Just smile and pull the donkey lever
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33118
edit: Max, Kevin, and the rest of the whiny libs on here should study the first two paragraphs. It describes you perfectly. Just smile and pull the donkey lever -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Posted: June 17, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Mychal Massie -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- © 2003 WorldNetDaily.com I recall a white, social-liberal Democrat arguing with me about what it was to be black. That's right – a white, liberal college professor telling me what it was to be black. Growing weary of his pomposity, I explained that "I had been black for 50 years and inquired exactly how long he had been black." This is the arrogance of elite social liberals. They vilify white males, attempt to thwart Hispanic business progress (that they themselves champion when it benefits them) and convince blacks near en masse, that they will never get ahead without a handout – and that they will always be victims of some nebulous time past, that none today have lived and few can give accurate accounting of. I was on that plantation at one time. For some unfathomable reason, when I became of voting age, I automatically registered Democratic. It was as if in my mind the Republican Party was not for me, even though my upbringing was based on values and traditions most compatible with the Republican Party. The question that begs an answer is: What have the Democrats done for minorities, specifically blacks? Charles Barkley put it well, saying, "All liberals have done for the black man is give him an inferiority complex." It is a fact that "in the 26 major civil-rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil-rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes." ("Republicans and Civil Rights" – Diane Adler, Dec. 14, 2002) Democrats are adroit at race politics, but blacks should remember that it was the Republicans who helped a Democratic President pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It is also a fact that 70 percent of the Democrats in the house and senate opposed its passage. Republican President Richard Nixon was responsible for incorporating specific provisions to the Civil Rights Act that were designed to help blacks elevate themselves, not wait for the next handout. Democrats come armed with lies, virulent hyperbolicism, the likes of Jesse Jackson and an elapidal chorus of "white Republicans are anti-black racists and George Bush is keeping the black man down." But, here again, the facts do not support them. It was the Democratic Party that was openly anti-black. The Democratic Party was responsible for "white-only primaries" and it was the Democrats who supported Jim Crow legislation. Al Gore is the product (or byproduct) of a rabid segregationist. President John Kennedy was not only lukewarm on civil rights, he was reluctant to support them. He, too, was the offspring a rabid racist and segregationist. Jimmy Carter, when first in office, made a practice of pointing out how well his mamma, "Miss Lillian" treated the "Nigras" that worked for them. (Slaved for them was probably more accurate.) Then-Gov. Bill Clinton was one of three top Arkansas officials sued for intimidation of black voters under the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Larry Patterson, Gov. Clinton's bodyguard from 1986 to 1992, told of Clinton repeatedly referring to Little Rock black activist, Robert McIntosh as a "n----r." Dolly Kyle Browning, a Dallas attorney, told the hosts of "Hannity and Colmes" (Fox News Channel – Dec. 12, 2002) that she had personally heard Clinton reference McIntosh as that "g-damn n----r." The Democratic Party claims to be the party of diversity, but it is the Republican Party that has blacks and Hispanics appointed to the highest positions in the Bush administration. Thanks to the Republican Party, the state of Maryland has the first black lieutenant governor in its history. When President Bush steps from Air Force One, flanked by Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, it is a proud day for American meritocracy. The Democratic Party and elite social liberals believe in black votes, but not blacks in key leadership positions. Consider Maynard Jackson, passed over for the leadership position of the Democratic National Committee; Isaiah Legget, passed over by Kathleen Kennedy Townsend for her lieutenant-governor running mate. It was said of Allen Page, a Supreme Court Justice in Minnesota, that Walter Mondale was a more viable candidate because Page was black and Minnesota was a predominately white state. Democrats and the elite, social liberals are very adept at pitting one against another – it is one of their strengths: blacks against whites, rich against poor, labor against corporate and so forth. The other question that begs an answer is what will it take for blacks to realize they are being used? It took the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings for me. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mychal S. Massie is an op-ed columnist and talk-radio guest host. He also makes regular appearances on political and community-oriented programs in the Philadelphia, Pa. area, is a self-employed business owner of 30 years and a frequent inspirational speaker. |
They should be called 'Democratic-Republicans'.
|
Snore. I stopped reading this halfway through because nearly everyone here knows that it's the democrats who used to be the conservative ones. There is such a thing as change.
|
Quote:
Just smile and pull the donkey lever Quote:
Because clearly, unless you ARE black, REGARDLESS of how much you know, you simply can't speak on the matter. This is the kind of political debate that conservatives accuse liberals of all the time, so wah wah wah, blah blah blah. :boohoo Quote:
How about these generalizations? Republican conservatives will exploit race and religion to the best of their ability, because they clearly can't appeal to such people on substantive ideas. Thus, Bush sends his Ricky Martin impersonating nephrew around to say "Look! Senor Bush loves Latinos mucho!!!" Quote:
Quote:
This reminds me of the time Vince tried to argue how Ted Nugent is a freat environmentalist. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
And yay for Maryland. :rolleyes Quote:
Colin Powell, who has continuosly been second-guessed by OLD WHITE MEN like Don Rumsfeld, to the point that he has changed his stances prior to the administration. Maybe if he wants to stay along for 2004, he'll have to say "yes masa" instead of "yes Mr. President", eh? Quote:
What trash. You should pay me to read this crap, clambake. |
What got you so worked up, Kevin? The fact that you think you know what is so good and right for blacks is totally made to look ignorant by someone who is, *gasp*, black?
