Does this bother anyone?

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:
I have read PPs and prior to this reference (Jeff Steel responding to anonyous) to "black dude," I cannot find another. Also, if anyone else used this phrase to describe Clarence Thomas, you would be screaming racism.

Hold it, I'm confused. Is Clarence Thomas not a black dude? And, it's "Steele" btw.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff is always right and Jeff is never wrong. Ah, I repeat myself.

You should talk to my wife. She will quickly disabuse you of this notion.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have read PPs and prior to this reference (Jeff Steel responding to anonyous) to "black dude," I cannot find another. Also, if anyone else used this phrase to describe Clarence Thomas, you would be screaming racism.

Hold it, I'm confused. Is Clarence Thomas not a black dude? And, it's "Steele" btw.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff is always right and Jeff is never wrong. Ah, I repeat myself.

You should talk to my wife. She will quickly disabuse you of this notion.

Clarence Thomas is an African American who is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America and it is unseemly to refer to him as a "black dude."

Kudos to your wife.

[Anonymous]

Yes, both my wifes grandparents and my grandparents were immigrants - and legal immigration is a great thing for america. Russia, Europe, Japan, etc.. are all suffereing from decling birth rates - which will ravage their economies - america is still one of the advanced economies that still has a growth rate. There are so many educated people seeking to move to the US - let's ramp up their quotas and bring them here and let them enjoy capitalism. However, the obvious distinciton between the immigration of our grandparents and today is that America is turinig into a welfare state. All feel-good things aside, the US simply cannot afford the benefits it currently owes to its own population. It amazes me how people simply overlook the fact that we cannot afford it.

I would support a change to the U.S. Constitution that only allowed U.S. citizen babies of at least one parent to be legal (or legal immigrants if that can be clearly defined / identified). This anchor baby incentive has to stop - not because I don't feel for their plight, but I don't like working unitl June every year for free (i.e. when I start earning my money that does not go to government taxes).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The fact that 1 in 12 babies are born to illegals, or that congress wants to abolish the automatic US citizenship that comes with those circumstances?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/11/hispanic.study/index.html?hpt=T2

How soon people forget that we are all children/decedents of immigrants. For the most part we are all better off than we would have been had our ancestors not come to this great nation. The overwhelming majority of immigrant people that I know today are good hard working people who have come to America for the same reasons as my ancestors. These are good and decent people who deserve to be respected and protected.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have read PPs and prior to this reference (Jeff Steel responding to anonyous) to "black dude," I cannot find another. Also, if anyone else used this phrase to describe Clarence Thomas, you would be screaming racism.

Hold it, I'm confused. Is Clarence Thomas not a black dude? And, it's "Steele" btw.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff is always right and Jeff is never wrong. Ah, I repeat myself.

You should talk to my wife. She will quickly disabuse you of this notion.

Clarence Thomas is an African American who is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America and it is unseemly to refer to him as a "black dude."

Kudos to your wife.

You have to look at how the term is used. Jeff, in no way, used it in a disparaging way. Are we going to have the "your boy" conversation again? This seems like the typical sheep-in-wolf clothing from conservatives... the ones who are the first to cry "race card" when anyone mentions racism, but when their opponent or a liberal does something that can be misconstrued as racist, they jump up on their pedestal to denounce the person, the whole time not really giving a crap about racism. Maybe I'm missing the mark here, but that is certainly how it feels.

Jeff was referring to who they are as people, not who they are as justices. While their politics and philosophies may dictate certain stances, they are also individuals with histories and stories, which also inform how they act. So Thomas, as a black dude (would you prefer black man?), would probably not be the first one to start messing with the 14th Amendment, even if his traditional politics would indicate he'd support conservatives on this matter. Alito and Scalia, folks with vowels at the end of their names, which was traditionally held against relatively recent immigrants from the same areas as their ancestors, might also defy conventional wisdom in terms of how they'd stand on this issue.

I also find it interesting that people equate conservative justices with Republican politicians. There is nothing conservative about the position to change the 14th Amendment as is being sought. It is certainly a Republican issue, but not a conservative one.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Seriously, don't you think that the Court that decided that the "well regulated militia" clause was meaningless could just as easily decide that the "subject to the jurisdiction" clause can be interpreted to mean the parents are legal residents? I mention the Second Amendment to forestall a response based on precedent, which we now know is only as binding as the Roberts Court feels like allowing it to be.

I guess these days that's a justifiable fear. But, something tells me that guys with names such as Scalia and Alito will find immigrant-bashing difficult and a black dude wouldn't want to screw with the 14th amendment (though that may be overly optimistic of the black dude in question). If I'm right, that decimates the right wing of the court.

Jeff, you are overly, overly optimistic. The Black dude will scrap the 14th amendment without blinking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I have read PPs and prior to this reference (Jeff Steel responding to anonyous) to "black dude," I cannot find another. Also, if anyone else used this phrase to describe Clarence Thomas, you would be screaming racism.

Hold it, I'm confused. Is Clarence Thomas not a black dude? And, it's "Steele" btw.

Anonymous wrote:Jeff is always right and Jeff is never wrong. Ah, I repeat myself.

You should talk to my wife. She will quickly disabuse you of this notion.

Clarence Thomas is an African American who is an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States of America and it is unseemly to refer to him as a "black dude."

Kudos to your wife.

You have to look at how the term is used. Jeff, in no way, used it in a disparaging way. Are we going to have the "your boy" conversation again? This seems like the typical sheep-in-wolf clothing from conservatives... the ones who are the first to cry "race card" when anyone mentions racism, but when their opponent or a liberal does something that can be misconstrued as racist, they jump up on their pedestal to denounce the person, the whole time not really giving a crap about racism. Maybe I'm missing the mark here, but that is certainly how it feels.

Jeff was referring to who they are as people, not who they are as justices. While their politics and philosophies may dictate certain stances, they are also individuals with histories and stories, which also inform how they act. So Thomas, as a black dude (would you prefer black man?), would probably not be the first one to start messing with the 14th Amendment, even if his traditional politics would indicate he'd support conservatives on this matter. Alito and Scalia, folks with vowels at the end of their names, which was traditionally held against relatively recent immigrants from the same areas as their ancestors, might also defy conventional wisdom in terms of how they'd stand on this issue.

I also find it interesting that people equate conservative justices with Republican politicians. There is nothing conservative about the position to change the 14th Amendment as is being sought. It is certainly a Republican issue, but not a conservative one.

Jeff now needs a surrogate to speak for him or is this Jeff writing in the 3rd person?