Reverend Wayne Perryman has been busy promoting his new book, Whites, Blacks and Racist Democrats
A former fetus, the “wordsmith from nantucket” was born in Phoenix, Arizona in 1968. Adopted at birth, wordsmith grew up a military brat. He achieved his B.A. in English from the University of California, Los Angeles (graduating in the top 97% of his class), where he also competed rings for the UCLA mens gymnastics team. The events of 9/11 woke him from his political slumber and malaise. Currently a personal trainer and gymnastics coach.
The wordsmith has never been to Nantucket.
BROB you said[i did not talk about democrat] that is why you are trying to say, there is no bad apples in the dems? ..we.in a party of so many people like the conservative party ,i could say,,,you pick that there is no bad apples either,of course if you go back hundreds of years in a society,you will have an easyer chance to pick the bad apple on the democrats even more than the conservatives,because the conservatives have stayed in their beleifs on the right of the AMERICANS FREEDOM written in the law of the land that is the CONSTITUTION you pick on a few in a multitude of AMERICANS that peacefully show their disapproval ,they are expressing their foundamental RIGHTS ,,,you said one throw a rock? showing a window on 3rd floor? you said one had a gun? did he used it?no ,,,yes your playing a game, you would be more serious to use the right name when you address the CONSERVATIVE party bye 🙄
TOM, do you read the news? MADALYN is very well informed and i would beleive her words more than yours with the intent you are hiding under your attacking her,,she mention ;;physicly attack,,vicious emails intimidations voices messages that is enough to fear the government who allowe it to be done,
I do read the news, but I haven’t seen any articles about physical attacks on conservatives perpetrated by Democrats. Can you provide links to the stories you’re referring to, please?
Thanks, Aqua. I still don’t see that these instances are commensurate with the rhetoric I’m reading from people like Madalyn and then repeated as Gospel by others. And as long as Republican Congressmen are egging on protesters carrying signs of Obama with a Hitler mustache, or leadership figures like Sarah Palin are preaching about a separate ‘real America’, I’m going to have a hard time mustering up much sympathy for Conservatives who feel under siege. There seems to be enough substantial philosophical and policy differences to debate without these cynical and simple-minded scare tactics. At the end of the day, anyone who thinks that the Democratic party can take this country into a looney-tunes Liberal Banana Republic is ignoring this simple truth behind our electoral politics: you can only push so far beyond the aggregate will of the American people. If ‘Obamacare’ went too far, the Democrats will pay for it in the next election and the balance will be restored. Clearly, in addition to his considerable merits, Obama was elected in the first place in large part because of what the Center considered to be the excesses and failures of the previous administration. Let’s not forget that 40% of this country is always going to vote Conservative/Republican and 40% Liberal/Democrat, so it’s really that middle 20% that counts. Obama can walk out of Pakistan’s tribal belt tomorrow with the severed head of Osama Bin Ladin in hand, and it wouldn’t garner him one more vote from this board. But he doesn’t need your votes. The votes he needs are the ones in Virginia or Ohio, the swing voters who voted for him last time around. Anything he does so extreme as to lose their vote is political suicide.
And it is YOUR party which you are in which supported slavery, secession, segregation and now socialism. Name the prominent CONSERVATIVES you rail on about as having migrated into the Republican Party who supports any of those positions.
There are reasons why YOUR Democrat Party has alienated and driven out many from the Party over the decades; and it’s not because they were racists looking for a new home.
Meanwhile, you retain Senator Robert Byrd, a former “Keagle” in the Ku Klux Klan, who in that era of supposed conservative (racist) migration into the Republican tent was a fierce opponent of desegregating the military. He wrote in one letter: “I would rather die a thousand times and see old glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again than see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen of the wilds.”
And your beloved, precious Democrat Party honored him as “the conscience of the Senate”. Lol.
@rich wheeler #49:
A lot of people might be regarded as “RINO” in the eyes of a number of conservatives; but it wouldn’t be over disagreement on “race”. And it’s spinful of BRob to talk of conservatives flocking to the Republican Party over the issue on race, when it was majority Republicans in both House and Senate who voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Until the current administration, the former one had the most diverse presidential cabinet in history, including the first black Secretary of State and first black female National Security Advisor. When Bush nominated her to become our 2nd black Secretary of State, Robert Byrd and Senate Democrats stalled Rice’s confirmation for a week. While she had unanimous GOP support, 12 Democrats and Vermont Independent James Jeffords opposed Rice — the most “No” votes for a State designee since 1825, when 14 senators rejected Henry Clay. And it was majority Republicans in 2000 and 2004 who elected and re-elected President Bush. Was all this done because of GOP racists and racist Democrats? No. Yet you want to do what Dems do best, which is play the race card and paint the GOP as racist today, and racist of yesteryear; then try and move goal posts by claiming “well, I never said Democrats weren’t racists, but conservatives were.”
Gerard Alexander of the University of Virginia in writes:
The dirty little secret of all this is that @BRob:
has nothing to do with GOP racists and everything to do with Democrats and liberals reworking history in Academia and in political theater, through race-baiting and fear-mongering. They bear the burden of guilt for promoting the idea that little has changed in the way of progress in civil rights; and that whites still deserve guilt and blame for “holding the black man down”. They have propagated the myth in order to keep black voters on the Democratic Party’s plantation.
“It is a plain fact of American political life today that Democrats are completely dependent on black votes. The day African Americans stop casting 80 to 95 percent of their votes for Democrats is the day Democrats stop winning elections.” -Mona Charen
This is why your precious Democrat Party- with footsoldiers like you enthusiastically embracing the marching orders- feel the need to perpetuate the false perception of a GOP racist history into a GOP racist present day.
If the Dem Party has “driven out” so many people, then why is it the majority party in the United States? Have you ever wondered why the GOP never has been the majority party and, at this point, looks like it never will be? Here’s a hint — it ain’t because your ideas are better and just haven’t caught on, after close to 180 years in existence.
And I did not pick out a couple “obscure” random conservatives to prove my point. I mentioned Ronald Reagan, Bill Buckley’s National Review, Richard Nixon’s Southern Strategy and his “benign neglect” approach to Black voters, Jesse Helms and child rapist Strom Thurmond. These are not obscure figures; they are the very pillars of the American conservative movement from the 1950s through the 1990s. I mentioned Reagan’s Philadelphia, Mississippi speech, but I did not even mention Reagan’s cowtowing to racist Bob Jones University (an issue mentioned in Clarence Thomas’ autobiography). Thomas talks about the negative impact of Reagan’s Civil Rights chief carrying water for a university that actively and aggressively discriminated on the basis of race. This is part of the racial history that the GOP has to live down, a much more recent history than what Abe Lincoln did back in the 1860s. And that history has nothing to do with, as you put it, anyone “rewriting” history.
