Male Dumbasses

Darla said:
How so?
Click to expand...


Here's a decent article on it from 2004 when Bush in one of the debates brought up Dred Scott in response to a question about the types of judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108083/

Long story short, pro-lifers view Roe v. Wade as akin to Dred Scott in that in Roe v. Wade the court decided that the unborn are not people therefore have no rights in the same way that in Dred Scott the court decided black people are not people and thus have no rights.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
you have to excuse Nigel....he has a tendency to pretend he knows what he's talking about....
Click to expand...

My "how so" may have sounded snarky to you or something, but actually I asked because he does know what he's talking about, I had never heard of this, and I wanted to find out about it.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Here's a decent article on it from 2004 when Bush in one of the debates brought up Dred Scott in response to a question about the types of judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108083/

Long story short, pro-lifers view Roe v. Wade as akin to Dred Scott in that in Roe v. Wade the court decided that the unborn are not people therefore have no rights in the same way that in Dred Scott the court decided black people are not people and thus have no rights.
Click to expand...

Thanks. THat's about as f'd up as I figured it would be.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Here's a decent article on it from 2004 when Bush in one of the debates brought up Dred Scott in response to a question about the types of judges he would appoint to the Supreme Court:

http://www.slate.com/id/2108083/

Long story short, pro-lifers view Roe v. Wade as akin to Dred Scott in that in Roe v. Wade the court decided that the unborn are not people therefore have no rights in the same way that in Dred Scott the court decided black people are not people and thus have no rights.
Click to expand...

lmao....you are from the loony left

total horseshit opinion based on nothing
 
Yurt said:
what do you base that on? his lack of a legal education?
Click to expand...


No. I base it on the fact that the parties like candidates with immediate name recognition and the ability to self-finance if necessary. As an former Philadelphia Eagles, Runyan is a decent candidate that enjoys both. It's kinda like Lynn Swann running for governor in PA a few years back.
 
Yurt said:
lmao....you are from the loony left

total horseshit opinion based on nothing
Click to expand...


Just do a google search for Roe v. Wade Dred Scott. There are a multitude of pro-lifers that make the very same comparison. I'm not saying that Runyan intentionally blew a dog whistle, but GWB sure as shit did back in 2004.
 
NigelTufnel said:
No. I base it on the fact that the parties like candidates with immediate name recognition and the ability to self-finance if necessary. As an former Philadelphia Eagles, Runyan is a decent candidate that enjoys both. It's kinda like Lynn Swann running for governor in PA a few years back.
Click to expand...

so...you have nothing of substance to support your belief he is an idiot....because nothing you said above points to him being an idiot and so far all you've hounded him on is his lack of a legal education
 
NigelTufnel said:
Just do a google search for Roe v. Wade Dred Scott. There are a multitude of pro-lifers that make the very same comparison. I'm not saying that Runyan intentionally blew a dog whistle, but GWB sure as shit did back in 2004.
Click to expand...

i thought the gwb angle was a stretch...i mean really, could you really decipher exactly what he was saying? i couldn't....
 
Yurt said:
so...you have nothing of substance to support your belief he is an idiot....because nothing you said above points to him being an idiot and so far all you've hounded him on is his lack of a legal education
Click to expand...


Your question was unclear. I thought you were asking a question about why he was recruited to run, not why I think he's an idiot. I think he's an idiot because he couldn't name a SCOTUS opinion from the past 15 years that he disagrees with.
 
Yurt said:
i thought the gwb angle was a stretch...i mean really, could you really decipher exactly what he was saying? i couldn't....
Click to expand...


It isn't as though a candidate for president does not have a canned response to a question regarding the types of supreme court appointments he or she will make. GWB didn't come up with that Dred Scott shit out of thin air. It was a carefully crafted response and, in my view, the only way to make sense of it is through the dog whistle lens. Your mileage may vary.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Your question was unclear. I thought you were asking a question about why he was recruited to run, not why I think he's an idiot. I think he's an idiot because he couldn't name a SCOTUS opinion from the past 15 years that he disagrees with.
Click to expand...

my bad...your statement was two parts i just glazed over the latter....yes, i was referring to the idiot part

i'll ask my question with more clarity: do you think he is an idiot because of his lack of a legal education?
 
Yurt said:
my bad...your statement was two parts i just glazed over the latter....yes, i was referring to the idiot part

i'll ask my question with more clarity: do you think he is an idiot because of his lack of a legal education?
Click to expand...


Not at all. But even well-informed laypersons completely lacking in any legal education whatsoever can at least name a supreme court case or two with which they disagree with the outcome even if they do not necessarily understand the legal niceties involved. I mean, on this very board the Kelo decision was overwhelmingly rejected and we had robust discussions of the Citizens United decision, the Ledbetter decision, the Exxon Valdez decision. It doesn't require a legal education to agree or disagree with the outcomes in those cases.
 
NigelTufnel said:
It isn't as though a candidate for president does not have a canned response to a question regarding the types of supreme court appointments he or she will make. GWB didn't come up with that Dred Scott shit out of thin air. It was a carefully crafted response and, in my view, the only way to make sense of it is through the dog whistle lens. Your mileage may vary.
Click to expand...

i agree...canned responses are there, but i think many politicians try and put things into their own words and bush has to be on the top of the list....he tries very hard to make the speech or "canned" words if you will...his own...i saw an interview with him and laura a few years ago and one of the questions was about his "bushisms"....he just said thats how he talks and then he did the heee, heee, heeee laugh....i busted up

i am unconvinced his rambling response was any code...rather, his way of communicating....he keeps it simple as he says and he probably got lost on trying to say exactly what the speech writers told him to say.....

just my opinion
 
Yurt said:
i agree...canned responses are there, but i think many politicians try and put things into their own words and bush has to be on the top of the list....he tries very hard to make the speech or "canned" words if you will...his own...i saw an interview with him and laura a few years ago and one of the questions was about his "bushisms"....he just said thats how he talks and then he did the heee, heee, heeee laugh....i busted up

i am unconvinced his rambling response was any code...rather, his way of communicating....he keeps it simple as he says and he probably got lost on trying to say exactly what the speech writers told him to say.....

just my opinion
Click to expand...


Like I said, your mileage may vary, but I think a convincing case can be made that the Dred Scott reference was dog whistle politics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top