I get what they're trying to do but they're going about it the wrong way. The whole point is to encourage more trade in black owned businesses to promote success. But the whole "buy black" theme just screams discrimination on the basis of race. Not to be confused with racism which is simply hate. Yea it would be great to see more minority owned businesses. I'd patronize the black owned store 4 blocks down instead of the white owned one around the corner but I'm not gonna do an all out boycott or inconvenience myself 14 miles just to prove a point.

 

Yeah, this is similar to what I'm feelin', too.

 

Agreed.

But what bothers me is the double standard that applies here.

Just because they are promoting black owned businesses they can start such a movement without scrutiny or public outrage. For if the show was on the other foot... let's just say this conversation would be a whole helluva lot different

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/15/us...ayor.html?_r=2

Obama's nomination for the Supreme court (which was based primarily on race and gender) supports denying the white firefighters promotions because they did better than minorities or the competency exam. In fact, she was part of the legal opinion against them.

Not suprising since Obama also thinks that the next judge must be more empathetic (and less blind than lady justice.)

 

Oh god i heard that on the radio today, just what the world needs is empathetic justice........
Example: Person breaks into your home, you shoot the intruder, but don't kill him. You both go to court and both explain your sides. The man says he is only robbing the plaintiff's house because his family has fallen on hard times.
The judge feels "empathetic" towards the defendant and not only justifies his actions he makes the plaintiff PAY FOR THE GUYS MEDICAL BILLS!
Sounds like a great plan...

 

Read the oath that each supreme justice must swear by:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."

So Obama wants the judge to be empathetic and at the same time "administer justice without respect to persons" and "impartially...perform all duties."

Lets hear a liberal defend that BS.


Hears a good overview of her public record:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/...ume/index.html

where we can find a record of her opinions that went before the supreme course:

Cases Reviewed by the Supreme Court

• Ricci v. DeStefano 530 F.3d 87 (2008) -- decision pending as of 5/26/2009

• Riverkeeper, Inc. vs. EPA, 475 F.3d 83 (2007) -- reversed 6-3 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg)

• Knight vs. Commissioner, 467 F.3d 149 (2006) -- upheld, but reasoning was unanimously faulted

• Dabit vs. Merrill Lynch, 395 F.3d 25 (2005) -- reversed 8-0

• Empire Healthchoice Assurance, Inc. vs. McVeigh, 396 F.3d 136 (2005) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Breyer, Kennedy, Souter, Alito)

• Malesko v. Correctional Services Corp., 299 F.3d 374 (2000) -- reversed 5-4 (Dissenting: Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer)

• Tasini vs. New York Times, et al, 972 F. Supp. 804 (1997) -- reversed 7-2 (Dissenting: Stevens, Breyer)

...etc.

Read the article for full disclosure.