#Walter Williams: Ain't no discrimination here, no siree, bahzz
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Limbaugh Fill-In Walter Williams Says [Insert Insane Statement Here]
[Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams may edge
Clarence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this year. Ain't no
discrimination here, bahzz. Bahzz treat Walter good, yazzah, bahzz!]
Published Tue, May 25, 2010 4:02pm ET
By Kate Conway
Sitting in for Rush Limbaugh today was George Mason economics professor
and conservative columnist Walter E. Williams, who immediately dove into
an absurd and uninformed commentary on Rand Paul's statements about the
1964 Civil Rights Act. His first contribution to the discussion was an
attempt to redefine discrimination as the act of choosing. He illustrated
his point by equating racial discrimination with being discriminating in
his choice of wife, weakly joking that he "harmed" the women he
"discriminated" against by denying them the opportunity to become his
wife. Suggesting that people who disagree with his position on the Civil
Rights Act might feel "white guilt," he then directed listeners to a
section of his website granting "amnesty and pardon ... to all persons of
European descent." Williams wrapped up this section of the show by
discussing for nearly ten minutes the discredited idea that the free
market would have eventually eliminated racial discrimination as it if
had merit.
In the second hour of the show, Williams ranted about "salt tyrants,"
stating that a tyrannical precedent was set by "anti-tobacco zealots." He
claimed in passing that an FDA study finding secondhand smoke to be
harmful to your health was "fraudulent," and said that the FDA and the
Obama administration have taken the position that what the American
public wants is irrelevant -- if you disagree with them they'll fine you,
put you in jail, or put you out of business. He suggested that we will
reach a point at which salt will be so regulated that schoolchildren will
be asked to inform on their parents' salt intake, and told a caller who
said she had a medical condition requiring extra salt consumption that
she might have to get a prescription for salt. In an unrelated absurdity,
Williams suggested that perhaps on top of the single vote every American
is already entitled to, for every additional $20,000 in income tax a
person pays he should get one additional vote.
Williams started out hour three with a bang by suggesting that secession
might be an appropriate course of action for those who feel that the
government interferes too much in private affairs. He compared the
problems facing the country to a marriage in which one partner has broken
the marital vows and said that, rather than staying together and
fighting, a more peaceable solution would be separation due to
"irreconcilable differences." He stated that secession need not always be
violent, absurdly citing, among other examples, West Virginia's secession
from Virginia during the Civil War. Williams then spent most of the rest
of the show lauding free markets, claiming that they benefit poor people
much more than regulated markets. To illustrate his point, he claimed
that in poor neighborhoods some people have nice (and supposedly free-
market) cars but the government-run schools are universally bad.
Williams' free-market enthrallment apparently runs so deep that he
actually concluded the show with an argument against child labor laws,
stating that if poor families need their children to work to earn money
they should be allowed to do so. When a caller objected to Williams'
rationale, saying that he wanted his children to have the opportunity to
be educated, Williams told him it was better to be uneducated than to
starve. Laws that once protected children from mines, he said, now just
protect them from air-conditioned offices.
Phlip
Minority Republicunt gigs? That's right up there with Michelle Malkin
defending Japanese internment (especially effective on readers unaware
that Filipinos and Japanese are different races).
Oh, wait, the Republicunts already have enough rednecks; I wouldn't
really stand out...
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/05/25#0056
>
>Limbaugh Fill-In Walter Williams Says [Insert Insane Statement Here]
>
>[Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams may edge
>Clarence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this year. Ain't no
>discrimination here, bahzz. Bahzz treat Walter good, yazzah, bahzz!]
More of Jamieson's racist bluster... he's insanely jealous of black
people who are more successful then he...
>Published Tue, May 25, 2010 4:02pm ET
>
>By Kate Conway
I can't help but laugh at the thought of this ignorant leftist fool,
Kate Conway, sitting there taking notes while listening to talk
radio...
>Sitting in for Rush Limbaugh today was George Mason economics professor
>and conservative columnist Walter E. Williams, who immediately dove into
>an absurd and uninformed commentary on Rand Paul's statements about the
>1964 Civil Rights Act. His first contribution to the discussion was an
>attempt to redefine discrimination as the act of choosing.
<chuckle> That is, of course, the correct definition of
discrimination...
David Hartung
> http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/05/25#0056
And you sneer when someone cites Worldnet Daily.
> Limbaugh Fill-In Walter Williams Says [Insert Insane Statement Here]
>
> [Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams may edge
> Clarence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this year. Ain't no
> discrimination here, bahzz. Bahzz treat Walter good, yazzah, bahzz!]
Now who is being racist?
Phlip
Uncle Ruckus is a black guy on Boondocks who hates blacks.
Now, hmm, can we think of any whites who hate whites? Gee... that's a
toughy!
Steve
wrote:
>On May 26, 4:14 am, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>> On 05/25/2010 08:58 PM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>
>> >http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/05/25#0056
>>
>> And you sneer when someone cites Worldnet Daily.
>>
>> > Limbaugh Fill-In Walter Williams Says [Insert Insane Statement Here]
>>
>> > [Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams may edge
>> > Clarence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this year. Ain't no
>> > discrimination here, bahzz. Bahzz treat Walter good, yazzah, bahzz!]
>>
>> Now who is being racist?
>
>Uncle Ruckus is a black guy on Boondocks who hates blacks.
From the looks of it, lefterloons like Jamieson only watch cartoon
shows on TV. Fits right in with their level of maturity.
Reaper G
wrote:
> Steve wrote:
> > On Tue, 25 May 2010 20:58:37 -0500, "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09"
> > <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>
> > >http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/05/25#0056
>
> > > Limbaugh Fill-In Walter Williams Says [Insert Insane Statement Here]
>
> > > [Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams
> > > may edge Clarence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this
> > > year. �Ain't no discrimination here, bahzz. �Bahzz treat Walter
> > > good, yazzah, bahzz!]
>
> > More of Jamieson's racist bluster... � he's insanely jealous of black
> > people who are more successful then he...
>
> read from Zepp, he has a visceral hatred of black people. Zepp is one
> sad soul.
Nah, he likes black people just fine... so long as they're marching in
lockstep with Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and Jeremiah Wright. Any
brother who thinks independently, though, is on his shit list.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Hartung seems to hate everyone.
Williams is pathetic. Parading that poor man around, trying to pretend
he speaks for African-Americans, is just stomach churning.
David Hartung
Are you African American?
If not, then you have no business making such a judgment.
Based upon his writings and his actions as a guest host on Limbaugh's
show, his intellect is far beyond yours. In addition, he grew up in an
era when Black Americans were routinely discriminated against nation
wide. I think he has earned the right to speak on the subject of racism.
Chi-Town Commie
>http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/05/25#0056
>
>Limbaugh Fill-In Walter Williams Says [Insert Insane Statement Here]
>
>[Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams may edge
>Clarence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this year. Ain't no
>discrimination here, bahzz. Bahzz treat Walter good, yazzah, bahzz!]
What a piece of racist slime you are.
>
>Published Tue, May 25, 2010 4:02pm ET
>
>By Kate Conway
So you found an article by an author who is just as clueless as you
are on the issue. You are still trying to figure out what individual
liberty means.
Cluelessness must be the overall theme of liberals and government
dependents.
>
>Sitting in for Rush Limbaugh today was George Mason economics professor
>and conservative columnist Walter E. Williams, who immediately dove into
>an absurd and uninformed commentary on Rand Paul's statements about the
>1964 Civil Rights Act. His first contribution to the discussion was an
>attempt to redefine discrimination as the act of choosing. He illustrated
>his point by equating racial discrimination with being discriminating in
>his choice of wife, weakly joking that he "harmed" the women he
>"discriminated" against by denying them the opportunity to become his
>wife. Suggesting that people who disagree with his position on the Civil
>Rights Act might feel "white guilt," he then directed listeners to a
>section of his website granting "amnesty and pardon ... to all persons of
>European descent." Williams wrapped up this section of the show by
>discussing for nearly ten minutes the discredited idea that the free
>market would have eventually eliminated racial discrimination as it if
>had merit.
It is obvious Conway does not understand the use of sarcasm to make a
point.
Going to Williams' web site
http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/gift.html
"Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to
All Persons of European Descent"
was so sarcastic of the Liberal mind.
Conway doesn't know the meaning to discriminate and how it applies to
the free market. Discrimination is not all about race. In the free
market discrimination is about choice, freedom of choice.
>
>In the second hour of the show, Williams ranted about "salt tyrants,"
>stating that a tyrannical precedent was set by "anti-tobacco zealots." He
>claimed in passing that an FDA study finding secondhand smoke to be
>harmful to your health was "fraudulent," and said that the FDA and the
>Obama administration have taken the position that what the American
>public wants is irrelevant -- if you disagree with them they'll fine you,
>put you in jail, or put you out of business. He suggested that we will
>reach a point at which salt will be so regulated that schoolchildren will
>be asked to inform on their parents' salt intake, and told a caller who
>said she had a medical condition requiring extra salt consumption that
>she might have to get a prescription for salt. In an unrelated absurdity,
>Williams suggested that perhaps on top of the single vote every American
>is already entitled to, for every additional $20,000 in income tax a
>person pays he should get one additional vote.
It's all about individual choice. Why do Liberals hate individual
choice? Aren't they smart enough to make their own choices? It's just
like government mandating on the label on a bottle of rat poison "Mot
for Human Consumption".
#####
A year into Obama's first term in office,
unemployment is higher, the national debt
is higher and there are more soldiers
serving in Afghanistan. When asked about
it, Obama said,
"Well, technically that is change."
Phlip
And, once again, we need someone to look the word "liberal" up in a
dictionary...
David Hartung
What was it you said about reality in another thread?
