Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) veiled racist remarks

I saw Bill Maher talking about this on his show last night and wanted to share with you all. Now, I know this will not be a popular thread and, most likely, I will get flamed. BUT, make no mistake about it, this guy is a bigot and the great people of GA should be calling for his resignation.

"If ObamaCare passes, that free insurance card that’s in people’s pockets is gonna be as worthless as a Confederate dollar after the War Between The States — the Great War of Yankee Aggression."

Thoughts? Opinions?

[edit on 20-3-2010 by Aggie Man]

Yankee agression!? Is this guy serious??

They seperated because they didn't believe in human rights and the north just tried to keep the nation together and secure human rights. This guy is a complete moron. Many of the stupid southerners continue to re-enact a war they LOST. If it wasn't for the Union these hilbillies would be living like it's Africa and we would have constant wars with these idiots.

Oh noes, not ANOTHER slam using the old race card.

Jeez, we just had a long winded debate on the causes and repercussions of the civil war.

It was about slavery

No, it was about federal government control

No it was about slavery

No..........

He was referring to Yankee Aggression in terms of federal government control.

But no, people are going to twist it into a racial thing. Nice going.

Keep using the divide and conquer doctrine.

If you want an all powerful dictatorial federal government, sorry, you are my enemy. Got it? Good.

I guess you like the chains of oppression.


edit to add-OH BY THE WAY, IT WAS ABOUT FEDERAL CONTROL!

Going to call me a racist or bigot now?


[edit on 3/20/2010 by endisnighe]

What else would you call the Civil War? The Confederacy acted constitutionally to remove themselves from the USA. North didn't like it for whatever reason (some say slaves, some say the North needed the South because it of its lack of agriculture). Regardless the Civil War took place and here we are. The North violated the South's rights and we all know it (don't care who supports who btw). I see no problem with what he is saying.

reply to post by endisnighe


Nope I won't call you a racist because I doubt you are. If it was about the power of the federal government then they were probably mad because the feds wanted to step in and stop them from using slaves. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

While I support what the north did, it was unconstitutional. They had the right to leave the union. But they were doing unconstitutional things too, such as slavery.

[edit on 3/20/10 by Misoir]

Well now I wouldn't call for a resignation over just this. I'll admit it made me laugh though, I didn't know anyone still called it "The War Of Yankee Aggression."

It could have been a poorly placed joke, or just one that I didn't get as well. Honestly I think the most this man is guilty of in my humble opinion is reinforcing the stereotype of the crazy southern politician in American lore.

Now please remember that I am a very progressive person, a socialist and proud to be one, but I think any attempt to remove this man from office just for this one piece of speech is playing dirty politics. Lighten up a bit and focus on the issues!

Actually, OPs...
the civil war wasn't about slavery...the free the slaves thing was simply a military tactic employed during the war.

One thing they wanted to do (the north) was stop the importing of new slaves...they figured there was enough slave stock to trade internally. Of course up north, there was much less need of slaves than in the south, so there was a movement to let them all free anyhow

the south on the other hand found themselves often paying taxes for a government focused mostly on northern growth and commerce...slave trade was a minor part of the argument but not as big as its made to be (they didn't want slave trade to get regulated at all), etc etc etc...

There was a currency, but when they lost, the currency did become useless of course.

And yankee aggression..meh, he is tarded over that comment, but not because its a racist comment...just a really dumb comment.

reply to post by Misoir

They seperated because they didn't believe in human rights and the north just tried to keep the nation together and secure human rights.

The Civil War was not a war over human rights. IF it was, it was a contest on whose human rights violations were acceptable. The north had no intention of being the morally correct side, it was just using a detestable idea (slavery) to enrage the population of the north to commit more terrible acts.

If it was about the power of the federal government then they were probably mad because the feds wanted to step in and stop them from using slaves. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I would like you to research the history of banking, tariffs, and monetary policy in the US during the 19th century. The answer lies in there.

While I support what the north did, it was unconstitutional. They had the right to leave the union. But they were doing unconstitutional things too, such as slavery.

They did not attack the south because of its ideas on slavery. They attacked it because Lincoln wanted to preserve the union at the expense of hundreds of thousands of lives. There is no excuse for morally reprehensible behavior. Slavery is wrong, but the north's barbarism was wrong as well. It is possible for both sides to be wrong.

If it was about slavery, why couldn't the USA have freed those people without bloodshed? Most of the rest of the world managed this task.

I have ancestors who fought for the north, and I do not let 150 year old propaganda or some vane sense of 'northern nationalist pride' cloud my judgment on historical events.

In fact, the earliest of abolitionists were against war altogether on the same basis that they were against slavery. The anti-slave movement took to the fields of battle by people using it only as a method for control in order to maintain their own wealth.

This "representative" might be a bigot, or he might not be, but his statement isn't that far from the truth. It's, at least, more accurate than calling it a war over the moral issue of slavery.

Just because someone utters remarks that imply some type of racial bigotry does not mean that the remarks are "RACIST". While anyone using words to speak ill of some other race is indeed a bigot or someone of a prejudicial type, that alone does make one a racist.

The term racist gets overused so much and so misused in the media and in every day use that the uninformed masses are already brainwashed into believing that if someone talks bad or has negative remarks about someones color that he or she is a racist.

OK, now listen up. Someone sitting around talking bad about black people and mentioning watermelon and fried chicken would be speaking in "Stereotypes" and even those remarks would not be racist remarks. Let me explain what I mean.

