Traitors betraying traitors among themselves. More fun…
posted by Bill Arnett @ 5:35 PM Permalink BUMP and UPDATE by The Sailor for the comment dialogue.Original post from April 9th, 2009:
…guaranteed good laughs at a party, and sure to solidify the image of traitorous republicans acting like the cowards they really are. The kids should find this to be fun also.
Excerpt from an article titled, "GOP Leadership Hammers Obama Over Policies They Support":
Some progressive House Democrats were quoted criticizing President Obama's approach to Afghanistan and Iraq on Thursday, and perhaps not surprisingly, Republicans in Congress jumped all over it.OK, there is some democratic opposition, but these ridiculous republicans:
"Folks -- just wanted to make sure you didn't miss this story in this morning's Wall Street Journal," wrote a GOP leadership aide in a morning email blast to reporters. The aide highlighted what is by far the most damning quote: Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) calling Obama's war plan "embarrassingly naïve."
It would make for a sharp political attack if it weren't for the fact that GOP leadership in the House actually supports Obama's plans. Take for example, this quote from Minority Leader John Boehner just two weeks ago:…
…"The challenge of bringing stability to Afghanistan is enormously complex, but our efforts to defeat Al Qaeda and the Taliban are vital to the security of the American people. I support the strategy the President unveiled today because it reflects the advice of our commanders on the ground. I hope he will continue to honor their counsel because we should not allow political considerations here at home to trump the importance of achieving success in the region. Moving forward, we must ensure this strategy is implemented in a manner that is both flexible and reflective of the situation on the ground, and we must aggressively monitor its progress."So it's support quietly and then go out screaming maniacally in opposition. Are the "Party of No" traitors finally awakening to the fact that Americans are no longer afraid so playing the fear card is an exercise in futility?
Or how about this one from Minority Whip Eric Cantor, who wrote in the Washington Times yesterday: "The GOP has the obligation to be the honest opposition. When we believe the president is correct -- for example, in his handling of Iraq policy -- we will stand with him."
Then there is the 2008 Republican presidential candidate, John McCain, who has endorsed the approach the administration has taken to both Iraq and Afghanistan.
Or they might have realized that the more they rail against Obama the numbers of voters who support the Obama popular agenda goes up?
It's lose-lose for republican traitors.
It's a bootifull thang, ain't it?
Labels: Barack Obama, disinformation, fear mongering, GOP, hypocrisy
53 Comments:
Why did Congressman John Conyers recently say Obama is "embarassingly naive"?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bill:
You are irrational.
It's nice to be receive public recognition! But nothing angers me more than people making false allegations for which no proof CAN exist. Please note that the "Black Sphere" has not responded. He can't back up his lies.
Please also note that something may appear totally irrational to one person and not another and that I don't suffer fools lightly or politely.
But hey, thanks for reading, Robert. (And you are certainly entitled to your opinion! I mean that!)
Oh! And beg pardon, Robert. You asked me a question above anf you deserve an answer:
Some progressive House Democrats were quoted criticizing President Obama's approach to Afghanistan and Iraq on Thursday, and perhaps not surprisingly, Republicans in Congress jumped all over it.
"Folks -- just wanted to make sure you didn't miss this story in this morning's Wall Street Journal," wrote a GOP leadership aide in a morning email blast to reporters. The aide highlighted what is by far the most damning quote: Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) calling Obama's war plan "embarrassingly naïve."
Some conservative democrats believe Obama's plan relies too much on the shaky foundations laid in Iraq by the republicans who betrayed the country.
Also, I will leave the black sphere's comment and my challenge to him posted here for the next three days. When he is unable to prove something he obviously cannot I will delete his comment and any future comments he makes.
Just can't stand liars and bigots.
Was Conyers right?
I tend to believe he was, Robert, as everything gwb even touched turned sour, expensive, and proved that gwb had absolutely no business trying to run this country.
Republicans as a whole are out to destroy our government and turn all our precious resources over to their rich cronies. Remember it was Grover Norquist, the god of the GOP, who stated the republican party wanted to shrink our government until he, "…could drowned it in a bathtub."
That's why he and the rest of the gop were so bitterly disappointed by gwb overseeing one of the largest expansions of government in history.
Norquist has never said, that I know of, just WHAT he expected to replace our government and how it would run with the 0% tax rate the gop would like to see.
One more day for the black sphere to put up his proof that we are racist and, when he can't I will delete his entire comment and my answer to him.
Bill:
For the record, let me say that I never voted for GWB. I never even voted for his dad. I even protested his dad at antiwar protests. I even helped to organize them. You are right GWB did increase this government, contrary to traditional Republican principles.
Having said that, I will make no bones on how I feel about Barack Obama. Bush was a pioneer with his policies. Obama is a settler. Bush made things easy for him.
Have you seen this video?
"Obama Moves To Legalize Warrantless Wiretapping!"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jSUHVUgJFc
This is not a "right-wingnut" who is ranting about it. It is Keith Olberman of MSNBC. Did not people think that Obama was going to overturn that thing?
Here is another article: "In Warrantless Wiretapping Case, Obama DOJ's New Arguments Are Worse Than Bush's" http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/obama-doj-worse-than-bush
By the way, Olbermann interviewed someone from EFF which has initiated a lawsuit against the Obama administration. Olberman told him "good luck."
Is this what any person who voted for Obama wanted? If this was "change," Obama changed his mind on reversing several of Bush's policies people hated. He has not revoked the Patriot Act. He has not revoked FISA. He has not revoked the Military Commissiona Act. He has conformed to Bush's original Iraq pullout policy and is even "surging" in Afghanistan and killing some people in Pakistan.
(The soldiers from Iraq are not going home. They will just shift combat venues to Afghanistan. That is like Gilligan saying "And we are all going home to Moscow! Wait. That does not sound right.")
And he asks for a special $83 Billion to maintain those wars. If Bush was still in office and asked for that money, Senator Obama would not have voted it. But President Obama is asking Congress to vote for that money.
He is doing a wonderful job, isn't he?
He inherited a $1.3 Trillion deficit from Bush. How will he fix things? He gets a budget that will generate $7-$9.2 Trillion over the next 10 years. (I wonder what that does to the National Debt.) Is this Obama's way of putting out a fire with gasoline dyed with red ink? And he says that he wants our children to pay our debts?
Bush expanded the government, true. Did Obama promise to undo what Bush did and unexpand the government?
I'm from Chicago and knew about Obama years before everybody else did. (As a matter of fact, I met several of his friends, including Rev. Jeremiah Wright.) Any Coke machine in Chicago gave better change than Obama.
I knew his record in Chicago. I know every inch of Hyde Park (wealthy area) and every rich of ghetto he represented. He was not even a celebrity there until he ran for the U.S. Senate. He did not light any fireworks at all in Chicago. (As a matter of fact, he stabbed a woman I knew there in the back politically and even stabbed the voters in the district in the back too.) Therefore I was not optomistic about what he would accomplish as president.
But I did know he would bring Chicago politics to Washington. In Chicago, elected officials reward those who put out the most for them during campaigns. That is called "patronage." A woman raised over $200,000 for Obama's campaign and donated $28,000 to his committee. Her name is Desiree Rogers. She is now his personal secretary. A woman raised over $50,000 for him. Her name is Susan Rice. She is now U.N. Ambassador.
A man raised over $50,000 for him. His name is Ron Kirk. He is now U.S. Trade Representative.
That is called "The Chicago Way."
And I was born and raised in Chicago.
