• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Shameful Hillary throws the racist card

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Speaking at a MLK day rally Hillary made the following smear of Republicans.

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," Clinton, D-N.Y., told the crowd at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/16/211637.shtml

Maybe Hillary the only party that had plantations were Democrats and the party that filibustered Civil Rights Legislation were Democrats and the local politicians that set the dogs on black protestors were Democrats.

How dare she use such smear tactics at a day meant to honor Dr. King. Mrs. Clinton owes the Republican party an appology.
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stinger said:
Speaking at a MLK day rally Hillary made the following smear of Republicans.

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," Clinton, D-N.Y., told the crowd at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/16/211637.shtml

Maybe Hillary the only party that had plantations were Democrats and the party that filibustered Civil Rights Legislation were Democrats and the local politicians that set the dogs on black protestors were Democrats.

How dare she use such smear tactics at a day meant to honor Dr. King. Mrs. Clinton owes the Republican party an appology.
First, lets address your lie that the Democratic Party leadership was who persecuted blacks. Actually, the Dixiecrats, as they were called, switched to the Republican party and voted for Nixon due to their anger at various bills passed under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations by the Democratic leaders, which ensured that Black people got to vote without the dogs and firehoses. A couple stayed with the Democrats, but the rest have been Republican ever since.

Now back to the context of what Hillary said:

"It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

Plantation politics was used in that context, not the rascist context you bring up. Who is playing the rascist card? You are. Your take on this can be summed up in a single word..... Dishonest.
 

stsburns

American Infidel
DP Veteran
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
1,297
Reaction score
46
Location
Pergatory
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
Stinger said:
Speaking at a MLK day rally Hillary made the following smear of Republicans.

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," Clinton, D-N.Y., told the crowd at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/16/211637.shtml

Maybe Hillary the only party that had plantations were Democrats and the party that filibustered Civil Rights Legislation were Democrats and the local politicians that set the dogs on black protestors were Democrats.

How dare she use such smear tactics at a day meant to honor Dr. King. Mrs. Clinton owes the Republican party an appology.
And she's the one to talk? They could have used any other puppet in their arsenal and they chose her? Aren't the Democrats trying to get her in the whitehouse?
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
danarhea said:
A couple stayed with the Democrats, but the rest have been Republican ever since.
Yeah, an amazing coincidence. Jim Crow and Demcrat dominance of the South die at the same time. Amazing!

danarhea said:
"It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."
What? The dumb broad doesn't like being in the minority? Perhaps her party should find a platform and candidates real Americans won't gag over?

danarhea said:
Plantation politics was used in that context, not the rascist context you bring up. Who is playing the rascist card?
The Red Queen was. It was her trap flapping, right?

danarhea said:
.... Dishonest.
Well, the Red Queen is the topic. Does any other word fit as perfectly?
 

ANAV

Member
Joined
Jun 7, 2005
Messages
172
Reaction score
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the Democrats are the ones with a former KKK member in office. Bryd from West Virginia.

As far a Hillary goes, that just Hillary saying anything to win votes in 2008.

 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
danarhea said:
First, lets address your lie that the Democratic Party leadership was who persecuted blacks. Actually, the Dixiecrats, as they were called, switched to the Republican party and voted for Nixon due to their anger at various bills passed under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations by the Democratic leaders, which ensured that Black people got to vote without the dogs and firehoses. A couple stayed with the Democrats, but the rest have been Republican ever since.

Now back to the context of what Hillary said:

"It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

Plantation politics was used in that context, not the rascist context you bring up. Who is playing the rascist card? You are. Your take on this can be summed up in a single word..... Dishonest.
Ahh, danarhea, thank you for pointing out the obvious. I normally am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but what she said is absolutely true. This adminstration and the republicans will not allow people to dissent. Look at how they have treated Murtha. Murtha is speaking from his heart and from experience, yet they are looking to attack his service (surprise surprise--see McCain and Kerry smearing examples).
 
