I think it's quite interesting how when some famous people die folks are always quick to say what a good person they were, and how influential and important they were in their chosen field, regardless of how hurtful and offensive their actions were to some people while they were alive. "You might not agree with his positions, but you can't deny that he was a giant in his field and a scholar and a gentleman". Muammar Gaddafi was a heck of a dictator; you might not agree with his methods, but you can't deny his results. He was a giant among dictators.
I think you all know where I was going. Antonin Scalia passed away in his sleep Friday night, and it has left the American political world in turmoil. Wingnuts are losing their collective minds and they drew a line in the sand before the man's body was on the coroner's slab.
To them, this means war. No way will this bi-racial Socialist get to choose yet another Supreme Court Justice.
This is all compounded by the fact that the court has five* so called "liberal" Justices and five*so called "conservative' Justices. This next appointment will shift the balance of power on the highest court in the land for years to come.
I am still not sure where republicans are coming from when they declare that the president should not even appoint someone to replace Scalia. "He needs to wait until after the elections and let the next president decide", is what almost all the republican candidates for president are saying.
I must be missing something. Is the president supposed to stop being president with almost 11 months left to go in his presidency? He would be failing to live up to his constitutional responsibility by not appointing a new Supreme Court Justice. Why should Americans have to live with a divided court for the next year and maybe more? That is not the American way.
Republicans are saying that this matter should be decided by "the people" and not this president because of his ideological leanings. But there is one problem with this argument: This same president was elected TWICE by "the people", so what is the problem here? Rhetorical question. We know what the problem is, this is politics as usual, and it is compounded by the particular individual who is sitting in the White House at this particular time in our history.
Still, I am glad to hear that the president is going to be moving forward with his appointment. It would have been very disappointing if he allowed himself to be bullied by these demagogues and political agitators on the right. Now, at least, there will be a fight, and it is one that he should be relishing.
To use a sports metaphor; scoreboards don't lie, and the scoreboard says that President Obama is winning this battle.
"..these are responsibilities that I take seriously as should everyone" that are "bigger than any one party." "They are about our democracy, and they are about the institution to which Justice Scalia dedicated his professional life in making sure it continues to function as the beacon of justice that our Founders envisioned..."
Swish.
*(There are nine justices on the court, and there is currently a 4/4 ideological split;not 5/5 as the post incorrectly stated. Not sure where mind was.
Getting ready for the NBA All-Star game,maybe)
117 comments:
Of course Obama is going to do whatever he can to get another ideologue on the supreme court. This is his chance to destroy what's left of the Constitution once and for all.
I'm not sure progressives have completely thought out the consequences of doing so, and fully understand will happen once the law has been abandoned.
The Senate would never let politics interfere with the confirmation of a President's judicial nominee.
As long as Obama nominates someone with Scalia's judicial philosophy, it shouldn't be a problem.
Maybe we should wait until Hilary wins and she can appoint Barack so they would have to deal with him for the rest of his life. Talk about poetic justice.
Hillary is going to jail.
"This same president was elected TWICE by "the people", so what is the problem here?"
Field forgets the NBPP voter intimidation case in his own town, and he must also be counting lots of non-citizen aliens and the residents of a great many graveyards among "the people" because they all seem to vote for the straight "D" ticket.
If you only count actual living US citizens, one doubts that Zero would have gotten a second term; maybe not even a first one.
PX, that sounds like a good idea!!
"Field forgets the NBPP voter intimidation case in his own town"
Um yeah that's easy to do because it was a big fat nothing burger except for the Fox News crowd. Field litigated this years ago and it was generally decided there was nothing to it.
"If you only count actual living US citizens, one doubts that Zero would have gotten a second term; maybe not even a first one."
Aw come on now, if it's good enough for Jack Kennedy it's good enough for Barack. Besides, he's from Chicago and that's how we get down. Vote early and often baby!
I know you meant "four". Get ready for the deluge. It seems like our existence centers around one crew versus another crew, with each staying firmly entrenched in what their beliefs are. The opposite party does not hide the fact that they will continue to sabotage the POTUS to the end.
I will continue to believe the government is totally fixed with others controlling all political outcomes. The selection of POTUS has had too many conciliations with the final hold cards held by the crew- that have held social progress in neutral. Guess, be careful for what you ask for. Of the 40 million Blacks- who would have thought that the first Black prez would be so outmaneuvered on so many fronts. President Obama's term has illustrated that America has a long way to go
By the way, if President Obama can destroy the Constitution (which our government has used for 200 plus years) it must be a weak document that one man can destroy the efforts of the smartest and richest white males.
StillaPanther2 said...
It seems like our existence centers around one crew versus another crew, with each staying firmly entrenched in what their beliefs are.
----
Which is is why America needs to split up into two countries. I have no desire to tell liberals how to live, and no desire to live in a country where they are constantly trying to tell me how to live.
The country has gotten two large and too divided. It's time to split.
StillaPanther2 said...
By the way, if President Obama can destroy the Constitution (which our government has used for 200 plus years) it must be a weak document that one man can destroy the efforts of the smartest and richest white males.
---
This is a process that has been going on in earnest since the 1930's. It is only now that the goal is in reach.
"This is a process that has been going on in earnest since the 1930's. It is only now that the goal is in reach."
Obama's been trying to destroy the constitution since the 30's? Well damn. It's worse than we thought. Was his New Black Panther army around then too?
Doesn't matter if field meant "four", he said "five". Field is a lawyer. Isn't that like a basic "fail the bar exam" question? I bet even JFK Jr. got that one right every time.
I sold a house recently. I made damn sure I wrote the right number on the contract because "I meant another number" wouldn't cut it later.
In August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.
https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/86-1960/s415
So there's that.
Curious Observer said...
"Doesn't matter if field meant "four", he said "five". Field is a lawyer. Isn't that like a basic "fail the bar exam" question? I bet even JFK Jr. got that one right every time."
Field must have gone to a Jamaican law school.
I really don't appreciate some of you folks nit-picking at Bros. Field because he forgot how many Supreme Court Judges we have. At least he knows the next Justice to the Court could shift in power on the bench....that's whether there are 9 or 10 Justices.
Some of you folks are just too damn particular.
So there's what Precedence? Barack said he would offer a name for the senate to consider not use a recess appointment. Nice try though.
"I think it's quite interesting how when some famous people die folks are always quick to say what a good person they were, and how influential and important they were in their chosen field, regardless of how hurtful and offensive their actions were to some people while they were alive. "You might not agree with his positions, but you can't deny that he was a giant in his field and a scholar and a gentleman"."
Hmmmmmm. I wonder what they will say about Field when he dies? "Field was a hell of a blogger: you might not agree with his big R chasing methods, but you can't deny his results. He was a giant among racists.
I really feel the Republicans are right on this one. The next Justice should be nominated by Trump.
"...folks are always quick to say what a good person they were... regardless of how hurtful and offensive their actions were to some people while they were alive."
Oh, but it's fine for Trayvon Martin and Michael Brown, though, right? lol They dindu nuffin; they was good boyz.
PS
This meme of "how offensive" someone is is utter bullshit, to the absolute highest degree of bullshit. It is impossible for offense to be given; offense can only be taken. Professional umbrage takers seem to find offense in whatever is politically expedient. To think that everyone doesn't know this is insulting. We get it that the guy's political opponents pretend he was somehow offensive, but there's not a person alive who doesn't know that's bullshit. It's just that some people are scared shitless to say anything about it. There's your contribution: Scared half the population silly. Congrats.
