 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Republican leadership racist
|
|
|
Subject: BS: Republican leadership racist From: michaelr Date: 12 Dec 02 - 09:19 PM Showing his true colors, top-ranking Senate Republican Trent Lott (from Mississippi) said at a birthday party for South Carolina fossil Strom Thurmond that he wished Thurmond had won the Presidency on a racist ticket. Here are excerpts from an AP story: "Lott's troubles began with remarks last week at an event marking Sen. Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday. Lott said Mississippians were proud to have voted for Thurmond in 1948, when the South Carolina politician was running for president as a staunch segregationist. "And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years, either," Lott said. On Monday, he apologized in a short statement for his "poor choice of words." When that did not stem the criticism, he apologized again Wednesday, saying his words were "terrible" and "insensitive." Bush and his aides remained conspicuously silent on the matter, hoping it would fade without the president taking the politically risky step of getting involved. But the White House team, in meetings Wednesday night and Thursday morning, determined the flap threatened to undermine Bush's ability to increase the GOP's paltry support among black voters. Bush himself received just 9 percent of the black vote in 2000. His advisers have concluded the president must increase that by several percentage points to be re-elected. After much internal debate, Bush opted to have Fleischer tell reporters: "The president does not think that Trent Lott should resign.' The Congressional Black Caucus called for a "formal censure of Senator Lott's racist remarks." They cited a "long-standing pattern of behavior that can no longer be tolerated," and party strategists papered Washington with material from Lott's background — including his efforts to restore Jefferson Davis' U.S. citizenship and his 1984 claim that the Confederate leader's spirit was alive in the GOP platform. While a young GOP congressional leader two decades ago, Trent Lott declared that "racial discrimination does not always violate public policy" as he tried to save the tax exemption of a Christian university that banned interracial dating. In his 1981 friend-of-the-court filing with the Supreme Court, Lott cited court rulings upholding affirmative action programs at colleges and compared them to the dating ban between black and white students at Bob Jones University. "If racial discrimination in the interest of diversity does not violate public policy, then surely discrimination in the practices of religion is no violation," he argued, in asking the justices to block the Internal Revenue Service from stripping the school's tax exemption. At the time, he was the Republicans' new whip, the second highest position in the House GOP hierarchy. Bob Jones University is a fundamentalist Christian school in Greenville, S.C., and its ban on interracial dating among students has long stirred controversy. It has dogged judicial nominees who were involved in the school's various legal fights, and presidential candidates, including Bush, who have been criticized for visiting the campus. The school recently lifted the ban. The Supreme Court ruled 8-1 to strip the school of its tax exemption about two years after Lott filed his brief. "The government now advocates penalizing Bob Jones University for its uncontestedly genuine religious beliefs," Lott wrote in one of just a handful of friend-of-the-court briefs filed in the case. "To hold that this religious institution is subject to tax because of its interracial dating policies would clearly raise grave First Amendment questions," he argued. The four Republican appointees to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights issued a joint statement deploring Lott's comments as a "particularly shameful remark coming from a leader of the Republican Party, the party of Abraham Lincoln." Folks, these are the people running the USA -- because we let them. They're going to roll back any social and environmental progress that's been made in the last 60 years -- because we let them. They're going to steal what's left of Social Security -- because we let them. They're going to start a war over oil and kill thousands of civilians -- because we let them. They're going to kill marine life with sonar -- because we let them. Let's not let them any more, huh? Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Deckman Date: 12 Dec 02 - 09:25 PM I am so damned tired of the political hypocrisy. Have we not learned ANYTHING in the last 50 years? Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: NicoleC Date: 12 Dec 02 - 09:47 PM Gee, Lott, racist?! Doya think? He's got quite a track record of remarks along this line. This comment was just the latest. He said almost the exact same thing in 1980 while campaigning in MS for Reagan. Personally, I think his association with the Council of Conservative Citizens is a better indicator of his slimey nature than a single remark. Anyone else remember his bald-face denying his knowledge of the organization despite photographs of C of CC leaders meeting with him in his office, published endorsement quotes, a column he wrote for their newsletter(!), and three speeches at C of CC gatherings? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Bobert Date: 12 Dec 02 - 09:49 PM So what is new, Michael? I made a point a couple of months ago that the Congress is packed with "rednecks" and I'm stickin to that point. Hey, I'm not sure if the "redneck thread" has anything to do with the post of mine and it really doesn't matter. Yeah, Trent Lott is a racist. Dick Army is a racist. George Bush is a racist. Joe Lieberman is a racist. Heck, Condi Rice is a racist of the worst variety, black. And there are so many more folks who have been elected with Boss Hog's money that are supposed to represent... ahhh, the people! Racists! The three branches of government are filled to the brim with racists! Want the proof? It's everywhere you look! Check out the disporportionate nuymber of folks of color who are executed by America, check out the number of folks of color who are incarcerated. Drive down the street of any inner city in America and ask yourselves how a young man or woamn of color could escape that lifes' sentence! And we look at Texas, the state spnsored capital of murder in the US. Yes, this is Bush country where gay men are pulled to their deaths behind Bubba's pickup trucks and black folk are executed without "due Process". Talk about racism? Trent Lott isn't even the shadow of the tip of the iceburg. We got way too many folks who preach hatred that we need to stand up to, starting with top... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: michaelr Date: 12 Dec 02 - 10:04 PM Whoa there, Bobert -- are you sure you want to equate "redneck" with "racist"? Today I heard the CCC described as "the Klan in suit and tie". The point is, things are this way because people can't be bothered to vote. We could stop the right wingers, but we LET them go ahead and wreck a beautiful experiment -- why? Is it apathy, and if so, what's causing it? If it's not apathy then what is it? Why do we let them? Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Bobert Date: 12 Dec 02 - 10:21 PM Michael: There are som mant reason for the apathy that one could write a book about them and not scratch the surface but I'll kinda outline some of them: 1. The media does not present news anymore, but entertainment. 2. The schools do not encorage "thought" anymore but just "rote" memory. (The recent "education reform" ..hahahaha.. amounts to no more than testing. "Leave no child" behind is 110% PR!) 3. Elections are won or lost in the "money grab game". (90% of the midterm elections were won by the candidate with the most money...) 4. The sytem has the working class working their brains out (literlally) trying to keep up, all the while while loosing ground. (no time to think...) 5. Since Boss Hog owns everything he has the home court advantage where ever he is. (Supreme Court, Congress, White House...) That's just fir starters. Get me warmed up and I probably have a books worth in me... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Donuel Date: 12 Dec 02 - 10:39 PM Among friends and masters of hate In honor of the oldest good ol boy Trent honored the segregationist platform of 1948 ...in ways usually whispered and chortled in times past... He could have been PC but instead he stuck his head up his ass and emerged a collosal shit head He said what he meant, he meant what he said, an elephant is faithful 100% http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/trentt.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: khandu Date: 12 Dec 02 - 10:42 PM My cousin, Trent, is a Mississippi good ole boy groomed from youth for politics. Whaddya expect...Sister Teresa? I rarely touch the political threads. I get my hands quite filthy everytime I do. I detest the corruption which exists on both sides of the aisle. If it were possible, I'd rather see the whole thing shut down and started afresh. Some suggestions: Lower the salaries of our office holders (local to federal) to that of the average wage of the working man. Enact law; mandatory double sentences/ fines to any elected official and law officers found guilty of breaking any law. Enact law; no new laws may be enacted without deleting another existing law. We have so many laws now that it is almost impossible to go through a day without breaking at least one. Eliminate the IRS. Instate national sales tax. Everyone who agrees or disagrees with me should send me ten dollars. Cash is preferred. khandu |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Donuel Date: 12 Dec 02 - 10:43 PM http://www.angelfire.com/md2/customviolins/trentt.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST Date: 12 Dec 02 - 10:51 PM Would he have bothered apologizing if people didn't take issue with what he said? NO. He wouldn't have given it a second thought. He didn't wake up the next day and think "Gee that was a terrible thing to say" He only apologized to try and save his smarmy ass. You're right, Donuel, he meant what he said. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST Date: 12 Dec 02 - 10:58 PM khan: Yeah, I will except the national sales tax if it exempts money spent on food (purchased at a grocery store), housing (rent or mortgages), medical care or health insurance and utilities... Problem with the national sales tax is that if ya' don't exempt these thins then it becomes a highly regressive tax that favors the rich and penalizes the poor and the working class. BTW, what do you think Uncle is gonna get you fir Christmas, khan? Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: khandu Date: 12 Dec 02 - 11:27 PM Uh...hrmmph...uh, Bobert...didja read 'bout the ten dollars? Uncle? You mean cousin? Heck, good ole Trent knows my mom well, but he wouldn't know me from...well, ...you! k |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist? From: Uncle Jaque Date: 12 Dec 02 - 11:47 PM My, my... but arn't WE (Republicans, particulary "Conservative" ones) supposed to be the wellspring of all bitterness, hatred, and malice in this World? But from whence fly all these sulfurous flames of passionate contempt? And to whom are they directed? Surely; this is not the natural order of things... Or IS it? Now as to Senator Lott; Some call him a "Leader"; I do not. Never had much use for the guy. If he ever had any "stones", he likely hides them in his Wifes' jewelry box for safe-keeping. Now whether he's a "Racist" or not, I couldn't say. Given the culture he comes from, he may well be to some extent - although we are told that his voting record is not at all consistent with what one might normally expect of a "Racist", per se. If in fact he IS a racist, then I agree with our President and probably most of you who have posted thus far(surprised?); He has no legitimate business in the US Senate, much less as Senate Majority "leader". But WHOAH, there!; it seems that the ENTIRE Republican Party, if not anyone and everyone even remotely associated with it, is being painted with the same very broad brush... or roasted with the same Nuke-O-Matic flame-thrower here! What's with that, boys and girls? Isn't that what "Racists" and "Bigots" are supposed to do? Is THIS supposed to be the natural order of things? But before you go any furthur with this "Racist Republican" hate-fest, please consider the following, and refute any of these documented, historical facts... if you can make it stick. Republicans? "Racist"? Oh Really...; Minorities and the Political Parties Thomas Jefferson, the first Democrat Party president, was a slave owner. Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican Party president, freed the slaves. The first meeting of the Republican Party was held in March of 1854 at a small church in Ripon, Wisconsin, where Alan Bovay rallied anti-slavery forces and adopted resolutions opposing the Kansas-Nebraska act. Hiram R. Revels of Mississippi took his seat February 25, 1870, as the first black United States senator. He was a Republican. On February 12,1909, the National Associations for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) was founded. The call for the organizational meeting was issued on the 100th birthday of Abraham Lincoln by 47 whites and six blacks. Woodrow Wilson received less than 7 percent of the black vote in 1912. The new Democratic Congress immediately enacted laws barring racial intermarriage in Washington, D.C., and Wilson went along. Signs bearing the words "whites only" and "Blacks only" began appearing above toilets and drinking fountains throughout the city. Jim Crow practices crept into federal agencies. The number of black presidential appointees dropped from 33 to 9. Presidents Harding and Coolidge, both Republicans, proposed commissions to bridge the divide between the races more than a generation before Bill Clinton was born. Harding told Cpngress in 1921 that such a body could formulate "if not a policy, at least a national attitude" that could bring the races closer together. Republican Rep. Leonidis Dyer of St Louis, Missouri, led efforts to make lynching a federal crime. Dyer first introduced his bill in 1918, the year the GOP regained control of the Congress. Several years later, when Republican President Harding was in office, Dyer reintroduced the bill to make lynching a federal crime and punishable by five years in prison and a fine of $5,000. It passed the house 230 to 119. The bill stalled in the Senate, where Democrats threatened to stop all other business from coming from the Congress unless the matter was