This Derrick Bell “controversy” is EXCELLENT. Bell was an activist for Civil Rights and Equal Rights - his big gambit was quitting Harvard Law School because they wouldn’t hire more Black and female professors (they only had 5 Black law professors and zero female law professors at the time, out of something like 150).
As a Democrat, I couldn’t be happier to see conservatives attempt to RE-FIGHT the same battles they already lost 40 years ago. Great idea, guys! Lets debate civil rights again! Lets debate contraception and women’s rights again! I absolutely LOVE it! Please please please, go ahead and alienate an entire generation of black voters, women voters, and fair-minded voters of every stripe, and virtually guarantee your party’s obsolescence. Awesome!!![/quote]
Woo-hoo! Except, wrong.
Bell was the pioneer of Critical Race Theory, a theory that states that American institutions are inherently bastions to preserve white supremacy, and this theory was…wait for it…critical of the actual Civil Rights Movement because the Civil Rights Movement refused to recognize that all the “gains” that were made through these institutions weren’t helpful to blacks.
Black voters no more believe in Critical Race Theory than they do Atlantis. It was (and is) a radical playground for bored academics. As such, criticism of Derrick Bell and CRT is no re-litigating the Civil Rights Movement. Dumb as hell.
Yet another topic K2000 knows nothing about - what’s the count up to now? [/quote]
I’m sure conservative experts on racial issues like Rush Limbaugh will have no problem explaining all that to black people. LOL
This Derrick Bell “controversy” is EXCELLENT. Bell was an activist for Civil Rights and Equal Rights - his big gambit was quitting Harvard Law School because they wouldn’t hire more Black and female professors (they only had 5 Black law professors and zero female law professors at the time, out of something like 150).
As a Democrat, I couldn’t be happier to see conservatives attempt to RE-FIGHT the same battles they already lost 40 years ago. Great idea, guys! Lets debate civil rights again! Lets debate contraception and women’s rights again! I absolutely LOVE it! Please please please, go ahead and alienate an entire generation of black voters, women voters, and fair-minded voters of every stripe, and virtually guarantee your party’s obsolescence. Awesome!!![/quote]
Woo-hoo! Except, wrong.
Bell was the pioneer of Critical Race Theory, a theory that states that American institutions are inherently bastions to preserve white supremacy, and this theory was…wait for it…critical of the actual Civil Rights Movement because the Civil Rights Movement refused to recognize that all the “gains” that were made through these institutions weren’t helpful to blacks.
Black voters no more believe in Critical Race Theory than they do Atlantis. It was (and is) a radical playground for bored academics. As such, criticism of Derrick Bell and CRT is no re-litigating the Civil Rights Movement. Dumb as hell.
Yet another topic K2000 knows nothing about - what’s the count up to now? [/quote]
Also, way to miss the point… again…
Conservatives are stuck in the past, trying to re-fight the battles that they already lost 40 years ago. Ecology and conservation? Check. Women’s right to control their own reproduction? Check. Equal rights and civil rights for Blacks, gays and women? Check.
I’m sure conservative experts on racial issues like Rush Limbaugh will have no problem explaining all that to black people. LOL[/quote]
Why would Rush Limabugh or anyone else need to inform “black people” as to what CRT really is unless someone else had already misinformed “black people” as to what CRT really is? Someone like…I don’t know…who would misrepresent what CRT was to “black people” and demagogue (dishonestly) about who Derrick Bell was in order to try to pick up votes from the “black community”?
Conservatives are stuck in the past, trying to re-fight the battles that they already lost 40 years ago. Ecology and conservation? Check. Women’s right to control their own reproduction? Check. Equal rights and civil rights for Blacks, gays and women? Check.
I LOVE IT.[/quote]
Well, no they aren’t, because raising the issue about CRT and Derrick Bell isn’t “re-fighting” the battles “lost 40 years ago”. Andthe issue re: Derrick Bell was tenure of professors at one of the most liberal institutions on the planet, not the fight to defeat Jim Crow.
Oh, and history lesson - no one won or lost the “battle” for equal and civil rights for gays 40 years ago.
Conservatives are stuck in the past, trying to re-fight the battles that they already lost 40 years ago. Ecology and conservation? Check. Women’s right to control their own reproduction? Check. Equal rights and civil rights for Blacks, gays and women? Check.
I LOVE IT.[/quote]
Well, no they aren’t, because raising the issue about CRT and Derrick Bell isn’t “re-fighting” the battles “lost 40 years ago”. Andthe issue re: Derrick Bell was tenure of professors at one of the most liberal institutions on the planet, not the fight to defeat Jim Crow.