Actually spent a good portion of the day reading the various online news segments regarding the challenges of replacing Associate Justice Scalia. Though an understatement concurring most of his legal rulings rubbed progressives the wrong way, many law scholars and the political / legal community at large are giving voice to what is an astounding legacy. Case in point is Justice Scalia's writings that exude the most uncanny interpretation of constitutional law. Yet certainly debatable these philosophies were often in the spirit of balanced jurisprudence.
In any event, I agree with the numerous observers that conclude President Obama can control this narrative by nominating several moderates appointed to the federal courts who already received unanimous GOP approval during the confirmation hearings.
While Americans can only hope wisdom will prevail, unfortunately, the usual partisan circus may end up reigning "supreme."
The chairman of the Judiciary Committee and the senate majority leader already said anybody he nominates will not get a hearing.
A Supreme Court seat was once vacant for 835 days. Tyler had nine nominees rejected by Senate.
Most recently, Abe Fortas resigned May 14, 1969. His replacement, Harry Blackmun, was in office starting June 9, 1970, making the gap just longer than a year.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/02/13/ample-precedent-for-rejecting-supreme-court-nominees/
So there's that.
Antonin Sacalia, from a 2010 High School commencement speech:
Movement is not necessarily progress. More important than your obligation to follow your conscience, or at least prior to it, is your obligation to form your conscience correctly. Nobody — remember this — neither Hitler, nor Lenin, nor any despot you could name, ever came forward with a proposal that read, ‘Now, let’s create a really oppressive and evil society.’ Hitler said, ‘Let’s take the means necessary to restore our national pride and civic order.’ And Lenin said, ‘Let’s take the means necessary to assure a fair distribution of the goods of the world.’
“In short, it is your responsibility, men and women of the class of 2010, not just to be zealous in the pursuit of your ideals, but to be sure that your ideals are the right ones. That is perhaps the hardest part of being a good human being: Good intentions are not enough. Being a good person begins with being a wise person. Then, when you follow your conscience, will you be headed in the right direction.”
As Precedence conveys below, history shows a few instances in which a SC vacancy lasted for several months or well passed a year. However, not sure with the current number of critical cases on SC docket that a delay is in the best interest of the country.
And let's not forget the Russian Roulette that will ensue with our elected representatives willfully neglecting their duties during a significant election year.
Justice Ginsburg on Justice Scalia:
Toward the end of the opera Scalia/Ginsburg, tenor Scalia and soprano Ginsburg sing a duet: 'We are different, we are one,' different in our interpretation of written texts, one in our reverence for the Constitution and the institution we serve. From our years together at the D.C. Circuit, we were best buddies. We disagreed now and then, but when I wrote for the Court and received a Scalia dissent, the opinion ultimately released was notably better than my initial circulation. Justice Scalia nailed all the weak spots—the 'applesauce' and 'argle bargle'—and gave me just what I needed to strengthen the majority opinion. He was a jurist of captivating brilliance and wit, with a rare talent to make even the most sober judge laugh. The press referred to his 'energetic fervor,' 'astringent intellect,' 'peppery prose,' 'acumen,' and 'affability,' all apt descriptions. He was eminently quotable, his pungent opinions so clearly stated that his words never slipped from the reader’s grasp.
Justice Scalia once described as the peak of his days on the bench an evening at the Opera Ball when he joined two Washington National Opera tenors at the piano for a medley of songs. He called it the famous Three Tenors performance. He was, indeed, a magnificent performer. It was my great good fortune to have known him as working colleague and treasured friend.
Where was the love this Valentine's Day?
As sure as the sun will rise, Hollywood will move forward with a theatrical release showcasing the multifaceted life of the late SC justice. Such a brilliant speech that also underscores the dissenting opinion of affirmative action.
Anonymous said...
"At least he knows the next Justice to the Court could shift in power on the bench....that's whether there are 9 or 10 Justices."
No. The whole reason it is nine is because nine is an odd number that guarantees there will not be any tie/non-decisions.
They'll deal with the centrist voters later but for now they have to feed the base. If a repub wins the WH and they allowed Barack to appoint someone they will never be forgiven. This will drag on for a while.
Yeah but Barack will still nominate a candidate. So there's that. Not seeing your point.
The GOP debate opened with a moment of silence for Scalia. They should have opened with a moment of siience for the people who died because he stole our votes in the 2000 election.
I wish Obama would nominate Goodwin Liu just to piss them off, but as I have been reading, Jeh Johnson stands a much better chance of success, given what seditionist assholes McConnell and his crew are promising to be.
And Josh, I know lots of folks who could give you plenty of offense if they gave a rat's ass about you. You are being a might presumptuous.
-Doug in Oakland
I read Sri Srinivasan was on Barack's short list.
John Oliver just decimated Mitch McConnell's argument using his own words about judicial appointments. He was singing a different tune during W's last year in office.
Republicans may be taking a bad gamble in leaving Scalia's spot vacant until next year, hoping that a Republican will then be president and will be able to make the replacement.
Right now, the GOP has solid control of the Senate, and therefore could negotiate with Obama over whom he puts on the court -- if they didn't stonewall him completely.
But they're defending an awful lot of Senate seats in this year's election. If the Great Orange Hope turns out to be the nominee, we may see a giant "F*ck Trump" surge of Dems headed to the polls, and an utter bloodbath of Republican candidates. End result: President Hillary, gifted with the ability to place absolutely whomever she wants on the court, with zero resistance in a Democratic Senate.
Josh thinks I.Q. is a measure of intelligence.
He's even dumber than I thought.
Well, whether it is or isn't, show me a motherfucker with an IQ 1 or 2 SD below average who's intelligent. And none of this "street smart" shit, which is a way to say a stupid person whose upbringing has enabled them to get by in a world that doesn't require one know mathematics or the scientific method. Savants aside, like Rain Man, who would probably test very poorly, I don't know of any intelligent person in possession of a low IQ.
You know 'em? Name 'em. I'm all eyes, as it were, and look forward to seeing all of these intelligent people whose IQs are decidedly below average.
High IQs, on the other hand, almost always signify proficiency in math and science, pattern recognition, memory recall, and an ability for one to achieve financial success in one's life.
But I don't have to think hard to guess why you'd pooh-pooh standardized testing in an attempt to imply it meaningless. I imagine you were glued to the TV during those CEDA debates, as your brethren sang 2Pac songs and battle rapped one another. lol That, and, well, I imagine James Bold can give us all another reason why you might want to pooh-pooh IQ tests. You folks testing so poorly in the aggregate does create some friction; I'm in no way blind to that. So I do expect that most black folks aren't a fan of standardized testing, whether they fail because they're really less intelligent in the aggregate or the tests are somehow biased -- I get that some wouldn't want to put much stock in an IQ score. Then again, I don't score so low that I need to pooh-pooh the test and methodology by which it operates.
Semi-related question: Did your extreme sophistry lead you to Marxism, or did Marxism lead you to extreme sophistry?
Ooooh, I touched a raw nerve there, didn't I boys and girls?
Mmmmmmm, I think we are a step closer to understanding Joshy's psychological motivations....
I.Q. does not measure intelligence. It simply measures your ability to take I.Q. tests.
It is a measure of a person’s environment and experiences, so a community’s average I.Q. is basically a function of the size of its middle class..
- When asked to earn money by improving their I.Q. scores, pretty much all respondents will achieve an enhanced I.Q. score, which would not be possible if I.Q. was a true measure of intelligence.
