Opponent denies calling Clinton ugly

[Plane]

Needless to say, it was the OLD "Aunt Jemima" to whom I was comparing Condoleeza Rice, and needless to say, the two bear no physical resemblance to one another at all.

It was hilarious to read plane's and sirs' accusations of racism.  Two Republicans screaming "racism" at an attack on blacks who join the racists' team.   Once again, fooling absolutely nobody with their amateurish and juvenile sophistry.

Democrats and others can get away with saying anything because it is not possible that they are racist .

Republicans who do good things and say good things are not fooling anybody , you have to be a racist to be a Republican.


So you can use racial attacks and epithets against a minority member with impunity , because you are not a Republican and you are not possibly a racist?

[Michael Tee]

<<Democrats and others can get away with saying anything because it is not possible that they are racist.>>

(a) that's ridiculous; (b) I never said anything like that; (c) of course it's possible.  However, since most racists today are in the Republican Party, that's why all the racist remarks in the campaign to date have come from the Republicans and that's why they are catching so much flak for their racism.  Senator Macacawitz and the RNC for its Tennessee ads are the two that come to mind, but I'm sure there are plenty of others.  And NO Democrats.  That is no coincidence.

<<Republicans who do good things and say good things are not fooling anybody , you have to be a racist to be a Republican.>>

First of all, I have to say there aren't too many Republicans who "do good things" although I am sure there are more who "say good things."  I'm not impressed by what they say - - I'm more impressed by what they do.  I'm more impressed by actual facts - - like the Republican Party being the party of Trent Lott and Senator Macacawitz and the RNC's Tennessee TV ads.  God-damn right the Republicans don't fool anybody.  Why are all the racists drawn to them?


<<So you can use racial attacks and epithets against a minority member with impunity , because you are not a Republican and you are not possibly a racist?>>

Wrong again.  "Aunt Jemima" and "Uncle Tom" are not racial attacks - - they're attacks on people who ally themselves with racists.  That means they are the opposite of racist.  It's just like you conservatives though to try to turn reality around, so that the fighters against racism become accused of racism themselves.  You are not fooling anybody.

[BT]

Fighters against racism don't practice racism.

[Plane]

"Wrong again.  "Aunt Jemima" and "Uncle Tom" are not racial attacks - - they're attacks on people who ally themselves with racists."


What kind of people who ally themselves with Racists?  What kind of racist?


Would you call Elijah Muhammad or J.B. Stoner an Uncle Tom?


http://home.att.net/~phosphor/week1a/message.html

[Michael Tee]

BT:  <<Fighters against racism don't practice racism. >>

That's correct.  But it doesn't mean they are stupid enough to ignore the race of an individual either.  That's an old racist trick and it won't work any more. 

Nobody is arguing that because Condoleeza Rice is black, she does not have the freedom to join any party she chooses.  However, if she chooses to associate herself with the party of racism in America (and let's face it, folks, of the two major parties, the Republicans are the party which attracts most, if not all, of the racists in America, by no accident) then it's a particularly despicable act, because while most white racists are racist through a combination of ignorance, stupidity and upbringing, she as a black person is very likely to be unable to avail herself of the ignorance and upbringing excuses, while as an individual, IMHO, she is also not a stupid person.

You are therefore left with the inescapable conclusion that Condi has deliberately chosen a racist party NOT because she agrees with its policies towards black people (how could she?) but purely for personal advantage.  She knows how much a racist party needs a few blacks for window-dressing and she sells herself for that purpose.  Knowing how much racism hurts people just like her, it also shows a stunning lack of empathy for her own people, and folks tend naturally to despise a traitor, they instinctively know there is something wrong with a person who turns his back on his people to seek his fortune with their enemies.  They are the lowest of the low.

Conservatives are masters of bullshit.  They have to be, since the interests they serve are not the interests of most Americans and most people would instinctively recognize that.  So they spend enormous amounts of energy twisting and convoluting the truth, standing it on its head so to speak.  So that the obvious act of betrayal by somebody like Condoleeza Rice has to be defended, goes without saying.  How?  Stand the whole thing on its head.  Anybody making the most obvious observation: How unnatural to find a black supporting the party of racism! is himself accused of racism.  Brilliant!  "Why is Condi black?  Gee, we never noticed that.  Only a racist like you would make an issue of it.  What difference is it what colour her skin is?"  That's the 21st Century's version of "What?  Does the poll tax act against black people?  We just wanted to raise a few bucks from every voter.  Only a racist like you would want to know what colour skin belongs to those who can't pay."

Sorry, BT.  Won't wash.  It don't work no more.  Try a different line of bullshit.  One we haven't seen before.

[The_Professor]

MT, I find your logic to be faulty and your accusations to be unproven.

