.

It does and it's not my evidence.

If you don't like the evidence the author has given, that's fine however to say the article doesn't offer anything other than "allusions, vague impressions, and innuendo, but nothing demonstrating that the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black candidates" is false.

civil rights leaders and prominent Democrats have largely bitten their tongues, unwilling to publicly take on the president and some of his decisions.

When a meeting with civil rights leaders and administration officials was held at the White House on Tuesday with senior adviser Valerie Jarrett, I was told "more listening than talking" was done by the administration.

Civil rights leaders made clear that they felt they were being taken for granted in the process, and were expected to rubber stamp the choice.

That's why if you look at the public statements released this week by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the National Urban League and others, they are more neutral on Kagan's appointment, saying they look forward to hearing more about her views on a variety of issues as the nomination plays out.

I've heard the previous complaints that congressional and civil rights leaders have been ignored by White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, with one saying he has never attended a meeting with them ("Even Bush sent Andy Card to meet with us," one leader told me). And that extends to others surrounding the president in various parts of the White House.

"These problems are valid and BIG, and we cannot let them off the hook," I was told by one frustrated organizational head.

I don't mean to quote spam, but these quotes from the article are clearly not just allusions, vague impressions and innuendo as you stated previously.

 

[werepossum]

It does and it's not my evidence.

If you don't like the evidence the author has given, that's fine however to say the article doesn't offer anything other than "allusions, vague impressions, and innuendo, but nothing demonstrating that the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black candidates" is false.

I don't mean to quote spam, but these quotes from the article are clearly not just allusions, vague impressions and innuendo as you stated previously.

Not to take a side in your argument or to necessarily stand up for Obama, but I think it's reasonable to say that when the president is black he doesn't need to speak to other black men to tell him about the poor plight of black people. This is like Concerned Cowboys of Texas whining that Bush wouldn't meet with them.

 

[Tab]

Not to take a side in your argument or to necessarily stand up for Obama, but I think it's reasonable to say that when the president is black he doesn't need to speak to other black men to tell him about the poor plight of black people. This is like Concerned Cowboys of Texas whining that Bush wouldn't meet with them.

Okay, I agree but what does this have to with discussion of if the article has real evidence that the Obama Administration is ignoring qualified black candidates for the SC?

 

[werepossum]

Okay, I agree but what does this have to with discussion of if the article has real evidence that the Obama Administration is ignoring qualified black candidates for the SC?

That is part of Martin's evidence that Obama is ignoring qualified black candidates for SCOTUS. I find it hard to believe that the man who wrote "White folks' greed runs a world in need" is ignoring qualified black SCOTUS candidates. I find it much more likely that he is examining them, but is choosing to narrow the list to other candidates who are either more likely to be confirmed or judged more likely to enact his agenda. A black justice for instance might be less likely to judicially block attempts to enforce laws against illegal immigration, which may be more important to Obama than a second black justice. There are after all a relatively large number of qualified candidates - doesn't have to be a judge or even a lawyer - and the Messiah cannot personally interview them all. That none of them made the short list is not evidence that he is ignoring them as much as evidence that a black president has little need for the political cover afforded by interviewing a black candidate if he intends to nominate someone else.

 

[Tab]

That is part of Martin's evidence that Obama is ignoring qualified black candidates for SCOTUS. I find it hard to believe that the man who wrote "White folks' greed runs a world in need" is ignoring qualified black SCOTUS candidates. I find it much more likely that he is examining them, but is choosing to narrow the list to other candidates who are either more likely to be confirmed or judged more likely to enact his agenda. A black justice for instance might be less likely to judicially block attempts to enforce laws against illegal immigration, which may be more important to Obama than a second black justice. There are after all a relatively large number of qualified candidates - doesn't have to be a judge or even a lawyer - and the Messiah cannot personally interview them all. That none of them made the short list is not evidence that he is ignoring them as much as evidence that a black president has little need for the political cover afforded by interviewing a black candidate if he intends to nominate someone else.