- The average I.Q. score of the human race improves by 3 points per decade. As people are no more intelligent than they were 100 years ago, this is further proof that IQ scores are a nonsense.
- Intensive study of I.Q. test practice can improve your I.Q. by up to 20 points, again this would not be possible if I.Q. was a true measure of intelligence.
- In the USA, changing the color of the invigilator’s skin changes the I.Q. scored by black and white respondents. A black invigilator will increase black people’s measured I.Q. score by 15 points, and reduce the I.Q. of white respondents from below the Mason-Dixon line by a similar level.
Sources:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9755929/IQ-tests-do-not-reflect-intelligence.html
http://io9.com/5959058/further-evidence-that-iq-does-not-measure-intelligence
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/iq-tests-are-fundamentally-flawed-and-using-them-alone-to-measure-intelligence-is-a-fallacy-study-finds-8425911.html
http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/iq_tests_hurt_kids_schools_and_dont_measure_intelligence/
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2009/07/the-truth-about-iq/22260/
http://news.sciencemag.org/2011/04/what-does-iq-really-measure
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/01/100121155220.htm
SAP, I did mean 4-4. Sorry about that folks. I don't want u thinking that there is some new wave of progressivism where the court all of a sudden has 11 members instead of 9. :)
Limpbaugh said...
The GOP debate opened with a moment of silence for Scalia. They should have opened with a moment of siience for the people who died because he stole our votes in the 2000 election.
How did he ''stole our votes'' in the 2000 election? What laws were broken?
The Ministry of Truth said...
''Right now, the GOP has solid control of the Senate, and therefore could negotiate with Obama''
Given Obama's history, that's a big assumption.
'' President Hillary, gifted with the ability to place absolutely whomever she wants on the court, with zero resistance in a Democratic Senate.''
Democrats will never win enough seats for goddess hillary to place ''absolutely'' whomever she wants on the court..
''I think it's quite interesting how when some famous people die folks are always quick to say what a good person they were, and how influential and important they were in their chosen field, regardless of how hurtful and offensive their actions were to some people while they were alive''
I don't remeber you saying that about Ted Kennedy.... Must have been hard for you field not to go on a full on hate filled attack that you on the left are known for when someone on the right dies.
Limpbaugh said...
The GOP debate opened with a moment of silence for Scalia. They should have opened with a moment of siience for the people who died because he stole our votes in the 2000 election.
Gore lost every recount in Florida. It would have been ridiculous to drag it out further.
Every subsequent analysis of the votes indicated that Bush won, and you could have recounted the votes a thousand times and the results wouldn't have changed.
No one stole Florida.
PilotX said...
I read Sri Srinivasan was on Barack's short list.
I'll bet he's a real committed Constitutionalist who deeply believes in the American tradition of limits on government power as enshrined in our founding documents.
dinthebeast said...
I wish Obama would nominate Goodwin Liu just to piss them off, but as I have been reading, Jeh Johnson stands a much better chance of success
--
Except Jeh Johnson is a complete retard.
The Purple Cow said...
I.Q. does not measure intelligence. It simply measures your ability to take I.Q. tests.
--
Which is correlated with intelligence.
Liberalism is beyond parody.
Question to the Democrats who comment here: What do you think of the way your party's nominating process has been rigged for Hillary?:
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/269348-clinton-has-superdelegate-edge-in-nevada-south-carolina
Field we ALL knew what you meant especially the racists jerks that expect perfection from everyone but themselves.
I'm sure you didn't, Yisheng.
Is WWIII about to start over Syria?
Who armed Syrian rebels?
Who fostered ISIS?
Who advocates for refugees?
Who provides aid to rebels?
If this shit goes down, it's on Obama.
Price change over past year:
Crude oil: -43%
Natural gas: -32%
Gold: +1.2%
Silver: -7%
Copper: -22%
Iron: -29%
Nickel: -48%
Coal: -28%
Steel: -56%
It's funny to watch stupid people try to pump up their egos by denying that there is any such thing as general intelligence, or "g". Here's the fantasy:
"I.Q. does not measure intelligence. It simply measures your ability to take I.Q. tests."
Here's the reality:
IQ has a powerful positive correlation with grades and years of education, income, and job performance. It has a significant negative correlation with negative social outcomes.
IQ scores are essentially stable after adolescence; programs like Head Start give only temporary increases in scores.
Terman's high IQ group had an average income 6.6 times the national average in 1955. Personality traits aside from IQ were still important... and those are the personality traits Black people do poorly on as well.
TPC attempts to deny these facts with a bunch of newspaper articles and one single "study" which only got press because it appears to go against the last century's worth of data. What TPC doesn't note is that this study also measured motivation, one of the personality traits associated with success. Black people are notoriously hard to motivate.
It must suck to be Black and realize you always will be. That's what makes denial so attractive.
Yisheng said...
"Field we ALL knew what you meant especially the racists jerks that expect perfection from everyone but themselves."
I never ASSume what someone meant. I go off what they say. This fact infuriated more than one ex-partner whose fall-back argument was "It doesn't matter what I said. You know what I meant." Or "It doesn't matter what I said. What I meant was xxxxx"
Very convenient when you want to dodge the fact that your supporting fact or even your complete argument is false.
Furthermore, more than anyone else, I DO expect perfection from myself. So, by your logic, that makes me non-racist. Also true.
Did you ever play a game of checkers with a 5 year old and they make up the rules as they go along to help themselves win? This is the Republican Party. Fortunately, they are up against a chess master in Obama and they will end up losing and looking like fools while doing so.
field negro said...
"SAP, I did mean 4-4. Sorry about that folks. I don't want u thinking that there is some new wave of progressivism where the court all of a sudden has 11 members instead of 9. :)"
Damn! The taste of "I made a mistake and got the facts wrong." must be really bad for you.
I'd rather own an error made with conviction than claim I meant to drive North but turned South instead.
field negro said...
"SAP, I did mean 4-4. Sorry about that folks. "
Field, please speculate on how fast opposing counsel would shred that excuse in court.
@ Ministry Of Truth 3:52AM -
The good thing about SCOTUS is that the House, which the right wing has locked up for the forseeable future, has no role in it. So yeah it is vital that Democrats recapture the Senate as well as the presidency. Perhaps that will happen with Hillary, especially if Butt Trumpet is the Stupid Party nominee, but IMHO the political revolution envisioned by Sanders is what it will take to energize Democratic voters sufficiently to get them surging to the polls.
Scalia will be remembered for demanding to know the difference between the markets for healthcare and broccoli. And Solicitor General Verilli stumbling and bumbling for the coherent response, that everyone is in the market for healthcare unlike broccoli which is a lifestyle choice, that would have been apparent to the average fifth grader.
Pilot X has the right idea. Of course, he is only saying what I said myself yesterday. Oh well, we always agree with those that think like we do. Maybe that's the problem in the country. To much talking and not enough listening.
"TPC attempts to deny these facts with a bunch of newspaper articles and one single "study" which only got press because it appears to go against the last century's worth of data. "
Poor Little Jimmy, he gets so cross and upset when his little racist paradigm is challenged. For your information little man, there is not one study that denigrates I.Q. tests there is an entire mountain of studies that say the same thing.
For instance, here are details of the largest single study of intelligence ever undertaken by science, with 100,000 contributors. It's called 'Fractioning Human Intelligence' by Adam Hampshire, Roger R Highfield, Beth L Parkin, Adrian M Owen.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/12/121219133334.htm
Guess what? It concludes that the I.Q. test is "useless".
