Who are the racists?

[Yonivore]

'Party trumps race' for Steele foes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm)

Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.
Wow!

Clarence Thomas not a real black? (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47167)

The daily's editorial board, lamenting the choice of a man to replace Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, opined today: "In losing a woman, the court with Alito would feature seven white men, one white woman and a black man, who deserves an asterisk because he arguably does not represent the views of mainstream black America."

Of course, it took Thomas Sowell, a black Republican economist, to point out that "Black Leaders" have had it wrong for quite a while now anyway...
Civil Rights Rites (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2005/11/02/173908.html)


"...a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965."

[xrayzebra]

'Party trumps race' for Steele foes (http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm)

Wow!

Clarence Thomas not a real black? (http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47167)


Of course, it took Thomas Sowell, a black Republican economist, to point out that "Black Leaders" have had it wrong for quite a while now anyway...
Civil Rights Rites (http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/thomassowell/2005/11/02/173908.html)

Yes and here is another of his columns. Very appropriate considering they are still trying to bury this woman today. If they ever get through preening themselves.

I find this really interesting because the Pols who instituted the laws were more than likely Dimm-o-craps, who now are the darlings of the civil rights movement. Movement is the key word.

Rosa Parks and history
By Thomas Sowell

Oct 27, 2005


The death of Rosa Parks has reminded us of her place in history, as the black woman whose refusal to give up her seat on a bus to a white man, in accordance with the Jim Crow laws of Alabama, became the spark that ignited the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Most people do not know the rest of the story, however. Why was there racially segregated seating on public transportation in the first place? "Racism" some will say -- and there was certainly plenty of racism in the South, going back for centuries. But racially segregated seating on streetcars and buses in the South did not go back for centuries.

Far from existing from time immemorial, as many have assumed, racially segregated seating in public transportation began in the South in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

Those who see government as the solution to social problems may be surprised to learn that it was government which created this problem. Many, if not most, municipal transit systems were privately owned in the 19th century and the private owners of these systems had no incentive to segregate the races.

These owners may have been racists themselves but they were in business to make a profit -- and you don't make a profit by alienating a lot of your customers. There was not enough market demand for Jim Crow seating on municipal transit to bring it about.

It was politics that segregated the races because the incentives of the political process are different from the incentives of the economic process. Both blacks and whites spent money to ride the buses but, after the disenfranchisement of black voters in the late 19th and early 20th century, only whites counted in the political process.

It was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of the white voters to demand racial segregation. If some did and the others didn't care, that was sufficient politically, because what blacks wanted did not count politically after they lost the vote.

The incentives of the economic system and the incentives of the political system were not only different, they clashed. Private owners of streetcar, bus, and railroad companies in the South lobbied against the Jim Crow laws while these laws were being written, challenged them in the courts after the laws were passed, and then dragged their feet in enforcing those laws after they were upheld by the courts.

These tactics delayed the enforcement of Jim Crow seating laws for years in some places. Then company employees began to be arrested for not enforcing such laws and at least one president of a streetcar company was threatened with jail if he didn't comply.

None of this resistance was based on a desire for civil rights for blacks. It was based on a fear of losing money if racial segregation caused black customers to use public transportation less often than they would have in the absence of this affront.

Just as it was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of whites to demand racial segregation through the political system to bring it about, so it was not necessary for an overwhelming majority of blacks to stop riding the streetcars, buses and trains in order to provide incentives for the owners of these transportation systems to feel the loss of money if some blacks used public transportation less than they would have otherwise.

People who decry the fact that businesses are in business "just to make money" seldom understand the implications of what they are saying. You make money by doing what other people want, not what you want.

Black people's money was just as good as white people's money, even though that was not the case when it came to votes.

Initially, segregation meant that whites could not sit in the black section of a bus any more than blacks could sit in the white section. But whites who were forced to stand when there were still empty seats in the black section objected. That's when the rule was imposed that blacks had to give up their seats to whites.

Legal sophistries by judges "interpreted" the 14th Amendment's requirement of equal treatment out of existence. Judicial activism can go in any direction.

That's when Rosa Parks came in, after more than half a century of political chicanery and judicial fraud.

[Oh, Gee!!]

You're a coconut

[xrayzebra]

You're a coconut


A very appropriate comment from a racist!

[Oh, Gee!!]

You're either for us or against us.

[gtownspur]

^your either high, or mentally challenged.

[Yonivore]

This is exactly the kind of unhinged liberal hatred and bigotry against minority Republicans that would cause a nukalur meltdown of the Left if reversed.


Black Democratic leaders in Maryland say that racially tinged attacks against Lt. Gov. Michael S. Steele in his bid for the U.S. Senate are fair because he is a conservative Republican.

Such attacks against the first black man to win a statewide election in Maryland include pelting him with Oreo cookies during a campaign appearance, calling him an "Uncle Tom" and depicting him as a black-faced minstrel on a liberal Web log.

Operatives for the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) also obtained a copy of his credit report -- the only Republican candidate so targeted.

But black Democrats say there is nothing wrong with "pointing out the obvious."

This is how low the Left's political discourse has sunk: Michael Steele is an Uncle Tom and a Sambo (http://caribpundit.com/content/view/300/32/). Here's the despicable photo that left-wing bigot blogger Steve Gilliard (proving that blacks can be vicious racists, too) published and only removed after conservative bloggers blew the whistle:

http://michellemalkin.com/archives/images/steelesmeared.jpg

So, defacing Steele's photo and assaulting him with Oreo cookies are peaceful exercises of free speech. Demonizing Condi is a harmless prank. Calling her a "House Nigga" is acceptable humor.

No minority who embraces liberal ideas is ever attacked for being a "race traitor" or a "sellout." These ad hominem attacks are leveled only by the Left, and only against minority conservatives. For the unhinged Left, race-baiting has become an expedient substitute for substantive argument.

Ain't tolerance grand?

[Oh, Gee!!]

Only white people can be racists (and a handful of oreos and coconuts)

[gtownspur]

^only oh gee manages to stay away from logic at all cost.

[Yonivore]

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/11-03-2005.gif

[Yonivore]

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/Cartoons/11-04-2005.gif

[Yonivore]

My point exactly:


French Police Kill Americans! (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0511/06/snn.01.html)

"It's been 11 days since two African-American teenagers were killed, electrocuted during a police chase, which prompted all of this."--CNN anchorman Carol Lin, Nov. 6

[Ocotillo]

So, defacing Steele's photo and assaulting him with Oreo cookies are peaceful exercises of free speech.

Ugh, you should know better than to use Michelle Malkin as a resource to make a point. She often, uh what's the word......oh yeah, lies about things to make her arguments.

Baltimore Sun article (http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/local/politics/bal-md.oreos13nov13,0,6788452.story)

This article cites where the Govenor of Maryland repeats this "oreo cookie" claim but look, read the whole article.

Clint Coleman, a spokesman for Morgan State who was at the event, said he saw lots of unseemly behavior but no Oreos.

"There were a lot of things, disturbances, by this group of outsiders who were bent on disrupting the debate," Coleman said. "But I never actually saw Oreo cookies being thrown at him."

As for "raining Oreos," Coleman said, "I can tell you that did not happen."

Neil Duke, who moderated the event for the NAACP, said last week that he didn't see any cookies.

Steele is fitting right in as a Republican conservative. Always whining about being a victim someway.

[Swishy McJackass]

Oreo Blizzards are my favorite Blizzards.

[Mr. Peabody]

Oreo Blizzards are my favorite Blizzards.

Then this is the right thread for you.
________
Infant Zoloft (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/zoloft/)