"Talk to you later, Buckwheat" gets local Dem in big trouble!

www.katc.com...

HOUMA, La. -- A state representative in a runoff election infuriated civil rights leaders after she ended a conversation with the mother of the NAACP's local president by saying, "Talk to you later, Buckwheat."

"The NAACP is going to do all it can to see that she is not re-elected," he said.

"At this point, the NAACP is not concerned about the Democratic Party or the Republican Party. If a Republican is elected because of her racist remarks, that's her responsibility."

Her remark is the latest bit of trouble for her and her husband, Lenny Dartez, who is a member of the Democratic Party's State Central Committee.

Before qualifying in September, Carla Dartez was given a summons for improper lane usage after hitting a pedestrian with her vehicle. She failed a field sobriety test but passed a later Breathalyzer test.

Earlier this month, Lenny Dartez was indicted for allegedly harboring illegal aliens through his construction business.

This is classic!

The real shame in all this is that blacks continue to blindly vote for Democrats in such great numbers. I know this is local, but hopefully it will start to change some minds.



[edit on 12-11-2007 by RRconservative]

Don't count on it...

The history of the Republican Party standing up for minorities is well documented and equally as well ignored...

I have posted about the issue before and even had some Libs claim that the party that stood up for minorities, although called the Republican Party, was in fact the Democrats or some such nonsense...They actually think anyone with intelligence will believe their nonsense.

The SoLibs will stoop to what ever level in order to win. Although they are constantly caught in lies and cheats, they use fear mongering and hate speech to scare the average joe into conforming to their socialist ideals...

But...

Good find anyway...

Semper

There's a huge stigma in regards to how the Republicans are viewed with the black people in America. That's only one demographic of the partisan bias that is so common through out America. We're more concerned with taking sides than what is right or wrong. Everything is marginalized by party lines, instead of individual integrity. It's a sad state of affairs, but the just about most honest portrayal of modern American politics as you can find.

I agree. The Democratic party is slowly coming into view for what it has become.

It is no longer being views as the party of the minority in this country, it is starting to be known for being the party of the rich. That's another thing that has been associated with Republicans for years.

America is slowly starting to realize that Democrats don't stand for anything but themselves.

reply to post by semperfortis


Do please give an example of Republicans standing up for minorities in the last 60 years.

Note that white Christian men don't count as a "minority" for this exercise, despite the claims of Pat Buchanan, Trent Lott, Tom Delay, Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Tom Tancredo, etc.

Originally posted by The Walking Fox
reply to post by semperfortis

 

Do please give an example of Republicans standing up for minorities in the last 60 years.

Republicans look at people as individuals, not as groups.

But if you insist, I'll throw out Clarence Thomas and Condi Rice.

Do please give an example of Republicans standing up for minorities in the last 60 years.

Easy...

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.

Kerry also maintained that all the Dixiecrats became Republicans shortly after passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, another big lie. Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, Robert Byrd, Fritz Hollings and Al Gore Sr. remained Democrats till their dying day.

Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold.

The fact that Democrats are quick to take credit for the Civil Rights Act and for the civil rights movement itself is both phony and a self-absorbed vanity.

Newsmax

The Civil Rights Bill By Party Vote:::

By party

The original House version:

* Democratic Party: 153-96 (64%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

The Senate version:

* Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

Wikipedia

Simply look at the percentages and discover for yourself who really supported the movement.

The rest of history is essentially the same.

But Eisenhower's Justice Department did side with those who found segregated schools unconstitutional when the Brown v. Board of Education case went before the Supreme Court. Even before his 1956 reelection campaign, Eisenhower proposed a civil rights package that focused on helping African Americans in the South register to vote, though southern Democrats quickly stalled the bill in Congress. And the Republicans' 1956 platform explicitly endorsed the Brown decision, while the Democrats' did not.