Once gained I have never seen any politician willing to surrender power. That's the great difference between our founding fathers and the substandard politicians of today. Our founders simply laid out a brilliant Constitution and then stepped out of the way (consider George Washington's refusal to even think of taking a second turn at being president.
And I never even thought that you might be some right-wing radical. You ask direct questions and I will always try to provide answers, 'though my answers cannot help be biased towards the survival of America.
I, too am becoming ever more disillusioned with Obama. It's like he went from a popular people oriented politician to just another politician loathe to relinquish a single iota of power. That's precisely why republicans went absolutely nuts and really played dirty pool against ANY democrat laying hands on the oppressive governmental system they set up during the bush years.
But patronage assignments have always been around forever: why risk appointing an unknown when you can appoint someone in ideology? I'm not saying it's good or bad, it just is.
I share your concern for America. I fear it will never recover. And there is a better that even chance that we will be attacked by nations such as China and Russia while we are at our weakest point in the entire existence of our government. I have been writing about THAT danger for some time now.
Also, bush inherited a very low debt, compared to now, and took the nation from being 5.3 trillion dollar budgets and left with the country well over 11 trillion dollars in debt, so I don't believe that can be laid at Obama's door. Plus he could only sit by as a mere nominee while bush and cronies looted our treasury, but I am anxious to see how he gets us out of this, if it can be done al all.
You make many good points, Robert, I have enjoyed this back and forth dialogue and sincerely hope you continue to keep reading VidiotSpeak - keeps me honest, y'know.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Either through embarrassment or inability to identify ANY racist post here at VidiotSpeak, the comment of the black sphere has been erased.
All future comments from this troll will also be deleted.
I appreciate the comments.
You should see what a guy named "uptownsteve" puts me through. He does not share the same opinion of me as you do.
Go here http://conservativeblkwoman.blogspot.com/2009/04/uk-columnist-gerald-warnerbarack-obama.html and go through the comments and eventually you will see the conversation.
I just deal with facts. And I back myself up frequently with sources that are not "right-wing" at all. As matter of fact, these sources are Bush haters as well as honest people.
And this guy on that site ridicules me for using "lefties" as sources. As if I used "righties" I would have more credibility with him?
Thanks again for your kind comments and your honest candor.
To clarify:
The Bush haters I refered to are honest people and not hypocrites.
Indeed, I wish we had more back and forth like this on the blog.
By the way Bill, I highly recommend a book called Worse Than Watergate by John Dean who was in the Nixon Administration. It detailed the power grabs by the Bush Administration and its addiction to secrecy. Even a Democrat who saw me with the book wanted to pick a fight with me because he thought I was a Bush supporter. It had Bush and Cheney's photo on the cover. I told him he would love that book and told him what it was about. He immediately calmed down.
I read that book 2 years ago and the material stuck with me. That is why I knew, even before he got elected, that Obama, with me knowing the type of person he is, would wallow in Bush's imperial presidential policies. He is not overturning any of it. Many of his supporters thought he would. And there are those who hated Bush and his policies who are excusing Obama for continuing the exact same policies.
Check this out: "Legal left cools toward Obama" http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0409/21207.html
It says: "Obama is also under withering attack from an attorney who was one of the most widely read critics of Bush’s legal strategy in the war on terror, Glenn Greenwald. He recently blasted Obama administration moves as 'extremist' and 'bizarre.'
“'Reading this brief from the Obama DOJ is so striking — and more than a little depressing — given how indistinguishable it is from everything that poured out of the Bush DOJ regarding secrecy powers in order to evade all legal accountability,' he wrote on Salon last week, before calling his fellow civil libertarians to rise up. 'It is simply inexcusable for those who spent the last several years screaming when the Bush administration did exactly this to remain silent now or, worse, to search for excuses to justify this behavior,' he said."
See what I mean?
That shows it was not the policies. They have always liked the policies. It is just that they were not in charge of those policies. Now their guy is in charge, no need to "change" anything.
Also too MoveOn.org was very vocal in opposing Bush's policies. (For some reason they found my email and put me on their list. I would never have subscribe but I wanted to see their recent shtick.) Now they are silent when Obama practices those same policies. How can anyone trust them?
Bill, on Election Night in last November I knew all this would happen. I also knew that night that very shortly many people would be disillusioned with Obama. I never had to convince anyone of anything about him. I was going to let Obmaa do that for me. I told them I will let his actions speak for him. I need ear protectors because his actions are speaking very loudly.
Here is some proof from Obama's own website BarackObama.com. This person heard his loud actions too:
"I cannot understate how disappointed I am in Barack Obama. Torture is being ignored by an Attorney General I thought was going to be a good one. He lets Stevens get away with all kinds of stuff and leaves Siegelman swinging in the breeze after Rove cut him off at the knees. Obama is acting like Bill Clinton who acted like a Republican. George Bush is a war criminal and I have heard nothing about what Spain is doing. Also. many of the cabinet members cannot balance their checkbooks and we expect them to run the economy. Four Bush hold overs are dispersing the TARP funds to wall street so Summers can get paid. Holder and Obama are exactly like Colin Powell, who caused us to get into an illegal war, and is a coward and a traitor in my book. So disappointed! Obama has become one of the elites and Michelle, who was looked upon as a savior of sorts is now trying to be Jackie instead of acting like the rest of us. It is a shame. I thought we would improve the country but now it looks like the joke is on us, as usual. By the way, when is Obama going to let go of the bipartisan canard and focus on doing what is RIGHT. The Republicans are hateful and are never going to give an inch. When is Obama going to admit it. If not, he is a fraud. Looks like the America people are screwed, big time. By the way, single payer health care is the only way that will help the most people. Stop the war and spend the money at home and stop the tax breaks for the rich." http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/lestershepherd/gGxgNV
And this comes from my.barackobama.com. I wonder how long until it is censored. If it is, I will have the screen capture as proof.
Here is my thing, maybe we don't have exactly the same political beliefs, but there is right and wrong. I helped to organize antiwar protests with different flavors of socialists and I'm not socialist.
Also too, if you have seen that website I suggested, I'm called an "Uncle Tom sellout" for not supporting Obama. Big whup. That is not surprising. However, I discovered that people who have actually voted for and supported Obama and later openly expressed disappointment have been attacked by Obama supporters. Those who express regret of voting for Obama and are now critical of him are vilified. I read an article by a gentleman who voted for Obama and expressed disillusionment. A commenter responded and called him a "rightwing nut."
I forgot the guys name on CNBC, but he was an Obama supporter and he recently got very critical of Obama. Immediately he and CNBC was the enemy. I wonder how long until someone calls Keith Olbermann "Worse Person in the World" for his recent criticism of Obama. He is waking up.
What does that sound like to you?
Does that have a 1933 German flavor to it? There are people today who do not believe in freedom of thought nor freedom of speech.
Those of us, no matter what we believe, must agree to defend liberty in this country. We have to fight shoulder to shoulder.
This is our country and we cannot permit anyone, foreign or domestic, to take it away from us.
The "Hope" and "Change" seems to be looking more like Rope and Chains.
{sigh}…I'm with you all the way, Robert, Obama does seem to have melded into the very dishonesty and power grabbing that was the downfall of gwb.
I have always believed that ONE of the reasons Obama won is that people are finally wising up to the fact that republicans are destructive beyond belief and cannot be trusted to not trying to solve every problem by dropping bombs on somebody.
