PDA

View Full Version : Racist Democrats



SecaucusFats
01-21-2005, 05:54 PM
The Racist Dems
By Kevin McCullough
WorldNetDaily.com 01/21/05

In the all too brief new legislative session, I've seen more bad behavior from congressional Democrats than in the previous two months combined. But the incredibly antagonistic attitudes that they have exhibited this week bring up some important realizations.

The main one being liberal Senate Democrats are racists acting with the cover of the national media.

To prove my point, try the shoe on the other foot for a moment.

Pretend the nightmare of an Al Gore administration had come to pass. Pretend also that he had decided to name Donna Brazile as his secretary of state. Pretend with me that Brazile had gone up to be confirmed and Republican senators began to harass her for any of the millions of silly things she had said in her public career. And imagine if Batty Uncle Arlen had slipped off his meds and said something along the lines of Brazile not having integrity on international relationships because she once said something naughty about "white boys."

The headlines would scream it across the front pages of America the next morning: "GOP SENATOR PICKS ON AFRICAN AMERICAN NOMINEE!"

Now suppose that a couple of Republican senators decide to take matters into their own hands and even though the nominee had been voted out of committee and to the floor they wanted to spike the nomination for a while simply because "they hadn't read the transcripts."

Well I think you get the picture – and we both know what would happen.

The GOP would have a public-relations crisis on their hands the size of Batty Uncle Arlen's ego.

Yet the reverse is happening consistently with malcontents who feign an existence as liberal United States senators and nary a word is printed. How come?

Am I the only one in the room who sees a small issue of prejudice in allowing the former Grand Kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan to allow such an obstruction in the path of getting on with the people's business for 2005? And let's be clear here: Donna Brazile ain't no Condoleezza Rice. In fact, I doubt five or six Donna Braziles would be.

A senator who admits to having held a position where he hated people simply because of the color of their skin is bad enough. Allowing "Senator Mumbly" to go on network television and use the "N" word in recent years is even worse. But having him put the kibosh on the most qualified African American woman ever to be elevated to the position that she is seeking is horrible.

And it's not just Byrd.

Sen. Edward Kennedy – you know him as "Martini" – has decided to pull the same stunt against Alberto Gonzales, the first Latino to ever be named to the post of attorney general. Come to think of it "Senator Beer Gut" also had nasty, pointed things to say about Miguel Estrada.

So Sen. Kennedy stalls on Hispanics, and Byrd is still trying to hide the white sheets from view, but won't let a gifted African American take her place in history.

For all the discussion that the Democratic Party tries to put forward about diversity, they seem be quite intolerant of it.

What they actually desire are ideological clones that believe, walk, dress, sit, eat, drink (Kennedy) and in Byrd's case spit up exactly like them. For "minorities" who choose not to, well, then they must all be put under spell of the evil witch-dwarf Barbara Boxer.

All this and they throw in Howard Dean for the party chairmanship for free!

And with the emergence of the blogosphere, one thing is certain: Even if the mainstream media chooses to look the other way on all of the bad behavior – bloggers won't, nor Brit Hume, nor talk radio.

Eventually – like the sewer – all this stuff will back up on them. Racism is seen for what it is.

And where it's practiced most in America today seems to be among elite, white, liberal, Democratic senators.
**************************************************

SF

nhp
01-22-2005, 04:16 AM
I think you're going to find racist politicians on both sides. I don't consider myself very liberal, just slightly, but I am a democrat. The only reason why is because I would rather be a democrat than a republican. I feel that democrats are the lesser of two evils in a sense. However, I am not the silly naive democrat that thinks that racism only exists in conservatives. Of course, you have your Strom Thurmond, Trent Lott, and one or two more old windbags who snuggle up with the confederate flag when nobody is looking. And then of course you have a large majority of so-called patriotic republicans who curse every Arab and every Muslim, thinking that they are all terrorists. At the same time, those views are shared by alot of democrats too. The only difference is, most minorities in the United States are democrats, while most Republicans are white, so naturally the minorities are keeping their ears open for a white republican to utter some type of ethnic slur, and they have a tendency to ignore it when it comes from a democrat. Sad but true.

