• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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

cnredd said:
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...

I think he is given a lot of credibility when it comes to "service" issues because of how long he served and because he has always been very pro-military. Additionally, he takes time to go visit the injured soldiers. It's those kind of things that heighten the value of his opinion. This isn't some po-dunk who doesn't know what he is talking about.

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:

I disagree. I dont' see anyone being accused of attacking Murtha when they disagree with Murtha's words.
 
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.


Murtha discredited his own service by demanding we cut and run.
 
Stinger said:
"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."


HMMM..It looks like the Republicans aren't the only ones that have been accused of running Congress like a plantation.


Newt Gingrich, just before becoming Speaker of the House, in 1994:

“I clearly fascinate them,” Gingrich said of the Democrats. “I’m much more intense, much more persistent, much more willing to take risks to get it done. Since they think it is their job to run the plantation, it shocks them that I’m actually willing to lead the slave rebellion.” [Washington Post, 10/20/94]
 
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.
Yeah, reminds me of that sick feeling I get when I remember the Texas National Guard lies and the discrediting of the president's service. But that was just free speech then, huh?
 
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.

Whoa!!! Hilary? Apoligize? Hilary is a media hound. she will do anything and smear anyone she can to get a little attention . Could this be an example of what the election of 08 will be like?
 
Pot meet Kettle.

The GOP shouldn't have been so quick to smear Hilary on the "Plantation" quote. As it turns out, she was using language very similar to Newt Gingrich. Newty (left wife while she was recovering from cancer/ 3 wives/K Street architect) compared the Clinton White House to the "Plantation" and described the GOP rising up (hallelujah!) as the "slave rebellion". :rofl

I'll get the exact quote soon - but it's from a 1994 Washington Post interview with Gingrich.

Too freakin funny.
 
danarhea said:
1) First, lets address your lie that the Democratic Party leadership was who persecuted blacks.

2) 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.

3) A couple stayed with the Democrats, but the rest have been Republican ever since.

4) 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.


1)

-George Wallace (D) refused to cooperate with REPUBLICAN, Eisenhower's instruction to integrate schools.

-Democrats have the only former Klansman in a leadership position in THEIR party.

-Lincoln, a Republican, had to liberate the south from Democrats, who fought for slavery.

-Liberal efforts to portray Republicans as a party of racists (which Hillary was clearly participating in-please stop denying that incredibly obvious point, it discredits you) boil down to an astonishingly successful lie typical of this "blame others for things we are far more guilty of" Democrat party.


2)

-Dixiecrats was a name many southern Democrats used to indicate which KIND of Democrats they were, not that they weren't Democrats.

-Check your facts. Kennedy did precisely JACK for civil rights.

-Nixon was actually a far more accomplished civil rights leader than Kennedy, and arguably, than LBJ. Ever heard of the 1957 Civil Rights Act? Republicans were NOT the ones to join if you were a racist. Nice try.


3)

-Trent Lott and Strom Thurmond were life long Democrats who joined Republicans late in the game. The lesson we learn from people like them isn't that Republicans are racist; it's that Republicans should not allow Democrats into their party.

-Who tells blacks they are too inferior to make it on their own? Who leads the black community down the path of professional victimhood instead of teaching them to be independent? Who reveals their true racist feelings about blacks by using every racial slur in the book once it becomes politically correct....you know, every time a black person decides to break from the sheep, think for themselves and support republican ideals?

The answers are: Democrats, Democrats, and Democrats. Democrats always have been and still are the party of elitist snobbery and racism. The fact that they point fingers at Republicans shouldn't surprise anyone. That's their modus operandi.

4) GIVE ME A BREAK. This is the weakest excuse for a defense I have ever heard! Hillary was CLEARLY earning her DNC merit badge for race-baiting.
 
Last edited:
What? What is it with you people? Is it that Republicans don't support giving blacks slavery reparations for something that doesn't affect them? Is it that they support ACTUAL equality, and not racist college and hiring preferences?

As Hillary has demonstrated here, Democrats don't care about truth. They are like the O.J. jury. Mountains of evidence or not, they care about their side. Democrats care about what gives Democrats power, period. Blacks are not inferior or oppressed as Democrats would have them believe. They are poorly led into abysmal failure and paranoid bigotry by self-serving racists like Sharpton and Jackson.


