Democrats Debate


Anyone watching the debate tonight? Discuss amongst yourselves here if so.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I cannot stay here, will be

I cannot stay here, will be back later but what absolute FIREWORKS that have already been set off between Obama and Hillary...

I do think Obama is going to get back to Hillary before the non-entity Edwards got in-between the answer she gave accusing Obama of being involved in slum landlord doings if I heard right...

Glorious!

As an aside real cute with the term green collar workers and our green economy...

To adapt the nursery

To adapt the nursery rhyme

Obama Rama, Puddin' and Pie,
Knocked the girl and made her cry,
When the boy came out to play
Hillary Pillary ran away.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

Hillary just got booed in

Hillary just got booed in response to Obama...

I LOVE it!

Folks!Folks!..Fire just shot

Folks!Folks!..Fire just shot out of Hillary's eyesockets!If looks could kill Obama'd be dead.

Obama is fighting fire with

Obama is fighting fire with fire between Little Eddie and Chipmunk Cheeks, bobble-headed Hill ....

She is really gonna' have Bill doing the dirty work tomorrow...which I am sure he is just itchin' to do.

Edwards and Hill are teaming up against Obama tonight...Little Eddie is a no-where man...he managed to get off the topic of illegal immigration with hospitals and health care....leave it to the leftists.

Slum Dunk

Just waiting on a boozed up Bill to crash the stage after Obama announces plans for a "Bubba Eruption" team.

Bill has a dream

Bill won't be making an appearance. He's napping, so don't make too much noise.

Barker.LoL...Bubba

Barker.LoL...Bubba Eruption.HaHaHaHa.Also look for Bill O'reilly to Bum-rush the stage and start shoving people. HA!

Excuse me for tying two

Excuse me for tying two threads together,but wouldn't John Edwards and Ryan Seacrest make a cute couple? I'm on a roll!

My GAWD...

what a train wreck this is, the wife is watching this elementary school debate. All I hear is they can't wait to get into office to give my hard earned money to someone else -- this is coming from all three of the "TOP" DIMocRATic candidates.

It's not the dim's fault that they mandated the banks loan to the minorities, it's the "BIG" business's fault for taking advantage of the "poor" people. 

Hold on to your wallets (and Purses) folks, if one of these people get into office, that biker chain attached to your wallet will not be strong enough to keep it safe. Gees, liberalism sucks.

Damn, what a way to end a decent day, GRRRR. I would probably not be upset if I was on the dole as well, but I am the dole for these slackers.

"Too bad Ignorance isn't painful..."

12 million?

12 million is the "estimated" number of illegal immigrants...does that number seem suspiciously low to anyone else?  Kind of like the opposite of the 655,000 dead in Iraq...

I thought there was something on the order of 20 million+ Mexicans in the United States. 

Hillary is talking about "shared responsibility" for "everyone".  The audience didn't applaud too loudly after she was done dictating...scary, scary stuff.

jpatch,

My rule of thumb when dealing with government numbers is to always multiply by 3.

This works whether it is the number of illegal fellons who have successfully invaded our country, as well as when it comes to estimating the actual cost of the latest government entitlement program.

Of course, 4 might be a little more accurate for that last item.

None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe

HRC  just said again that

HRC  just said again that the purpose of the surge was not to pacify the country, but to make the government get moving on the political front.

Listen to Petraeus

Hillary is SO January 07!

When these people so badly misinterpret public events, it makes me cringe. Petraeus has been very clear that the progress is starting in the provinces, and is working its way to the central government. As Ambassador Crocker testified, months ago, the central government is responding to the advances out in the provinces. The central government has been slow, but overall, the national reconciliation is moving steadily.

But Hillary doesn't care about the success of American foreign policy. She is glad to undermine and unravel the heroic and sophisticated efforts of our troops and diplomats there, just to please the Daily Kos crowd.

Not Watching

I really don't care about the democratic debates, they are aren't of much interest to me.

And now Obama is sounding

And now Obama is sounding unprepared, stumbling around, trying to explain all the things we could do with the money if we got out of Iraq. I can't believe anyone takes him seriously; he sounds like a 3rd grader doing an extemporaneous talk in front of the class.

His best point so far has been pointing out that Hillary and her husband keep attacking him LOL.