H

hipsterdufus

Stinger said:
Speaking at a MLK day rally Hillary made the following smear of Republicans.

"When you look at the way the House of Representatives has been run, it has been run like a plantation, and you know what I'm talking about," Clinton, D-N.Y., told the crowd at the Canaan Baptist Church of Christ in Harlem. "It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

http://newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/16/211637.shtml

Maybe Hillary the only party that had plantations were Democrats and the party that filibustered Civil Rights Legislation were Democrats and the local politicians that set the dogs on black protestors were Democrats.

How dare she use such smear tactics at a day meant to honor Dr. King. Mrs. Clinton owes the Republican party an appology.
Look at how John Conyers was forced into the basement when he wanted to have a hearing on The Downing Street memos.

Another good example is when Ted (Bridge To Nowhere/Hulk Tie) Stevens refused to hear a motion to swear in the big oil execs. The Republicans swear in baseball players but not oil executives?

Dennis Hastert fires Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) and two other Republican members from the Ethics Committe because they admonished Tom DeLay.

Any voice that doesn't agree with the party line is dealt with in the sharpest way possible. There is no room for dissent. I'm no Hilary fan - but her point is well taken.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
danarhea said:
First, lets address your lie that the Democratic Party leadership was who persecuted blacks. Actually, the Dixiecrats, as they were called, switched to the Republican party and voted for Nixon due to their anger at various bills passed under the Kennedy and Johnson administrations by the Democratic leaders, which ensured that Black people got to vote without the dogs and firehoses. A couple stayed with the Democrats, but the rest have been Republican ever since.
Well let's deal with your lie first. Dixiecrats were NOT Republicans they were Democrats and when their Dixcrat campaign failed they went back to the Democrat party which welcomed them and the were relected as Democrats. And your claim that Democrats switched parties because of civil rights is just as bogus, why would they switch from the party that fought against the Civil Rights bills to the party that was overwhelming in favor of the bills and broke the back of the Democrat filibusters to get the bills passed? And the dogs and firehoses were put upon the civil rights protestors by DEMOCRATS who remained DEMOCRAT.

But let's see you substantiate your claim, other than Stom Thrumond who switched not to deny civil rights, who are you claiming was a Dixiecrat who switched to the Republicans because of civil rights?

Now back to the context of what Hillary said:

"It has been run in a way so that nobody with a contrary view has had a chance to present legislation, to make an argument, to be heard."

Plantation politics was used in that context, not the rascist context you bring up. Who is playing the rascist card? You are. Your take on this can be summed up in a single word..... Dishonest.
No it was used in the context of black audience at a celebration of civil rights, along with her "and you know what I'm talking about " wink wink nod nod, smear against Republicans. It was meant to paint Republicans as slave owners to that audience. She purposely used that word for it racial conotation. It was disgraceful and she owes an appology. And of course is is a blantant lie on it's face anyway.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
aps said:
Ahh, danarhea, thank you for pointing out the obvious. I normally am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but what she said is absolutely true.
What she said was disgracerul. If she wants to complain about being in the minority party in the Senate she can do so. Throwing out the "Plantation" smear at this setting, during this occasion was absolutely disgraceful opportunist politics. The woman has no shame.

This adminstration and the republicans will not allow people to dissent.
Who in congress has not been allowed to dissent?
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
stsburns said:
And she's the one to talk? They could have used any other puppet in their arsenal and they chose her? Aren't the Democrats trying to get her in the whitehouse?
Yep and this is an example of the dirt she will be throwing in such a campaign. Makes me sick.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
hipsterdufus said:
Look at how John Conyers was forced into the basement when he wanted to have a hearing on The Downing Street memos.

Another good example is when Ted (Bridge To Nowhere/Hulk Tie) Stevens refused to hear a motion to swear in the big oil execs. The Republicans swear in baseball players but not oil executives?

Dennis Hastert fires Joel Hefley (R-Colo.) and two other Republican members from the Ethics Committe because they admonished Tom DeLay.

