The new and improved Democrat racism
Posted: December 8, 2004
7:00 p.m. Eastern
2004 Universal Press Syndicate
Still furious about the election, liberals are lashing out at blacks. First it
was Condoleezza Rice. But calling a Ph.D. who advised a sitting president
during war "Aunt Jemima" apparently hasn't satiated the Democrats' rage. Even
the racist cartoons didn't help.
So this week, they've turned with a vengeance to Clarence Thomas. Only the
Democrats would try to distract from their racist attacks on one black
Republican by leveling racist attacks against a different black Republican. If
Democrats don't nip this in the bud, soon former Klanner and Democratic Sen.
Bob Byrd will be their spokesman.
In the past few weeks, there have been nasty insinuations all around about
Condoleezza Rice's competence for the job.
Democratic consultant Bob Beckel – who demonstrated his own competence
running Walter Mondale's campaign – said of Rice, "I don't think she's up to
the job."
Joseph Cirincione, with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace (so you
know they don't have an agenda or anything), said Rice "doesn't bring much
experience or knowledge of the world to this position." This was reassuring,
inasmuch as that was also liberals' assessment of the current president before
he took office and he, to put it mildly, has been doing rather well.
The Kansas City Star editorialized that Rice "has not demonstrated great
competence in the last four years," which is to say, Dr. Rice failed to be
sufficiently clairvoyant to predict the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
Columnist Bob Herbert sneered of Rice's nomination in the New York Times:
"Competence has never been highly regarded by the fantasists of the George W.
Bush administration." For example, these are the bumbling nitwits who conquered
Afghanistan, the "graveyard of empires," and toppled Baghdad in less time than
your average Jennifer Lopez marriage lasts. (Wait, I can't remember: Was it the
Bush administration that hired Jayson Blair?)
So far, Dr. Rice has demonstrated her abundant competence only in academia,
geopolitics, history, government, college administration, classical music and
athletics. I eagerly await the Bob Herbert column in which he lists the
subjects and pursuits he's mastered. If only Rice talked about her
accessorizing like Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, she might
impress the sort of fellow who writes for the New York Times.
Liberals at least give white Republicans credit for being evil. Rumsfeld is a
dangerous warmonger, Paul Wolfowitz is part of an international Jewish
conspiracy, ***** Cheney is "Dr. No." But Dr. Rice? She's a dummy.
In fact, after spending the last four years telling us that President Bush was
an empty suit, a vessel for neoconservative fantasies of perpetual war,
liberals have now found someone who is Bush's puppet: the black chick.
It's all so eerily familiar.
The late Mary McGrory, a white liberal, called Scalia "a brilliant and
compelling extremist" – as opposed to McGrory herself, a garden-variety
extremist of average intelligence. But Thomas she dismissed as "Scalia's
puppet," quoting another white liberal, Alvin J. Bronstein of the American
Civil Liberties Union, to make the point. This is the kind of rhetoric liberals
are reduced to when they just can't bring themselves to use the n-word.
Most recently – at least as we go to press – last Sunday Harry Reid, the
Democratic leader in the Senate, had this to say about Justice Clarence Thomas:
"I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that
his opinions are poorly written." You'd think Thomas' opinions were written in
ebonics.
In the same interview, Reid called Justice Antonin Scalia "one smart guy." He
said that although he disagreed with Scalia, his reasoning is "very hard to
dispute." Scalia is "one smart guy"; Thomas is the janitor. If Democrats are
all going to read from the same talking points, they might want to get someone
other than David Duke to write them.
On the Sean Hannity radio show, Democratic pundit Pat Halpin defended Sen.
Reid's laughable attack on Thomas by citing Bob Woodward's book "The Brethren,"
which – according to Halpin – vividly portrays Thomas as a nincompoop.
I return to my standing point that liberals don't read. Harry Reid clearly
hasn't read any of the decisions Justice Thomas has written, and Pat Halpin
clearly hasn't read "The Brethren."
"The Brethren" came out a decade before Thomas was even nominated to the
Supreme Court. The only black Supreme Court justice discussed in "The Brethren"
is Thurgood Marshall. That's one we haven't heard in a while: I just can't tell
you guys apart.
How many black justices have there been on the Supreme Court again? Oh yes:
two. It's one thing to confuse Potter Stewart with Lewis Powell. After all,
there have been a lot of white guys on the court. But there have been only two
black justices – and Democrats can't keep them straight. Two! That's like
getting your mother and father confused. I can name every black guy on a
current National Hockey League roster: Is it asking Democrats too much to
remember the names of the only two black Supreme Court justices?
In "America (The Book)," by Jon Stewart and the writers of Comedy Central's
"Daily Show," the section on the judiciary describes how to make a sock puppet
of Clarence Thomas and then says, "Ta-da! You're Antonin Scalia!" On grounds of
originality alone, Mr. Stewart, I want my money back.
But reviewing the book in the New York Times, Caryn James called the sock
puppet joke one of the book's "gems of pointed political humor." Funny how the
liberal punditocracy all parrot this same "sock puppet" line about Thomas year
after year, almost as if they were sock pu-- oh, never mind.
Curiously, of all the liberals launching racist attacks on black conservatives
I've quoted above, only two are themselves black: the two who write for the New
York Times. So I guess there are still a couple of blacks taking orders from
the Democrats. Isn't there an expression for that? I think it begins with
"Uncle" and ends with "Tom."
.
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
11 Dec 2004 09:41:51 AM |
|
|
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration in
this nation, and are almost totally responsible for the resistance against
the Democrat-led, liberal-led civil rights movement of the 1960s.
Condi is a dumb robotic stooge of Bush. Her tenure as Sec. of State will
undoubtedly be a foreign-policy disaster.
Rumsfeld is white as the pure-driven snow, and we liberals despise his
lying and manipulations, just as we despise Condi's.
Grow up, Tony, if you can.
Doc ;D
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041209062706.08274.00001751@mb-m05.aol.com...
The new and improved Democrat racism
Posted: December 8, 2004
7:00 p.m. Eastern
2004 Universal Press Syndicate
Still furious about the election, liberals are lashing out at blacks.
First it
was Condoleezza Rice. But calling a Ph.D. who advised a sitting
president
during war "Aunt Jemima" apparently hasn't satiated the Democrats' rage.
Even
the racist cartoons didn't help.
So this week, they've turned with a vengeance to Clarence Thomas. Only
the
Democrats would try to distract from their racist attacks on one black
Republican by leveling racist attacks against a different black
Republican. If
Democrats don't nip this in the bud, soon former Klanner and Democratic
Sen.
Bob Byrd will be their spokesman.
In the past few weeks, there have been nasty insinuations all around
about
Condoleezza Rice's competence for the job.
Democratic consultant Bob Beckel – who demonstrated his own competence
running Walter Mondale's campaign – said of Rice, "I don't think she's
up to
the job."
Joseph Cirincione, with the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
(so you
know they don't have an agenda or anything), said Rice "doesn't bring
much
experience or knowledge of the world to this position." This was
reassuring,
inasmuch as that was also liberals' assessment of the current president
before
he took office and he, to put it mildly, has been doing rather well.
The Kansas City Star editorialized that Rice "has not demonstrated great
competence in the last four years," which is to say, Dr. Rice failed to
be
sufficiently clairvoyant to predict the events of Sept. 11, 2001.