How is it possible that people's I.Q. increases if you pay them? When people are offered $1 to improve their I.Q. score their I.Q. goes up 10 points. When they are offered $10 their I.Q. goes up 20 points. How is this possible?
How is it possible that the human race's I.Q. increases every decade?
How is it possible that changing the invigilator's skin colour changes the measured I.Q.?
Now I appreciate that as white supremacists you and josh are not going to accept these scientific results, you prefer to cherry pick results from your racist hate-sites, but nevertheless you should know that we know better than you.
What you and Josh need to realise is, it is not back people's fault that you two are angry and disappointed with your lives. Your lives haven't worked out as you hoped or expected they would. But that is YOUR FAULT, instead of railing at life's alleged iniquities, you need to set about changing your lives for the better, instead of trying to prove your manhood here every day.
So to summarise then, you and little Joshy are useless cunts and manifest failures*, but it is your fault that you are cunts - not ours.
*If you weren't t failures you would have something more interesting and useful to do with your time.
You know what really sucks Bold? When you have no life other than doing obscene things to your anatomically correct Obama doll and coming here begging for attention.
Curious Observer, "opposing counsel" would be a fool to say anything, since if he objected the Judge would take Judicial Notice that it's four and not five. His best bet would be to let the record stand with the error. Although I am quite sure that the outcome of our hypothetical trial would be no different. ;)
Serious question, thought. Will the fans of Scalia please tell me where he would have come down on the Dred Scott decision? Since he is a strict constructionist when it comes to the Constitution, I am guessing that he would have voted with the majority.
Lance Limpcock said...
Scalia will be remembered for demanding to know the difference between the markets for healthcare and broccoli. And Solicitor General Verilli stumbling and bumbling for the coherent response, that everyone is in the market for healthcare unlike broccoli which is a lifestyle choice, that would have been apparent to the average fifth grader.
---
Yes, but by the time that fifth grader got to high school, he would understand that life demands choices, and being an adult means you have the responsibility to make those choices.
Unless of course he was a liberal, and he rejected adulthood in favor of having his choices made for him.
"though"
field negro said...
"Curious Observer, "opposing counsel" would be a fool to say anything, since if he objected the Judge would take Judicial Notice that it's four and not five. His best bet would be to let the record stand with the error. Although I am quite sure that the outcome of our hypothetical trial would be no different. ;)"
And the outcome would be what?
Allow me to exit your area and enter mine (never argue law with a lawyer). Imagine you entered an order today to buy 10 March 2016 crude oil futures @ $35.00 and after the order executed you went back and said "I meant to buy @ $25.00.". How long would that excuse hold water?
Scalia will be remembered for being one of the best justices in history.
Curious Observer, this is why I have a broker.
Anon@12:32, you must live in Colorado. No fair to the rest of us, we can't get that good collie u are smoking.
No one really believes that, they simply use government to promote their beliefs. Scalia and Thomas were found to be the most activist judges among the 9. Limited government is just a catch phrase that excites some just like freedom and liberty. It means different things to different people. If you think the founders had ANY idea this nation would be a massive ungainly collection of 54 states and territories then I believe Field has a bell he can sell you.
C'mon PC you know James and his buddy are big deals in their local klan. Probably have some fancy title like exhaulted unicorn or grand pony or something. That's something important here in the States.
field negro said...
"Curious Observer, this is why I have a broker. "
Okay... You continue to dodge and obfuscate on a really simple question in order to avoid an "I f**ked up." statement. Fine. I expected more from a SJW like yourself but maybe honesty is something you only demand of others. Maybe it is true that you eventually switch to "full lawyer mode" at some point.
field negro said...
"Curious Observer, this is why I have a broker. "
Maybe you need an editor too.
Maybe.
If u want the job feel free to volunteer your services.
Sadly , there is no budget for an editor as the blog is a labor of love. ;)
Antonin Scalia, claimed to be pro-life but then dies anyway.
Typical Conservative double standards,
"It must suck to be Black and realize you always will be."
Well not really. Compared to millions of whites who don't have college educations, work in menial jobs, live in some not so good areas, have disabilities, are addicted to some sort of substance, are unable to date for whatever reason, have lost many teeth, are overweight, are psychologically unstable, have ugly spouses, are ugly themselves, like mayonnaise, spend time ranting on blogs, ect. I think I'm doing ok.
Pretty sure a lot of your brethren would trade places with me in a heartbeat. Look at the facts, I make good money, I'm very good looking, I have great family and friends, my hobbies rule, my wife is fine (former NFL cheerleader), I can and do travel the world and can inspire and mentor the next generation. You probably know a bunch of yahoos (pronounced yA-hoo)who would trade placed with me, skin color and all, in less than a heartbeat. C'mon man, you know it's true.
James, out of curiosity. How old are you? You don't have to be too specific but how about a range such as mid 40's ect.
"Antonin Scalia, claimed to be pro-life but then dies anyway."
Ha! Be careful, Rafael Eduardo Cruz aka Grandpa Munster, may bite him and bring him back from the dead.
Not a stretch to assume that you and IQ are on bad terms. It's clear you don't typically think but rather draw your conclusions instantly based on what confirms your biases.
- When asked to earn money by improving their I.Q. scores, pretty much all respondents will achieve an enhanced I.Q. score, which would not be possible if I.Q. was a true measure of intelligence.
People try harder with financial incentive. You cannot assume that intelligence and effort are the same thing. In fact, it stands to reason that anyone with intelligence would in fact not give their full effort to something in the event they aren't compensated for it somehow. This makes perfect sense.
- The average I.Q. score of the human race improves by 3 points per decade. As people are no more intelligent than they were 100 years ago, this is further proof that IQ scores are a nonsense.
A hundred years ago we drank turpentine for stomach upsets, used ether for surgeries, didn't know fuck-all about the heart and brain, and gave people life sentences for abortions. We also didn't have TV and the Internet. We are objectively more intelligent than we were a hundred years ago. You present yourself like an ancient alien theorist.
- Intensive study of I.Q. test practice can improve your I.Q. by up to 20 points, again this would not be possible if I.Q. was a true measure of intelligence.
Yes, you fucking stunad -- if you study, you typically learn! LMFAO! People with higher IQs genetically will still do a lot better, but even bozos whose IQs are bottom tier can study at a topic and learn. I mean, dafuq you even talking about here? This is the entire idea behind school and grade levels. You want so badly to argue with every word I say that you present yourself as legitimately retarded.
- In the USA, changing the color of the invigilator’s skin changes the I.Q. scored by black and white respondents. A black invigilator will increase black people’s measured I.Q. score by 15 points, and reduce the I.Q. of white respondents from below the Mason-Dixon line by a similar level.
And blacks also get free SAT points, while Asians are punished. It's not my fault that blacks do so incredibly poorly on all tests that everyone else has to fix the race so that they don't get lapped ad infinitum. What does this have to do with IQ? This is more in your Marxist wheelhouse than anything: Drop the top, uplift the bottom. This isn't IQ; it's social engineering. You're really using the fact that we have to add a SD so blacks don't present as retarded as a refutation of IQ? lol -- you can't make this shit up.
Try again...
"*If you weren't t failures you would have something more interesting and useful to do with your time."
I can understand this smear coming from a casual observer once. But it's something you say every other fucking time you spam somebody with your pointless posts. You show up here more than anyone, more than fucking Pilot, and choose not to participate in any of Field's discussions but rather to judge everyone's comments as if you're the site's ombudsman, editing their work. While I might stop in a couple times per day when on break, you're perpetually here browsing everyone's comments in order to wag your finger at them.