The reality is that modern American "Liberals" are beievers in big
government, which brings with it reduced liberty, or oppression.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
<BHus...@CCCP.com> wrote:
> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>
>>http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/05/25#0056
>>
>>Limbaugh Fill-In Walter Williams Says [Insert Insane Statement Here]
>>
>>[Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams may edge
>>Clarence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this year. Ain't no
>>discrimination here, bahzz. Bahzz treat Walter good, yazzah, bahzz!]
>
>What a piece of racist slime you are.
>
>>
>>Published Tue, May 25, 2010 4:02pm ET
>>
>>By Kate Conway
>
>So you found an article by an author who is just as clueless as you
>are on the issue. You are still trying to figure out what individual
>liberty means.
I know it includes the right to walk into any business that is open to
the public and get the same service that a white man could reasonably
expect.
>
>Cluelessness must be the overall theme of liberals and government
>dependents.
Wave your arms! Pretend that people who don't share your bigotry must
be on welfare!
>>
>>Sitting in for Rush Limbaugh today was George Mason economics professor
>>and conservative columnist Walter E. Williams, who immediately dove into
>>an absurd and uninformed commentary on Rand Paul's statements about the
>>1964 Civil Rights Act. His first contribution to the discussion was an
>>attempt to redefine discrimination as the act of choosing. He illustrated
>>his point by equating racial discrimination with being discriminating in
>>his choice of wife, weakly joking that he "harmed" the women he
>>"discriminated" against by denying them the opportunity to become his
>>wife. Suggesting that people who disagree with his position on the Civil
>>Rights Act might feel "white guilt," he then directed listeners to a
>>section of his website granting "amnesty and pardon ... to all persons of
>>European descent." Williams wrapped up this section of the show by
>>discussing for nearly ten minutes the discredited idea that the free
>>market would have eventually eliminated racial discrimination as it if
>>had merit.
>
>It is obvious Conway does not understand the use of sarcasm to make a
>point.
Ah, so you're saying that Williams didn't mean it like it sounded, but
was MOCKING Rand Paul's views?
>
>Going to Williams' web site
>
>http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/gift.html
>
>"Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to
>All Persons of European Descent"
>
>was so sarcastic of the Liberal mind.
I'm guessing that Uncle Ruckus wouldn't strike Williams as an ironic
character.
Phlip
Lit'z gao smaok some pot, dewd! But I'll tell you what the REAL crime
is, that The Man is always on our back!
Phlip
> the public and get the same service that a white man could reasonably
> expect.
5 years ago, these same idiots had us arguing _against_ torture.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On May 26, 9:26�am, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
I had no idea George W. Bush was a liberal.
Or Ronald Reagan.
David Hartung
You learn something new every day, don't you?
Reagan had little success, but he did work to reduce the burden of
government, Bush worked to increase it.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On 05/26/2010 12:50 PM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:53:12 -0700 (PDT), Phlip<phli...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On May 26, 9:26 am, David Hartung<da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>>>> On 05/26/2010 11:00 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Why do Liberals hate individual choice?
>>>>
>>>>> And, once again, we need someone to look the word "liberal" up in a
>>>>> dictionary...
>>>>
>>>> What was it you said about reality in another thread?
>>>>
>>>> The reality is that modern American "Liberals" are beievers in big
>>>> government, which brings with it reduced liberty, or oppression.
>>>
>>> Lit'z gao smaok some pot, dewd! But I'll tell you what the REAL crime
>>> is, that The Man is always on our back!
>>
>> I had no idea George W. Bush was a liberal.
>
>You learn something new every day, don't you?
>
>Reagan had little success, but he did work to reduce the burden of
>government, Bush worked to increase it.
Reagan did nothing of the sort. Government grew under him, especially
the military.
Chi-Town Commie
Williams does not claim to speak for Blacks. You just need an excuse
hate a Black man.
Neither do Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Barack Obama speak for
Blacks.
Why don't you man up to your racist intro to this thread?
"Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams may
edge Carence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this year.
Ain't no discrimination here, bahzz. Bahzz treat Walter good, yazzah,
bahzz!"
It appears Williams is more man than you are.
Chi-Town Commie
Chi-Town Commie
Real GDP (adjusted for inflation) increased 3.96% per year on average
higher than the post-World War II average of 3.6%.
Unemployment peaked at 10.8% in 1982 then dropped during the rest of
Reagan's terms, averaging 7.5%, and inflation significantly decreased.
Chi-Town Commie
And you were cheering on Muslim Terrorists killing American soldiers.
Chi-Town Commie
>On Wed, 26 May 2010 08:54:47 -0700, Chi-Town Commie
><BHus...@CCCP.com> wrote:
>
>> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>>
>>>http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/05/25#0056
>>>
>>>Limbaugh Fill-In Walter Williams Says [Insert Insane Statement Here]
>>>
>>>[Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams may edge
>>>Clarence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this year. Ain't no
>>>discrimination here, bahzz. Bahzz treat Walter good, yazzah, bahzz!]
>>
>>What a piece of racist slime you are.
>>
>>>
>>>Published Tue, May 25, 2010 4:02pm ET
>>>
>>>By Kate Conway
>>
>>So you found an article by an author who is just as clueless as you
>>are on the issue. You are still trying to figure out what individual
>>liberty means.
>
>I know it includes the right to walk into any business that is open to
>the public and get the same service that a white man could reasonably
>expect.
You still don't understand individual freedom.
>>
>>Cluelessness must be the overall theme of liberals and government
>>dependents.
>
>Wave your arms! Pretend that people who don't share your bigotry must
>be on welfare!
I not dependent on government to make choices for me. You have this
infantile need for guidance from the government.
There's no bigotry. Black businessmen would have the same rights as a
White businessman. Let' s give a cheer for BET and Jet Magazine.
>
>>>
>>>Sitting in for Rush Limbaugh today was George Mason economics professor
>>>and conservative columnist Walter E. Williams, who immediately dove into
>>>an absurd and uninformed commentary on Rand Paul's statements about the
>>>1964 Civil Rights Act. His first contribution to the discussion was an
>>>attempt to redefine discrimination as the act of choosing. He illustrated
>>>his point by equating racial discrimination with being discriminating in
>>>his choice of wife, weakly joking that he "harmed" the women he
>>>"discriminated" against by denying them the opportunity to become his
>>>wife. Suggesting that people who disagree with his position on the Civil
>>>Rights Act might feel "white guilt," he then directed listeners to a
>>>section of his website granting "amnesty and pardon ... to all persons of
>>>European descent." Williams wrapped up this section of the show by
>>>discussing for nearly ten minutes the discredited idea that the free
>>>market would have eventually eliminated racial discrimination as it if
>>>had merit.
>>
>>It is obvious Conway does not understand the use of sarcasm to make a
>>point.
>
>Ah, so you're saying that Williams didn't mean it like it sounded, but
>was MOCKING Rand Paul's views?
He was mocking "White Guilt" with his "Proclamation of Amnesty and
Pardon Granted to All Persons of European Descent".
>>
>>Going to Williams' web site
>>
>>http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/gift.html
>>
>>"Proclamation of Amnesty and Pardon Granted to
>>All Persons of European Descent"
>>
>>was so sarcastic of the Liberal mind.
>
>I'm guessing that Uncle Ruckus wouldn't strike Williams as an ironic
>character.
Williams is not a self-loathing Black like your "Uncle Ruckus".
I am not surprised at your comparison since you probably find it
incredulous that a Black man is Conservative and is not subservient to
the White Liberals.
>>
>>Conway doesn't know the meaning to discriminate and how it applies to
>>the free market. Discrimination is not all about race. In the free
>>market discrimination is about choice, freedom of choice.
>>>
>>>In the second hour of the show, Williams ranted about "salt tyrants,"
>>>stating that a tyrannical precedent was set by "anti-tobacco zealots." He
>>>claimed in passing that an FDA study finding secondhand smoke to be
>>>harmful to your health was "fraudulent," and said that the FDA and the
>>>Obama administration have taken the position that what the American
>>>public wants is irrelevant -- if you disagree with them they'll fine you,
>>>put you in jail, or put you out of business. He suggested that we will
>>>reach a point at which salt will be so regulated that schoolchildren will
>>>be asked to inform on their parents' salt intake, and told a caller who
>>>said she had a medical condition requiring extra salt consumption that
>>>she might have to get a prescription for salt. In an unrelated absurdity,
>>>Williams suggested that perhaps on top of the single vote every American
>>>is already entitled to, for every additional $20,000 in income tax a
>>>person pays he should get one additional vote.
>>
>>It's all about individual choice. Why do Liberals hate individual
>>choice? Aren't they smart enough to make their own choices? It's just
>>like government mandating on the label on a bottle of rat poison "Mot
>>for Human Consumption".
Huh? No comment?
Chi-Town Commie
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
GDP isn't government, bubbles. Didn't you know that?
Oh, and just a 10% increase in growth? Wasn't the economy supposed to
take off like a striped ass babboon with a bottle rocket up its ass
thanks to the Laffer Curve tax cuts?
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
"5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 May 2010 06:11:06 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>
>On May 26, 4:14 am, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>> On 05/25/2010 08:58 PM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>
>> >http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/05/25#0056
>>
>> And you sneer when someone cites Worldnet Daily.
>>
>> > Limbaugh Fill-In Walter Williams Says [Insert Insane Statement Here]
>>
>> > [Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams may
>edge
>> > Clarence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this year.
Ain't
>no
>> > discrimination here, bahzz. Bahzz treat Walter good, yazzah, bahzz!]
>>
>> Now who is being racist?
>
>Uncle Ruckus is a black guy on Boondocks who hates blacks.
>
>Now, hmm, can we think of any whites who hate whites? Gee... that's a
>toughy!
