there is an aspect of racism here... after all this is a black man and that is insulting.
...Yes, there is some to skin color but they did the same to Clinton and to a very small extent to Carter.
TRANSLATION: It's anti-black racism even though they have the exact same reaction to white men, which they've done twice as many times, universally and consistently. Conversely, they only tolerate people like Allen West because he agrees with them in principle...but that only betrays their racism.
To these Radicals, let's use the correct language, any... read this again, ANY democrat in a position of elected political power is not legitimate.
Apparently this "racism" she speaks of has the singular attribute of being democrats.
So I assume "democrat" is now a race...or something.
In 1859 the conversation was about the right of states to allow or not allow slavery.
And in 2012 the issue will be: can states allow their citizens to decide their own social norms about marriage, education, retirement, healthcare, aid to the poor and disabled or will the bought-and-paid-for cronies rules us all to our fiscal ruin.
And once again the democrats--as in 1859--have sided with the slavers...only instead of states rights (which they never really believed in) they have assumed power in the federal government.
The whole issu between Colonel West and Congresswoman Debbie Wassermann Shultz has a parallel...
Indeed: Democrats are assholes.
ieoeja (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-25-11 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #2
7. Though most people have the 1859 conversation backwards.
The South dominated federal politics for decades. They pushed through numerous pro-slavery issues at the federal level. While their big push in 1859 was to expand slavery to the territories, they also openly proclaimed their intent to eliminate the northern ban on slavery.
For that matter, the Republicans took the stance in 1859 that the territories should be allowed to vote on the issue. It was the South that prevented this because they knew the overwhelming majority in most territories were anti-slavery. Again: the South was opposed to regional self-determination.
Only when they saw the writing on the wall during the 1860 election did they begin talking about "States Rights". Even then they *never* spoke about the right to keep slaves in the South. The conversation was usually about "personal property rights" in the North where the property in question was slaves. And increasingly about the right of secession.
Change "South" to "democrats" and not only is the reading more accurate for the past, it is spot-on for the present.
