Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/19/2002 9:32:49 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (Dec. 19) - Former President Clinton says Republicans are hypocritical for berating Senate Republican leader Trent Lott about his insensitive comments on race. ``How can they jump on him when they're out there repressing, trying to run black voters away from the polls and running under the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina?'' Clinton said Wednesday in New York. ``I mean, look at their whole record. He just embarrassed them by saying in Washington what they do on the backroads every day.''
View Quote
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 9:43:09 AM EDT
I am a Republican, and I am not a racist.
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 9:44:13 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ArmdLbrl:
WASHINGTON (Dec. 19) - Former President Clinton says Republicans are hypocritical for berating Senate Republican leader Trent Lott about his insensitive comments on race. ``How can they jump on him when they're out there repressing, trying to run black voters away from the polls and running under the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina?'' Clinton said Wednesday in New York. ``I mean, look at their whole record. He just embarrassed them by saying in Washington what they do on the backroads every day.''
View Quote
View Quote
This from a serial phalanderer, sodomist, rapist and liar...
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 9:46:08 AM EDT
More from Bill: [url]http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20021219/ap_on_go_co/lott_clinton_1[/url]
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 9:48:54 AM EDT
Posted by W-W...
This from a serial philanderer, sodomist, rapist and liar...
View Quote
Don't forget impeached perjurer!
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 10:00:48 AM EDT
BenDover: Bill Clinton's are communist faggots
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 10:05:39 AM EDT
Don't forget scum and traitor that sold nuclear secrets to the Chi-Coms in exchange for campaign donations. Rancid Lance
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 10:08:34 AM EDT
People still bother to hear what he has to say? Really, I figured people would've learned their lesson by now...
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 10:22:35 AM EDT
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 10:29:30 AM EDT
Normally you can ignore what the bastard has to say. But not this time. He made a general attack on ALL Republicans, individually. Any person who is a regestered Republican. And his butt buddies in the media chose to air this attack. How can you ignore that?
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 11:42:23 AM EDT
I'll be the only Republican here to say it but Clinton is a right! Lott is from the same Good Ol' Boy Racist network that runs the high ranks of the Republican party. I said it last night over diner, any non-white that votes Republican with these Good Ol' Boy Racist's still running the show is an idiot. All those Old Southern Republicans need to shut their mouth because they make it really hard for us Western State Republicans to convince non-whites to vote Republican. Yes, Minorities like low taxes and control over their own lives. They hate welfare and all the other social programs because it also increases their taxes. No one wants to pay for someone else's lifestyle. Everyone wants freedom to control their own lives and pay check. However, none of them are going to vote for a leadership that is fundamentally racist. Get rid of these Southern Bigots and maybe more Western States would go Republican. We have the sales pitch, just the wrong salesmen!
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 12:12:57 PM EDT
Granted, 90% of all Blacks are Democrats, which leaves about 10% of them Republicans. But.....are those 10% racists too?[:\]
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 12:25:31 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2002 12:27:06 PM EDT by NAKED-GUNMAN]
Mr_Mullen, How in the heck do you know what "white southern" Republicans think? How do you see from atop your ivory perch there in Kaliforinia? Good ole boy racist network? From the Republican party? Really? So, Bill Clinton was'nt a "racist" either? After he was sued in the late 1980s by the NAACP's Legal Defense Fund for failing to enforce the Voting Rights Act in Arkansas, then-Gov. Bill Clinton suggested to a group of pro-segregation whites that they were being unfairly targeted by civil rights laws as a result of the South's loss in the Civil War, according to one-time Clinton administration Civil Rights Division nominee Lani Guinier. "In the late 1980s, in a particularly tense meeting in southeastern Arkansas - a section of the Mississippi Delta region where antebellum social relations are still in many respects the order of the day - [Guinier's friend] Dayna [Cunningham] and a local LDF cooperating lawyer were part of a handful of black people there to discuss remedies for a highly contentious LDF voting rights suit," wrote Guinier in her 1998 memoir, "Lift Every Voice." "The meeting turned sour when one of the local whites demanded to know why, in his view, the whites were always made to pay for others' problems. Other whites in the group began to echo his charge. ..." Guinier continued: "Bill Clinton, the lead defendant in the case, took to the podium to respond. In a tone of resignation, Clinton said, 'We have to pay because we lost.'" Guinier said Cunningham inferred that Clinton was referring to the South's Civil War loss as well as his loss in the court case. "Clinton had so irresponsibly pandered to the backwards feeling of the white constituency" in his speech about the voting rights lawsuit, Cunningham told Guinier. News of Clinton's attempt to pander to Arkansas whites who were angry that he'd lost a lawsuit for not enforcing the Voting Rights Act comes just hours after the ex-president accused Republicans of doing the same thing. "They try to suppress black voting, they ran on the Confederate flag in Georgia and South Carolina, and from top to bottom the Republicans supported it," Clinton said of the GOP on Wednesday, when asked to comment on the continuing Trent Lott flap. In fact, the Arkansas state flag added a single star above the state's name in 1923 to commemorate its membership in the Confederacy, a design that remained unaltered throughout Clinton's five terms as governor. After tapping Guinier for the top Justice Department civil rights post in 1993, Clinton abruptly yanked her nomination after critics labeled her a "Quota Queen." Guinier said she felt betrayed by Clinton, whom she considered a friend since their days together at Yale Law School, and was angered when he called her "anti-democratic" in a nationally televised address announcing he was scuttling her nomination. What kind of ascenine broad brush statement have you made? Southern biggots? How in the hell would you know? [b]You agree with Bill CLinton?[/b] Which part? You need a nice cup of stfu... I think you need to research subjects before you open you mouth with idiot sychophant statements. You're a Republican? Time for you to switch parties.. [b][blue]NAKED[/blue][/b] Also FYI..[b]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.[/b]
