Bill Clinton to go into Black Hall of Fame [Archive] - HP Deals, Computer Coupons And Bargains

View Full Version : Bill Clinton to go into Black Hall of Fame

sbp

10-18-2002, 03:13 AM

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/South/10/17/clinton.fame.ap/index.html

http://sbp777.homestead.com/files/whipping.gifhttp://i.cnn.net/cnn/2002/US/South/10/17/clinton.fame.ap/vert.clinton.ap.jpg

whitak24

10-18-2002, 05:48 AM

i do not understand why clinton is so revered by people like toni morrison. the whole "first black president" thing is beyond me.

if you look at clinton's racial policy, it was, in my opinion, a mixture of tokenism and neglect. i find it very difficult to say that racial unity was at a higher level at the end of clinton's tenure than it was in 1992.

unfortunately, republicans have done almost nothing to help improve race relations in this country, and i think that has prevented them from becoming a stronger party.

but in many ways, what the democrats have done is worse. they have taken the minorities on board with big promises, gotten them to expend a huge amount of political capital, and then delivered almost nothing in terms of real results. the attitude basically seems to be "hey, we know they won't go vote for the republicans"

as for clinton, he carried this to the extreme. his whole career was built by convincing groups that he was their great hope, when really all he cared about was his career. he'd tell anybody anything just to get elected, then start a "blue-ribbon presidential commission" to look at the problem :rolleyes:

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 06:19 AM

CLinton did try to get things done for people and he was by and large successful. His welfare reform helped everyone. If he had gotten his health care bill passed that would have been a huge help to everyone as well.

WhiskeyPapa

10-18-2002, 07:17 AM

Originally posted by whitak24
unfortunately, republicans have done almost nothing to help improve race relations in this country, and i think that has prevented them from becoming a stronger party.I agree that is the perception, but if you look at the histories of the two parties, nothing could be further from the truth.

One of the major reasons the Republican party was formed in the 1850's was the abolition of slavery.

When civil rights laws were being passed in the 1960's, who was fighting to defeat them? The democrats. Al Gore's father fought harder than anyone. He was fond of using the "N-word".

Which party has the only member of the KKK in congress? I'll give you a clue: it's not the republicans. Robert Byrd, who was a very active member of the KKK before being elected to the senate, has been elevated to a position as a senior member of the democrat leadership.

But all anyone is is interested in nowadays is how a person "feels", or what they "intend to do". Apparently actions no longer speak louder than words.

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 07:51 AM

Originally posted by kb0wwp

One of the major reasons the Republican party was formed in the 1850's was the abolition of slavery.

They were self-righteous Bible bashers back then too. Just kidding, I think they did a lot of good back then. However, dont confuse "abolishing slavery" with "racial equality." Very few of these northern republicans who wanted to abolish slavery had ever even seen a black man.

When civil rights laws were being passed in the 1960's, who was fighting to defeat them? The democrats.

Wrong. If you paid attention to the history of teh time you would see the democratic party underwent a paradigmn shift in the election of 1960. Before 1960 Dems were the party of the old south, after 1960 they were the party of the cosmopolitan urbanites. When the civil rights legislation was being passed there was opposition from the old school southern democrats but to suggest that Democrats were opposing it is a ridiculous statement. The bills were proposed by democrats and passed by a democratic congress and signed by a democratic president. While some democrats opposed it, the main body of opposition came from the Republican party.

Which party has the only member of the KKK in congress? I'll give you a clue: it's not the republicans.

Which party in Congress has the most former members of the KKK? I'll give you a clue, it ain't the Democrats.

Apparently actions no longer speak louder than words.

Such as when Republicans shoot down bills to help minorities achieve equality, when they try to take funding away from inner city schools and when they pass laws that allow guns to get in the hands of gang members and other people that shouldnt have them; yet people still vote for them.

WhiskeyPapa

10-18-2002, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury
Funny thing about this is... everytime I think of KKK politicians, David Duke always seems to come to mind.... and he's a REPUBLICAN! :hmm: I know, that's what everyone (including me) thinks of first. But David Duke was never accepted (or wanted) by the vast majority of republicans. Everyone pretty much wanted him to go away. Not with Byrd, though. He's an honored senior member of the democrat party.

And you are right about the Emancipation Proclimation. It was a political move made to deprive the south of labor. But one of the major foundations of the republican party were people who honestly saw slavery as an abomination. If Lincoln's political decision got them one step closer to their goal, why would any of them have tried to stop him? But that's all just history anyway...

Originally posted by DarkFury
Ok... nevermind, but I will say this. Until you are truly able to walk in the Black man's shoes, you just can't possibly understand how we feel in matters like this.I'll agree with you there. Sometimes I feel my opinion on some of this doesn't mean much, because I have no clue how you feel. But that's not gonna stop me from saying it! :)

You say Clinton made you "feel" like he was doing something. You said you don't think Bush is going to "do" anything. What exactly does Bush have to do?

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Which party in Congress has the most former members of the KKK? I'll give you a clue, it ain't the Democrats.Please name any former KKK members in the republican party that have any sort of position of influence. I think you made that statement because it fits your "paradigm".

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 10:21 AM

::cough::Bob Barr::cough::

nickel

10-18-2002, 10:30 AM

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by nickelback

you respect Clinton? the guy is self-serving, just like his wife. they use people as stepping stones for their own advancement, that is all. Billary, I mean Hillary, only keeps Bill around because she feels she will do better politically with him on her coat tail.
i lost respect for Clinton when he snagged a very young intern and then lied about it under oath. Clinton did more for black people while in office? he did something for women, too. HE DEGRADED THEM!

