Charlie Rangel: Tea Party Is ‘Same Group’ Of ‘White Cr---rs’ Who Fought Civil Rights

page: 1
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:37 PM
link   
Now I am awfully glad that it's just not possible for a Black person to be racist to white people. At least, that is the message we are given, almost daily in movies, TV and media. It's one sided. Entirely...right?

According to Charlie...


In an interview with the Daily Beast published Friday, Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) suggested Tea Partiers are the "same group" who fought for segregation during the Civil Rights movement.



“It is the same group we faced in the South with those white crackers and the dogs and the police. They didn’t care about how they looked," Rangel said.
Source

Wow.. That's quite a statement. Now, where he manages to corral some facts to come up with that? I really have no idea. I looked right to the heart of the matter and the law itself to see what I might find, since we're talking about politicians here and NOT about the individual people who were fighting one another across the Deep South and many other areas of the nation, around that time. Hmmm..... You might be surprised, after what he said there. I was.


The final roll-call came at 7:40 P.M. on the 83d day of debate, nine days after closure was invoked.

Voting for the bill were 46 Democrats and 27 Republicans. Voting against it were 21 Democrats and six Republicans.

Except for Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, all the Democratic votes against the bill came from Southerners.
Source

Well, that's odd? So...the Democrats have become the Tea Party? Err... That can't be right? What about the House, one may ask? Well.. Lets see.


The House of Representatives debated the bill for nine days and rejected nearly one hundred amendments designed to weaken the bill before passing H.R .7152 on February 10, 1964. [Of the 420 members who voted, 290 supported the civil rights bill and 130 opposed it. Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96.] It is interesting to note that Democrats from northern states voted overwhelmingly for the bill, 141 to 4, while Democrats from southern states voted overwhelmingly against the bill, 92 to 11. A bipartisan coalition of Republicans and northern Democrats was the key to the bill's success. This same arrangement would prove crucial later to the Senate's approval of the bill.
Source

Awww... I think this was just a wee short of honest, to be real generous. I'll be even more generous by saying that, in reality and in the honest appraisal of history, people on both sides (as usually seems to be the case) both made Civil Rights happen AND fought hard to kill it.

Sorry Charlie....Civil Rights isn't a left thing or a right thing. Then OR now. We just have politicians who can't stop misrepresenting basic historic truths long enough to tell a straight and honest story. (Then again, Rangle himself very narrowly missed being busted right out of the Congress for his own tax evasion while heading the committee handling tax law. What can we expect these days? Honesty?) :shk:
edit on 2-8-2013 by SkepticOverlord because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:40 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Snip your headline Wrabbit people get in trouble on here for that term.


On Topic:

Charlie Rangel is so wrong on so many levels it's not even funny since he was there during the time of Senator Robert Byrd, and other people from his party actively stone walling civil right laws.

www.senate.gov...



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:50 PM
link   
reply to post by neo96
 

Well, I'm quoting a United States national leader for a statement made to the press in a public address made in his official capacity. I'll happily change it, if asked by staff....but if we must censor even repeating what our own elected national Officials say, on the record and TO us? We have far more problems right now than JUST P.C. language.

The man said it. He meant it. I cannot see the crime in relating the words he used. Anything else would be deliberately whitewashing the very statement he, a senior member of Congress, made?

edit on 2-8-2013 by Wrabbit2000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:53 PM
link   
Yeah their not racist at all...I mean it's not like they formed just as a black president was elected..oh wait..


They were quiet when Bush was screwing over the country..but as soon as a black man gets elected then all of a sudden the government is going to hell.

This man knows what s what...



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:54 PM
link   
So nice to know that he's just as ignorant as the "crackers" he claims to be against. Mr. Pot, meet Kettle.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Also could insert;

Charlie Rangel: Veterans Is ‘Same Group’ Of ‘White Cr*****s’ Who Fought Civil Rights

Charlie Rangel: Libertarians Is ‘Same Group’ Of ‘White Cr*****s’ Who Fought Civil Rights

Charlie Rangel: Patriots, Oath Keepers Is ‘Same Group’ Of ‘White Cr*****s’ Who Fought Civil Rights

Charlie Rangel: People of different ethnicities who don't obey specific party dogma Is ‘Same Group’ Of ‘White Cr*****s’ Who Fought Civil Rights


Basically, anyone who doesn't believe the same as Charlie Rangel are "White Cr*****s' Who Fought Civil Rights."



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Onslaught2996
 


I appreciate your opinion. This thread is, by it's nature and Rangel's statement, a potentially explosive one. The fact a senior member of Congress DID say it, in this climate and with that knowledge impossible to miss, is why I say every opinion is welcome here and I'll do nothing to discourage it.