I believe another reason he won was the overt threats against him, made in a manner most foul, republicans actively advocating political assassination as if that was totally acceptable to them, and if there were any republicans that disavowed violence against an American and rebuked people like…uh…what's her name, the wicked witch of the northwest.
I love this country and have paid dearly for my service in Vietnam when Agent Orange exposure from almost twenty years ago caused not one, but two cancers. But if I had the opportunity to go back to that time period I would not change a thing.
I truly despise what gwb and the gop have broken our military with endless assignments into war zones where our troops pay a terrible price, physically and especially mentally. It is shameful and a disgrace that the press was forbidden the right to show and honor our dead, and instead hiding them from sight so Americans would not so easily see the consequences of war, in my mind the greatest evil supported by persons of poor ilk. Contrast that to the Brits where every fallen soldier is greeted by an Honor Guard, a Military Band, most of the officers for whom he served, and at least one member of the royal family. They would never consider NOT honoring their dead soldiers.
I, too, am ashamed that our country has failed to prosecute the torturers, the jailers of prisoners with no hope or faint hope of ever being released.
Many Japanese generals were prosecuted for the war crime of starting a war with no provocation from America, the court holding that "preemptive" warfare was itself a war crime and a crime that couldn't be justified.
And believe me, if the occasion arises, where the people must recover the goals of our founding fathers and battling for America must take place, well, I'll be out there shoulder to shoulder with you.
As you were kind enough to recommend some reading for me, allow me to return the favor by asking you to either pick up "on Aggression" by Konrad Lorenz, a scientist most recognized from his bonding with goslings (by imitating the actions of a mother goose) but that also details in this work WHY society will inevitably degenerate and ultimately be destroyed. It is an amazing piece of work expressing the meaning and results of aggression and provoked more thought and more complex than anything I had ever read (about twenty years ago). It was highly controversial when first printed, but it ultimately came to be recognized as a blueprint for animal and men's descent into chaos.
I think we are closer in our political beliefs than we are apart. And I KNOW we both love this once great country and would like to see it restored as a symbol of hope and not, as much as the world believes, the instigators of violence, cowboy justice, and running roughshod over other sovereign countries with which we must interact in pursuit of spurious goals.
Lorenz once said: "It is a good morning exercise for a research scientist to discard a pet hypothesis every day before breakfast. It keeps him young." I think politicians should be equally responsible and obligated to rethink their dictatorial actions in a democratic society daily.
I greatly admire John Dean for saving this country from Nixon's anarchy, but I haven't yet read his book. I will, very soon.
Thanks again. I really hope to discuss this with you further. Bill
Boy, is my grammar off the rails today! Oh, well, some days be good, some days be bad. Looking forward to further repartee with you, Robert, and I'll even endeavor to be more grammatically correct. I have to take about 16 or 17 different meds everyday and that sometimes affects clarity of thought. Bill
Bill, it is gratifying to talk to someone who is rational, even though I called you irrational once the first time I posted.
On that other website, that individual I told you about continues to be irrational, even after I shared with him the same type of information I shared with you. He wants to go down with the Titanic because it has a black Captain.
That sounds like suicide.
Bill, I wanted to clarify that I helped to organize antiwar protests in 1990-91 I protested George H.B. Bush. During the bombing of Serbia around 10 years ago, I protested Bill Clinton.
I'm an equal opportunity protestor.
Also I'm not trying to beat a dead horse here, but I'm giving an example of how I believe many Obama supporters are feeling right now. It is just that some are starting to speak out now:
"By their works shall ye know them....
"Honestly, when Obama voted for FISA, I was angry, but I thought about the greater good and voted for him in good conscience. When he hinted that he wouldn't be pursuing charges against the Bush administration for war crimes, because it would be considered too 'partisan' to hold these men and women responsible for their hideous actions, I was furious, but considered that, with all the economic turmoil we are suffering at the moment, perhaps, prosecuting the neo-Cons for crimes against humanity would not necessarily be the best first action Obama could make at the moment. When Obama nominated Larry Summer as the head of the Economic Council, I was perplexed, not because of Summers' clueless remarks about female aptitude for the sciences, but rather because Summer has a history of being intolerant to dissenting viewpoints and bullying his ideological opponents into silence....exactly the LAST kind of person we need in any kind of position of authority during this economic crisis and exactly the opposite of what Obama claimed he needed as a consensus builder, but yet again, I kept silent and considered Obama may know something I did not.
"However, when I read in this morning's New York Times that Obama is considering letting Bush's tax cuts 'lapse' in 2011 rather than rescinding them as he promised during the campaign, I can no longer stomach anyone else telling me to have 'faith' in Obama or trust his instincts without question. I think it's time we all removed the scales from our eyes. It was lovely that we all voted in the first black biracial President, but if we voted in yet another slick Democratic pathological liar who, this time, happens to be of African descent, I fail to see why I or anyone else should be prevented from pointing out the emperor has no clothes before he even ascends the freaking throne."
-- Assezmalicieuse http://letters.mobile.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/24/obama/view/index15.html
Here is a good question for any Obama supporters you come across:
"Do you feel that Obama is continuing Bush's policies for the greater good?"
Robert, you are not alone. I'm beginning to notice more and more people who were Obama supporters starting to go, "oh my god, what did i vote for?!"
It's becoming obvious to many that the 2-party system is a myth, that they are merely two faces of the same entity.
Once the people throw off the shackles of the false dem/rep dichotomy, only then can the people begin to throw off all shackles and finally be free.
Hope and Change?
More like Rope and Chains (shackles).
Check out what I just found today:
"By their works shall ye know them....
"Honestly, when Obama voted for FISA, I was angry, but I thought about the greater good and voted for him in good conscience. When he hinted that he wouldn't be pursuing charges against the Bush administration for war crimes, because it would be considered too 'partisan' to hold these men and women responsible for their hideous actions, I was furious, but considered that, with all the economic turmoil we are suffering at the moment, perhaps, prosecuting the neo-Cons for crimes against humanity would not necessarily be the best first action Obama could make at the moment. When Obama nominated Larry Summer as the head of the Economic Council, I was perplexed, not because of Summers' clueless remarks about female aptitude for the sciences, but rather because Summer has a history of being intolerant to dissenting viewpoints and bullying his ideological opponents into silence....exactly the LAST kind of person we need in any kind of position of authority during this economic crisis and exactly the opposite of what Obama claimed he needed as a consensus builder, but yet again, I kept silent and considered Obama may know something I did not.
"However, when I read in this morning's New York Times that Obama is considering letting Bush's tax cuts 'lapse' in 2011 rather than rescinding them as he promised during the campaign, I can no longer stomach anyone else telling me to have 'faith' in Obama or trust his instincts without question. I think it's time we all removed the scales from our eyes. It was lovely that we all voted in the first black biracial President, but if we voted in yet another slick Democratic pathological liar who, this time, happens to be of African descent, I fail to see why I or anyone else should be prevented from pointing out the emperor has no clothes before he even ascends the freaking throne."-- Assezmalicieuse
http://letters.mobile.salon.com/news/feature/2008/11/24/obama/view/index15.html
I apologize. I did so much writing today, I forgot I posted that one already.
But allow me to submit one interesting item:
"First Black President Defeats U.S. Antiwar Movement"
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/first-black-president-defeats-us-antiwar-movement
and a little YouTube entertainment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GK5hrKHrFzI
Hi, Robert. I never took any offense at all, not the slightest, when you previously called me irrational. I am perfectly aware that many people (and sometimes me) believe I am not just irrational but half insane as well.
If I am being called such things for my fervent desire to see America restored to its former greatest, I cannot understand their lack of knowledge as to what America used to represent.