There is a reason that the first Black American president is a Dem and not a GOPer; and that outcome was pretty much pre-ordained when the cons opposed the civil rights acts, then welcomed the Bull Connors of the world with open arms. Now which party do you think a young Asian or Hispanic might think would give him the best opportunity to achieve?
You also posted:
“It is a plain fact of American political life today that Democrats are completely dependent on black votes. The day African Americans stop casting 80 to 95 percent of their votes for Democrats is the day Democrats stop winning elections.” -Mona Charen
Then you said: “This is why your precious Democrat Party- with footsoldiers like you enthusiastically embracing the marching orders- feel the need to perpetuate the false perception of a GOP racist history into a GOP racist present day.”
These are two opinions by conservatives; they are not facts. I already pointed out the genesis of the GOPs race problems; you just refuse to accept reality. But the bigger problem is that the GOP has not a problem with Blacks, only, but with all racial minorities and younger White people, too. It is not a Black problem; it is a much broader demographic problem. The GOP is becoming an old, White regional party . . . and with Obama taking Virginia, North Carolina and Florida, that region is shrinking, to boot.
Mona’s opinion is also interesting in another way. You would think that if she was right, then the GOP would try harder to peel away Black votes. But the GOP does the exact opposite, culminating in such an obvious show of racist nuttiness at the Palin rallies that lifelong Republican Colin Powell endorsed Obama.
This is the problem you have to address. And remember, when you cons trash the predominately Hispanic illegals, you not only turn off the Hispanics, but the Asians and the Blacks wonder “Gee, what would they say about me?” Don’t believe me? Ask around, then. And how do you think that the young Whites feel . . . people like my former secretary who, at age 20, had more friends who were minorities than not? You think she is attracted to the GOP’s antics? Hardly. You think her husband (also White with an equally diverse set of friends) would pull the lever for a party that refers to gays or Arabs or Hispanics like they are a Mongol hoard set to destroy America? Nope . . . he, too, will take a pass.
Actually, forget what I said. I am wrong and you are right. Keep trashing illegals. E,mbrace the teabaggers! Young people and minorities love that stuff! Your plan is working out so well so far, why accept any advice from me? Carry on, oh party of Palin and Tancredo . . . carry on!
WORDSMITH i read that BROB is desperate, he is going to write any thing to persuade people that the conservatives have no chance to win,he is lucky to even have the space to say it,,that alone tell me how moderates the conservatives are what a diffrence between the two partys it bring to mind which party would be more bypartisan on AMERICANS demands of freedom,,bye 🙄
AQUA i appreciate giving the proof on what TOM was demanding ,and as he had thoses facts, it seems like he was even not satisfied so he went into a frenzie of a long comment to explain that the truth must have been fabricated ,,bye
This is why I think your ideological fixation makes you reading comprehension deficient. Here is what I wrote:
Yet you filter it through your worldview prism and churn out an interpretation of what I said ’cause to actually read what I had written would require you to have some honesty here.
Are you calling Reagan a racist? Reagan who helped get Thomas onto the path to the Supreme Court by naming him chairman of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission?
When a Democrat like Kuccinich was opposed to passage of Obamacare, if he voted with the opposition, would he have done so for the same reasons as the GOP? On paper, it apparently doesn’t matter; but in reality, the reason behind the decisions for votes in favor for and opposition against matter. In hindsight, one could argue that opposition to the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a bad decision; but if you’re accusing a Goldwater or a Reagan of doing so out of racist motives, it is you who are the spin doctor, doing what Dems do best: Pull out the race card for political points and to keep black voters on the Democratic Party plantation.
What is it about the Philadelphia speech you take issue with? The substance? Insensitivity to locale and choice of words? What? Be intellectually honest here, in regards to what Reagan meant about “state’s rights”. Was it economic policy he referred to or some diabolical code-word for Robert Byrd’s brothers in hood?
You know, the day after his Philadelphia speech, he flew out to Manhattan to deliver an address to the National Urban League and said, “I am committed to the protection and enforcement of the civil rights of black Americans. This commitment is interwoven into every phase of the programs I will propose,”
So now is he merely pandering to black voters? Gee…does that sit well with the Ku Klux Klanners back in Mississippi?
Reagan wasn’t a racist. Yet that’s exactly what you are saying or implying.
He grew up with playmates who were black; racial slurs were not allowed in his household; in college, when two black teammates of his were refused lodging at a hotel, he invited them to stay at his family’s home. One of them became a lifelong best friend of his. What a racist!
But keep pulling the race card because that’s what dishonest Democrats like you do best. You perpetuate racism and fabricate it when none exists. You see only what you want to see and keep constituents in the dark.
There are a number of reasons why your messiah won in ’08 and why Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton were failed candidates.
When conservatives complain about Michael Steele, is it because he is black? Or is it criticism that looks at something about him beyond skin color?
Dems are fixated on race. Which, in my book, makes them racists (i.e., race obsessed). It is Republicans who have moved beyond race. Your side needs to keep minority constituents locked into the frame of mind of identifying themselves by skin hue. Who are the real racists?
Bull Connors, the Democrat? Um…yeah…ok. 🙄
Republican Party, hands down!
And what the frak are you? The fact fairy? Give me a break!
What is nutty is the kinds of conclusions you draw from such screwed up premises.
Did you just read the first paragraph?
From the same page:
As for Thurmond and Helms, never been a fan, never voted for them, they aren’t from my state. I found them to be an embarrassment to the US Senate, much the way Robert Byrd is.
Winning a debate against you is like slapping a kitten. It’s easy to do, but I feel bad for picking on the helpless.
About Ronald Reagan and Philadelphia, Mississippi. RR was a smart man. He understood history. He sure well knew what the phrase “state’s rights” meant when he was giving his speech a little more than a decade later. He chose, for whatever reason, to go to the town that was then known for only one thing, the wilfull terroristic torture and murder of three law abiding young men. And he chose to give a speech about “state’s rights” , the code phrase for maintaining White hegemony, at the end of a noose or the barrel of a gun, if necessary. I am saying giving that speech at that place shows he was either racist, had a epicos of incredible stupidity, or he was just insensitive. You can chose which it was. But we know that it was not a SMART thing to do, vis a vis the GOPs odds of ever making inroads with Black voters. And that is why you now see Reaganites try to explain what he was “trying” to say. They know it looks bad, so they try to obfuscate it. Just like you never bothering to address the National Review editorial.
“When conservatives complain about Michael Steele, is it because he is black?”
According to Steele? Yes it is!
On George W. Bush: I have said all along, if not for Bush (both his willingness to have high profile Black appointees AND his shear incompetence at managing government), Obama would not have won. I give credit where due.
