Oh, Nebur. When will the brown-on-brown haterism end? It's time for you two to bury the hatchet and unite in your fight against male white corporate oppression... Oh wait, I forgot HP is too busy apologizing for Bush, Cheney and Rove, defending Creationism, eating Wonderbread and rocking out to John Tesh. Nevermind.
Is there any coincidence that your text is blue and HP's is red? I know who I'm cheering for. Oh yeah, I think HP seems to think that "he who writes more" will end up winning the arguement because his opponent will tire out. Stick it out!
Just passing through, I'm liking the blog by the way.
HP:
You are definitely an interesting character in the blogosphere neighborhood. I don't think that I have agreed with you ever but I do like to read your writing. I feel the passion but NOT the politics.
Msabcmom- Back off on complimenting HP. Get your brother's back!
Ms. Lu: I won't let you down.
HumanityCritic: Welcome to the 'hood.
Tatanka Iyotake: John Tesh. That's funny!
Ms. Lu: Oh... and thanks for noticing the red/blue. You always have to represent, ya know!
HP wrote:
"But that is something you cannot do, since Rehnquist was consistently pro-states rights, not just with segregation, but with all(or even just most) issues of his time."
I did a little investigative journalism on this point, to see if it was true. A little research to see if HP was blowing smoke.
Turns out your boy Rehnquist wasn't very down with states rights when it came to the issue of California medicinal marijuana. But it's not surprising that he sided with the big federal gov't, considering Bush's loyal Hispanic buddy Alberto Gonzalez' name is right there in the case.
Perhaps Alan Dershowitz was on the money when he wrote about Rehnquist:
"He sometimes moderated his views for prudential or pragmatic reasons, but his vote could almost always be predicted based on who the parties were, not what the legal issues happened to be. He generally opposed the rights of gays, women, blacks, aliens, and religious minorities. He was a friend of corporations, polluters, right wing Republicans, religious fundamentalists, homophobes, and other bigots."
Click on my homepage, read the opinion for yourself.
Nebur,
You will never win against a person who says things like, "by the way, I am strongly Pro-life...there are few things in my political make up that I believe in as strongly as my pro-life views." This little comment renders all reasonable (that is, atheistic, amoral, worldly)arguments moot. The Hispanical Pundit probably believes "The Da Vinci Code" is a personal attack on his faith and that the end of time is nigh.
He says, "So since he was consistently [pro?]states rights, one should judge him based on that principle, not on individual cases, and on that [?] principle I tend to agree with him, while disagreeing with him on the particular instance of segregation."
This reminds me of the excuses baterred wives make for their batterers; "But you don't know him like I do. You should see him with the kids. He's not always advocating states' rights to segregate", which, in turn reminds me of this; "The evil that men do outlives them, the good is oft interred with the bones."
How much more evidence does the citizenry need?
Don't bother trying to beat the Pun, you can't.
(p.s. Holla at your boy, Nebur!)
You can find the case here, at my homepage. The old link doesn't work anymore.
The case is called: GONZALES, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. RAICH et al.
Decided June 6, 2005
Still waiting for HP's response...
I must bear in mind that because one does not belong to a particular "group" does not mean that he/she cannot have an opinion on individual rights. With that said, I have to say I resent men being pro-life to point of pushing legislation. If you don't like abortion, don't have one, oh right physiology made that decision for you. The HUGE difference between blacks and unborn children (I resent the comparison) is that blacks are persons, independent conscious human beings. Unborn children dwell within someone elses INALIENABLE property, her body. Land is not property but a possession. A women does not possess her body but is her body.
When I was eighteen I had an abortion. I unwittingly subscribed to a life of secrecy and shame, watching my mother with picket signs in D.C. not knowing the "enemy" ate dinner with her every night. I do no believe I made the wrong decision, I don't regret it. I rejected the guilt the church was pushing on me, and I'll be sure every girl I every know of to have an abortion lives free of that guilt as well. With that said, women deserve access to safe and legal abortions, not old white men governing over our very own bodies. Do people just sit in their living rooms with their conservative think-alike friends and get all pissed off about what other people are doing? "DAMN THOSE GAYS, DAMN ABORTION" even though it's so far removed from their paradigms it will never affect them? I don't sit in my living room and think "damn conservatives" UNTIL they start pushing their beliefs into legislation that I am no longer able to have access to a safe and legal abortion. You can throw your stones at me, I've heard it all before. The worst thing about my abortion was not the ensuing emotional fall-out, but watching christians, conservatives, and rehnquist's legions picketing my decision. I'm going to become a Christian so I can go to heaven and kick Rehnquist in the cherries.
PS Nebur the site lags when trying to scroll through it, you may want to archive all but two recents posts. Sorry my last post was a soliloquoy.
Okay, HP is back. I didn't want to respond right away, because I thought it only fair to give Nebur a chance to respond to my last comment, since this discussion is now on Nebur's website, I thought that would be the respectable thing to do.
