Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Thursday, April 12, 2018

A federal judicial nominee on Wednesday refused to say whether she agrees with the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Supreme Court decision that ruled "separate but equal" schools are unconstitutional when grilled during her Senate confirmation hearing. "Do you believe that Brown v. Board of Education was correctly decided?" Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) asked Trump judicial nominee Wendy Vitter.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

No fair minded American would vote to confirm her. Sorry but openly racist people do not belong behind the bench.

#1 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-12 09:15 AM | Reply

Don't be sorry Danni.

It is them what should be sorry.

But, that would require a conscious.

#2 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-04-12 07:30 PM | Reply

Is she a known racist or something?

What prompted the specific questions, because the article didn't say.

#3 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-12 07:35 PM | Reply

Is she a known racist or something?
What prompted the specific questions, because the article didn't say.

#3 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

Standard question.

#4 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-12 07:47 PM | Reply

It's a human rights question. It would be asked in America.

#5 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-04-12 07:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Doesn't matter. She'll be confirmed anyway.

#6 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-12 08:59 PM | Reply

#6 is the most important comment in this thread. This is where we are right now. I can't believe it.

#7 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-04-12 09:29 PM | Reply

#7 it's where the right has always been.
You think JeffJ, Chairborne, and Boaz think segregation is wrong? LOL!

#8 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-12 10:15 PM | Reply

#8

Always race-bating!

#9 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 10:22 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

It's not race-baiting to discuss race in a thread about segregation.

#10 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-12 10:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

Listen JeffJ.
You oppose the laws that ended segregation.
You think laws that prohibit segregation trample an individual's and a businesses's right to freedom of association.
And you're not alone, either. You have nearly the entire right with you.

#11 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-12 10:35 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Listen JeffJ.
You oppose the laws that ended segregation.
You think laws that prohibit segregation trample an individual's and a businesses's right to freedom of association.
And you're not alone, either. You have nearly the entire right with you.

#11 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

[stamp]
Please explain. Your claim is ridiculous. Stop repeating what you hear and educate yourself. What exactly was that supposed to prove? When your point is based entirely on an assumption, you didn't have a point to begin with. In order to make your point, you had to make something up completely. See the problem? Anything else that you would like to make up? The rest of your post was just mindless. I think you have only shown that you assume too much.
Do you ever actually understand what you are commenting on or does stupidity just take hold? Does anyone really understand what this person is babbling about?
[/stamp]

#12 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 10:39 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

JeffJ you can't even discuss the topic, that's how far you've got your head up your ass.

#13 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-12 10:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Please explain. Your claim is ridiculous."

I already explained.
Laws that prohibit segregation trample individual freedom of association.
You are acting like a petulant child after you got called out, which is fine, because that's pretty much exactly what happened.

#14 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-12 10:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

JeffJ you can't even discuss the topic, that's how far you've got your head up your ass.

#13 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I am willing to discuss this with someone interested in a discussion.

You are not willing to do that. You are so racially obsessed and are such a colossal dick that a discussion with you, right now, is impossible. So, you get the Ashton Stamp because that is all you deserve. Learn some manners and maybe I'll engage you on this.

#15 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 10:45 PM | Reply

Standard question.
#4 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Did you read the article? It doesn't provide examples of Vitters expressed racism.

If she's a racist, then by all means, what is it that she said or did?

#16 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-12 10:46 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

Seriously - get a job.

Do something productive.

Become a Starbuck's barista.

You'd be really good at it and it's respectable work.

#17 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 10:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#17 the customer would be so bombarded with questions and follow up non sequiturs they'd never get an order placed 🙂

#18 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-12 10:56 PM | Reply | Funny: 2

"You are not willing to do that."

I'm discussing it right now.
Laws that prohibit segregation trample the right of freedom of association.
Don't pretend this is the first time you've heard it, especially when you've said it.

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-12 11:03 PM | Reply

#17 the customer would be so bombarded with questions and follow up non sequiturs they'd never get an order placed 🙂

#18 | POSTED BY JPW

Both newsworthy and funny....I'm gonna flag...so torn as to which one....

#20 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 11:15 PM | Reply

#18 | POSTED BY JPW

FF

#21 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-12 11:17 PM | Reply

I'm discussing it right now.

#19 | POSTED BY SNOOFY AT 2018-04-12 11:03 PM

Your opening salvo was to take a shot at me on a thread where, at that point, I hadn't even commented.

Like JPW has so wisely pointed out - you are the most fundamentally dishonest person on this site.

How do you do it? Is it exhausting? It must be.