As for Asians and Hispanics thinking that the GOP gives them a better opportunity to achieve: all the voting patterns say otherwise. Y’all have lost them just as you have lost the young Whites and college educated voters of all stripes.
Gotta go . . . GO BUTLER!
Michelle Obama’s also a smart woman; so why the slip ups regarding Kenya as her husband’s “home country”? When Obama refers to “my Muslim faith”? He’s a smart guy. The fact of the matter is, even smart people make gaffes; make verbal blunders. Just look at Bush; look at Biden.
If you honestly look at the context of the phrase, “state’s rights”, there’s no question what Reagan was referring to. Yet Carter played the race card, and fellow Democrats like yourself continue playing it, because fabricating racial animosity and fear-mongering is what you do best.
When Al Gore claimed his father championed Civil Rights, did you catch him in the lie?
When Harry Reid made a racist remark, do you hold the Democrat Party accountable?
When Joe Biden makes insensitve racial gaffes, do you hold the Democrat Party accountable?
When Hilary Clinton speaks in her Plantation drawl, did you and your Democrat Party give her a pass?
These are all current leaders of your party. Yet supposedly it’s the Republican Party that’s the party of racists. Meanwhile, you have the likes of Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, and Maxine Waters who are racists.
I didn’t realize it was my job to counter and address every item you choose to bring to the table. Time is short and I have other priorities I like to get to first. I hadn’t looked at it, but since you badger on about it, like some Holy Grail find, I’ll take a look at it just to indulge you.
BRob comment #35:
Um…1957? And where in the last several decades did this become a major platform talking plank in the Republican Party? Sure, it can come across as offensive; especially to our multicultural-loving “all cultures are created equal” sensitivities. Just as the notion of American exceptionalism. But how is that one paragraph being embraced by today’s GOP? How is that attitude being reflected? One writer…and you expect him to define the conservative movement? Meanwhile, also in ’57, you had Eisenhower signing the Republican Party’s Civil Rights Act; and Kennedy and Johnson criticizing him for sending the 82nd Airborne Division to Little Rock, AR to force Democrat Governor Orval Faubus to integrate public schools.
And no, I don’t share the article’s viewpoint.
Yet go ahead and keep dealing out the race card. Keep being the problem and not the solution to ending racist attitudes. Keep being dishonest.
When Obama cut funding to historically black colleges and universities, was that out of racism? Or does he get a pass for being black? For being a Democrat? Just think of the uproar you’d be making had Obama been a white president doing this. Is everything that happens based on race, to you?
Wordsmith Is there any question Steele is now playing “the race card” after condeming it? Should he stay or should he go? Thanks to “The Clash”.
Look, we all know that the “race card” is used. In our history we have had Afro-Americans, blacks or whatever the politically correct term is that have tried to get something for nothing. We have just as many whites, hispanics, latinos or whatever. I was told by union officials in my last job that they had gone to administration and told them that they needed to hire an Afro-American supervisor, but they hired me, a caucasian. They told me that “with word of mouth, we are going to make it very hard for you to do your job”, you are going to have a hard row-to-hoe and you will have it hard here because we are a small hospital and a family”. I lost my job 3 months later. Racism is out there. People use it as a method and a tool to get what they want. There is NOTHING we can do about it. As long as our leaders let anyone abuse our past, take GOD out of our lives, let outsiders try to make their language and their heritage more improtant than ours, our country is screwed!! If you come to America, learn our language, accept our heritage and our laws. We do not care that you practice your beliefs, but if you want the freedoms that America provides, BE AN AMERICAN—Just an AMERICAN!!
Been laboring under the “make a living bit” of late, but I see everyone’s still playing with our resident racist, billy bob. Most if it is the usual yada yada yada crap he blows out his rear end via a keyboard, but let me point out something quite important here…
Interesting, billy bob. It always comes down to social justice welfare programs for you, doesn’t it? Let’s point a out a few realities for you, shall we?
Who had the black Secretary of State? Nope… let’s make that TWO Secretary’s of State that were black? And prior to Condi’s SOS gig, she was Nat’l Security Advisor. And while we can all tell that you don’t care about any other minority other than black, and we can only wonder about your gender perspectives, but Bush 43 not only had a diverse cabinet in ethnics – appointing Hispanics and Asians – but in gender.
Seems your prior Dem POTUS only had females fill positions on their knees in the oval office… (unless you want to count Reno and Not-So-Bright, both questionable “females” at best…)
When LBJ appointed Thurgood Marshall, the first black SCOTUS member, what was the vote, bubba? Do you remember that only one Republican opposed while TEN… yes, TEN… southern dems opposed? Twenty Senators took the “Obama” way out by refusing to vote and take a stand. Considering that the Dems held the Senate, 68 to 32, all 20 not voting were Dems. Quite the pro-black history you tout, guy.
It was a Republican who nominated Clarence Thomas in 1991 (shall I repeat that? 1991!), and the NAACP who opposed him. Only 11 Dems voted for his comfirmation, and 46 Dems voted against his nomination. uh… did I mention just 19 years ago? Facts that slip your memory so you can promote your 2010 racist revisionist history to perpetuate hatred.
These are only a few answers to your question, “what have you done for me lately?” But let’s go to a basic platform value… Conservatives don’t promise to re/create a form of slavery by making black Americans social welfare dependents of the state. With every handout comes the payment of control over your life, your family, and the sacrifice of a future to be all that you can be. But as I said earlier, at least you progs are equal opportunity social welfare slaves. You want to “equalize” everyone into mediocrity and government dependence.
In short, billy bob, you and your buds are stuck in the time warp of racial hatred. You are the black community’s worst enemy, and you sure aren’t much of a poster child for simple social skills. Whether this is schooling at the hands of your parents, or your school curriculum, you are one sorry SOB.
MATA that’s what i call highclass rethoric no one get closse to that ,thank you , 🙄
@rich wheeler, I thought you blew out of here in a huff… guess not, eh?
As for Steele, he stays, in my opinion. And didn’t you hear? The only ones that are permitted to play “the race card”, are those that are black. Sharpton, Jackson, Obama, etal. Just like the only ones allowed to use the “n” word, as all the PC correct like to do in order to avoid language, are those who are black. THerefore Steele has broken no rules….
…. save the racist Dems have different rules for blacks who are not of the progressive stripe variety.
M.H. Interesting take. I say Conservatives who didn’t want him now force him out.The big battle over the next few months is between Conservatives and Rino’s. Real sport.
But of course you, a confirmed liberal, would say “I say conservatives who didn’t want him, now force him out”. That way you and your bud, billy bob, could find another way to accuse the GOP of being racists in 2010. Because I assure you, you and yours *would* spin it as a racist decision… based on performance or not.
Revelation for you, rich. You’re not a conservative. This is not your movement. Few of us give a flying fart about your suggestions for the RNC chair. And even less of us would trust your motives for your “friendly” advice.