Columnist Bob Herbert sneered of Rice's nomination in the New York
Times:
"Competence has never been highly regarded by the fantasists of the
George W.
Bush administration." For example, these are the bumbling nitwits who
conquered
Afghanistan, the "graveyard of empires," and toppled Baghdad in less
time than
your average Jennifer Lopez marriage lasts. (Wait, I can't remember: Was
it the
Bush administration that hired Jayson Blair?)
So far, Dr. Rice has demonstrated her abundant competence only in
academia,
geopolitics, history, government, college administration, classical
music and
athletics. I eagerly await the Bob Herbert column in which he lists the
subjects and pursuits he's mastered. If only Rice talked about her
accessorizing like Clinton's Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, she
might
impress the sort of fellow who writes for the New York Times.
Liberals at least give white Republicans credit for being evil. Rumsfeld
is a
dangerous warmonger, Paul Wolfowitz is part of an international Jewish
conspiracy, ***** Cheney is "Dr. No." But Dr. Rice? She's a dummy.
In fact, after spending the last four years telling us that President
Bush was
an empty suit, a vessel for neoconservative fantasies of perpetual war,
liberals have now found someone who is Bush's puppet: the black chick.
It's all so eerily familiar.
The late Mary McGrory, a white liberal, called Scalia "a brilliant and
compelling extremist" – as opposed to McGrory herself, a garden-variety
extremist of average intelligence. But Thomas she dismissed as "Scalia's
puppet," quoting another white liberal, Alvin J. Bronstein of the
American
Civil Liberties Union, to make the point. This is the kind of rhetoric
liberals
are reduced to when they just can't bring themselves to use the n-word.
Most recently – at least as we go to press – last Sunday Harry Reid, the
Democratic leader in the Senate, had this to say about Justice Clarence
Thomas:
"I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think
that
his opinions are poorly written." You'd think Thomas' opinions were
written in
ebonics.
In the same interview, Reid called Justice Antonin Scalia "one smart
guy." He
said that although he disagreed with Scalia, his reasoning is "very hard
to
dispute." Scalia is "one smart guy"; Thomas is the janitor. If Democrats
are
all going to read from the same talking points, they might want to get
someone
other than David Duke to write them.
On the Sean Hannity radio show, Democratic pundit Pat Halpin defended
Sen.
Reid's laughable attack on Thomas by citing Bob Woodward's book "The
Brethren,"
which – according to Halpin – vividly portrays Thomas as a nincompoop.
I return to my standing point that liberals don't read. Harry Reid
clearly
hasn't read any of the decisions Justice Thomas has written, and Pat
Halpin
clearly hasn't read "The Brethren."
"The Brethren" came out a decade before Thomas was even nominated to the
Supreme Court. The only black Supreme Court justice discussed in "The
Brethren"
is Thurgood Marshall. That's one we haven't heard in a while: I just
can't tell
you guys apart.
How many black justices have there been on the Supreme Court again? Oh
yes:
two. It's one thing to confuse Potter Stewart with Lewis Powell. After
all,
there have been a lot of white guys on the court. But there have been
only two
black justices – and Democrats can't keep them straight. Two! That's
like
getting your mother and father confused. I can name every black guy on a
current National Hockey League roster: Is it asking Democrats too much
to
remember the names of the only two black Supreme Court justices?
In "America (The Book)," by Jon Stewart and the writers of Comedy
Central's
"Daily Show," the section on the judiciary describes how to make a sock
puppet
of Clarence Thomas and then says, "Ta-da! You're Antonin Scalia!" On
grounds of
originality alone, Mr. Stewart, I want my money back.
But reviewing the book in the New York Times, Caryn James called the
sock
puppet joke one of the book's "gems of pointed political humor." Funny
how the
liberal punditocracy all parrot this same "sock puppet" line about
Thomas year
after year, almost as if they were sock pu-- oh, never mind.
Curiously, of all the liberals launching racist attacks on black
conservatives
I've quoted above, only two are themselves black: the two who write for
the New
York Times. So I guess there are still a couple of blacks taking orders
from
the Democrats. Isn't there an expression for that? I think it begins
with
"Uncle" and ends with "Tom."
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
13 Dec 2004 07:53:34 AM |
|
|
"Doc"
wrote:
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration in
this nation, and are almost totally responsible for the resistance against
the Democrat-led, liberal-led civil rights >movement of the 1960s.
LOL!!!
Do you know how stupid and uninformed you are?
It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Dems like Al
Gore Sr. voted against it.
Just another in a long list of lies and deceptions from the Dems.
Now all of your Dems are ridiculing a black woman merely because she is
Conservative, just as you did to Clarence Thomas.
When a black person doesn't adhere to your Liberal doctrine, you all
automatically start attacking them, you don't even realize how transparent you
are.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
13 Dec 2004 10:37:52 PM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041213085334.22097.00002223@mb-m06.aol.com...
"Doc"
wrote:
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration in
this nation, and are almost totally responsible for the resistance
against
the Democrat-led, liberal-led civil rights >movement of the 1960s.
LOL!!!
Do you know how stupid and uninformed you are?
It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Dems
like Al
Gore Sr. voted against it.
Just another in a long list of lies and deceptions from the Dems.
Now all of your Dems are ridiculing a black woman merely because she is
Conservative, just as you did to Clarence Thomas.
When a black person doesn't adhere to your Liberal doctrine, you all
automatically start attacking them, you don't even realize how
transparent you
are.
Tony
ROFL !!!
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
14 Dec 2004 07:47:39 PM |
|
|
"Doc" <> Spat the Words
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041213085334.22097.00002223@mb-m06.aol.com...
"Doc"
wrote:
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration in
this nation, and are almost totally responsible for the resistance
against
the Democrat-led, liberal-led civil rights >movement of the 1960s.
LOL!!!
Do you know how stupid and uninformed you are?
It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Dems
like Al
Gore Sr. voted against it.
Just another in a long list of lies and deceptions from the Dems.
Now all of your Dems are ridiculing a black woman merely because she is
Conservative, just as you did to Clarence Thomas.
When a black person doesn't adhere to your Liberal doctrine, you all
automatically start attacking them, you don't even realize how
transparent you
are.
Tony
ROFL !!!
Perhaps someone should remind tony of Strom Thumund and his
little brother Trent Lott, the quintessential republican
racists.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
14 Dec 2004 07:59:08 PM |
|
|
....you stupid fucki' moron. ;)
Would that be whity - Robert Byrd the former head of the KKK and of
the Democract Party in Congress for the longest of time? ; )
....ya knows those 'Dimms' like to see (themselves) their high-racists
in the supreme positions of power ; )
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
14 Dec 2004 08:27:54 PM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> Spat the Words
...you stupid fucki' moron. ;)
Would that be whity - Robert Byrd the former head of the KKK and of
the Democract Party in Congress for the longest of time? ; )
I was just looking at the Robert Byrd website... it talks about
Leadership.... Character.... Committment....
...ya knows those 'Dimms' like to see (themselves) their high-racists
in the supreme positions of power ; )
.
