Jun 16, 2025
Оfftopic Community
Оfftopic Community
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Featured content
New posts
New media
New media comments
New resources
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Resources
Latest reviews
Search resources
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Mobile
Carriers
Rogers
Why did Liberal groups oppose the Bush nomination of Janice Rogers Brown?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="grandmazaza" data-source="post: 2267354" data-attributes="member: 775433"><p>What better way to advance "Civil Rights" then to get African American Judges appointed in high positions? Why did the liberal groups do this? Would they have been so opposed if she hadn't been African American? Or were they so worried because she was an African American and said things like:</p><p></p><p>"Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.” </p><p></p><p>And......</p><p></p><p>"We no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens."</p><p></p><p>http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/07/JUDGE.TMP</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="grandmazaza, post: 2267354, member: 775433"] What better way to advance "Civil Rights" then to get African American Judges appointed in high positions? Why did the liberal groups do this? Would they have been so opposed if she hadn't been African American? Or were they so worried because she was an African American and said things like: "Some things are apparent. Where government moves in, community retreats, civil society disintegrates and our ability to control our own destiny atrophies. The result is: families under siege; war in the streets; unapologetic expropriation of property; the precipitous decline of the rule of law; the rapid rise of corruption; the loss of civility and the triumph of deceit. The result is a debased, debauched culture which finds moral depravity entertaining and virtue contemptible.” And...... "We no longer find slavery abhorrent. We embrace it. We demand more. Big government is not just the opiate of the masses. It is the opiate. The drug of choice for multinational corporations and single moms; for regulated industries and rugged Midwestern farmers and militant senior citizens." http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2003/11/07/JUDGE.TMP [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Name
Verification
Please enable JavaScript to continue.
Loading…
Post reply
Top