They just went to commercial, and my husband changed the channel.. Doubt it will be back on, so I'm done here. Enjoy, guys.

 

What Obama Is NOT Doing

If Obama were a Republican he would be finishing off the Clintons.

  • Have a problem with healthcare? What did you accomplish for 8 years?
  • Have a problem with energy prices? What did you do for 8 years to make us energy independent.
  • Have a problem with the economy? How did you leave it 8 years ago and with how much corporate corruption?

For the Clintons this is only a little taste of what is to come. 

 

 

Right and HRC claims that

Right and HRC claims that she was part of all that....so what DID she do?

Yeah, he turned it back on LOL...just in time to hear HRC say "shared prosperity for all " from "day one."

I just want to know whose prosperity she intends to "share."

Oh, gawd...Obama is talking about the American people being "desperate" now for a new direction or desperate for something...that I'm sure only he can deliver.

MB

It continually amazes me how the Dems want to charge blindly into Socialism. Surely these people understand what Mrs. Bill Clinton is saying.

Stultus est sicut stultus facit

Gat

Good points which are never brought up.I guess the media hasnt figured that out yet.

Now that's the most honest

Now that's the most honest thing Obama has said so far about Dem intentions concerning the GWOT. Just like Carter and Clinton's track record, Obama intends to gut the military budget and use it for social spending (to buy votes IMO). 

Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.

People.Don't forget

People.Don't forget Wrasslin's on the other station.Ha!

Obama was just asked if he

Obama was just asked if he thinks Bill Clinton was the "first black President."

I wish someone would ask HIM why he says he is black when he is half caucasian, and does he think it's disrespectful to his white mother to deny that part of his heritage.

 

I saw a comedian (I think it

I saw a comedian (I think it was a comedian) who talked about how it was no fair that black people got to claim Jason Kidd, Halle Berry, etc., when they were half white, too. It's an interesting point. 

I think the answer would be

I think the answer would be more interesting, if anyone had the gumption to ask it.

I believe Obama was raised mostly by his white grandparents.

BTW I don't know Jason Kidd, but Halle Berry claims she is black, so that's her choice. And that's after she was raised by her white mother, alone, because her black father abandoned them.

One word comes to mind: "expdiency"

You think Halle Berry

You think Halle Berry chooses to be black because it's easier?

Uhh, Bal, about Halle Berry.

I think you picked the wrong person for your little analogy here. 

Halle Berry could have claimed to be a green troll with yellow polka-dots and a hook nose, and it would have made absolutely no difference.

I mean, she is one seriously attractive lady.

None are so hopelessly enslaved as those who falsely believe they are free. -J.W. von Goethe

She is stunningly beautiful.

She is stunningly beautiful. Makes some odd movie choices, though.

Well, she chooses to

Well, she chooses to identify herself as black.

Not easier...."Expediency" also means "being suited to an end " and "a means of achieving a particular end."

You have to admit there is a certain "cachet" to being the first black actress to...do any number of things...including win an Oscar.

mother -- and Halle's mom

mother -- and Halle's mom also comes from my home town. Liverpool.

She was a nurse before leaving for the US. Had she stayed in England, Halle would most certainly have been identified as black.

She walked right past me at the Bond premiere to get to her seat in the Albert Hall, London. She's a stunner in the flesh, so to speak.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

"first Black president"

with all due respect to motherbelt - I'm also half black and half white - and I've always considered myself black - when you look at me, you don't see "white" anything - so I don't fault Obama for "disrespecting" his white heritage - I'm sure his mother told him the same thing my mom told me - that we are 'black'.

And trust me - I've tried to catch cabs, seen people lock their doors and clutch their purses when I walk by.

He's as black as any Black American in this country.

Obama's mother was white

Obama's mother was white and he didn't see his father after they were divorced. I don't think his mother would tell him he was black, when surrounded by his white family.

And I said he should be asked if he considered it disrepectful to his white mother.

 

 

I don't know that he would

I don't know that he would be "embraced" by the Black community for marrying a white woman- no you're probably right there. I married a white woman, and I know what it's like to get the flack from my Black friends and family. It's true that Black Americans engage in a serious level of reverse racism - in that they want to fight for equality in recognition, and are the first to point out racial differences. The same with these three - consistently pointing out our diffferences in order to promote equality. It's absurd.