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 12:32:41 PM EDT
More...for the "supposed" racist Republican party. Diane Alden Newsmax reporter Saturday, Dec. 14, 2002 Republicans, conservatives and constitutionalists always find themselves on the defensive in regard to civil rights issues. No matter what they do, will do or have ever done, the left, Democrats and contrarians demonize them as racists. By demonizing Republicans and conservatives the left can continue to impose the big lie, which will be accepted as gospel by minorities, whom Democrats believe "owe" them. For the Record At the 100th birthday party of former segregationist Sen. Strom Thurmond, Sen. Trent Lott oozed flattery and camaraderie and said that it might have been a good thing if Thurmond had become president when he ran in 1948. I don't like Trent Lott, mostly for reasons having to do with public policy and his limp-wristed behavior as a Senate majority leader. It is true that Lott should have known better. The politically correct police just wait for Republicans to say dumb things and Lott obliged them. One more time Republicans are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. But after all, Lott was a Democrat when he was a young guy making foolish statements at the University of Mississippi. You would be hard-pressed to find a single Republican in any Southern school of that era. Like many middle-aged Southerners of his generation, as a youth he was not an exemplary champion of civil rights. Nonetheless, Lott continues to get elected to the U.S. Senate from Mississippi by a significant number of blacks in addition to whites. Perhaps it is the rural nature of the state. Perhaps it is that rural blacks do not make a profession of holding grudges against whites who made statements or did things in their youth that they have come to regret. Never forget that Bill Clinton went to Moscow during the Vietnam War and gave aid and comfort to the enemy. Never forget his unabashed hatred of the military, which was reflected in his remarks as an anti-war protester. The people who voted for him forgave him, twice. In any event, since there has not been major civil rights legislation since the '60s, it is disingenuous to predict how Lott would have voted. Unfortunately, the left believes if you don't vote for massive transfer payments from one group to another or high taxes, then you must be a racist. If you don't believe in preference for any group of Americans or the expansion of government programs, then you must be racist. Lott is guilty of a great many things, but being a racist is not one of them. Now, if Democrats want to beat up on Lott because he continually exhibits foot-in-mouth disease, Lott will have to stand behind a whole bunch of Democrats who have said and done far worse. Republicans on the Record What does the record say about Republicans and the battle for civil rights and specifically for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Public Law 88-352)? Since Abraham Lincoln, Republicans have been there for blacks when it counted. Nevertheless, Democrats invariably take all the credit for the success of the civil rights movement and invariably fail to give any credit to Republicans. In fact, the civil rights movement was not about politics. Nor was it about which politicians did what and which political party should take the most credit. When it came to civil rights, America's politicians merely saw the handwriting on the wall and wrote the legislation to make into federal law the historical changes that had already taken place. There was nothing else they could do. The movement of blacks to the North, as well as their contributions as fighting men in the world wars, plus the hard work of millions of blacks and their families and churches, along with the efforts of many private groups and individuals made the civil rights movement succeed. Civil rights for blacks found its historical moment after 1945. Bills introduced in Congress regarding employment policy brought the issue of civil rights to the attention of representatives and senators. In 1945, 1947 and 1949, the House of Representatives voted to abolish the poll tax restricting the right to vote. Although the Senate did not join in this effort, the bills signaled a growing interest in protecting civil rights through federal action. The executive branch of government, by presidential order, likewise became active by ending discrimination in the nation's military forces and in federal employment and work done under government contract. Harry Truman ordered the integration of the military. However, his Republican opponent in the election of 1948, Tom Dewey, was just as strong a proponent for that effort as any Democrat. As a matter of fact, the record 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. [See http://www.congresslink.org/civil/essay.html and http://www.yale.edu/ynhti/curriculum/units/1982/3/82.03.04.x.html
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 12:36:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr_Mullen: I'll be the only Republican here to say it but Clinton is a right! Lott is from the same Good Ol' Boy Racist network that runs the high ranks of the Republican party. I said it last night over diner, any non-white that votes Republican with these Good Ol' Boy Racist's still running the show is an idiot. All those Old Southern Republicans need to shut their mouth because they make it really hard for us Western State Republicans to convince non-whites to vote Republican. Yes, Minorities like low taxes and control over their own lives. They hate welfare and all the other social programs because it also increases their taxes. No one wants to pay for someone else's lifestyle. Everyone wants freedom to control their own lives and pay check. However, none of them are going to vote for a leadership that is fundamentally racist. Get rid of these Southern Bigots and maybe more Western States would go Republican. We have the sales pitch, just the wrong salesmen!