Any voice that doesn't agree with the party line is dealt with in the sharpest way possible. There is no room for dissent. I'm no Hilary fan - but her point is well taken.
That's politics, no different from Democrats, she could have called it for what is is, but instead pulls the racial card. Oh and did I miss the era of Democrat majority where Repulicans were given just as much power as the Democrats and all their wishes were granted?
 

Hoot

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
1,686
Reaction score
18
Location
State of Confusion
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
Stinger said:
Well let's deal with your lie first. Dixiecrats were NOT Republicans they were Democrats and when their Dixcrat campaign failed they went back to the Democrat party which welcomed them and the were relected as Democrats. And your claim that Democrats switched parties because of civil rights is just as bogus, why would they switch from the party that fought against the Civil Rights bills to the party that was overwhelming in favor of the bills and broke the back of the Democrat filibusters to get the bills passed? And the dogs and firehoses were put upon the civil rights protestors by DEMOCRATS who remained DEMOCRAT.

But let's see you substantiate your claim, other than Stom Thrumond who switched not to deny civil rights, who are you claiming was a Dixiecrat who switched to the Republicans because of civil rights?
Here's how Wikipedia describes Dixiecrats....sounds like most of them are republicans to me.

"Many of the political ideologies of the Dixiecrats have been so totally adopted by the Republicans that these principles are now considered to be the core values of the modern Republican Party. This change, which began in 1972 with Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy", was followed up by the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 and the reconquest of the House of Representatives in 1994 by Newt Gingrich, reached its ultimate pinnacle in 2000 with the election of George W. Bush, giving religiously motivated former Dixiecrats total control over all three branches of the federal government. It has also caused significant friction with the few remaining paleo-conservatives in the GOP as they see the Dixiecrat transplants to be openly hostile towards limited-government conservatism and in favor of more authoritarian government."
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Hoot said:
Here's how Wikipedia describes Dixiecrats....sounds like most of them are republicans to me.
Wikipedia is not a very authoritative source since it is written by anyone who care to post something. The opening sentence of the article is completely bogus.


The fact remains the Dixiecrats were DEMOCRATS who split off to run their own campaign. They lost and they went back to the DEMOCRAT party and were relected as DEMOCRATS. Now I challenged you to provide a list of names of Dixiecrats who became Republicans, you didn't because there would only be one name on the list and that would be Thurmond. All the others remained Democrats and Thurmond didn't switch until 20 years later. The fact is DEMOCRATS opposed civil rights legislation filibustering it over and over. It was the Republican party with it's overwhelming support of the legislation that got it passed over the objections of the DEMOCRATS.

I know you probably went to a public school and was fed this garbage, but the historical record is clear.
 

SouthernDemocrat

Pragmatist
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
22,332
Reaction score
13,565
Location
KC
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Stinger said:
Well let's deal with your lie first. Dixiecrats were NOT Republicans they were Democrats and when their Dixcrat campaign failed they went back to the Democrat party which welcomed them and the were relected as Democrats. And your claim that Democrats switched parties because of civil rights is just as bogus, why would they switch from the party that fought against the Civil Rights bills to the party that was overwhelming in favor of the bills and broke the back of the Democrat filibusters to get the bills passed? And the dogs and firehoses were put upon the civil rights protestors by DEMOCRATS who remained DEMOCRAT.

But let's see you substantiate your claim, other than Stom Thrumond who switched not to deny civil rights, who are you claiming was a Dixiecrat who switched to the Republicans because of civil rights?



No it was used in the context of black audience at a celebration of civil rights, along with her "and you know what I'm talking about " wink wink nod nod, smear against Republicans. It was meant to paint Republicans as slave owners to that audience. She purposely used that word for it racial conotation. It was disgraceful and she owes an appology. And of course is is a blantant lie on it's face anyway.
Dixiecrats were Conservative Democrats.

Civil Rights is a Liberal Ideal.

Of the 10 Republican Congressmen that were in the South, a big ZERO voted for the Civil Rights act.

