Arkansas GOPer: We'll take the country back from Obama and the minorities!

[Torie]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Did you click the popup box in the upper right hand corner which links a video to his previous remarks when he denounced, "minority political interests?"

Earlier, he said, "minority political interests." Later, he said, "minorities." They are both plural.  

Yes, the pop up box was always there. Clearly, the guy knew he was in trouble when his comments went viral, and that is the lipstick he put on the pig. The political minorities whose politics he does not like, just happen to be ethnic minorities.  He was not referring to some upper middle class gay white guy type like Torie pushing his Godless agenda on the good folks of Arkansas.  He had persons of color on his mind. It's clear as a bell to me, no matter how much he tries to "Clintonize" his words.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Some people just cannot accept that non-white, non-Anglo, non-Christian, and non-straight people can be equal participants in American life.

That may very well be true of some unspecified people, but, that has absolutely nothing to do with the person in question. His objection was to political positions having support from fewer than the majority of the electorate having more influence than the positions held by the majority of the electorate. If all political viewpoints were allowed to participate "equally," as you suggest, presumably the majority would work its will in a democracy.

Indeed. Let's talk about majority rule. What do you think of Republican filibustering preventing the elected majority from governing (particularly a few years ago when Democrats also had the House?)

Is that right before, or after, amending the Constitution to allow amendments ratified by 26 states to take effect?

Amending the Constitution and passing statute law/confirming nominations don't strike you as qualitiatively different in any meaningful way?

Either the rules are strictly majoritarian, or they are not. You are raising a distinction that simply cannot make a difference.

Bob, almost all countries have Constitutions that are harder to change than their statutes.

Again, irrelevant to the point at hand. Again, the writers of the Constitution formed rules that allowed the majority to rule in some cases, but, required a supermajority in others.

Since the filibuster isn't in the Constitution, I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

If some group invariably went to the Courts every time they lost a political debate, and, the Courts invariably implemented their preferred policies by judicial fiat, then, yes, that minority would rule. Fundamentally, in such a situation elections wouldn't matter. We move in exactly that directly every time a judge rules on something that is properly the perview of legislatures.

Bob, are you implying that you oppose judicial review?

[BigSkyBob]

The chap said "the minorities," as in plural, not "a minority." So if he meant an ideological minority, rather than an ethnic/racial reference, running roughshod over the "silent majority" or something, it is odd that he used the plural form, as if it were a coalition of ideological "minorities." I don't think so. When you talk about "the minorities" down on the street, you ain't talkin' ideology baby, and this guy is all street - a veritable barker. And he's good at it to boot.

PS: I watched the relevant portions of the video ... yes, watching the whole thing would have been cruel and unusual punishment. I just cringe at this sort of thing.

Did you click the popup box in the upper right hand corner which links a video to his previous remarks when he denounced, "minority political interests?"

Earlier, he said, "minority political interests." Later, he said, "minorities." They are both plural.  

Yes, the pop up box was always there. Clearly, the guy knew he was in trouble when his comments went viral, and that is the lipstick he put on the pig.

Alternately, his statements on the capitol steps in 2011, presumably in front of reporters,  passed without notice precisely because all the witnesses heard the entirety of his remarks and found nothing objectionable. Two years later, while trolling for trash with the purpose of slurring the Tea Party movement as "racist," some enterprising reporter exploits the fact that the rally video was downloaded by the Arkansas Tea Party in five minute segments to take his statement out of context while seeming linking the whole video. Realizing that their video was being manipulated, the Arkansas Tea Party inserted a link to the rest of his speech. Both hypothesis aren't contradicted by any fact yet on record.

I would think a lawyer would be the last person to object to someone under attack offering exculpatory evidence. Surely, while your subjective opinion may very well be that his evidence is insufficient ["lipstick on the pig"], you don't believe that something untowards happened? What does the link point to other than the truth?
 