But it doesn't change the fact, whether he's half white, or married a white wife, or whatever - where people who didn't know Barack Obama from a hole in the wall would look at his picture and say "That's a Black man."

Thanks for answering and

Thanks for answering and being so honest. I was a bit afraid to ask that because so many people, black and white, simply won't discuss things like that openly.

I agree with you that Obama would never be taken for other than a black man. I guess it troubles me a little, I admit, that he seems to, I don't know if the word is "disregard"....maybe "play down" the fact that half his heritage is caucasian. I guess I think he should be proud of both (or neither, if race doesn't matter).

I hate to sound preachy,

I hate to sound preachy, but the white liberals have fouled this whole country, race wise.

By that, I mean this is 2008. The rampant racism that ran through this country has, for the most part, calmed down. So in an effort to keep the racial fires stoked. Liberals have come up with all of these neat labels. African-American, Mexican American, Native American, and so on. That leads to discussions like this.

I can do you one better. On my dad's side, I have Irish and Cherokee Indian blood. On my mom's side French and German. That's too much to write, so I'm "just" an American. (although I have citizenship papers that make me a Texan!)

What I really wish would happen is a strong enough leader would appeal to people in this country to stop being hyphenated Americans. Again, liberals cased this to happen, making sure everyone would be broken up into groups and conquered. It has hurt the very people they claim they want to help, and has kept racial tensions strained.

We are ALL Americans plain and simple. Skin color, or the blood that runs through your veins shouldn't make you a better person, or a lesser one. Being an American is a great honor. Everyone of us is blessed by our Creator to have ended up here.

I know folks want to keep their heritage alive. It's part of us, who we are. It should be held close to your heart. But in the public arena, we should be one people: Americans.

Sorry to hijack your conversation nwophoenix.

I agree with you on one

I agree with you on one thing for sure....it's the liberals, who say race and ethnicity don't matter, who almost always point that out first. I hate the hyphenated stuff. Have you noticed that some of the "black leaders" have removed the hyphen so now its's African American, like an African who is American, or vice versa. I think that's even weirder. In that case I am an Italian American. Technically that means I am an American of Italian lineage.  ditto would go for an American of African heritage. That's too much of a title, so why not just be Americans?

 

Exactly! That's why I

Exactly!

That's why I wish someone with some political clout would tout this idea, before we rip this country apart. Of course, that's what the dims want, so they can break us all up into nice neat little bundles so there is no unity to fight against them.

Look at what the media is doing with the Republican race. They understand that it's the Republican, not the dim party, that is the big tent party. We are the ones that accept everyone. So the MSM has tried to back all of the different kinds of conservatives into a corner. Now we have "social" conservatives saying if their guy doesn't get the nod, they won't vote, or they will do something equally foolish. And on it goes.

Like I say the MSM isn't all that stupid. They have succeed in braking us up, and if we don't get back together, they win! This is a trial run on how they wish to work the entire country.

Be afraid, be very afraid!

Rampant racism

Rampant racism still exists because it's still promoted.  I don't think the base of the Democratic party promotes it.  However, black leaders such as Al Sharpton, (who I'm watching right now), perpetuate the message that blacks don't get a fair shake in society. 

In fact, I just saw a poll where blacks answer questions about where they see racism.  50% see it in the job market, 60% see it in a restaurant, etc.  I'm not sure if they are really seeing it or if they are looking for it, but there's no doubt they are perceiving it. 

Coupled with the continued propaganda by certain black leadership, there is likely some amount of peer pressure within the black community.  Even if a black man doesn't see racism himself, he may perceive the racism that his neighbor sees.  Or his classmate.  Or his co-worker.  I would imagine it would be very difficult for a black man at a church function with other blacks trying to convince them that racism is just perception rather than reality.  So it continues to propagate...and the cycle goes on.

Don't get me wrong.  Racism isn't just a black problem.  One of my white co-worker friends is dating a black man and her dad refuses to meet him.  I know a waitress that b*tches about serving blacks at her job.  So it continues to propagate...and the cycle goes on. 