SecaucusFats
01-23-2005, 11:22 AM
More Racism from the Liberal Democrat Media:

Condoleeza Rice - "Thugging for Democracy"
LA Weekly- 01/20/05- Conal

http://www.laweekly.com/images/ink/05/09/09imagecontrol.jpg

Condoleezza Rice was handpicked in 1989 by Brent Scowcroft to serve on King George I’s National Security Council. In 2000 she accused President Bill Clinton of "an extraordinary neglect of the fiduciary responsibilities of the commander in chief." She couldn’t have meant the national debt, because there was none. Her boss has since made it trillions. So she must have been deriding Bubba for not expanding the "democratic zone of peace" (her phrase) — Clinton neglected to replace potentially hostile governments with pre-emptive force.

By 2001 Condi was King George II’s national-security adviser. She’s just been dubbed our new secretary of state, replacing Colin Powell. Condi thinks Colin was too soft. Now she’s out of the White House, soiling the rest of the world. Thuggin’ for democracy.

Gayle in MD
01-26-2005, 04:11 PM
Great Post, my feelings exactly. I am also not what one would consider a Die Hard Democrat. I feel much the same as you about politicians.

It seems to me, though, that I remember Democrats, not Republicans, marching alongside Martin Luther King. I do thin that all in all the Democrats have done more for the opressed in this country, and for the poor.

Gayle in md.

SecaucusFats
01-27-2005, 01:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Great Post, my feelings exactly. I am also not what one would consider a Die Hard Democrat. I feel much the same as you about politicians.

It seems to me, though, that I remember Democrats, not Republicans, marching alongside Martin Luther King. I do thin that all in all the Democrats have done more for the opressed in this country, and for the poor.

Gayle in md. <hr /></blockquote>

First of all let me begin by offering you much love. Now let me say that you are wrong about Republicans and Civil Rights, the following refers to the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

President Lyndon Johnson signed the bill into law on July 3, 1964. Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen pushed the act through congress. This act divided both political parties and changed both's demographics. Johnson realized that supporting this bill would mean losing the South's overwhelming Democratic Party majority (which did happen, with some exceptions). Despite a significant majority of Republicans supporting the act, the Presidential nominee Barry Goldwater voted against the act, saying that "you can't legislate morality." The Mississippi Democratic Party actually endorsed Goldwater as a result of his vote which in turn lead to the formation of the short lived Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party.
End.

Gayle, Democrats do not have a lock on "caring for the downtrodden." If you look carefully, you will see that Republicans have a far better civil rights record than do Democrats.

(Abraham Lincoln was a Republican. George Wallace and Lester Maddox were both Democrats.)

BTW African Americans are a key constituency to Democrats, as are Hispanics.

Do you think that having a socialist like Boxer and a racist "former" Grand Kleagle of The Ku Klux Klan a.k.a Byrd attempt to tear her down will make more African Americans vote Democrat?

That is three times now that Democrats have snubbed two key constituencies, Black and Hispanic.

Will it surprise the Dems when Afro Americans and Hispanics turn out en masse to vote Republican?

SF

Gayle in MD
01-27-2005, 05:30 AM
And much love right back to you.

What I think is that a persons race, nationality or sexual preference shouldn't ever be an issue regarding anything in their life, including their job.

Also, when there is a question about a persons truthfulness, and they are being considered for a position such as Secretary of State, their race should not be a free pass, or let them off the hook regarding their behavior.

We all knew that Rice would be confirmed, but I think the Dems had a right to take the opportunity to highlight the falsehoods which have been the hallmark of this administration, hers included.

You can always dig back into a person's past and find things they said and did when they were younger, and the world was different, just look at Dick Cheney, the only person to vote against supporting the effort to free Nelson Mandela, didn't stop him from becomming VP though.

I hear very little from this administration about the poverty in the world, and in this country. This is a concern to me. I feeling is that Bush doesn't care about the poor. That's just my own impression of him. People can't eat freedom and liberty, and although freedom and liberty can lead to better economics in a country, many are starving as we write, and can't wait for regime change. There was not one word in his speach about poverty. The problem is critical IMO.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in Md.

SecaucusFats
01-27-2005, 11:26 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> And much love right back to you.

What I think is that a persons race, nationality or sexual preference shouldn't ever be an issue regarding anything in their life, including their job.

Also, when there is a question about a persons truthfulness, and they are being considered for a position such as Secretary of State, their race should not be a free pass, or let them off the hook regarding their behavior.