Whether he "knew he was in trouble," or realized that he was being quoted out of context is a matter of the correctness of your speculation. You should at least acknowledge that is a speculation on your part.

[All Along The Watchtower]

The Native Americans and Mexicans called. They want their country back.

[BigSkyBob]

Bob, are you implying that you oppose judicial review?

You are completely missing the point.

If a judge issues a decision that voters don't like, the electorate has several forms of potential redress. If a judge issues a ruling in the absence of defined law, the legislature can pass a law that in effect overrules the decision. If the decision is rooted in the Constitution, the Congress, with the assent of 3/4th of the states amend it in effect overruling the decision. In some states, judges can be recalled, or defeated in the next election. Politicians can offer to never appoint or vote to confirm judges who believe likewise ever again.

Candidate Rapert disagreed with a certain decision, and stated his reasons. He stood for office on that issue, and the voters of his district elected him. Had every candidate in every district that ran and won on that agenda they very well may have voted to amend the Arkansas Constitution to, in effect, overrule that decision.  That's democracy in action.

If you have a problem with the stands he took while running for office feel free to vote against, send his opponent money, or denounce him on this forum. That's our form of government in action. What is beyond the pale is taking a statement he made out of context to falsely accuse him of "racism."

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Bob, are you implying that you oppose judicial review?

You are completely missing the point.

If a judge issues a decision that voters don't like, the electorate has several forms of potential redress. If a judge issues a ruling in the absence of defined law, the legislature can pass a law that in effect overrules the decision. If the decision is rooted in the Constitution, the Congress, with the assent of 3/4th of the states amend it in effect overruling the decision. In some states, judges can be recalled, or defeated in the next election. Politicians can offer to never appoint or vote to confirm judges who believe likewise ever again.

Candidate Rapert disagreed with a certain decision, and stated his reasons. He stood for office on that issue, and the voters of his district elected him. Had every candidate in every district that ran and won on that agenda they very well may have voted to amend the Arkansas Constitution to, in effect, overrule that decision.  That's democracy in action.

If you have a problem with the stands he took while running for office feel free to vote against, send his opponent money, or denounce him on this forum. That's our form of government in action. What is beyond the pale is taking a statement he made out of context to falsely accuse him of "racism."

I'm sorry, but I've entirely lost track of what your argument is.

[BigSkyBob]

Bob, are you implying that you oppose judicial review?

You are completely missing the point.

If a judge issues a decision that voters don't like, the electorate has several forms of potential redress. If a judge issues a ruling in the absence of defined law, the legislature can pass a law that in effect overrules the decision. If the decision is rooted in the Constitution, the Congress, with the assent of 3/4th of the states amend it in effect overruling the decision. In some states, judges can be recalled, or defeated in the next election. Politicians can offer to never appoint or vote to confirm judges who believe likewise ever again.

Candidate Rapert disagreed with a certain decision, and stated his reasons. He stood for office on that issue, and the voters of his district elected him. Had every candidate in every district that ran and won on that agenda they very well may have voted to amend the Arkansas Constitution to, in effect, overrule that decision.  That's democracy in action.

If you have a problem with the stands he took while running for office feel free to vote against, send his opponent money, or denounce him on this forum. That's our form of government in action. What is beyond the pale is taking a statement he made out of context to falsely accuse him of "racism."

I'm sorry, but I've entirely lost track of what your argument is.

In case you forgot, my argument is that there was nothing racial in his remarks, and that he has been subjected to a horrible injustice. You keep changing the subject.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Bob, are you implying that you oppose judicial review?

You are completely missing the point.

If a judge issues a decision that voters don't like, the electorate has several forms of potential redress. If a judge issues a ruling in the absence of defined law, the legislature can pass a law that in effect overrules the decision. If the decision is rooted in the Constitution, the Congress, with the assent of 3/4th of the states amend it in effect overruling the decision. In some states, judges can be recalled, or defeated in the next election. Politicians can offer to never appoint or vote to confirm judges who believe likewise ever again.