View Quote
The concept of "states rights" has been used in the past to pass Jim Crow laws. It's mere mention by a southern politician get's the adverse reaction and rightly so. They abused state's rights to the detriment of us all. If we are to ever bring back the basic concepts of state's rights, which are essentially the Bill of Rights, we need to have spokesmen that are not from the South. They need to STFU and let others lead. There's is a history of pandering to the lowest common denominator in their constituency and it always comes back to bite them on the ass. Getting these good ol boys out of the spotlight (if not out of the Congress) will only help in the long run and point up the fact that the bigots and racists of the liberal democratic party have gotten a free ride and need to be slapped down also.
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 12:40:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2002 12:44:30 PM EDT by NAKED-GUNMAN]
More..for the CLinton defender. I can't believe someone actually defends the former [b]IMPEACHED[/b] liar on ARFcom..unreal. With Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff For the story behind the story... Wednesday, Dec. 27, 2000 6:38 p.m. EST Clinton Caught Fibbing About Race Record - Again There he goes again, trying to pretend he's the great white civil rights crusader - this time on the front page of Tuesday's New York Times. In the second installment of its five-part legacy interview with the not-quite-ready-to-depart President Clinton, the Times treats us to "Clinton's Comments on His Links to Minorities." Asked to explain how he manages to stay so darned popular with African-Americans despite his support for welfare reform, the death penalty and other measures thought to be political losers with liberal constituencies, Clinton doesn't miss a beat. "Well, first of all, I had a record on civil rights matters and relations with blacks that went back through my whole public life, when I started," the president announced with an apparently straight face. The last time Clinton took to the public stage and pretended to be Martin Luther King in whiteface, longtime Arkansas Clinton watcher Paul Greenberg was there to set the record straight. Marveling at Clinton's dubious claims to be a civil rights crusader, which were laced throughout his 1997 speech in Little Rock to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the city's Central High desegregation crisis, Greenberg wrote in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette: "He could have fooled me. I remember writing editorial after editorial urging then-Governor Clinton to take a stronger stand on racial issues. Arkansas would not get a civil rights law of its own until after Bill Clinton left the governor's mansion." Greenberg all but mocked Clinton's speech, especially when the president claimed that equality between the races was "the driving passion of my life." "The driving passion of his life?" Greenberg gagged. "The closest Bill Clinton came to pushing for a civil rights law was to appoint a study commission, which was his way of avoiding almost any tough question." "What he did for civil rights," he wrote, "was to substitute patronage for policy, appointing black folks to office rather than protecting the rights of all by the kind of legislation that would have offended powerful interests." "For that matter, a younger Bill Clinton had played up to Orval Faubus, the very symbol of resistance to racial integration in the Little Rock crisis," recalled the Arkansas journalist. Despite Clinton's clear record of obliviousness to civil rights issues for most of his career - he got into politics, after all, as a protege of notorious segregationist J. William Fulbright - the New York Times bought into the president's civil rights con job hook, line and sinker. "That racial themes would be woven through the domestic policies of Bill Clinton is unsurprising in a way, given his experiences with black Americans during his formative years in Hope, Ark.," the paper reports. "As a child in Hope, he had grown to know many black people who frequented his grandfather's store." Actually, Clinton spent his "formative years" in Hot Springs, not Hope, which he left just after turning 6 years old. And so, presumably, he and younger brother Roger had just about the same exposure to their professed model of racial tolerance, grandpappy Eldridge Cassidy, who ran the store cited in the Times report. But Cassidy's enlightened attitude on race has apparently eluded the younger Clinton, if Roger's regular use of the "N" word in casual conversation is any indication. Here's Roger betraying the truth about the Clinton clan's attitude toward blacks on a 1984 police surveillance videotape: "Some junior high n----r kicked Steve's ass while he was trying to help his brothers out, junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n----r down. However it was, it was Steve's fault. He had the n----r down, he let him up. The n----r blindsided him." Surely the New York Times is saving the president's explanation of his brother's racial slurs for its final installment. Some you guys need to research before you come out with blatant DNC talking points "lies" and spreading them. ANyone defending Clinton today is a liberal. Period. [b][blue]NAKED[/blue][/b]