Consider this:

Dinesh D'Souza wrote in his book, "What's so great about America?" about census bureau statistics on Caribbean immigrants. Caribbean immigrants have the same race as American blacks, the same poverty-stricken origins, and the same history of slavery, yet when they come here, they somehow don't experience these "historical and systemic prejudices" that "keep the black man down." :roll: Large numbers of these immigrants start successful small businesses, they do well in school, and they follow the law.

It is AMERICAN blacks who make up 12% of the population and commit just over 80% of the violent crimes. It is AMERICAN blacks who score dead last in every kind of aptitude test, from top to bottom, that in any way tracks race. It is AMERICAN blacks who seem perpetually in need of handouts.

The difference is that foreign blacks don't have bigoted Democrat leaders like Sharpton and Jackson leading them over a cliff like retarded little lemmings for personal gain.

Democrat race policies create the Jayson Blairs of the world. Blacks who don't get sucked into hysterical Democrat race-baiting and make their own way
are the J.C. Watts’s and Condi Rice's of the world.

Speaking of blacks who are above this poisonous garbage peddled by Hillary and company, Ward Connerly is the head of the American Civil Rights Institute. It is a group dedicated to the elimination of EVERY SINGLE race preference anywhere in American policy. Connerly is a self-made millionaire, a black man, and a fierce opponent of these policies that cheapen and taint black accomplishments.

Anyone here who supports ACTUAL equality might be interested in his site:

http://www.acri.org/
 
Last edited:
I'll throw my 2 cents worth in again.
I agree that it was a very cheap shot that Hillary made. Dont try and protect her by saying she had other meanings. her meanings were very clear. If you are white and a member of the Republican Pary then you were automatically a pig headed, arrongant racist. plain and simple. I also agree that it was for points from the DNC. I a paper for a political newsletter today and I was thinking of democrats; how they portray things. Examples would be one time I was watching c span and a democrat was giving a speach and he told his crowd that he was going to give the democratic party back to those who made it, the minorities. it left me dumbfounded for a second because, wait, wasnt the democratic party founded, so to speak, by a bunch of rich white people?? and the only way that they can get elected is by promiseing minorities everything they want to so that they will vote for their party and hopefully elect them into office. that's just my take on the DNC and the Democratic party in general. i dont mean to make anyone mad, personally. its not a cheap shot against anyone on here.
 
hipsterdufus said:
Pot meet Kettle.

The GOP shouldn't have been so quick to smear Hilary on the "Plantation" quote. As it turns out, she was using language very similar to Newt Gingrich. Newty (left wife while she was recovering from cancer/ 3 wives/K Street architect) compared the Clinton White House to the "Plantation" and described the GOP rising up (hallelujah!) as the "slave rebellion". :rofl

I'll get the exact quote soon - but it's from a 1994 Washington Post interview with Gingrich.

Too freakin funny.



Was Newt speaking to a bunch of black people while representing a party notorious for race-baiting blacks into total paranoid bigotry?

Um, no. There's a subtle difference.

Furthermore, the PARTICULAR paranoid bigots Hillary was CLEARLY pandering to were people who just got done idiotically blaming Bush for the aftermath of a hurricane that destroyed their homes and left them with no one but their incompetent state and local Democrat "leaders" to rely on.

Give me a break.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Dixiecrats were Conservative Democrats.

Not exactly but are you admiting they were Democrats? Civil Rights was not a conservative/liberal issue it was a segregationist/desegregationist issue. Most Southern Democrats were populist they believed such things as segregation, unions, high taxes on the wealthy and government programs for the "little guy".

Civil Rights is a Liberal Ideal.

No it wasn't the sole poccession of the liberals.

Of the 10 Republican ........................

The history shows that since 1933 Republicans had a more positive record on civil rights than the Democrats. In the 26 major civil rights votes after 1933, a majority of Democrats opposed civil rights legislation in over 80 percent of the votes. By contrast, the Republican majority favored civil rights in over 96 percent of the votes.
http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html
http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html

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

Since I don't know the source of you information no I can't conclude that but the glaring question is why are you limiting your attempted rebuttle to just SOUTHERN politicians. Were you not aware that the Civil Rights legislations was voted on by ALL congressmen?

Here from PBS http://www.pbs.org/wnet/jimcrow/stories_org_democratic.html

The Democratic Party identified itself as the "white man's party" and demonized the Republican Party as being "Negro dominated," even though whites were in control. Determined to re-capture the South, Southern Democrats "redeemed" state after state -- sometimes peacefully, other times by fraud and violence. By 1877, when Reconstruction was officially over, the Democratic Party controlled every Southern state.