Candidate Rapert disagreed with a certain decision, and stated his reasons. He stood for office on that issue, and the voters of his district elected him. Had every candidate in every district that ran and won on that agenda they very well may have voted to amend the Arkansas Constitution to, in effect, overrule that decision.  That's democracy in action.

If you have a problem with the stands he took while running for office feel free to vote against, send his opponent money, or denounce him on this forum. That's our form of government in action. What is beyond the pale is taking a statement he made out of context to falsely accuse him of "racism."

I'm sorry, but I've entirely lost track of what your argument is.

In case you forgot, my argument is that there was nothing racial in his remarks, and that he has been subjected to a horrible injustice. You keep changing the subject.

Yes, I remember that that was your argument. You've since taken us all on some very odd byways. (Incidentally, if a well-heeled white guy being accused of racial animus on the internet is your idea of a 'horrible injustice', you've led a charmed life.)

[Oldiesfreak1854]

This guy is clearly a RINO.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This guy is clearly a RINO.

Absolutely.  A racist Southerner?  He's clearly a Democrat.

[DrScholl]

Improper use of an acronym. This person is who most conservatives considered a real Republican and want elected everywhere.

[Badger]

Oh Bob.....

By all means watch the video and see for yourself that I was right.

I did. Your obstinate belief that somehow his reference to minorities (and the crowd's loud cheer) had anything to do with views promulgated by less than 50% of the electorate as opposed to racial minorities....

Well, it makes one think you imprudently went home at dark unescorted and were curbstomped into insentience.

[bgwah]

He'll keep posting as long as you guys keep feeding him. Not hard to figure out.

[BigSkyBob]

Oh Bob.....

By all means watch the video and see for yourself that I was right.

I did. Your obstinate belief that somehow his reference to minorities (and the crowd's loud cheer) had anything to do with views promulgated by less than 50% of the electorate as opposed to racial minorities....

Well, it makes one think you imprudently went home at dark unescorted and were curbstomped into insentience.

Having watched this video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_473714&feature=iv&src_vid=rzIQuvMzQAY&v=eGZA578WTMM#t=4m30s

I don't see how his words reference anything more than a Court decision he both opposed, and thought undemocratic.

[Franzl]

Oh Bob.....

By all means watch the video and see for yourself that I was right.

I did. Your obstinate belief that somehow his reference to minorities (and the crowd's loud cheer) had anything to do with views promulgated by less than 50% of the electorate as opposed to racial minorities....

Well, it makes one think you imprudently went home at dark unescorted and were curbstomped into insentience.

Having watched this video,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_473714&feature=iv&src_vid=rzIQuvMzQAY&v=eGZA578WTMM#t=4m30s

I don't see how his words reference anything more than a Court decision he both opposed, and thought undemocratic.

Then you're not too bright. Guess there was already enough evidence for that, though.

[pbrower2a]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good for the blood pressure, folks. Better than pills, and with no side effects.

[Franzl]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good for the blood pressure, folks. Better than pills, and with no side effects.

I already had him on ignore, and was foolish enough to look at the post anyway.

[Darth Maul]

This guy is clearly a RINO.

Agreed.

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good for the blood pressure, folks. Better than pills, and with no side effects.

Yeah, I'm done entertaining this troll.

He's lucky I don't post his OkCupid profile here for everyone to see... lol.

[DC Al Fine]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good for the blood pressure, folks. Better than pills, and with no side effects.

Yeah, I'm done entertaining this troll.

He's lucky I don't post his OkCupid profile here for everyone to see... lol.

Lolwut?

[Bleach Blonde Bad Built Butch Bodies for Biden]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Good for the blood pressure, folks. Better than pills, and with no side effects.

Yeah, I'm done entertaining this troll.

He's lucky I don't post his OkCupid profile here for everyone to see... lol.

Lolwut?

Oh, nevermind.