Teddy Roosevelt made a most cogent and intelligent point on the division of races in America when he said, "There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all." October 12, 1915. This somehow speaks to me that we all are American regardless of race, religion, and fulfilling the American dream.
I have never really understood the mechanics or mental processes of race and racial bias, which stems from my uber-bigot grandmother beating the hell out of me, at age four, for politely answering the questions of a passing black man. Our dialogue was thus, "Good morning young man, how are you today? To which I replied, "Fine, thank you, sir" He asked "Son, do you know of anyone offering work in this neighborhood?" I responded as I was taught, having been asked a question by an adult, I was compelled to answer, saying, "No, sir." He bid me goodbye and i was returning wishes for a good day to the man I heard a my grandmother screaming at me not speak to N------s, and she ran from the house to snatch me up. I had never ever seen my grandmother run, so I was amazed and more than a little scared, and knew I was in trouble as she snatched me up and ran back to the house. Then she beat me until I couldn't walk, talk, or ask why I was in so much trouble for simply being polite to adults as I had been taught. I despised by grandmother after this and never forgave her for trying to make me as big a bigot as she was because I knew I had done nothing wrong.
Ever since I have always refused to consider race as I formed impressions based upon the words and deeds of a person and swore to my four year old self that I would never form my opinions based on the color of people, as that single factor does not constitute a sufficient reason to hate people I never knew and have just met.
Maybe that explains the irrationality of my responses to people like the black sphere, a person I have never met, but who accused me, and this site, of being bigots and racist, so I do not regret a single word I wrote in response to his scurrilous and utterly specious accusations.
The links you provide for me are wonderful in the sense that they sometimes totally discredit ideas of old and show me that I was right in refusing to use color as a base for prejudice.
I, too, am terribly disappointed that the Obama administration hasn't yet rounded the architects of the bogus war of gwb. And America would not necessarily pay for their prosecution. Just grab 'em and whisk them off to the Hague for prosecution.
(BTW, please keep it under your hat that I am sometimes rational or you will inadvertently damage my reputation. (end snark).
Bill:
No problem.
I know theblacksphere personally.
He is frustrated as you have you have been frustrsted.
I have to be totally honest. I'm a registered Independent. The Republican Party has had its problems. There are many Dodo birds there. But there are some good people there too. Several are my friends. But the party as a whole lost their way of their original principles. Proof is Bush's expansion of government.
However I don't believe that the Democratic Party is a true friend of black people. Theblacksphere feels the same way.
Let me show you a letter from a friend of mine, Mali D. Currington, to Julian Bond of the NAACP. He is black and was a lifelong Democratic activist. He even was the assistant to the Executive Director and the liaison between the California Democratic Caucus and the Clinton White House. He even worked in the Clinton and the Gore presidential campaigns. He hated Republicans like God hates sin. He told me the worst Democrat was better than the best Republican. Why? Because he thought that the Republican Party was the Party of Slavery. He thought the slave masters were all Republican, believe it or not. (There is a black woman I heard of who thinks Abraham Lincoln was a Democrat!) He thought Bull Conner who put dogs and firehoses on blacks in Birmingham, Alabama was a Republican. I promise you I have talked to many blacks and their view of Democratic and Republican history is distorted.
Mr. Currington was tasked to do oppositon research for the Gore campaign. That was the last mistake the Democrats made with him. He discovered that the Democrats were the slave masters and the KKK was formed by all Democrats. He discovered other information that shocked him.
(It was like discovering that your father who you loved all these years is not your real father. It is actually your stepfather who murdered your real father to marry your mother. You were told for years that your real father was an evil man who wanted to kill your mother.)
He confronted Al Gore personally with the information he found. Al ignored him. That day Mr. Currington left the Democrats alone for good:
(Written in 2001)
To Julian Bond
Chairman, NAACP
4805 Mt. Hope Drive • Baltimore Maryland 21215
I am African-American. I am a lifelong Democratic grass roots activist. I am appalled at how you viciously attacked President Bush at your most recent New Orleans convention. I believe that since Democrats have been in control of the NAACP, it has only been for the advancement of left-winged liberal issues and not the advancement of colored people. I have been trying for several years to build a software business from scratch. Unfortunately, since the NAACP promotes policies that force companies to hire more lawyers, accountants, and human resource personnel to enforce the ever increasing government regulations is causing my dream of entrepreneurship to remain a dream.
It’s amazing that you have become so vehement against the Republican Party that you never state publicly (especially during Black History month) how important the Republican Party has been to African America. I learned by white folks the following facts:
• The Republican Party was founded in 1854 in order to abolish slavery and no Republican had ever been a slave holder since becoming a Republican.
• The first black U.S. senator was Republican Hiram Revels, of Mississippi in 1870.
• The First Black member of the U.S. House of Representatives was Republican Joseph Hayne Rainey of South Carolina.
• The First Black Governor was Republican Pinckney Benton Stewart Pinchback of Louisiana in 1872 and not Eugene Wilder, Democrat of Virginia.
• The Ku Klux Klan was comprised exclusively of Democrats until the mid 1900’s – Just ask the great political historian and former KKK member, U.S. Senator Robert Byrd (who by the way has never apologized for his part in the intended demise of African America and Slavery).
As a matter of fact, almost all prominent African Americans were Republican until the 1940’s. Furthermore:
• Slavery was a specifically a repugnant institution of the Democratic Party.
• Eugene “Bull” Connor (the poster boy of American racism) was a Democrat.
• The poll tax was a Democratic institution.
• Former President John F. Kennedy, the historical darling of the Democratic Party, sent federal troops to protect African Americans from the public threats of Democrats.
• Black codes and Jim Crow laws were instituted by Democrats.
• The Democratic Party only invited blacks to become members by offering “the Negro” government welfare (President Roosevelt 1932). And just like Uncle Tom the NAACP and other Black leadership has been trying to “protect” that handout ever since.
The NAACP and others have been advocating reparations for African Americans - an effort to legislate people pay for the sins of their (fore) parents. Based on the accurate portrayal of history, the Democratic Party (not the U.S. Government) should issue an official apology to African Americans and be responsible for directly paying reparations to African Americans.
Once again if the NAACP were consistent in holding descendants responsible for ancestral sins, then Former Vice President Al Gore, Jr. should never have been supported by African Americans - period. His father, Al Gore Sr., not only voted against the Civil Rights Act in 1964, but he participated in a 74-day filibuster by Democrats to defeat the legislation. The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that, in the Senate, only 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82% of Republicans (27 for, 6 against) the Civil Rights Act. In the House of Representatives, 61% of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act and. 80% of Republicans, (138 for, 34 against) voted for it.
I learned all of this information for the first time in my life just before the 2000 presidential general election. I decided or the first time to vote Republican. I also convinced 11 of my friends and family to do the same. They did so after I shared this same information with them.
There were historical slights by whites who were Republican but it was more about personal greed then institutional ideology. I also realize that Republicans never thought of us as equal to them culturally or socially but they did and still do believe that we were equal to them under the law.
Mr. Bond if Republicans were so bad as you portray them then history would not have recorded the Republican Party as the Backbone of African American progress. There are no historical parallels to date in the Democratic Party.