As an example, I am a Republican because I am a conservative, both socially and fiscally (not seen these days very often). The Democratic Party does not welcome folks like me. Where would be my place there? They SAY they have a big tent, but it is only for those special interests they allow to enter the tent.

So, becuase I am a Republican , then it follows I must be a racist. Interesting, considering I am 1/4 Cherokee, huh?

Be honest here: there are racists unfortunately in both parties (and other Parties as well). By your train of logic, then northern Republicans like Chafee are racists as well...

[sirs]

So, becuase I am a Republican , then it follows I must be a racist. Interesting, considering I am 1/4 Cherokee, huh?  Be honest here: there are racists unfortunately in both parties (and other Parties as well). By your train of logic, then northern Republicans like Chafee are racists as well...

I think Tee is trying to apply that anyone who associates with the GOP, must then by design either be racist or condone racism, because in his upside down world, the GOP embraces racists, despite when obvious racists are condemned if not thrown out of the party.  And since his vision of racism is so broad as it relates to the GOP, any questionable comment can be deemed racist, thus his ability to then apply his keen rationalization ability, & conclude how the GOP is the racist party. 

And by Dem design since minority races are by design in the minority, whatever obvious & overt racist comments they make, be it by Wrangel, Sharpton, Waters, Jackson, etc., are not really racist becuase they're the minority.  When caricatures and offensive cartoons are made to distort a person's looks via they're race, that isn't racist either, because by Tee design, they work for a racist party, so it's ok to racially demean her at that point

[Michael Tee]

<<MT, I find your logic to be faulty and your accusations to be unproven.

<<. . .
<<So, becuase I am a Republican , then it follows I must be a racist. Interesting, considering I am 1/4 Cherokee, huh?>>

Professor, it's not MY logic that's faulty.  Because I say that the Republican Party appeals to racists, does not mean that I am saying that everybody in it is a racist. 

For example, my reasoning does not lead me to conclude that the Republicans here, say yourself or BT or plane or even sirs are racists.   However, I certainly think it must be difficult for you to live within a party whose southern strategy explicitly hopes to enlist Southern Democrats who are disenchanted with their party because of its move towards racial equality., let alone the tolerance it shows towards openly racist members, such as Trent Lott and Sen. Macacawitz.  Where is the line between racism and tolerance of racism?  Speaking personally, my conscience would never permit me to be a part of the Republican Party  even were I to agree with it on all policy matters other than racism.  To me, the bona fides of any Republican Party member who claims to be non-racist is highly suspect.

And BTW, membership, especially partial membership, in a visible minority is no guarantee against racism.  Senator Macacawitz himself is, to my deepest shame and disgust, partially Jewish.  Heinrich Himmler was one-quarter Jewish.  Sometimes the hardest and longest and fastest running we do is to escape from our own backgrounds.

[Plane]

 "...the Republicans are the party which attracts most, if not all, of the racists in America, by no accident)... "


I consider this to be a false Premise.


It seems to be a widely accepted false premise.


Lester Maddox never felt compelled to leave the Democratic Party , as Govenor and as Lt Govenor he served well and did not particularly harm the Progress of Civil Rights , tho his retoric never changed as long as he lived.


Jimmy Carter became our Govenor as a Democrat, giveing to the public the impression that he was more apt to hold the line against civil rights than Bo Calloway  , we will never know what Bo would have done but he campaigned honestly as a Republican in favor of change , Carter campained as a Democrat and seemed to reverse himself when in office.


I think that the Premise that Republicans reaped the harvest of racist and disaffected Democrats is demonstrably untrue , in those years there was George Wallace to get and measure those voters , what that vote amounts to can be seen in the amount of support  that George Wallace  enjoyed.

[sirs]

"...the Republicans are the party which attracts most, if not all, of the racists in America, by no accident)... "

I consider this to be a false Premise.  It seems to be a widely accepted false premise.

I think that the Premise that Republicans reaped the harvest of racist and disaffected Democrats is demonstrably untrue , in those years there was George Wallace to get and measure those voters , what that vote amounts to can be seen in the amount of support  that George Wallace  enjoyed.

Especially when you consder how such overt racists, like David Duke are condemned, yet the innuendo is that the GOP is apparently full of closet racists and subtle racists.  And then on the flip side, when you have blatant overt racist comments from the likes of Sharpton, Brazile & Jackson, their comments are rationalized as not being racist, because apparently being part of the minority allows for such rhetoric

[BT]

Mikeys rants against Republicans is reminiscent of Hitlers rants against the Jews.

Sadly ironic.

