Plenty of rebukes for repulsive race-baiting from Democrat Congressman State, National, International, posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Aug 31, 2011 at 5:01 pm jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
A number of African-American leaders across the country, none of them Democrats, publicly denounced or directly rebuked Indiana Democrat Rep Carson for his comments last weekend at what was billed as a "jobs tour" put on by the Congressional Black Caucus.
Rep Carson said that some Tea Party-backed members of Congress would love to see African Americans "hanging on a tree." He accused the Tea Party movement of using "Jim Crow" tactics to stop economic progress, particularly among minorities.
"Some of these folks in Congress right now would love to see us as second-class citizens," Carson said. "Some of them in Congress right now with this tea party movement would love to see you and me... hanging on a tree."
Timothy F. Johnson, founder of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, said Wednesday that the civil rights abuses and crimes of the Jim Crow era were carried out mostly in regions controlled by the Democratic Party. He decried Carson’s comments as "outrageous, hateful, and desperate," adding in a statement: "When some Democrats can’t win a political disagreement, they normally resort to race-baiting, which is in itself racist."
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Aug 31, 2011 at 6:01 pm jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Well there ya go, you cannot read about it in any news outlet, many are not covering it. Many are not stating the real problem, that Democrats have nothing to say about it. Most who do cover it are not covering the fact that African-American conservatives are denouncing this Congressman.
So no, I didn't merely cut and paste. I have been posting here long enough to know not to do that.
Posted by Kate Golden, a resident of the Ironwood neighborhood, on Aug 31, 2011 at 6:19 pm
This story has been plastered everywhere. Jimf01 is drawn to it because, well, it's always a gas when an African-American says something contentious isn't it? It gives crackers like Jim permission to condemn black folk.
Then there's Jimolf's idiotic quote: "Timothy F. Johnson, founder of the Frederick Douglass Foundation, said Wednesday that the civil rights abuses and crimes of the Jim Crow era were carried out mostly in regions controlled by the Democratic Party."
Right, only Johnson forgets to mention that those regions are now controlled almost entirely by the Republican Party -- many members of which fled the Democratic Party after liberal civil rights legislation in the 1960s. Small matter, though, that, right Jimbo?
Janna has a point. Only the leftover racist kkk'ers and new kkk tea partiers use Democrat Party instead of Democratic Party. Use of the former is code among kkk'ers for "that party that wants to treat those darned darkies as first-class citizens." Ol' Jimbo sure knows how to reveal his true racist convictions. Atta boy Jimbo, you're a real dish.
Kath? Stace? Feel free to jump in and condemn Jimbo's uncivil race-baiting anytime you so desire. Oh, you say, you hadn't noticed? That's okay. There's plenty of decent posters here who will do the job for you.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Aug 31, 2011 at 8:16 pm jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Absolutely, I welcome the comment from race baiters like "Kate Golden", I expected them, and I defend your right to your opinion. I notice that you too fail to condemn the race baiting comments from our elected official, and so I can only assume you agree with him.
As I said, if that is your opinion, you are entitled to it. When I post my opinions and subject myself to the trolling race-baiters, I register myself and identify myself. But the trolling race-baiters comment anonymously with false attacks on my character. Have a ball, it seems it's open season.
But I will correct the anonymous troll race-baiter on one point, "fled the Democratic Party after liberal civil rights legislation in the 1960"?
This is a nonsensical twist on historical fact. I link a bit of history for your education
Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats. Contrary to Democrat myth, Everett Dirksen (R-IL), the Senate Minority Leader â€“ not President Lyndon Johnson â€“ was the person most responsible for its passage. Mindful of how Democrat opposition had forced Republicans to weaken their 1957 and 1960 Civil Rights Acts, President Johnson promised Republicans that he would publicly credit the GOP for its strong support. Johnson played no role in the legislative fight. In the House of Representatives, the 1964 Civil Rights Act passed with 80% support from Republicans but only 63% support from Democrats.