Even today with the overwhelming support of African American in the Democratic Party, the Party will not nominate an African American for President or Vice President of the United States. (That was as of 2001, not 2009) As you read this email the highest cabinet officer is and African American Republican - Secretary of State Colin Powell. The national security policy of the United States is under the direction of an African American woman who is Republican. When have the Democrats ever entrusted this much power an authority to African Americans? What is the Democratic equivalent? An irony of recent history is that Republicans supported the appointment of Thurgood Marshall for U.S. Solicitor General and for Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, but Democrats vote against Clarence Thomas’ nomination and demonize him to this day.
My conclusion is that if this nation was left to the devices of the Democratic Party, African Americans would not be anywhere near where we are today. As a matter of fact I would argue that we African Americans would not have any constitutional rights, be U.S. citizens or otherwise because we would still be slaves! So much for Affirmative Action.
There is much more for me to convey and I hope to someday become wealthy enough to be able to call you and discuss solutions to many more concerns of mine.
I have turned my democratic activism to making public this important aspect of history that you and that diatribe of black leadership refuse to emphasize. So far I have personally convinced, among my family and friends, over 60 people who will either vote Republican in future elections or reregistered as Republicans altogether. The NAACP should be supportive of the advancement of colored people period not just colored Democrat people. Until the NAACP lives up to its name I, and others, will cease to be continued supporters of yours.
Sincerely,
M.D. Currington
Former SupporterHe felt used and lied to by people he thought was the friend of the black community. That is why theblacksphere is angry too. I'm pretty steamed myself. I used to be Democrat too and I believed the lies.
Here is one example and this is from Democrats.org. The late Ron Brown, former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee said: “The common thread of Democratic history, from Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton, has been an abiding faith in the judgment of hardworking American families, and a commitment to helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor strengthen our nation by earning themselves a piece of the American Dream. We remember that this great land was sculpted by immigrants and slaves, their children and grandchildren…." From Thomas Jefferson to Bill Clinton helping the excluded, the disenfranchised and the poor? All of the slave masters were Democrats. The Democrats kept in bondage those who were excluded, those who were disenfranchised and those who were poor – Black slaves.
It goes on to praise President Woodrow Wilson. Of course it does not say that Wilson was a white supramacist who segregated the federal government. Is that a hero of civil rights to black people?
Also the same website says:
"Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That's why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.
"On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America." http://www.democrats.org/a/national/civil_rights/
What do they take me for? Go to the internet, other than Democrats.org, or to any library on the history of the Democratic Party by anyone, even Democratic authors, and will prove those statements are false.
I charge that they don't think black people are that smart to do research. You see how they got my friend to think until he did do research. His anger he vented towards the Republicans are now aimed at the Democrats.
My mother held a bitterness toward Barry Goldwater for 40 years because she thought he was a racist. Because of Mr Currington's information that Barry Goldwater was a dues-paying lifelong member of the NAACP, even in 1964, my mother's bitterness went away.
Reference http://malidcurrington.blogspot.com and
http://moteandbeam.tripod.com
Stay tuned.
That is quite a letter, but it doesn't recognize the Civil Rights movement of the mid sixties or the herculean arm-twisting of good old LBJ. The Civil Rights movement would have died on the vine and rotted away without LBJ and the democrats.
Not that I can't appreciate the anger many people feel for past, and still occurring, discrimination, but I have to admit I would feel more comfortable if Mr. Currington's letter cited the sources of his information so I could judge for myself the accuracy of his allegations.
And I also feel that all the venom directed at democrats is not necessarily true and accurate. For an excellent, and brief, history of the Civil Rights movement please read this: http://www.cnn.com/EVENTS/1997/mlk/links.html and you'll see that democrats contributed greatly to insure equality.
There isn't much detail as it is very brief, but you will certainly recognize several democrats, as well as republicans, that fought for and against the Civil Rights movement.
I am very tired today and not up to full speed, but I do so enjoy our back and forth writings that I specifically logged in to see if there was another missive from you. Now I've gotta go lay down and try to get some rest.
Ciao, Bill P.S. I'll also do some more research on this topic as soon as I feel up to it.
BTW, I, too, am registered as an independent.
Bill, tell me what points in Mr. Currington's letter you feel are not accurate?
Hi, Robert. It is not necessarily the case that I do not belief Mr. Currington's missive, it's my fault that I am not on top of this and certainly not his. Every single word he wrote may be absolutely correct, it's just that at this moment, absent any citations to material I can read for myself to verify his allegations makes me slightly nervous. And even then it is entirely possible that every word written is correct.
I'm still very ill and not up to doing any research today, but I promise you that next week I will read more articles about the civil rights movement.
My I respectfully request you give me that time to study so I can discuss this intelligently?
thanx, bill
Just a quick look at Wikipedia gives these details as to who did or did not vote in favor of Civil rights:
"Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure.
So it would seem that not all democrats opposed civil rights, but this just scratches the surface of this important topic.
I should have stopped after my comment above as now I feel massively ill.
Ciao, Robert, I do hope for more correspondence with you, you seem to be a guy with more than a little bit of smarts!
By party
The original House version:[9]
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%) also from Wikipedia. Seems lots of democrats wanted the Civil Rights movement to pass. Later, Robert
Bill, I never said all the Democrats of the 1964 Civil Rights Act opposed it.
I'm glad you found those figures.
Your research proved a point which a lot of people do not realize. Your figures are the same figures I use in my articles. Many blacks are under the impressiona that the Republicans fought the 1964 Civil Rights Act tooth and nail, believe it or not. Your facts showed:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
As you can see, the Republicans had a higher percentage in support than the Democrats. This is what Mr. Currington discovered to his surprise. He, like many blacks to this day, thought Republicans hated Civil Rights and the Democratic Party he worked for continued to give him that illusion. Trust me. I have talked to blacks who believed as much.
I object to what the Democrats implicate on their website in that they claim they have ALWAYS throughout their history have been on the forefront of civil rights for blacks.
To repeat what they say:
"Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That's why we’ve worked to pass every one of our nation’s Civil Rights laws, and every law that protects workers. Most recently, Democrats stood together to reauthorize the Voting Rights Act.
"On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight. We support vigorous enforcement of existing laws, and remain committed to protecting fundamental civil rights in America." http://www.democrats.org/a/national/civil_rights/
To be blunt, they are liars or terribly ignorant of facts. I will say that to Howard Dean if I had the chance. Proof? Look up for yourself the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 1875 Civil Rights Act just for starters,. In their words: "On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight."
If Democrats led the fight to support those acts, I will take back everything I said about them and will say that my friend was wrong about them and email him and tell him so.
I will also delete every article I wrote on the Democratic Party.
By the way, Bill thanks for the compliment.
This is what someone else has to say about me on another forum : "[Y}you are easily confused."
Bill, this is an editorial a friend just wrote:
Torture- Mr. President?
By Rev. Wayne Perryman
Torture? I’m so glad you brought up the subject. Mr. President and Attorney General Holder, Conservative African Americans have been waiting a lifetime to have this conversation. But before you and the sensitive members of the Democratic Party start with the Bush Administration, why don’t we review the torture tactic of the Democratic Party.
The chronicles of history reveal that in areas controlled by Democrats, Democrats used every form of torture to keep blacks in their place. Lynching, whippings, murder, intimidation, assassinations and mutilations were commonplace in jurisdictions where Democrats were in control. In addition to individual torture entire black communities were destroyed and burned to the ground in such places like: Wilmington, North Carolina, Rosewood, Florida, and the Greenwood District in Tulsa, Oklahoma, to name a few. The one thing that all of these communities had in common, is what realtors often say: location, location, location. They were all located in states and counties controlled by Democratic officials. According to the renowned African American history professor, John Hope Franklin, the atrocities committed against African Americans in these regions, “were so varied and so numerous as to defy classification or enumeration.”