Do you not have anything more interesting to do? You don't participate with the theme of the blog, though you're quick to cite it to anyone else. You troll through the comments section looking to start arguments over dumb shit, like saying the greenhouse effect can only be man-made, and now acting like it's some great revelation that disproves IQ that people who study do better than people who don't study. (As if someone who's never been to school can score 150 on their test if they've never taken a single test or school subject. lol You're stupid to the level you're flat blinded by it.)
What is your purpose here? You ask everyone else, though you have never yourself stated a purpose. Why do you come here, day after day, looking for drama? What's so great about your life that it draws your attentions away from the comment section of Field's blog? The answer: evidently nothing.
You are quite astonishingly stupid aren't you Josh?
1. People try harder with financial incentive, you say. So which of the two tests is the correct measure of that person's I.Q.? The one with financial inducement, or the one without? Because of it's the one with incentives then I.Q. tests have no value unless people are paid to do them. If it's the one without than we are not measuring a person's true level of intelligence.
2. A hundred years ago we (as in the human race) knew less than we do now. But that does not mean that we are cleverer today. It just means that collectively we know more stuff. (We've also forgotten stuff).
3. If you study, you learn more, funnily enough, I get that. But intelligence is not about how much stuff you know, it is about your ability to learn stuff. By studying I.Q. test technique you can improve your I.Q. by 20 points the only thing you know more is I.Q. exam technique So does that make you 20 points more intelligent? Of course not, it just makes you 20 points better at I.Q. tests.
4. I note that you completely failed to answer my last point. So I'll repeat the question.
The U.S. Army employed more I.Q. tests than any other organization on Earth (Until they worked out they were useless.) They discovered that changing the colour of the invigilator from what to black increased the I.Q. results of black people by fifteen points. At the same time white men from below the Mason Dixon line saw a 15 point drop in their I.Q. How is this possible if the I.Q. test is a true test of intelligence.
Try again...
Preach PX, PREACH!!!
"I can understand this smear coming from a casual observer once. But it's something you say every other fucking time you spam somebody with your pointless posts."
Oh it's a "smear" is it? Fuck me sunshine, you don;t know what a sear is. I'll give you smearing if you want it. That was simply a ba;d statement of obvious fact.
**
"You show up here more than anyone, more than fucking Pilot,
Not true.
**
...and choose not to participate in any of Field's discussions...
Not true.
**
"... but rather to judge everyone's comments as if you're the site's ombudsman, editing their work."
I comment on what ever I want to comment on sunshine. I don;t need your permission.
**
" While I might stop in a couple times per day when on break, you're perpetually here browsing everyone's comments in order to wag your finger at them."
Demonstrably untrue.
**
"Do you not have anything more interesting to do?"
Oh I've got LOTS of interesting things to do. Mobilising the lumpen proletariat for instance, teaching the local under 9's how to strip down and clean their AK47's. Making Molotov cocktails. Choosing nice brick walls to execute the 1% against. Manning the barricades. Encouraging the communards. Storming the Winter Palace, raising the hammer and cycle flag on the Protemptkin - That sort of thing.
**
"You don't participate with the theme of the blog, though you're quick to cite it to anyone else. "
Errrr what?????
**
"You troll through the comments section looking to start arguments over dumb shit, like saying the greenhouse effect can only be man-made..." I said no such thing as you well know.
**
... and now acting like it's some great revelation that disproves IQ that people who study do better than people who don't study. (As if someone who's never been to school can score 150 on their test if they've never taken a single test or school subject. lol You're stupid to the level you're flat blinded by it.)
We adopted my brother Chester at the age of eight. He had never been to school in Jamaica and had been unknown to UK authorities. He was totally illiterate. The local authority gave him a verbal I.Q. test and discovered that (for what it's worth) he had an"I.Q." of 155.
**
"What is your purpose here? You ask everyone else, though you have never yourself stated a purpose. Why do you come here, day after day, looking for drama? What's so great about your life that it draws your attentions away from the comment section of Field's blog? The answer: evidently nothing."
My purposes here are manyfold, here are my initial thoughts on your question.
1. I enjoy Field's posts, I find them thoughtful and intellectually stimulating.
2. America's time has come and gone (it was called the 20th century), so I find it fascinating to watch how both good (Field, PilotX and the others) and bad (you, Jimmy Bold, the late Bill, etc) people are reacting to the collapse of the American empire,
3. I enjoy communicating with the intelligent regular commentators.
4. I really, really, really hate fascists. So I enjoy making you angry.
There might be some more, I'll be sure to let you know.
Now you...
"Why do you come here, day after day, looking for drama?"
Wow, textbook pot calling kettles stuff.
"You show up here more than anyone, more than fucking Pilot"
Nah, but he should come here more often. I rather enjoy his posts.
I Hate Fascists too. In fact, that was the name I used on Bernie Goldberg's website where I regularly confronted them with the truth they couldn't handle, and they came away stupefied and dumbfounded every time, forcing them to take the cowardly censorshit way out, deleting all my current and previous posts.
James, out of curiosity. How old are you? You don't have to be too specific but how about a range such as mid 40's ect.
2:25 PM
----------
mid 70's...about your age.
"..regardless of how hurtful and offensive their actions were to some people while they were alive."
Awwwww, someone find FN a "safe space" to hide.
"He was a giant among dictators."
I would say that he was. However, that does not mean support for his regime.
"No way will this bi-racial Socialist get to choose yet another Supreme Court Justice."
Read, half-white guy who never fails to play the race-card...as do his supporters.
"This is all compounded by the fact that the court has five* so called "liberal" Justices and five*so called "conservative' Justices."
Ah, FN, the Supreme Court only has nine justices......are you really a lawyer....or just a really, really stupid lawyer?
"He needs to wait until after the elections and let the next president decide", is what almost all the republican candidates for president are saying."
As did Senator Chuck Shumer say in 2007.
Oh heck....I am done....no need to read the rest of this post....
"mid 70's...about your age."
Is that you James? Are you in your 70's?
PilotX said...
Look at the facts, I make good money, I'm very good looking, I have great family and friends, my hobbies rule, my wife is fine (former NFL cheerleader), I can and do travel the world and can inspire and mentor the next generation. You probably know a bunch of yahoos (pronounced yA-hoo)who would trade placed with me, skin color and all, in less than a heartbeat. C'mon man, you know it's true.
>>>>>>
I had to add another comment to this brilliant piece of blog commentary!
Did you read the book the "Sweeter the Juice"? It's about a Black family where most of the siblings in one Black family, moved to Cali and passed for White, completely disowning the "blacker" looking siblings.
One of the the blacker siblings married an Ivy League College professor, and was a member of the elite Blacks of the city they lived in (I think it was New Haven).
The "White" siblings ended up lower middle/lower class, with one living in a trailer park.
Strange, so many people would rather be poor white trash than an educated, upper class negro.
https://youtu.be/tkRZVE3aDm8
Chuck Schumer, Senior Senator Democrat NY, went on record on this issue, insisting to the American Constitution Society that the Senate not only has the RIGHT but the DUTY to block Supreme Court nominees from a lame-duck President.
Of course Schumer aimed this statement at George W. Bush, but note that this speech took place in mid-2007, when Bush still had 18 months left in his presidency.
The only differences between then and now are the party that controls the White House. Hypocritical post tonight, FN.
"We adopted my brother Chester at the age of eight. He had never been to school in Jamaica and had been unknown to UK authorities. He was totally illiterate. The local authority gave him a verbal I.Q. test and discovered that (for what it's worth) he had an"I.Q." of 155."