>
>
>Hartung seems to hate everyone.
>
>Williams is pathetic. Parading that poor man around, trying to pretend
>he speaks for African-Americans, is just stomach churning.
Williams does not claim to speak for Blacks. You just need an excuse
hate a Black man.
You can't read for shit, can you? I didn't say he claimed that. I said
right wingers were parading that poor man around, trying to pretend he
speaks for African-Americans? Were you home-schooled, perhaps?
Neither do Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Barack Obama speak for
Blacks.
They don't. Something to keep in mind one of your fellow wingnuts tries
holding one or all of them up as bad examples.
Why don't you man up to your racist intro to this thread?
What, that Williams is a pathetic tom? That's not racist. That's an
accurate description of Williams.
David Hartung
> What, that Williams is a pathetic tom? That's not racist. That's an
> accurate description of Williams.
No, it is racist, and you have now openly exposed your racism for the
whole world to see.
Bigot.
David Hartung
> "5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09"<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> I know it includes the right to walk into any business that is open to
>> the public and get the same service that a white man could reasonably
>> expect.
>
> You still don't understand individual freedom.
And he never will, he is too much of a racist.
Mitchell Holman
_WDWnZ2dnU...@giganews.com:
Name one thing Reagan did to reduce the
size or power of the US government.
sid9
"Chi-Town Commie" <BHus...@CCCP.com> wrote in message
news:f7hrv5pvopm3674cg...@4ax.com...
.
All magic done with borrowed money.
bush,jr did the same.
Now we pay the piper.
28 years wasted....only an eight year pause during the Clinton
administration
sid9
"David Hartung" <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote in message
news:YJ-dnW88LcAFS2DW...@giganews.com...
.
You are seriously confused
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
Well, he more than tripled the interest on the national debt. That
doesn't mean less government, but it does mean we're paying more for it.
Reaper G
> be able to discriminate is by association a racist. �That would be
> you, Hartung
>
> As for Sowell, Williams, Rice and Thomas---all of them make their
> living by screwing their own race, pandering to white power, even
> after taking advantage of the policies and programs that help overcome
> racism, discrimination, and bigotry
>
> One sitting on the USS took advantage of them---now is against what HE
> used to get his seat.
>
> The others availed themselves of policies and programs that got them
> into universities---one of which resided at Stanford which under most
> circumstances wouldn't have looked twice at a black when he was
> college age. �Now he writes adverse black essays while drawing a
> stipend from the Scaife billionaire who backs most racist think tanks
> for the GOP.
And Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, and many a rapper have done more to
screw their own race than any black conservative has done, fostering
racial division and excusing or overlooking bad behavior because of
skin color.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:16:40 -0500, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us>
> wrote:
>
It's racist to sneer at a privileged black man who supports segregation?
I'm sneering at Rand Paul, too. Doesn't that make me even more racist
because now I'm sneering at two individuals from two different races?
Lefty
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 06:11:06 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>
>> On 05/25/2010 08:58 PM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>
>>> http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/05/25#0056
>>
>> And you sneer when someone cites Worldnet Daily.
>>
>>> Limbaugh Fill-In Walter Williams Says [Insert Insane Statement Here]
>>
>>> [Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams may
> edge
>>> Clarence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this year. Ain't
> no
>>> discrimination here, bahzz. Bahzz treat Walter good, yazzah, bahzz!]
>>
>> Now who is being racist?
>
> Uncle Ruckus is a black guy on Boondocks who hates blacks.
Why the fake stepin fetchit-era idiom? Uncle Ruckus is a black character
created by a black man. Black men are qualified to judge to a certain
extent which blacks have "gone Oreo." Whites don't have the moral
standing to do that. You'll note that the original Media Matters article
didn't mention his race. Why did you feel the need to inject race into
it. Walter Williams is nuts. It doesn't matter whether he's black or
white. Why did you feel it was necessary to inject his race into the
discussion?
>
> Now, hmm, can we think of any whites who hate whites? Gee... that's a
> toughy!
>
It's quite easy but so what? the discussion in the article was about how
nuts Walter Williams was. You injected race into the discussion from the
very beginning. Don't blame others for your decision to make Walter
Williams' race an issue.
>
> Hartung seems to hate everyone.
>
> Williams is pathetic. Parading that poor man around, trying to pretend
> he speaks for African-Americans, is just stomach churning.
It's also his choice. Who do you pretend to speak for? Do you feel that
blacks are too inferior to speak up for themselves and they need you to
help them? I normally like what you say on here but I have to call you
out on this one. You have no right to speak for black people, and decide
for them who is and isn't a good spokesman. And you, as a white man
never get to use black stereotypical idiom to denounce a black man.
Lefty
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 23:03:06 -0600, fox wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:16:40 -0500, David Hartung<da...@lemagroup.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 05/26/2010 08:40 PM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>
>>>> What, that Williams is a pathetic tom? That's not racist. That's an
>>>> accurate description of Williams.
>>>
>>> No, it is racist, and you have now openly exposed your racism for the
>>> whole world to see.
>
> It's racist to sneer at a privileged black man who supports segregation?
It's racist to introduce a man's race into a discussion that has nothing
to do with it. The article you posted made no mention of his race. It
celebrated him as a nut in the mold of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Why
can't he just be a nut?
>
> I'm sneering at Rand Paul, too. Doesn't that make me even more racist
> because now I'm sneering at two individuals from two different races?
The fact that two people can say roughly the same things and you
differentiate between their race makes you racist in this case, I'm
sorry to say. Nothing in the original article even hinted at his race,
which is irrelevant to the fact that he's fucking nuts. The issue is
what he and Rand Paul said about the Civil Rights Act, and their
position is crazy, to put it mildly. Are you implying that Williams is
more nuts because he's black? Rand's following is made up of people
whose entire ideology goes against their own best interests; that's the
story, not that a black man said Paul was right about the CRA.
>>
>> Anyone who defends an ideology that suggest that "individuals" should be
>> able to discriminate is by association a racist.
Not unless the discrimination is based solely on race. What Paul said
was that a private business owner should be allowed to do business with
whomever he wanted. That could be based on any number of criteria,
including weight, height or hair color.
>> That would be you,
>> Hartung
>>
>> As for Sowell, Williams, Rice and Thomas---all of them make their living
>> by screwing their own race, pandering to white power, even after taking
>> advantage of the policies and programs that help overcome racism,
>> discrimination, and bigotry
Why do you insist on lumping black conservatives in a different category
from white conservatives? Unless you are African American you don't have
the moral standing to make that judgment. Blacks get to decide who is a
"traitor to their race" and not you.
David Hartung
> Why the fake stepin fetchit-era idiom? Uncle Ruckus is a black character
> created by a black man. Black men are qualified to judge to a certain
> extent which blacks have "gone Oreo." Whites don't have the moral
> standing to do that. You'll note that the original Media Matters article
> didn't mention his race. Why did you feel the need to inject race into
> it. Walter Williams is nuts. It doesn't matter whether he's black or
> white. Why did you feel it was necessary to inject his race into the
> discussion?
What does it mean to "go oreo"?
Lefty
To black people, it means "black on the outside, white on the inside."
Like an Oreo cookie.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
> On 5/27/2010 11:00 AM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 23:03:06 -0600, fox wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:16:40 -0500, David Hartung<da...@lemagroup.us>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 05/26/2010 08:40 PM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> What, that Williams is a pathetic tom? That's not racist. That's
>>>>> an accurate description of Williams.
>>>>
>>>> No, it is racist, and you have now openly exposed your racism for the
>>>> whole world to see.
>>
>> It's racist to sneer at a privileged black man who supports
>> segregation?
>
> It's racist to introduce a man's race into a discussion that has nothing
> to do with it. The article you posted made no mention of his race. It
> celebrated him as a nut in the mold of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Why
> can't he just be a nut?
Funny that you never mentioned that with that one clown who invariably
refers to him as "noted black economist Walter Williams".
And in this case, his race IS germaine to the discussion. You have a
black man speaking in favor of permitting institutionalized segregation.
I couldn't exactly compare him to George Wallace or Orvel Faubus for
fairly obvious reasons, so I compared him to the only apt character at
hand: The Boondocks' "Uncle Ruckus".
>>
>> I'm sneering at Rand Paul, too. Doesn't that make me even more racist
>> because now I'm sneering at two individuals from two different races?
>
> The fact that two people can say roughly the same things and you
> differentiate between their race makes you racist in this case, I'm
> sorry to say. Nothing in the original article even hinted at his race,
> which is irrelevant to the fact that he's fucking nuts. The issue is
> what he and Rand Paul said about the Civil Rights Act, and their
> position is crazy, to put it mildly. Are you implying that Williams is
> more nuts because he's black? Rand's following is made up of people
> whose entire ideology goes against their own best interests; that's the
> story, not that a black man said Paul was right about the CRA.
I'm implying that Williams is black and supporting institutionalized
racism. I wouldn't say that Rand Paul is any saner than him;
libertarians usually have some pretty severe mental problems of their own.
Chi-Town Commie
Clinton's administration started to do well after Congress was taken
over by the Republicans. Thank God HillaryCare tanked.
Chi-Town Commie
Chi-Town Commie
You still need a reason to hate a Black man. Williams is not being
paraded around and he is not a poor man. You're the one that lives and
breathes on government dependency.
>
>Neither do Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton or Barack Obama speak for
>Blacks.
>
>They don't. Something to keep in mind one of your fellow wingnuts tries
>holding one or all of them up as bad examples.
They are bad examples. But the left wing gives them a platform because
they are good at getting government freebies and have made victimhood
into a career choice.
>
>Why don't you man up to your racist intro to this thread?