Racism is when you take your dislike or hatred for some particular race and act to do something criminal to them. Action of a criminal and physical nature that was based on race equals racism.

Racism begins when you act on your bigotry and or dislike for some other race. Any action taken to physically harm someone that is of another color or race is racism. Now let me repeat that. If you say you hate black people, the remark is bigoted at best. If you go out and lynch a black man because he is black then you have committed a crime called murder. Only if can be proven that you hated blacks would the act of "RACISM" then be justly used against the criminal.

Without the physical criminal action behind the hate speech, there is no racism. This is why way back when that talk host got in trouble for saying nappy headed ho's, his remarks were not racist. They were stupid and insensitive, but at most they only prove bigotry or a prejudicial opinion of the race and are not racist remarks.

Saying you want to hang a black man is hate speech, but when you act and go do it, you now have crossed a line that first is a crime and if can be proven that you hated black people, then your actions would be criminal first and also racist because you did something criminal and physical to harm the race you stated you hated.

I would ask you and others to use the term racist correctly because if you did it would return to what it was meant to mean. Bigotry, prejudice and out right ignorance are not racist remarks. Hitting someone in the head with a brick because he is black is a crime first but it is also an act of racism only if it can be proven that the perpetrator hated the race of his intended victim. This is when his bigotry remarks and or prejudicial remarks that anyone can testify to would support the added definition of racism or racist.

Sorry for the lecture but it really peeves me to see so much misuse of the word racist and racism in the media and just about everywhere. The dumbfounding down of America is not yet complete, so in that regard, I hope my posting is understood as not to lecture but to inform.

Thanks for the posting.

Originally posted by Misoir
Yankee agression!? Is this guy serious??
They seperated because they didn't believe in human rights and the north just tried to keep the nation together and secure human rights.

...no, thats the lie thats taught as truth... the union whites werent interested in the human rights of non-whites either, never had been... proof is the genocidal policies against the indigenous... some people like to pretend that white supremacy only existed in southern states but, reality is, there were no regions of the usofa or its territories that were immune...

Originally posted by Misoir
This guy is a complete moron. Many of the stupid southerners continue to re-enact a war they LOST. If it wasn't for the Union these hilbillies would be living like it's Africa and we would have constant wars with these idiots.

...supremacy is a disease...

www.abfition.com...

My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurts the cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more will help the cause.

...good ol' Abe, dancin' the cya like a pro...

reply to post by MaxBlack


I see your point. Here is a great writeup someone did on the subject of bigotry vs. prejudice vs. racism.

www.mdcbowen.org...

reply to post by Aggie Man


Im sorry I just dont see anything racist. Are the racist politicians? You betcha, but I didnt see much out of this video.

Veiled racism?
no, that was the truth, yanke aggression is what it was.
learn your history...REAL history not what is in the left leaning text books.

Why would you think this is racist?
What if we had another civil war(which we might)?Do you honestly think it would be about slavery?
It would be about the same thing it was last time,the right of states to govern themselves instead of having federal government oppression like we are experiencing now.

If you want to know where the real racism is look at the health care bill
they are trying to pass right now.

I don't see see any racism in what this guy said.Only fact.

I like the term 'War of Northern Agression' Its a Southern Pride thing. A Pittsburgh steel worker has what I call 'Southern Pride', as do the Lobstermen of the Northeast, so its not really about geography at all. Its about manners. I feel comfortable with my opinion concerning the reason for the 'War of Northern Agression'. It has taken alot of work and personal sacrifice to discover my opinion, and it is far to complicated an issue to even begin to disect it here.

I saw no racial undertones in this comment in the op.

This all seems to be a philosophy issue and not at all a 'race' one. I didnt know Power had a color, control is colorless as well. Within every race there is power and the struggle to obtain it. This holds true in every culture , group, sub-group and category, even down to the family level. If there were only two people in the cosmos as a whole, no matter thier physical appearance, I fear there would still be a battle for dominance. Which is ultimately done by the gathering of power, that in and of itself is not a physical thing at all. Power can be gathered by various material acts, murder, rape, theft, extortion, devotion, sacrifice, honour, love.
I suppose ones methods for the obtainment of power determine the type of person one is.

He was just stating facts....nothing racist or bigoted there. Bill has long been a liberl shill, nothing he says surprises me anymore. Maybe if Bill studied history more and spent less time attacking the right he wouldn't keep putting his foot in his mouth.

My great great pappy fought in the great war of Northern Agression, (and if you didnt understand the humor in that clip, then you dont understand the above comment) All kidding aside.
I fear my son or his may find himself fighing in the next civil war.

Ron Paul is racis

You guys carrying on about the Civil War is worse than Jews carrying on about the Holocaust...

They both happened so long ago they're basically irrelevant...

Build a bridge guys, build a bridge...

Given the impending collapse of the US economy and following that, US society as a whole, don't Americans have more important things to argue about ??

Nope, no "veiled racism"... This congressman was ATTEMPTING to summon a profound metaphor, but he failed miserably.

You can't call down the Civil War without remembering that Abe Lincoln was Republican and the GOP was the party of Black Emancipation, okay? And the Democrats, bless their souls, were the Confederacy. Good Southern Democrats who gifted the Knights of the Ku Klux Klan on the American South during the Reconstruction era.

Boy, that's something the Democrats want you to forget, aint it?

Just keep that in mind as you absorb the video.

— Doc Velocity