Author Topic: Whoopi  (Read 1997 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Whoopi
« on: September 13, 2008, 04:05:17 AM »
Later asking about McCain?s strict interpretation of the Constitution, she added: ?Should I be worried about being a slave and being returned to slavery? Because certain things happened in the Constitution that had to change.?

?I understand your point,? McCain said.

In case she forgot:

Amendment 13 - Slavery Abolished. Ratified 12/6/1865. History

1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.


sirs

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27078
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #1 on: September 13, 2008, 01:11:42 PM »
A little bias in Whoopie's original query?  Wilful Ignorance perhaps?  Naaaaaaaaaa
"The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal." -- Aristotle

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11139
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #2 on: September 13, 2008, 01:25:21 PM »
but whats great is the more they show their
bias against McCain & Palin the lower Obama drops!

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #3 on: September 13, 2008, 09:47:38 PM »
If McCain said he understood this, why can't you schmucks?
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #4 on: September 13, 2008, 09:54:43 PM »
If McCain said he understood this, why can't you schmucks?


McCain was being nice. Who you calling a schmuck?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #5 on: September 13, 2008, 09:57:23 PM »
That would be the ones who didn't understand why she asked the question.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #6 on: September 13, 2008, 09:59:25 PM »
I understand exactly why she asked the question, but the question was based on ignorance.

Amendments are by default constitutional. So a strict constructionist would have no problem with the 13th.


Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #7 on: September 13, 2008, 10:16:04 PM »
This whole "strict constructionist" stuff is pure bullsh*t. BOTH sides want to change the Constitution in their own ways. The Right wants to apply statements that apply to personal rights to be mostly granted to corporations, which are bogus persons.

I think that Whoopi may not be an expert in Constitutional law, but I imagine that she is a lot more knowledgeable than a majority of the population, and therefor I see her question as valid, and deserving of a better expanation than either being patronized or being called stupid.

Perhaps a really strict constructionist might want to ignore amendments, nased on the thought that said amendment was not in harmony with the Founding Fathers' views. This is certainly true of the 13th and 14th amendments, in addition to the right to vote for women.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #8 on: September 13, 2008, 10:37:27 PM »
Quote
I think that Whoopi may not be an expert in Constitutional law, but I imagine that she is a lot more knowledgeable than a majority of the population, and therefor I see her question as valid, and deserving of a better expanation than either being patronized or being called stupid.

Perhaps a really strict constructionist might want to ignore amendments, nased on the thought that said amendment was not in harmony with the Founding Fathers' views. This is certainly true of the 13th and 14th amendments, in addition to the right to vote for women.

Why would her question be valid? She knows slavery was outlawed. She was being snide.

A strict constructionist would know that the founders included a mechanism for amending the constitution and the 13th and 14th certainly followed that procedure.

What McCAin should have said was that the Republicans freed the slaves and the dems passed jim crow. Brown vs Board of ed was the warren court, who was appointed by Ike, yet was resisted stronglt by dems throughout the land.
 
You decide whether my appointments would cause you more harm than good.

But he was polite. He was a guest after all.




Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #9 on: September 13, 2008, 11:01:23 PM »
yet was resisted stronglt by dems throughout the land.

=============================================
The Equal Rights Amendment was written and passed by the Democratic leadership under LBJ.
After which nearly all the Democrats who opposed it became Republicans, eventually.

It is dishonest not to recognize this.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

BT

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16141
    • View Profile
    • DebateGate
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #10 on: September 13, 2008, 11:31:06 PM »
Quote
The Equal Rights Amendment was written and passed by the Democratic leadership under LBJ.
After which nearly all the Democrats who opposed it became Republicans, eventually.

Perhaps you are referring to the Civil Rights Act of 64 .

The ERA was first introduced in 1923 and it's primary opponent was labor unions, not exactly a GOP stronghold.

And it would be dishonest for you to not recognize that without GOP votes to end the filibusters the bill would have never made it to the floor. And what dems switched parties other than Thurmond.


Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #11 on: September 14, 2008, 07:34:35 AM »
And it would be dishonest for you to not recognize that without GOP votes to end the filibusters the bill would have never made it to the floor. And what dems switched parties other than Thurmond.


=====================================
The ones who actually voted for Goldwater in 1964. and for Nixon in 1968 and 1972, and for Ford in 1976, and of course for Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Or do you think that only elected officials can be called "Republicans"?

The Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and were punished for it by the racist voters of Dixie, some of whom switched to Wallace until the GOP became racist enough to suit them.

The votes to end the filibuster were mostly those of the Liberal Republicans, who were forceably ejected from the GOP.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #12 on: September 14, 2008, 02:54:31 PM »
And it would be dishonest for you to not recognize that without GOP votes to end the filibusters the bill would have never made it to the floor. And what dems switched parties other than Thurmond.


=====================================
The ones who actually voted for Goldwater in 1964. and for Nixon in 1968 and 1972, and for Ford in 1976, and of course for Reagan in 1980 and 1984. Or do you think that only elected officials can be called "Republicans"?

The Democrats passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and were punished for it by the racist voters of Dixie, some of whom switched to Wallace until the GOP became racist enough to suit them.

The votes to end the filibuster were mostly those of the Liberal Republicans, who were forceably ejected from the GOP.



When they voted for Wallace they stood up to be counted.

How many did they amount to?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Whoopi
« Reply #13 on: September 14, 2008, 04:41:08 PM »
When they voted for Wallace they stood up to be counted.

How many did they amount to?

===============================================
Lots of votes. The statistics are available to be looked up if you wish.

The Southern Democrats never forgave the Republicans for Reconstruction or the Freedman's Bureau.

As the group 'Alabama used to sing'

Written by bob mcdill

Chorus
Song, song of the south.
Sweet potato pie and I shut my mouth.
Gone, gone with the wind.
There aint nobody looking back again.

Cotton on the roadside, cotton in the ditch.
We all picked the cotton but we never got rich.
Daddy was a veteran, a southern democrat.
They oughta get a rich man to vote like that.

Sing it...
Chorus

Well somebody told us wall street fell
But we were so poor that we couldn't tell.
Cotton was short and the weeds were tall
But Mr. Roosevelt's a-gonna save us all.

Well momma got sick and daddy got down.
The county got the farm and they moved to town.
Pappa got a job with the TVA
He bought a washing machine and then a Chevrolet.

Song, song of the south...
Gone, gone with the wind...

Song, song of the south.
Sweet potato pie and I shut my mouth.
Song, song of the south.
Sweet potato pie and I shut my mouth.

The generation after Daddy moved to town got all literate and stuff, but they still needed someone to look down on, and Wallace allowed them to do that without voting for Yankees. The generation after that didn't care about them being Yankees so long as they still believed in keeping the n*gg*rs in their place, preferably in another party.

I think the "shut my mouth" suggests that we not talk about that cotton sharecropper's farm we come from.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."