Proof. From anyone else, borderline believable. From you, whose stories always seem to perfectly fit your attempted dressing down of the people whose comments you troll, I call utter and complete bullshit. Did not happen. Is not real.
...
"I Hate Fascists too. In fact, that was the name I used on Bernie Goldberg's website where I regularly confronted them with the truth they couldn't handle, and they came away stupefied and dumbfounded every time, forcing them to take the cowardly censorshit way out, deleting all my current and previous posts."
Lance, now I remember you at Bernie's. You're leaving a little bit of the story out, bro. You might have hit people with "truth they couldn't handle," but you did so while insulting people perpetually with some of the nastiest shit one could imagine reading, and habitually trolling people with insults. Don't act as if they just banned you because you were dropping that "truth" on their heads. Your ideological brother, Mr. Steve Carlos I-Rape-Women-and-Hate-Jews Fair, does the same shit at Bernie's, with this supposed "truth," and he's been allowed to post there even after being found to have multiple--emphasis on multiple--names on the same IP. He's not banned. JMax, another who habitually disagrees with the Bernie status quo, also isn't banned and is allowed to disagree with people all he wants. They haven't banned me either, and I go straight for the jugular and insult their religion.
You were a habitual line-stepper in personal attacks against individuals' characters, not their politics. Ironically enough, on Field's blog, which is uncensored, you're relatively tame. Maybe it's all those white people that crawl under your skin. I'm not sure. But I am sure you're only giving an abridged accounting of the goings-on at Bernie's.
...
"Now you..."
I've stated my reasons many, many times. The issue: Guys like yourself, PX, Steve, Yiscunt, etc, have decided that you'll keep making these outlandish guesses as to my character, which all include "racist" in the subtext or forefront, and ignore anything I might say.
I was invited to join a blog about four years ago, ran by Malcolm, a man whom I'd consider a friend: Diversity Ink. From his sidebar, I found a link to a bunch of "black" blogs, including Harvey's Global Politics, and Field's. I liked this blog when I found it. Field seemed to be a guy with his head on straight, calling attention to shit that needed attention, albeit a little too progressive for my tastes. Though over the past couple of years, Field has started in on more than the confirmation bias one knows is requisite of partisanship. He's now creating his own stories, like leaving out the fact that police told the jewelry store to call 911 on the Tahoe, and leaving out the investigation about the restaurant that also made white people prepay if they drank alcohol. And he's doing shit like championing the liars of Mizzou. So I call bullshit on bullshit based on the posts I see Field leave.
IMO, he's going from socially conscious of some racial issues in America to necessarily political and polarizing in invented racism from jack shit and less than nothing. And other than myself, James, and a few other people, the rest of y'all line up to worship this horseshit he releases these days as "racism."
Some of the things that keep my coming back are the tidbits of pure dumbfuckery I find here, like some idiot saying that the greenhouse effect doesn't exist without man-made warming, or that intelligence and motivation are supposed to share some 1:1 correlation, and other stone-stupid pieces of shit that make me forget about bills and stress and just allow me to laugh at morons whose stupidity has blinded them from their stupidity. The bitter irony that keeps giving.
I come here for the Dunning-Kruger and LULZ.
In the event I just wanted to troll black folks online, I sure as shit wouldn't choose this fucking environment to do it. I'd go over to Tommy's YouTube pages and blog, where folks at least have sense and aren't wrapped up in "black" as a fucking ideology, bruv.
"You are quite astonishingly stupid aren't you Josh?"
1: This isn't a false dichotomy, nor is there any scientific basis to conclude that one needs motivation. Incredibly small sampling. Besides, you're talking about a few points, which could fluctuate for many reasons, as simply as ticking the wrong box on a single question by mistake. If you want to call someone astonishingly stupid, it might help if you didn't present yourself as a scientific and logical illiterate. Being motivated to try harder on a test doesn't sully an IQ score, and it in no way suggests that all takers only try when incentivized. You're going to need heaps of research and blind studies and the like for this. Of course you don't have it; as was pointed out to you, you have a few cut-rate blog articles that confirm your bias.
2: You said we're no more intelligent. That's untrue. If knowing more isn't a measure of being intelligent, what the fuck makes someone intelligent? We cannot know more if we do not possess the ability to know more. What sort of fucking moron are you? You say it's not IQ, which judges things like mathematics and pattern recognition. And now you're saying it's not knowing things that makes one intelligent. If understanding standardized test materials and knowing a lot of shit isn't the mark of intelligence, what is? Knowing you, it'll boil down to some Marxist political shit.
3: And if a student steals the exam from the teacher's desk, he's liable to get an A. Does that mean he's mastered the subject, or mastered the test? Does it mean all such testing is invalid? Thankfully sophist dullards like you aren't in charge of this shit. In these events, you conduct blind studies and more extensive studies -- which have been done, obviously. They just don't fit your own bias. IQ is on record and is solid. It doesn't need me singing it's praises.
4: I answered 4. You just don't like my answer. Some people use social engineering to grade, and if a person is black they get free points. How else does one explain those moronic black debaters getting into college? They literally cannot speak proper English, they battle rap one another, and they sing gangsta rap in events. This is supposedly the cream of the American black intellectual crop to boot. But that's another story. You simply seem to be overlooking the fact that it's not some god from on high grading the tests. It's a person who sees X and Y race and grades according to their Marxist philosophy of tearing the top down and uplifting the bottom, as if that creates balance.
Josh you couldn't back that up even if they hadn't deleted all the evidence. But the fact that they have gone back and deleted pretty much everything I have posted (you can still find a few things), even what they originally accepted, speaks volumes, don't you think?
I know for a fact, as in can personally attest, and even get Steve to attest, that you will not be banned from Bernard Goldberg's blog for simply speaking this "truth," as you put it. You can disagree with those guys 'til the cows come home, and they won't ban you. You can even insult them personally, and they won't ban you. Just ask Steve, who does it on the reg. But I do remember your IHateFascists name, and I remember you being incredibly crude and vulgar toward Jeff and John specifically, almost daring them to do something with you. I remember posts totally unrelated to the topic at hand, just taking digs at people on a personal level.
If you wanna treat someone like they're stupid, Lance, find another sucker. I live in the world; I know what was what. And I know what's what there now currently. Steve Fair trolls through the comments section there and calls people racist, dozens at a go, for nothing more than being white, and he's never been banned. Yet here are you, crying the blues that they banned you simply because you spoke "truth."
It's okay that you think everyone else idiots. I don't mind. But we both know what's what.
We've been thru this before Josh. Goldberg and his errand boys have a job to do, which is to cultivate a cult following and keep them fired up to hate liberals. So rule #1 is, never give a liberal any respect. If they can't out-debate you they will shower you with abuse hoping you will go away, either right away or after the wrecking crew piles on. If they can't win at that either, then they will delete you. So yeah you can disagree all you want as long as they think they are winning. That is the key. No doubt I did all the things you said, but I out-debated them first, then proceeded to beat them at the insult game as well. That is also the key. Have you ever known Steve or JMax or any other liberal to get any respect? Again, anyone who gives a shit (and apparently no one else does) could go check the record, but they have pretty much seen to it that there is no record to check. That speaks volumes don't you think?Nothing but the truth Josh, not crying, just exposing them for what they are.
I don't totally disagree with you, at least for Jeff Webb. He and I have been around the block a few times, and he's an easy--and fun--one to smack around. John, I'd say, isn't as fickle in a need-to-be-right way; e.g. he's more like you rather than being like Purple Cunt.