What part of that is different than anythign any pther politician has ever done? "He is selfserving." OH MY GOD STOP THE PRESSES! A self serving politician? Wow, you are the ace reporter of teh day for that scoop.

You think he is the first powerful older man to stray when he isnt "getting what he needs" at home? Granted, I don't condone adultery but he didnt do anything that a large % of other american men havent done. He is no less respectable for that than your brothers, fathers, uncles, etc.

As for lying under oath, that wasnt proven. If you knew tha facts, you would know that according to the deposition 'sex' was defined as 'intercourse.' He was perfectly right to say he never had sex with her. I don't agree with him saying on the public address to the nation "i have not had an inappropriate relationship..." that was a lie, but he wasnt under oath then, so legally he is fine. Again I ask, how many men out there have never lied to their spouse or significant other? Lots. Everyone.

"He degraded women."

Wrong. If anyone degraded women it was Monica, not him. She played the role of the stereotype, not him. She hooked up with a powerful man simply for the thrill of it, not him. Monica is the deplorable one, not him.

attgig

10-18-2002, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
"He degraded women."

Wrong. If anyone degraded women it was Monica, not him. She played the role of the stereotype, not him. She hooked up with a powerful man simply for the thrill of it, not him. Monica is the deplorable one, not him.

jus like if a woman gets raped, she's the one to blame... :rolleyes:

the man lacks character and integrity. don't blame Monica for that.

nickel

10-18-2002, 11:25 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

What part of that is different than anythign any pther politician has ever done? "He is selfserving." OH MY GOD STOP THE PRESSES! A self serving politician? Wow, you are the ace reporter of teh day for that scoop.

You think he is the first powerful older man to stray when he isnt "getting what he needs" at home? Granted, I don't condone adultery but he didnt do anything that a large % of other american men havent done. He is no less respectable for that than your brothers, fathers, uncles, etc.

As for lying under oath, that wasnt proven. If you knew tha facts, you would know that according to the deposition 'sex' was defined as 'intercourse.' He was perfectly right to say he never had sex with her. I don't agree with him saying on the public address to the nation "i have not had an inappropriate relationship..." that was a lie, but he wasnt under oath then, so legally he is fine. Again I ask, how many men out there have never lied to their spouse or significant other? Lots. Everyone.

"He degraded women."

Wrong. If anyone degraded women it was Monica, not him. She played the role of the stereotype, not him. She hooked up with a powerful man simply for the thrill of it, not him. Monica is the deplorable one, not him.

don't be a stupid ass, i never claimed Clinton was the first self-serving president or that there haven't been others. have the intelligence when you debate to not put words in people's mouths :rolleyes:

i also never claimed him to be the onlyfriggin adulterer around. that was just one of the many thing he did while in the white house to help with our degradation of morals.

yeh, lying under oath. he tried to be a slick willy as usual, but a liar is a liar. you really think he didn't have sex with her? SURE!

Wrong. If anyone degraded women it was Monica, not him. She played the role of the stereotype, not him. She hooked up with a powerful man simply for the thrill of it, not him. Monica is the deplorable one, not him.

you know Monica personally? how the hell do you know why she did what she did? i happen to think she was in love with Clinton, and of course she found that thrilling. whatever the case he was an old fart getting it on with a young intern and there is no excuse for that. i suppose Monica asked for it too? i suppose you think women who get raped ask for it by the way they look and dress? (i see attigig agrees with me on that)

nickel

10-18-2002, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury

Only cause he got caught... if you look back through history, Clinton wasn't the ONLY President that had "affairs"... but his did get "big publicity" over it...

Dubya.. probably can't spell "affair". :hihi:

BTW... I'm still entitled to my OWN opinion BTW... and I am not forcing it down anyone's throat. But from the moment Clintion got in office (well before he had his affair) the Republicans hounded him and hounded him lookin' for something to nail his butt to the wall. How soon was it that the term "Slick Willie" was made. I know that I heard it like every day it seemed.

come on DF, i expect more from you. the republicans hounded Clinton? that works for both parties. they are always looking for dirt. every president gets a degrading nickname. "tricky dick", is one that comes to my mind. look at you hounding our current president and his spelling ability. the president is always the butt of his own personality flaws. it wasn't new to Clinton, it's been going on.

like i said, i know Clinton wasn't the only one who had an affair, but that doesn't make it more acceptable.

and btw, i am entitled to my opinion, too. i usually stay out or back off, but i am kinda sick of the males on this board not being able to agree to disagree.

nickel

10-18-2002, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury

Well if memory serves correctly, she performed "oral sex" on him several times, and he only "ejaculated" once after several of those sessions...

It didn't sound to me like she was being "raped" or "forced" to do it... (how do you know that she DIDN'T ask to have the "First Penis" delivered orally.... :naughty: )? My thing is... most of us do our laundry on a week to week basis and don't hold over "semen stained garments" for months to be used as "evidence" in a scandal... :hmm:

:hihi:
i never said Monica was raped. i was using the analogy to show that women don't "ask for it" just by being women.

truth be known i have saved an article of clothing like that. why? cause i was crazy over the guy. ask any chick, and i'll bet they have too.

sbp

10-18-2002, 11:46 AM

When I think of Clinton terms in office, I think of missed opportunities to get things done like reforming entitlements.

In fact, welfare reform was a Republican plan and it was carried out by Republican governors. Bill Clinton vetoed it twice only signing it due to the election coming up.