Of the 87 Democratic Congressmen that were in the South, 7 voted for the Civil Rights act.

Of the 145 Democratic Congressmen that were in the North, only 9 voted against the Civil Rights act.

Of the 138 Republican Congressmen that were in the North, 24 voted against the Civil Rights act.

So, we can conclude that while the Civil Rights Act enjoyed little support among Southern Democrats, it enjoyed absolutely NO Support Among Southern Republicans.

We can also conclude that while the Civil Rights Act enjoyed strong support among Northern Republicans, it enjoyed even Stronger Support Among Northern Democrats.

Moreover, President Johnson, a liberal Democrat, backed Civil Rights legislation knowing that it would loose the Democrats the South.

Barry Goldwater, a Republican (very conservative at the time, would be a moderate Republican today), lost in a landslide, yet won the South because of his stern opposition to Federal Civil Rights legislation.

Ronald Reagan, the Republican Jesus, was also on the record as being sternly opposed to Federal Civil Rights legislation. Commenting in 1980 that the Voting Rights Act had been “humiliating to the South”. Moreover, Ronald Reagan strongly backed segregationist Bob Jones University (the Republican Flagship School) in their efforts to obtain IRS Tax Exemptions. The IRS denies Tax Exemptions to Segregationist Schools.

Ronald Reagan also said in his 1966 campaign for Governor of California: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so."

George H.W. Bush strongly opposed the Civil Rights act in his 1964 run for the U.S. Senate.

It is also worth pointing out that the Republican realignment of the South specifically coincides with the Passage of Civil Rights legislation. The South went Republican because they felt that the Democratic Party had left them when the Democrats support Civil Rights.

It is also worth pointing out that typically 9 out of 10 African Americans vote Democrat. Moreover, there is not a single African American Republican Congressman. This is despite the fact that the Republicans are the party in power.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
SouthernDemocrat said:
Dixiecrats were Conservative Democrats.

Civil Rights is a Liberal Ideal.

Of the 10 Republican Congressmen that were in the South, a big ZERO voted for the Civil Rights act.

Of the 87 Democratic Congressmen that were in the South, 7 voted for the Civil Rights act.
...
So, we can conclude that while the Civil Rights Act enjoyed little support among Southern Democrats, it enjoyed absolutely NO Support Among Southern Republicans.
You're presuming you know why the people that voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Actually, anyone in favor of the freedom of the individual would oppose that act as written. Government has no Constitutional authority to order private businesses who they can and cannot hire, or why, nor does it possess the authority to tell businesses who they will and will not serve.

I know you'll call me a racist, but I wouldn't have voted for that flawed bill, either.
 
H

hipsterdufus

Stinger said:
That's politics, no different from Democrats, she could have called it for what is is, but instead pulls the racial card. Oh and did I miss the era of Democrat majority where Repulicans were given just as much power as the Democrats and all their wishes were granted?
I always love the "two wrongs make a right" argument or the "well you did it too" . Sounds like a 4 year old. :roll:

Never have we seen so much partisanship and willfull disregard for the minority party and dissenters in the majority party.

The house of cards is falling. All hail Abramoff!
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
hipsterdufus said:
Never have we seen so much partisanship and willfull disregard for the minority party and dissenters in the majority party.
Never?

Back when the Red Queen was on her throne, she hired Craig Livingstone, who procured more than a thousand confidential FBI dossiers of people in the minority party in a desperate search for dirt.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
aps said:
Ahh, danarhea, thank you for pointing out the obvious. I normally am not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but what she said is absolutely true. This adminstration and the republicans will not allow people to dissent. Look at how they have treated Murtha. Murtha is speaking from his heart and from experience, yet they are looking to attack his service (surprise surprise--see McCain and Kerry smearing examples).
I don't get it, aps. Was Murtha "not allowed" to dissent? He dissented and that is his right. Just as it is the right of his detractors to counter-dissent. Quit playing the victim.
 