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
15 Dec 2004 10:08:24 AM |
|
|
"R. Foreman" >eidpers@anti-spam.comcast.net
wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> Spat the Words
...you stupid fucki' moron. ;)
Would that be whity - Robert Byrd the former head of the KKK and of
the Democract Party in Congress for the longest of time? ; )
I was just looking at the Robert Byrd >website... it talks about
Leadership.... >Character.... Committment....
LOL!!!
He's a KKK leader, just as Dem Fritz hollings is.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
14 Dec 2004 08:37:38 PM |
|
|
Ya Racist Dimmers sure know how to spin, eh? lol ;)
Yep, and Hitler's letter head probably had the same ***** too
.....Leadership.... Character.... Committment. [ SIC] ...
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahayhahaha
.
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
15 Dec 2004 09:29:41 PM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> Spat the Words
Ya Racist Dimmers sure know how to spin, eh? lol ;)
That's what the website said. And of course I know you believe
everything you read.
Yep, and Hitler's letter head probably had the same ***** too
....Leadership.... Character.... Committment. [ SIC] ...
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahayhahaha
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
14 Dec 2004 08:07:27 PM |
|
|
....you stupid fucki' moron. ;)
Would that be whity - Robert Byrd the former head of the KKK and of
the Democract Party in Congress for the longest of time? ; )
....ya knows those 'Dimms' like to see (themselves) their high-racists
in the supreme positions of power ; )
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "R. Foreman" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
13 Dec 2004 09:42:36 PM |
|
|
(TonyZ2001) Spat the Words
"Doc"
wrote:
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration in
this nation, and are almost totally responsible for the resistance
against the Democrat-led, liberal-led civil rights >movement of the
1960s.
LOL!!!
Do you know how stupid and uninformed you are?
It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
A democratic president signed it into law... LBJ. What's your
point? You're saying republicans did something noble? After 10
years of fighting, the blacks finally get enactment... if anything
the republicans should be criticized for stalling so long.
Dems
like Al Gore Sr. voted against it.
Just another in a long list of lies and deceptions from the Dems.
Now all of your Dems are ridiculing a black woman merely because she is
Conservative, just as you did to Clarence Thomas.
When a black person doesn't adhere to your Liberal doctrine, you all
automatically start attacking them, you don't even realize how
transparent you are.
Tony
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
15 Dec 2004 10:10:17 PM |
|
|
R. Foreman wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) Spat the Words
"Doc"
wrote:
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from
the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration
in
this nation, and are almost totally responsible for the resistance
against the Democrat-led, liberal-led civil rights >movement of the
1960s.
LOL!!!
Do you know how stupid and uninformed you are?
It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
A democratic president signed it into law... LBJ. What's your
point? You're saying republicans did something noble? After 10
years of fighting, the blacks finally get enactment... if anything
the republicans should be criticized for stalling so long.
You and Doc need to read some history. LBJ worked closely with Senator
Everett Dirksen, the Republican Minority Leader, to pass the 1964 Civil
Rights Bill. It was the Democratic majority that was resisting passage
of the bill, not the Republicans, and LBJ knew the bill would never
pass unless he had a lot of Republican help. At one point, LBJ
reportedly told Dirksen that school children in the future would
remember two Republicans forever -- Lincoln and Dirksen. Lincoln freed
the slaves, and Dirksen got the Civil Rights Bill passed. Guess LBJ was
wrong about Dirksen, since you and many others falsely believe he was
stalling the bill instead of working hard to get it passed. Look how
quickly the world has forgotten the work of a good man like Senator
Dirksen. Oh well, whoever said the world was fair? People like Doc
probably believe Lincoln was a Democrat and George Wallace was a
Republican. Oh -- by the way -- when Strom Thurmand ran for his party's
presidential nomination, he was a Democrat.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
15 Dec 2004 11:27:18 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103170217.908135.85870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
R. Foreman wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) Spat the Words
"Doc"
wrote:
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from
the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration
in
this nation, and are almost totally responsible for the resistance
against the Democrat-led, liberal-led civil rights >movement of the
1960s.
LOL!!!
Do you know how stupid and uninformed you are?
It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
A democratic president signed it into law... LBJ. What's your
point? You're saying republicans did something noble? After 10
years of fighting, the blacks finally get enactment... if anything
the republicans should be criticized for stalling so long.
You and Doc need to read some history. LBJ worked closely with Senator
Everett Dirksen, the Republican Minority Leader, to pass the 1964 Civil
Rights Bill. It was the Democratic majority that was resisting passage
of the bill, not the Republicans, and LBJ knew the bill would never
pass unless he had a lot of Republican help. At one point, LBJ
reportedly told Dirksen that school children in the future would
remember two Republicans forever -- Lincoln and Dirksen. Lincoln freed
the slaves, and Dirksen got the Civil Rights Bill passed. Guess LBJ was
wrong about Dirksen, since you and many others falsely believe he was
stalling the bill instead of working hard to get it passed. Look how
quickly the world has forgotten the work of a good man like Senator
Dirksen. Oh well, whoever said the world was fair? People like Doc
probably believe Lincoln was a Democrat and George Wallace was a
Republican. Oh -- by the way -- when Strom Thurmand ran for his party's
presidential nomination, he was a Democrat.
Maybe you should contemplate why every civil rights leader, and the great
majority of minorities, consistently voted for the Democratic Party,
historically, and up to the present time.
And it wasn't a liberal or a conservative leadership of elitists that
began the civil rights movement. It was the poor-class to mid-class black
people, which were joined by other minorities, in putting pressure on RICH
ELITISTS of BOTH PARTIES to bolster the US Constitution with refined civil
rights laws -- something that shouldn't have had to be done, of course, if
it had not been for the great majority of the public prejudiced against
them for many decades. Ever hear of Hearst? Read about how this well-known
rightist news syndicate ***** helped spread racist hysteria for decades.
As one example of so many right-wingers who influenced public opinion with
their biased lies, distortions and rumors against minorities, Hearst
helped prolong the social misery of non-whites.
I was in those marches with blacks and native americans in the late 60s,
fella, and for you to sit there on your ***** and tell us liberals a fairy
tale about how conservatives are the greater champions of
non-discrimination, is to not only lie about history, but insult us as
well. I know very well who were in those movements then, and your side was
in very small numbers.
Yep, if you want nice unbiased folks who love minorities, just keep
supporting the right-wing side. Who are you foolin'? And, yeah, I know
about what you said. Anyone can access some history and use it to support
their argument. But, try to remember, all is not recorded as accurately,
or completely, as it was being lived and experienced by those concerned at
the time it was happening. Sure, Dirksen was one of the FEW Republicans,
and more liberal in many ways than the great majority of his counterparts,
that pushed the original 1957 Civil Rights proposal. If blacks had not
taken the extreme measures they did, protesting in the streets, and
risking their very lives, rich elitists, i.e., politicians wouldn't have
taken much action. And that is a great statement on how racism is a HUMAN
NATURE problem -- which then becomes a partisan issue of politics, which
it shouldn't be, but is (and has been).
George Wallace ran on an independent ticket in 1968, and I never thought
Lincoln was a Democrat. If you want to put words and thoughts in my mouth
to strengthen your argument, then, by all means, continue to embarass
yourself. Let me click over to Google for some brief glossed-over facts,
like you do, and use it for ammo. click, click, click....aaaahhh, there it
is, that oughta' dazzle 'em with my knowledge and intellect. LOL ...