As for Hillarys health care plan, it was for big government to get even more involved in health care. No thanks.

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Wrong. If you paid attention to the history of teh time you would see the democratic party underwent a paradigmn shift in the election of 1960. Before 1960 Dems were the party of the old south, after 1960 they were the party of the cosmopolitan urbanites. When the civil rights legislation was being passed there was opposition from the old school southern democrats but to suggest that Democrats were opposing it is a ridiculous statement. The bills were proposed by democrats and passed by a democratic congress and signed by a democratic president. While some democrats opposed it, the main body of opposition came from the Republican party.The main body of opposition came from the southern Democrats. The Republican party supported the civil rights bill more than the Democrats did.

http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html
"Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96." Oh my!

http://www.houstonreview.com/articles/48.html
"In the Senate, 69% of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Act while 82% of Republicans did (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democrats voted against the Act."

Everyone recall Alabama Governor George Wallace standing in the school door to block integration? Oh yeah he was a Democrat. http://www.archives.state.al.us/govs_list/schooldoor.html
http://www.archives.state.al.us/govslist.html

And Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings was South Carolina's governor when he raised the confederate battle flag over the State Capitol.

Such as when Republicans shoot down bills to help minorities achieve equality, when they try to take funding away from inner city schools and when they pass laws that allow guns to get in the hands of gang members and other people that shouldnt have them; yet people still vote for them.What bills are being shot down?

Education is a matter for states and parents.

So even more money should be thrown at the problem, when the current money is not being spent wisely?

Democrats are the ones trying to take away people's guns. What part of the second amendment is not understand?

Originally posted by DarkFury
Funny thing about this is... everytime I think of KKK politicians, David Duke always seems to come to mind.... and he's a REPUBLICAN!So every time I think of racist Democratic politicans, I should think of Al Sharpton? How about Jesse Jackson? How about Marion "Where's the crack" Barry?

Bush has 2 blacks in his administration, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, that are higher ranking and more respected than any in Clintons administration. Someone please explain what Bush should do.

Please note the Civil Rights movement has become special rights movement. The focus needs to shift to families, communities and schools and government can not and should not do it all.

Quite frankly until the Democratic party pulls its head out of its ass on racial and other matters, I will not vote for them on the national level.

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 11:46 AM

YEah, talk about putting words into people's mouths. You make it seem like I'm justifying rape.

When I pointed out that peopel have done it before I wasn't trying to teach you something that I thought you didn't know, I was showing that what he did is no cause for alarm.

As far as "she wanted it because she was a woman." Those are your words not mine.

As far as I'm concerned she "wanted it" when she dropped to her knees and opened her mouth.

nickel

10-18-2002, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury

These are the chicks, our Mommas told us to stay away from. THEY CRAZY AS HELL... and will put you through hell too. :D

well i suggest you ask your wife if she ever did something like that. :P

Nija

10-18-2002, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by nickelback

well i suggest you ask your wife if she ever did something like that. :P how about he ask his girlfriend? since he's not married n all :P

nickel

10-18-2002, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
YEah, talk about putting words into people's mouths. You make it seem like I'm justifying rape.

When I pointed out that peopel have done it before I wasn't trying to teach you something that I thought you didn't know, I was showing that what he did is no cause for alarm.

As far as "she wanted it because she was a woman." Those are your words not mine.

As far as I'm concerned she "wanted it" when she dropped to her knees and opened her mouth.

save it, you don't need to "teach me" anything.

they both "wanted it". my point was she shouldn't be the only one to blame.

nickel

10-18-2002, 11:53 AM

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by sbp
snip

So what you are saying is that the people who voted against it are from the south and the peopel who are for it are from the north. Why isnt that suprising? They voted on regional lines, not party. Problem for the republicans is, after 1964 all the old south Democrats abandoned the party and joined the Republicans, where they still remain. Its a bad image.

Also, its like others have said, the President and his party take theblame in bad times and his party and himself get the credit in good times.

nickel

10-18-2002, 11:55 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury

Ummm.. what wife would that be?

Do you know something that I don't.... :eek:

ok, then change that to significant other.
and if you don't have an S.O., then ask your sister.

Ladogaboy

10-18-2002, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by DarkFury

These are the chicks, our Mommas told us to stay away from. THEY CRAZY AS HELL... and will put you through hell too. :D

Like I said about white women. (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51750&perpage=30&pagenumber=1) :hehehmm:

nickel

10-18-2002, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Ladogaboy

Like I said about white women. (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51750&perpage=30&pagenumber=1) :hehehmm:

are you insinuating my race?

sbp

10-18-2002, 12:02 PM

I also have seen 2 Democratic presidents during my time and both of them quite frankly were lackluster. In addition to that the Democratic nominees over the years have been piss poor-this is a party that nominated Fritz Mondale and Michael Dukasis. The last time my father, a registered Democrat, voted for a Democratic Presidential candidate was back in the 60's. Judging from the Democratic party today things won't be changing.

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Problem for the republicans is, after 1964 all the old south Democrats abandoned the party and joined the Republicans, where they still remain.Gore's father was a Democrat until he left the Senate. Robert Byrd and Fritz Hollings are Democrats.

Originally posted by DarkFury
I just wanna see who will be the first President to run with a Black Vice President... and then who will get the shot to be the first official Black President.It would be someone on the Republican side. Black Democrats are wayyy too liberal.

nickel

10-18-2002, 12:02 PM

i say Colin Powell for president and a woman as his running mate, m'be Eliz Dole

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 12:06 PM

Originally posted by nickelback

save it, you don't need to "teach me" anything.

they both "wanted it". my point was she shouldn't be the only one to blame.