Weekly Standard



Republicans have supported civil rights far more than Democrats. FACT

Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


the republican party has shifted to the party that doesn't stand up for minority parties...

i mean, democrats used to be the conservatives and republicans used to be the liberals

you don't want me to go citing the liberal past of the republican party because it's entirely irrelevant to the modern day...

anyway, to the topic at hand. this is just an idiot saying idiotic things. idiocy transcends party lines, as does bigotry.
...unless it's a party that's specifically anti-bigotry...
nah, even then you'd get a few idiots that are bigots just riding the bandwagon

edit to add:
semp... can you show me something in the last 10 years in which republicans have supported civil rights?

[edit on 11/14/07 by madnessinmysoul]

UPDATE!!!

Carla "Buckwheat" Dartez lost her seat to Republican challenger Joe Harrison by 57% to 43%

"See you later Buckwheat"

You sure she didn't switch to Joe, who switched to Carla.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Man the stuff these libs will expect us to believe...!!!!

Have you ever heard the like in your life?

It would be funny if it wasn't so sad that they actually believe it...

Well, alls well that ends well....

"See you later Buckwheat" PRICELESS


Semper

reply to post by semperfortis


didya not see that part where i asked you to show us something that the republicans have done in the last 10 years with regards to civil rights?

i mean, all i can think off is the repeated attempts to force a constitutional amendment banning gay people from getting married...

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
reply to post by semperfortis

 

i mean, all i can think off is the repeated attempts to force a constitutional amendment banning gay people from getting married...

The ban does not prevent gay people from getting married. If a homosexual man wants to marry a lesbian woman, that is perfectly acceptable.

The constitutional amendment is needed to prevent homosexuals and lesbians from having "special rights" based on sexual preferences.

Is "Buckwheat" supposed to be a racial slur?

Growing up in Canada, I always thought it was just an all-purpose insult (like jerk or turkey) with no connotations of race.

Originally posted by RRconservative
The ban does not prevent gay people from getting married. If a homosexual man wants to marry a lesbian woman, that is perfectly acceptable.

The constitutional amendment is needed to prevent homosexuals and lesbians from having "special rights" based on sexual preferences.

special rights? being able to marry the person you love is a special right these days?

i think the constitutional ban on homosexuals marrying members of their own gender is simply this little thing we like to call ignorant bigotry based on a misunderstanding of what homosexuality is.

it wouldn't be a special privilege, it's a right.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
special rights? being able to marry the person you love is a special right these days?

i think the constitutional ban on homosexuals marrying members of their own gender is simply this little thing we like to call ignorant bigotry based on a misunderstanding of what homosexuality is.

it wouldn't be a special privilege, it's a right.

I love my wife, but I also love the twins down the street! Can someone come up with a special right for me so I can marry them all? What right does the government have to say I can't???

Can someone come up with a special right for me so I can marry them all?

RR,

While I have no problem personally with Gay Marriage, it's their soul, not mine; I do disapprove of the lack of intellect that goes into calling it a "Right"..

I searched and searched and searched and can't find it anywhere in the Constitution...

Now if one references the "Basic Human Rights" ie... Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, then maybe a case could be made, but it is a stretch...

Apparently some are not paying attention, as usual.

The question does arise as to where we draw the line. As ridiculous as a man wanting to marry his dog is, so was the aspect of a man wanting to marry a man in the 1950's. So where is the line drawn? Remember that those that scoff at such comparisons, only do so to detract from their agenda for they too know the truth; they just don't want you to know that they do.

A bigger question is why has a member drawn this thread so far off topic? Is there a problem discussing the original thread topic?


Semper

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
Is "Buckwheat" supposed to be a racial slur?

In a way. It's the name of a character from The Little Rascals, a series of short films that ran from 1934- 1944. Buckwheat was a little black boy with a wild head of untamed hair who, apparently, could barely speak English. Black Americans find it offensive because the character 'Buckwheat' portrayed a common staple of early American theater and cinema: the 'pickaninny', or the happy slave child.

Growing up in Canada, I always thought it was just an all-purpose insult (like jerk or turkey) with no connotations of race.

Really?! I'm surprised that the term made its way to Canada (but I guess I shouldn't be). Were there black people where you grew up?

Originally posted by RRconservative
I love my wife, but I also love the twins down the street!