I criticize ANYONE whose policies I don't agree with, and that includes
white, black, brown, yellow and anything in between. Simply placing
minorities in positions because they are minorities, and not because
they're more obviously qualified than other candidates, is a reverse form
of racism. A showboat version that proclaims, "Look, how unbiased I am, as
a leader!"
Take a bow, Bushmeat!
Doc ;D
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
16 Dec 2004 10:58:44 PM |
|
|
"Doc" <> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103170217.908135.85870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
R. Foreman wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) Spat the Words
"Doc"
wrote:
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract
from
the historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial
integration in this nation, and are almost totally responsible
for the resistance against the Democrat-led, liberal-led
civil rights movement of the 1960s.
LOL!!!
Do you know how stupid and uninformed you are?
It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
A democratic president signed it into law... LBJ. What's your
point? You're saying republicans did something noble? After 10
years of fighting, the blacks finally get enactment... if
anything
the republicans should be criticized for stalling so long.
You and Doc need to read some history. LBJ worked closely with
Senator
Everett Dirksen, the Republican Minority Leader, to pass the 1964
Civil
Rights Bill. It was the Democratic majority that was resisting
passage
of the bill, not the Republicans, and LBJ knew the bill would never
pass unless he had a lot of Republican help. At one point, LBJ
reportedly told Dirksen that school children in the future would
remember two Republicans forever -- Lincoln and Dirksen. Lincoln
freed
the slaves, and Dirksen got the Civil Rights Bill passed. Guess LBJ
was
wrong about Dirksen, since you and many others falsely believe he
was
stalling the bill instead of working hard to get it passed. Look
how
quickly the world has forgotten the work of a good man like Senator
Dirksen. Oh well, whoever said the world was fair? People like Doc
probably believe Lincoln was a Democrat and George Wallace was a
Republican. Oh -- by the way -- when Strom Thurmand ran for his
party's
presidential nomination, he was a Democrat.
Maybe you should contemplate why every civil rights leader, and the
great
majority of minorities, consistently voted for the Democratic Party,
historically, and up to the present time.
Not true. Prior to World War II, most African Americans voted
Republican. It was Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, in 1912, who
saw fit to resegregate the White House and the entire Federal workforce
for the first time since before the Civil War. Republicans had a much
better civil rights record than the Democrats leading up to World War
II. FDR and Truman made sweeping changes that are responsible for your
belief that Democrats have ALWAYS been the party of civil rights.
And it wasn't a liberal or a conservative leadership of elitists that
began the civil rights movement. It was the poor-class to mid-class
black
people, which were joined by other minorities, in putting pressure on
RICH
ELITISTS of BOTH PARTIES to bolster the US Constitution with refined
civil
rights laws -- something that shouldn't have had to be done, of
course, if
it had not been for the great majority of the public prejudiced
against
them for many decades. Ever hear of Hearst? Read about how this
well-known
rightist news syndicate ***** helped spread racist hysteria for
decades.
As one example of so many right-wingers who influenced public opinion
with
their biased lies, distortions and rumors against minorities, Hearst
helped prolong the social misery of non-whites.
Actually, it was the Democratic Party of the post Civil War era that
instituted the great majority of segregationist policies --
particularly in the South, of course.
I was in those marches with blacks and native americans in the late
60s,
fella, and for you to sit there on your ***** and tell us liberals a
fairy
tale about how conservatives are the greater champions of
non-discrimination, is to not only lie about history, but insult us
as
well.
Your poor reading comprehension is unfortunate. I said nothing about
conservatives. I did say something about Republicans helping LBJ pass
the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the face of strong Democratic opposition.
I know very well who were in those movements then, and your side
was in very small numbers.
How do you know what "my side" was in 1964? I was a young kid then, but
I grew up in a very politically aware family, and I was very much in
favor of the passage of that bill.
Yep, if you want nice unbiased folks who love minorities, just keep
supporting the right-wing side. Who are you foolin'? And, yeah, I
know
about what you said. Anyone can access some history and use it to
support
their argument. But, try to remember, all is not recorded as
accurately,
or completely, as it was being lived and experienced by those
concerned at
the time it was happening. Sure, Dirksen was one of the FEW
Republicans,
and more liberal in many ways than the great majority of his
counterparts,
that pushed the original 1957 Civil Rights proposal.
Dirksen was the Republican LEADER in the Senate ... doesn't that tell
you something about the majority of Republicans of the time who elected
him their leader?
If blacks had not taken the extreme measures they did, protesting in
the streets, and risking their very lives, rich elitists, i.e.,
politicians wouldn't have taken much action. And that is a great
statement on how racism is a HUMAN NATURE problem -- which then
becomes a partisan issue of politics, which it shouldn't be, but
is (and has been).
Well, it seems to me you're making it political by refusing to
acknowledge the civil rights contributions made by Republicans.
President Eisenhower appointed several African Americans to elevated
positions within the government. He was also the first president to
post National Guard troops in the South to enforce the Federal
government's school integration policies. But do I think you'll give
the Republican Party ANY credit? Nah, you're too full of political
hatred for the Republican Party to see the truth.
George Wallace ran on an independent ticket in 1968, and I never
thought
Lincoln was a Democrat.
George Wallace was the Democratic Governor of Alabama who stood in the
doorway of the schoolhouse to block African American students from
entering. In that instance, it was President Kennedy who sent troops to
intervene -- but if it had been a Republican president at that time,
he'd have also sent troops just as Eisenhower did previously.
If you want to put words and thoughts in my mouth to strengthen
your argument, then, by all means, continue to embarass
yourself.
Oh ... so, were you embarrassed when you put words and thoughts in my
mouth? I think you remember my reaction to that ... and you hinted at
it again in this post (above). You're really a creep, you know that?
Let me click over to Google for some brief glossed-over facts, like
you do, and use it for ammo. click, click, click....aaaahhh, there it
is, that oughta' dazzle 'em with my knowledge and intellect. LOL ...
Oh, I see -- if I post a link to back up my argument, you'll say the
above -- but since I didn't post a link this time, you dispute the
truth of my off the cuff remarks about the Republican Party's role in
the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. If that's the case, I couldn't win with you
either way, could I? You have a level of intellectual dishonesty that
is unmatched on this newsgroup -- at least the others here on your par
limit their posts to a sentence or two, while you expound upon your
unlimited ignorance by the paragraph.
I criticize ANYONE whose policies I don't agree with, and that
includes
white, black, brown, yellow and anything in between. Simply placing
minorities in positions because they are minorities, and not because
they're more obviously qualified than other candidates, is a reverse
form
of racism. A showboat version that proclaims, "Look, how unbiased I
am, as
a leader!"
Take a bow, Bushmeat!
Thanks for putting your intellectual dishonesty on display one more
time. If President Bush had no minorities in his cabinet, you'd
criticize him unmercifully for his disregard of minorities. Instead, he
places minorities in the highest government positions minorities have
ever held, and you criticize him for that ... no, you call it a
"reverse form of racism" ... wow, that is one twisted thought process.
Do you actually function on some level in the real world?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
18 Dec 2004 03:04:01 PM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103259524.642755.242440@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
"Doc" < > wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
news:1103170217.908135.85870@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
R. Foreman wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) Spat the Words
"Doc"
wrote:
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract
from
the historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial
integration in this nation, and are almost totally responsible
for the resistance against the Democrat-led, liberal-led
civil rights movement of the 1960s.
