I “pull it from” your own words.

You insist, for example, that we accept your notion that our judicial system is inherently racist.

You insist that we accept your position that:
“And supporting a racist system because you oppose the expansion of federal power necessary to end it is, in fact, supporting discrimination.”

It nevers occurs to you (apparently) that one can oppose the expansion of federal power as a matter of Constitutional principle concerning federal-state relations WITHOUT “supporting a racist system”.

For example:

1. I want every person accused of murder or rape to have a competent lawyer. Does that mean I “support” murderers and rapists?
2. I want the prosecution to make available to defense counsel any exculpatory evidence. Does that mean I “support” murderers and rapists?
3. If a defendant is released because of prosecutorial misconduct such as not making exculpatory evidence available to defense counsel — and I agree with the court’s decision, does that mean I “support” murderers and rapists because I want the principles of justice as enumerated in our Constitution and laws —— to be obeyed —- EVEN WHEN it is inconvenient to do so and may even allow a person guilty of terrible crimes to go free?

re: #81 Obdicut

No, I don’t. This is the kind of thing I’m talking about. Where on earth do you pull that from?

You quoted them saying that they wouldn’t recommend anti-semitic texts unless they were of sufficient scholarly value; therefore, they were fine with recommending racist publications, as long as they were of ‘scholarly’ value.