As a conservative, I think our government has done enough, if not too much, to level the playing field in the workplace and in the schools.  Now, it's up to the people to learn how to solve race problems through civil discourse.  I just don't know if we will see that discourse in my lifetime. 

With most of my dealing in

With most of my dealing in drag racing, you kinda forget about barriers. We have women driving the same 330 mph race cars as men, and competing against them. We have two black super stars racing in the top class

We have women, both white and black, driving 190 mph motorcycles, and winning bigtime.

I guess I'm an idealist sometimes, but I wished the rest of the world worked like our sport, where getting it done is all that matters!

But wouldn't it be nice if

But wouldn't it be nice if he ever mentioned the woman who raised him. Just once, maybe he has, but I missed it. It's not like he was raised in the 'hood, homes.

Have YOU ever heard of any Presidential candidate who was absolutely silent about his MOTHER.

I think that's outrageous, pathetic and disgusting. And that tells me something about the man. And that's NOT GOOD. Honor your MOTHER, dude.

And by the way... I'd feel the same way if his mom was a blue smurf.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

motherbelt...defining

motherbelt...defining someone's race--or more explicitly--legally establishing one's "blackness" has deep, and regrettable, historical roots.  Moreover, this may come as a shock to you, but those who were most instrumental in authoring, codifying, and enforcing Jim Crow laws were not "liberals".

One of the laws which was designed to perpetuate segregation after the Civil War [primarily in, but not necessarily limited to, southern states] was a prohibition against intermarriage between the races.  Accordingly, in order to have a viable and enforceable statute, it was necessary to identify precisely who or what was or was not a Negro.  Most states adopted an arbitrary fractional formula which mandated that if one were of one-eighth black descent, he or she was deemed to be a Negro. Thus an indvidual could have seven white great-grandparents, but would be considered a black person if the eighth were a Negro.

Many of these miscegenation statutes, which often carried criminal penalties, remained on the books until the late 1960's.

Along with the broad successes of the civil rights movement in the 50's and 60's, and favorable court rulings, [culminating in the passage of federal civil rights legislation], there was a profound psychological transformation within the black community whereby one's "blackness" was no longer a reason--imposed by law or custom--for denial or shame, but a source of pride and self-assertion.  And I believe it remains a powerful, motivating force to this day.

So, one would do well to consider those historical factors when questioning why someone of bi-racial or multi-racial heritage "chooses" to be black.

Jer

 

 

Stopped in to see what was

Stopped in to see what was said about the rest of the debate that I didn't see, and I see that you dropped in five hours later to lecture me on race.

Jer, this may come as a shock to you, but in spite of not having a library of several hundred books, I am aware of miscengenation laws, the "one-drop" rule and other historical factors. I actually lived through the 60's Civil Rights movement, and the "Roots" and "Black is Beautiful" era of the 70's.

The biracial gentleman who answered my questions didn't take offense. He took them in the spirit of curiosity in which they were asked. Although he would have been more entitled than you to lecture me for asking, he didn't. And maybe you would do well to consider his assertion that

Black Americans engage in a serious level of reverse racism - in that they want to fight for equality in recognition, and are the first to point out racial differences.

I realize that it's politically incorrect to question the motives of anyone black. But in light of the fact that a significant portion of the black community has made Obama's race an issue in this election, I believe it is legitimate to ask the question that I did, and I don't need a lecture on what I would do well to consider before asking it.

 

motherbelt...as long as you

motherbelt...as long as you continue to make ludicrous, defamatory accusations that the Democratic party is racist [which you recently did on another thread], and further demonstrate an apparent lack of understanding regarding the historical influences impacting a bi-racial individual's "choice" to be black, then I will continue to defend and explain.

If you want to characterize it as lecturing, you're more than welcome to do so.

Jer

Jer, the Democrat Party IS racist

...and has been at least as far back as the race hatred and riots they deliberately fomented in NYC during the Civil War.

RJ...after agreeing with so

RJ...after agreeing with so much of what you have posted over the past few months, you trot out this absurdity from a century and a half ago.

About the only ones who weren't racists back then were the radical Republicans--the majority of whom today would probably be liberal Democrats.

Jer

Jer, that's not worthy of you

It's an "absurdity from a century and a half ago" because "everyone" was racist?    It's not relevant because "everyone was doing it?"   What a sad attempt at deflection, Jer.  