Oh, and history lesson - no one won or lost the “battle” for equal and civil rights for gays 40 years ago.[/quote]
I’m sure conservative experts on racial issues like Rush Limbaugh will have no problem explaining all that to black people. LOL[/quote]
Why would Rush Limabugh or anyone else need to inform “black people” as to what CRT really is unless someone else had already misinformed “black people” as to what CRT really is? Someone like…I don’t know…who would misrepresent what CRT was to “black people” and demagogue (dishonestly) about who Derrick Bell was in order to try to pick up votes from the “black community”?
Oh man - all that bumbling and stumbling with the Critical Race Theory has helped Obama, right? Not so much, apparently. CBS has the President at a new low of approval:
So, while left-wingers like K2000 wet their pants in anticipation that the Republicans are somehow touching a third-rail of racial politics by discussing the CRT issue (which is a fairly small issue, in any event) that will help Obama’s 2012 election chances, voters are thinking about other things, like gas prices.
You guys are apparently “cant see the forrest for the trees” types.
Nobody is going to read Professor Bell’s book to learn about “critical race theory”. All this controversy does is remind minorities that conservatives hated the civil rights movement, hated Dr. Martin Luther King, hated integration policies, and so on. But you want to wade into the finer points and say that Professor Bell was talking to a less mainstream element of the civil rights movement, he had fringe views, etc.
Which is EXACTLY my point… conservatives are trying to re-fight the old battles that they already lost 40 years ago. You are rehashing old shit here, and it’s not going to benefit you, the way that you hope.
And guess what, you’re going to lose those same battles again. Black voters aren’t going to read Bell’s book and hash out whether he was mainstream or not… but they get the message that conservatives hate “uppity” blacks. Meanwhile women are getting the message that conservatives hate “over-educated women” (direct Rush quote) and so on. You may think the conversation is only focused specifically on Derrick Bell or Sandra Fluke, but to the voters who are within that same constituency, there is a larger message that you send. You idiots should be talking about jobs, mortgage crisis, the price of gas etc. NOT the civil rights movement and reproductive rights. You’ve lost the plot and that is totally awesome for me, and totally sucks for you, but you’re too fucking stupid to know it. Because forrest/trees.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
You guys are apparently “cant see the forrest for the trees” types.
Nobody is going to read Professor Bell’s book to learn about “critical race theory”. All this controversy does is remind minorities that conservatives hated the civil rights movement, hated Dr. Martin Luther King,
[/quote]
MLK was a card-carrying Republican you dummy. So were the overwhelming majority of blacks before the mid to late 60’s. The Democrats(largely) and Dixiecrats opposed the civil rights movement. Like their “conscience of the Senate,” the late Robert KKK Byrd - BARBARIC!..BARBARIC!..from the h…hills…to the…whatever etc. And Al Gore who tried to steal Florida in 2004 - his daddy was a Klansman too. And now they’re the party for women all of a sudden even though they opposed women’s suffrage, piled up half a century of presidential molestation and rape victims not to mention their lion who won the Chappaquiddick freestyle championships - manslaughter notwithstanding. And just over two years ago Obama was trying to cut mamogram screening for women over 40:
I wonder how many understand what the New Party is all about:
“The party could best be described as social democratic in orientation.”
“Social democracy is an international political movement and political ideology that has undergone three major phases throughout its history.[1] In contemporary uses, social democracy generally refers to advocacy for some form of regulation of the economy and support for a welfare state and ameliorative measures to benefit the working class within the framework of a mixed economy. Historically, social democracy is generally defined as a political movement that seeks to build an alternative socialist economy gradually through the institutions of liberal democracy.”
Can ANYONE disbelieve that Obama is a committed socialist, a radical leftist?[/quote]
'Barack Obama was an active part of ACORN at the time, helping it legally in court and helping it organize voters. By 1996, ACORN and the New Party were essentially the same body. Along with the Democratic Socialists of America, the New Party endorsed Barack Obama in his State Senate bid.
Obama began seeking the New Party endorsement in 1995. He had been running in a four way primary against his former boss, Senator Alice Palmer, herself a far left radical, and two other individuals. But an election law quirk gave Obama the upper hand. In order to get on the ballot, candidates had to collect signatures of voters. Printed names were not allowed. Obama challenged the petitions of his rivals and was able to get every one of them thrown off the ballot. By the time the ballot was drawn up for the 1996 election, Obama’s was the only name in the race.
Nonetheless, Obama still coveted the New Party endorsement. The New Party required candidates who received the endorsement sign a pledge of support for the party. Obama did not need to support a party that was, in effect, a front group for communists; yet he still chose to. The July issue of the New Ground noted that 15% of the New Party consisted of Democratic Socialists of America members and a good number of Committee of Correspondence members.’ - Erick Erickson, Human Events
'Two organizations formed the backbone of the New Party- the Democratic Socialists of America and the U.S.‘s largest radical organization, ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now ). Radical labor union SEIU also had considerable input, as did members of the Communist Party USA breakaway group, Committees of Correspondence.’