I shouldn't expect a racist like you to recognize that. I won't tell
you. You racists deserve ignorance.
>
>What, that Williams is a pathetic tom? That's not racist. That's an
>accurate description of Williams.
You sound so David Duke.
>"Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams may
>edge Carence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this year.
>Ain't no discrimination here, bahzz. Bahzz treat Walter good, yazzah,
>bahzz!"
You hate Blacks don't you?
Chi-Town Commie
Government allowing business to do their business affects the GDP. The
closer a government allows the market to be the free market the better
the economy. Governments get in the way of a robust economy.
Didn't I tell you about your bullshit condescending attitude? Knock it
off and grow up.
>
>Oh, and just a 10% increase in growth? Wasn't the economy supposed to
>take off like a striped ass babboon with a bottle rocket up its ass
>thanks to the Laffer Curve tax cuts?
It takes time to recover from the policies of the Jimmy Carter
administration.
Chi-Town Commie
>On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:16:40 -0500, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us>
>wrote:
>
>Anyone who defends an ideology that suggest that "individuals" should
>be able to discriminate is by association a racist. That would be
>you, Hartung
Ignorance must be your only accomplishment. You cannot point to where
the ideology promotes discrimination. You are a prime example of the
ideology. You have the right to be a moron and the ideology will treat
you as such.
>
>As for Sowell, Williams, Rice and Thomas---all of them make their
>living by screwing their own race, pandering to white power, even
>after taking advantage of the policies and programs that help overcome
>racism, discrimination, and bigotry
You are an idiot on steroids. Blacks, or anyone else for that matter,
screw themselves when they constantly blame someone else for their lot
in life.
>
>One sitting on the USS took advantage of them---now is against what HE
>used to get his seat.
>
>The others availed themselves of policies and programs that got them
>into universities---one of which resided at Stanford which under most
>circumstances wouldn't have looked twice at a black when he was
>college age. Now he writes adverse black essays while drawing a
>stipend from the Scaife billionaire who backs most racist think tanks
>for the GOP.
Democrats want Blacks to be on the government dole so they can
maintain their base. It's like with countries that wee Communist.
Communist could not stay in power unless their population relied on
government to give them everything.
Chi-Town Commie
>On Wed, 26 May 2010 18:30:08 -0700, Chi-Town Commie
><BHus...@CCCP.com> wrote:
>
>>>I know it includes the right to walk into any business that is open to
>>>the public and get the same service that a white man could reasonably
>>>expect.
>>
>>You still don't understand individual freedom.
>
>The reason we have government is to regulate and control "individual
>freedom" from becoming abusive and overblown
Government has a history of control and abuse. When corporation fails
due unfair business practices or poor management. What does government
do? Bail them out.
Chi-Town Commie
>On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:19:04 -0500, David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us>
>wrote:
>
>>> You still don't understand individual freedom.
>>
>>And he never will, he is too much of a racist.
>
>THen why do YOU support a party that's been against equality, equal
>opportunity, fairness in lending, housing, education and carries the
>"States rights" plank?
In case you didn't know it, it was this "fairness in lending" that got
us into this financial meltdown.
You need a history lesson.
It was the Democrats who fought to keep blacks in slavery and passed
the discriminatory Black Codes and Jim Crow laws. The Democrats
started the Ku Klux Klan to lynch and terrorize blacks. The Democrats
fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with
the civil rights laws of the 1860s, and continuing with the civil
rights laws of the 1950s and 1960s.
It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who pushed to pass the
Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate
schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren
to the U.S. Supreme Court, which resulted in the 1954 Brown v. Board
of Education decision ending school segregation. Much is made of
Democrat President Harry Truman's issuing an Executive Order in 1948
to desegregate the military. Not mentioned is the fact that it was
Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in
the military.
http://old.nationalreview.com/murdock/murdock200502180737.asp
February 18, 2005, 7:37 a.m.
Grand Old Party
Deroy Murdock
Blacks might be surprised to compare Republican history with the
Democrats�.
Today marks the 90th anniversary of a very special White House
ceremony. President Woodrow Wilson hosted his Cabinet and the entire
U.S. Supreme Court for a screening of D. W. Griffith's racist
masterpiece, Birth of a Nation. The executive mansion's first film
presentation depicted, according to Griffith, the Ku Klux Klan's
heroic, post-Civil War struggle against the menace of emancipated
blacks, portrayed by white actors in black face. As black civil-rights
leader W.E.B. DuBois explained: In Griffith's 1915 motion picture,
"The freed man was represented either as an ignorant fool, a vicious
rapist, a venal or unscrupulous politician, or a faithful idiot."
Thumbs up, Wilson exclaimed. The film "is like writing history with
lightning," he remarked, adding, "it is all so terribly true."
This vignette � recently recounted in Ken Burns's PBS documentary,
Unforgivable Blackness � was neither the first nor last time a
prominent Democrat plunged a hot knife in black America's collective
back. Each February, Black History Month recalls Democrat Harry
Truman's 1948 desegregation of the armed forces and Democrat Lyndon
Baines Johnson's signature on the 1964 Civil Rights Act, the greatest
black legislative victory since Republican Abraham Lincoln abolished
slavery in 1863. This annual commemoration, however, largely overlooks
the many milestones Republicans and blacks have achieved together by
overcoming reactionary Democrats.
The House Policy Committee's 2005 Republican Freedom Calendar offers
365 examples of GOP support for women, blacks, and other minorities,
often over Democratic objections. Among its highlights:
"To stop the Democrats' pro-slavery agenda, anti-slavery activists
founded the Republican party, starting with a few dozen men and women
in Ripon, Wisconsin on March 20, 1854," the calendar notes.
"Democratic opposition to Republican efforts to protect the civil
rights of all Americans lasted not only throughout Reconstruction, but
well into the 20th century. In the south, those Democrats who most
bitterly opposed equality for blacks founded the Ku Klux Klan, which
operated as the party's terrorist wing."
Contemporary partisan hyperbole? Consider this 1866 comment from
Governor Oliver Morton (R., Ind.), who is immortalized in the U.S.
Capitol's Statuary Hall: "Every one who shoots down Negroes in the
streets, burns Negro school-houses and meeting-houses, and murders
women and children by the light of their own flaming dwellings, calls
himself a Democrat," Morton said. "Every New York rioter in 1863 who
burned up little children in colored asylums, who robbed, ravished,
and murdered indiscriminately in the midst of a blazing city for three
days and nights, calls himself a Democrat."
White supremacists worked club in hand with Democrats for decades:
May 22, 1856: Two years after the Grand Old party's birth, U.S.
Senator Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) rose to decry pro-slavery
Democrats. Congressman Preston Brooks (D., S.C.) responded by grabbing
a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber.
Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.
July 30, 1866: New Orleans's Democratic government ordered police to
raid an integrated GOP meeting, killing 40 people and injuring 150.
September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly
300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper
editor.
October 7, 1868: Republicans criticized Democrats' national slogan:
"This is a white man's country: Let white men rule."
April 20, 1871: The GOP Congress adopted the Ku Klux Klan Act,
banning the pro-Democrat domestic terrorist group.
October 18, 1871: GOP President Ulysses S. Grant dispatched federal
troops to quell Klan violence in South Carolina.
September 14, 1874: Racist white Democrats stormed Louisiana's
statehouse to oust GOP Governor William Kellogg's racially integrated
administration; 27 are killed.
August 17, 1937: Republicans opposed Democratic President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt's Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D.,
Al.), a former Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder
charges.
February 2005: The Democrats' Klan-coddling today is embodied by KKK
alumnus Robert Byrd, West Virginia's logorrheic U.S. senator and,
having served since January 3, 1959, that body's dean. Thirteen years
earlier, Byrd wrote this to the KKK's Imperial Wizard: "The Klan is
needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here
in West Virginia." Byrd led Senate Democrats as late as December 1988.
On March 4, 2001, Byrd told Fox News's Tony Snow: "There are white
niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use
that word." National Democrats never have arranged a primary challenge
against or otherwise pressed this one-time cross-burner to get lost.
Contrast the KKKozy Democrats with the GOP. When former Klansman David
Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, national GOP
officials scorned him. Local Republicans endorsed incumbent Democrat
Edwin Edwards, despite his ethical baggage. As one Republican-created
bumper sticker pleaded: "Vote for the crook: It's important!"
Republicans also have supported legislation favorable to blacks, often
against intense Democratic headwinds:
In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th
Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63
percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: "No."
In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House
members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal
protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: "No."
February 28, 1871: The GOP Congress passed the Enforcement Act,
giving black voters federal protection.
February 8, 1894: Democratic President Grover Cleveland and a
Democratic Congress repealed the GOP's Enforcement Act, denying black
voters federal protection.
January 26, 1922: The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer's (R.,
Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate
Democrats killed the measure.
May 17, 1954: As chief justice, former three-term governor Earl
Warren (R., Calif.) led the U.S. Supreme Court's desegregation of
government schools via the landmark Brown v. Board of Education
decision. GOP President Dwight Eisenhower's Justice Department argued
for Topeka, Kansas's black school children. Democrat John W. Davis,
who lost a presidential bid to incumbent Republican Calvin Coolidge in
1924, defended "separate but equal" classrooms.
September 24, 1957: Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to
desegregate Little Rock's government schools over the strenuous
resistance of Governor Orval Faubus (D., Ark.).
May 6, 1960: Eisenhower signs the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after
it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.
July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil
Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster and
the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee's Al Gore,
Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett
Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and
allow the bill's passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9,
2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only
66 percent of Democrats.
True, Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the very
year he became the GOP's presidential standard-bearer. However,
Goldwater supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for
integrating Arizona's National Guard two years before Truman
desegregated the military. Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit
freedom of association in the private sector, a controversial but
principled libertarian objection rooted in the First Amendment rather
than racial hatred.