The fact is, the Democrat Party deliberately incited the hate and riots for power and political gain, not because "everyone is doing it."

RJ...and yet it's worthy of

RJ...and yet it's worthy of you to accuse the political party to which I belong of being "racist" because of lousy behavior 145 years ago?  That's truly sad, RJ.

Jer

You're sounding desperately defensive, Jer,

It's ok for you to negatively bring in (Republican) Lincoln's beliefs from the same era, but I can't do that with the Democrats?  The same Democrats, who, years after the Civil war, proclaimed themselves to be "The party of white men, north and south?"  

The NYC riots weren't an isolated incident, Jer.  The racist behavior of the Democrats continued throughout the last century.   Today, they act as if blacks are inferior beings, living on a "virtual plantation" and incapable taking care of themselves without the help of a benevolent "massa."

 

RJ...Check the thread...I

RJ...Check the thread...I wasn't the one who brought up Lincoln.

Defensive, maybe.  Desperate, not hardly.

Are you suggesting about 90% of black voters would allow themselves to be treated like slaves.  Wow!

Why don't we just dispense with all the "racist" claims.  It gets us nowhere.

Jer

Perhaps not, Jer, but you did comment

on him with a race-related characterization.  It's disingenuous to then claim that my follow-up with something from the same era is inappropriate.

victims (the lifeblood of the Democrat Party)  = soft racism of low expectations = modern day slaves

 

 

RJ, I don't know how this

RJ, I don't know how this got onto who was racist 150 years ago. My beef with Jer was her jumping in after the fact to lecture me on what I can and can't ask, with a presumption that I am uninformed on matters of race and needed to be "educated" about things I should "consider" before I ask them.

And Jer, if your definition of "racist" is that they consider race as a factor in everything, then yes, I accused the Democrat party of being racist.

 

 

I understand, motherbelt

....and I agree it was pompous of him.  Sorry if I altered your point. 

I don't know where it began, but Jer has also been "lecturing" about conservative historical racism on a couple of threads, including references to Lincoln, etc.  I jumped in when he claimed Democrats aren't racist.  

RJ...if it's pompous of me

RJ...if it's pompous of me to deny that I belong to a racist political party, then so be it.

I can handle the daily liberal bashing [I'm at a conservative site...it goes with the territory].  Nor does the relentless Clinton pounding bother me much [I engage in some of it myself]

But I have never trashed the Republican party or labeled it or any of it's members racists.  And I am offended by accusations that Democrats and the contemporary Democratic party are racists.  As long as I'm here, I'll defend myself and the party against what I feel are completely unfounded charges.

Jer  

Jer, the "pompous" statement was directed

at your lecturing motherbelt personally about racism, not that you belong to a racist political party.    ;^>

Thanks for the clarification, RJ.

Thanks for the clarification, RJ.  I'm late for my golf lesson.  See you later.

Jer

ludicrous, defamatory

ludicrous, defamatory accusations???  Explain.

defend and explain? Who are you defending? I didn't attack anyone; why would anyone need defending?

 

motherbelt..."the Democrat party

"...the Democrat party is still racist...They are the ones who treat blacks like slaves..."

I believe those are your words, motherbelt.  Maybe you don't consider it an attack....I do.

Jer

You'll have to produce the

You'll have to produce the entire post so that I can see the context.

But they do treat blacks as slaves...they assume, as RJ also said, that they can't take care of themselves and need benevolent Democrats to help them. In my opinion, that's a racist attitude.

If you wish to characterize it as an attack, you are more than welcome to do so.

→ Bingo, MB

To quote Larry Elder:  Patronizing condescension.

Pat them on the head and tell them:  "Big Daddy Byrd is gonna look out for you people"

I ♣ My Seal

, but those who were most

, but those who were most instrumental in authoring, codifying, and enforcing Jim Crow laws were not "liberals".

But they were Democrats.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

True...their party label

True...their party label was "Democrat", and their ideology was "conservative".

Jer

Who says racism is a

Who says racism is a conservative ideology?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Who says racism is a conservative

Who says racism is a conservative ideology?

Not me...but there have been plenty of accusations flying around here that Democrats and liberals are racists.