The fact is...I've not heard anything that openly and patently objectionable in a deliberately made public statement in my personal memory. I was going to say in a long time, but I can't honestly recall a similar thing being said by anyone in current office at that level, where it wasn't taken out of more private settings to play 'Gotcha' with. He didn't say it to staff and have someone burn the confidence of a conversation. He said it straight to a public already brimming with race tensions. Dangerously so.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 03:39 PM
link   
I wonder what Rangel's point really is ?

He himself is a tax cheater, slum landlord, etc.

Maybe it's just sour grapes because he has been exposed and censored.

Maybe he's losing his mind.

Stirring up racial tensions is dangerous.

But then again, he's probably campaigning for the 2014 elections.

He takes orders from somebody somewhere.

The Democrats don't have much sensible accomplishments to campaign with.

Here's to ya Charlie



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 03:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by Onslaught2996
Yeah their not racist at all...I mean it's not like they formed just as a black president was elected..oh wait..


They were quiet when Bush was screwing over the country..but as soon as a black man gets elected then all of a sudden the government is going to hell.

This man knows what s what...




you should be more cautious.

you might give Liberals a bad name or something !!

Bush gets bashed just as much as Obama, even by conservatives.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 03:43 PM
link   
Yo Charlie Rangel?

Rather be a censored than a politician any day especially a corrupt one, that lacks any moral or ethical code what so ever.

See that is a censored own a term meant to be a derogatory insult.

Charlie the crook

Charlie flips a heckler off

Charlie always loves to keep it classy
edit on 2-8-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 03:46 PM
link   
Charlie Rangel,,basically saying that those people,,are all of the same mindset,,as an, Ariel Castro.

Ariel Castro didn't see anything wrong either.Still doesn't.

So ya ,,imagine "tea Party Mindset=Ariel Castro. wow



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 03:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Onslaught2996
 


You obviously just read the thread title and not the OP because wrabbit lays it down quite clear that this racist remark made by Charlie is just completely wrong. Maybe control your urge to cheerlead for the Democrats until after you read the whole thread?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 



Well, that's odd? So...the Democrats have become the Tea Party? Err... That can't be right?


It is more accurate than you think.

Some of yesterdays Democrats (pre civil rights era) are in fact today's Tea Party.

It's amazing to me that people still don't understand the shift that took place with Democrats and Republicans after Civil Rights. Before that vote, there was no clear line between the two...after and still now there is a clear line.
edit on 2-8-2013 by AlienScience because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:02 PM
link   
reply to post by AlienScience
 


Can you please show us some type of proof on this?



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:05 PM
link   
So will he loose his job and be crucified by the media for saying that?
Has the Huff Post gone into full-blown retard mode over this?

Just for the record I prefer to be called "Creepy Ass Cracker".



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:06 PM
link   
Yep, racism is a two way street.

Personally, a black person can call me whatever they want and I just shrug my shoulders. Cracker? Meh, so what, I like crackers -- especially those buttery ritz ones.

I think this really shows that just under the surface of things, and for how far we think we've come...we've really only changed the outward appearance.

I understand that what he was saying was factually incorrect, but to complain about reverse racism is racist in and of itself. It's kind of like saying, "Hey! Why do YOU get away calling me racist names, but I can't call you some racist names?!" ... as if the person wishes they had the ability to do so.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by thesaneone
reply to post by AlienScience
 


Can you please show us some type of proof on this?


Just do some research on the "Southern Strategy".

This is the "Southern Strategy" in a nutshell.


In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to the Republican Party's strategy of gaining political support or winning elections in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans


Here is a little quote about it that should quickly explain my comments.


From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[


You can read more about it on wiki, it does a good job explaining it.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:17 PM
link   
How soon they forget that it was the Democrats (specifically the Dixiecrats) that fought tooth and nail against the civil rights movement in the 60s... now these people are their saviors... because they know how to pander to minority groups...

S&F wrabbit-san...
edit on 2-8-2013 by madmac5150 because: Bad sintacks... errrr syntax



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Charlie who?

Is that fossil still bumping his gums? Better yet, is anyone listening anymore? It never ceases to amaze me how when you're in a certain party, and part of a certain race, you get a free pass for saying just about anything. Yet people like Paula Deen lose their career over something said 30 years ago.

Nothing to see here, folks. Move along!



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 04:30 PM
link   
I object to the constant use of the word cracker to describe white people in this thread. It's racially offensive. please remove it.





new topics

top topics



 
19
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join