LOL!!!
Do you know how stupid and uninformed you are?
It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
A democratic president signed it into law... LBJ. What's your
point? You're saying republicans did something noble? After 10
years of fighting, the blacks finally get enactment... if
anything
the republicans should be criticized for stalling so long.
You and Doc need to read some history. LBJ worked closely with
Senator
Everett Dirksen, the Republican Minority Leader, to pass the 1964
Civil
Rights Bill. It was the Democratic majority that was resisting
passage
of the bill, not the Republicans, and LBJ knew the bill would never
pass unless he had a lot of Republican help. At one point, LBJ
reportedly told Dirksen that school children in the future would
remember two Republicans forever -- Lincoln and Dirksen. Lincoln
freed
the slaves, and Dirksen got the Civil Rights Bill passed. Guess LBJ
was
wrong about Dirksen, since you and many others falsely believe he
was
stalling the bill instead of working hard to get it passed. Look
how
quickly the world has forgotten the work of a good man like Senator
Dirksen. Oh well, whoever said the world was fair? People like Doc
probably believe Lincoln was a Democrat and George Wallace was a
Republican. Oh -- by the way -- when Strom Thurmand ran for his
party's
presidential nomination, he was a Democrat.
Maybe you should contemplate why every civil rights leader, and the
great
majority of minorities, consistently voted for the Democratic Party,
historically, and up to the present time.
---Few blacks voted prior to the civil rights movements of the 50s and
60s. As more blacks came into the active electorate, blacks, by a
majority, supported Democratic candidates since the 60s. If you want to
continue to make historical exceptions the basis of your counter-argument,
you do yourself a disservice. ;D
Not true. Prior to World War II, most African Americans voted
Republican. It was Democratic President Woodrow Wilson, in 1912, who
saw fit to resegregate the White House and the entire Federal workforce
for the first time since before the Civil War. Republicans had a much
better civil rights record than the Democrats leading up to World War
II. FDR and Truman made sweeping changes that are responsible for your
belief that Democrats have ALWAYS been the party of civil rights.
----Whatever small changes were made by Republicans, they certainly
weren't noticed in the black communities of America. Most still faced
widespread discimination, socially, academically, economically, etc. FDR
and Truman made some changes (which I'd hardly characterize as
'sweeping'), but it wasn't until the Kennedy and Johnson administrations,
under growing public dissent in the streets, made the 'sweeping' changes.
I think you should remember we're dealing with politicians who had a
majority white constituency that resisted civil rights advancements (into
law). And this widespread racism was promoted by the news and
entertainment medias. They, in turn, tailored racially hysterical stories
and images for that same majority white audience. ;D
And it wasn't a liberal or a conservative leadership of elitists that
began the civil rights movement. It was the poor-class to mid-class
black
people, which were joined by other minorities, in putting pressure on
RICH
ELITISTS of BOTH PARTIES to bolster the US Constitution with refined
civil
rights laws -- something that shouldn't have had to be done, of
course, if
it had not been for the great majority of the public prejudiced
against
them for many decades. Ever hear of Hearst? Read about how this
well-known
rightist news syndicate ***** helped spread racist hysteria for
decades.
As one example of so many right-wingers who influenced public opinion
with
their biased lies, distortions and rumors against minorities, Hearst
helped prolong the social misery of non-whites.
Actually, it was the Democratic Party of the post Civil War era that
instituted the great majority of segregationist policies --
particularly in the South, of course.
---In response to what was politically convenient for them to get elected
or to stay in office, just as either political party has done (then and
since). As I said, this is a human nature problem. Politicians can't make
different colors and classes like each other for their differences, but
they do often exploit that age-old human racial bias to their advantage,
as do the purveyors of information (and entertainment). The CEOs of the
corporate world were (and still are) mostly conservative (in the Fortune
500), exerting their influence on the masses. The plantation owners of the
South were mostly conservative, too. Before "corporations," there were
trade companies, etc., but the changing terminology makes no difference
int his argument. It's the still rich elitists, the majority of them
conservative, voting Republican, that have greatly influenced political
and social attitudes against minorities of all colors, not just blacks. ;D
I was in those marches with blacks and native americans in the late
60s,
fella, and for you to sit there on your ***** and tell us liberals a
fairy
tale about how conservatives are the greater champions of
non-discrimination, is to not only lie about history, but insult us
as
well.
Your poor reading comprehension is unfortunate. I said nothing about
conservatives.
When Republicans are mentioned, it's conservatives. When conservatives are
mentioned, Republicans comprise a large part of that political ideology.
There are liberal, moderate, conservative and ultra-conservative elements
in both parties. Zell Miller, for example, labels himself a Democrat, but
we liberals think he'd feel more at home as an ultra-conservative
Republican. But, he's definitely conservative. I don't think the labels of
Democrat or Republican always accurately reflect any member of, or
candidate of either party, of course. But, for purposes of popular
historical generalization, I use the label conservatives and Republicans
interchangeably. ;D
I did say something about Republicans helping LBJ pass
the 1964 Civil Rights Bill in the face of strong Democratic opposition.
I know very well who were in those movements then, and your side
was in very small numbers.
How do you know what "my side" was in 1964? I was a young kid then, but
I grew up in a very politically aware family, and I was very much in
favor of the passage of that bill.
Yep, if you want nice unbiased folks who love minorities, just keep
supporting the right-wing side. Who are you foolin'? And, yeah, I
know
about what you said. Anyone can access some history and use it to
support
their argument. But, try to remember, all is not recorded as
accurately,
or completely, as it was being lived and experienced by those
concerned at
the time it was happening. Sure, Dirksen was one of the FEW
Republicans,
and more liberal in many ways than the great majority of his
counterparts,
that pushed the original 1957 Civil Rights proposal.
Dirksen was the Republican LEADER in the Senate ... doesn't that tell
you something about the majority of Republicans of the time who elected
him their leader?
No, not really. It doesn't accurately reflect the differences that
elements within either party debate on both floors. Compromises are made,
certainly, but more often are made to satisfy their constituencies, not
their own nobility, courage or particular ideological stance on an issue.
We can easily have bigots galore in the House and Senate, in either party,
and still have them pass non-discrimination legislation in order to
satisfy the prevailing attitude of the voters. If it had not been for
civil rights leaders (which all voted Democratic, BTW), or their
liberal-and-moderate followers and supporters, blacks and other minorities
would still be getting the shaft today from whites. Actually, they STILL
are in some arenas.;D
If blacks had not taken the extreme measures they did, protesting in
the streets, and risking their very lives, rich elitists, i.e.,
politicians wouldn't have taken much action. And that is a great
statement on how racism is a HUMAN NATURE problem -- which then
becomes a partisan issue of politics, which it shouldn't be, but
is (and has been).
Well, it seems to me you're making it political by refusing to
acknowledge the civil rights contributions made by Republicans.
President Eisenhower appointed several African Americans to elevated
positions within the government. He was also the first president to
post National Guard troops in the South to enforce the Federal
government's school integration policies. But do I think you'll give
the Republican Party ANY credit? Nah, you're too full of political
hatred for the Republican Party to see the truth.