June 29, 1982: President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The Republican party also is the home of numerous "firsts." Among
them:
Until 1935, every black federal legislator was Republican. America's
first black U.S. Representative, South Carolina's Joseph Rainey, and
our first black senator, Mississippi's Hiram Revels, both reached
Capitol Hill in 1870. On December 9, 1872, Louisiana Republican
Pinckney Benton Stewart "P.B.S." Pinchback became America's first
black governor.
August 8, 1878: GOP supply-siders may hate to admit it, but America's
first black Collector of Internal Revenue was former U.S. Rep. James
Rapier (R., Ala.).
October 16, 1901: GOP President Theodore Roosevelt invited to the
White House as its first black dinner guest Republican educator Booker
T. Washington. The pro-Democrat Richmond Times newspaper warned that
consequently, "White women may receive attentions from Negro men." As
Toni Marshall wrote in the November 9, 1995, Washington Times, when
Roosevelt sought reelection in 1904, Democrats produced a button that
showed their presidential nominee, Alton Parker, beside a white couple
while Roosevelt posed with a white bride and black groom. The button
read: "The Choice Is Yours."
GOP presidents Gerald Ford in 1975 and Ronald Reagan in 1982 promoted
Daniel James and Roscoe Robinson to become, respectively, the Air
Force's and Army's first black four-star generals.
November 2, 1983: President Reagan established Dr. Martin Luther King
Jr.'s birthday as a national holiday, the first such honor for a black
American.
President Reagan named Colin Powell America's first black
national-security adviser while GOP President George W. Bush appointed
him our first black secretary of state.
President G.W. Bush named Condoleezza Rice America's first black
female NSC chief, then our second (consecutive) black secretary of
State. Just last month, one-time Klansman Robert Byrd and other Senate
Democrats stalled Rice's confirmation for a week. Amid unanimous GOP
support, 12 Democrats and Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed
Rice � the most "No" votes for a State designee since 14 senators
frowned on Henry Clay in 1825.
"The first Republican I knew was my father, and he is still the
Republican I most admire," Rice has said. "He joined our party because
the Democrats in Jim Crow Alabama of 1952 would not register him to
vote. The Republicans did. My father has never forgotten that day, and
neither have I."
"We started our party with the express intent of protecting the
American people from the Democrats' pro-slavery policies that
expressly made people inferior to the state," wrote Rep. Christopher
Cox (R., Calif.), who authorized the calendar last year as House
Policy chairman. "Today, the animating spirit of the Republican Party
is exactly the same as it was then: free people, free minds, free
markets, free expression, and unlimited opportunity."
"Leading the organized opposition to these ideas 150 years ago, just
as today, was the Democratic Party," Cox continued. "Then, just as
now, their hallmarks were politically correct speech; a preference for
government control over individual initiative...and an insistence on
seeing people as members of groups rather than as individuals."
But what about racial preferences? The GOP's embrace of color-neutral
policies parallels Martin Luther King's dream of racial equality over
racial scale tipping. "The constitutional amendments that the
Republican party supported after the Civil War did not advance
preferences by race," Cox told me. "They made government view every
person as an individual, not as a member of a racial group."
Alas, even as Republicans promote work over welfare, educational
choice, and personal retirement accounts, all of which would empower
blacks, some 90 percent of blacks vote Democrat as reflexively as
knees kick when tapped with rubber mallets. After inspecting the
Democrats' handiwork � e.g. the tar pit that is public assistance, the
Dresden that is the ghetto school system, and the pyramid scheme that
is Social Security (which robs too many blacks who die before
recouping their "investment") � black Americans should ask Democrats:
"Yesterday's gone. What have you done for us lately?"
Republican leader, Salmon P. Chase, earned the nickname �Attorney
General of Fugitive Slaves� for defending runaway slaves.
The most famous runaway, Frederick Douglass, was the Martin Luther
King, Jr. of the 19th century.
"I am a Republican, a black, dyed in the wool Republican, and I never
intend to belong to any other party than the party of freedom and
progress."
-Frederick Douglass
Lefty
> On Thu, 27 May 2010 12:16:58 -0400, Lefty wrote:
>
>> On 5/27/2010 11:00 AM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 23:03:06 -0600, fox wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:16:40 -0500, David Hartung<da...@lemagroup.us>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 05/26/2010 08:40 PM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What, that Williams is a pathetic tom? That's not racist. That's
>>>>>> an accurate description of Williams.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it is racist, and you have now openly exposed your racism for the
>>>>> whole world to see.
>>>
>>> It's racist to sneer at a privileged black man who supports
>>> segregation?
>>
>> It's racist to introduce a man's race into a discussion that has nothing
>> to do with it. The article you posted made no mention of his race. It
>> celebrated him as a nut in the mold of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. Why
>> can't he just be a nut?
>
> Funny that you never mentioned that with that one clown who invariably
> refers to him as "noted black economist Walter Williams".
You opened this thread with a Stepin Fetchit-style "Negro" idiom in the
subject line and again in your "Zeppnote." You made this about race.
Nothing in the original article mentioned Williams' race. The others are
also being racist, but we expect it from them.
>
> And in this case, his race IS germaine to the discussion. You have a
> black man speaking in favor of permitting institutionalized segregation.
That is not what either he or Rand Paul were talking about. As a
Libertarian sees it, this is not about race. It's about the rights of a
private business to sell to whomever he wants. Neither Rand Paul or
Walter Williams nor Rachel Maddow for that matter brought up race. They
were discussing the law. Both Williams and Paul are loonies; their race
has nothing to do with this issue.
> I couldn't exactly compare him to George Wallace or Orvel Faubus for
> fairly obvious reasons, so I compared him to the only apt character at
> hand: The Boondocks' "Uncle Ruckus".
Because Uncle Ruckus is a black character. Take Williams' race out of
it. It doesn't make him more or less nuts.
>>>
>>> I'm sneering at Rand Paul, too. Doesn't that make me even more racist
>>> because now I'm sneering at two individuals from two different races?
>>
>> The fact that two people can say roughly the same things and you
>> differentiate between their race makes you racist in this case, I'm
>> sorry to say. Nothing in the original article even hinted at his race,
>> which is irrelevant to the fact that he's fucking nuts. The issue is
>> what he and Rand Paul said about the Civil Rights Act, and their
>> position is crazy, to put it mildly. Are you implying that Williams is
>> more nuts because he's black? Rand's following is made up of people
>> whose entire ideology goes against their own best interests; that's the
>> story, not that a black man said Paul was right about the CRA.
>
> I'm implying that Williams is black and supporting institutionalized
> racism.
Neither Williams nor Paul is supporting what they define as
"institutional racism." They simply can't see it for what it is. To
Libertarians, the only "institutional racism" is government supported.
They are not making a distinction based on race. If a business owner
refused to serve fat or ugly people, they're supporting that, as well.
It's not race-based.
> I wouldn't say that Rand Paul is any saner than him;
> libertarians usually have some pretty severe mental problems of their own.
I agree. But it's because they're Libertarian, not because of their
race. Rachel Maddow understood that when she interviewed Paul. He wasn't
being racist, she was trying to get him to understand that what he
supported would result in racism. That's a distinct difference.
Sid9
"David Hartung" <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote in message
news:So-dnRdxgfrHAWPW...@giganews.com...
.
Whoosh! Your are simple and out of touch if you don’t know what that means.
David Hartung
I see.
The simple truth is that our society is predominantly white, northern
European in makeup. What those who use the term "oreo" are doing is
denigrating those blacks who have equipped theselves for success, and
who have learned to succeed in this largely white, northern European
culture.
In other words, the problem is not those who are "oreo", but those
failures who revel in their ignorant ghetto "blackness".
David Hartung
I have been hearing the term for years, and have known the meaning for
years. The funny thing is that invariably, the term is used by those who
haver refused to acquire the tools of success, against those who are
successful.
Sid9
.
Maybe so, however I think that it involves an idea that an Oreo is a traitor
to the advance of the rest of his group.
Walter Williams fits the bill.
The simple fact that he would accept the job as a Limbo stand-in marks him
as an Oreo.
David Hartung
> And in this case, his race IS germaine to the discussion. You have a
> black man speaking in favor of permitting institutionalized segregation.
I did not get a chance to listen to Dr. Williams on the occasion in
question, but I have heard him on other occasions, and I have had the
pleasure of reading some of what he writes. If Walter Williams was
speaking in favor of "institutionalized racism", or in favor of any sort
of racism, it was the first time.
Zepp, you really need to learn the difference between individual liberty
and "institutionalized racism".
> I couldn't exactly compare him to George Wallace or Orvel Faubus for
> fairly obvious reasons, so I compared him to the only apt character at
> hand: The Boondocks' "Uncle Ruckus".
Which marks you as a racist.
Thank you.
Lefty
> On 05/27/2010 11:30 AM, Lefty wrote:
>> On 5/27/2010 12:22 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>>> On 05/27/2010 10:54 AM, Lefty wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why the fake stepin fetchit-era idiom? Uncle Ruckus is a black
>>>> character
>>>> created by a black man. Black men are qualified to judge to a certain
>>>> extent which blacks have "gone Oreo." Whites don't have the moral
>>>> standing to do that. You'll note that the original Media Matters
>>>> article
>>>> didn't mention his race. Why did you feel the need to inject race into
>>>> it. Walter Williams is nuts. It doesn't matter whether he's black or
>>>> white. Why did you feel it was necessary to inject his race into the
>>>> discussion?
>>>
>>> What does it mean to "go oreo"?
>>
>> To black people, it means "black on the outside, white on the inside."
>> Like an Oreo cookie.
>
> I see.
Given what you write below, I don't think you do.