The Encyclopaedia Britannica reported that from the beginning, “Democrat resentment [of black freedom and equality under Reconstruction] led to the formation of the secret terroristic organizations such as the Ku Klux Klan and the Knight of the White Camelia. The use of fraud, violence and intimidation helped Southerns... regain control of their state governments, by the time the last federal troops had been withdrawn in 1877, the Democratic Party was back in power.”[1]
Other noted history professors also wrote about these atrocities, including:
a. Professor James McPherson of Princeton University
b. Professor David Herbert Donald of Harvard University
c. Professor Allen W. Trelease of North Carolina University
d. Professor Howard O. Lindsey of DePaul University.
Professor Allen Trelease said: “Klansmen in disguise rode through Negro neighborhoods at night warning Negroes either to cast Democratic ballots or stay away from the poll. The Klan also sent notices to Republican office holders, warning them of death and telling them to either resign or leave the vicinity. Similar notices went to active Republicans of both races and often to the teachers of Negro schools as well. Klan activities created a reign of terror in many localities and sometimes had the desired effect of demoralizing Negroes and Republicans…. Republicans of both races were threatened, beaten, shot, and murdered with impunity. In some areas Negroes stopped voting or voted the Democrat ticket as the Klan demanded. “Democrats by a kind of tortured reasoning, sometimes accused Negroes and Republicans of attacking each other so that the crimes would be blamed on the Democrats; investigations revealed that Democrats had committed the acts themselves.”
Professors John Hope Franklin and Alfred Moss, authors of From Slavery To Freedom tells us that, “The Camelias and the Klan were the most powerful of the secret orders. Armed with guns, swords, or other weapons, their members patrolled some parts of the South day and night. They used intimidation, force, ostracism in business and society, bribery at the polls, arson, and even murder to accomplish their deed. Depriving the Negro of political equality became, to them, a holy crusade in which a noble end justified any means. Negroes were run out of communities if they disobeyed orders to desist from voting; and the more resolute and therefore insubordinate blacks were whipped, maimed, and hanged. In 1871 several Negro officials in South Carolina were given fifteen days to resign and they were warned that if they failed to do so, then retributive justice will as surely be used as night follows day. For many white Southerners violence was still the surest means of keeping the Negroes politically impotent, and in countless communities they were not allowed, under penalties of reprisals, to show their faces in town on Election Day. It had looked as though the Civil War would break out anew as the Democrats resorted to every possible device to over throw the radicals.64
Professor Franklin went on to say, “It was reported that in North Carolina the Klan was responsible for 260 outrages, including 7 murders and the whipping of 72 whites and 141 Negroes. In one county in South Carolina 6 men were murdered and more than 300 were whipped during the first six months of 1870. The personal indignities inflicted upon individual white and Negroes were so varied and so numerous as to defy classification or enumeration.”[2]
In his book, The Abolitionist Legacy, Professor James McPherson reported, “In 1873, Louisiana became almost a synonym for chaos and violence. When Grant sent federal troops to install Kellogg in office [as governor], Louisiana Democrats were infuriated. They formed White Leagues which attacked black and white Republicans and took scores of lives.”[3]
From his book entitled; Charles Sumner, Harvard Professor, David Hebert Donald reached the following conclusion: “Congress could give the Negro the vote, but all over the South the Ku Klux Klan and other terrorist organizations systematically intimidated the freedmen, flogged or slaughtered their leaders and drove whites who worked with them into exile. Congress could require federal troops to supervise the registration of voters, but Negroes were waylaid and butchered on the roads to the registration offices. Congress could suppress outright violence by military force, but it could do nothing to protect Negroes from landlords who told them bluntly: If you vote with that Yankee [Republican] party you shall not live on our land.”[4]
Professor Howard O. Linsay, the author of, A History of Black Americans says, “Blacks and sympathetic Whites were attacked and threatened. African Americans were discouraged from seeking elected office and even from trying to vote. Any and all means were used from threats to violence to outright murder.”[5]
The following is what happened to Sam Hose and Mary Turner:
After a mob murdered Mary Turner’s husband, she threatened to swear out warrants against his killers. Several hundred men decided to teach her a lesson. They took this eight month pregnant woman from her home and after tying her ankles together, they hung her from a tree, head downward, dousing her clothes with gasoline, and burned them [the clothes] from her body. While she was still alive, someone used a knife ordinarily reserved for splitting hogs to cut open the woman’s abdomen. The baby fell from her womb to the ground and cried briefly, whereupon a member of the mob crushed the baby’s head beneath his heel. Then hundreds of bullets were fired into Mary Turner’s body.” [Page 14, Without Sanctuary – Foreword written by Democratic Congressman John Lewis].
These forms of torture were common in regions controlled by Democrats. The following is what they did to Sam Hose after falsely accusing him.
“After stripping Hose of his clothes and chaining him to a tree, the self-appointed executioners stacked kerosene-soaked wood high around him. Before saturating Hose with oil and applying the torch, they cut off his ears, fingers, and genitals, and skinned his face. While some in the crowd plunged knives into the victims flesh, others watched with unfeigning satisfaction, the contortions of Sam Hose’s body as flames rose, distorting his features, causing his eyes to bulge out of their sockets and rupturing his veins. The only sounds that came from the victim’s lips, even as his blood sizzled in the fire. were, “Oh my God! Oh, Jesus.” Before Hose’s body had even cooled, his heart and liver were removed and cut into several pieces and his bones were crushed into small particles. The crowd fought over these souvenirs. Shortly after the lynching, one of the participants reportedly left for the state capitol, hoping to deliver a slice of Sam Hose’s heart to the Democratic governor of Georgia, who would call Sam Hose’s deeds, “the most diabolical in the annals of crime.” [Page 15, ‘Without Sanctuary”]
After the brutal hanging, it was proven that Mr. Hose was innocent of the allege charges. They took parts of his body and displayed them in store windows, which was a common practice in towns, cities, counties and states controlled by Democrats.
I haven’t even scratched the surface. Time and space would not permit me to tell you about Dred Scott, the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, Plessy v. Ferguson, the Senate investigations of 1871, or the letters written by blacks in Kentucky in 1871 Louisiana in 1872, Alabama in 1874. From the New York riots of during the Civil War, to 1963 when the 16th Street Baptist Church was bombed as Condoleezza Rice was preparing to go to Sunday School, wherever Democrats were in control, blacks have been tortured, intimidated and mutilated by Democrat officials and members of the Democratic Party. Senator Tillman of South Carolina said lynching blacks was justified. He went on to say: “Southern women will not submit to the black man gratifying his lust on our wives and daughter without lynching him.” This same Democratic Senator said: “We reorganized the Democratic Party with one plank and only one plank, namely that this is a white man’s country and white men must govern it.”
Now tell me Mr. President and Mr. Holder, how many detainees were beaten, hung, raped, cut into pieces bombed and burned to death under Bush Administration? Before we start condemning the Bush Administration for their handling of the allege terrorist from foreign countries, why don’t we first review the Democratic Party who tortured the black citizens from their own country. Oh, one more thing. Mr. Holder, it was the Bush Administration that finally prosecuted the person that was responsible for the 16th Baptist Church bombing. Black conservatives are looking forward to hearings on torture.