I just gave Dirksen credit for being one of the minority of liberal
Republicans to push for civil rights legislation, as well as Lincoln. As I
said to you, making exceptions to form the basis of your counter-argument
is a bit too flimsy for me as a convincing argument that the majority of
Republicans, or conservatives, have been adamant in demanding more civil
rights for minorities, historically or in the present. You might want to
ask yourself why Bush has not yet appeared before the NAACP to give a
speech? Black Caucus, yes. Not NAACP, though. Why is he the first
President, either Democratic or Republican, that has this particular
problem? ;D
George Wallace ran on an independent ticket in 1968, and I never
thought
Lincoln was a Democrat.
George Wallace was the Democratic Governor of Alabama who stood in the
doorway of the schoolhouse to block African American students from
entering. In that instance, it was President Kennedy who sent troops to
intervene -- but if it had been a Republican president at that time,
he'd have also sent troops just as Eisenhower did previously.
Uh...Wallace under his own party, the American Independent Party. While he
began as a Democrat (remember, Zell's a Dem!), he abandoned the Dems to
appeal to a more radical element of the electorate -- mainly racists. It
doesn't matter who sent the troops. Under media and public pressure, what
else would any Prez do? Gotta' keep 'em happy out there, as well as the
practicality of protecting minorities from rednecks at the schools. ;D
If you want to put words and thoughts in my mouth to strengthen
your argument, then, by all means, continue to embarass
yourself.
Oh ... so, were you embarrassed when you put words and thoughts in my
mouth? I think you remember my reaction to that ... and you hinted at
it again in this post (above). You're really a creep, you know that?
Up to now, you've been arguing rather coherently and informatively, not to
mention in a civil manner. But, you undermine all that by becoming
antagonistic in referring to my legitimate complaint you've put thoughts
and words into my messages, buddy. Perhaps, you should take a lesson from
your own behavior here. If you want to continue to characterize posters as
stupid, thereby elevating yourself egotistically, then you should
rightfully expect to get it all thrown back in your face, where it
belongs. And that, fella, is what makes you a "creep," and that's mainly
why I told you months ago I didn't want anymore discussion with you. But,
you ignored that, or conveniently forgot it, and sought to engage me
again. The last time we bullshitted, you lost your temper and went into a
tirade. ;D
Let me click over to Google for some brief glossed-over facts, like
you do, and use it for ammo. click, click, click....aaaahhh, there it
is, that oughta' dazzle 'em with my knowledge and intellect. LOL ...
Well, in reference to your Wallace, maybe you should've once again clicked
over to Google for a reference. LOL...;D
Oh, I see -- if I post a link to back up my argument, you'll say the
above -- but since I didn't post a link this time, you dispute the
truth of my off the cuff remarks about the Republican Party's role in
the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. If that's the case, I couldn't win with you
either way, could I?
Aaaaah...here is the crux of your presence here. You want to win over
someone, anyone, on any subject. You might wonder how even a win would
improve your compulsion to endlessly argue in a long thread, or what
motivates you to continue to attempt to get an intellectual/emotional
hard-on by grinding away at one point after another...looking for any
"slip" to ridicule, any small space to exert your "intellectual, moral
righteousness" over another. Yes, you might wonder, but I don't, Stevie. I
know. Soooo....as I said months ago, I don't wish to continue this stupid
game with ya. Now, can you just let go of it for good, without slithering
back for another strike or two? I doubt it. Good bye (again). ;Doc
You have a level of intellectual dishonesty that
is unmatched on this newsgroup -- at least the others here on your par
limit their posts to a sentence or two, while you expound upon your
unlimited ignorance by the paragraph.
I criticize ANYONE whose policies I don't agree with, and that
includes
white, black, brown, yellow and anything in between. Simply placing
minorities in positions because they are minorities, and not because
they're more obviously qualified than other candidates, is a reverse
form
of racism. A showboat version that proclaims, "Look, how unbiased I
am, as
a leader!"
Take a bow, Bushmeat!
Thanks for putting your intellectual dishonesty on display one more
time. If President Bush had no minorities in his cabinet, you'd
criticize him unmercifully for his disregard of minorities. Instead, he
places minorities in the highest government positions minorities have
ever held, and you criticize him for that ... no, you call it a
"reverse form of racism" ... wow, that is one twisted thought process.
Where did I criticize Bushy for putting minorities in high positions? Show
me where I ever said, "I don't approve of minorities in high office, or I
don't like Bush for putting them in high offices." Once again, and I can
see you either don't understand or don't wish to, I will reiterate that my
criticism is directed at the individual's character, policy support,
public statements, past experience, et al, and that means it is NOT a
criticism of placing minorities in high positions. Rice is not qualified
for that position. So many other non-whites or whites would be more
suitable for the job, just as millions of rich elitists are more
qualified, of any color or sex, for the office Bushy holds. I guess, in
your myopic view, my criticism of Bushy makes me prejudiced against all
Texans....ROFL.... ;D
Do you actually function on some level in the real world?
I'd have to ask the same question about your functioning, creepo. Yor
unbridled faith-based allegiance to your lil' facistic leader is
commendable, I'm sure, amongst others of your ilk. It doesn't cut the
mustard with the liberal community, or more specifically, with me.
;D
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steven Douglas" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
19 Dec 2004 12:24:36 AM |
|
|
"Doc" <goblowmoreshit@baboons.com> wrote:
"Steven Douglas" <dsteven@flashmail.com> wrote in message
Oh ... so, were you embarrassed when you put words and thoughts in
my
mouth? I think you remember my reaction to that ... and you hinted
at
it again in this post (above). You're really a creep, you know
that?
Up to now, you've been arguing rather coherently and informatively,
not to
mention in a civil manner. But, you undermine all that by becoming
antagonistic in referring to my legitimate complaint you've put
thoughts
and words into my messages, buddy.
Just as I had a legitimate complaint when you falsely attributed racist
thoughts and words to me ...
Perhaps, you should take a lesson from your own behavior here. If you
want to continue to characterize posters as stupid, thereby elevating
yourself egotistically, then you should rightfully expect to get
it all thrown back in your face, where it belongs.
Looking through your most recent responses in this thread, you're the
person here who is characterizing other posters as "stupid" ... so that
must be your way of elevating yourself egotistically ... either that,
or you're just a thoughtless hypocrite.
And that, fella, is what makes you a "creep," and that's mainly why
I told you months ago I didn't want anymore discussion with you.
Oh, I thought it was because you wanted your posts to stand
unchallenged.
But, you ignored that, or conveniently forgot it, and sought to
engage me again.
I did not engage you directly -- I responded to R. Foreman after he
agreed with your distorted view of history. Every post I ever make on
this group is in response to someone else's point. I really wanted to
ignore your distorted viewpoint, but when another poster starts echoing
your distortions, I have a right to correct the record whether you like
it or not.
The last time we bullshitted, you lost your temper and went into
a tirade. ;D
That was when you falsely, and without basis, assumed I was a racist --
you creep.
Well, in reference to your Wallace, maybe you should've once again
clicked
over to Google for a reference. LOL...;D
No, Wallace was the Democratic Governor of Alabama when he stood in
that doorway. He didn't leave the Democratic Party until it was clear
they weren't going to nominate him for President. Then he ran on that
independent ticket.