"The South remained a one-party region until the Civil Rights movement began in the 1960s. Northern Democrats, most of whom had prejudicial attitudes towards blacks, offered no challenge to the discriminatory policies of the Southern Democrats."

"When the House passed a federal anti-lynching bill several times in the 1930s, Southern senators filibustered it to death. "

**************************************


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

But more so by Republicans than Democrats. See my figures above.

"Remember that the Republicans were the minority party at the time.
Nonetheless, H.R.7152 passed the House on Feb. 10, 1964. 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. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than
Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern
segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed.
Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964."
Republicans and Civil Rights
Diane Alden
Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002



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

And thanked Republicans when the Democrat filibusters were finally quashed. But let's not forget that before Johnson was even elected as VP it was a Republican judge who ruled to end segregated public schools in Brown and it was a Republican President who order federal troops to enforce it and it was a Democrat Governor who stood in the way and it was a Democrat mayor who stood it the way.

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.

He was the first elected executive to desegrated a government military oganization when as Governor of Arizona order the Arizona National Guard to desegregate all it's units. BEFORE Truman did so for the federal military and before any other state Govenor. His opposition to the Civil Rights legislation was because of it's implimentation and fear of quota's not that he was a segregationist like alot of Democrats were and he later said it was a mistake.

Ronald Reagan, the Republican Jesus, ........................

If you want to cherry pick out individuals we can do that and I will bury you, but we are talking about the party's overall records. And it is clear the Republicans voted in higher percentages than Democrats FOR the Civil Rights bills and it is historical record that the Democrats filibustered them ande without the overwhelming support of Republians the Democrats would have been successful in defeating them as they had done twice before.

And as Larry Elder pointed out

Democrats, in 1854, passed the Kansas-Nebraska Act. This overturned the Missouri Compromise and allowed for the importation of slaves into the territories. Disgusted with the passage of this Act, free-soilers and anti-slavery members of the Whig and Democratic parties founded the Republican Party -- not just to stop the spread of slavery, but to eventually abolish it.

..............blacks founded the Texas Republican Party? On July 4, 1867, in Houston, Texas, 150 blacks and 20 whites formed the party. No, not the Black Texas Republican Party, they founded the Texas Republican Party. Blacks across Southern states also founded the Republican parties in their states.

................In 1850, Democrats passed the Fugitive Slave Law. If merely accused of being a slave, even if the person enjoyed freedom all of his or her life (as approximately 11 percent of blacks did just before the Civil War), the person lost the right to representation by an attorney, the right to trial by jury, and the right to habeas corpus.

....................Republican President Abraham Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation during the Civil War. In 1865, the 13th Amendment emancipating the slaves was passed with 100 percent of Republicans (88 of 88 in the House, 30 of 30 in the Senate) voting for it. Only 23 percent of Democrats (16 of 66 in the House, 3 of 8 in the Senate) voted for it.

....................In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed giving the newly emancipated blacks full civil rights and federal guarantee of those rights, superseding any state laws. Every single voting Republican (128 of 134 -- with 6 not voting -- in the House, and 30 of 32 -- with 2 not voting -- in the Senate) voted for the 14th Amendment. Not a single Democrat (zero of 36 in the House, zero of 6 in the Senate) voted for it.

....................When Southern states balked at implementing the 14th Amendment, Congress came back and passed the 15th Amendment in 1870, guaranteeing blacks the right to vote. Every single Republican voted for it, with every Democrat voting against it.

Ku Klux Klan? In 1872 congressional investigations, Democrats admitted beginning the Klan as an effort to stop the spread of the Republican Party and to re-establish Democratic control in Southern states. As PBS' "American Experience" notes, "In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1865." Blacks, who were all Republican at that time, became the primary targets of violence.

..................Between 1870 and 1875, the Republican Congress passed many pro-black civil rights laws. But in 1876, Democrats took control of the House, and no further race-based civil rights laws passed until 1957. In 1892, Democrats gained control of the House, the Senate and the White House, and repealed all the Republican-passed civil rights laws. That enabled the Southern Democrats to pass the Jim Crow laws, poll taxes, literacy tests, and so on, in their individual states.


What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.

Nov 17, 2005
by Larry Elder
 
hipsterdufus said:
I always love the "two wrongs make a right" argument or the "well you did it too" . Sounds like a 4 year old. :roll:

Who said it was wrong? The party which wins the most elections is naturally the party with the most power and control. But if you are trying to convince me that in the future if the Democrat party wins the majority that they will act any different please do not insult my intelligence.