>
> The simple truth is that our society is predominantly white, northern
> European in makeup. What those who use the term "oreo" are doing is
> denigrating those blacks who have equipped theselves for success, and
> who have learned to succeed in this largely white, northern European
> culture.
White people have no moral standing to decide who's an "oreo" and who
isn't. That includes you. The word isn't used to describe those "who
have equipped theselves (sic) for success," but rather those who become
successful and then forget where they came from. There isn't a
successful black person out there, including Walter Williams, who
wouldn't be kicked in the ass by powerful white men, if there weren't
safeguards in the law preventing it.
As for this being a "white, northern European culture" you don't seem to
be paying attention. Within the next ten years white men will be a
minority. A lot of whites are too stupid to understand that laws that
protect blacks now will protect whites in the future.
>
> In other words, the problem is not those who are "oreo", but those
> failures who revel in their ignorant ghetto "blackness".
>
Racist, has it occurred to you that most black people don't live in a
ghetto? An increasing number of them also don't speak like Jesse Jackson
and until Bush fucked up the economy the black middle class was growing
faster than the white middle class. The term oreo is used to describe
someone who acts like a white man but that has nothing to do with his
education or how he speaks. It has to do with what he does to prevent
other blacks from experiencing the same level of success.
I called out the original poster for injecting race into this discussion
but you're far more racist than he is, so you shouldn't even post in
this thread.
Lefty
> On 05/27/2010 11:42 AM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
>> And in this case, his race IS germaine to the discussion. You have a
>> black man speaking in favor of permitting institutionalized segregation.
>
> I did not get a chance to listen to Dr. Williams on the occasion in
> question, but I have heard him on other occasions, and I have had the
> pleasure of reading some of what he writes. If Walter Williams was
> speaking in favor of "institutionalized racism", or in favor of any sort
> of racism, it was the first time.
>
> Zepp, you really need to learn the difference between individual liberty
> and "institutionalized racism".
So should you.
What Williams and Paul are arguing is that private businesses should be
free to sell to whomever they want. That's not how it works. They're
company is private, but the business itself is public. Businesspeople
choose to buy or rent a building adjoining public property and to apply
for a license to sell to the public. Among the rules for a public
business are a promise to not discriminate. Individual liberty ended
when he chose to open a business to the public and to follow the rules
set up for doing so.
In the Libertarian ideology, the businessman has the right to decide who
he wants to do business with. Okay, but the entire public is providing
him with the means by which he does business. What happens to the rights
of the public? The Libertarian ideology is based on the "every man is an
island" concept and that's not how society works.
>
>> I couldn't exactly compare him to George Wallace or Orvel Faubus for
>> fairly obvious reasons, so I compared him to the only apt character at
>> hand: The Boondocks' "Uncle Ruckus".
>
> Which marks you as a racist.
Please stop calling him that. He sometimes falls into racism. You swim
in it. He's engaged in racism by initializing a discussion about race
where it's not relevant but it's not a habit. A lot of well meaning
people fall into that. You simply *are* a racist. You can't articulate a
thought that doesn't betray your incredible prejudice. You obviously
think white people are better than black people, and that makes you
inherently racist.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On 05/27/2010 11:42 AM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>
>> And in this case, his race IS germaine to the discussion. You have a
>> black man speaking in favor of permitting institutionalized segregation.
>
>I did not get a chance to listen to Dr. Williams on the occasion in
>question, but I have heard him on other occasions, and I have had the
>pleasure of reading some of what he writes. If Walter Williams was
>speaking in favor of "institutionalized racism", or in favor of any sort
>of racism, it was the first time.
>
>Zepp, you really need to learn the difference between individual liberty
>and "institutionalized racism".
No individuals participated in institutionalized racism? It just sort
of happened with no human involvement?
Is that what you're telling us, bubbles?
>
>> I couldn't exactly compare him to George Wallace or Orvel Faubus for
>> fairly obvious reasons, so I compared him to the only apt character at
>> hand: The Boondocks' "Uncle Ruckus".
>
>Which marks you as a racist.
Would you say Uncle Ruckus was a racist?
>
>Thank you.
David Hartung
I have every moral right to look around me and to reach conclusions
based upon the facts as I understand them. What you write speaks of one
who looks for excuses.
While we are on the subject, just how has Walter Williams "forgotten"
where he comes from?
> As for this being a "white, northern European culture" you don't seem to
> be paying attention. Within the next ten years white men will be a
> minority. A lot of whites are too stupid to understand that laws that
> protect blacks now will protect whites in the future.
You sound more and more like someone who has spent far too many years
listening To demigods like Jeremiah Wright. You are probably also a
ghetto dweller and have accomplished little in your life.
>> In other words, the problem is not those who are "oreo", but those
>> failures who revel in their ignorant ghetto "blackness".
>>
> Racist, has it occurred to you that most black people don't live in a
> ghetto? An increasing number of them also don't speak like Jesse Jackson
> and until Bush fucked up the economy the black middle class was growing
> faster than the white middle class. The term oreo is used to describe
> someone who acts like a white man but that has nothing to do with his
> education or how he speaks. It has to do with what he does to prevent
> other blacks from experiencing the same level of success.
Okay, let's say that you are correct, what has Walter Williams done to
prevent other Blacks from achieving?
> I called out the original poster for injecting race into this discussion
> but you're far more racist than he is, so you shouldn't even post in
> this thread.
What makes me racist?
David Hartung
How?
David Hartung
> On 5/27/2010 2:27 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> On 05/27/2010 11:42 AM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>
>>> And in this case, his race IS germaine to the discussion. You have a
>>> black man speaking in favor of permitting institutionalized segregation.
>>
>> I did not get a chance to listen to Dr. Williams on the occasion in
>> question, but I have heard him on other occasions, and I have had the
>> pleasure of reading some of what he writes. If Walter Williams was
>> speaking in favor of "institutionalized racism", or in favor of any sort
>> of racism, it was the first time.
>>
>> Zepp, you really need to learn the difference between individual liberty
>> and "institutionalized racism".
>
> So should you.
>
> What Williams and Paul are arguing is that private businesses should be
> free to sell to whomever they want. That's not how it works. They're
> company is private, but the business itself is public. Businesspeople
> choose to buy or rent a building adjoining public property and to apply
> for a license to sell to the public. Among the rules for a public
> business are a promise to not discriminate. Individual liberty ended
> when he chose to open a business to the public and to follow the rules
> set up for doing so.
Those "rules" came into being in 1964, and any businessman with any
sense at all will follow them. Simply put, you argue that one who opens
a business must be willing to do business with whomever he wishes, that
he has forfeited his right of free association. I find such an argument
to be morally lacking. I also find racism of any form to be morally
repugnant.
> In the Libertarian ideology, the businessman has the right to decide who
> he wants to do business with. Okay, but the entire public is providing
> him with the means by which he does business. What happens to the rights
> of the public? The Libertarian ideology is based on the "every man is an
> island" concept and that's not how society works.
The entire public is providing him with the means by which he does
business? How?
>>> I couldn't exactly compare him to George Wallace or Orvel Faubus for
>>> fairly obvious reasons, so I compared him to the only apt character at
>>> hand: The Boondocks' "Uncle Ruckus".
>>
>> Which marks you as a racist.
>
> Please stop calling him that. He sometimes falls into racism. You swim
> in it.
Exactly how do I "swim" in racism?
> He's engaged in racism by initializing a discussion about race
> where it's not relevant but it's not a habit. A lot of well meaning
> people fall into that. You simply *are* a racist. You can't articulate a
> thought that doesn't betray your incredible prejudice. You obviously
> think white people are better than black people, and that makes you
> inherently racist.
I see. You will believe what you wish, nothing I can say will change
your mind. The nice thing about life is that your accusations do not
change the truth.
5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On 05/27/2010 01:49 PM, Lefty wrote:
That's a bit like arguing that Hitler gave Germans the freedom to
associate with other Germans.
Lefty
Do you even understand what a business license is? He's not forfeiting
anything. But he's chosen to become a public business, which means he
has to follow public rules.
>
>> In the Libertarian ideology, the businessman has the right to decide who
>> he wants to do business with. Okay, but the entire public is providing
>> him with the means by which he does business. What happens to the rights
>> of the public? The Libertarian ideology is based on the "every man is an
>> island" concept and that's not how society works.
>
> The entire public is providing him with the means by which he does
> business? How?
Of course it is. Are you stupid? Do you think roads and sidewalks just
appear out of thin air? How about police and fire protection? Do you
think they're provided by heavenly fiat? What about all of the rules
that protect one business from another, and the courts in which they
attempt to create justice?
>
>>>> I couldn't exactly compare him to George Wallace or Orvel Faubus for
>>>> fairly obvious reasons, so I compared him to the only apt character at
>>>> hand: The Boondocks' "Uncle Ruckus".
>>>
>>> Which marks you as a racist.
>>
>> Please stop calling him that. He sometimes falls into racism. You swim
>> in it.
>
> Exactly how do I "swim" in racism?
Re-read your little screed about blacks who linger in the ghetto and
diss other blacks who dare to succeed and count the stereotypes.
>
>> He's engaged in racism by initializing a discussion about race
>> where it's not relevant but it's not a habit. A lot of well meaning
>> people fall into that. You simply *are* a racist. You can't articulate a
>> thought that doesn't betray your incredible prejudice. You obviously
>> think white people are better than black people, and that makes you
>> inherently racist.
>
> I see. You will believe what you wish, nothing I can say will change
> your mind. The nice thing about life is that your accusations do not
> change the truth.
I am not making accusations. I'm making observations. I observe that
Zepp did something that could be considered racist. In your responses to
him, you betrayed yourself as an absolute racist through and through.