And guess what, you’re going to lose those same battles again. Black voters aren’t going to read Bell’s book and hash out whether he was mainstream or not… but they get the message that conservatives hate “uppity” blacks. You idiots should be talking about jobs, mortgage crisis, the price of gas etc. NOT the civil rights movement and reproductive rights. You’ve lost the plot and that is totally awesome for me, and totally sucks for you, but you’re too fucking stupid to know it. Because forrest/trees.[/quote]
Well, that is precisely what is being talked about on the national stage (and you can see it in the poll I posted). The issue re: Bell isn’t major one and isn’t really part of any national conversation…no one has “lost the plot”. The fact that some internet chatters are discussing it doesn’t mean it has now become the playbook of the RNC.
The issue is basically over. The video wasn’t all that compelling, and the world is moving on - to things like gas prices, which is why President Obama finds his approval levels at new lows.
But, ironically, it is you that seems to want to make this a bigger deal than it really is, because you think there is value in how the GOP “mishandled” the Bell issue and you are all excited about the prospects of the GOP losing voters as a result of it. Well, it’s non-issue - it’s interesting, but not what people are prioritizing. Thanks for playing, though, K2000.
“Open your hearts and open your minds to the words of Prof. Derrick Bell.” Those are the words of Barack Obama in reference to the controversial racialist Derrick Bell. Prof. Charles Ogletree, Barack Obama’s mentor said “We hid this throughout the 2008 campaign.” As more is uncovered about Prof. Derrick Bell and his radical views, it will become clear why Prof. Ogletree wanted this video hidden.
This is a man so extreme that, as we’ve reported, he wrote a story in 1993 in which he posited that white Americans would sell black Americans into slavery to aliens to relieve the national debt, and that Jews would go along with it.[/quote]
/sigh
This shit again.
Obama has done nothing that is considered extreme relative to any president so far.[/quote]
Killing Americans without a trial?
Appointing Czars while the Senate was in recess?
Interpret the interstate commerce clause to include economic inactivity so as to make federal rule absolute?
[/quote]
There is no such title as “Czar” in our government, and by using that term you revealed yourself as a political hack. There’s also nothing wrong with recess appointments, especially when we have a record number of vacancies due to obstruction.[/quote]
Should have read “while he Senate was not in recess”.
Also, for something that does not exist you seem to have an awful lot.
Anything about the kidnapping and murder of civilians, the further shredding of the constitution?
You wanted to know where he went farther then his predecessors, I gave three examples, all three still stand.
[quote]K2000 wrote:
You guys are apparently “cant see the forrest for the trees” types.
Nobody is going to read Professor Bell’s book to learn about “critical race theory”. All this controversy does is remind minorities that conservatives hated the civil rights movement, hated Dr. Martin Luther King, hated integration policies, and so on. But you want to wade into the finer points and say that Professor Bell was talking to a less mainstream element of the civil rights movement, he had fringe views, etc.
Which is EXACTLY my point… conservatives are trying to re-fight the old battles that they already lost 40 years ago. You are rehashing old shit here, and it’s not going to benefit you, the way that you hope.
And guess what, you’re going to lose those same battles again. Black voters aren’t going to read Bell’s book and hash out whether he was mainstream or not… but they get the message that conservatives hate “uppity” blacks. Meanwhile women are getting the message that conservatives hate “over-educated women” (direct Rush quote) and so on. You may think the conversation is only focused specifically on Derrick Bell or Sandra Fluke, but to the voters who are within that same constituency, there is a larger message that you send. You idiots should be talking about jobs, mortgage crisis, the price of gas etc. NOT the civil rights movement and reproductive rights. You’ve lost the plot and that is totally awesome for me, and totally sucks for you, but you’re too fucking stupid to know it. Because forrest/trees.
Thanks, Rush Limbaugh! Thanks, Breitbart![/quote]
Yeah, the anchor had no clue and the guy “scared of black folk” is married to a black woman.
…conservatives hated the civil rights movement, hated Dr. Martin Luther King, hated integration policies, and so on…[/quote]
Tsk, tsk, you naughty little history ignoramus you, you really should’ve known it was primarily Democrats who exhibited that dastardly hate you mentioned.
Know your history or GTFO.
[/quote]
The infamous southern democrats?
I am sure he knows that Lincoln was a Republican right?
I mean, he has strong opinions, he surely knows that, right?