All I'm saying is that I personally find it difficult to believe that you were banned for innocuous things, when Steve, Jmax and myself are all still welcomed there. Maybe not with open arms, but welcomed.
Hell, they never even banned Legal Eagle -- he quit on his own.
That place is a conservative cesspit trying desperately to become an echo chamber. Fucking morons like KStrett and Brian Fr. Langley spew their illogical religious conservative nonsense and are treated like conquering heroes for doing so. But I've never seen a person banned for disagreeing and arguing, or even mild insults. So if IHateFascists was banned, whereas Steve Fair was not*, then something's missing from your version. That's all I'm saying.
*Steve was caught by IP address having multi accounts, and anyone who chooses to read the site can see that he just picks on white people and calls them racist for no other reason than they're white. And he's never been banned. I told John, Jeff, Kstrett and Bob one time that their archaic beliefs in a god are stupid and childish and that their ilk will drive the world to ruin if they don't catch up with the times, and I didn't even receive a warning. Full disclosure: I post as a guest. They can't ban me. But from what I can tell, they don't want to.
Daly more like me? Tell him that and see how fast you get shitlisted. They did in fact ban Legal Eagle, Daly said so. And he was pretty mild mannered, but Webb-Masterbater in particular and eventually Dildo Daly both took a disliking to him so decided to throw their weight around. In fact Dildo Boy's last comment before shitlisting him "Bend over and take it like Legal Eagle does". And he calls me "potty mouth". Brian Langley, so lovably anal, what a fucking piece of work he is. But if you want to shut him up ask him what the Fr is (I did that). As for Steve, I looked around there a bit and have not found what you are referring to. There was a Carlos that posted something maybe a month or so back but didn't sound anything like Steve. Anyway I think you must have scared Steve away because he hasn't been here in ages. Yeah you can get away with busting them on gays and religion because Goldberg is pro-gay and atheist. I posted as guest also, and they can block your IP address, I got around it using an iphone that always gets a different ipv6 address (there are zillions of them), but finally they just got so sick of me they blocked the my entire network (they did that at the Goldberg.com level, so I can't even read the articles. I'm guessing that Disqus wouldn't do it for them).
Ah, I forget sometimes that most people still use static IPs and instead of bouncing them, just like most people still pay for cable. lol My bad.
And let me add a big-ass LMAO @ the Rick James you just hit me with. "You see, I never did things just to do them. Whadda I look like grinding my feet in somebody's couch, like it's a thing to do? Yeah...I remember grinding my feet in Eddie's couch."
Thanks for the LULZ! Dealing with PC's unadulterated stupidity and incessant need to take the opposite position of everything I say, because he's a contrary cunt argument troll, I didn't think I'd get any good LULZ from Field's today. :D
This will LULZ you -
Me, Daly, Webb, and Langley where I challenge Daly on his nonexistent quotes, he can't back it up, and from there it's a race to the bottom (at one point Daly threatens to rat me out to my employer)
Daly's next article he misstates the firing of special prosecutors as judges can't handle it when I correct him so now he's gonna play 24-7 sheriff
See what I mean about Daly being a petulant little bitch?
So, that George Steele is you? From what I'm reading, you created sock puppet names, even using the moderator's names, in order to generate drama on the board and to slander people as racists. That's all I see they're coming down on you for. After all that smoke clears, then I see you and John getting into a little discussion about who serves talking points vs. who serves facts. Then, no more than 2 posts later, you insult Daly's "pops." lol
I'm not sure what takeaway you expected there.
Now I'll check out the next...
Obviously I cannot see what was deleted, as it's deleted. But if the previous is any indicator of the current, you probably did something like mock them beyond their breaking point or insult their families or something. lol
Fair enough, that is one way of looking at it. But 2 things. First, it perfectly captures their essence, Daly in his petulant bitchiness, Webb in his drunken stuporness, Langley in his lovable analness. Second, it perfectly captures the pattern that I described. I challenge Daly to put names to his nonexistent media quotes, he can't do it, and so (losing the debate) changes the subject to why I don't use my real name (and the implied threat that he knows where I work). Only then does the name calling start, and (IMHO they lose the insult game as well). I didn't insult Daly's "pops", I called Webb "pops". That's one of my pet names for him.
The second link was just where Daly proclaimed himself 24-7 sheriff after I corrected him "Like your previous bogus article just more hogwash that you do not and can not back up. You and your media bias are becoming a tired act. Judges fired? Too much drugs? Maybe you are referring to US Attorneys?" (you can actually see all the deleted quotes if you do 'view source' but they're not sorted or correlated).
As for sock puppet names, on a website that doesn't require documentation like Field or Goldberg, they are all sock puppet names. When they see someone taking them on directly, and they can't shake it off with bullshit, that's how they know it's me.
Well, Lance -- rock out with your socks out, homes. I tried to read things as impartially as I could, but I don't know if I did or not. I don't really know why Webb had to come in poking his nose and joining in. That seemed like he was trying to throw his power around a little. But from what I can tell, John actually tried and just reached his tipping point.
No problem Josh. I see it as a whiny mamasboy with Papa Goldberg behind him and his very own delete button can get real beefed up on himself and have as low a tipping point as he wants, and dare you to reach it (kind of like Little Kim with his nukes). It's all part of the scam (ask Legal Eagle or Phil Silverman). On the other hand, what could be more be provocative than being called farm equipment, Field doesn't even delete the comment, and Bold comes back day after day with his racist shit. All in good fun eh? You are a good guy in my book. I don't care what anyone says.
Just speculation here, but I think folks might abandon visiting the blog here would Field start to employ the standard of banning people. After all, could we expect him to get rid of James Bold and Yisheng? Yisheng insults my entire family with racial slurs, and Field cheers her on for doing it, telling her to "get 'em!" She's said racist shit every bit as nasty as Bold, about whites and Asians, and let's not get into the gay-bashing, or Steve and his anti-Jew self, and I think Field realizes it doesn't just happen the one way here. Obviously he only cares about it happening one way, and gets his LULZ when it happens the other. But I think he makes a smart business decision to let everyone air their horseshit rather than picking favorites. Because we know who would be allowed to post and who wouldn't were Field to pick favorites.
I personally just laugh at folks coming down on Bold for his shit, while every single comment section you can read here has multiple people talking shit about white people. The cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias is on full display here. That's why I don't say anything to anybody about their racial ramblings, save people who want to say X and Y are racism when they're not.
As I told Steve yesterday at Bernie's, I'm not one who pretends that the black people who visit here are progressives. lol Although they may want to call themselves progressives, I constantly read anti-Asian, anti-white and anti-homosexual slurs and insults. The black folks here only care about their place as black people, juxtaposed against white people. They don't care about equality and progressive principles. My point: I don't expect people here to notice anyone except James Bold because, of course, his posts can be construed as anti-black, and that's all folks care about. Nobody cares if it's anti-white or anti-gay or anti-Asian. And I don't begrudge that, mind you; we would just all be better served to drop the pretense.
So what you are saying then is that it's a business decision for Field not to pick favorites? Folks would abandon the blog if Bold was banned? Or if Yisheng was also banned? So why doesn't Goldberg make that same business decision? Goldberg plays favorites, folks keep showing up. And Field isn't running this as a business. Sorry I'm not following your line of reasoning. No doubt Bold is a miserable prick. Is Yisheng as nasty as Bold? I don't pay much attention to Yisheng, she is talking nonsense most of the time.