Can someone come up with a special right for me so I can marry them all? What right does the government have to say I can't???

again, not a special right. you're equating polygamy to the practice of monogamy here just because you disapprove of how 2 people happened to be born.

Originally posted by semperfortis
Now if one references the "Basic Human Rights" ie... Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, then maybe a case could be made, but it is a stretch...

Apparently some are not paying attention, as usual.

i'm sorry, but EQUAL RIGHTS are the issue. if heterosexual couples can get married, homosexual couples can get married.

The question does arise as to where we draw the line. As ridiculous as a man wanting to marry his dog is, so was the aspect of a man wanting to marry a man in the 1950's. So where is the line drawn? Remember that those that scoff at such comparisons, only do so to detract from their agenda for they too know the truth; they just don't want you to know that they do.

no... the truth is that you're comparing 2 consenting adults with 1 adult and a non-consenting animal in a highly bigoted comparison of homosexuality to bestiality. i scoff at the ignorance and bigotry here, not at the fact that it detracts from my agenda.

the truth is that a homosexual man marrying a homosexual man is no different from a heterosexual man marrying a heterosexual woman

again, stop using bigoted examples (clarification: not calling you a bigot, the examples are just bigoted) that compare apples and oranges.

oh, and you used the slippery slope logical fallacy.

A bigger question is why has a member drawn this thread so far off topic? Is there a problem discussing the original thread topic?

someone (you) brought up that republicans have done more for civil rights in the history of this country than democrats, which is true... back when republicans were the party of LIBERALS. however, i asked if they had done anything lately, you didn't reply to it at all and completely ignored it.

see, i was doing what is commonly known as "calling out the BS"
because that's what you fed us, BS
well, a distortion of the truth, which is still a form of BS.

[edit on 11/21/07 by madnessinmysoul]

Really?! I'm surprised that the term made its way to Canada (but I guess I shouldn't be).

It was quite a bit more prolific and long running actually..

starting in 1922 as a silent short subject series. Roach changed distributors from Pathé to Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) in 1927, went to sound in 1929, and continued production until 1938, when he sold the series to MGM. MGM continued producing the comedies until 1944. A total of 220 shorts and one feature film, General Spanky, were eventually produced, featuring over forty-one child actors. In the mid-1950s, the 80 Roach-produced shorts with sound were syndicated for television under the title The Little Rascals, as MGM retained the rights to the Our Gang trademark.

Wiki

The production was also defended by the Black actors that played the pertinent roles..

Our Gang also notably put boys, girls, whites, and blacks together in a group as equals, something that "broke new ground," according to film historian Leonard Maltin.[1] Such a thing had never been done before in cinema, but was commonplace after the success of Our Gang.

In their adult years, Ernie Morrison, Matthew Beard, and Billie Thomas became some of Our Gang's staunchest defenders, maintaining that its integrated cast and innocent story lines were far from racist. They explained that the white children's characters in the series were similarly stereotyped: the "freckled kid," the "fat kid," the "pretty blond girl," and the "mischievous toddler." "We were just a group of kids who were having fun," Stymie Beard recalled.[7] Ernie Morrison stated that "when it came to race, Hal Roach was color-blind".[8] Other minorities, including Asian Americans (Sing Joy, Allen Tong, and Edward Zoo Hoo) and Italian Americans (Mickey Gubitosi), were also depicted in the series, with varying levels of stereotyping.

Wiki

I think that it is the ignorance of "Modern" culture that has turned the "quote" into an insult. But isn't that the way it usually is?

Semper

Originally posted by HarlemHottie

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
Growing up in Canada, I always thought it was just an all-purpose insult (like jerk or turkey) with no connotations of race.

Really?! I'm surprised that the term made its way to Canada (but I guess I shouldn't be). Were there black people where you grew up?

Yes, there were a few black people, but they were middle-class not ghetto blacks. And I first heard "buckwheat" from some white kids who might have picked it up from "Little Rascals" and forgot the source. They themselves weren't quite sure where it came from or what it meant.