Lefty
No you don't. You have the constitutional right to express yourself as
you please. That does not mean you have a moral right to make judgments
about blacks or anyone else not in your likely very small circle of
acquaintances.
> What you write speaks of one
> who looks for excuses.
I'm just pointing out your racism.
>
> While we are on the subject, just how has Walter Williams "forgotten"
> where he comes from?
I didn't say that. I'm not black. I simply said that's what black people
who use the term "oreo" usually mean.
>
>> As for this being a "white, northern European culture" you don't seem to
>> be paying attention. Within the next ten years white men will be a
>> minority. A lot of whites are too stupid to understand that laws that
>> protect blacks now will protect whites in the future.
>
> You sound more and more like someone who has spent far too many years
> listening To demigods like Jeremiah Wright. You are probably also a
> ghetto dweller and have accomplished little in your life.
I've never been poor and I've never lived in the ghetto. I am also not
black. Have I not made that clear? Your suggestion that any black man
who disagrees with you must be a "ghetto dweller and have accomplished
little in your life" says a lot about you.
>
>>> In other words, the problem is not those who are "oreo", but those
>>> failures who revel in their ignorant ghetto "blackness".
>>>
>> Racist, has it occurred to you that most black people don't live in a
>> ghetto? An increasing number of them also don't speak like Jesse Jackson
>> and until Bush fucked up the economy the black middle class was growing
>> faster than the white middle class. The term oreo is used to describe
>> someone who acts like a white man but that has nothing to do with his
>> education or how he speaks. It has to do with what he does to prevent
>> other blacks from experiencing the same level of success.
>
> Okay, let's say that you are correct, what has Walter Williams done to
> prevent other Blacks from achieving?
I'm not accusing Walter Williams of anything. My use of the term was to
describe why only blacks have the moral authority to judge whether or
not other blacks are "good" blacks.
>
>> I called out the original poster for injecting race into this discussion
>> but you're far more racist than he is, so you shouldn't even post in
>> this thread.
>
> What makes me racist?
>
Your whole being. You can't not be racist.
David Hartung
Two thoughts.
1. You tell me that only other blacks have moral authority to judge
other blacks. Using that logic, only blacks can define racism.
Do you agree?
2. You seem to be saying that a colorblind approach to life makes one
racist.
David Hartung
> On 5/27/2010 3:46 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>> The entire public is providing him with the means by which he does
>> business? How?
>
> Of course it is. Are you stupid? Do you think roads and sidewalks just
> appear out of thin air? How about police and fire protection? Do you
> think they're provided by heavenly fiat? What about all of the rules
> that protect one business from another, and the courts in which they
> attempt to create justice?
Those services can make it easier to be in business, but they do not
"make it possible".
>>>>> I couldn't exactly compare him to George Wallace or Orvel Faubus for
>>>>> fairly obvious reasons, so I compared him to the only apt character at
>>>>> hand: The Boondocks' "Uncle Ruckus".
>>>>
>>>> Which marks you as a racist.
>>>
>>> Please stop calling him that. He sometimes falls into racism. You swim
>>> in it.
>>
>> Exactly how do I "swim" in racism?
>
> Re-read your little screed about blacks who linger in the ghetto and
> diss other blacks who dare to succeed and count the stereotypes.
The thoughts in that "screed" are not originaly mine. Among the people I
have heard express those thoughts is a radio host by the name of Ken
Hamblin.
Are you going to tell me that he is a racist?
Steve
>On 5/26/2010 10:11 AM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 06:11:06 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>>
>> On May 26, 4:14 am, David Hartung<da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>>> On 05/25/2010 08:58 PM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2010/05/25#0056
>>>
>>> And you sneer when someone cites Worldnet Daily.
>>>
>>>> Limbaugh Fill-In Walter Williams Says [Insert Insane Statement Here]
>>>
>>>> [Viewers of "The Boondocks" will doubtlessly agree that Williams may
>> edge
>>>> Clarence "Slappy" Thomas for the Uncle Ruckus award this year. Ain't
>> no
>>>> discrimination here, bahzz. Bahzz treat Walter good, yazzah, bahzz!]
>>>
>>> Now who is being racist?
>>
>> Uncle Ruckus is a black guy on Boondocks who hates blacks.
>
>Why the fake stepin fetchit-era idiom? Uncle Ruckus is a black character
>created by a black man. Black men are qualified to judge to a certain
>extent which blacks have "gone Oreo." Whites don't have the moral
>standing to do that. You'll note that the original Media Matters article
>didn't mention his race. Why did you feel the need to inject race into
>it. Walter Williams is nuts. It doesn't matter whether he's black or
>white. Why did you feel it was necessary to inject his race into the
>discussion?
>>
>> Now, hmm, can we think of any whites who hate whites? Gee... that's a
>> toughy!
>>
>It's quite easy but so what? the discussion in the article was about how
>nuts Walter Williams was. You injected race into the discussion from the
>very beginning. Don't blame others for your decision to make Walter
>Williams' race an issue.
>
>>
>> Hartung seems to hate everyone.
>>
>> Williams is pathetic. Parading that poor man around, trying to pretend
>> he speaks for African-Americans, is just stomach churning.
>
>It's also his choice. Who do you pretend to speak for? Do you feel that
>blacks are too inferior to speak up for themselves and they need you to
>help them? I normally like what you say on here but I have to call you
>out on this one. You have no right to speak for black people, and decide
>for them who is and isn't a good spokesman. And you, as a white man
>never get to use black stereotypical idiom to denounce a black man.
so what exactly makes YOU think YOU have the moral standing to address
the issue? You and Jamieson should take you little family squabble
off somewhere else. See if you can find somebody that cares....
Lefty
> On 05/27/2010 03:31 PM, Lefty wrote:
>> On 5/27/2010 3:46 PM, David Hartung wrote:
>
>>> The entire public is providing him with the means by which he does
>>> business? How?
>>
>> Of course it is. Are you stupid? Do you think roads and sidewalks just
>> appear out of thin air? How about police and fire protection? Do you
>> think they're provided by heavenly fiat? What about all of the rules
>> that protect one business from another, and the courts in which they
>> attempt to create justice?
>
> Those services can make it easier to be in business, but they do not
> "make it possible".
Don't be stupid. Businesses have always been dependent on government
services. That's why so many businesses willingly apply for business
licenses and don't have to be coerced.
>
>>>>>> I couldn't exactly compare him to George Wallace or Orvel Faubus for
>>>>>> fairly obvious reasons, so I compared him to the only apt
>>>>>> character at
>>>>>> hand: The Boondocks' "Uncle Ruckus".
>>>>>
>>>>> Which marks you as a racist.
>>>>
>>>> Please stop calling him that. He sometimes falls into racism. You swim
>>>> in it.
>>>
>>> Exactly how do I "swim" in racism?
>>
>> Re-read your little screed about blacks who linger in the ghetto and
>> diss other blacks who dare to succeed and count the stereotypes.
>
> The thoughts in that "screed" are not originaly mine. Among the people I
> have heard express those thoughts is a radio host by the name of Ken
> Hamblin.
Ken Hamblin is a black man as I recall. He has the moral authority to
make those statements. You do not.
>
> Are you going to tell me that he is a racist?
I don't know him and I've never heard his show. And I can't take your
word that he said it exactly as you did.
Lefty
No. That's ridiculous. Only blacks can judge whether another black is
acting against the interests of the black community. It's your racism
that makes you see that as racism.
>
> 2. You seem to be saying that a colorblind approach to life makes one
> racist.
So is English your third or fourth language?
I mentioned nothing about a colorblind approach to anything. You are
incapable of thinking of humans with different levels of melanin without
seeing race.
Mitchell Holman
news:dcvsv556ucqksjeoa...@4ax.com:
> Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>David Hartung <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote in news:1t-dnbgd_Ox4
>>_WDWnZ2dnU...@giganews.com:
>>
>>> On 05/26/2010 12:50 PM, 5467 Dead, 600 since 1/20/09 wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 09:53:12 -0700 (PDT), Phlip<phli...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On May 26, 9:26 am, David Hartung<da...@lemagroup.us> wrote:
>>>>>> On 05/26/2010 11:00 AM, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do Liberals hate individual choice?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> And, once again, we need someone to look the word "liberal" up in
a
>>>>>>> dictionary...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What was it you said about reality in another thread?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The reality is that modern American "Liberals" are beievers in big
>>>>>> government, which brings with it reduced liberty, or oppression.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lit'z gao smaok some pot, dewd! But I'll tell you what the REAL
crime
>>>>> is, that The Man is always on our back!
>>>>
>>>> I had no idea George W. Bush was a liberal.
>>>
>>> You learn something new every day, don't you?
>>>
>>> Reagan had little success, but he did work to reduce the burden of
>>> government, Bush worked to increase it.
>>
>>
>> Name one thing Reagan did to reduce the
>>size or power of the US government.
>>
> Less regulation.
Are you referring to the deregultion of the
Savings and Loan insurance program, that lead to
the S&L bailout fiasco that cost billions in
taxpayer money?
Steve
<LOL> That's rich, coming from a leftist.. Leftists "play the race
card" whenever they can, as was just done above...
David Hartung
Thank you for your opinion.
David Hartung
Thank you for your opinion.
Sid9
"David Hartung" <da...@lemagroup.us> wrote in message
news:c7udnbrPQ4O6UWPW...@giganews.com...
.
A person running a business should only see one color: green.
The color if the skin of his customers or employees is irrelevant.
If skin color gets in the way of his ability to perceive green, he's a lousy
business person.
David Hartung
I agree completely. Where you and I differ is whether or not the
government is right to enforce such a view by force of law.
Sid9
.
Obviously the Civil Rights law passed.
It was signed by the then president.