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

They are the minority, if they can convince a few Republicans to their side then they can get their bills passed. Were do you get the idea that something has changed?


Are you telling me that if Hillary wins the White House and the Democrats take the Senate that they will insist the Republicans get to rule the House?

It's a phoney issue the Democrats have created and you have fallen for it.
 
She is a liberal democrat.She was preaching to the choir. She was making her left wing base happy.
Bye the way didn't her using a church for a political rally violate their IRS exemption ? Tsk,tsk.tsk.
 
JOHNYJ said:
She is a liberal democrat.She was preaching to the choir. She was making her left wing base happy.
Bye the way didn't her using a church for a political rally violate their IRS exemption ? Tsk,tsk.tsk.
It depends on 2 questions:

1) Was Hilary collecting donations for her next campaign?

2) Was the church making a voter list instructing the parishoners to vote for Hilary?

If the answer to either question is yes, then the IRS should investigate. If the answer to both questions is no, the no laws were broken.

There is a big difference between people in a church, whether that church leans right or left, bringing in speakers to address their congregation, or those same people actively participating in political campaigns. The first has to do with first amendment rights, while the second has to do with violating the rules of their charters, in which churches are not to structure themselves as a political entity, or perform work of actual monetary value, such as raising money for a particular candidate, or giving a particular candidate free advertising.
 
JOHNYJ said:
She is a liberal democrat.She was preaching to the choir. She was making her left wing base happy.
Bye the way didn't her using a church for a political rally violate their IRS exemption ? Tsk,tsk.tsk.

Except some in the chior weren't too happy either

[FONT=Arial,helvetica]Black Dem Blasts 'Plantation' Hillary Clinton[/FONT]



A high profile black Democrat in New York City is blasting Hillary Clinton for playing racial politics with her Martin Luther King Day tribute, saying her use of the term "plantation" was "condescending" to African Americans.
"I think her speech was contrived and condescending," City Councilman Charles Barron told ABC Radio's Sean Hannity on Tuesday.......................................



http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/18/92139.shtml



Oh course she and Bill ran thier own little "plantation" in Arkansas years ago so she certainly has no standing to use such terms against Republicans insulting blacks in the process.
 
danarhea said:
It depends on 2 questions:

1) Was Hilary collecting donations for her next campaign?

I think she is waiting for a Buddist gathering since Gore had real good luck taking money from the nuns at his.

2) Was the church making a voter list instructing the parishoners to vote for Hilary?

It they were I bet there weren't any Republicans on the list.
 
There is a new idiotic mantra being regurgitated all throughout the unthinking left about this speech.

Operating mindlessly out of their Move On email instructions, Democrats all across the country, in unison, have begun listing off every occasion in which any Republican has used the word, "plantation," and then using this to arrive at the brilliant conclusion that there is a double standard AGAINST Democrats.

I'm so glad Democrats have learned how to use Google, but if they would accompany their searches with a little thought, they would realize that none of the Republicans who used the word, "plantation" in their speeches were using them in front of a black audience. Moreover, none of them were using it in front of a black ACTIVIST audience hosted by Al Sharpton. It kind of changes things.

What do you suppose Hillary meant when she said, "you know what I mean?" Wink Wink. ;) OBVIOUSLY this was her self-serving way of reassuring blacks that she still sees them as victims and that the white man was the source of their problems.

Hillary wouldn't speak at this thing for years because she hasn't been on the best of terms with Sharpton. But now that Condi has been endorsed by Laura Bush (this was not incidental), Hillary is stepping up her pandering to the black vote and getting on Sharpton's good side so he will help her win in the Carolinas.

And as far as this outrageously backwards claim of a double standard....

1) Trent Lott stroked Strom Thurmond's ego with those words for years. No one said a word until they became Republicans.

2) Bill Bennet (R) read a controversial statement from SOMEONE ELSE'S work and got crucified for it.

3) Alito is currently being treated like and called an ultra-conservative (falsely) based on things like Senator Kennedy misusing written satyr from a group called CAP (that Alito belonged to) about what liberals think conservatives think.


What is COMMON for conservatives to go through is now being claimed by liberals to be a double standard AGAINST THEM. And this Hillary speech ordeal ISN'T even an example of her words being misinterpreted in the first place. Give me a break! Do liberals EVER get it right?!?!?!
 
And as the Washington Times reports, as noted on NewsMAx

"As governor of Arkansas, Mr. Clinton signed a law in 1987 that says the top blue star in the state flag symbolizes the Confederacy. Then-Gov. Clinton also issued proclamations designating a birthday memorial for Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy.