Aaaaah...here is the crux of your presence here. You want to win over
someone, anyone, on any subject. You might wonder how even a win
would
improve your compulsion to endlessly argue in a long thread, or what
motivates you to continue to attempt to get an intellectual/emotional
hard-on by grinding away at one point after another...looking for any
"slip" to ridicule, any small space to exert your "intellectual,
moral
righteousness" over another. Yes, you might wonder, but I don't,
Stevie.
I might wonder ... what??? If I argue with you or anyone else, it's
because you've posted some distortion of reality ... and if I correct
that distortion, and you don't like having your distortion corrected,
tough. It's like you said above, if you're going to post here, you
better be ready to have your points challenged.
I know. Soooo....as I said months ago, I don't wish to continue this
stupic game with ya. Now, can you just let go of it for good, without
slithering back for another strike or two? I doubt it. Good bye
(again. ;Doc
Sure ... you stop posting distortions, and I'll stop bothering you.
Oh wait, you weren't done yet ...
Where did I criticize Bushy for putting minorities in high positions?
Show
me where I ever said, "I don't approve of minorities in high office,
or I
don't like Bush for putting them in high offices."
Oh, it's some "reverse form of racism" ... sheesh ... that's just ...
twisted ... that's the only word I can think of ... twisted logic ...
no, not logic ... complete lack of logic ... just twisted.
Yor unbridled faith-based allegiance to your lil' facistic leader is
commendable, I'm sure, amongst others of your ilk. It doesn't cut the
mustard with the liberal community, or more specifically, with me.
I don't really care about cutting the mustard with extreme leftists
like you and most of the other so-called "liberals" on this group. I
think it's pretty clear that Michael Moore and other extreme leftists
cost the Democrats this election. How in the hell DID the Democrats
lose this election? Think about it.
By the way, I really don't mention President Bush very often -- other
than in response to some distortion, as is the case this time.
Now, if you want to reply, don't be surprised if I respond in return.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
17 Dec 2004 09:16:11 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" >dsteven@flashmail.com
wrote:
Oh, I see -- if I post a link to back up my argument, you'll say the
above -- but since I didn't post a link this time, you dispute the
truth of my off the cuff remarks about the Republican Party's role in
the 1964 Civil Rights Bill. If that's the case, I couldn't win with you
either way, could I? You have a level of intellectual dishonesty that
is unmatched on this newsgroup -- at least the others here on your par
limit their posts to a sentence or two, while you expound upon your
unlimited ignorance by the paragraph.
Actually every Liberal in this group shows the same amount of "intellectual
dishonesty" as Doc, they twist things, lie, and then spin.
Thanks for putting your intellectual >dishonesty on display one more
time. If President Bush had no minorities in his cabinet, you'd
criticize him unmercifully for his disregard of minorities. Instead, he
places minorities in the highest government positions minorities have
ever held, and you criticize him for that ... >no, you call it a
"reverse form of racism" ... wow, that is >one twisted thought process.
That's exactly what the rest of the Liberals here and every where do all the
time.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "TonyZ2001" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
16 Dec 2004 07:45:09 AM |
|
|
"Steven Douglas" >dsteven@flashmail.com
wrote:
R. Foreman wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) Spat the Words
"Doc"
wrote:
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from
the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration
in
this nation, and are almost totally responsible for the resistance
against the Democrat-led, liberal-led civil rights >movement of the
1960s.
LOL!!!
Do you know how stupid and uninformed you are?
It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
A democratic president signed it into law... LBJ. What's your
point? You're saying republicans did something noble? After 10
years of fighting, the blacks finally get enactment... if anything
the republicans should be criticized for stalling so long.
You and Doc need to read some history. LBJ worked closely with Senator
Everett Dirksen, the Republican Minority Leader, to pass the 1964 Civil
Rights Bill. It was the Democratic majority that was resisting passage
of the bill, not the Republicans, and LBJ knew the bill would never
pass unless he had a lot of Republican help. At one point, LBJ
reportedly told Dirksen that school children in the future would
remember two Republicans forever -- Lincoln and Dirksen. Lincoln freed
the slaves, and Dirksen got the Civil Rights Bill passed. Guess LBJ was
wrong about Dirksen, since you and many others falsely believe he was
stalling the bill instead of working hard to get it passed. Look how
quickly the world has forgotten the work of a good man like Senator
Dirksen. Oh well, whoever said the world was fair? People like Doc
probably believe Lincoln was a Democrat and George Wallace was a
Republican. Oh -- by the way -- when Strom Thurmand ran for his party's
presidential nomination, he was a >Democrat.
Steve,
Most people are ignorant of history, some even say that we don't need to know
anything about it.
I have made the same point about the Republicans being responsible for the
passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, but all of the knowitalls in this group
just ignore the facts.
Tony
"Sometimes we don't need History at all."
Dani
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
18 Dec 2004 03:13:39 PM |
|
|
"TonyZ2001" <tonyz2001@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041216084509.06573.00001393@mb-m22.aol.com...
"Steven Douglas" >dsteven@flashmail.com
wrote:
R. Foreman wrote:
tonyz2001@aol.com (TonyZ2001) Spat the Words
"Doc"
wrote:
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from
the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration
in
this nation, and are almost totally responsible for the resistance
against the Democrat-led, liberal-led civil rights >movement of the
1960s.
LOL!!!
Do you know how stupid and uninformed you are?
It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964,
A democratic president signed it into law... LBJ. What's your
point? You're saying republicans did something noble? After 10
years of fighting, the blacks finally get enactment... if anything
the republicans should be criticized for stalling so long.
You and Doc need to read some history. LBJ worked closely with Senator
Everett Dirksen, the Republican Minority Leader, to pass the 1964 Civil
Rights Bill. It was the Democratic majority that was resisting passage
of the bill, not the Republicans, and LBJ knew the bill would never
pass unless he had a lot of Republican help. At one point, LBJ
reportedly told Dirksen that school children in the future would
remember two Republicans forever -- Lincoln and Dirksen. Lincoln freed
the slaves, and Dirksen got the Civil Rights Bill passed. Guess LBJ was
wrong about Dirksen, since you and many others falsely believe he was
stalling the bill instead of working hard to get it passed. Look how
quickly the world has forgotten the work of a good man like Senator
Dirksen. Oh well, whoever said the world was fair? People like Doc
probably believe Lincoln was a Democrat and George Wallace was a
Republican. Oh -- by the way -- when Strom Thurmand ran for his party's
presidential nomination, he was a >Democrat.
Steve,
Most people are ignorant of history, some even say that we don't need to
know
anything about it.
I have made the same point about the Republicans being responsible for
the
passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, but all of the knowitalls in this
group
just ignore the facts.
Tony
We liberals are unable to fathom why white-power supremacists like you
love to cloak yourself in anything to hide what you really think. However,
being stupid, you're transparent. Funny, I couldn't find hardly a person
on all those civil rights marches that identified themselves as
conservatives or Republicans, including the leaders themselves.
Since you are a known pathological liar and semi-closeted racist, it's
amazing how you try to re-invent yourself, wash away (in your small mind)
any "history" you have here (even yesterday) and then hypocritically bark
about how you're a purveyor of truth and honesty.
