This leads us back full circle. Your only goal here is to be a nuisance. And its probably the only goal you've ever attained. Your annoying obtuseness is incredibly hard to ignore, I'll give you that. Its your calling, such as it is.

I'll gladly defy you - I vote for the person whose policies and opinions are the most aligned with my own - period! Because of this I have voted for men and women in sex, white and brown in race, Christian - Muslim in religious faith and another whose religion (if any) I didn't know.

Oh by the way - by YOUR myopic views you would probably call me a 'redneck' or some such because I mainly vote conservative (but not always!) but if so this 'redneck' is far less hamstrung with racism than yourself.

I don't know enough about you at this point to characterize you. But based on how you responded to my comment, I don't believe I care to learn anything about you. Sorry you're just not that important to me today and surely never will be.

By the way, based on your answer, it appears you don't have a clue about the basis of my challenge. You might want to try reading what I wrote again and reflect on it a moment before you answer (or not). Either way I could care less.

So why did you not say that months ago? Do you also want to retract all the racist comments about the founding fathers?

Seems to me, that rather than all the name-calling(*) you could have just said you did not vote for the man because he was black and that any words of yours to that effect that are in the archives were "misspoken" by you.

Now, was that not easy?

------------------------

(*) I have been "talking" to folks via computer since before the Internet was widely available. Your personal insults are not very effective. No personal insults are really --- it is fun sometimes, but often offends the lurkers.

GINSBURG, writing for the USSC liberals, also said that the lower courts should have ordered a jury trial to weigh the evidence that the New Haven's claimed motive was a pretext. Sotomayor is clearly at cross-purposes with Ginsburg.

The USSC was actually unanimous in rejecting the Sotomayor panel's specific holding, which was that New Haven's decision to spurn the test results must be upheld based solely on the fact that highly disproportionate numbers of blacks had done badly on the exam and might file a "disparate-impact" lawsuit -- regardless of whether the exam was valid or the lawsuit could succeed.

omooex wrote:

Tigerman

Because of this I have voted for men and women in sex

Putting your political beliefs into your choice of sex partners is going way above and beyond the call of duty. I command your stick-to-it-iveness.

--------------------------

You can commend it by all means but try commanding it and you'll find you have a problem on your hands! lol

Because of this I have voted for men and women in sex

Putting your political beliefs into your choice of sex partners is going way above and beyond the call of duty. I command your stick-to-it-iveness.

Timothy3 wrote:

I thought you might be the one to ask for advice on how to acquire a mail-order bride.

Wishful thinking - you'll have to find takers elsewhere for your commission.

I really need someone to slap around.

------------------------------

I think you're shrink is the one who should be hearing about your violent fantasies.

No, you can vote for anyone you want based on whatever mix of criteria you want to. Even if you based your vote entirely on skin color, then that is still your right to do so. I am sure many Americans did so.

I may be wrong, but I think your answer is a non-answer. Infer, imply and all that crap. Perhaps I should have phrased my question differently.

Do you consider me a racist based on what I said in my comment earlier? Because I considered race a factor in how I voted, does that make me a racist? Did my action defy what many would consider to be the acceptable norms of society? (And please don't ask me what the acceptable norms of society are, you're smart enough to interpret that correctly.)

There's really nothing new in the Ricci saga. The usual conservative majority prevailed, and as usual they are the activists, imposing their views (if not their partisan preferences) over carefully thought-out legislation and executive action.

ersatzdavid wrote:

Are you proud that you voted based on skin color?

I can't speak for omooex, but I did and I am anything but ashamed of it. Was it the only reason I voted for Obama? Absolutely not, it was just one of several reasons.

And I defy anyone to trot out that lame excuse, "I don't see color."

-----------------------------------

I'll gladly defy you - I vote for the person whose policies and opinions are the most aligned with my own - period! Because of this I have voted for men and women in sex, white and brown in race, Christian - Muslim in religious faith and another whose religion (if any) I didn't know.

Oh by the way - by YOUR myopic views you would probably call me a 'redneck' or some such because I mainly vote conservative (but not always!) but if so this 'redneck' is far less hamstrung with racism than yourself.

he's probably still reading my blog

Like anyone reads your stupid blog.

"As for Sotomayor, the Court's 5-4 decision today ought to put an end to the attempt to use Ricci to depict her as being somehow out of the judicial mainstream and thus unfit for the Court."

Predictably, it is already being employed by virtually all media sources to do the exact opposite. Let me write the headlines for them:

"Sotomayor out of touch?"

"Sotomayor stumbles on discrimination!"

"Sotomayor suffers sharp rebuke from potential colleagues!"

And so forth.

"This is not a loaded question; you have already admitted the act."

No, I didn't vote for him "just" because of the color of his skin. I don't even use that kind of terminology, because I don't see race as merely an issue of skin color. You're simply shameless and you're a liar. Go on and get Sinnard if that's what you need to do; he's probably still reading my blog and googling me as he seems to do every moment of his free time.