Scarecrow Akhbar

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 22, 2005
Messages
11,430
Reaction score
2,282
Location
Los Angeles
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
KCConservative said:
I don't get it, aps. Was Murtha "not allowed" to dissent? He dissented and that is his right. Just as it is the right of his detractors to counter-dissent. Quit playing the victim.

Aw, they're just crying because when they dissent, they can't get enough of the other side to listen to them to influence the laws, is all. They're losers, and sore losers at that.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
109
Reaction score
0
Location
In front of my computer.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
KCConservative said:
I don't get it, aps. Was Murtha "not allowed" to dissent? He dissented and that is his right. Just as it is the right of his detractors to counter-dissent. Quit playing the victim.
When Jean Schmidt called him a coward, was that counter-dissenting? No. It was a snub, one way or another meant to shut him up. That has no place in any formal setting; on the floor of Congress it is an outrage. That is quashing opposition, as is screaming of your opponent "he flip-flops" rather than discussing the issues raised in a campaign, as is refusing to address the Downing Street Memos despite petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of US citizens and dozens of Congressmen, as are a thousand other irresponsible tactics and ploys the GOP has recently taken to using.

Republicans by and large seem to be covering their ears when criticized of late. If you deny that, you are simply doing the same thing.
 
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
2,669
Reaction score
0
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Stupiderthanthou said:
When Jean Schmidt called him a coward, was that counter-dissenting? No. It was a snub, one way or another meant to shut him up. That has no place in any formal setting; on the floor of Congress it is an outrage. That is quashing opposition, as is screaming of your opponent "he flip-flops" rather than discussing the issues raised in a campaign, as is refusing to address the Downing Street Memos despite petitions signed by hundreds of thousands of US citizens and dozens of Congressmen, as are a thousand other irresponsible tactics and ploys the GOP has recently taken to using.

Republicans by and large seem to be covering their ears when criticized of late. If you deny that, you are simply doing the same thing.
So Murtha is allowed his free speech and Schmidt isn't. I see.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
I don't get it, aps. Was Murtha "not allowed" to dissent? He dissented and that is his right. Just as it is the right of his detractors to counter-dissent. Quit playing the victim.
That probably isn't a good example of the White House not allowing people to dissent. However, a bunch of cons have taken up a cause to discredit Murtha's service. It makes me sick.
 

aps

Passionate
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 25, 2005
Messages
15,675
Reaction score
2,979
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
KCConservative said:
So Murtha is allowed his free speech and Schmidt isn't. I see.
KC, there are rules in Congress that state that one member will not insult another member on the floor. Why else do you think her nasty words were striken from the record? Otherwise, she would have broken the rules. She's a beyotch. The kind of person that calls someone a coward just because someone disagrees with that person is a pathetic human being. Obviously, she had nothing constructive or substantive to say so she resorted to name calling. I hope she doesn't win her seat if she runs again. The woman has no class.
 
Joined
Jan 1, 2006
Messages
109
Reaction score
0
Location
In front of my computer.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
KCConservative said:
So Murtha is allowed his free speech and Schmidt isn't. I see.
What aps said. You don't call someone a coward on the floor of the U.S. Congress. Personal insults have no place in formal debate. In case you do not recall, a brawl very nearly erupted.

But yes, she has her free speech. She's still a sitting member of the House, is she not?
 

cnredd

Major General Big Lug
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 5, 2005
Messages
8,682
Reaction score
262
Location
Philadelphia,PA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
aps said:
That probably isn't a good example of the White House not allowing people to dissent. However, a bunch of cons have taken up a cause to discredit Murtha's service. It makes me sick.
To discredit Murtha's service is indeed scummy...

But when someone says that just because Murtha was in the service that he is not infalliable and then gets ACCUSED of saying that person is discrediting Murtha's service?...That's scummier...

Attacking the messenger(Murtha) instead of attacking the message is wrong...

But what happens to those who are ONLY attacking the message?

That right!...They get accused of attacking the messenger...:roll:
 
Top Bottom