It has not been voided by the Supreme Court.
Therefore it's the law of the land and will be enforced by our executive
branch.
You don’t like it?
T.S.
Try to get it changed.
Chi-Town Commie
The S&L crisis had a head start when interest rates shot through the
roof in 1979 due to the rise in oil prices. Between 1980 and 1982,
regulators, industry lobbyists and legislators put together various
legislative and regulatory mechanisms to postpone the threatened
insolvency of the sector in the hope that interest rates would quieten
down and S&Ls would be able to engineer themselves back into
profitability.
You must remember one of the main players of the S&L crisis was
Lincoln Savings and Loan run by Charles Keating. Four of the five
Senators in the Keating Five Scandal were Democrats. Being that the
S&L crisis involved banking and real estate leads me to believe
Congress held the shovel to dig the S&Ls deeper in the hole.
Moral to the story. Government is Pop Warner trying to play in the
NFL.
#####
A year into Obama's first term in office,
unemployment is higher, the national debt
is higher and there are more soldiers
serving in Afghanistan. When asked about
it, Obama said,
"Well, technically that is change."
Chi-Town Commie
>On Fri, 28 May 2010 05:42:42 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
>wrote:
>
>><LOL> That's rich, coming from a leftist.. Leftists "play the race
>>card" whenever they can, as was just done above...
>
>Since "rightwingers" were the supporters and implementers of slavery,
>Jim Crow, lynching, beating, disfranchisement----that's pretty
>embarassing to be in that rightwing group, CanyonLoon
>
>SNICKER
You are either ignorant of history, a lying sack of shit or you're
just a Stepford Liberal....or all of the above.
Implementers of slavery, Jim Crow Laws, lynching, beating,
disfranchisement were the handiwork of the Democratic Party and let's
not forget the KKK was founded by Democrats.
You obviously don't read other threads in this newsgroup since you
could not dispute my response in another thread.
White supremacists worked club in hand with Democrats for decades:
May 22, 1856: Two years after the Grand Old party's birth, U.S.
Senator Charles Sumner (R., Mass.) rose to decry pro-slavery
Democrats. Congressman Preston Brooks (D., S.C.) responded by grabbing
a stick and beating Sumner unconscious in the Senate chamber.
Disabled, Sumner could not resume his duties for three years.
July 30, 1866: New Orleans's Democratic government ordered police to
raid an integrated GOP meeting, killing 40 people and injuring 150.
September 28, 1868: Democrats in Opelousas, Louisiana killed nearly
300 blacks who tried to foil an assault on a Republican newspaper
editor.
October 7, 1868: Republicans criticized Democrats' national slogan:
"This is a white man's country: Let white men rule."
April 20, 1871: The GOP Congress adopted the Ku Klux Klan Act,
banning the pro-Democrat domestic terrorist group.
October 18, 1871: GOP President Ulysses S. Grant dispatched federal
troops to quell Klan violence in South Carolina.
September 14, 1874: Racist white Democrats stormed Louisiana's
statehouse to oust GOP Governor William Kellogg's racially integrated
administration; 27 are killed.
August 17, 1937: Republicans opposed Democratic President Franklin
Delano Roosevelt's Supreme Court nominee, U.S. Senator Hugo Black (D.,
Al.), a former Klansman who defended Klansmen against race-murder
charges.
February 2005: The Democrats' Klan-coddling today is embodied by KKK
alumnus Robert Byrd, West Virginia's logorrheic U.S. senator and,
having served since January 3, 1959, that body's dean. Thirteen years
earlier, Byrd wrote this to the KKK's Imperial Wizard: "The Klan is
needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here
in West Virginia." Byrd led Senate Democrats as late as December 1988.
On March 4, 2001, Byrd told Fox News's Tony Snow: "There are white
niggers. I've seen a lot of white niggers in my time; I'm going to use
that word." National Democrats never have arranged a primary challenge
against or otherwise pressed this one-time cross-burner to get lost.
Contrast the KKKozy Democrats with the GOP. When former Klansman David
Duke ran for Louisiana governor in 1991 as a Republican, national GOP
officials scorned him. Local Republicans endorsed incumbent Democrat
Edwin Edwards, despite his ethical baggage. As one Republican-created
bumper sticker pleaded: "Vote for the crook: It's important!"
Republicans also have supported legislation favorable to blacks, often
against intense Democratic headwinds:
In 1865, Congressional Republicans unanimously backed the 13th
Amendment, which made slavery unconstitutional. Among Democrats, 63
percent of senators and 78 percent of House members voted: "No."
In 1866, 94 percent of GOP senators and 96 percent of GOP House
members approved the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing all Americans equal
protection of the law. Every congressional Democrat voted: "No."
February 28, 1871: The GOP Congress passed the Enforcement Act,
giving black voters federal protection.
February 8, 1894: Democratic President Grover Cleveland and a
Democratic Congress repealed the GOP's Enforcement Act, denying black
voters federal protection.
January 26, 1922: The U.S. House adopted Rep. Leonidas Dyer's (R.,
Mo.) bill making lynching a federal crime. Filibustering Senate
Democrats killed the measure.
May 17, 1954: As chief justice, former three-term governor Earl
Warren (R., Calif.) led the U.S. Supreme Court's desegregation of
government schools via the landmark Brown v. Board of Education
decision. GOP President Dwight Eisenhower's Justice Department argued
for Topeka, Kansas's black school children. Democrat John W. Davis,
who lost a presidential bid to incumbent Republican Calvin Coolidge in
1924, defended "separate but equal" classrooms.
September 24, 1957: Eisenhower deployed the 82nd Airborne Division to
desegregate Little Rock's government schools over the strenuous
resistance of Governor Orval Faubus (D., Ark.).
May 6, 1960: Eisenhower signs the GOP's 1960 Civil Rights Act after
it survived a five-day, five-hour filibuster by 18 Senate Democrats.
July 2, 1964: Democratic President Johnson signed the 1964 Civil
Rights Act after former Klansman Robert Byrd's 14-hour filibuster and
the votes of 22 other Senate Democrats (including Tennessee's Al Gore,
Sr.) failed to scuttle the measure. Illinois Republican Everett
Dirksen rallied 26 GOP senators and 44 Democrats to invoke cloture and
allow the bill's passage. According to John Fonte in the January 9,
2003, National Review, 82 percent of Republicans so voted, versus only
66 percent of Democrats.
True, Senator Barry Goldwater (R., Ariz.) opposed this bill the very
year he became the GOP's presidential standard-bearer. However,
Goldwater supported the 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts and called for
integrating Arizona's National Guard two years before Truman
desegregated the military. Goldwater feared the 1964 Act would limit
freedom of association in the private sector, a controversial but
principled libertarian objection rooted in the First Amendment rather
than racial hatred.
June 29, 1982: President Ronald Reagan signed a 25-year extension of
the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
5483 Dead, 616 since 1/20/09
> f...@twat.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 28 May 2010 05:42:42 -0400, Steve <steven...@yahooooo.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>><LOL> That's rich, coming from a leftist.. Leftists "play the race
>>>card" whenever they can, as was just done above...
>>
>>Since "rightwingers" were the supporters and implementers of slavery,
>>Jim Crow, lynching, beating, disfranchisement----that's pretty
>>embarassing to be in that rightwing group, CanyonLoon
>>
>>SNICKER
>
> You are either ignorant of history, a lying sack of shit or you're just
> a Stepford Liberal....or all of the above.
>
> Implementers of slavery, Jim Crow Laws, lynching, beating,
> disfranchisement were the handiwork of the Democratic Party and let's
> not forget the KKK was founded by Democrats.
Actually, it wasn't.
Also, the Democrats and the Republicans swapped places in the 50s on the
issue of race. That's when the Dems drove the southern white bigots out
of the party, and they became Republicans, which is home to southern
white bigots to this day.
>
> You obviously don't read other threads in this newsgroup since you could
> not dispute my response in another thread.
>
What makes you think you are important?
So in effect, nothing since 1946.
That should tell you something, bubbles.
But I'll tell you what, bubbles: you tell us that southern white bigots
are trashy pieces of shit, and you renounce them and embrace civil rights
unreservedly, and I'll be happy to listen to what else you have to say.
Deal?
Sid9
"Chi-Town Commie" <BHus...@CCCP.com> wrote in message
news:a3u006pijm100tnjf...@4ax.com...
.
.
.
Half truths are lies.
You are a liar.
Same liar new nym!
Lefty
The government is us. If we can make people conform to building codes
and zoning rules why can't we make a business that's open to the public
be open to the entire public?
Lefty
> On Fri, 28 May 2010 08:59:37 -0500, David Hartung<da...@lemagroup.us>
> wrote:
>
>>> If skin color gets in the way of his ability to perceive green, he's a
>>> lousy business person.
>>
>> I agree completely. Where you and I differ is whether or not the
>> government is right to enforce such a view by force of law.
>
>
> Considering that before government did---things were intolerable.
>
The government is us. I think the problem with people like this is that
they see the government as something distended, like Godzilla.
Steve
No, Milt, the government is not us anymore.. as evidenced by how the
Democrats pushed through the health care bill that 63% of Americans
didn't want...
So Shook reappears as "lefty, gn79...@cox.net " after I shamed him
about his loony claim that corporations gave stock away to their execs
via stock options...
Steve
No, Milt, the government is not us anymore.. as evidenced by how the
Sid9
"Lefty" <gn79...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:htr9bs$c1e$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
.
These fools and traitors treat our government as a foreign entity.
David Hartung
A good question.
One of the our freedoms is the freedom to choose whom we associate with.
In essence, you are saying that in the context of a business
relationship, that right does not exist.
How do you justify this Constitutionally?
David Hartung
Which is often what our government acts like.