A "business decision" is a figure of speech. lol
And I think that most of those accolades on Field's sidebar wouldn't exist if Field banned/blocked certain people. I mean, just think about it. It would be a blog where a bunch of black people spoke ill of white people--and Asians and Jews and gays-- unprovoked. By keeping anti-black comments, that's the only brand of comment that draws attention.
Imagine for a second scanning down through the comments and only seeing "you white people all suck," "white people are cave beasts," "you whites rape little boys," "white are a genetic mistake," "all whites are racist and evil," and all the other shit I see here every single day, though without James Bold's bold comments drawing all the attention away. Are you going to tell me this blog would have the flavor it has if Field started banning/removing the anti-black comments?
That's my reasoning; e.g. Field recognizes leaving the Bolds and suchlike gives the appearance that black folks are under attack here for simply having a voice because, as I pointed out, black folks only care about it happening one way -- they couldn't be more regressive in the aggregate if they were burning witches. lol
Bernie, on the other hand, realizes that keeping things clean gives the appearance that the right-wing has its shit together more than it actually does.
So then if Bold didn't exist Field would have to invent him ... Mmmm ... Mmmm ... Mmmm ... Mmmm ...
James is far from the only person who says things that one could say are anti-black. I seen some idiot whose screen name is "nigger yisheng" or something to that effect. What I'm saying is that it works out well for Field to have white people--at least we suspect they're white--saying things considered anti-black, as that captures attention tenfold over blacks--at least we suspect they're black--saying racist things against whites and Asians and bigoted things about the LGBT community.
Lance, we're both adults here. We both know that, per mainstream American society, you can could call me a toilet-seat-complexion, pale-faced dirty cracka, and most people would just "LOL." Though if I said something like a midnight-black-ass nigger, I'd be crucified for it, the entire nation would start beaming about this "discussion" we're supposed to have, people would bring up slavery and Jim Crow, and I'd lose my job, possibly face hate crime charges, and have to fear for my safety. The outcome may be different online, but the reaction is the same. Honest question: When's the last time you even paid attention to a black person insulting white people here? I mean, c'mon -- I live in the world just like you. I know it blends right into the background and it's not given a second thought. Even by me, really. But when people speak about blacks in a negative light, those comments take center stage and people in here start arguing back and forth over them. I've never seen one black person here tell another black person that they shouldn't be saying racist shit against whites. But when a white says something one thinks is racist, you have lilac, PX, PC, Field, FR (or whatever), and a dozen trolls lining up to shoot back.
Field is smarter than some give him credit, IMO. He's a knucklehead when it comes to his politics, but he's savvy at operating a blog. He knows having people saying anti-black things here works out for him on a few fronts:
1) It draws attention away from the fact that black folks are every bit as racist
2) The 10,000:1 attention difference makes it appear as if black people are just under siege by white people
3) It provides the perfect platform on which blacks can plead their case against mostly ignorant whites who just say stupid shit*
*Although I do find it funny that James Bold tells people exactly how they're going to act, and is called a racist, and people line up around the block to prove him correct as if they can't help it. LOL That's all I have to say about that.
No doubt 'nigger yisheng' is the same jerkoff who poses as me sometimes. But like we have talked about before, when you are a minority, especially one as readily identifiable as the black community, you identify with that identity whereas most whites probably don't identify with their whiteness. You can say a lot of things about Bold but he is not stupid, he is focused, and knows how to stick the needle where it hurts. And that is the reason why he (and you for that matter) draws a crowd, whereas 'nigger yisheng' (or for that matter the real yisheng) don't. Yeah we are both adults (at 63 I'm damn near 2x your age) but we are white adults, we haven't spent a day being black, so IMHO we should keep that in mind before rushing to judgment.
Well, I cannot say with certainty that there isn't anything to that; though I will say that it's always puzzled me immensely how "black" is judged. For instance, I'm told frequently here that I don't know, and can't know, what it's like to be black. And on face value I accept that. But then I see people as they start to say who's black and who isn't, and what's black and what isn't. You have Field himself literally taking people's "blackness" away from them because they don't agree with him. You have PX and PC running around here saying that commenters aren't "black" if the individual in question doesn't seem to agree with the consensus. So being "black," at least on this blog, seems to be a lot more than race. It's a political stance and frame of mind. And to that end, who the hell could ever know what it is to be "black"? Folks can know what it's like to be an individual posing as "black," but the criteria seem to change constantly of what "black" even is.
Another reason I don't particularly buy into the "you don't know what it's like to be black" line is that most black people who have said that, in my experience, say so while simultaneously acting as if they know what it is to be white and to be every other race. Some folks feign as if being "black" makes them cultural experts on every race, whereby they can speak about black people, white people, Asian people, Latino people, but no one can speak about black people -- at least without being labeled racist.
In other words, people want to use "black" as a special identity, not just an identity. That label gives one license to be racist without repercussion, to be ignorant with a caveat, and to be a separatist for equality, which is the weirdest fucking stance I have ever seen in my life though shockingly the most popular "black" stance of which I'm aware. "'Cause I'm black" has become a meme.
No one ever said being black grants immunity from saying stupid shit. But I'm pretty sure it's just one of those figures of speech. Does Field actually believe he can literally strip anyone of their blackness? Does Stacy give a shit? I doubt it.
No on the Dash. Yes on the Field. It really does appear, given the copious amounts of evidence, that there's a strain of "black" people in the black community who wholeheartedly believe that they're the gatekeepers for what "black" is. And with just a word of disappointment from these too-tanned Rick Moranis', they can strip away a person's race and toss them into the "white" heap. After all, saying one is no longer black is a way to say they're white, and calling a black person "white" has been one of the go-to smears now for decades. Dash doesn't care, but Field certainly does take his self-appointed role as a gatekeeper seriously. Put it this way: Field takes his role in this phony, put-on capacity every bit as seriously as Purple Cunt takes his role as this site's self-elected hall monitor and self-appointed ombudsman.
It doesn't matter to Dash, I'm sure. But as a community on the whole, it just adds another layer of dysfunction in an already dysfunctional community. But like all things negative to happen to blacks, from dropping out of school to stubbing their toes, white people will be blamed, willingly accept this blame, and bend over backwards to handicap the race of life further so that blacks have an easier road. And after traveling this easy road, never learning how to hurdle obstacles, blacks will again start failing at the first speed bump, and we will repeat this cycle in perpetuity until which time (a) America falls or (b) everyone's mixed-race anyway.
Just an aside: I often wonder if there are any people in Italy who bitch that Rome kept them as slaves. The Irish don't complain about the English, at least all that much. So I wonder if this is something exclusive to American blacks.
No doubt Field is running a black-centric blog, he doesn't make any pretense otherwise. Contrast with Goldberg who puts on airs about "media bias". Field lets anyone get anything off their chest and lets the debate run its course, even if he takes a lot of abuse in the process. Contrast with Goldberg where the objective is to shut you up with insults and abuse and if all else fails censorshit. I have had several disagreements with Field in the brief time I have been here, and no doubt I'm not one of his faves any more than you are, but calling him a phony is uncalled for IMHO.
The Irish have been fighting the Brits for almost a century, although also a civil war between Catholics and Protestants. There's some uneasy truce in place now, if that's what you mean by 'all that much'. Rome and the Italians you'll have to ask Langley about that, he's up on all that prehistoric shit. But all due respect Josh, what the hell are you talking about? Who wouldn't bitch about being kept as a slave? Wouldn't you?
Nevermind the last part, I misunderstood you, my bad.
Post a Comment