Rev. Wayne Perryman
P.O. Box 256
Mercer Island, WA 98040
(206) 860-6880
www.wayneperryman.com
-----------------------------------
[1] 1992 Encyclopaedia Britannica pp. 979
64 Reconstruction – The Great Experience, pp. 226-233
[2] Reconstruction After The Civil War, p. 157
[3] The Abolitionist Legacy, p.40
[4] Charles Sumner, p. 420
[5] A History of Black Americans, pp. 88-89
But the stats show clearly that the KKK was NOT composed of purely democrats and that many republicans were members, to wit, (from Wikipedia): Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. Indeed, all they had in common, besides being overwhelmingly white, southern, and Democratic, was that they called themselves, or were called, Klansmen.Historian Eric Foner observed:
In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life.
So while it may appear that while many thought the democrats exclusively formed the KKK was untrue. Plus I have what I believe is a well-centered doubt and reservations about people making statements without citations.
I am still open to reading material cited here, but I am finding it to be a severe strain on my psyche to continue research when it would be much easier for people to add citations to their statement of supposed fact.
But I can see how people could attach themselves to such an idea as it is always easier to accuse and batter a single "evildoer" than to take into account that many persons of ilk were involved with the shame of of the KKK ever being a political and racist group composed of a broad spectrum of politician.
So, again, it is not that I disbelieve Mr. Currington, as he and I have vastly different backgrounds, but some empirical proof would go a long way towards relieving those doubts of mine.
BTW-I'll start a new thread above so no one has to dig for this post - hell, even I have a had time finding it. And to answer your question regarding gwb, more that 11,00 prisoners were held without redress, hundreds of them tortured, several hundred thousands of Iraqis killed,millions more driven from their homeland and now wandering from place to place while American forces will gladly drop 500-2,00 pound bombs and kill dozens of people in the hopes that ONE of them MIGHT be a terrorist, so I believe this dwarfs the stats from the old KKK because of the condensed time frame in which these thing occurred compared to the lengthy period of times when the KKK has been active.
Ciao, Bill I'll start a new tread above, as I said.
And thanks, Robert, this is fun (although the subject is obviously not funny).
Bill, why are you using Wikipedia as a source? Do they have credible references? You know that anyone can edit it. That is why I don't use Wikipedia. Once I used Wikipedia for a source and I was pooh-poohed because I used it.
You said many Republicans were in the KKK. Do you have any reference that can verify that?
And you reenforced my point here:
"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy. Its purposes were political, but political in the broadest sense, for it sought to affect power relations, both public and private, throughout Southern society. It aimed to reverse the interlocking changes sweeping over the South during Reconstruction: to destroy the Republican party's infrastructure , undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life."
You revealed a fact that the Democratic Party would never forgive you for.
As a matter of fact, the article I posted did have citable references.
If there is any point in the material I sent to you question, let me know I can will give you sources to refer to easily.
I have done research also and I can verify my facts. I can verify Mr. Currington's facts too so that you can look up the references.
My question to you is to validate your claim of the many Republicans, and you said "many," in the Ku Klux Klan after Reconstruction since Wikipedia does validate that claim.
Other than your objection to the KKK stats, was there anything else questionable in Rev. Perryman's article?
Robert said:"Bill, why are you using Wikipedia as a source? Do they have credible references? You know that anyone can edit it. That is why I don't use Wikipedia."
Robert,
Wikipedia almost always references their sources. Read the Wikipedia article, read their sources, (that would be the highlighted numerical link), and decide for yourself.
The great advantage of Wiki, as opposed to other encyclopedias, is that they do reference other sources.
That way you can not just believe, but find facts for your beliefs ... or not.
And you too can contribute to Wiki with your own links and referenced facts.
I don't let my students (usually post-grads) reference Wiki, but it is a good place to start.
Bottom line: Have a hypothesis, look up the facts, do your experiment, and depending on negative or positive results, live with the results.
If it's repeatable, it's true, if not, rethink your hypothesis.
Bob, please don't rely on the 'red herring fallacy.'
Now, have I sidetracked this discussion enough?
p.s. Robert's original question: Why did Congressman John Conyers recently say Obama is "embarassingly naive"?
See, there was your 1st fallacy, reading what other folks said about Conyer's comment. They were quoting out of context.
Do your own research and find out the context.
And seriously folks, does anyone think the country would be better off under McCain/Palin than Obama/McBiden?
Those were our choices.
All false choices. They pick who we get to pick from. Not us. Anyone in those spots would be 'government approved' lackeys, no matter what.
Sailor:
The fallacy is in the answer, not in the question, isn't it?
I asked "Why did Conyers say Obama is "embarassing naive"? He said that. Or maybe he did not say that. That is a simple question, isn't it?
It must have an answer.
Also where is the "red herring"?
Bill has asked me for citeable references, so I feel he will be intellectually honest to give me references as well. I did not even get the title of the Wiki article, with all due respect to Bill.
Robert: cite the full reference of Conyers saying Obama is "embarassingly naive", not just that 2 word quote.
p.s. One of your red herrings is attacking Wiki as a source.
But mainly; what is your point?
Sailor:
Bill did not even question me on this issue:
"With Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) calling Obama’s almost $80 billion ask “embarrassingly naive,' continuing that Obama 'occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances.'”
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/04/09/afghanistan-conyers-calls-obama-embarrassingly-naive/
"Rep. John Conyers (D., Mich.) dismissed Mr. Obama's plans as 'embarrassingly naive,' and suggested that the president is being led astray by those around him. 'He's the smartest man in American politics today,' Rep. Conyers said. 'But he occasionally gets bad advice and makes mistakes. This is one of those instances.'"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123923540395603311.html
"Folks -- just wanted to make sure you didn't miss this story in this morning's Wall Street Journal, wrote a GOP leadership aide in a morning email blast to reporters. The aide highlighted what is by far the most damning quote: Rep. John Conyers (D-Mich.) calling Obama's war plan 'embarrassingly naïve.'" http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8331930
Now what was your question?
Wow! I'm ill for a couple of days and the comments just explode on the screen!
Hi, Robert, the point which I was attempting to make, and obviously failed to do, is that you can do anything or find statistics to back up any allegation anyone makes.
Another point, I grew up in West Memphis, Arkansas, so I saw much scurrilous discrimination as a child. I always recognized that it was wrong (at least since age four)
My grandmother used to brag that her bulldog would always chase those Ns out of her store routinely, and she was proud of that, bragged about it.
But ya know Robert, that was over 50 years ago, and eventually a time comes when we must put aside prejudices and hatreds of old and move on with what we have to work towards today - the restoration of America and true parity amongst all people.
I've been reading the citations you send me and some describe horrific events, but events such as those are very rare today (but occasionally occur), and I am having a tough time realizing that vast numbers of people still conduct themselves in the same biased hatred.
No, I think the ugly thing about modern society is that people, and here's where the term democratic and republican, have blended together to form a single monolithic government. I believe that democrats, recently, have championed equality far more than the current crop of GOP fargin' iceholes, Newt Gingrich, Ted Stevens, Rush, Hannity, Trent Lott, Haley Barber (gov of Mississippi), Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, John Mccain, and all the republicans that have withheld a rise in minimum wages since the early 90s.
Look at the biillions and billions of dollars allocated to the rebuilding of New Orleans. Most of that money went to already rich, white male, corporations and almost nothing to help Louisiana's poor and blacks where they actually fired live ammunition on many black families to prevent them from entering non-flooded areas, and that through bushco bought trailers that they knew were exceeding by far safe levels of formaldehyde. And who got the brunt of the thoroughly disgusting failure to repair and rebuild New Orleans? The group that was in the republican dominated congress and bushco, as they held all the levers of government.