Jer

Ok...

Were they democrats or not?

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

→ MightyMouth

I didn't know there was any question.  Dems are extremely condescendingly patronizingly more racist than Republicans.

I ♣ My Seal

Cool, Quick question

Cool,

Quick question then.

Why is so much of America's racism concentrated in the red states?

Where are all the liberals with the Stars and Bars on the back of their early '90s pick-up trucks?

Will the KKK vote for Obama or McCain?

→ Leon

Will the KKK vote for Obama or McCain?

I honestly don't know Leon.  Ask Kleagle Byrd how you're supposed to vote.

I ♣ My Seal

Cool, Thanks for

Cool,

Thanks for insinuating that I'm in the KKK.  Sorry I live in the northeast, we don't get into all that hillbilly trash.

Jerk.

Sorry you have an indefensible, unfounded attack against Dems.  You point to one guy that was a complete piece of garbage 60 years ago. 

You have one Dem.  Now, how many Republicans were against civil rights again? 

You have one Dem. Now,


You have one Dem. Now, how many Republicans were against civil rights again?

Rather than argue with you, Leon, I'll give you the vote totals from the original Civil Rights Act of 1964, which LBJ could not have gotten passed without the Republicans in Congress:

In favor of, with percentages, from Wikipedia

The original House version:

  • Democratic Party: 164-96 (64%-39%)
  • Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

  • Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
  • Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

  • Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
  • Republican Party: 186-35 (80%-20%)

 

 

MB, Thanks for the

MB,

Thanks for the research.  I hadn't seen those numbers before.

Looks like both parties had their fair share of racists.

The most important question still hasn't been answered yet.

What percentage of those who voted against civil rights were LIBERAL?

-

Not sure how far this can go, Leon. President Kennedy was not a liberal by today's standards. In fact, it's not clear there were any "liberals", by today's definition, in the White House or Congress.

There were, however, Democrats and the record of some of them on race issues is not great. Trying to change their label is not going to change their record.

Leon, don't get caught up in

Leon, don't get caught up in labels. Someone here is claiming that sure, Democrats were against civil rights, but they were conservatives then. Labels don't matter, as has been shown in this thread where the "labels" switched sides. What you call a particular philosophy doesn't matter...it's deeds that matter.

North?  Like Boston? Is

North?  Like Boston?

Is that the same America that has the state of Massachusettsone of the great bastions of liberalism Boston.

Now lets say you are in Boston in 1974..

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/RefMedia.aspx?refid=461543499&artrefid=761557136&sec=-1&pn=1

 

Can you say KKK around Boston??

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,913476,00.html

Today the Boston Public Schools are 86% African American and Hispanic. According to the 2000 census, Boston's white population is 54.48%, where as Boston's black and Hispanic populations together total 39.77%

 

 

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc. Ronald Reagan- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

→ Sorry, Leon

I couldn't pass that up.  I hope you know I don't really believe you're KKK.

Sorry, but Byrd is a complete piece of garbage even today.

Once, in my memory, has a US Senator verbally attacked a private citizen from the Senate floor.  Coyuld it possibly be Robert Byrd taking the opportunity to trash Michael Vick?  BTW, Michael Vick is African American.

In case you missed it you've gotta see it.  Here's the link 

I ♣ My Seal

How many Republicans were

How many Republicans were against "civil rights."

Glad you asked. Less than Democrats.

And by the way, 1963 was not 100 years ago. Though I do understand you and Jer's knowledge of history stops at 2001. So allow me to educate you with some facts, as opposed to your "feelings" about what constitutes "conservatism."

In the twenty-six major civil rights votes since 1933, a majority of Democrats OPPOSED civil rights legislation in over 80 % of the votes. By contrast, the REPUBLICAN MAJORITY FAVORED civil rights in over 96 % of the votes.

Civil Rights Act 1964: Note how the REPUBLICANS vote in far higher numbers FOR the act than DEMOCRATS.

The original House version: Democratic Party: 153-96 (61%-39%). Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%).

The Senate version: Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%). Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%).

The Senate version, voted on by the House: Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%) Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%).

Now let's get to the Voting Rights act of 1964;

FACT: Overwhelmingly Republicans and Northern Democrats supported the legislation. It was filibustered by: 1 Republican and 21 DEMOCRATS.