And I am sorry to hurt your image of Ted, but most hunters are the ultimate conservationists. If there are no animals, what can they hunt? I am sorry that killing Bambi bothers you, but if no one kills deer, they overflood the land with their large population. If you knew anything about nature, you would know that. And I should answer this in another thread, but frankly I do not want to. I asked max two questions over at newsfilter, he didn't answer any of them even though he "said he did". Now, just becuase someone says they did something, that doesn't mean it happened. I'm sure you are a big boy and can understand that. Now, I don't remember giving you time off from your lips around my dick head. So get back to it. And please quit with the thought process that allows you to believe that you are better than me. In any kind of physical meeting, I'd have you bent over a table and reamed until you fell in love and wanted to cuddle. Metaphorically speaking, of course. |
Quote:
Quote:
Also, your assertion about deer population is in fact a popular falacy, but this thread is about your ignorance and black people. Let's stay on topic, shall we? Quote:
Quote:
Boring. Stay at Newsfilter. |
I ran away, demoralized after he "destroyed" me? How did he "destroy" me, pray tell? And I was I demoralized? Please explain, because anyone with a brain cell can see that he talked a bunch of shit, I answered a question, then I asked him one and he ran back here and said it was over. Thats pretty much chronologically how it went. Now, I understand that thinking for yourself is hard, but try it sometime.
And for the guy being a condensending twit, why don't you e-mail him and tell him how you know so much about what is good for blacks? I'm sure he will get a kick out if it. If you saw that guy on the street, you would probably scream and give him your wallet and your woman so he wouldn't hurt you. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Have you left yet? |
Quote:
Quote:
Amo Houghton R 350 Herb Kohl D 300 Jay Rockerfeller D 300 Diane Feinstein D 50 Frank Lautenberg D 40 Teddy Kennedy D 35 Rob Bennett R 30 Rodney Frelinghuysen R 30 Norm Sisisky D 30 The above are the 10 wealthiest Congressmen. 7 are Democrats. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I must again say "Wow". Vince, it never ceases to amaze me how you can generalize so many people into one group. Just because someone is a Democrat, you make them out to be the most wrong person on the planet. Only Republicans are right, that is the only political truth. Democrats are scum, and Republicans rule.
Grow a backbone, Vince. It is a lot easier to paint all democrats with the same wide brush, rather than face the facts that sometimes we can make a good point. Not everything Democrats do is right, but not everything Republicans do is right, either. Can anyone say "Dubya"? |
Quote:
GOD. I LOVE race warfare... |
Quote:
Furthermore, what if this "white, liberal professor" was in fact a PhD in African studies?? What if he has studied Africa for many years? What if he had spent years there doing research and conducting studies?? We'll never know. But if he did, and he was quite knowledgable, would you still say that the "white, liberal professor" has no right to discuss what it "means to be black"? Quote:
Also, check out which Party is the most indebted to corporate donors, which Party tends to accept the most corporate campaign contributions, and you'd see it was the Republican Party (Center for Responsive Politics works, www.opensecrets.org). Quote:
General history overview: Democrats were the party of the south, Republicans of Lincoln tried to stop expansion of slave states, blah blah, Southerners swing towards the Dems, post-civil war, Dems. use segregation models set by North on blacks in the South, Jim Crow laws, etc.,....20th Century, Democrats remain segregationists in the South, blah, blah, blah, but the conservatism remains primarily reserved to the South, (for example, even in many states today, registered Democrats vote Republican. There are more registered Democrats in Florida, but that is misleading due to the northern Floridians who are still registered Democrats, despite their conservatism). This of course was a grand over-simplification, but it's almost 2:30 am, and I am exhausted. Lets put it this way, saying that modern Democrats are the same as late 19th Century Democrats is kind of like saying that Republicans are the real "pro-black" Party, b/c Lincoln freed the slaves (sort of, kind of, too late). Quote:
http://www.i-mockery.net/viewtopic.php?t=4275 Quote:
Ok, but because this ONE black guy says so, it must be the case.... Quote:
|
Quote:
|
I hate partisan politics. My first, last, and only contribution to this thread.
|
All politics is partisan. One thing I'll agree with Rush Limbaugh on, moderates are a mythical species.
|
Than I guess I don't truly exist? You also have made a lier out me. Bastard.
|
I'm pretty sure you exist in a tangible sense, if that makes you feel any better.
|
Heh. As such I will admit that if I were to be classified in party it would be Constitutionalist. But I look at every parties stance with equal worth. I take their positions, examine them, look at their points, then make my own determination based off what is good for the whole of America. Which would, if I'm correct make me more of a moderate.
|
Sure, but what vast amounts of Americans think is good for America could be 10 different things. I personally think for example that a universal, single-payer health care system would be best for America. You might disagree, and yet have an entirely different notion about what's best for American health.