"In addition, during his 12 years as governor, Mr. Clinton made no effort to overturn a state law that sets aside the Saturday before Easter as Confederate Flag Day."

In fact, life was so tough for African Americans on Bill and Hillary's Arkansas plantation that the NAACP sued Mr. Clinton under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.

"Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates and other official acts that made voting harder for blacks," the Arkansas Gazette reported December 6, 1989.

The paper added: "the evidence at the trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated."


Well the liberal media make note of this? Don't hold your breath.
 
aps said:
I agree that Hillary's choice of words was not approrpiate; however, I must point out that Newt Gingrich said this in 1994:

During a celebration of MLK? Hey even some of the black dignitaries were put out with it.

"I think her speech was contrived and condescending," City Councilman Charles Barron told ABC Radio's Sean Hannity on Tuesday.
NewsMax
 
Stinger said:
During a celebration of MLK? Hey even some of the black dignitaries were put out with it.

"I think her speech was contrived and condescending," City Councilman Charles Barron told ABC Radio's Sean Hannity on Tuesday.
NewsMax

I'm not providing an excuse for her. Just like you and other republicans don't get in an uproar when someone from your party says/does something inappropriate, I am not getting in an uproar over this, particularly when I don't care for her.
 
aps said:
I'm not providing an excuse for her. Just like you and other republicans don't get in an uproar when someone from your party says/does something inappropriate, I am not getting in an uproar over this, particularly when I don't care for her.

Hey in Newt does what Hillary did I'll be upset, I'm upset at any use of such language. And I bet that if anyone had said anything about it back then Newt would made amends. Hillary is silient.

BTW she gets creamed in the lastest ABC poll pitted against McCain (who of course would have to get the Rep nominations first which is iffy). Can any Democrat get an opposition campaign going against her?
 
Stinger said:
Hey in Newt does what Hillary did I'll be upset, I'm upset at any use of such language. And I bet that if anyone had said anything about it back then Newt would made amends. Hillary is silient.

BTW she gets creamed in the lastest ABC poll pitted against McCain (who of course would have to get the Rep nominations first which is iffy). Can any Democrat get an opposition campaign going against her?

The more I think about that statement she made, the more I am surprised. She comes off like a "middle of the road" person but then uses an extreme words like "plantation" in a speech.

Mark Warner will be putting his hat in the ring. Apparently, he had one fundraiser in Virgina where he raised $1 million. That's pretty impressive. He is a true moderate democrat. While he is well known and well liked in Virginia, I don't know if he can get the nomination.
 
Stinger said:
And as the Washington Times reports, as noted on NewsMAx

"As governor of Arkansas, Mr. Clinton signed a law in 1987 that says the top blue star in the state flag symbolizes the Confederacy. Then-Gov. Clinton also issued proclamations designating a birthday memorial for Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederacy.

"In addition, during his 12 years as governor, Mr. Clinton made no effort to overturn a state law that sets aside the Saturday before Easter as Confederate Flag Day."

In fact, life was so tough for African Americans on Bill and Hillary's Arkansas plantation that the NAACP sued Mr. Clinton under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965.

"Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates and other official acts that made voting harder for blacks," the Arkansas Gazette reported December 6, 1989.

The paper added: "the evidence at the trial was indeed overwhelming that the Voting Rights Act had been violated."


Well the liberal media make note of this? Don't hold your breath.

I don't regard the Moonie Paper as a valid source. Sorry. Sun Myung Moon and The Unification Church don't have very strong journalisitc credentials as far as I'm concerned.

images
 
Who cares? Who the hell cares if Hillary Clinton stoops so low as to use rhetoric in her speeches? Gee a politician uses rhetoric, imagine that! Maybe that's because you people keep falling for it?

Seventy years ago Democrats did this, but Republicans did that, good grief who the hell cares? Is that supposed to mean today's Republicans are somehow better than today's Democrats? Does that finally settle the debate over Civil rights? Evolution or intelligent design? Abortion? Gay rights? Gun control? Any political topic that's worth arguing about at all?? Please tell me how the civil rights support of Republicans seventy years ago has ONE IOTA to do with the civil rights support of today's Republicans. It doesn't. Ironically, all it does is propogate the ignorant and counterproductive "my team is better than your team" attitude that is the very reason BOTH PARTIES keep propogating this kind stupid rhetoric in the first place.

/rant off
 
Back
Top Bottom