[Michael Tee]

<<I think Tee is trying to apply that anyone who associates with the GOP, must then by design either be racist or condone racism, because in his upside down world, the GOP embraces racists, despite when obvious racists are condemned if not thrown out of the party. >>

That's simply not true.  Both Trent Lott and Senator Macacawitz are obviously STILL in the Party.  And who was thrown off the RNC for its racist ads in the Tennessee Senatorial race?  You are just making stuff up as you go along.  You'd have to be a Klansman in full regalia to get thrown out of the Republican Party for racism.

<<And since his vision of racism is so broad as it relates to the GOP, any questionable comment can be deemed racist, thus his ability to then apply his keen rationalization ability, & conclude how the GOP is the racist party. >>

What's questionable about "macaca" and "Welcome to the real America?" directed at a young dark-skinned man?  What's questionable about wishing for a Strom Thurmond Presidential victory?  Anybody here not know what Strom Thurmond stood for?  What's questionable about stuffing a severed deer's head in a black family's mailbox or keeping Confederate flags and nooses in your office?  The problem is not that my vision of racism is "so broad," it's that yours is impossibly narrow.  You'd probably find some way to claim that a lynch mob wasn't really racist if one of your beloved Republicans were to be caught leading one.

<<And by Dem design since minority races are by design in the minority, whatever obvious & overt racist comments they make, be it by Wrangel, Sharpton, Waters, Jackson, etc., are not really racist becuase they're the minority. >>

Oh, really?  Maybe you could find out where I said that?  Because I don't recall saying it.  You're going to get a reputation just like sirs if you keep that up, another bullshit artist who can't back up a word of what he claims I said.

 <<When caricatures and offensive cartoons are made to distort a person's looks via they're race, that isn't racist either, because by Tee design, they work for a racist party, so it's ok to racially demean her at that point >>

See my last comment.  I never said that and I never approved of any cartoon that demeaned anyone solely on the basis of their looks.  I try to keep these exchanges polite but if you're going to claim that I said things I never said, and then fail to back it up with a single post, I'm going to have to call you out as a liar and a bullshitter, just like our friend.  I hope it doesn't come to that.  Dig up the example and I'll apologize but otherwise take it back.

[Plane]

    I am willing to take your word for it ,that you would not approve of a cartoon that used steriotypeing of a racist nature .


      Why not ?  You are clearly stateing here and now that you disapprove of racialy insensitive  caricature .


      I am puzzled tho that you do not feel the same about racially insensitive retoric , what makes the diffrence?

[Amianthus]

You'd have to be a Klansman in full regalia to get thrown out of the Republican Party for racism.

I'm not so sure even that would get you thrown out of the Democratic party. Has Byrd ever renounced his position in the Klan?

[sirs]

That's simply not true.  Both Trent Lott and Senator Macacawitz are obviously STILL in the Party

AND............?  The worst you can apply to either of them were inappropriate comments.  I can't count how many times Lott apologized for his.  Now, care to show some pattern that makes them racist, or are you going to stick to 1 selected sounbite each, and by power of Tee-duction, as being members of the GOP, proclaim they're racist? 

BTW, has Senator Byrd apologised yet?  I seem to remember his inappropriate comments, not to mention his inappropriate membership in the KKK.  I seem to recall that he's still a member of the Senate.  Have I simply been missing your demands for his resignation??, for the party to toss him out??

What's questionable about "macaca" and "Welcome to the real America?" directed at a young dark-skinned man?

Because it was directed at a member of his opposing candidate, that had been hounding him, as well as his explaination for his using the adjective.  Come-on Tee, this isn't so hard.  Show us where he called the dark skinned man the N word.  Show us where he implies that this is a chocolate america.....oh wait, wrong racist

The problem is not that my vision of racism is "so broad," it's that yours is impossibly narrow

No, you have that bass-ackwards.  I condemn anyone that uses race as the selling block to their trying to get elected.  I condemn anyone that claims 1 race should lead a city over any other.  I condemn anyone who calls the another racist, for simply being a different skin pigment.  I criticize anyone who claims that the sole reason for their misery is simply the color of their skin.  You keep selecting single soundbites, and just like the "whole military is one big abusive machine" garbage, claim that particular person must be a racist, as well as paint any & everyone associated with that group as what you've concluded they all are.  That's refered to as broadbrushing, with the broadside of a barn as big as the Great wall of China I might add.

Maybe you could find out where I said that?  Because I don't recall saying it

Probably because I never said you "said so"  Noticed I said by "Dem design", not by "Tee-design"

I never said that and I never approved of any cartoon that demeaned anyone solely on the basis of their looks

LOL....and there comes the rationalizing "out".  Such cartoons are approved of by you by rationalized conclusions that go beyond just "their looks".  Your priceless Tee.  You, Lanya, & Terra, are indeed priceless