However, since my name keeps getting called out, I thought I'd jump in anyway (sorry Nebur), first, let's clear up some unfinished business regarding Rehnquist. For the record, I am NOT arguing that Rehnquist was not a racist. My only point was that based on what we know of him, we cannot be sure. In any discussion regarding politics, and politicians in general, both sides - liberals and conservatives - are going to come at the politician with different already held beliefs. For example, I know that probably every liberal reading this discussion between Nebur and myself a priori assumes that Rehnquist is a racist. Not just Rehnquist either, but probably also Bush, Cheney, Ashcroft, and several other conservatives. Just like several conservatives, myself included, a priori assumes that several liberals are racist. For example, I personally believe that Senate Minority leader Henry Reid, Democrat President elect John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean are racists (Oh wait, Howard Dean can't be racist because he has two black guys on his staff and tips big the Mexicans that cut his mansions grass). So when I hear Henry Reid assume that Black conservative Supreme court justice Clarence Thomas is dumb while white conservative Supreme court justice Antonin Scalia is a genius, I am further convinced of this already held presupposition of mine. Or, to give other examples, when I hear stories of Bill Clinton and family referring to blacks with the N-word or Hillary Clinton using Jewish slurs, I am again further convinced that my presuppositions, my already held biases, are true. You see, I believe, just as many liberals probably also believe about conservatives, that several of these liberals are racist; they just hide it because they know the stakes are high. They know their political future, their political occupation, and their political goals, depends on the support of these very minorities. In fact, I am quite known to publicly state that many liberals really don’t care about minorities per se; they care about their own utopian views and just speak the language to keep minorities supporting them in their goals.
Continued...
However, with that view in mind, it is a stretch to go from my already held presuppositions, with my somewhat limited proof, and conclude definitively that Reid, Bill Clinton or Hillary Clinton are really racists, there is still room for different interpretations. A liberal can respond that Hillary Clinton was just mad, she didn't mean what she said. Or say that the documentation on Bill Clinton is inconclusive or whatever, and that is all I am trying to say with Rehnquist. Sure he held to forms of state rights that may seem repulsive to us now, but at the time it was not necessarily a racist view. Sure he was against Brown vs. Board of education, but as a person who himself questions the results of Brown, I don't find his views on it that disturbing. In other words, based on what he has done, what he has shown, I don't think one can prove, anymore than my examples above prove regarding modern day liberals, that Rehnquist was racist.
With that said, do I personally think he was a racist back than? Of course I don't believe the guy was a 1940's version of Martin Luther King Jr, nobody is arguing that, in fact, if pressed, I would probably agree that the guy was a racist fuck, but here's the catch, I believe he was a racist fuck just as much as many of the liberals I mentioned above were racist fucks. In other words, I believe that he was just as racist as Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Harry Reid, John Kerry and Howard Dean were back than, no more, no less. But does that mean that he hasn't changed? No, just as you assume the liberals have changed, I assume this conservative has too.
But the real reason why I admire the guy, the real reason why I come to his defense, is not because I think he has changed, but because I believe that his judicial philosophy, his dissent in Roe vs. Wade, for example, his dissent in the recent Kelo case, his judicial support of vouchers, his overall refusal to support the extremist environmentalist agenda, his overall support for free-markets and a decentralization of power in the Supreme Court, are all good for us minorities and in general the most defenseless members of society. In other words, it is his overall, albeit with some real errors, judicial philosophy that I support. So just as many liberals here can hail President Clinton as a great asset to this country, despite his likely racist views in the past, so I can hail Rehnquist and his views, despite his likely racist views of the past.
Now with that said, let me address some of the other comments on this thread.
msabcmom,
Thanks my brother, I appreciate the kind words on the few occasions I get them. 
El Profe,
You write,
You will never win against a person who says things like,[snip]This little comment renders all reasonable (that is, atheistic, amoral, worldly)arguments moot".
For the record, while I consider myself Catholic, I am in no way religious. I don't go to Church, I don't pray, and overall I don't lead a religious life. I am not saying this as a badge I am proud of, only to say that I am in no way basing my pro-life views on religious principles. I would argue the pro-life position in the same way that pro-life atheists would frame their arguments.
With that said, I would respond to your comment, but that would really take this discussion on a tangent that has almost no connection to what the original discussion had to do with. I don't like it when that is done on my blog, and I have a feeling Nebur probably doesn't like it when it is done on his blog.
However, with that said, I would like to give you, and Nebur if he is willing to host it, an open invitation to start a discussion that deals with specifically the issue of abortion. Let's put your pro-choice views and my pro-life views up for review and allow the readers to see whose side makes the most logical sense. I guarantee that your statement, "This little comment renders all reasonable (that is, atheistic, amoral, worldly)arguments moot", will not reflect the conclusion of our discussion. I promise to not use biblical or theological principles to defend my views, and all you have to do is allow the readers of your blog (or Neburs blog) the opportunity to watch our exchange (specifically in an easy to read format like the one Nebur did for this one). You game?
Nimiwey,
No throwing stones here, just simply getting down to what view more closely represents reality, the pro-choice view or the pro-life view. The invitation I issued to El Profe above applies equally to you.
Holla at yah boy!!
Ok, now I feel dumb, I just re-read my post, and I noticed that msabcmom is 'ms abc mom', here I go insulting the only person that complimented me. Ms abc mom, te pido disculpa, I meant to say, "my sister".
Oh boy - now I am going to be the family traitor. Great...
Hey, HP, I appreciate your diplomacy. That was a compliment. We will never "settle" the abortion debate. I respect your views, as I hope you can respect mine. It's hard for me being bull-headed as I am, but have learned "agreeing to disagree" allows me to continue friendships that I value very much. I accept your invitation. I'm not sure "logic", unfortunately, factors in for most people in the abortion debate, we will see.
Hey, HP, I appreciate your diplomacy. That was a compliment. We will never "settle" the abortion debate. I respect your views, as I hope you can respect mine. It's hard for me being bull-headed as I am, but have learned "agreeing to disagree" allows me to continue friendships that I value very much. I accept your invitation. I'm not sure "logic", unfortunately, factors in for most people in the abortion debate, we will see.
Commenting by HaloScan