Ya know, there's just no end to the slippery nature of you, your
persistent obsessions with petty ego-centered high-school level
squabbling, pursuing women here, especially. You're a sexist, racist
stupid liar, Tony, and no amount of slanted WNutD is going to erase that
fact with those who've got any brains or memory here.
No matter how much you push your sick right-wing agenda, you'll always be
getting more than enough counter-push up your ***** from the liberal
community. If you haven't learned that one big truth by now, I guess
you're hopelessly adrift in a sea of ignorance and futility. ;Doc
"Sometimes we don't need History at all."
Dani
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Grantland" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
13 Dec 2004 07:58:13 AM |
|
|
Blatant lies now from these traitor feces. Utter slime.
Grantland
tonyz2001@traitor.filth (TonyZ2001) lied:
"Doc"
wrote:
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration in
this nation, and are almost totally responsible for the resistance against
the Democrat-led, liberal-led civil rights >movement of the 1960s.
LOL!!!
Do you know how stupid and uninformed you are?
It was the Republicans who passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Dems like Al
Gore Sr. voted against it.
Just another in a long list of lies and deceptions from the Dems.
Now all of your Dems are ridiculing a black woman merely because she is
Conservative, just as you did to Clarence Thomas.
When a black person doesn't adhere to your Liberal doctrine, you all
automatically start attacking them, you don't even realize how transparent you
are.
Tony
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
14 Dec 2004 07:52:39 PM |
|
|
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration in
this nation
most of the first for blacks in higher levels of society and
representation in politics began from the rightwing in American history
and overwhelmingly - this is a basic fact. Clinton had not one black in
the top cabinet positions and when the rightwing promoted a black to
the supreme bench last century they ( the lefty) made up stories of
hairs on coke cans. lol.. You are ridiculous ;) Not to mention stupid
as well ;)
Rumsfeld is white
When did you figure that out you stupid fucki' moron? ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
15 Dec 2004 10:41:53 PM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103075559.674260.286590@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration in
this nation
most of the first for blacks in higher levels of society and
representation in politics began from the rightwing in American history
and overwhelmingly - this is a basic fact. Clinton had not one black in
the top cabinet positions and when the rightwing promoted a black to
the supreme bench last century they ( the lefty) made up stories of
hairs on coke cans. lol.. You are ridiculous ;) Not to mention stupid
as well ;)
Rumsfeld is white
When did you figure that out you stupid fucki' moron? ;)
I got it from your website, you hairy *****. ;D
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
16 Dec 2004 02:44:42 PM |
|
|
Doc wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103075559.674260.286590@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from
the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial
integration in
this nation
most of the first for blacks in higher levels of society and
representation in politics began from the rightwing in American
history
and overwhelmingly - this is a basic fact. Clinton had not one
black in
the top cabinet positions and when the rightwing promoted a black
to
the supreme bench last century they ( the lefty) made up stories of
hairs on coke cans. lol.. You are ridiculous ;) Not to mention
stupid
as well ;)
Rumsfeld is white
When did you figure that out you stupid fucki' moron? ;)
I got it from your website, you hairy *****. ;D
More lies and libel eh, Cr. Crud? ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
18 Dec 2004 01:03:14 PM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103229882.420865.73990@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Doc wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103075559.674260.286590@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from
the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial
integration in
this nation
most of the first for blacks in higher levels of society and
representation in politics began from the rightwing in American
history
and overwhelmingly - this is a basic fact. Clinton had not one
black in
the top cabinet positions and when the rightwing promoted a black
to
the supreme bench last century they ( the lefty) made up stories of
hairs on coke cans. lol.. You are ridiculous ;) Not to mention
stupid
as well ;)
Rumsfeld is white
When did you figure that out you stupid fucki' moron? ;)
I got it from your website, you hairy *****. ;D
More lies and libel eh, Cr. Crud? ;)
Gleaned from your website? You bet, there's a virtual goldmine of lies
there! Glad you finally have admitted it, Norman. Now run along and go
play with your silly site some more -- after you get through doing mommy
in the basement again, of course. ;D
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Doc" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
15 Dec 2004 11:44:55 PM |
|
|
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103075559.674260.286590@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial integration in
this nation
most of the first for blacks in higher levels of society and
representation in politics began from the rightwing in American history
and overwhelmingly - this is a basic fact. Clinton had not one black in
the top cabinet positions and when the rightwing promoted a black to
the supreme bench last century they ( the lefty) made up stories of
hairs on coke cans. lol.. You are ridiculous ;) Not to mention stupid
as well ;)
Rumsfeld is white
When did you figure that out you stupid fucki' moron? ;)
Let's look at what I originally wrote, shall we, crap-tard? ;D --
Rumsfeld is white as the pure-driven snow, and we liberals despise his
lying and manipulations, just as we despise Condi's.
Did you miss something about how I was giving an example in replying to
Tony's implication that liberals are attacking her just because she's
black, and thereby refuting lil tony's mistaken idea that liberals are
racist in their criticism of her? Of course, silly, we're not being
racist. We just think she's an asslicking, lying stooge. ;D
It doesn't matter to me what color rich elitists are in office. I
criticize any of them, any color, who promote policies I know are stupid,
insane, unjust, etc. Your implication that, because they're minorities,
any criticism of their policies, statements, etc., must be racist, is
patently absurd, juvenile and really an ironic reflection on your racist
frame of mind, psycho boy. You're a non-discrimination showboat with a
broken wheel paddle. ;D
Mikey, you really need to spend a bit more mental energy comprehending the
context of remarks posters make here, ol' boy. Instead, like you
frequently do here and at your surreal website, you have a compulsion to
edit down an opponents' remarks in order to counter them. That can prove
embarassing to you, as it often has in the past, and as it has this time,
too. Tsk, tsk...naughty, naughty. ;D
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Johnathan McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism |
16 Dec 2004 03:05:12 PM |
|
|
Doc wrote:
"Michael Johnathan McDonald" <abookoflife@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1103075559.674260.286590@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Sprinkling his administration with non-whites doesn't detract from
the
historical fact that conservatives have resisted racial
integration in
this nation
most of the first for blacks in higher levels of society and
representation in politics began from the rightwing in American
history
and overwhelmingly - this is a basic fact. Clinton had not one
black in
the top cabinet positions and when the rightwing promoted a black
to
the supreme bench last century they ( the lefty) made up stories of
hairs on coke cans. lol.. You are ridiculous ;) Not to mention
stupid
as well ;)
Rumsfeld is white
When did you figure that out you stupid fucki' moron? ;)
Let's look at what I originally wrote, shall we, crap-tard? ;D --
Look asswipe, Its right here and I reply to exactly what you wrote - so
your little lies here contradicts your header and post, eh fuckshit? ;)
BTW baboons.com fits your personality well. Ya haven't graduated to
the homo-sapien - sapien yet, eh Monkey-tard ;)
From: "Doc" <goblowmores...@baboons.com>
Newsgroups: alt.prophecies.nostradamus
Subject: Re: The new and improved Democrat racism
Date: Sat, 11 Dec 2004 07:41:51 -0800
Organization: http://extra.newsguy.com
Lines: 183
Message-ID: <cpf4g101dlm@enews2.newsguy.com>
References: <20041209062706.08274.00001751@mb-m05.aol.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p-986.newsdawg.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Ou | | | | |