Check out my exclusive edit of BBC News America's interview with Mrs Clinton: It's news to me!

Jack...If we got into a

Jack...If we got into a history contest, it just wouldn't be a fair fight, kid.  Yes, as I told Blazer the other day, I did cut a lot of classes before getting my degree, but I attended enough and read enough to run circles around you. 

So why don't you just exit gracefully and don't embarrass yourself.

Jer

Listen to him Jack, Jer

Listen to him Jack, Jer must have different voting numbers than the ones you and mother made up. Go ahead Jer post your numbers.

"There are two types of people in this country; those who provide freedom and those who enjoy it." MM says...

Give it up, guys. I'm still

Don't hold your breath, guys. I'm still waiting for Jer to post the comment where I supposedly said ..."the Democrat party is still racist...They are the ones who treat blacks like slaves..."

I truly don't recall every using those words in a post..mainly because I don't recall ever discussing Democratic racism in the past, which would be a necessity if I said they are "still" racist.

Update at 1325:

Having some time on my hands, I tracked my recent comments and found this, which I posted in the "Russert Sees BillClinton as Racially Divisive" thread on the 19th:

Amen, KC. I agree wholeheartedly with you. That was Bill Clinton's "glory days" moment. But not because it was a racist attack; he was ticked off that he might lose the election because of some big-mouthed rapper. And, being the political animal that he is, his loyalties change on a dime, depending on what's advantageous for him.


I agree with mostlymoderate above that the biggest racists are the likes of the Righteous Revs, but the Democrat party is still racist, IMO. They are the ones who treat blacks like slaves,

so Jer was right: I did say it. But here is the rest of my post, which supplies the context that Jer blithely ignored:


they take their votes for granted.

Jackson and Sharpton said welfare reform would devestate the black community; Clinton signed it anyway, because his political life depended on it (another example of throwing his black constituency overboard); but they stayed on the plantation. Clinton fought relentlessly against school choice (which is favored by over 70% of black parents but opposed by the teachers' unions) and still the blacks stayed on the plantation. So the Clintons and their buddies think they are in their pockets forever (they think: what are they going to do...vote Republican? HAHAHA!) The two reverends don't really care about the black community at large, just about their power within it, and within politics.

That's why the Clintons feel secure in basically dissing blacks right now and stting their sights on the new power brokers: Eli Pariser, Markos "screw them" Moulitsas and their followers.

End Previous Post

New: Everything I said about what Clinton did to his black constituency is true. The Democrats take their votes for granted.

From that I deduced that Democrats are racist, since they abuse their supposed friends in the black community and expect them to remain loyal, because they think blacks need the Democrat party in order to "succed." And it is my opinion that if Sharpton and Jackson really cared about black families, they would be fighting for school choice.

That is my opinion, and I stand by it.

 

Okay motherbelt...I'm back

Okay motherbelt...I'm back from my golf lesson [still hitting way too far "right"...obviously spending too much time at this site.  So, I'm planning to devote the next eight hours to reading nothing but dKos diaries.].

I guess you can be forgiven for your memory lapse.  After all, the statements I quoted were posted by you over two whole days ago. [January 20, 2008...08:41 ET in connection with blog entry entitled Russert Sees Bill Clinton as 'Racially Divisive'...]

Take a few minutes, review your comments, and then tell me if they were posted by some other "motherbelt", or if I misinterpreted context, or there is perhaps another explanation.

Oh, if you and your buddies have been holding your breath, please feel free to exhale.

Jer

 

 

 

motherbelt...just noticed

motherbelt...just noticed we cross-posted.  All I can say is...if backpedaling while engaging in feverish rationalization were an Olympic event, you'd have a pocketful of gold.

Jer

Excuse me Jer, we did NOT

Excuse me Jer, we did NOT cross-post...my post was there 20 whole minutes before yours. You apparently didn't bother to read before you wrote.

And I did not back-pedal, unless you're counting my admission that I said what you quoted as backpedalling. I call it admitting that I did something. I told you in another thread that when I'm shown mistaken, I say "I stand corrected." Is there something sneaky or underhanded about that? And you didn't "mistinterpret&quo