Not to make it too personal, but do you even read the words? I said I wasn't trying to teach you anything. WASN'T. They offer reading classes at most middle schools.

I don't blame anyone for what the two of them did. The only one who can do that is Hillary and she doesnt publicly care. YOU suggested that he degraded women. YOU were the one who tried to make it one person at fault. Don't try to turn your own fallacy back on me.

Ladogaboy

10-18-2002, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by sbp
When I think of Clinton terms in office, I think of missed opportunities to get things done like reforming entitlements.

Everytime I think of Bush Jr., I think of lost opportunities... like Bush Sr. walking past the Trojans while visiting the drug store. Hehe, sorry, couldn't resist. :D

Originally posted by sbp
Bush has 2 blacks in his administration, Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice, that are higher ranking and more respected than any in Clintons administration. Someone please explain what Bush should do.

As for these two, I remember reading, in two different articles about Colin and Condoleezza having some major issues with their coworkers/party. In fact, if I remember correctly, both of them have considered resigning their positions. :hmm:

nickel

10-18-2002, 12:07 PM

Not to make it too personal, but do you even read the words? I said I wasn't trying to teach you anything. WASN'T. They offer reading classes at most middle schools.

I don't blame anyone for what the two of them did. The only one who can do that is Hillary and she doesnt publicly care. YOU suggested that he degraded women. YOU were the one who tried to make it one person at fault. Don't try to turn your own fallacy back on me.
Cantacuzene
do me a favor, don't post anything directly to me and i will do the same for you

you man, are a rude dude. slinging hash like, "they offer reading classes at most middle schools." i read you loud and clear.

Ladogaboy

10-18-2002, 12:07 PM

Originally posted by nickelback

are you insinuating my race?

Who? Me? :shifty:

I guess so. :P

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 12:17 PM

Originally posted by nickelback

Cantacuzene
do me a favor, don't post anything directly to me and i will do the same for you

you man, are a rude dude. slinging hash like, "they offer reading classes at most middle schools." i read you loud and clear.

I suppose I'm the only one who gets frustrated when they say somethign very simple and someone interpretes it 180 degrees oppositely.

I wasn't trying to teach you something that I thought you didn't know

save it, you don't need to "teach me" anything.

Just admit you are wrong.

nickel

10-18-2002, 12:18 PM

admit you can't debate without talking smack

attgig

10-18-2002, 12:25 PM

eh
forget being all pc, nice, and respecting.

DF. you like Clinton....cuz he makes you feel important...even though all you're good for is working, driving the busses, and being sent off to war - but he makes you feel good about doing that crap(yes, i'm being a f*cking assh*le with this).

but since dubya is the son of bush sr., and he doesn't have the ghetto story of being raised by a single parent and being all excited about meeting President Kenedy....eh.....you can't relate to him.
so, yeah, no matter what dubya does...he'll still be that snotty yale grad cokehead, who's stuck in his white world, and can never feel the black man's plight.

Cantacuzene, Clinton did some crap he shouldn't have done...straight up. If you ever got caught getting a blowjob at work by seducing an intern, you know what...you'd prolly get fired. now, if you're the president, those "corporate policies" don't apply to you as much.
But you know what, the great thing about America is that nobody is above the law right? we have the right to question our president because he is not above the law. when he lies in court....he should get the same punishment that any other common man.
he lacked the character to tell the truth.

eh, i'd like to go on bashing all your point of views, but eh..i'm gettin bored.

attgig

10-18-2002, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by DarkFury
See this here is why I don't like to debate politics and issues like this. People will jump from whatever bandwagon they like to support their points.

as do you

Maybe I do need to step out of this conversation... before "bad things" get said that cause irreparable damage. :2far:
hmmm, a little forshadowing.

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 12:31 PM

Nickelback, do I insult SBP? Do I insult JohnnyMK? Do I insult DF when we debate? Do I insult Ladogaboy? No. I only insult people when they say something that warrants it. I wouldnt call arguing with you debating like I would with them, because every arguement you make is a fallacy based on feelings and conjecture, whereas someone like SBP uses logic and facts.

Use facts = get debated fairly

Use fallacies = get whats coming to you

nickel

10-18-2002, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Nickelback, do I insult SBP? Do I insult JohnnyMK? Do I insult DF when we debate? Do I insult Ladogaboy? No. I only insult people when they say something that warrants it. I wouldnt call arguing with you debating like I would with them, because every arguement you make is a fallacy based on feelings and conjecture, whereas someone like SBP uses logic and facts.

Use facts = get debated fairly

Use fallacies = get whats coming to you

yeh, it proves to me you are giving me the biz cause i am a woman.
i got your number.

i asked you to do me a favor, but you sh*t on that, too.

faither

10-18-2002, 12:38 PM

MUHAHAHAHAHAHA!

I am enjoying my seat on the 50 yard line for this one. It's a real donnybrook.

Damn, Cant. I thought you only picked on me like that. ;)

Kenas

10-18-2002, 12:40 PM

You all are just a bunch of fanatics, instead of find the guilty "ONE" you blame it on the entire party of people. Democrats did this, Republicans did this. This is all BS!!

nickelback, I was wondering does word "chick" degrade women? What about the anti-abortion men, trying to force on women what THEY think is right.

DarkFury, as a New Yorker I can positively identify Al Sharpton as racist, he does not like whites, he does not like Jews ... honestly I don't even know whom he likes. Moreover, many African Americans can't stand him just for that, that's why he does not have a large support from people.

To all the republicans, bashing Clinton, the only reason why republicans are not known for sexual affairs is because they all are too old to perform ... well it seems as though one republican Bob Dole solved that problem.

To all the democrats, Guliani was a great mayor, John McCain is an awesome politician and take a look at Democrat McCall with his retarded statements.

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 12:41 PM

Attgig, I'll be the first to say he did wrong. I'm just saying that a sex scandal doesnt affect his legislation (which was good) and his handling of minority issues (which was good.)

Whether he should have been ejected from office, thats another issue.

As far as Bush Jr.s black cabinet members I look at them as tokens. Potentially powerful ones yes, but a Rook is still just a chess piece, even if its a good one. Powell achieves nothing because anything he tries gets shot down by the white bread Rumsfeld/Cheney coalition. As far as Rice, she does nothing. The average man on teh street will be unable to name one thing she has done for the country, I sure can't. Naional security advisor. To me, her job is meaningless due to the fact that Rumsfeld and Ashcroft leave her with no authority or power to do anything.

sbp

10-18-2002, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by DarkFury
Please define what "racist acts" Al and Jessie did... (and don't include Jessie's affair, cause even though he is wrong for that... it doesn't fall into the racist category. BTW... is being "pro Black" the same as being "anti White"? )Jesse refered to NY as Hymietown. He continues to this day to engage in racial shakedowns to fill his and his cadres pockets.

As for Al "Street Thug" Sharpton there was the disgusting Tawana Brawley events. In 1995 he reved up hate against Freddie's, a clothing store owned by a non-black guy, that resulted in 8 deaths {most of them hispanics}.
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michael/kelly021600.asp
http://burn.ucsd.edu/archives/riot-l/1995.Dec/0105.html

Anywhere there is opportunity to enrich themselves, these two charlatans will be there to get their faces on tv. Instead of being a force for positive change, they are divisive race baiters who make their living breeding contention that have hurt race relations in this country.

As far as Bush Jr.s black cabinet members I look at them as tokens.If Powell was vice president the same folly would be said. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/pics/bleh.gif

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by nickelback

yeh, it proves to me you are giving me the biz cause i am a woman.
i got your number.

Uh oh! You got my secret. Please edit your post fast before others see how much of a misogynist I am. Please point out my long history of female bashing that you have stumbled across. :rolleyes:

Puh-leese. I am an equal opportunity jerk. I'll give it to anyone who deserves it, and to a few who don't. Just because you are a girl doesn't mean I'm going to go easy on you. I've insulted my fair share of men to go along with the occasional woman.

Trying to allege that I am against you because you are a woman is actually so pathetic its laughable.

faither

10-18-2002, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Attgig, I'll be the first to say he did wrong. I'm just saying that a sex scandal doesnt affect his legislation (which was good) and his handling of minority issues (which was good.)
How much of his legislation was good???

Whether he should have been ejected from office, thats another issue.
He should have been ejected from office as quickly as he climaxed with the 23 year-old intern.

As far as Bush Jr.s black cabinet members I look at them as tokens. Potentially powerful ones yes, but a Rook is still just a chess piece, even if its a good one.
Tokens??? Sec. of State and National Security Advisor are by no means token positions. Clinton's minority appointees were token. What input does the Veterans adminstrator have in the future of national policy making? What does the Transportation Secretary have to do with the balance of power?

On the flip side, how could anyone breaking a glass ceiling be considered a token? Think of others that have held Powell or Rice's positions. These are weighty roles, regardless of the perceptable influence they may wield or how they're perceived by a bunch of kooks posting on a message board.

nickel

10-18-2002, 01:01 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene

Uh oh! You got my secret. Please edit your post fast before others see how much of a misogynist I am. Please point out my long history of female bashing that you have stumbled across. :rolleyes:

Puh-leese. I am an equal opportunity jerk. I'll give it to anyone who deserves it, and to a few who don't. Just because you are a girl doesn't mean I'm going to go easy on you. I've insulted my fair share of men to go along with the occasional woman.

Trying to allege that I am against you because you are a woman is actually so pathetic its laughable.

you live off this stuff don't you?
pitiful.

i'm out.

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 01:18 PM

You're right Nickel, I do enjoy it.

Faither, you have to admit you are far to the right. Not saying its a bad thign at all. Its the same as someone who is far to the left. I just want you to acknowledge that your opinion may be a bit biased due to party/platform lines.

I know my biases. I am a left leaning moderate. I am inclined to side with the Dems on most issues, but I hardly feel I am a cookie cutter Democrat: I own a gun, believe in the death penalty and support a well funded military.

As far as the minority issues go, I look at both parties and I recognize that neither are perfect, but I do see that the Democrats are making more of an effort to reach out minorities than Republicans. Except hispanics who the Republicans are currently courting to undermine the Democrats in urban areas. I really feel like the Republicans have admitted defeat in the racial issues and they are willing to "give up" the black vote in order to get the mid western/southern white vote.

However, the way you vote should reflect your lifestyle. As a college student I vote for whoever supports issues that are important to me. I support people who support the federal pell grant program, federally insured stafford loans and florida bright futures. You are supposed to vote selfishly, thats the idea. Not everyone cares about minority issues, and he, if you are one of thsoe people, thats your deal and you arent forced to care. I do, so it affects how I vote, but thats just me.

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 01:25 PM

Originally posted by faither
Tokens??? Sec. of State and National Security Advisor are by no means token positions. Clinton's minority appointees were token. What input does the Veterans adminstrator have in the future of national policy making? What does the Transportation Secretary have to do with the balance of power?

At least Clintons transportation secretary had the ability to do somthing in his field. I bet his veterans affairs guy did more for veterans than Rice does for National Security.

My point is, neither Rice nor Powell are allowed to do their jobs. They might be good people, but they are tokens. Powell doesnt get to do anything as secretray of state because foreign policy is dictated by Rumsfeld. Rice doesnt get to do any national security because national securityis dictated by Ashcroft. Both of their position's roles have been absorbed by by others. They are left with little to do.

sbp

10-18-2002, 01:31 PM

Johnnie Cochran is another slimebucket. http://home.earthlink.net/~sbp777/pics/bleh.gif

Limbaugh and O'Reilly don't speak for a whole race as Jackson and Sharpton do. Its funny how these cats get numerous opportunities to say crap, yet if they were white they sure as hell wouldn't.

Powell could have been VP if he wanted. He could have ran for President and likely won. He has chosen not to.

The Republicans do reach out to blacks and what is the result? Abyssal. GWB got like 9% of the votes. Seems to me blacks have gotten themselves written off by continuously voting Democratic no matter what and not putting their votes up for grabs. And the Democrats sit there, smile and continue to pander.

"You are supposed to vote selfishly, thats the idea." Yeah, that's the ticket, big government is the sugar daddy. :rolleyes:

One other thing, I'm not going to vote for someone for an office cause of race {unlike my liberal neighbors across the street} (http://www.gotapex.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=173323#post173323).

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 01:41 PM

Originally posted by sbp

"You are supposed to vote selfishly, thats the idea." Yeah. :rolleyes:

One other thing, I'm not going to vote for someone for an office cause of race {unlike my liberal neighbors across the street}.

If you don't vote for people that agree with you and promise to work for you, what do you vote for? By selfishly I mean you are supposed to vote for the candidate with your interests in mind.

I don't think liberal has anything to do with it. I am liberal and I wouldnt vote for someone based on race. I vote base on candidates platform.

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by DarkFury

Umm... what was this "reachin' out" that you are mentioning here? Where did a Republican EVER reach out to a person like me? Hmmm? Personally, I haven't witnessed this for myself.

Exactly. When a Republican says, "I reached out to the black community." I take it with a grain of salt, because as some Rep. said earlier in this thread, 'actions speak louder than words.'

faither

10-18-2002, 01:49 PM

Originally posted by Cantacuzene
Faither, you have to admit you are far to the right. Not saying its a bad thign at all. Its the same as someone who is far to the left. I just want you to acknowledge that your opinion may be a bit biased due to party/platform lines.

Far to the right???? I marched in the 20th anniversary of the March on Washington. I am a registered Democrat, have NEVER voted for a Republican (other than my member of Congress), worked on the Presidential campaign of Mondale, seriously supported Jerry Brown and Bill Bradley (three honorable and good Democrats) and Ralph Nader in 2000. To the right????

No siree. I believe in right and wrong -- regardless of ideology. I think that's one of the differences between me and zealots carrying any certain political torch. I knew Clinton was a phony in 1992 and actually heckled him (respectfully) in NYC prior to the NY primary by standing in front of him at Federal Hall with a "Slick Willie" sign. After his speech, he sought me out and we actually spoke for 3-5 minutes (It was written about in the NY Times...the left-wing paper I read every day).

I have a very low tolerance for weasels (from any party). I have as little use for Trent Lott as I do Tom Daschle. Both weasels. I respect Russ Feingold as much as I do John McCain.

I know I've said this before, but at the risk of repeating myself, you've got try to avoid labeling people (left v. right) and value them for the content of their character and the contribution they make.

Probably my biggest hero is Martin Luther King. He had his flaws, like we all do, but he fought for what what right -- not what a particular party was espousing and he said it much more eloquently than me...

"Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of captivity. But one hundred years later, we must face the tragic fact that the Negro is still not free.

One hundred years later, the life of the Negro is still sadly crippled by the manacles of segregation and the chains of discrimination. One hundred years later, the Negro lives on a lonely island of poverty in the midst of a vast ocean of material prosperity. One hundred years later, the Negro is still languishing in the corners of American society and finds himself an exile in his own land.

So we have come here today to dramatize an appalling condition. In a sense we have come to our nation's capital to cash a check. When the architects of our republic wrote the magnificent words of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, they were signing a promissory note to which every American was to fall heir.

This note was a promise that all men would be guaranteed the inalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. It is obvious today that America has defaulted on this promissory note insofar as her citizens of color are concerned. Instead of honoring this sacred obligation, America has given the Negro people a bad check which has come back marked "insufficient funds." But we refuse to believe that the bank of justice is bankrupt. We refuse to believe that there are insufficient funds in the great vaults of opportunity of this nation.

So we have come to cash this check -- a check that will give us upon demand the riches of freedom and the security of justice. We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to open the doors of opportunity to all of God's children. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood.

It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment and to underestimate the determination of the Negro. This sweltering summer of the Negro's legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. Those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. There will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights.

The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges. But there is something that I must say to my people who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice. In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred.

We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. we must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.

The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny and their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom.

We cannot walk alone. And as we walk, we must make the pledge that we shall march ahead. We cannot turn back. There are those who are asking the devotees of civil rights, "When will you be satisfied?" we can never be satisfied as long as our bodies, heavy with the fatigue of travel, cannot gain lodging in the motels of the highways and the hotels of the cities. We cannot be satisfied as long as the Negro's basic mobility is from a smaller ghetto to a larger one. We can never be satisfied as long as a Negro in Mississippi cannot vote and a Negro in New York believes he has nothing for which to vote. No, no, we are not satisfied, and we will not be satisfied until justice rolls down like waters and righteousness like a mighty stream.

I am not unmindful that some of you have come here out of great trials and tribulations. Some of you have come fresh from narrow cells. Some of you have come from areas where your quest for freedom left you battered by the storms of persecution and staggered by the winds of police brutality. You have been the veterans of creative suffering. Continue to work with the faith that unearned suffering is redemptive.

Go back to Mississippi, go back to Alabama, go back to Georgia, go back to Louisiana, go back to the slums and ghettos of our northern cities, knowing that somehow this situation can and will be changed. Let us not wallow in the valley of despair. I say to you today, my friends, that in spite of the difficulties and frustrations of the moment, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream.

I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal." I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slaveowners will be able to sit down together at a table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a desert state, sweltering with the heat of injustice and oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. I have a dream today.

I have a dream that one day the state of Alabama, whose governor's lips are presently dripping with the words of interposition and nullification, will be transformed into a situation where little black boys and black girls will be able to join hands with little white boys and white girls and walk together as sisters and brothers. I have a dream today. I have a dream that one day every valley shall be exalted, every hill and mountain shall be made low, the rough places will be made plain, and the crooked places will be made straight, and the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together. This is our hope. This is the faith with which I return to the South. With this faith we will be able to hew out of the mountain of despair a stone of hope. With this faith we will be able to transform the jangling discords of our nation into a beautiful symphony of brotherhood. With this faith we will be able to work together, to pray together, to struggle together, to go to jail together, to stand up for freedom together, knowing that we will be free one day.

This will be the day when all of God's children will be able to sing with a new meaning, "My country, 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing. Land where my fathers died, land of the pilgrim's pride, from every mountainside, let freedom ring." And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true. So let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire. Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York. Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania! Let freedom ring from the snowcapped Rockies of Colorado! Let freedom ring from the curvaceous peaks of California! But not only that; let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia! Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee! Let freedom ring from every hill and every molehill of Mississippi. From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

When we let freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God's children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual, "Free at last! free at last! thank God Almighty, we are free at last!""

Sorry for pontificating and the long post but this is what I believe.

spigidygak

10-18-2002, 01:59 PM

I find it quite amusing how people defend to their life politicians. . . ANY politician. There are no good politicians, the word politician has a negative connotation as it is. You have to lie and cheat in order to win the race its part of the requirements. And the fact that there are people that support them still is just amusing to me. Don't get me wrong here, I believe the democratic system is the best out there, but its still rotten. Just like the free enterprise market is the best, its rotten in its own doing. But I'll support the system, yet never support A single politician.

About digging up dirt on Clinton, what party doesn't do that? I'm sorry but if you think about it, maybe some presidents just don't have big clumps of dirt like other do. Maybe thats why all they can bring on bush for now is his inability to speak and spell or the possiblity of the enron scandal or that his children are proving alcoholism is genetic.

Race. . . why does ANY political party need to take the time to bring up ONE single race? What for? I thoght this country is based on equality, so then no single race should be acknowledged. It seems to me that its almost comical how African Americans find it the need they need to be treated special for some reason. True that slavery was VERY WRONG but its passed. Chinese labor was used in the San Francisco area heavily for dirt cheap and was basically slave labor. . . and currently the Hispanics are picking my fruit and vegetables for a price that won't keep me bitching at the markets. To be honest I think it seems the Asian Americans and Hispanics don't complain as much or need to see more recognition like the African Americans. But maybe I'm wrong since there is no way for me to see it in everyone's pair of shoes. But really, this race thing is just sickening me. I see it ridiculous as a reason to vote for one man over the other. What should be more important is who is the better business man. Its quite obvious we got screwed over with the economy during Clinton's term, but who's to blame you know, it doesn't matter we're seeing the effects of it now and so of course everyone blames Bush since the markets DO react instantaneous to whos sitting in the oval office :rolleyes:.

Again, thank you to all that have entertained me today. . . supporting your favorite politician :rolleyes:

sbp

10-18-2002, 01:59 PM

Originally posted by DarkFury
What do you want us to do... reincarnate Dr. King? Ok... who would you say ISN'T a slimebuket other than Colin Powell... because from what I have seen, he is the only one that is close enough to the Republican agenda that seems tolerable/palatable to the current tastes of folks with your opinion. :hmm:Jackson knows he won't ever be a King and pales in comparison. Dr. King is likely turning over in his grave seeing the so-called today's civil rights movement and what it supports.

The list of folks who are not slimebuckets and who are more or less known goes across the spectrum: Condoleezza Rice. JC Watts. Ward Connerly. Darrell Green. DC Mayor Williams. Eleanor Norton.

Do you ever wonder why? Hmmm... (I have a theory on it... but we've already gone down that road...)Yes, we've already been down that road. Adding to that they would be those who would shoot dead the white president just to get a black president.

Umm... what was this "reachin' out" that you are mentioning here? Where did a Republican EVER reach out to a person like me? Hmmm? Personally, I haven't witnessed this for myself.GWB talks before NAACP {Personally I'd tell these dips to shove themselves}. GWB talking about black issues like school choice {which many blacks support}.

Tax cuts and strong defense-aren't these issues of interest to black voters?

And how exactly should a Republican reach out? Support affirmative discrimination? Bah!

Sad to say its easier to pander than take principled stands on issues. That's found too often across the spectrum.

Either way... I personally don't trust ANY politician... truth be told, but sometimes you just gotta side with what is perceived as the "lesser of 2 evils" :rolleyes: Exactly how I feel.

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 02:01 PM

I stand corrected. I made my assumption based on the fact I've only ever heard you take conservative positions. I'm sure its just a mistaken perception.

I agree, Trent Lott and Daschle are goons. I like John McCain and Byron Dorgan. They are the two Senators that represent whats best about their parties. Daschle and Lott are the opposite.

attgig

10-18-2002, 02:03 PM

from what you all are saying, the white people (cheany, rums, ash) are scumbags, trying to run things and take power away from the black people...and rice and powell are black, so they're powerless to do anything. Bush doesn't take them seriously because they're black, and so, they have no power.

PUHHLEEEZE!

STOP feeding the fire that says just cuz you're black, and there's a republican president that the black man has no voice.
that's trash.

and if you really honestly think that Herman, Slater, and West (who???) have had more of an impact on the American people than Powell and Rice has on us now, you "People [are] jump[ing] from whatever bandwagon [you] like to support [your] points."

attgig

10-18-2002, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by DarkFury
BTW... why would they take power away from a section of society that really doesn't have much power to begin with. :shrug: Our voice and our VOTE is our power... but right now, since it isn't an election year, that power is null and void. :2far:

huh?
so, the president only listens to his cabinet during the election year?

Ladogaboy

10-18-2002, 03:13 PM

Okay... I've only taken fun little jabs earlier in this thread, but I feel I should probably lay it out on the line now. As a group, I don't agree with either the Democratic party or the Republican party as a whole. IMO, the the Democratic party caters more to minorities than the Republican party. Why? Because the Democratic party lends more support to lower income brackets than the Republican party. Is there a connection? IMO, yes. On the other hand, the Democratic party is filled with a bunch of do-gooders who trash individual rights while working under the guise of helping others.

As individuals, I think most politicians are deplorable, dishonest, corrupt people... and I don't think that they would make it to the national level if they weren't. I think Bill Clinton is an idiot for many reasons. I think George Bush is even more of an idiot for many other reasons.

Would I like to see Colin as president? Not really... I don't feel like seeing another U.S. president killed in office. :hmm:

These are just a few of my opinions. Agree or not. I don't care.

Cantacuzene

10-18-2002, 05:10 PM

I disagree. I see the Dems as the civil liberties party. Granted they arent gung ho on guns, but the official platform is nuetral on guns, so they arent exactly plotting to take away your guns either.

It seems to me that the Reps are the ones who are for taking away our rights. They are the party of censorship, they are the party of sedition laws, Patriot Act and the destruction of the barrier between church and state.

whitak24

10-18-2002, 06:08 PM

Originally posted by DarkFury

/me really tryin' hard not to get into "political discussions" here... really, really trying hard...

Ok... nevermind, but I will say this. Until you are truly able to walk in the Black man's shoes, you just can't possibly understand how we feel in matters like this.

Personally (and I do mean that this is my OPINION... so I just want to make that clear) I didn't have a major problem with the Clinton Administration. Yeah, he was a "go for self" kinda guy, but honestly, he did make "us" (as in Black folks) feel like we were actually important in his terms as President... something the current incumbent "Dubya" just ain't doing...

Either way... I don't idolize but I do respect Clinton. But that's my personal feelings on the matter. He did what he could while he was in office and he did help a few of the Brothas and Sistas out.

What did Bush Sr. do for the "Black Man"... He appointed "Clarence Thomas" as a Supreme Court Judge to succeed Thurgood Marshall. Oh whoopee... (and that guy had almost as big a scandal with Anita Hill as Clinton did with Monica) And what is Bush Jr. gonna do.... that is YET to be seen. (but I'm puttin' my money on something that ain't gonna really benefit us... that's for dayuum sure).
ok, this thread has been all over the place since i posted in it, but i want to go back to the beginning so that you don't think i'm just ignoring your point, DF ;)

as you pointed out, i will never know how it feels to be a black person, and i will never be able to fully understand how you view situations and events because i just don't have that background and life experience (i learned that reading "Black Like Me" in ninth grade. an excellent book, for those of you who haven't read it).

so i can't say that the african american community shouldn't like bill clinton. i can only say that from my perspective, he did a lot more of "talking a good talk" than really trying to make things truly better.

why do i say this?

imo, one of the key problems hampering minority advancement in this country is lack of economic opportunity. i talked about it at length in some other race thread we had a couple months back, and interestly, no one found my ramblings provoking enough to respond to :bawl:

anyway, during clinton's tenure, we had massive economic growth. however, it was very top-heavy growth. the gap between those with high incomes and those with low incomes increased. the clinton administration fueled an environment in which the stock-market bubble grew and companies were allowed to run free (when do you think that enron, global crossings, et al did most of their shady bookkeeping?) while growth in the tech sectors was a great thing, it did basically nothing to stop the economic blight in the central urban, largely minority areas.

what was clinton's solution to all of this? 100,000 new cops on the streets, if i remember correctly......

my point in all of this is that in my opinion, clinton was talking nice to the minority communities but wasn't really targeting the problems that really mattered. of course, maybe since i don't really understand the minority perspective, i just don't understand what problems really matter. i'm not being sarcastic here. i know i don't "really" understand. all i do know that i never got the feeling that a new spirit of racial unity was developing while clinton was in office.

just my 2 or 3 cents....