EDIT - On second thought, yes you have a point however this doesn't have anything to do with discussion between myself and rjl. Hell, I'd probably say you're even right but the article still shows evidence, some solid that Obama is ignoring black candidates for SCOTUS and the communities complaints.

 

[Rainsford]

Implicit in the phrase "real racism" seems to be the idea that other kinds of racism aren't actually racism. Now it would be one thing to call someone demanding black candidates just because they are black ALSO racist...but that one word is a big difference. Calling it "real" racism suggests that a bunch of white hicks in Arkansas not voting for Obama because he's black aren't racist. Or at least that they aren't "really" racist.

Now maybe I'm reading too much into your choice of words here, but I'm not so sure about that...

 

[rjl]

It does and it's not my evidence.

If you don't like the evidence the author has given, that's fine however to say the article doesn't offer anything other than "allusions, vague impressions, and innuendo, but nothing demonstrating that the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black candidates" is false.

Actually nothing in the article is evidence that the Obama administration IGNORED seemingly qualified black candidates. For all we know, based on the article, the Obama administration discussed the candidate mentioned and others ad nauseum before deciding on face to face interviews. Hence, the
matter fact that she wasn't granted an interview in no way proves she was ignored. That's a basic fallacy by assumption.













I don't mean to quote spam, but these quotes from the article are clearly not just allusions, vague impressions and innuendo as you stated previously.[/QUOTE]

 

[Tab]

Actually nothing in the article is evidence that the Obama administration IGNORED seemingly qualified black candidates. For all we know, based on the article, the Obama administration discussed the candidate mentioned and others ad nauseum before deciding on face to face interviews. Hence, the
matter fact that she wasn't granted an interview in no way proves she was ignored. That's a basic fallacy by assumption.

This is also a fallacy by assumption as well, we don't know if this was the case and even so it's still strange that Obama gave face time to others whom were as or less qualified than the judge the author quoted.

You asked for evidence supporting his claim and it's surely in the article. It doesn't matter if the evidence doesn't add up to help the argument or is insufficient.

Your claim of "There are allusions, vague impressions, and innuendo, but nothing demonstrating that the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black candidates." is incorrect.

 

[CycloWizard]

Implicit in the phrase "real racism" seems to be the idea that other kinds of racism aren't actually racism. Now it would be one thing to call someone demanding black candidates just because they are black ALSO racist...but that one word is a big difference. Calling it "real" racism suggests that a bunch of white hicks in Arkansas not voting for Obama because he's black aren't racist. Or at least that they aren't "really" racist.

Now maybe I'm reading too much into your choice of words here, but I'm not so sure about that...

I think you are reading too much into it. I said, "the real definition of racism," as my point was that the root of racism is using race as a justification in and of itself.

 

[rjl]

This is also a fallacy by assumption as well, we don't know if this was the case and even so it's still strange that Obama gave face time to others whom were as or less qualified than the judge the author quoted.

You asked for evidence supporting his claim and it's surely in the article. It doesn't matter if the evidence doesn't add up to help the argument or is insufficient.

Your claim of "There are allusions, vague impressions, and innuendo, but nothing demonstrating that the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black candidates." is incorrect.

Actually I'm assuming nothing. I'm saying we have incomplete information as to whether the Obama administration ignored qualified black candidates. They may have never talked about any of them, or maybe they discussed them at great length and decided for whatever reason that they didn't want to interview them. The point is that we don't know.

Either way--and this is elementary logic--we cannot assume that the Obama administration ignored qualified black female candidates based on the sole fact that they did not interview one particular candidate. Therefore my original statement that the article contained "allusions, vague impressions, and innuendo, but nothing demonstrating that the Obama administration deliberately ignored qualified black candidates" is correct. You can say that that statement is incorrect until you're blue in the face, but it does not change the fact that it's logically correct.

 

[AzN]

Face of racism?

So simple even a monkey can answer.