So it's not that I lack of belief in the things of which you write, but the political party of the GOP has by far and away done more to damage the black, the old, the infirm, the displaced, those without health coverage etc., and it is a sorry fact that speaks ill of our once great America.
I know discrimination against those who look differently than the rich, old white men that had exclusive control of congress since 1994 all the way through to the very end of bushco.
It is important- what's the saying? Those who do not learn the lessons of the past are doomed to repeat them. It's just the case now that the GOP wears the mantle of discrimination, but count how many black people are in the republican House and Senate? Three in all our history. Black Representatives? 123 since 1870. this is shameful for a country claiming superiority in race relations. Look at the inner city school falling apart with incompetent teachers and an ever higher dropout or failing ratings are horrible, and financial even more devastated, which I firmly believe is reviving prejudice and destructiveness to satisfy the 30% or less that bush and cheney' did a great job. For whom? Their rich cronies.
It is way past time that prejudice and discrimination are ended, for they are some of the most evil creations of Man and are slowly hastening coming apart.
But we shouldn't cite past evils for, by and in our history, a new generation of Americans are taking over.
I think it is high time to hold the feet of the politicians to the fire and remind them of their past crass discrimination and demand that there be equality for all men and women, without regard to race creed, nationality, or sexual orientation.
The republican's lately are against almost everything American.
Ciao, Bill
Also Robert, the chart again used here show the percentages of yays and nays with the right side number represent those voting the for Civil rights Act:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:[9]
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
I don't deny discrimination happed and happens, but to say this chart demonstrates that in at least two votes the democrats outvoted republicans to end discrimination.
Robert, you still can't provide the full quote, just the 2 word characterization used by by reporters.
So you think reporters are more reliable than encyclopedias?
Get back to me when you have the full quote.
Bonus question: When was the last time that republicans voted for more civil rights, i.e. gays, blacks, browns, Muslims ... you get the idea.
Republicans are the party of hate & no.
p.s. Please answer the 1st question first.
Bill, please email me at interactionswest@gmail.com.
Ahh, Robert can't answer the questions posed.
And they were so simple. In his very first comment he asked "Why did Congressman John Conyers recently say Obama is "embarassingly naive"?"
And all I did was ask him for the full quote because it was taken out of context.
He denigrates Wikipedia but relies on reporters for his constant drumming of a 2 word quote taken out of context.
Sheesh, next he'll be telling us that RFK Jr. called President Obama a slave!
Hi, Robert. I fail to see what is wrong with using Wikipedia as a source, but you are correct that I should have provided a link. Here, with apologies: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964 which contained the quote you cited from one of my answers to you that now you seemingly have iron-clad proof that it was strictly the democrats that formed the KKK. The quote: "In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired restoration of white supremacy…". I have never said that Mr Currington's letter was false in any way, just that it is nice to receive citations when a person writes a letter so full of 'absolutes,' as absolutes rarely exist.
Think about the preamble to our constitution where is says: We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_men_are_created_equal). An observer of the plight of men know that this statement, made as an absolute is false, unless they were talking about all people being naked when birthed.
After birth there are ways the upper classes manage to maintain control of the masses. For over 200+ years our children were told that if you studied and worked hard even they could be president and we both know that until Obama won that statement was false and this nation was ruled by old, rich white men and no others need to apply if you had brown skin or if you were a woman. I have no cite for that statement, as I believe history backs me up on this one and that any observer knows it, even if they won't admit it. But our founders wrote the Preamble as an absolute, one that never existed, even in America. An absolute statement that excludes any room for doubt, and there are several in Mr. Currington's letter, to wit: The Ku Klux Klan was comprised exclusively of Democrats until the mid 1900’s… is an absolute, which is incorrect. Re-read the upper citation to wikipedia.
Another: My conclusion is that if this nation was left to the devices of the Democratic Party, African Americans would not be anywhere near where we are today.…A conclusion that cannot be backed up. Think FDR.
From Wikipedia, again here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964: The bill was introduced by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 12, 1963, in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public—hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments," as well as "greater protection for the right to vote. He then sent a bill to Congress on June 19. Emulating the Civil Rights Act of 1875, Kennedy's civil rights bill included provisions to ban discrimination in public accommodations, and to enable the U.S. Attorney General to join in lawsuits against state governments which operated segregated school systems, among other provisions. But it did not include a number of provisions deemed essential by civil rights leaders including protection against police brutality, ending discrimination in private employment, or granting the Justice Department power to initiate desegregation or job discrimination lawsuits.…On the return from the winter recess, however, matters took a significant turn. The pressure of the civil rights movement, the March on Washington, and the President's public advocacy of the Act had made a difference of opinion in Representatives' home districts, and soon it became apparent that the petition would acquire the necessary signatures. To prevent the humiliation of the success of the petition, Chairman Smith allowed the bill to pass through the Rules Committee. The bill was brought to a vote in the House on February 10, 1964, and passed by a vote of 290 to 130, and sent to the Senate. So while it is true that a single democrat tried to keep the act bottled up in his committee, it is equally correct that there was wide support from both parties.
But please note that JFK called for this new civil rights legislation, not the republicans.
Ather absolute form the letter of Mr. C: All of the slave masters were Democrats. which you yourself refuted when you said that republicans gave up using slave labor during the Lincoln presidency, a sentence which in itself tends to discredit your allegation that NO republicans participated in slavery or they wouldn't have had to refute their prior past and assume a new and different conclusion that slavery itself is an ugly thing that deserved to die. Good thing JFK spoke out on the matter that wound up as the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with help from many people of both parties.
Another statement from Mr. C:My conclusion is that if this nation was left to the devices of the Democratic Party, African Americans would not be anywhere near where we are today. As a matter of fact I would argue that we African Americans would not have any constitutional rights, be U.S. citizens or otherwise because we would still be slaves! So much for Affirmative Action. this is a conclusion he made in 2001, and it is quite obvious now that between his statements of absolutes and most of the conclusions which he drew from that absolutist vein have been disproved.
And an appeal for reparation for past wrongs doesn't and can't wash away the evils of discrimination by making today's society, composed of citizens whom have never, ever participated in slavery to make reparations Why try to penalize people that had nothing whatever to do with slavery?
From a comment you made above, Robert: If this was "change," Obama changed his mind on reversing several of Bush's policies people hated. He has not revoked the Patriot Act. He has not revoked FISA. He has not revoked the Military Commissiona Act. He has conformed to Bush's original Iraq pullout policy and is even "surging" in Afghanistan and killing some people in Pakistan.
Obama has been far more open than bush, has ordered the end of stalling reporters or other entities by calling for and encouraging use of the Freedom of Information (sans the obstacles placed by bush). He reversed the bush policies regarding the 'abortion pill' as republicans call it. There are other presidential executive orders he has reversed.
But you are knocking the man and insulting my intelligence (inadvertently, I'm sure) when you fault Obama for things not within his power. "He has not revoked the Patriot Act. He has not revoked FISA. He has not revoked the Military Commissiona Act."
Congress and congress alone can reverse or end or amend laws signed by previous presidents, and the matters of which you speak are outside the purview of president Obama's constitutional powers. See Article One of the constitution which states: All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.
Obama has no power under our constitution to declare laws invalid just 'cause he wants to and, frankly it would scare me to death for ANY president to have that power. All a president can do is either sign legislation sent to him by congress or veto it, and his veto can be overturned by a super majority of votes from congress, making the legislation law.
Post a Comment
<< Home