In the Senate, Dirksen had no trouble rounding up the votes of most Republicans, and former presidential candidate Richard Nixon lobbied hard for passage. On the Democrat side, the Senate leadership did support the bill, while the chief opponents were Senators Sam Ervin (D-NC), Al Gore (D-TN) and Robert Byrd (D-WV). Senator Byrd, whom Democrats still call â€śthe conscience of the Senate,â€ť filibustered against the 1964 Civil Rights Act for fourteen straight hours. At a meeting held in his office, Dirksen modified the bill so it could be passed despite Democrat opposition. He strongly condemned the Democrat-led 57-day filibuster: â€śThe time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied. It is here!â€ť
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Sep 1, 2011 at 11:52 am jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
A few interesting developments and footnotes to this appalling situation, highlighted in the AP story I link here Web Link
An AP story, which by the way uses the term Democrat and not Democratic, of course now our race-baiting trolls on this board will agree that the Associated Press is a racist organization as well?
The actual quote from Rep Carson was written with a ‘…’ in it, but the AP story changes that to a hyphen, a ‘…’ indicates part of the quote was left out, and it was. The part that was left out was “I’m sorry, Tamron”. And who is Tamron? Tamron Hall, an MSNBC newsreader who moderated the event. Hall has a 1 hour program daily on MSNBC. What did she say about this on her program. Yep, you guessed it. Nothing at all.
"Some of them in Congress right now with this tea party movement would love to see you and me - hanging on a tree," the Indiana congressman said.
Then there are the follow-up comments from Rep Carson:
Carson said the Democrats who make up the rest of the caucus have supported him.
Carson said that while he wishes he would have chosen different analogies in his speech, he would not have changed its substance. He said the language he used has become a "distraction" to the message he was trying to get across about some tea party members.
"I'm deeply concerned about some of the extremist elements who I feel have been a distraction to many of the well-meaning Americans who affiliate themselves with the tea party," Carson said. "What I was referencing was is there are some in the tea party that want to take America back to a time when certain minority groups and women had greater economic struggles and fewer opportunities than they do now."
I wonder if Rep Carson remembers that it is, in fact, the Democrat Party that has a long history of trying to take America back to a time when certain minority groups and women had greater economic struggles and fewer opportunities than they do now.
In 1865, the 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition
In 1866, the U.S. Senate passed Republicans’ 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no
In 1870 with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, the Republicans’ 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race
In 1875, the Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition
In 1909, on the 100th anniversary of Abraham Lincoln’s birth, African-American Republicans and women’s suffragists Ida Wells and Mary Terrell co-found the NAACP
In 1920, the Republican-authored 19th Amendment, giving women the vote, becomes part of Constitution; 26 of the 36 states to ratify had Republican-controlled legislatures
In 1953 Earl Warren, California’s three-term Republican Governor and 1948 Republican vice presidential nominee, wrote landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education
In 1963 Democrat Gov. George Wallace of Alabam defies order by U.S. District Judge Frank Johnson, appointed by President Dwight Eisenhower, to integrate Tuskegee High School
In 1964, KKK wizard and Democrat Senator Robert Byrd filibustered against 1964 Civil Rights Act. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat senators, several of whom were proud segregationists—one of them being Al Gore Sr.
Byrd continued to serve in the Senate until his death in 2010. At Byrd’s funeral, former Democrat President Bill Clinton said, “He once had a fleeting association with the Ku Klux Klan, what does that mean? I’ll tell you what it means. He was a country boy from the hills and hollows from West Virginia. He was trying to get elected. And maybe he did something he shouldn’t have done come and he spent the rest of his life making it up. And that’s what a good person does. There are no perfect people. There are certainly no perfect politicians.”
Posted by A Neighbor, a resident of the Another Pleasanton neighborhood neighborhood, on Sep 1, 2011 at 4:46 pm
Jim, I continue to be dismayed at the extent you are willing to go to emphasize the public failings and personal shortcomings of members of the Democratic Party, as if no good deeds can possibly also define them. You have a long history here of whipping up the us-versus-Democrats rhetoric. Your visceral dislike of everything related to the Democratic Party is duly noted. It is not health to hate so deeply. Move on, man.
Posted by Basil Bronze, a resident of the Ironwood neighborhood, on Sep 1, 2011 at 9:04 pm
Crusader Kathleen Ruegsegger. Faced with race-baiting by a racist rube who bends history to suit his kkk view of the world, Kathleen Ruegsegger opts to direct her fury at Nate Silver who sometimes posts using another name. Way to step up to the plate and defend civility on these threads, Kathleen Ruegsegger. Race baiting? No problem. Use another name while exposing the hilarity of Kathleen Ruegsegger's views? Oh boy, she can't control herself! The SHAME of using another name on these threads! How horrific! Race baiting? Well, there Kathleen Ruegsegger maintains her "unprejudiced" silence. That's Kathleen Ruegsegger. Not ue but ue. Ruegsegger. Kathleen.
Posted by Basil , a resident of the Ironwood neighborhood, on Sep 1, 2011 at 9:48 pm
Sure sounds like it, Kathleen Ruegsegger. But how important can kkk postings be when people on this site are using more than one name?
And here's jimbo again. He's not even bothering to deny his kkk sympathies any longer. Ever since the Dems deserted the kkk and the southern and western states' GOP filled the void, what's there not for him to like?
Posted by Kathleen Ruegsegger, a resident of the Vintage Hills Elementary School neighborhood, on Sep 1, 2011 at 9:54 pm
Basil, Follow the bouncing ball. Pick any name, stick to it. Simple. Disappointing that the PW doesn't follow their sister paper and delete comments from those using more than one name. Isn't there a pesto sauce that needs you?
Posted by Basil, a resident of the Ironwood neighborhood, on Sep 1, 2011 at 10:05 pm
Courageously stated, Kathleen Ruegsegger. Not sticking to one name is far more disappointing than forwarding kkk-sympathizer material. Perhaps you've heard this before? Perspective, Kath. BTW, that's Kathleen Ruegsegger.
Well, off we go! So many govt practices to criticize, so many multiple name users to castigate. Ruegsegger. Kathleen.
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Sep 4, 2011 at 10:18 am jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Gratified to see at the very least, no one on this board would try to defend the actions of a race-baiting Congressman of the United States, even if he is directing hatred toward the Tea Party.
Now the anonymous progressive trolls who comment here regularly have some food for thought, and learn what it feels like to be assaulted in such a manner, simply for the expression of political opposition.
Learn also that it is socialist governments all through the pages of history that have descended into totalitarianism, and learn what it means, in the longer view to condone, fail to condemn, or assent to the actions of a racist, especially a racist who sits in the Congress of the United States.
Posted by Dana, a resident of the Amador Estates neighborhood, on Sep 4, 2011 at 10:56 am
Hey, "A Neighbor",
Jim01 is not the only one here who loathes the democrat party (note to Janna: I refuse to refer to them as the "Democratic" party as there is nothing "Democratic" about them. The emphasis on the word "democrats" is in the last syllable.
I was once a democrat...raised by two FDR Democrat parents. Therefore I naturally thought it was my 'calling' to continue voting democrat. But after I started to work for a living...in the private sector...I woke up. There are very few if any "democrat" programs (except for a few like national defense) that don't have disastrous secondary impacts.
I and many others were taught in the "government" school system that FDR was one of the best presidents ever by getting us out of the GREAT DEPRESSION. I later learned that his massive public works programs (i.e.
Keynesian economics) actually were GREAT (i.e. PROLONGED) BECAUSE of his spending.
I loathe democrats as they are destroying America.
Posted by dublinmike, a resident of Dublin, on Sep 5, 2011 at 12:03 am dublinmike is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Jim01 states:"Republicans supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act much more than did the Democrats."
Oh, come on Jim, you now fully well the Dixie-crats had a strong influence on the Democratic party since the Civil War. BTW, they are currently and accurately known as Republicans.
Dana, I was never "taught" that "one of the best presidents ever...FDR" I was taught he was "the President 1933 - 1945." And, by the way, he was the only President ever elected to four four-year terms. Gosh, guess that made him a FAILURE... but not the best, I guess...
Posted by jimf01, a resident of another community, on Sep 5, 2011 at 1:27 am jimf01 is a member (registered user) of PleasantonWeekly.com
Currently, and accurately, the constituencies have gone majority Republican, and why? Because the Southern Democrats were always conservatives. They do not support the current liberal Democrat-ick party. They do not support, on the whole, progressive values.