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 12:48:54 PM EDT
[SIZE=4][B]THURMOND WAS A DEMOCRAT IN 1948![/B][/SIZE=4] Senator Byrd, former KKK member, is a Democrat. He made all sorts of nice comments on the Senate floor about "white niggers" in 2001....but he gets a pass from the Sharptons, Jacksons, and Black Caucus because he's a Democrat. If you favored segregation before and during the Civil Rights era, you probably lived in the South and voted Democrat. Just like Bill Clinton. Fulbright, Clinton's mentor, was a segregationalist. The Democrats heap this BS up and their mindless followers eat it with a grin. Remember 12 months ago Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown, saying Osama Bin Laden attacked us for the sins of slavery and America's civil rights records. There's no limit to Clinton's mendacity.
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 1:08:54 PM EDT
Nightstalker, So Southern politicians should stfu and let who lead? When will be ok with you for them to speak again? Should they even run for office if they cannot speak? How ridiculous a statement is that? 4 out of the last 5 Presidents are from the South...what does that say? The whole country is racist? Racism is a red herring used by the Democratic party to win their perspective election cycles...racism still exist in [b]EVERY[/b] different ethnic group in America. The "reaches" of racism can be dealt with...but, what to do with those who use it for political advantage? I say stand up and deny the charge or accusation then back it up with action. You cannot prosecute/persecute people for what they think...no matter which group it is. I refuse to follow that road from the leftist/socialist in this country. AND, I refuse to cower or run from being a southerner...it is not a handicap being white or from the South..no matter what the Democrats say. If you continue down that road...it be illegal to "look" white or southern in the future. It's ludicrous to trash an entire heritage because of what it used to be. The facts are there for all to judge and read. I will not back down anymore. Nor will be labeled a racist for where I was born...ridiculous. [b][blue]NAKED[/blue][/b]
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 1:12:22 PM EDT
[red][size=5][b]What year is he up for re-election? I think we should vote him out![/b][/size=5][/red]
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 1:28:07 PM EDT
Just remember guys....from the years of 77 through 89, Byrd was the Majority leader and the minority leader for the Democrats in the Senate. Oh yeah...I forgot...he's an EX-CLANSMAN!!!!!!! Hypocritical F*CKS!!!!! Check out http://www.polisci.com/almanac/legis/smajmin.htm
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 6:14:49 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2002 6:22:52 PM EDT by Max_Mike]
Why is it every d**khead from CA somehow thinks he is superior/purer than Southerners? 1. Rodney King was in LA not in Birmingham. 2. The LA riots were in … 3. The LA police department has a far worse reputation of racism than any southern department you can name. 4. I have been to NY City, Chicago, LA, ect. Segeration is worse in those cities than anywhere in the south I have been. 5. It is bad to be a stupid bigot from Mississippi, but it is OK to be a stupid bigot like nightstalker and mr_mullen if you are from CA. Who’s childish stereotypes of southerners are regional bigotry. 6. Clinton is full S**T and so are you. 7. CA is so smart they give us Boxer, Feinstien, Gray Davis ect… We all need that kind of leadership.
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 6:21:15 PM EDT
Link Posted: 12/19/2002 6:28:00 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Mr_Mullen: All those Old Southern Republicans need to shut
View Quote
WTF are you blabbering about??? Southern REPUBLICANS???? You need to go BACK to skool and go through AP History again. The leadership in the south during the civil rights movement were DEMOCRATS!!!!!! But even if you DID go back to skool, I doubt that you would learn anything in the liberal skool system that churns out thousands of students that are just as ignorant as you are.
Top Top