And hear hear for the “rinos v conservatives”. At least we’re not all prozac clones.
m.h. I’d say he Got the job because he was Black but he’s losing it because he did a lousy job. i have no suggestions for the RNC chair and I’m drug free thank you.
But of course you would say that. Because you, like billy bob, love to perpetuate the racist screed. But you see, your credentials in the conservative world, and certainly here, are shot all to hell. We already know your left slant, rich.
And how would you know if you’re drug free? Checked your drinking water lately?
Wheeler are you talking about Steele or Obama?
MH You think They poisoned it?
Skookum Without Obama there is no Steele.2012 is a long way off. Steele gone within a week.
You think some of the opposition to Clarence Thomas might have had to do with the fact that . . . oh, a former employee accused him of sexually harassing her? And not his race? Think that MIGHT have played into the vote a bit? Er, yeah! And its interesting: you reject outright the idea that some of Obama’s opposition MIGHT stem from the fact that he is Black; but you then turn around and claim that whiney mantle for yourselves where Thomas is concerned. So which is it? Are some Whites secretly hostile to accomplished Black people (like Obama and Thomas) or are they not? Having just finished the Merida/Fletcher biography of Thomas, which notes the criticism of Thomas as “not smart” mirroring that thrown at Thurgood Marshall (hardly a conservative), you have my answer.
By the way: you cons need to get your talking point straight. You and others proclaim the GOP the perfect heaven for Black people. Then the next thing I hear, Michael Steele claims that some GOPers oppose him because of his race. And someone pointed out that the reason Steele was such a strong candidate in the first place was due to the fact that his main opponent, Katon Whatever from South Carolina, belonged to a segregated country club. Y’all could not find ONE candidate who did NOT involve to a segregated club? Wow . . . .
Then there is this latest self-inflicted wound:
Confederate History Month? A month celebrating treason, enslavement of Black people, and a civil war fought to maintain enslavement of those same Black people? Is this your minority outreach program, cons? God, this sounds like something out of The Onion! Why not throw in a Nazi Beautification and Architecture Awareness Week while you are at it! Sheesh!
Like I have said: Dems have a checkered history on race. The GOP, however, has a present day problem. So take the plank out of your own eye before you keep harping on the speck in the Dems’.
@BRob, you remain reading challenged I see. No where did I claim the GOP to be “perfect heaven”…. for anyone. And that includes me. So I suggest you revisit your preschool primers for a brush up. As long as humans inhabit the planet, there is no “perfect heaven”, and scum remains to taint those of your political ilk as well as mine.
Interesting that you wish to convict Clarence Thomas for sexual allegations, despite the fact that Anita Hill was the lone ranger to accuse him and more than several testified in his defense, saying that Hill’s charges were not credible. Apparently those bastions of social justice, the dims, prefer to call that black man guilty despite convincing evidence otherwise.
It becomes more hypocritical when you defend the 46 Dems who voted against him. That would the same types that defend Bill Clinton for his proven escapades in the Oval Office to this day as his “personal life”. So Clinton gets a pass, despite the charges being true and the finger wagging, and Thomas doesn’t.
Congratulations for confirming more of what we know of you. That you are not only inclined to perpetuate hate on the past, but that only the black community that shares your political stripes get to pass go on your personal monopoly board.
INRE Confederate History Month… you are the gullible putz, aren’t you? It’s been around in seven states annually for years. And that includes thru Dem Governors. Where was your outrage then?
Your talking points remain the same, billy bob. Use the past to condemn a political class of people today. The fact you bypass your own party’s involvement in a part of America’s past … calling it a “speck”… simply shows you wear blinders for a political agenda to divide this nation. People like you are, and will always be, the greatest enemy of the black community, and a negative influence on modern society.
On Anita Hill — Read the Merida/Fletcher book and get back to me. Among other points:
1) The authors extensively quote one of the Bush I administration handlers as saying he had a gut feeling that SOMETHING went on between Thomas and Hill. Could not explain it; just a sense.
2) There was a women who Thomas fired (before Anita Hill worked for him, I think) who had confided in friends that he sexually harassed her. Her name was Angela something. She gave an affidavit, but was not called to testify. (Joe Biden was wary of pushing it.) So, no, Anita Hill was not a “lone ranger” accuser. She was the first of two.
3) I have a close friend (a recently retired Bush II DoD appointee) who knew them both from his days with the EEOC. He believed her.
4) She had complained to friends (including her then boyfriend) contemporaneously about Thomas’ alleged comments. It takes a cunning mind to tell friends in the 1980s that you have a problem with you boss, on the if-come that he might be seeking high government office years later and, whamo, dig it out to hurt him.
5) A college friend of his remembers him joking back in the dorms at Holy Cross, accusingly yelling to some of his buddies “Who put pubic hair in my Coke?!” Then they all cracked up. He was also into pron bigtime, so it is not as if he didn’t know who Long Dong Silver was.
6) In Thomas’ autobiography, he is rather open about his drinking issues during that time. He may not even recall what he did.
7) Is it so far fetched to think that Thomas might have asked her out? Both Black professionals, both Yalies, both single, working together. As Chris Rock put it: “It was not sexual harassment. Man was tryin to get laid!”
Personally, I think they both lied. As my aunt put it at the time, “He said everything to her that she claims he said. But he said it to her when they were in bed.” I was in law school at the time and I remember having heated conversations with feminist types about this, i.e., whether women lie about being sexually harassed.
I personally think he was banging her, then started seeing his wife (maybe they overlapped) and Hill got pissed. And maybe, years later, happily married, he did not want to admit to his wife that he was seeing Hill on the side. But one of them, or both of them, was lying. The bigger point remains — there was a very good non-race based reason to vote against him: suspicion that he might not have been telling the truth.
On Virginia — you call me names, yet you know NOTHING AT ALL about the facts. It doesn’t matter whether six other backwards states had this bizarre celebration of treason and slavery: Virginia did not have it until George “Macaca” Allen started it and the two subsequent Dems ended it. Dumb McDonnell not only brings it back, but excises the language about slavery that was in prior versions of the proclamation. But as I said, as minority outreach goes, not a winner.
Finally, you said I “use the past to condemn a political class of people today.” Not hardly. That Katon guy was a member of a segregated club as of last year; McDonnell did his idotic proclamation this week. I did not mention the racist fliers and e-mails sent around before and after Obama’s election. These are the current issues you guys have. Your efforts to change the subject and claim the Dems are worse on race issues (a curious claim when they get upwards of 80% of the minority vote) does nothing to solve the GOPs problems. It is a form of denial, frankly.
One last thing: Rahm Emmanuel was quoted saying something about “not letting a crisis go to waste.” Let me use an analogy. I have a friend who is diabetic. Up until early September, he was very lackadaisical about his drinking and his diet, not exercising. He was then hospitalized for a few days with pancreatitis. He was told he had to change his ways. Since then, he has gone on insulin, started to do better with his diet, and cut back on the Scotch. He did not let his health crisis “go to waste.” He used it as a catalyst for positive change.
The GOP could use this present time of crisis to do some real soul searching about what went wrong philosphically, strategically, and tactically, whether the issue is health care or race. But all I see you cons do is sit around and engage in Obama-bashing and self-congratulatory circle j*rks. You would rather throw darts at me personally than look at the gaping problems of your own party. Frankly, since I left the GOP, I really don’t care what happens to it any more. It is now an entire party built around a collection of uneducated college drop out radio hosts. Fine . . . whatever. Just don’t say that no one warned you where things were heading. Obama is slowly dismantaling the GOP . . . and y’all don’t even notice . . . .
Nothing like watching “billy-bob” get bar-b-qued. 😉
After reading your excellent as always response I visited Legal Insurection and his “Post of the day” was quite interesting, he referred us to:
Money quote, imo:
Or, if you are normal, unless someone does you wrong, you simply respect your fellow man ….period. Lot easier than the devisive tricks that are being used on us…. all of us.
@Missy, I love Thomas Sowell, as well as Walter Williams. They’re not the types to inspire the billy bob’s of the world, eh?
But let me clarify your quote above… ‘cus I got confused. It needs the preceding comment by the blogger, Keith Burgess-Jackson, to ID what it’s all about… the progressive think-speak:
Now, for the more interesting content for me… Sowell’s column
Sowell has eloquently described the tactic I suggest billy bob uses his every appearance here… political demagoguery to divide, so his progs can conquer. One who uses this to advance his political agenda gets no respect from me.
One other thing about “outrage” over those idiotic Confederate Heritage months, days, weeks. I don’t have any outrage, just pity, that White Southerners still feel the need to rally around the dysfunctional carcass of the Confederacy, a morally poisonous period where an entire region of this country committed armed insurrection and started a civil war, all because they wanted to enslave people. It boggles the mind that, in 2010, some people still don’t get it: slavery, bad; freedom, good. This is not “old news” or long past history; this is today, in 2010.
But let’s agree that some individuals will celebrate the Confederacy, for several reasons. Fine. But more mind boggling is why the GOP wants to wrap the treasonous flag of the Confederacy around itself. For what good purpose? Is this a smart thing to do? Why do GOPer governors insist on celebrating an insurrection and resulting war over slavery that killed hundreds of thousands of people and maimed who knows how many . . . all over the right to enslave Black people?
And, again, looking at the present day, as the GOP wraps inself in the Confederate flag, what message do you think you are sending about the party being inclusive to minorities? I would really like to know your thought process, if the point of politics is to attract more votes to your party than you repel.
Do you see the weird juxtaposition of the “party of Lincoln” now celebrating the pro-slavery Confederate heritage? And do you understand why minorities might think that they would not be welcome in your shrinking regional party? Really . . . is this a smart thing to do?
One last thing about Clarence Thomas. I had a case once where I represented a school district that was investigating whether employees had disclosed their criminal records or lied about them. I was doing what is called a Loudermill hearing, explaining the accusation against them and giving them a chance to respond, before discipline. One employee had been convicted of welfare fraud ten years before, but when she applied to the district for employment, she failed to disclose. I asked her about it and she said she had been convicted of receiving benefits after she found a job. Pled guilty, paid restitution. I asked her she failed to disclose it. She said “Because I feel like I don’t know who that person was. I am a different person now. I don’t know who that person in who stole money.” I totally understood what she meant.
The Hill/Thomas hearing happened in 1991. Hill accused him of harassing her back in the early 1980s, like 1982 or 83. According to Thomas’ autobiography (published a couple years after the Merida/Fletcher book), he was not only drinking heavily, but he was going through a divorce, living in a crap apartment in a bad school district and financially broke. He was also having some battles with Reagan administration people (Brad Reynolds, particularly) who he thought were not very sensitive in how they handled race issues. As of 1991, however, he was involved in church, remarried, lived in a nice suburb. His son was about to head off to VMI for college, he was no longer drinking, and he was under consideration for a seat on the Supreme Court.
Under the circumstances, I can totally understand if he did not remember or refused to acknowledge something he may have done years before when he was in another place mentally and spiritually. Do I think he lied in the sense of a making a knowingly false statement of fact? Hard to say. Again — I would not be surprised if he was soused when he said what she claimed he said. He sounds like he was a very lonely person at the time all that would have happened. And I can see him lying from embarassment (the same way Bill Clinton did years later) more worried about his marriage than perjuring himself. The Merida/Fletcher book points out, too, that Hill passed a polygraph test but, when asked to take one by the Bush I people, Thomas refused. That could be because he was insulted by the whole thing . . . or because he thought he could not pass it.
Yeah, I sound like a Clarence Thomas apologist. But I think there is more there than it seems. Something about him made Anita Hill mention, in the early 1980s, that he was creeping her out. And I bet if you could get him under sodium penathal, we would find out that, yes, something did happen, something he, as a now-sober, married Christian, was very ashamed to admit he had done to her. He might not have been able to admit it to himself, nonetheless confess on national television.
@billy bob, you continually display this exasperating habit of not paying attention to language details. What I said was…
Anita Hill was the only one to testify with her accusations. She was outflanked by those who testified in his defense. You talk about a tell all book and “gut” feelings. I’m talking about testifying under oath. Apparently that “under oath” bit made others balk when it’s much easier to do a tell all book without cross examination, eh?
The Confederate History Month is annual in seven states. That you choose some examples of VA alone, while ignoring that other Dem Govs have continued the tradition is indicative of your usual distraction techniques used to defend your eternal attempts to divide and stir up this nation by race. I assure you, what names I have called you on this forum are far more kind than how I feel about people who use this technique for political subterfuge.
And now… another desperate act. You attempt to elevate a common occurrence as the GOP wanting to “..wrap the treasonous flag of the Confederacy around itself”. Were you a bit more schooled in American History than in “tolerance” classes of your youth (which you obviously failed…), you’d know that a very large part of the Civil War was waged over tariffs causing a southern recession, a dissatisfaction with the state of the Union, and the southern states feeling a lack of representation. What they did was secede. For that act, they got war.
Even Lincoln had the grace to stand at Gettysburg and honor those that died from both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. You do not possess the grace of that eloquent man, billy bob.
You constantly speak of why the black community doesn’t flock to the GOP. I suggest it’s more likely because they listen too much to people like you, Jackson, Farrakhan, Sharpton, Ayers, and Wright…. instead of hearing those like Sowell, Williams, Condi and even Bill Cosby. Your hate speech, combined with political promises of handouts in return for power over personal lives drowns out voices that inspire instead of oppress. You all should wholly be ashamed of yourselves for the damage you do. Not only to the black community, but to society overall.
But no…. you, and those like you, prefer sleazy attempts to redefine Confederate History Month – remembering the good and bad of that era, and honoring those that lost their lives – as all about enshrining slavery. And you do this for the most despicable of reasons… to score political points and perpetuate racial hatred.
billy bob… get a grip. This is modern America. Advocating for slavery primarily eminates now from the halls of Congress and this occupant of the White House.
Thomas Sowell is entitled to his opinion. But to the list of people Obama is alligned with, on one level or another, are Rev. Otis Moss, Rick Warren, Colin Powell, Paul Volker and Warren Buffett. Are these people, too, all “dividers”? Of course not!
Seriously . . . that was Sowelll’s list of Obama’s racial “sins”? Promoting to the Supreme Court a woman who followed her lower court’s precedent and dismissed a case that was later reversed on a 5-4 vote? Not prosecuting Black people who were intimidating . . . hmm, who exactly were they intimidating? The reporters? Is that a crime now? Intimidating all the hoards of Black people who were going to descend on that Philadelphia voting place and vote Republican? Ya think there was a conviction waiting there, cons? Hardly. And wanting a judge with “empathy” . . . since when is that a code word for race discrimination? Does Sowell honestly think Southern judges meted out racially discriminatory justice out of a sense of “empathy” for anyone? Sowell has become a total joke.
The main problem with conservatives is, where Obama is concerned, you have constructed a narrative of evil. But the rest of America, “real America,” simply does not see him that way, mainly because the reality does not match your rhetoric. You tried this during the campaign, and Fox News beats the drum 24/7/365. But it simply does not work because the acts the man engages in simply do not square with the accusations against him. He’s anti-Jewish? Funny how he has so many Jews running his administration. He’s a Marxist? Then why is he paling around with Warren Buffett and Larry Summers? And how can you be a Marxist and a secret Muslim, too? He is soft on terrorism? Then why have so many of them gotten smoked under his administration? He wants to take all the guns? Then why did he just sign a bill permitting guns in federal parks? And the “speech to the school kids” last fall. You cons accuse him of planning to spout Marxist Leninist propaganda and the man gives a speech saying “work hard, obey your teachers, and stay in school . . your country needs you.”
See what I mean? Cons predict he will do X, then are silent when he actually does Y. But if you had listened to him when he said “My goal is to do Y”, would might have been at least fighting the right battle. And the vast middle of the country, the indepedents and moderates, would not be shakling their heads as the spittle flies out of your frustrated, angry maws.
But keep it up, cons! All the scary rhetoric is working . . .. for Obama and the Dems!
You’ve got a lot of babbling in the above there, billy bob. Nothing really new. Like Obama, I wonder why you type anew with you can just lift/paste the same ol, same ol’… or just refer to speech/comment # x.
Let’s boil it all down to this.. the second constant thrust you have after promoting racial division in the nation… and that’s where you some say conservatives are portraying “scary rhetoric” as somehow larger in life for “real America”. (an America that apparently doesn’t include tea party attendees or conservatives in your “real” America.. LOL)
Actually, Obama is doing, or attempting to do, everything he promised on the campaign trail. I predicted he’d go for the socialized gold ring, and he has. Take over car companies? Check. Exert control over salaries? Check. Take over health care? Check. Save the world from global warming by passing cap and trade? oops… can’t get it thru the Congressional channels. He’ll do it by regulations…. fuel standards increase? Check. Double check because that’s another kneecap to private auto companies here in the states as well. EPA regulating CO2? Still working on it, but throwing rubber bones to pretend to “drill” to make it look good. Immigration reform? Working on it… gotta have some votes when the indys and moderates bolt from the progressive party, ya know.
No surprise from me on Obama, billy bob. He is doing all I predicted and what he promised. Those who seem surprised are so because of two reasons.
1: Didn’t understand how it would affect their wallets and freedom or
2: Didn’t believe he’d do it because they were too mesmerized by the chants and the Greek columns, not listening.
Woulda just been easier to let the guy run for president of Spain instead. Yeah… I could support that campaign. Get Obama out of my house in DC.
You are trying to rewrite both the actual history and what you wrote. You wrote “….the fact that Anita Hill was the lone ranger to accuse him.”
This is false. There was another person who worked for Thomas, Angela Wright, who also had complained about him to a friend, prior to A. Hill complaining to her friends.
You also wrote “Anita Hill was the only one to testify with her accusations.” This is also not entirely accurate. The other woman submitted an affidavit. It is a sworn statement, offered under penalty of perjury. In a court of law, that, too, is considered fact testimony. True, she did not give LIVE testimony, but that was not because she was not willing to testify live. Biden agreed not to call her after the GOPers argued that it was not necessary.
Your misstatements continue. You said Hill was “outflanked by those who testified in his defense. . . . I’m talking about testifying under oath. Apparently that ‘under oath’ bit made others balk. . . .” You casually forget the fact that Anita Hill also had her former boyfriend (then a partner in a NYC law firm), and three friends (one a judge) recount how she complained to them BACK IN THE EARLY 1980S about Thomas sexually harassing her. What motivation would they have had to lie about that? And no one “outflanked” her because what she said could only have been refuted by people who witnessed what happened; and the only other witness was Thomas, and he DID NOT WATCH HER TESTIMONY. Did you not remember that part? Probably not . . . .
Then you said “Apparently that ‘under oath’ bit made others balk when it’s much easier to do a tell all book without cross examination, eh?” If you had read the book, you would see how far off base your statement is. The person who said he had a “gut feeling” somethign happened between Thomas and Hill was one of the Bush administration handlers who was trying to help Thomas get confirmed! The guy who remembered the pubic hair on the Coke can was an attorney and college friend of his. He was sitting in his chair at home watching her testimony when he remembered Thomas’ joke back in the day. He did not mention this for years because he was sympathetic to Thomas and he thought the allegations were overblown. But he mentioned that Hill could not have “made up” the pubic hair in the Coke comment, because he had heard the same thing before. What are the odds that she would “guess right” on such a comment? Not to mention Thomas’ apparent fascination with pron, another subject covered in the book. Like I said . . . read Thomas’ book, then read the Merida/Fletcher book (the sequence I read them), and you will probably come to the same concusion I did: something happened that he is very embarassed about.
I am all dewy eyed at your touching sentimental pride in the exploits of the Confederacy. But the fact that you think Blacks vote Dem because of Jesse Jackson, as opposed to the GOP’s boasting of the Confederate cause, tells me one thing: you obviously don’t know many Black people! I guess, in your thinking, the Blacks should just “get over” that whole slavery thing . Yeah . . . that’ll sell, coming from a party wrapped in the stars and bars.
You keep mentioning the Dem governors who are boosters of the Confederacy. Care to name names and offer some evidence? But the more telling point, which you can’t seem to get through your head: the Dems ain’t the ones having a problem attracting minority votes. The GOP is. As such, you would think that the GOP, which does have such a problem, would be sensitive and try harder NOT to needlessly alienate a massive and growing group of voters who do not vote R. But the lame brain GOPers do the exact opposite . . . and are proud of it! (Funny, T. Sowell never mentions that point about race and politics and its affect on America.) But here is a hint, cons: if you want to attract minority voters, you might want to AVOID entanging your party in the treasonous battle flag of a defeated pro-chattel slavery regime.
Finally, you think the Confederate cause was not about the preservation of slavery, huh? Then what the hell was it about? Freedom from federal interference . . . to do what? Own frakking slaves!
I almost missed this gem: “But no…. you, and those like you, prefer sleazy attempts to redefine Confederate History Month – remembering the good and bad of that era, and honoring those that lost their lives – as all about enshrining slavery.”
Please explain to me what the “good” part of the Confederate era was, in your opinion. This should be quite interesting.
Another thing. You wrote: “And you do this for the most despicable of reasons… to score political points and perpetuate racial hatred.”
Are you of the opinion that the Confederate cause, to which the GOP happily aligns itself, does NOT promote “racial hatred”? OK. Can you explain this picture for me? I just don’t get what it means.
billy bob, again with your round and round repeats? What is it… you have two or three original thoughts and talking points, and 10 ways to say them? You’ve exhausted them all, guy.
Again you misinform. Anita Hill was the only person who testified against Thomas. And it fact, it was a he said/she said argument. So why don’t you provide us links to the Senate hearings transcript of her boyfriend and those other accusers you say who testified. Hey, it was only 1991… those transcripts are available. Do it fast… Obama and Congress are busy spending my social security, and I’m aging by the minute as you attempt to dig up the impossible.
And no… I’m not talking about affidavits. Sending a nice little letter or audio tape where you’re sworn in doesn’t carry the weight of the accuser, standing before the questioners and available for cross examination. Nor does it cut the mustard for credibility. Nice try, bubba. You’re not one with enough skills to play the parse words, game. Again, perhaps you can have your paralegal step in for you? We’d pine for some more intelligent debate.
On your other roundabout…. again I said, the Confederate History Month has been an annual proclamation for seven southern states for years now… thru both Dem and GOP governors. You have remained silent about every year there is a Confederate History Month proclaimed under a Dem governor. What is it about your brick gray matter that disallows facts from entering?
As far Civil War and the value of lessons to be learned… which is always good… again you don’t want to acknowledge history. The Civil War was about many events that culminated in the south seceding. Tariffs protecting the north were destroying the southern economy. It is good to learn that, in history, states did decide to exercise their rights to combat legislative and representative federal oppression that negatively affects them and their citizens. Sound familiar? Look around. Tea party rallies to protest taxes. AG’s battling health care unfunded mandates and infringement on states rights issues. The same is for the Ayers-educated idiots who think the Boston Tea Pary was only about tea taxes, and totally ignore the 800 pound gorilla in the room – the mandate that the colonies buy their tea from England. Rarely are such events about a single item…. only in your revisionist history books.
And oh, BTW… a state’s secession is not treason. By gosh… downright frightful what law schools turn out these days. And in fact, were secession treason, this nation is founded upon the same since what is the Declaration but an act of “treason” by your erroneous parsing of Constitutional law? Secession has never been determined to be Constitutional, nor unConstitutional, billy bob. You’re embarrassing….
In today’s times, we have more power and influence, because of better communications tools, to exercise before such an extreme as secession is needed. However the fiscal elements from the Civil War era are, again, present. And respect of history and it’s lessons… good and bad… is the hallmark of a future success.
But you keep coming back to the same ol’, same ol’….the GOP “happily aligns itself” with a “Confederate cause” despite the fact of the Confederate History Month’s proclamation history. What an obvious game you play, billy bob. Are you the Obama cream of the crop cyber team? Slam dunk…. You hope to prey on aligning everything Civil War with slavery, and by tanget to the GOP today. Were not the former historically inaccurate, the latter is positively a delusional leap of propaganda. Do you really find people dumb enough to buy that crap just so you can perpetuate hatred?
Also, again you lie when you put words into my mouth as “…touching sentimental pride in the exploits of the Confederacy”. Nowhere in my commentary have I expressed “pride” in the actions of the Confederate States, nor have I ever advocated for slavery. So let me say this to you, you losing SOB… I didn’t think you could get any lower that the wannabe attorney snake under a rock racist than you are now. But you have. Do not apply to me what’s lives 24/7 in your racist mind. I will, unlike you, at least defend Americans in those states to reflect on their own past, and recognize it in their own way without applying your racial accusations to the same. Because I’m pretty darned sure there isn’t a GOP governor in a southern state that wants to reinstate slavery. But I’m equally sure they are livid about federal taxes and intrusion in their Constitutional regulatory rights.
And frankly, billy bob, I’m really getting tired of bailing you out of the pending and spam bins…. something I am not responsible for, BTW. I’m one of those here more tolerant of you in the interest of free speech…. and even more, to allow you to again make an ass of yourself publicly. But at this moment, I see another piece of crap like that from you, you can wait until the cows come home before I personally bail you out. You’ll have to be at the mercy of other authors… who are not as tolerate of you as I am. .
Jim Webb is a Republican…Who knew?
“The venerable Robert E. Lee has taken some vicious hits, as dishonest or misinformed advocates among political interest groups and in academia attempt to twist yesterday’s America into a fantasy that might better service the political issues of today,” he wrote. “The greatest disservice on this count has been the attempt by these revisionist politicians and academics to defame the entire Confederate Army in a move that can only be termed the Nazification of the Confederacy.”
Read his 2004 book ButtRub. He’s one proud Confederate who won 85% of the Black vote in his state, so I guess by that evidence, it’s ain’t about supporting the cross-starred flag, it’s about the handouts, as Mata implied.
Or how about Dean claiming that he wanted to be the “candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks.”?
Nope. Nothing to see here, move along.
-And I’m sick to death of hearing this lying bag of shit claim he was “once a Republican”.
@Patvann.. “… once a Republican..” LOL! THere’s a few of us here who know who billy bob is. And of course, the FEC records of donations don’t lie. If he was a Republican, he’s on record for sending his political tithing to the Dems.
I know who he is, too.
@Patvann… you’re insulting assholes by associating B-Rob the Liar, Waster of Air and Time with them. I’ve finally figured out how to deal with B-Rob’s posts…. I read two sentences max, then spend a moment in amazement at how monkeys have advanced their typing skills. The balance of the post I ignore it’s something I’ve probably already read in a past iteration.
You were doing “kinda” good in #85, then you toss out #86.
I was born and raised in the South. Born in Memphis and now live outside Atlanta. I love the South. We are a very proud people; all of us, regardless of color. I had a Confederate flag when I was young, which is longer in the past than I care to admit. It had nothing to do with color or people, just pride in the attitude of the South. An attitude that you are completely misrepresenting. In classic cliche, I had and still have friends of all colors. One of my best friends when I was around 8 was black. We played baseball together. He had a Confederate flag in his bedroom. Being Southern transcends race. I’m half Blackfoot Indian, my wife is Mexican, my kids are a beautiful mixture of both of us.
Let’s start with Andrew Jackson, a man I truly loathe. Although a son of the South, he was a complete Jack-ass. Thus the symbol of the democrat party. Please look it up if you don’t believe me. Jackson started the “war between the States.” It can’t really be called a “civil war,” because a civil war is fought between factions for the control of a single government. The South had no interest in the North whatsoever. They just wanted to be left alone and gain independence. Now back to our story. Jackson asked Congress to pass the Force Bill to use military force to enforce a tariff that South Carolina ruled unconstitutional and made it null and void. See, the North wanted the South to buy and trade with their manufacturing companies exclusively. Jackson and Congress ended up passing a compromise tariff and South Carolina ended its talks of succession.
The North constantly stuck its nose in the affairs of the South. There was a constant call for the South to purchase equipment from the North for their ag needs, but it was often cheaper to get the equipment from Europe. There were the laws against moonshine, (we call it the war against the revenuers). Less than .5% of the Southern population owned slaves. For most Southerners, the fight wasn’t one of slavery, although I’ll grant it was a major issue, it was a fight against intrusive government. Spin it as you will, but that is just the way it is.
You condemn the Confederate flag. I despise the symbol of the democrat party, a symbol that represents Andrew Jackson. The man that force marched thousands of men, women and children to their death. The Indian Removal Act, something I happen to be very familiar with, even though I am not of Cherokee descent. A bunch of folks from Georgia found out there was gold on the Cherokee lands. Surely they taught you in law school about Worcester v. Georgia. No? The Supreme Court said the Indians were entitled to their land. Jackson told Marshall to go f*** himself. Please don’t give me any crap about John Ridge, I’ll hand you your a$$ on a platter. Yet you dims are proud to display that symbol of ethnic cleansing day in and day out. And if you would like to see the great works of the United States Government on behalf of the Native Americans, I urge you to visit a reservation, any reservation. Look at how well dependence on the government has done for the people of my ancestors. I thank God everyday that my great grandparents left and hid in plain sight. By denying their heritage, they gave me a chance at a real life. Without that act, I would be living on The Rez, waiting for my next gummit check. Take down the Jack-ass flag BRob, it’s a reminder to all Native Americans of ethnic cleansing.
TALLGRASS this 92 comment from 92 AQUA, will surely interest you being CHEROKIE,,i find it very well done and informative,thank’s bye
zing…. serious bulleye archer shot there, Aqua. Glad you had more patience than I to expand on the Civil War fiscal issues that get ignored in revisionist history for the American History challenged billy bob.
Since I work a lot with NAYA, I see many that share your feelings about “hiding in plain sight”… whether with IHS or the far more recent history of treatment at the hands of a supposed social welfare government under control of either party.
Darnitt, Don! I’m running out of expletives here!
How ’bout: “He who is beneath”.
Do you mean that BRob, the semi-literate imbecille is actually the product of an Ivy League education, and liscensed to practice law in at least one state of our nation? Wow!
Blows the mind, eh Flyover? You really want to depress yourself? Go to the SCOTUS site and start reading oral argument briefs. Transcripts of attorneys who command all sorts of kudos and big bucks because they pled cases before the High Court robed ones.
What you’ll come away with is that those robed ones are unforgiving and quicker than a whip. Only a fool goes in there unprepared, stammering around on legal concepts that fly in the face of precendents and historic opinions.
That means the second thing you come away with is that a high percentage of fools hired to go before that bench – supposedly the cream of the legal beagle crop – do little to give us faith in our legal education system. So billy bob’s inadequacy here doesn’t necessarily surprise me. Appalled? Hang yes… but no surprise.
Unfortunately, the tribal reps at the BIA are more entrenched than Robert Byrd. I’ve read that more and more young people are leaving The Rez and not returning. I have mixed feelings, one being elation that they will find freedom and one that American Indians will soon cease to exist as a race.
I know my friend Old Trooper donates to The Rez every year, nice of you to give time as well. I try to get around once a year, but I don’t always make it. And it always breaks my heart and raises my blood pressure.
It’s funny, because of my wife, I have a lot of Latin friends. Two of them are Dominican, both black. But they’ll slap you if you call them that, they’re Dominican. And they say when the become American citizens, they’ll be American. I don’t ever recall hearing of an African-French or an Asian-Brit. Never heard of a Latin-German or a European-Japanese. Until our goverment drops the hypenated needs of our hypenated country, we’ll just be hyphenated.
AQUA hi,i would like to say that the indians play an important role in the history of AMERICA,and i am including CANADA also as they are called FIRST NATION,and it fit exactly that, i always pay attention when i read from someone who belong to one of thoses many different tribes,all the storys should be written in a book for the young generation to be proud of the ancient knowledge that all people profit from in many way, bye 🙄
@Aqua I know that about the BIA, and even some elders, Aqua. But let me give you heart. From those I’ve worked with, no one loses their identity, culture and history merely because they assimilate off rez. The culture, the respect, the dancing and handing it down to ensuing generations is alive and well in the middle of urban concrete jungles. They’ve just stepped up the quality of the teepees. I learn much from them, as they do from me.
My parents are the first born generation here. We’ve lost much of the culture because of international marriages and a language gap. Hard for my parents to communicate with each other in their youth when their households were bilingual in completely different original native languages. My maternal side kept it up with my grandmother. My father preferred to stick to English. Still, I don’t feel we are “lost”. We are Americans with diverse backgrounds and continue that in our family to this day… a virtual melting pot. “Purity”, in that sense, is overrated. I have great respect for traditions. But I see no reason to be ostracized from modern civilization in order to do so. I think the young see this as well.
@Patvann… that works.
Thomas Sowell is awesome!
As for some of these Obama supporters you mention, a number of them are beginning to have some doubts and experiencing buyer’s remorse.
Not so sure about the “palin’ around with capitalists” claim, BRob:
What’s up with the rumors on Larry Summers? More disharmony in Obama Nation?
I’d say Summer’s is buggin’ out before the fiscal “incoming” comes home to roost, Word.