#22 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 11:18 PM | Reply

Snoofy draws his energy through the strength-sapping powers of circular questioning.

#23 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-12 11:22 PM | Reply

Snoofy draws his energy through the strength-sapping powers of circular questioning.

#23 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM

...which serve as the building blocks for absurd false-equivalencies.

#24 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 11:23 PM | Reply

Oh that's gotta feel weird.
Sheeple backing your opinions on Snoofy.

That should make you immediately re-examine your premise.

#25 | Posted by YAV at 2018-04-12 11:26 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

-Oh that's gotta feel weird.
Sheeple backing your

I didn't get past that part without laughing.... fill in the blank!

#26 | Posted by Corky at 2018-04-12 11:29 PM | Reply

Yav,

I agree with Sheeple more often than I agree with Snoofy, or even you, for that matter.

That's not a knock on you, BTW. Not by a long shot.

#27 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 11:29 PM | Reply

Yav,

Keep in mind that I've been quoting JPW as it pertains to Snoofy - fundamentally dishonest.

I know that Sheeple has become somewhat persona non grata in these parts, but JPW certainly hasn't...at least as long as the topic isn't the 2nd Amendment.

#28 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 11:32 PM | Reply

Good night, Jeff.

#29 | Posted by YAV at 2018-04-12 11:37 PM | Reply

Take care, Yav.

Always a pleasure.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-12 11:39 PM | Reply

"Your opening salvo was to take a shot at me on a thread where, at that point, I hadn't even commented."

Accurately characterizing someone's beliefs is the best way to take a shot at them.

Quoting The National Review, on the 50th anniversary of King's death:

"Too many conservatives and libertarians, including the editors of this magazine, missed all of this at the time. They worried about the effects of the civil-rights movement on federalism and limited government. Those principles weren't wrong, exactly; they were tragically misapplied, given the moral and historical context. It is a mark of the success of King's movement that almost all Americans can now see its necessity."

More context here:
www.mediamatters.org

#31 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-13 12:32 AM | Reply

but JPW certainly hasn't...at least as long as the topic isn't the 2nd Amendment.

Something that never ceases to amuse me.

#32 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-13 12:33 AM | Reply

"Like JPW has so wisely pointed out - you are the most fundamentally dishonest person on this site. "

I'm pretty honest, actually.
It's mostly your anger speaking now.

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-13 12:35 AM | Reply

#33

I'm actually in a great mood.

#34 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-13 12:38 AM | Reply

^BBBWWWWAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

#35 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-13 12:39 AM | Reply

That was supposed to be #34.

#36 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-13 12:39 AM | Reply

Apparently Snoofy made JPW laugh.

#37 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-13 12:40 AM | Reply

"I'm actually in a great mood."

Is it because you tricked me into actually spending five minutes reading that racist rag The National Review?

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-13 12:41 AM | Reply

"I'm actually in a great mood."
----
Is it because you tricked me into actually spending five minutes reading that racist rag The National Review?

#38 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Nope. My mood has nothing to do with whether or not you read NRO.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-13 12:48 AM | Reply

Is she a known racist or something?
What prompted the specific questions, because the article didn't say.
#3 | POSTED BY SHEEPLESCHISM
Standard question.

#4 | POSTED BY SYCOPHANT

Maybe in this Administration it has become offensive to ask if you support segregation then, segregation now, and segregation forever.


#40 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-04-14 11:09 AM | Reply

It's funny to hear you talk of freedom of association, especially when there are schools having no whites parties.

#41 | Posted by boaz at 2018-04-14 02:53 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Boaz, are you saying you don't support their right to freedom of association? That would be funny.

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-14 05:42 PM | Reply

When whites say they only want to live near whites, it's called redlining.
When whites say they only want to socialize with whites, it's called a clan meeting.
When blacks or latino's do it, it's called a party.

See the problem? Of course you dont. And THAT's why racism will never be solved.

#43 | Posted by boaz at 2018-04-15 08:11 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"When whites say they only want to live near whites, it's called redlining."

No, that's not what redlining is. What you just described is "speech."
Redlining is a specific business practice which goes far beyond "speech."
Redline is "refuse (a loan or insurance) to someone because they live in an area deemed to be a poor financial risk."
It's an action.

"When whites say they only want to socialize with whites, it's called a clan meeting."

That's also speech.
Also, Klan meetings are legal, which is why you don't oppose them.
You don't make value judgments over legal activities, except when liberals do things.
When people you like do things, as long as it was legal, you say there's nothing wrong with it.

"When blacks or latino's do it, it's called a party."

When whites do it it's called the Grand Old Party.

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-15 03:47 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort