It's words versus action.

Republicans ended slavery. Democrats created institutional slavery after Reconstruction.

It was Republicans who helped LBJ pass the Civil Rights Acts and the Voting Rights Act.

It was a Republican President that appointed the first African American cabinet officer.

It was a Republican who appointed the first African American Secretary of State and then the first African American female Secretary of State.

It was a Republican who appointed the first Hispanic Attorney General.

Obviously there's more overt racism in the Republican Party today than in the Democratic Party, but there are racists there too.

Just as there are homophobes and sexists in the Democratic Party too.

Just look at what Democrats offer the black community... racism to fight against racism and victimhood.

It gets votes, but it doesn't improve lives.

Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, Julian Bond and all the liberal civil rights activists in the forefront will never offer true solutions to their percieved racism because they know if it were completely eliminated, they would all be out of jobs so to speak. They would be rendered irrelevent and no longer enjoy the attention and power they crave. They easily and properly fit the rather crass term "media whore." Rather than offer true solutions they perpetuate the problem in order not to raise "awareness" but to cause more strife among the black communities as well as extreme liberals in order to keep the focus on them. A more self-centered bunch one will be hard to find.

The "alleged" civil rights movement that gave us Medgar Evers and Dr. King is not some myth, you racist prick.

I hate what you stand for. You, sir, are the real racist by voting for the party of racism.

You are a pitiful excuse for a human with your racism clothed in fake tolerance.

Pop quiz: Who was the first African American cabinet officer?

Hint: He wasn't appointed by a Republican president.

Do your homework, Wally.

1955, Eisenhower appointed E. Frederic Morrow as Administrative Officer for Special Projects from 1955 to 1961.

Oh, Bane. You should know better than that. The question was, "Who was the first African American CABINET OFFICER?" Mr. Morrow holds the distinction as being the first African American to hold an executive position at the White House, which is great. But it didn't answer the question.

Correctly, anyway. Care to try again?

Deleted - slanders

Cyber,
Read your history; E. Frederic Morrow as Administrative Officer for Special Projects in the Department of Commerce. thus he was the first Cabinet Officer.

Wawilliyo said "officer" not secretary. Don't be so quick to engage when you're ill prepared for the battle.

Bane,

An officer is someone who holds said office. Thus a cabinet officer is someone who holds a cabinet-level office. An employee of the Department of Commerce is not a cabinet officer. Try again.

Mark,
I’ve almost completely given up of BfB because of ranting hate-mongers like Gavin and Bill Jenn, something has to be done to restore some politesse to this site; these people add nothing to the debate, parrot rhythmic talking-points, and distract from adult tête-à-tête.

In the past I enjoyed engaging Ricorun, the ever snarky ash, and on occasion, when he’s not being a butt-head, cyberactor. I was looking forward to making my next million $ off of the market to rub 3moreyears nose in his eternal pessimism; but even 3more could engage in spirited debate compared to these infantile screeds I read here these days.

The incessant name calling, misinformation, digressions, and ponderous posts with no semblance of literacy have rendered this site as irrelevant as the DU or kos. I know we can do better.

You honestly have to begin banning these trolls so that we can engage in the world of ideas. And trolls, spare me the quotes from keefer calling you names; that doesn’t strengthen your argument one iota.

Boy, those are some pretty interesting verbal gymnastics you're trying out, there, Bane, but I'm afraid you've stepped in yet another pile of doo-doo. See, the members of a President's cabinet ARE the Cabinet Officers. Why aren't they just called "Secretaries"? Because they aren't all Secretaries, are they?

So, Mr. Smarty-Pants, can you name the non-Secretary Cabinet Officer? Hmmmmmm?

And, more to the point, can you name the first African American cabinet officer?

Jeez, this is EASY.

I take back what I said earlier, cyber isn't capable of reasoned debate. There are currently 15 Cabinate level Departments; the head of these are the Secretaries of those Departments.
The first African-American officer in any Administration's Cabinet was E. Frederic Morrow in 1955. If you know of another before this then let’s hear it.

Bane- "The incessant name calling, misinformation, digressions, and ponderous posts with no semblance of literacy have rendered this site as irrelevant as the DU or kos. I know we can do better."

must be referring to Wally, and SUMC beer, navydad and others- Wally "Jenn:
You're stupid."

"Out of curiosity, where are you shmucks coming from"

"And Gavin... did you create Conscriptor as an cheerleader for your stupid statements?"

"I suggest you grow a pair, go to the library, do some learning, and come back with something besides the shit you've brought so far."

"you're the laughable boob around here."

"Is your identity as solid as your lame ass views?"

"You're an idiot Bill"

much much more

--

NAvydad-- "He must have been dropped on his head at birth, right after they removed the chains from his hoofs."

"after reading your posts, I'm sending you a membership to the Sylvan Learning Center...you need it bad! Where would I send that? Dipsh*t Kentucky...is it? That must be a suburb of Sh*tfer Brains Kentucky."

---
kahn-- "Thats what dictaters actually do - you moron."

-------

gee a typical republican statement calling it like it is again.

duuuuuubya

Matt / Mark,’’

Do we really have to tolerate Gavin’s hateful post filled with slander and foul language? Perhaps if the ban were used a little more than Bush’s veto pen the regulars who contribute USEFULL post would appreciate it greatly!

Thanks.

Bane take a look at your party before you let the hypocracy fling out of your big mouth.

Mark,

For the record I refuse to engage in this churlish repartee with these yobs. Much like cyber who won’t discuss the merits of the post, only getting into a pissing contest about the meaning of “is” these pointless exercises in “so’s yer old man” need to be deleted. It’s your blog, but I don’t think most readers would deign to slog through the mud to read the few salient ideas.

Rather, OT, wasn’t the Reverend Martin Luther King a lifelong Republican?

Ahem.

Encyclopedia of World Biography on Robert C. Weaver: [Weaver] was a housing expert who served as administrator of the Housing and Home Finance Agency and then became the first African American cabinet officer when President Lyndon B. Johnson appointed him secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development in 1966.

Library of Congress: “...and Robert C. Weaver, who two decades later would become the first black cabinet officer...”

New York Public Library: “Biography. Robert Clifton Weaver, the first black presidential cabinet officer, served as the first Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development...”

Free Market News Network: “Robert C. Weaver's 1966 appointment to the Department of Housing and Urban Development made him the first black cabinet officer.”

From the Getty Archives: “13 Jan (1966) First African American cabinet officer Robert C. Weaver appointed”

And on and on and on. Got anything that describes Mr. Murrow as the “first black cabinet officer”? No? Then you must concede this argument, Bane. I know it galls you to do so, but when you’re licked, it is only fair to admit it.

Mark,

Although I agree with Bane, I must admit, the kooks that post here are quite amusing and I typically use them to show my grandson's third grade class the value of staying in school.

Cyber,

I shall, indeed concede that the first African-American to hold a position of Secretary in an Administration’s Cabinet was Robert C. Weaver, thus making him the first African-American officer in the Cabinet. I stand corrected.

I still believe, as does the National African-American Registry that E. Frederic Morrow was the first African-American officer in any Administration’s Cabinet Departments.

Note Bill or Jenn: Since your typekey lists Jenn... and your name here is Bill... I wonder which is it... it's okay if you're a man and gender identify with a woman or vice-versa...

Since you don't know me, you can't call me a racist.

Never once have I called you a racist, or a homophobe... things that are clearly unfounded.

However, I do question your intelligence and your posts are clearly not well thought out. They are usual rants like WAR WAR WAR and assorted bullshit.

And you know what you're trying to do here... and it's just be inflammatory. Admit that and everyone can move on.

From the Washington Post: "Indeed, Bush's efforts have been quite impressive. Bush has in some ways exceeded former president Clinton, who set a new standard with his appointments of women and minorities to Cabinet-level positions. "Over eight years and 29 appointments, Clinton had in his Cabinet five women, seven African-Americans, three Hispanics (one of them named to two posts) and one Asian-American," Page wrote in USA Today on Dec. 10. "Over four years and 24 appointments, Bush has named to his Cabinet five women, four African-Americans, three Hispanics and two Asian-Americans."

Where Bush exceeds Clinton is in appointing people to the more prestigious Cabinet positions. Bush has twice named African Americans to lead the state department and has nominated a Hispanic to serve as attorney general."

And here you go: http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/998/White_House_appoints_first_Black_cabinet_member

See... we all have access to google. (I firmly admit I can't make it link up... I'm not computer savvy... but unlike some on here, I can at least read!)

Or check out that fount of accuracy wikipedia... and what will it tell you... that even after Reconstruction Blacks were elected in the Republican Party long before the precious Democrats by way of LBJ promoted affirmative action... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_African_American_firsts)

While we're at it, why don't we look up the votes of the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act and see what party guaranteed victories for them?

If you want to say that there are racists in the Republican Party... go ahead... I am sure there are.

But to say that there aren't any in the Democratic Party is laughable.

It can be said of every "ISM" that exists... discrimination isn't one political party's domain.

And if people would start being honest about it and not try to be inflammatory like Bill/Jenn? is, then we'd lighten up.

I have no window into your soul and you certainly have no window into mine. And quite frankly, I'd appreciate the vitrol to be dialed down by Bill/Jenn.

Cyber, on two occasions today I was actually interested in engaging you because you were sticking to the point and facts... and then you act as if words on the internet (because they agree with you) must be correct. You of all people have said keeping an open mind is what your side is good at, unless we disagree with you.

Why is that? I'm not your mortal enemy. I'm just defending myself and my political party from baseless and crass accusations.

If I started calling Democrats murderers and rapists and racists for the actions of Ted Kennedy, Gerry Studds, and Robert Byrd, you'd find that laughable, just as it is.

Indeed he was. Thanks for replying so succinctly.

Jeez, if Bane and I can actually agree on something, what's next? Dogs and cats living together? Mass hysteria?

I hate to break it to use, but Murrow was NOT a cabinet officer. Court decisions refer to "cabinet officer" in a variety of contexts, in particular when speaking on federal law that allows for the death penalty to be assessed on people who have assassinated "cabinet officers". This is in 18 USC 351, and that section of the US Code states that it refers to "a member of the executive branch of the
Government who is the head, or a person nominated to be head during the pendency of such nomination, of a department listed in section 101 of title 5 or the second ranking official in such department.."

Sorry, giving someone the word "officer" in their title doesn't make them a cabinet officer any more than calling a trashman a "sanitation engineer" means he's an engineer.

I can't believe I said "use" I meant "break it to you"

Growing up, our dogs and cats got along great...

Granted my dad, when he wanted to be playfully devious, would sick the dog on the cat and the dog would chase the cat and the cat would run off.

Less than five minutes later, the cat would be laying next to the dog.

So... if they can get along, we can get along. As I've said a dozen or more times; as long as we're respectful (in the basest of ways... and I admit I've probably crossed the line in a heated moment once or twice) we can discuss and debate, and vote and move on.

Indeed, if the citizenry can't do it, what makes us think our elected officials will be any different.

Just as you were comforted with the thought of Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid... I'm comforted with the thought of a veto pen in the hands of President Bush. You see... we are at least comforted by the current situation.

Now... where can we agree?

I hate what you stand for. You, sir, are the real racist by voting for the party of racism.

Says a member of the party which includes "White Nigger" Byrd. Are you working hard to rid the DFL of this man and his racist influence?

Racism isnt a theme that belongs solely to the right, unless youre willing to overlook the transgressions and statements of people on the left. Seeing the vitriolic language you use against others, that wouldnt surprise me.

Aw, shucks, Wally, I've heard Democrats called murderers, rapists, racists, homophobes, traitors, terrorist-lovers, woman-haters, hippie-freak, commie, dope-smokin', moronic, brain-dead, tree-hugging, fantasy-world-livin' pedophiles for quite some time. Where would I read such drivel? Right here on this site.

Noonan REGULARLY accuses Democrats of all (or almost all) of the above. Daily. Shoot, that's part of the reason I even post on this site, to dispel the persistent right-wing chant that we are...well, all of the above.

Want the real truth? I am dismayed to my core to see folks from MY side of the aisle that engage in nothing but smack-talk when debating you guys which is why I do my level best not to do it myself. (I have, to my shame, done precisely that, but I regret it. And I'll probably do it again. And regret it. Again.)

When I first started posting here, I referenced a message board (one that bashes my home team, the Chicago Cubs) where I am also a regular poster. Oooooh, they hated me when I first arrived. I was one of the enemy! A "roach" as the terminology goes there.

See, in their world, a Cubs fan is a drunken lout who knows nothing about the game of baseball and would rather spend the whole afternoon in Wrigley Field yakking on their cell phone rather than paying attention to the game. I showed up and, over time, convinced them that I did not fit their stereotype, could talk baseball and, after a few months, I became a welcome member of the group. (They call me King Roach, but I'm used to that kind of ribbing.)

So here, just as there, I attempt to show the resident folks that the Democratic Party is not, in fact filled with (fill in the blank), but actual, patriotic, thoughtful, passionate Americans. Just like the Republican party.

I disagree with the policies of this President with every fiber of my being and cannot FATHOM supporting him, but I have never doubted that those who do support him do so out of a similar love of country.

I don't understand it, but I understand it. Get me?

I'm a Yankees Fan through and through... but if you live in Chicago... how could anyone be a White Sox Fan?

That boggles my mind.

I've never called someone on the left a racist or a terrorist lover. However, I have questioned positions that in my view, makes us far less safe. If that's taken by someone that I am suggesting they want the terrorists to win; that unfortunately is their hang up.

However, there are people like Aarontime, who on New Years Day... seemed to post with utter glee the following "3000." He clearly thinks that there are people on this site who want soldiers to die or want innocent Iraqis to die... how dishonest and ridiculous is that... and what made it worse... when he came back later and said 3002.

It appears to me that that sort of behavior, as if the two additional deaths were just a number to point to try and prove his point, rather than two souls who were doing what they were ordered to do and sworn nobly to do, yet someone got a chuckle out of getting to add another notch on a rhetoric that won't work around here.

Thankfully, I've never seen you engage in that. To your credit.

80% of Republicans in Congress voted for Civil Rights and voting rights compared to 60% of Democrats. Four Senators jumped - big deal. There were other issues that led the south into Republican hands. Among them: Gun Rights, Abortion, and Defense.

For ONE HUNDRED YEARS after the Civil War the Democrats used intimidation, violence, and Jim Crow laws to stifle and control the Blacks. You may remember that it was Republican Dwight Eisenhower who sent troops to the South to enforce integration. Then, with an overwhelming majority of Republicans (and a majority of Democrats) WE passed the Civil Rights laws.

Then... with intimidation gone as a control LBJ instituted massive welfare programs to control the Black vote by buying it. Ever since then, when Republicans say " Hey, maybe it would be a good idea to stand on your own like everyone else", we are branded as racist. So - just when did we become racist? 80% voted for civil rioghts and voting rights - so..... when did it happen? 1965? 1966? When?

Just look at the Democratic Utopias. Places they have held power for decades... new Orleans, Milwaukee, Philadelphia, Washington, DC, Detroit, Chicago,... See a trend? After 40 or 50 years of Democrat control, why aren't these places like shining castles on the hill? Could it be that the cynical decision to "keep" the Blacks rather than help them develop has led to horrible inner-city situations?

The Democrats are the true racists - because they don't believe the blacks CAN stand on their own.

"The incessant name calling, misinformation, digressions, and ponderous posts with no semblance of literacy have rendered this site as irrelevant as the DU or kos. I know we can do better."

It is my belief that that is what their motivation is. They go to conservative sites and spew nonsense and namecalling because they know that it ruins the comments section. That is what they want. I don't often comment on posts because of this, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

What they don't get though is that we read the blog daily, so while they ruin the comments section the blog itself has value and is a good source of information. They can't ruin that even though they try.

They also reinforce daily the character of the leftist Dems and reaffirms why we don't vote for the Dems.

Wally- I don't recall either calling you anything let alone racist...not do i recall typing some rant about WAR WAR WAR. war is the last ting i really would like to rant. Maybe you have me confused with Navy Dad and his war rantings?

And Bane- i meerley addressed what you wrree whining about. But i suppose the truth hurts. you call me out as some criminal name caller. Then i cal your bluff and the evidence speaks for itself. i don't beleive i have called anyone anything on this site. So nanner nanner for your name calling cries. I will call you a child i suppose.

Bane, has it ever occured to you that you prefer to point out some fault of someone (untrue as it may be) then really be hiding what your buddies are doing? it's called PROJECTION.

nice try

NEW topic- as i am sure Mark and Matt won't start a thread on it (typical hiding)

but Any one notice the change of jobs for John Negroponte? and now the U.S> nuclear head- Linton Brooks?

looks like a resignation and a job change are the repluicans way of allowing mishaps, misteps and sheer incompitance to go un-accounted for as usual.

i mean ever wonder where the accountability by the Bush admin to "restore integrity" is? Where is that integrity? seems like a lot of reps have aboned ship- too much integrity i guess.

nevermind- i just remembered al that integrity Bush promised went with the fiscal conservation! hahaa

man- you guys REALLY enjoy ruining the country huh?

again- at least many former republicans have abandoned the sinking ship. But probably not enough to save the country from sinking.

Christopher,
Not to belabor the point but 18 USC Sec. 351 doesn't include a definition of "officer." In fact, all family members of Federal Employees are also protected by § 115(a)(1) of Title 18, and I wouldn't label them as "officers."

In any event, I conceded the historic definition to cyber, I suggest we move on.

Bill - Negroponte incompetent? Based on what? He was the first in his job which was created when? Look it up.

And Linton Brooks is being forced to resign. Since he blew the security job and didn't actually commit a crime - just what do you want? You want to create some NEW crimes so you can punish Republicans for them?

How about making it a crime to be an a55Hole so we can charge YOU with it?

I know we've moved on from the point and I don't want to belabor it anymore, but if the President makes someone a cabinet officer, they are a cabinet official. The Director of the OMB isn't a Cabinet-level Secretary of an Executive Department, but he sits on the Cabinet. As does the National Security Advisor.

I read something that stated Eisenhower appointed the first African American to a Presidential Cabinet. Cyber pointed out the first Cabinet level Secretary was appointed by a Democrat.

That's fair enough.

"President Bush named Ambassador Negroponte as the first Director of National Intelligence in 2005. On January 3, 2007, an unnamed government official told the news media that Negroponte will resign his position to become Deputy Secretary of State." (Wikipedia)

So what were his big crimes in all the time since 2005 Billy Boy?

Oh wait, better scan the lib web sites to see what to say.

Kahn- amidst your spin on more bumps in W's road, did you happen to hear today is a great day in our nations congressional history?

oh yeah- sometimes the good guys are victorious for a change. Now maybe we can get to work for a 5 day work week and correct the non-actions of that "do nothing congress"

gee ya think?

In all the time I’ve been reading messages on this blog, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a less sentient memorandum than Bill’s entries. “ i meerley addressed what you wrree whining about” ? Whisky Tango Foxtrot? This script is an embarrassment to the public school system; I’ve taught illiterates with a greater command of the language.

Wawillyo, why on earth are you addressing this sophomoric scribe as though your message could be grasped? Please, don’t encourage these people; you have too much to say to waste bandwidth on these intellectual pedestrians.

I too read that Eisenhower, the President that desegregated the military, also appointed an African-American "Cabinet officer." Must have heard it on Fox News.

The "alleged" civil rights movement that gave us Medgar Evers and Dr. King is not some myth, you racist prick.

I would hardly equate Medgar Evers and MLK with race-hustlers Jackson, Sharpton, and Bond. That is to say, Gravel Meathead, you brought Evers and MLK into it, and they weren't even mentioned by Sec Jackson.

You're the racist, fella. I suspect that you're an angry black man. Are you?

Bane i bet you whine when your tires have specks of dust on them?

"oh god, a wrinkle on my dockers" "oh whatever will i do. oh phoey the world is so vile...wrinkles on my trousers!!"

shut up and stop acting like some sub-zero loser whining ass bitch

you know you sound like some propper ppoper with no real validity. You are so pathetic. Stop acting like some panzy from cambridge and go ahead, eat your veggies with the fork in your left hand.

my god there are some pussies in this world.

that menat to read "pooper" you know terd, dookie, loaf, crap, shit....poo poo for your tolerance level.

In all the time I’ve been reading messages on this blog, I don’t believe I’ve ever seen a less sentient memorandum than Bill’s entries. “ i meerley addressed what you wrree whining about” ? Whisky Tango Foxtrot? This script is an embarrassment to the public school system; I’ve taught illiterates with a greater command of the language.

Bane, Bill or Jenn, or whatever the hell his/her name is, tumbled onto this site a couple days ago like a sack of excrement. The sack broke open, and childish, incoherent gibberish has been spilling out ever since. I'm not sure why anyone would respond to him/her.

I see "Bill" responded.

Well, that certainly elevated the discourse.

RS,
I must wonder if Bill’s poor communication skills are a constant source of embarrassment, or like the view Bill is treated to each morning in the mirror; he simply misses the point.

I agree with Bane about the tenor of the 'discussions'. The trolls, you know who they are, do not add any value; in fact devalue the posts, which are often quite good.

I enjoy blogs that have discussions that expand on the information, are creative and even have humorous digressions. It would be nice to have fun and some laughs.

If people want vile vitriol, let them go to the Dem sites, like DU and KOS.

Deleted - Off topic

Ummm... like usual Gavin... you're wrong.

I think you're mad at me because I've already proven you're Dougie once.

Waawilly thinks I'm a "big angry black man"

Gravel Meathead, care to check who posted the question? And would you mind answering the question, you moronic POS?

Can anyone here even read Billie-Jo Stensin's posts? Hyeroglyphics?

Stensin, you're a moronic puke--they should hang you with Saddam's rope...

Bane: "I’ve almost completely given up of BfB because of ranting hate-mongers..."

Me too.

"In the past I enjoyed engaging Ricorun..."

Again me too. So where are you hanging out these days? I've been hanging out mostly at RedState lately. But things move too quickly there. I have only a limited amount of time to devote to this kind of extracurricular activity, but I enjoy talking to people -- on both sides of the aisle --that actually have something to say. And you're one of them. I've learned a lot from you. And LaMano. And Spook. And Georgia Frawg. I even liked Tom Shipley, and many times Cyberactor. I've left out some that really need to be mentioned, and for that I apologize. But I hope all to whom it applies get what I mean.

Anyway, happy New Year. I wish you all the best.

I've visited this site for, I think, 3-years next month. I've had disagreements with just about everyone at one time or another, even Gozer, who is probably the most easy-going, non-offensive guy around. But I've rarely made fun of anyone's screen name or called anyone crude names. It's just not necessary. The kind of vitriole we see from people like Bill and Gavin adds nothing to the debate. I'm sure it's what's driven guys like Todd Detrich, Bret Helm, Rplat, DL, Justrand, Michael in Michigan, Rhod and a host of others away.

Cyberactor and I agree on almost nothing, but he has evolved into an excellent debater. He's still wrong, but he's wrong in a very civil and logical way, heh, heh. I doubt that any of us with opposing views are ever going to change each other's minds, but understanding how other people think and what makes them think the way they do is what makes the world go 'round. Ricorun and I agree on some things and not on others, but we've had some excellent discussions both on and off this site. We've NEVER denigrated each other's religion or called each other names. I've learned some things from him, and, I'd like to think he's learned some things from me.

I seem to be rambling on, but the point I'm trying to make is that the tone here is not a lot of fun anymore. And, yes, we did used to have fun, not just talk past each other. And it wasn't because we all agreed with each other either. It was because we exchanged ideas.

Keefer...you're crackin me up!

Rico and Bane

You guys need to just ignore these kooks and let Keefer take care of our light work for us...he cracks me up sometimes and I'm sure you guys will agree that you laugh when you read his comebacks.

Don't let those pukes influence your position!!

spook- obviously you missed my post on many of your "homies" and the continual name calling and bashing they engage in.

gee...when shown right to your faces you cut and run. Amazing.

Deleted - Off Topic

Wally "Jenn:
You're stupid."

"Out of curiosity, where are you shmucks coming from"

"And Gavin... did you create Conscriptor as an cheerleader for your stupid statements?"

"I suggest you grow a pair, go to the library, do some learning, and come back with something besides the shit you've brought so far."

"you're the laughable boob around here."

"Is your identity as solid as your lame ass views?"

"You're an idiot Bill"

much much more

--

NAvydad-- "He must have been dropped on his head at birth, right after they removed the chains from his hoofs."

"after reading your posts, I'm sending you a membership to the Sylvan Learning Center...you need it bad! Where would I send that? Dipsh*t Kentucky...is it? That must be a suburb of Sh*tfer Brains Kentucky."

---
kahn-- "Thats what dictaters actually do - you moron."

i know the truth is indistinguishable when looked at through a hypocrites eyses.

oh well...keep runing the country

i'm outta here

good riddens

So, Billy Boy, what do you think we're trying to tell ya? Thus far, there are only two other regulars that post here that even come close to agreeing with you...on anything.

It's only indistinguisible when one cannot spell.

Bill (or is it Jenn?) is gone?

If only permanently.

Notice people on his point of view call us racists and homophobes and sexists... AND then call us stupid and idiotic on top of it.

Yet when someone just calls their point of view stupid or them illinformed or question how on earth someone could arrive at their conclusions, they go completely angry.

Come on Bill/Jenn... I am actually really just curious about the difference... it's not meant to be an insult in any way. As I said, I'll support whatever the reason is.

I will not support your rants or your obvious crazy views.

Sounds to me like GavinMeachem, and Bill Stensin, could possibly be related to Cindy Sheehan...

Man, I've never seen such discourse here before!!

Jeremiah

Wawillyo,

Debating which party has a more racist legacy/civil rights legacy is difficult because the historical records of both parties are so mixed. The Civil Rights Act was a truly bipartisan achievement. Barry Goldwater was a leading opponent of the Civil Rights Act (though arguably on principled grounds of federalism) and set the GOP on a course that would use the so-called Southern Strategy, exploiting white racism. Even Ken Mehlman admitted this was true and apologized for it (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html).

The Bush Administration has a very diverse cabinet (esp. compared to Clinton) and has made what I believe are sincere efforts to reach out to blacks. But the Republican use of the Southern Strategy should leave no confusion over why African-Americans have been so overwhelmingly Democratic since the 1960s. Read the article and Mehlman's comments.

Gar Wood

Gar:
You're right... I don't deny the history of the last forty years or so... nor will I allow some to disparage what has been a political party that has existed much longer as the party of diversity than the Democratic Party has.

And I, like Barry Goldwater, take a view of federalism and states rights. For instance, I have no problem with individual states having civil unions or gay marriages. However, I do oppose some states allowing non-residents to marry in their states in an attempt to force other states into action.

Massachusetts shouldn't tell Idaho how it should operate anymore than Alabama should tell Vermont how to operate.

Personally, I favor civil unions for gay couples. It gives them the same benefits of marriage yet recognizes the history of the institution of marriage as what it traditionally has been.

Being a Republican doesn't mean lockstepping with any group. Just as there are fiscal conservative and social conservatives in the Democrats, they don't want to be defined narrowly.

I am very much a fan of the 9th and 10th Amendments however, something that most Federal officeholders have forgotten in recent decades.

Personally, I favor civil unions for gay couples. It gives them the same benefits of marriage yet recognizes the history of the institution of marriage as what it traditionally has been.

If it were put to a national referendum, I'll bet the majority of people would agree with you. I do. It wouldn't surprise me if a majority of gays agreed too.

Actually Spook... as has been pointed out by Alimiranta in the past, she offered to assist gay groups in working for civil unions and they didn't want her help because they wanted marriage; and nothing less.

I understand this issue is very divisive, and both sides MUST respect one another. However, it's incumbent on one side who wants something their due, to be respectful of those who "have" the power to give it to them.

And Spook, I've seen a poll where nearly 60% were in favor of civil unions (with all the same socio-economic and government benefits) yet 70% opposed to gay marriage.

The Southern Strategy was NOT based on racism and I reject that statement. Religion, Gun Rights, Taxes, Military Strength - these made up the Souther Strategy.

Do no Democrats here have a clue that your relentless attacks on the Second Amendment have cost you at least a half dozen states in the last four elections? That means that if you dropped that one issue, you'd be able to swing maybe six more states your way? You don't even understand it as an issue do you? Do you realize that all the guns stores in the country are political meeting places aimed at keeping you out of power? That the NRA publishes gun rights report cards on the candidates in every election? That when the Democrat candidate (like Mark Warner in Virginia) has a better rating than the Republican - they win?

The Democratic Party WAS the party of racism going into the Civil War AND for the next Hundred years. It was only with an overwhelming vote from the Republican side of the aisle that the non-racist Democrats could pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Bills. I refuse to let you re-write history.

So when and how did we earn the label racist? What exaclty have Republicans done that is racist? We oppose the welfare program. I personally see it as a cynical move by LBJ to buy and control the black vote. On priciple, Republicans oppose it because we are the party od individual responsibility and we believed (and believe) that it hurts the target populations in the long run. Since the programs have been in place FORTY YEARS and have led to a dismal inner city situation, maybe it's time Democrats admit there may be some merit to our argument.

Hey, we admit Iraq isn't going well - and yet you want to "stay the course" in Detroit?

We oppose affirmative action on the grounds that it is actually race based discrimination. Which it is. Our system is supposed to be blind to race, religion, and national origin. Democrats want to cheat that system. We reject that on the grounds that the system is supposed to be equal for ALL it's citizens. So, is that racism? You say it is. I reject that.

"I am very much a fan of the 9th and 10th Amendments however, something that most Federal officeholders have forgotten in recent decades."

I completely agree with your post. I think the problem that we've run into with the 9th and 10th Amendments is that BOTH parties have put policy preferences above a commitment to federalist boundaries. In other words, the parties only invoke federalist arguments when it's convenient to their reelection or opposition to a bill.

For example, in the 1990s Democrats passed gun control and legislation aimed at preventing domestic abuse that went too far under the Commerce Clause (see U.S. v. Morrison and U.S. v. Lopez). Republicans have done the same thing with federal legislation regarding drug policy and their hilariously anti-states rights involvement in the Schiavo fiasco.

The GOP has serious face to regain in regards to federalism (and not to mention fiscal responsibility). Until either party can actually walk the walk on its promises to show legislative restraint regarding the 9th and 10th Amendments, libertarians are going to continue feeling uneasy in either party.

Gar Wood

"So when and how did we earn the label racist? What exaclty have Republicans done that is racist?"

Kahn,

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html

There are legitimate, non-racist arguments in opposition to things like affirmative action, busing, etc. But to deny that the GOP historically used those issues with the intent of motivating racist voters is inaccurate, as Ken Mehlman points out.

Gar Wood

Gar:
You've hit the nail on the head, yet you'd probably agree, even though you didn't include it, that a large number of libertarians also see Democrats as huge taxers so they can be huge spenders.

Article One of the Constitution explains what Congress has the power to do, but with an income tax constitutional, they were able to dangle all sorts of carrots and all sorts of sticks to the states to grab power unheard of.

This is what people on the right see as a huge problem; that Courts are also now creating federal rights where none exists or where none should exist.

I'd love to have a "time-out" and build a time machine and see what would have happened to America if we actually kept the idea of states rights and peoples rights. Let's say after the Civil War.... would there still be segregation? Would some states still outlaw abortion?

I'm just curious... when did free prescription drugs become a right under the Federal Goverment?

Bane,

I have to agree - and Gavin is going bye-bye; I'll take a lot of insults, but there is a limit. Cyber is all right, though; a typical lefty, but mostly polite.

Mark... I'd encourage you to take a look at Bill (or Jenn, whichever it is).

He seems to be just as bad as Gavin in the name calling.

You can call someone silly and dim for their views but to call someone a racist homophobe simply because they are unwilling to listen... how does that help.

I was actually enjoying myself this evening in engaging in actual intellectual thought, and then of course, back from dinner or whatever, and Bill/Jenn and Gavin pop back up.

You are very good at letting people who don't agree with you voice their opinion, but disrespect should be stopped. Their worse offense, not even acknowledging their behavior as insulting.

Thank you Mark! And Happy New Year to you and everyone out there who is still a regular on this blogsite. I, too, have mostly lurked here lately, because I witnessed a downward slide toward viciousness in demeanor that I was not willing to participate in any longer. I'm heartened to see that there are still some "regulars" like Alimiranta, Retired Spook, Ricorun, Bane of Liberals, wawilliyo, etc. who are sticking it out and still engaging in impassioned and eloquent debate. Perhaps with the "new spirit of bipartisanship and civility" that is being touted in D.C. these days (yea - right!), we'll start to see a turnaround on the boards at B4B...

And then that clip of Rahm Emanuel getting shouted down by Cindy and her ilk the other day flashed into my mind again. Damn! I just can't erase it! Perhaps there is something to that tin foil after all ;)

Retired Spook: Your comments above were so on the money, that I had to break my silence and tell you thank you...

________________
"...The kind of vitriole we see from people like Bill and Gavin adds nothing to the debate. I'm sure it's what's driven guys like Todd Detrich, Bret Helm, Rplat, DL, Justrand, Michael in Michigan, Rhod and a host of others away.

...Ricorun and I agree on some things and not on others, but we've had some excellent discussions both on and off this site. We've NEVER denigrated each other's religion or called each other names. I've learned some things from him, and, I'd like to think he's learned some things from me.

I seem to be rambling on, but the point I'm trying to make is that the tone here is not a lot of fun anymore. And, yes, we did used to have fun, not just talk past each other. And it wasn't because we all agreed with each other either. It was because we exchanged ideas."
________________

There are still ideas out there waiting to be discussed. Perhaps if we all take a deep breath and let Mark "administrate" a bit, the tone around here will get a bit lighter.

Again - Happy New Year everyone!

Gar Wood - i have never seen the arguments as race based. Maybe they were? I'd have to think about it. maybe, since the Democrats played on racial division it was natural for Republicans to counter and try to catch the white vote?

Both positions are terribly cynical.

So, welfare, busing, and affirmative action. I have not heard much on busing lately - in fact it seems that blacks have been the ones arguing against it as they are sick of mixing with whites and don't like the travel times any more than the whites do.

Is being opposed to affirmative action because it is blatent racism racist?

Is being opposed to destructive welfare policies because they create an atmosphere of dependence racist?

Is willingness to discuss when and where busing should happen without being blinded by political dogma racist?

Is advocating school vouchers so that parents can put their children in the best schools possible racist? (Note on this, I hear educators say - but the money will be gone from our programs... well, shouldn't the money follow the student and not the teachers union?)

I just don't see the Republican racism that many Democrats claim is there. It seems to me, that until the culture of victimhood is rejected by the black community it is doomed to a self-imposed second rate status. Some brave blacks like Bill Cosby and Juan Williams have argued this - and been wildly attacked for their efforts.

waw,

We try, but there is sometimes not enough time in the day to keep up with it all - so, anyone who goes off the ranch, let us know and we'll deal with it...and, for everyone out there, we are in the market for a moderator. The pay is lousy (ie, none) and the hours suck, but its nothing but fun, fun, fun.

Meanwhile, I think you're right about Bill, too...

Kahn,

"Both positions are terribly cynical."
"I just don't see the Republican racism that many Democrats claim is there."

Electoral campaigns are a dirty, dirty business, a on both sides of the aisle. I am not the least bit idealistic about them.

I'm not sure how else I can persuade you that the Republicans exploited Southern racism for electoral gain other than repeating, again, that the GOP Chairman admitted that it happened and apologized for it.

Victimhood is a particularly potent force in politics and a source of annoyance for me. IMHO, it has served as inaccurate justifications for populist rhetoric like black anger after Hurricane Katrina, the so-called War on Christmas, economic protectionism, etc. The GOP has made strides in reaching out to blacks through Bush's diverse cabinet and Mehlman's acknowledgment of the Southern Strategy. But typically conservative policies such as opposition to affirmative action and support for state flags with the confederate banner have connections to the racist rhetoric that the GOP (and the Dems before them) has used to win elections...black perceptions of victimhood, justified or not, are here to stay.

Gar Wood

This thread may be some kind of personal record. Never before have I...
(a) said so little (I do tend to go on) while at the same time...
(b) seen my name mentioned so often without...
(c) some sort of epithet attached. Somewhere along the line I'm usually denigrated as either a limp-wristed, panty-waisted libbiecommiepinkoweirdomoonbat or... a regressive, insensitive, knucke-dragging mindlesstrogloditewingnut. Sometimes I get some variation on both in the space of a single thread.

What the heck is going on here? LOL!

Anyway, I appreciate y'alls restraint. But just in case... bite me keefer. Lol!

huh... This thread sure was interesting... I'm all for moderate jeering, this is getting insane (as noted in a later post)...

Personally, I don't not vote for Republicans because of the race thing (and I don't think that it is because of the fact that I'm white), I don't vote for Republicans because I feel that they suck at governing... Then again, I am also horribly against things like Affirmative Action and Busing. In fact, I went to a school with a large population of blacks bussed in from south county (majority black area), and they still had the highest dropout rate in the school... It's a cultural thing now...

Hey, we admit Iraq isn't going well - and yet you want to "stay the course" in Detroit?

LOL!!, Best line of the whole thread, Kahn.

Ricorun,
You and I haven’t flailed at each other in verbal combat in a while, regrettably.

I haven’t been trolling other sites, I’ve been out of town; I took my wife and daughter to our Nation’s Capital for the holidays. Now, to some readers of this blog, that may seem odd, but to a family from southern California Washington DC is hell-and-gone from the desert to the sea we call home.

If you haven’t been there in a while I recommend you put it back on your list; as I told my daughter, the place is lousy with history. I was again inspired by the Jefferson and Lincoln memorials, angry at the Vietnam Veterans Wall, amused by the political correctness of the FDR Memorial (the iconic cigarette holder was no-where to be found) and took volumes of photos of my wife, (the lawyer) in the Supreme Court building.

I honestly don’t understand how our elected officials can live and work in that city and not remember the awesome responsibility we’ve charged them with. I remember the optimism we had in 1994 when we sent first time citizen legislators to the Capital Building, expecting them to clean up the government, restore our faith in our systems, do their civic responsibility, and then make way for the next citizen legislators to take over the task. Here we are 12 years later and new gang of power mongers has just taken over from the old gang of power mongers we used to believe in.

Here’s hoping the new bunch of hooligans respect the institutions more than the last batch did.

Btw, Ric-o, I did troll back to that butt-whippin’ you took a few days ago on another thread; although I believe you’re putting too much faith in George’s “gut” to overrule any opposition, or too little faith in the basic ability of our leaders to want to succeed, I generally agree with your sentiments; I just wouldn’t personalize the issue as George's gut.

Bane: "Btw, Ric-o, I did troll back to that butt-whippin’ you took a few days ago on another thread; although I believe you’re putting too much faith in George’s “gut” to overrule any opposition, or too little faith in the basic ability of our leaders to want to succeed, I generally agree with your sentiments; I just wouldn’t personalize the issue as George's gut."

It wasn't my finest hour, lol!. It was an argument that got out of hand. I should have stuck closer to my original point, which was that I'm hopeful but skeptical that whatever factors that contributed to the decision-making process which caused us to arrive at the present state of affairs in Iraq, can be overcome when putting together a workable plan for the future there. While there is evidence to support the contention that Bush tends to rely too much on his "gut", I'm not at all sure how important that particular factor is in the overall scheme of things. I only singled it out because, well, it fit nicely with the whole, florid, gastrointesinal metaphore I employed as a literary device, lol! Then I made matters worse by overdefending the contention, thus causing it to become the central issue. Oh well. My bad.

Gar Wood - OK, so one Republican thinks we used race - but can YOU name some policy of our that is racist? I named the issues didn't I? Did I miss something?

I'm sick of this racist label. back it up with facts.

This is my first contribution to this blog and as such I would appreciate the common courtesy of not being personally attacked should you differ with either my premise or conclusion.

As a 55-year-old American, whose ancestry happens to be centered in the African slave trade generations ago, I have seen a plethora of positive change in a lifetime.

I remember well segregation in the south, exclusion in the north, my grandfather being allowed to vote for the first time at the age of 72 in Brownsville Tennessee, etc.

The term “racist” when I was young was defined as an exclusion of individuals or a group through the use of one in a position of power to deny those included the right to choose, where they might be employed, reside, educated or kept from exercising the rights and privileges of full enfranchisement within the American judicial and economic system. Calling someone a “racist” is both a serious accusation and probably beyond the capacity of the overwhelming majority of Americans who neither harbor such sentiment nor power in the first place.

As such, I find the notion of any either the Democratic or Republican Party being presented as offering a propensity of “racism” to be beyond capacity or logical conclusion.

Approximately 72% of the black population in America are defined as middle or upper middle class, and I believe the approximate percentage of whites in America to reflect the same posture to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 84%. (Feel free to correct my statistics.)

Having said that, 28% of “blacks” find themselves mired in most unfortunate circumstances primarily do to poor decisions, a happenstance of birth or a voluntary option to participate in unproductive behavior. I feel comfortable concluding that 16% of "whites" follow suit.

I live in a rural area where “meth” has become a primary motivation for crime, unemployment, and all the myriad nightmares such behavior brings. The overwhelming majority of participants as well as victims are those 16% of whites I mentioned previously. However, for me to attribute such a characteristic as indicative of "whites" is no more accurate than to prescribe the notions of crime, the hood, etc. to "blacks".

Perhaps if both sides refrained from the monolithic approach of discussing our common and current dilemma, i.e., how do we go about encouraging that 28% and 16% to participate with the other 72% and 84% of us, in terms of “blacks” or “whites”, and maybe in terms of a "minority of Americans" an intellectual and worthwhile set of positive dialogue might ensue.