dropped. The Ku Klux Klan nearly shut down the Democrat convention in 1924. Delegates settled on John W. Davis on the 103rd ballot, breaking the deadlock between Klan-backed William McAdoo (Woodrow Wilson's son-in-law) and New York's Catholic Gov. Al Smith. There were enough Klan delegates and sympathizers in the hall to block a platform plank condemning the KKK. In 1937, President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, a Democrat, nominated US Senator Hugo Black of Alabama to the Supreme Court. His appointment to the Supreme Court met strong opposition from the public and Republicans in the Senate because of his earlier membership in the Ku Klux Klan. In 1942 President Franklin Delano Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9006, which stripped 120,000 Japanese-Americans of their political rights. Harold Ickes, Roosevelt's Secretary of Interior, facilitated the use of an Indian Reservation as an internment camp for the Japanese-Americans. (Fifty years later, Ickes' son became an advisor to both Bill and Hillary Clinton.) In 1988, President Ronald Regan, a Republican, signed the Civil Liberties Act of 1988. The Act was passed by the Congress to provide a Presidential apology and symbolic payment of $20,000 to the internees, evacuees, and persons of Japanese ancestry who lost liberty or property because of discriminatory action by the Federal government during World War II. Growing up in Independence, Missouri, a bastion of Confederate sentiment three decades after the civil war, Harry S. Truman, a future Democrat president, had been taught to believe that African-Americans were racially inferior. One man is as good as another, a youthful Truman wrote, "so long as he's honest and decent and not a nigger or a Chinaman." The Confederate flag in South Carolina was raised above the statehouse in 1962 by Gov. Ernest Hollings in defiance of the Civil Rights movement. Today Hollings is a Democrat in the US Senate. The Congressional Quarterly of June 26, 1964 recorded that in the Senate, only 69 percent of Democrats (46 for, 21 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act as compared to 82 percent of Republicans (27 for, 6 against). All southern Democratic senators voted against the act. This includes the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member, Robert C. Byrd and former Tennessee senator Al Gore, Sr. The Act's primary opposition came from the Southern Democrats' 74 day filibuster. In the House of Representatives, 61 percent of Democrats (152 for, 96 against) voted for the Civil Rights Act; 92 of the 103 Southern Democrats voted against it. Among Republicans, 80 percent (138 for, 34 against) voted for it. When former Klansman David Duke announced that he was running for the US Congress as a Republican, the GOP moved quickly to disassociate itself from Duke. The National Republican Committee Chairman Jim Nicholson declared, "There is no room in the party of Lincoln for a Klansman like David Duke." The Democratic Party made no effort to dissociate itself from the current senator from West Virginia and former KKK member Robert C, Byrd. On the contrary, Byrd is considered one of the Democrats' elder statesmen. In a speech to the Progressive National Baptist Convention in 2000, Vice President Gore described his father's commitment to the civil rights movement as a senator. "He supported the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and lost his next election. But his conscience won and he taught me that was more important than any election." Senator al Gore Jr. did lose his re-election in 1970- to Rep. Bill Brock, a Republican form Chattanooga who had voted for the Voting Rights Act in 1965 as a member of the House. Gore, Sr., as mentioned above, opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act-a decision he continued to defend even after he left office. Eighty-two percent of the House Republicans backed the Voting Rights Act of 1965; in the Senate, 94 percent of the Republicans backed it. Seventeen southern Democrats voted against it' including Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas, a mentor to President Bill Clinton. While African Americans make up just 12 percent of the U.S. population, they account for 43 percent of the abortion victims. In other words if 1.5 million abortions are performed this year in America, 645,000 will result in the deaths of African-American children. While the Democratic Party is overwhelmingly pro-abortion. Proposition 209, a constitutional amendment by initiative, was passed by the California electorate by a 54-46 percent vote on November 5, 1996. Proposition 209 is also known as the California Civil Rights Initiative because it restates the historic Civil Rights Act and proclaims simply and clearly: "The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting." Predictably, most Democrats apparently have forgotten that government cannot work against discrimination if government itself discriminates. But then as illustrated by the above facts, the Democratic Party has rarely worked against discrimination. Just so's ye'll know, Mates. Now just take a cleansing breath, and try to focus... and let go of a little of that hate, won't you? It's rather toxic to the Soul. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST,sorefingers Date: 13 Dec 02 - 12:02 AM Second time for this turkey. Send them all gobstoppers |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: catspaw49 Date: 13 Dec 02 - 12:22 AM Ya' know............Lott's pretty much an asshole and all the things said of him are true but I can't help but feel kinda' sorry for the friggin' dimbulb. There he was saying something nice for a friend's birthday (without thinking it through) and the whole damn world jumps on his ass........including his own party and their pundits. Reminds me of Bill Clinton getting impeached for a blowjob (yeah, I know it's because he lied). Before all of you come down on me, do read Unc's post above and then agree that we still have a great number of complete dicks which we continue to elect! On both sides of the aisle there are some real problems with more than a few elected officials......at every level! Do you know what I find missing virtually altogether? Do you know what the real problem is? Where the hell is honesty????? Lott could well have handled this with a bit of honesty instead of the lame statements. So could Clinton. If Bill had said, "Alright....I messed up and had an affair with the girl. It was dumb and it's probably ruined my family relationships. It was a stupid-ass thing to do and I apologize to Ms. Lewinsky and the American public. I can only hope that Hilary will accept the same from me and we can make a new start. Do whatever you must do, but let's stop the damn silly investigations and save some money. Let's not undo the budget work we've done by wasting it on me. Anything else I can tell you?" I tell ya' that people would have demanded he be granted a third term!!! Lott could do it now, but he won't........and THAT is the problem with Trent Lott and the many others. I can deal with their pasts, I can deal with their stupid mistakes.......Just don't bullshit us to death and expect we will always believe you....although some seem to. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: BusbitterfraeScotland Date: 13 Dec 02 - 01:15 AM If you knew that he was a racist then why did the people vote him in. Can't just vote him out. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: michaelr Date: 13 Dec 02 - 02:05 AM Uncle Jaque -- that's an impressive list, and beyond my scope of verification, but I'm sure there's someone here who could argue the other side of your assertions. And it stops in 1965 (except for that last item on Prop. 209). I'm sure you'll agree that the Republican party has seen a major change since 1965, most notably during the Nixon/Reagan years. That's when, it looks to my untrained eye, the groundwork was laid for what the Repubs are today. And today IS what I'm talking about. Granted -- and Catspaw is absolutely right here -- there are scumbag career profiteers and bigots in both parties, and dishonest posturing seems de rigeur for most. And the Dems, who are supposed to be "in opposition", let the Bush juggernaut roll all over them every chance they get. But hey, I'm bitching about the ones that are in power. Isn't that what dissent is all about? Cheers, Michael |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: NicoleC Date: 13 Dec 02 - 02:56 AM Politics 101 -- political parties change their views. 100 years ago, Republicans were the working man's party and Democrats were typically rich Southerners. Everytime someone says "Lincoln was a Republican and he ______" it's a completely moot point. Politics 102 -- politicians may align with a politcal party, but that doesn't mean they support the platform 100%. Heck, Nader is a Democrat and only agrees with the Greesn about 70%. Didn't stop him from running on that platform. Lott has repeatedly lobbied and voted against civil rights and voting legislation designed to improve access and fair play to women, minorities, gays, non-Christians, etc. etc. His voting record -- while not proof of racism -- is certainly backing evidence for his behavior and past comments, written and verbal. Unfortunately, we the people don't get to vote over party leadership. Nor can I do a darn thing to affect Lott's getting re-elected, since he's not my Senator. If his views, racist or not, adequately represent his constituancy, then fine. I DO have a problem with someone whose views are so out of whack with America being responsible for the legislation that hits the Senate floor. One more thing for that list -- We, the People, in order to form a more perfect union, should get to VOTE on salary increases for all politicians. Make 'em earn it, and prove to the taxpayers who actually pay the salaries that they deserve it. Letting them vote for and determine their own paychecks is like setting a fox to watch the proverbial hen house. Not that the salaries are really outrageous, it's the perks that burn through the tax money. I'm not in favor of a VAT, because even if you come up with all sorts of exceptions (are potato chips and candy bars really FOOD?), it still disproportionately taxes people who are obliged to spend almost all of their salaries. The only way you can counteract this is my levying higher capital gains taxes -- which I'm also against; they are simply INCOME, and should be taxed accordingly. I'm in favor, instead, of a flat income tax for everyone above a pre-determined percentage above the poverty level, and poverty levels need to be based locally off the regional housing prices, not food indexes, which rise at a slower rate than inflation. Period. No exceptions, no deductions, no nothin'. Inheritance is income. Investment profits are income. Gambling winnings are just income. You make money, you pay the same tax on it no matter how you got it. I don't care how many kids you have or how many people work in your house or what your marital status is. Many folks disagree with me on this last point, but we can control that you know... and why should I pay for your kid's new pair of overpriced $130 Nikes when my property taxes pay for their schooling and public libraries and my state sales tax pays for low income medical care and other children's benefits? I don't have a problem funding public servies; I do have a problem giving people tax credits for having more kids. Okay, rant over. Am I off topic, or what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Kim C Date: 13 Dec 02 - 10:55 AM Vote for some other party. Stop buying into the Republican-Democrat system. Vote for the person who best represents YOUR views, instead of Who You Think Can Reasonably Win. We had an interesting Governor's race in Tennessee. The Man Who Screwed Nashville When He Was Mayor won. As usual, I voted Libertarian. One of my friends said, "well, your only realistic choices were the Democrat or the Republican." Now, I love my friend, but it's that mindset that keeps electing these goobers. Free your mind, and your government will follow. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 02 - 12:08 PM Nicole: I agree with you about VAT and I like your idea of a flat rate tax. Another idea that is out there, which would eliminate the IRS is a 24% sales tax with either: A. Housing, food and clothing exempted or.. B. Direct payments from the government to reimburse families for the tax portions of those necessities. These payments would not be for actual expense but indexed regionally. Now, I'm not saying I am for such a system but I was listening to a guy on Pacifica talking about it this morning on the car radio and it did give me some food for thought. Until today I always rejected a nation sales tax because I considered it to be regressive. I'll try to find a link on this guy and maybe satrt a "tax Thread" when I come up with one. I think we all agree that the current system needs improvemnt. Right now, it costs an average of $800 per tax return in preparation and collecting which amounts to a couple hundred billion industry in itself. The flat rate tax has the potential of keeping this monster industry going. As fir Trent Lott and Unc. Hey, like I said above, Lott doesn't have the market cornered on bigotry anjd intolerence. And why do we have so many of these folks in Congress, in the White House and the Supreme Court? Look how campaigns are financed. Heck, even my Wes Ginny slide rule has this one figured out... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: NicoleC Date: 13 Dec 02 - 01:38 PM Most businesses would also save a huge amount of money if they didn't spend so much time and personnel mucking with taxes. It would be quite a boost in the arm for the small to mid-size businessed that don't have access to fancy tax-dodge schemes like offshore corporations. Bad for accountants, though. Only real downside... but people who know money can always cross-train. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 02 - 02:02 PM I'll stop insisting that people with multiple children get tax breaks, just as soon as reproductive freedoms for women are guaranteed in the constitution, including abortion on demand, free access to birth control and reproductive education for both sexes (not just "the girls")when the "flat tax" rates for income takes into account that it is women's income/earnings that are impacted by childbearing, not men's over a lifetime. The flat tax, without taking the earning/income realities by gender into account, is draconian as hell, and virtually guarantees that many women will be held in poverty, to make the tax structure "more fair" for people who don't have children, whether by choice or by biology. Unless and until those little matters get cleared up to level the playing the field, I'll resist the ideas of flat tax NicoleC is presenting as not only unreasonable, but punitive. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 02 - 02:07 PM Why should I pay for highway funding with my taxes? I live in the city, commute to work by bus, bike & foot. How about I stop supporting all you suburbanites ability to live in one place, and work in another? Why should my taxes support people making irresponsible and costly decisions to live so far from work? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: jeffp Date: 13 Dec 02 - 02:10 PM I suppose you don't eat, wear, or use anything that is shipped by truck, either. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 02 - 02:24 PM There are much better alternatives, than the current system jeffp. I don't suppose NicoleC will be supported in her old age by the people providing her health care services, namely "other people's children" she is so unwilling to have her tax dollars go to support? The point I'm making is that it is idiotic to suggest that we can live without taxes. Taxes pay for the government services that provide us with our standard of living and quality of life. Anyone who hasn't figured out that out yet, is like still voting either Democrat or Republican. And BTW, if Lott's record is what NicoleC suggests, ie not "proof of racism" then just what exactly constitutes proof of racism by politicians, if not their voting record, and the written and audio records of their speeches and public remarks? Lott is on the way out, because if he doesn't go, the race issue could be the albatross around Bush's neck that causes him to lose the election come 2004. Only 9% of African Americans supported Bush in 2000, and he knows he needs to up those numbers to get in again in 2004 if the economy stays stagnant or gets worse, and unemployment (especially) keeps going up. Lott didn't just piss off African Americans though. The Latino community was pretty angry about this whole debacle (especially Bush and the Republican leadership taking so long to distance themselves from Lott). Now, an argument could be made I suppose (though I don't think an effective, reasoned argument can) that Bush can win without the African American vote. But he sure as shit can't win without the Latino vote. The White House, especially Karl Rove, knows this, hence Bush's long overdue condemnation of Lott yesterday. Question is, and this is what frightens me, is who will replace him? Lott wasn't a Bush loyalist, and he was also a largely ineffective parliamentarian (Daschle is only slightly better at it). If an effective parliamentarian who is loyal to Bush gets into the job, then we can be more or less guaranteed that the Bush agenda will be in place, if not implemented, by 2004. Then, even if Bush loses, it will make it much more difficult for a successor to undo the tremendous amount of damage being done right now by Bush. You can't prop the logs back up, once they've been clearcut "to prevent forest fires". |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Troll Date: 13 Dec 02 - 02:30 PM Guest, I suppose you grow your own food on the porch because the cows and chickens take up the yard. Or do you get your food at the grocery store? And just how do you think that food gets there? By truck! And what does the truck get there on? That's right, Boo-boo. The highway. You use, you pay. OK? Bobert, selection B. would creat even MORE of a beaurocratic empire don't you think? Many European countries have a VAT as, I believe, does Canada. Any comments from the other countries? troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 02 - 02:44 PM Exactly my point troll, sorry it went right over your head. That is exactly what I'm saying. Our tax dollars support the nation's and the state's road system, so even if we don't use them, or don't want them, we still pay our taxes in support of them. Same is true of the health care system. Of the government agents needed for the agriculture industry and the food distribution industry to operate effectively. Those systems are all functioning because we pay taxes to get those services and infrastructures to work FOR SOCIETY'S BENEFIT, NOT THE INDIVIDUAL CITIZEN's BENEFIT. Without educated workers, we can't run the systems, build and maintain the infrastructures, etc. That is why everyone pays to support public education. If we didn't, we'd have dumb ass idiots (like politicians, for instance) who aren't trained to do anything, responsible for our medical care, our air traffic control system, etc. Now, just because a citizen has never flown in an airplane in their life, doesn't mean their taxes shouldn't be used to support the businessman who flies every week, now does it? To suggest that we don't need to pay taxes, or that we only pay taxes selectively for the things a certain constituency or special interest groups likes and/or uses, defeats the very purpose government serves. Government is here to serve society. Sometimes that means serving individuals (as in health care and education) and sometimes that means serving business (the airline, railroad, and trucking industries), and sometimes it is a combination of both (parks and open space, the arts, sports infrastructures). |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: DougR Date: 13 Dec 02 - 06:09 PM There is a similar thread on this subject. I forget the title, but it has "Dixiecrat" in it. DougR |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: gnu Date: 13 Dec 02 - 06:22 PM I dunno. I read this thread. I saw the speech. I cannot fathom the racism. Some have talked about his "stupidity", his whatever. I cannot believe that such a thing happened.... IS HAPPENING... wake the ***k up. Crap like this should have been scraped up off the floor and discarded of a long time ago. The only reason to let this piece of garbage remain on the bottom of a shoe is so he can be ground into the dirt a little more. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 02 - 06:49 PM Troll: Reread my post. I am very much against a *Value Added Tax* fro the same reason that you are: It becomes a complete mess with more accountants and a big expensive beaurocracy. A national sales tax with either of the two options dealing with necessities that are being looked at that I mentioned above does have some good points: 1. Shuts down the IRS along with it's 8 million word tax code. 2. Provides real help for those folks at them bottom end of the scale. 3. 45 sates all ready administer a slaes tax and could be used to facilitate in collection. 4. Will keep business from going "off shore" as those things which are purchased as parts or components of a final product would be exempt. 5. No one would ever have to file a federal tax return. 6. Rich folks can't use tricky accountants and lawyers to pay little of no taxes. 7. There is uniformity. Just to point out a few, troll. Like I said, I have traditionallt rejected a national sales tax because of the regressiveness of it because we all have necessities. This idea is at least worth a second look. GUEST: I'm not sure that Lott is going to be that much of a liability in '04. First of all he's going to *act out* the repentant sinner role to the tee and in doing so this thing could help the Repubs. And the Dems won't be able to bring it up for fear of the *playing the race card* backlash. Yeah, I can hear the Repub commercial now: "If you're a life time Democrat then I we have something new to offer you. We are not a party that would choose to divide America but a party that is looking forward. We are the party of Lincoln, of acceptance unlike the other party which seems bogged down in the past and racial issues. Call congressman ______________ and tell him America is colorblind. Vote Republican!." Far fetched? Think about it... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 02 - 07:04 PM Hey Bobert, think post the rest of the article here I started quoting over in the Dixiecrat thread. Read that there, then come back here for the rest of it. As you'll see, we're in agreement, and even the progressive Democrats know it. And they know their dogs, just like you do. ;-) From Common Dreams website: http://www.commondreams.org/views01/0105-05.htm It is this legacy of conservative Southern Democrats that created the "bipartisan system" that State Representative Paul Sadler referred to. It is this legacy of conservative Southern Democrats in Congress with which President-elect Bush intends to work. But the President-elect's problem of governing all of the people cannot be satisfied merely by building bridges to essentially conservative Southern Blue Dog, Yellow Dog, New Dog or DLC Dog Democrats. These conservative dogs already support him. His problem will be in reaching out and building bridges to liberals and progressives who feel like they've been treated like dogs, who represent the dogs who have been left out in the cold and put in the doghouse by a bipartisan coalition of conservative Republicans and Democrats. Indeed, this is the bipartisan pack that consistently bites us. This conservative bipartisan coalition is generally for denying a woman's right to choose, supports charitable choice and violates the Constitution's mandate of church and state separation by attempting to put parochial prayers and the Ten Commandments in public schools. Out of this bipartisan "system" comes the privatization movement--public vouchers for private schools, privatizing all or part of Social Security, privatizing healthcare through medical savings accounts and much more. It is this conservative bipartisan coalition that allows Ralph Nader to say that we have one corporate party with two different names. If Democrats go down this bipartisan path it will only strengthen Nader and the Greens for 2002 and 2004. The move down that path has already been aided by Democrats: In 1992 a conservative Democrat, Bill Clinton, selected an even more conservative running mate, Al Gore, who in 2000 selected an even more conservative running mate, Joseph Lieberman. By helping to shift the Democratic Party and the country further right, a very conservative George W. Bush could select an ultraconservative Dick Cheney as his running mate -- and win. The heart and soul of this conservative bipartisan coalition is the South, though by no means do all white Southerners regard themselves as part of it. Most Southern Democratic elected officials would be Republicans above the Mason-Dixon line, and Republican Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, for example, could not be elected south of the Mason-Dixon line in either party. She would be seen as too liberal, and her views would be considered traitorous to Southern heritage, traditions and values. More than half of all African-Americans still live in the former Confederacy, and nationally they voted 92 percent for Gore. Yet the entire body of Democratic leadership in the House and Senate are all white men. While Bush got only 8 percent of the African-American vote, Democrats have no visible elected African-American Congressional leaders who compare to the Republican exceptions of Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice or Representative J.C. Watts of Oklahoma. This system is what President Lyndon Johnson understood on August 6, 1965, when he signed the Voting Rights Act and afterward said privately that national Democrats had probably lost the South for at least a quarter-century. He understood the system that produced Southern politics and the bipartisan white coalition that drove it. His insight has now come home to roost big-time in the 2000 election. Bush won the old Confederacy and the rural states of the West, which have a similar political philosophy--plus Indiana, Ohio and New Hampshire. Gore won the old Union states of the North and Northeast, plus New Mexico, California, Oregon and Washington, which are more in harmony with national Democratic policies. This system of bipartisan cooperation, social and economic conservatism, and individualistic, personalistic and pietistic religion is rooted in a region that imposes the highest number of death penalties and has the highest crime in the country, the poorest schools, the worst healthcare and housing, the greatest environmental degradation and the greatest poverty--and this conservative Southern system sustains it and is increasingly leading and influencing the nation. As State Representative Garnet Coleman, a Houston Democrat, said, "Even if something is bipartisan, it still often doesn't solve the problems of certain groups of people in Texas. They would be people who don't have health insurance, working families, the vulnerable in our society." The South, and America, need a progressive bipartisan economic coalition to fight for better jobs and job training, healthcare, affordable housing and a good educational system--for all Americans. However, that is not the agenda of Bush and his Democrats. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: gnu Date: 13 Dec 02 - 07:11 PM Ahem. From a Canadian point of view, ie, where there is a natinal sales tax... 1. Shuts down the IRS along with it's 8 million word tax code. Uh-uh. Still got the fuckers sending me all kinds of code type stuff every month and with threats that if I don't do it right, even though none of them could, I am subject to execution. 2. Provides real help for those folks at them bottom end of the scale. Uh-uh. Those who can least afford to pay sales taxes are those who spend most of their income "surviving". 3. 45 sates all ready administer a slaes tax and could be used to facilitate in collection. And they will want to be compensated for the collection.... another fucking tax. 4. Will keep business from going "off shore" as those things which are purchased as parts or components of a final product would be exempt. Uh... that's why they go off shore and that's why the books look so much better. Why hire your brother-in-law for a fair wage when you can hire the kid down the street ? 5. No one would ever have to file a federal tax return. Hehehehehe !!!! Good one !! 6. Rich folks can't use tricky accountants and lawyers to pay little of no taxes. They will always pay little of no taxes. That's why they who they are. 7. There is uniformity. Yes. Under all tax systems, the rich get richer and the poor get fucked. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 02 - 08:00 PM Well, danged, gnu, how do you really feal about it. Firstly, I don't thing you read the part about the exemption on the necessities. That's the part that attracted my attention. So it is conceovable that a family who is now spending all their income on food, clothing and sheleter expense... would pay NO TAX at all under this plan. And, hey, I own a business and collect tax and it's bnot a major problem. In the last 18 years of collecting and paying taxes I can only think of one mistake and it was like a $10 iscalculation. It takes me a half and hour once a month and it's done. Where's the beef here? Do you like an 8 million word tax code that practically no one understands. Do you like rich folks being able to *consume, consume, consume* and pay slick accountants to keep from paying taxes. I don't. This is a *end user tax*, a *consumer* tax and it's based on product other than necessities. Where is the flaw in at least the concept, my friend? The current system certainly has become unmanageable and unfair... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST,Clint Keller Date: 13 Dec 02 - 08:28 PM I don't think the Republicans are racist exactly: I think they're just against anyone who's outside the club. Like the Main Street Crowd most places, like street gangs and fraternity boys. And unfortunately many Democrats. It just turns out that most outside the club are poor, black, female... Some people get in the club easier than others. If you're GWB or Al Gore you're born in the club. If you're Condoleeza Rice you need to be a More-Republican-than-thou overachiever. If you're poor, forget it. No matter how white, middle-age and male you are. clint |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: kendall Date: 13 Dec 02 - 08:58 PM First, I don't really like to argue (snicker) but, a couple of things were posted that are just not true. Republicans are not racist as a breed. There are some bad apples; however the democrats are not lilly white either. Anyway, we democrats are NOT pro abortion. We are pro choice. The republicans like to call themselves pro life, well that's anti choice, right? Another thing Uncle J. Lincoln did NOT free the slaves. The 13th amendment did that after his death. In a speech he said, "If I could save the union by freeing the slaves, I would do it. If I could save the union by not freeing the slaves, I would do it." Now, the rest of the story, to quote a certain air head conservative, After the battle of Antietam, Lincoln got the idea to give the southern slaves a reason to rebel, thereby opening up a second front for the rebels to deal with, so, he signed the Emancipation Proclaimation. That piece of paper freed the slaves that were not in the north, and, he had no control over them. It was a strategic move to win the war. His only goal was to save the union. All those Parson Weems stories about him were BS."Some day, I will strike this thing a blow from which it will never recover."etc. He didn't want slavery to be expanded into Kansas and Nebraska, but, other than that he didn't give a damn about the slaves. By the way, his proclamation didn't work, in fact there were thousands of blacks in the Confederate army. Finally, I hope Lott doesn't resign. It will give the democrats a way to wake the country up. Now, if they replace him with someone who has more than a teaspoon full of brains, say, John McCain, that would kill the flap right now. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: kendall Date: 13 Dec 02 - 09:08 PM I don't care if he stands on the rock where Moses stood and apologized, it would not fly. A forced apology is as worthless as a trap door in a submarine. He has to be a racist to even THINK those words, and it is obvious that he is simply covering his ass. Hypocrit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 02 - 09:33 PM Well, Kendall, it could be argued that slavery never did end in the South. With the "Right-to-Work" (14-B) provision of the Taft-Hartley Act, now they let the slaves go home at night to the *projects*. Other than that, not too much has changed except that poor whites are now part of the slave population.... And yeah, Antitiem changed a lot of folks thinking... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Lepus Rex Date: 13 Dec 02 - 09:48 PM Wow, I think this whole Lott thing's half pulled me out of my election-induced depression. I, too, hope he sticks around. >:) Today on NPR's All Things Considered, Bill Kristol said that, according to his sources, if Trent Lott gives up his majority leader position, he'll also resign as Senator, which would mean that Mississippi's Democratic governor would appoint a (presumably Democratic) replacement, narrowing the Rebublican majority. According to Kristol, Lott's going to use this to prevent Bush from pressuring him to resign. Interesting. ---Lepus Rex |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST Date: 13 Dec 02 - 10:10 PM Interestingly enough, in the Washington Post today, I even read about the hypocrisy of the media over it's failure to report on the Lott statement, despite it being on CSPAN (as was the Wellstone memorial): "At first the 'liberal media,' which went into a frenzy over political statements at Paul Wellstone's funeral, largely ignored this story. To take the most spectacular demonstration of priorities, last week CNN's 'Inside Politics' found time to cover Matt Drudge's unconfirmed (and untrue) allegations about the price of John Kerry's haircuts. 'Just two days after moving closer to a presidential race, John Kerry already is in denial mode,' intoned the host. But when the program interviewed Mr. Lott the day after the Thurmond event, his apparent nostalgia for segregation never came up." |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Bobert Date: 13 Dec 02 - 10:34 PM The Washingotn Post is in danger of gettin' whip-lash in their about face to the right. I read it every day and have noticed that the editirials are now 50/50 pro-Bush, the letters they print 60/40 pro-Bush and the columnist 70/30 pro-Bush. Hmmmmmmm? And like the news they chooze? Hmmmmmmm, Part B. Same as the right winged Washington Times... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: coco Date: 14 Dec 02 - 12:56 AM By the way I'm not coco, however I askded if I could use their computer for write this message. Sentor Lott has said he's sorry about what he said, I think that it's a bit to late. I mean a southern white gentleman not all of them but some of them are as this song suggest members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/dixie.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST Date: 14 Dec 02 - 03:20 AM http://members.aol.com/quentncree/lehrer/natbroth.htm Here's another song about America |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: BusbitterfraeScotland Date: 14 Dec 02 - 06:05 AM I think that guest and coco were only Kidding and these two songs are suppoesed to be funny. And no offence is to be taken I think |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: gnu Date: 14 Dec 02 - 07:32 AM "...exemption on the necessities..." My apologies. I did not know clothing and shelter would be exempt. Food is exempt here in Canada, but clothing and shelter are not, and we buy a heck of a lot more clothes and shelter than many south of us. Of course, the rules on food are convoluted. EG: If you buy a package of six muffins, no tax. If one or two muffins are bought, most likely by a single person, such as a senior citizen living alone on a fixed income, tax is due. All I am saying is that the sales tax will not preclude other taxes such as federal income, provincial income, fuel, property, vehicle registration, any licenses... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST,oldtimemusic1 Date: 14 Dec 02 - 02:06 PM Was not the Republican Party under Lincoln's leadership the party that freed the slaves? Was not the Southern Democrats the party that held their foot on the necks of black Americans for a hundred years AFTER the civil war??? Just asking. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: The Pooka Date: 14 Dec 02 - 03:13 PM khandu - Wish the Magnolia State had as good a Senator as it has a King. :) "Everyone who agrees or disagrees with me should send me ten dollars." - well since I agree with some of your proposals but not others, guess I owe you $20. I'll gladly pay you Tuesday. / Very sorry there has to be such an uproar over your cousin. When it started, I thought of you & felt sympathy -- for you. But no, not for Cousin Trent. He brought it on himself. Best regards to your Mom though, whom you said he knows well; this must be very tough for her. Nicole C, agree with you that his willing association with the Council of Conservative Citizens -- apparently lineal descendants of the old fascist White Citizens Councils -- is the smoking gun. Before seeing your link I had searched & found their website. Almost barfed. My God. Take a look, 'Catters (Nicole's link above). *Real* obscenity on the web. But they do have one virtue: at least they're honest about their bigotry. Very little euphemism there. More insidious & dangerous are the Lotts of this world, who support them with winks, nods & code-words. Ol' Bobert: as always your Left-of-center heart's in the right place. :) Agree with much of your sociopolitical rant um, I mean, analysis. But permit me a parochial (so to speak) dissent re your inclusion of CT's Sen. Lieberman in the racist rogue's gallery. Neoconservative, yes; good presidential choice, no. But Senator Joe, a Trent Lott you're Nott. Tam the Bam frae Saltcoats Scotland: "If you knew that he was a racist then why did the people vote him in." Why do the people of North Antrim, NI, vote in the sainted Rev. Ian Paisley? The short answer is, BECAUSE he is a bigot, and so are they -- preponderantly. (Yes yes, of course it's more complicated than that; but so is Mississippi. So is everything.) Unfortunately, conscious, non-latent racism is still in the culture of the white voting majority in the American Deep South. Look at South Carolina -- the source of this hoo-rah and the Cradle of the Confederacy. They first elected Ole Strom Hisself, *on a write-in vote* (!!), to the Senate in 1954, and re-elected him ever since. (Maybe they 'didn't know'??) Re the history of Southern Democrats' racism running up to about 1965: exactly right. The "race-issue" transposition of the Southern Democrats & Southern Republicans began, essentially, at a moment in time: Nov. 3, 1964. On that day Sen. Barry Goldwater (himself not a segregationist but perfectly willing to collect "southern strategy" votes via his naive adherence to "states' rights" doctrine) swept South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana--and Trent Lott's Mississippi with **87 per cent** of its vote--while losing massively to LBJ almost everywhere outside the 11 states of the Old Confederacy (he did moderately well, but still lost, in the "outer South" states). In Alabama & Mississippi, every single House candidate the Republicans had scraped up from somewhere and nominated as sacrificial lambs to the longtime Democratic incumbents -- was *elected*, on Goldwater's coattails! After that, as the Republicans rebuilt from their national 1964 disaster, the flip-flop of the Southern parties accelerated rapidly. And then, as the country shifted rightward, the result was: Nixon (to whom the ever-pragmatic Ole Strom, having switched parties in July of '64 to support Goldwater, delivered the 1968 nomination); and then --- the Real Deal -- Reagan. Well. I could go on; but I'll adhere to my usual short-summary posting policy. :) Yes, there are plenty of Northern racists; no, not all Republicans, or Southern whites, are racists; etc. Nevertheless: regarding today's Southern Republican party, beware. Institutionally, it is the successor to yesterday's segregationist Southern Democratic party, with a thin PC veneer for public viewing. So, expect the expected. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Bobert Date: 14 Dec 02 - 04:44 PM Gee, Pooka, okay Joe may *not* be a racist but he ain't exactly putting forth much effort to stop the killings in the Middle East, and while my position is that both sides need to quit killing the others, I am realistic to know that not only are the Palestinians getting the worst of it but also Isreal is getting a greater than fair sjhare of financial help from the US. And Joe seems to be real qiet on this issue. But, what the heck. If I gotta spend alittle quiet time in Pooka's corner, than so be it... How would anyone like to be in Lott's shoes when he goes before the black journalists next week? Especially with his poor record. Hey, I guy can say what he wants but folks are judged for their deeds far greater than their words... Bobert |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: GUEST,sorefingers Date: 14 Dec 02 - 05:29 PM Spaw said it all! Lott never expected the fuss. Gee I seen one person on CNN who turned his misoverstatement into an attack upon Afican Americans - Trent apologised saying he did not think about what he was saying, nor did Bill C. BTW Nobody is asking him to resign. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: Troll Date: 14 Dec 02 - 05:40 PM GUEST, you said: " "Why should I pay for highway funding with my taxes? I live in the city, commute to work by bus, bike & foot. How about I stop supporting all you suburbanites ability to live in one place, and work in another? Why should my taxes support people making irresponsible and costly decisions to live so far from work?" Bobert, I guess I wasn't specific enough. The 24% tax idea that you mentioned is the one that looks to me like the beaurocratic nightmare. I don't know how much of a problem VAT is in that regard. Perhaps one of our UK members (McGrath?) or Canadians (L.H.?) could weigh in on that one. I like the idea of a flat tax myself. Clobber everybody from the gitgo and let us get on with our lives. Tax everyone X per cent and NOTHING more. But it'll never be passed into law. Why? Because the only real power that the Federal Government has is the power to raise monmey through taxation and to grant favors through tax breaks and they ain't agonna give that up! If a flat atx were to be enacted, their power would be so reduced as to be useless in any meaningful sense. You want to work for something really meaningful and worthwhile? Work for tax reform. Civil rights, anti-war, peace? All meaningless unless the power to tax indiscriminately (or not tax) is removed from the Federal Government (congress) so that we all get to keep more of what we work for. troll |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Republican leadership racist From: kendall Date: 14 Dec 02 - 05:48 PM Guest oldtimemusic, No, Lincoln was dead when the 13th amendment was passed. He freed the slaves that were not under his control (in the confederacy, not the border states). Besides, the party of Lincoln was a far cry from what it has become. Originally, it was formed to free the poor from the clutches of the greedy land owners. |
