Guess who's back? Back again. lamming's back...tell a friend. You have to see this amusing bit of stupidity from dlamming, the little brain pimple who got so obsessed with calling me an elitist a few weeks ago:
Last but not least, what weekend wouldn't be complete without another ridiculous post from Ed Brayton? This time he's taking on Cynthia McKinney, the representative who was grabbed while going into the House and hit a police officer. Apparently he's never heard of racism... or this thing called the U.S. Constitution, which specifies that members of Congress
be privileged from Arrest during their Attendance at the Session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same.
How amusing. Apparently, dlamming thinks that unless you immediately accept every single claim of racism even when there's not a shred of evidence for it, you've "never heard of racism." Tawana Brawley, please pick up the white courtesy phone. As for his quote from the Constitution, that's the dumbest argument I've heard all week - even after spending most of it responding to an uber-idiot like DaveScot. That you cannot arrest members of Congress while in session does not mean that you can't check their IDs, for crying out loud. There you go, dlamming, I've probably managed to increase your readership from 22 to 100 for the day. Of course, most of those will be people going there to laugh at you, but beggars can't be choosers.
- Log in to post comments
The constitutional issue is a non-starter. SCOUTS has already ruled that immunity doesn't apply to criminal issues, but was written for the purpose of civil arrests which existed at the time of the founding, but not so much today.
sgent-
You don't even have to go that far. The constitution says she can't be arrested; she wasn't arrested, she was just asked to identify herself. End of story. dlamming's argument is simply idiotic.
So, if dlamming is such an idiot on this issue, how come he makes sense on health insurance?
He might be educable. Don't give up on him yet.
edarrell wrote:
I was never interested in educating him in the first place, nor am I now. I couldn't possibly care any less if he's right about some other subject on which he's not making ridiculous arguments to attack me.
Wow, dlamming's an expert on everything...but you're the elitist! Whassup widdat?
Oh, please. There's a big middle ground between unquestionably accepting every claim of racism, and your position, which is dismissing a plausible claim of racism as "race pimp"ing.
That's exactly my point, there's a big difference between not accepting one particular claim of racism and having "never heard or racism". Some people use race martyrdom the way many fundamentalists use religious martyrdom, by overclaiming every perceived slight into persecution and turning into the boy who cried wolf. McKinney certainly appears to me to be one of them, with her fantasies about the government killing Tupac Shakur. That doesn't mean she's never encountered real racism in her life; I'm quite certain she has because I have no doubt that there are still lots of racists in our society. But that doesn't make every single claim of racism true and it becomes less credible when it's engaged in by someone with a track record of bizarre statements and without any evidence to back it up.