<font color="blue">I agree with you.

But my point is that when liberals in the media stoop to racist stereotypes ( as we have seen in any number of political cartoons and in articles) they are not advancing the Democrat cause. Further, when African-American Democrats see a man like Byrd (whose KKK background is a matter of public record), and a member of the the Democratic Socialist (aka "Progressive" wing of the party)like Boxer, serving as the attack dogs against Rice they may begin to question their loyalty to the party.

If blacks and latinos perceive a newly revived racism within the liberal bloc they may very well decide to vote for the opposing party. If only 20% of the remaining staunch minority Democrats decide to cross party lines, the results would be disastrous for the Democrats.

Democrats are engaged in a bizarre form of self destructive behavior characterized by a need to continue to shoot themselves in the foot repeatedly vis a vis their relationship with their minority constituencies.

The truth is that the party believes, in spite of growing evidence to the contrary, that they have the African-American and Hispanic vote all sewn up, IOW they take their votes for granted.</font color>

We all knew that Rice would be confirmed, but I think the Dems had a right to take the opportunity to highlight the falsehoods which have been the hallmark of this administration, hers included.

<font color="blue">Fair enough, I don't question, nor am I unaware, of the political motives for why Democrats may want to vigorously pursue certain issues within the hearing process. But I question the wisdom of the means, and the choice of persons employed, particularly when it results in further disenfranchisement of minority voters. </font color>

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

SF

Gayle in MD
01-27-2005, 07:33 PM
I agree with you completely about racial slurs from the media. I am not as familiar with the political affiliations of talk radio, don't listen to it,... or of the news stations, other than the obvious ones, like Fox, which we all know is extreme right.

I watch c-span mostly, and some McNeil Lehrer, (sp), and some Cnn and Msnbc. It's really amazing the difference you notice when you watch mostly c-span, usually there is no narration, as you see events unfolding, and they are filtered only through your own interpretation, not some blabber mouthed Mitch-like, golden tongued newsperson, and his take on the subject.

You are right in your premise that, as you put it, the two chosen (Are they really chosen, or do they just decide for themmselves?) might not be what was best for the party, Boxer, and Byrd. I really didn't know anything about Boxer, other than I liked her spunk in staying with it, and not allowing Rice to use her usual evasive double talk, and wiggle completely out of addressing her untruths. I didn't find her rude, or out of line at all. She was persistent, as she should have been. She was being stonewalled.

As for Byrd, regardless of what he did many years ago, he was certainly eloquent and well spoken on the Senate floor. Or maybe he seemed so just to me, since he was saying word for word everything I have been yapping about for the last six months, LOL. I felt like opening a bottle of Champaigne! /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif

I'm really not a staunch supporter of either party, I take them as I find them from election to election. I was a Democrat in my early years, got sick of them, changed to republican during Reagens time, got sick of them, after all the wasted money on Clinton, became an Independent, and now thinking of going back to the Democrats, where I can more effectivly invest time to work against republicans, /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif lol.

What you are saying regarding democratic decisions and their racial consequences, and the potential impact on the Democrats, sounds as though it could work out that way. Who knows? One thing I have learned for sure, you can't predict what the American Public is going to do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

I think also that people misjudge one another when they get too hung up on labels. For example, many people think that being pro-choice, means that you are pro abortion. Nothing could be further from the truth. Believing in a woman's right to make that choice for herself, without being dictated to by a bunch of men, basically, does not really make a person pro abortion. Individual rights are the issue, without religeous, or political interference. Is that the definition of a liberal, /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gifI really couldn't say.

What I do think is that we as a nation will either learn the waste involved in being so divided, and learn to have more tolerance, or we'll kill each other off, /ccboard/images/graemlins/shocked.gifLOL.

My political philosphy is live and let live, period, and do whatever good you can do for others who are not as fortunate as you, and above all, try not to leave any mess in your wake. My German and Italian get really hot, really fast, when I glean that someone is trying to dictate to someone else. And you see, that is just what I see in Bush that irritates me so much. What does HE know about being POOR? Both Bush and his father struck me as being Old money with no sense of obligation to the country for their riches and good fortune. I don't like people when I think that power is what drives them, hence, I don't like many politicians! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gayle in Md.