Sorry, I missed you.

You said you voted Obama as you felt he was a much better candidate than McCain. My wife did the same. I see no problem with that --- you voted for the best human in the race in your opinion.

You then ask a question. It was that if you had voted for him simply due to the color of his skin verses the color of the opponents skin, would that make you a racist? Not necessarily. It would be a racist act, but I would have to now a lot more about your other actions to know if you were a racist or not.

Are you?

I repeat. Are you proud that you voted for Obama based on the color of his skin? This is not a loaded question; you have already admitted the act. We had a long, long thread on that issue. Plus you do not deny it on this thread since Chris Sinnard loves to post links to some of your more colorful racial statements.

I only asked if you are proud you voted based on skin color. Are you?

As for the rest of you liberal hypocrite whiners - cry me a river. Since when have liberal judges been any better in terms of impartial-ism to the so called 'conservative' judges you are complaining about - the question is rhetorical as the answer is they haven't!

Gosh, I wish I had your calm demeanor when hurling myself at the liberal so-and-sos that afflict the reasonable-rest-of-us here. I took a look at your letter archive, by the way and, based on--for example--this:

It doesn't surprise me that this attack against a majority of the population (which is Christian) is coming from a democrat! As it happens I am not a Christian but I do recognise that in the absence of a culture that is supportive of marriage and the nuclear family the culture created by Christianity will do. I shouldn't have to explain any of this to an audience that is supposedly fairly well educated but until we have an established culture that builds sound foundations for family life once more we would be extremely foolish to abandon the one culture that does provide sound frameworks for ethical behaviour and is supportive of family life.

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

... it seems strange that the diversity advocates are so enthralled by Sotomayors credentials they are blithely unconcerned at having a majority of Catholics on the Supreme Court. If that doesn't count as a concentration of opinion, then what does?

The notion that a human individual should be vested with absolute power is completely antithetical to the principles on which the USA was founded.

Whether she believes that he should be so vested because he embodies the will of God (as Catholics teach) or because he embodies the will of the people (as neocons teach) is irrelevant.

What would concern me is not WHY she believes it, but that she believes it at all.

(Of course, I don't know her; like many people of any religion she may not be at all doctrinaire, and so she might not believe it at all. The RC church is a pretty big tent, isn't it? Hence, a concern, not an objection.)

Would be nice to find out beforehand, rather than afterwards, tho ...

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.

"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.

"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.

he's probably still reading my blog

Like anyone reads your stupid blog.

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.

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.

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.)