I don't believe that there are these political "in-betweeners" who stand right on the line in the proverbial sand. You may be more conservative on some issuesa, and more "Liberal" on others, but that doesn't make you a moderate, it just makes you an individual. |
Quote:
|
Kevin, why would republicans get more money from corporations?
Hmm... perhaps because most corporations are ran by people who don't want to be taxed to death and want the economy to self-regulate. Republicans are traditionally conservative fiscially, so it goes without saying that they will get the most donations from corporations. *ding* Please play again, Kevin. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Kevin, while it doesn't encompass the majority of average people who call themselves liberals or democrats, it does a pretty good job of summing up the democratic leadership. My friend calls them the "biggest pimps in America"
Quote:
HAve you looked at Secretary Powell's service record? Did you know he is one of the most respected men on the planet? And is often times as we point out, one of the people who will speak up and tell the President when he may be making a mistake or to offer a different idea? Or do you just assume they are tokens? |
Quote:
Quote:
*ding* Please take a hike. Quote:
Quote:
[quote]The author is not trying to say, "this guy is an idiot because he is discussing it with me", but he's saying "this guy is an idiot because he's trying to tell me, a black man, how to be black." From the article: " I recall a white, social-liberal Democrat arguing with me about what it was to be black. That's right – a white, liberal college professor telling me what it was to be black." This can mean MANY more things than what you just stated above. I, a white Irish Catholic, am learning a great deal about Jewish culture, history and society (namely Israel). I have numerous Lefty friends who happen to be Jewish, very secular, and generally lack any kind of empathy for the state of Israel. Do these people hold the right to dismiss an argument made by a white Catholic in defense of Israel, merely because they happen to be Jewish??? Quote:
Quote:
1933, not 1993. There's a big difference, and as I said previously, the stat lacks an appreciation for Party history. Quote:
To be honest, I'm not even saying this argument can't be had. But I think I've seen it made in a much better fashion than how this fool conducted it. Quote:
Corporations have various methods they can use to donate to campaigns. One way is setting up a "separate" PAC which they support, or, a really clever one is donating lumps of their employees bonuses to a campaign. That way, when registered with the FEC, it looks like many, many individual donors contributed the cash. Also, I'm not completely certain that there was any legislation banning corporations from making a contribution to a campaign, but they can give it to the Party for certain, which then filters down to the candidate (ie. soft money). Quote:
Quote:
Blanco, in volunteering on several campaigns, both candidate based as well as issue based, I have learned that every decision that is made by an elected official is a calculated one. I'm not saying Colin Powell and Coni Rice aren't accomplished individuals, but what I AM saying is that their skin color played a big part in their appointments, especially with a Party that is trying to defeat "stereotypes" about them being an anti-black, anti-minority party. |
Quote:
Quote:
*ding* Please take a hike. Quote:
Quote:
[quote]The author is not trying to say, "this guy is an idiot because he is discussing it with me", but he's saying "this guy is an idiot because he's trying to tell me, a black man, how to be black." From the article: " I recall a white, social-liberal Democrat arguing with me about what it was to be black. That's right – a white, liberal college professor telling me what it was to be black." This can mean MANY more things than what you just stated above. I, a white Irish Catholic, am learning a great deal about Jewish culture, history and society (namely Israel). I have numerous Lefty friends who happen to be Jewish, very secular, and generally lack any kind of empathy for the state of Israel. Do these people hold the right to dismiss an argument made by a white Catholic in defense of Israel, merely because they happen to be Jewish??? Quote:
Quote:
1933, not 1993. There's a big difference, and as I said previously, the stat lacks an appreciation for Party history. Quote:
To be honest, I'm not even saying this argument can't be had. But I think I've seen it made in a much better fashion than how this fool conducted it. Quote:
Corporations have various methods they can use to donate to campaigns. One way is setting up a "separate" PAC which they support, or, a really clever one is donating lumps of their employees bonuses to a campaign. That way, when registered with the FEC, it looks like many, many individual donors contributed the cash. Also, I'm not completely certain that there was any legislation banning corporations from making a contribution to a campaign, but they can give it to the Party for certain, which then filters down to the candidate (ie. soft money). Quote:
Quote:
Blanco, in volunteering on several campaigns, both candidate based as well as issue based, I have learned that every decision that is made by an elected official is a calculated one. I'm not saying Colin Powell and Coni Rice aren't accomplished individuals, but what I AM saying is that their skin color played a big part in their appointments, especially with a Party that is trying to defeat "stereotypes" about them being an anti-black, anti-minority party. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 03:13 PM. |
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.