Click to See Complete Forum and Search --> : The Republicans nominate avowed racist for Congress.
techs
August 6th, 2004, 12:38 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=684&e=16&u=/ap/eugenics_candidate
Unabashed Racist Wins GOP Primary in Tenn.
An unabashed racist will represent the Republican party in the November election for a congressional seat after a write-in candidate failed to derail his effort.
Hart, 60, vows if elected to work toward keeping "less favored races" from reproducing or immigrating to the United States. In campaign literature, Hart contends that "poverty genes" threaten to turn the United States into "one big Detroit."
Surprisingly Hart has no information on the "stupidity gene' of which he is apparently a carrier.
And here's a picture of Hart with his "Favored Races" coloring book:
http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/net/20040806/capt.e1ca5b559c440081115fe015bfeafdeb
Ya_know
August 6th, 2004, 12:43 PM
He's not a republican, he's a freak (that is if all of that is true, I never heard of him myself).
Zil
August 6th, 2004, 12:55 PM
Still better than the former KKK member and current Democratic senator from West Virginia, Robert "Sheets" Byrd.
Ya_know
August 6th, 2004, 01:02 PM
Still better than the former KKK member and current Democratic senator from West Virginia, Robert "Sheets" Byrd.
Commonly referred to as "right back at_ya!". How’s it feel Techs...
techs
August 6th, 2004, 01:04 PM
Commonly referred to as "right back at_ya!". How’s it feel Techs...
Let's see. We have a guy that was a member of the KKK in the 1950's and has publically renounced them. Versus a guy showing us his "Favorite Races" coloring book in 2004 after the Republicans nominated him for Congress.
Hard to tell which is worse?
NOT
meatwad
August 6th, 2004, 01:05 PM
I don't know if he's better than Byrd. Their both a couple of idiots. But people like him exist. That doesn't surprise me. What DOES suprise me is that he got,what 83% of the votes? What does that say about his constituants?
techs
August 6th, 2004, 01:08 PM
I heard he's the true father of Lynddie Englands baby!
http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/net/20040806/thumb.e1ca5b559c440081115fe015bfeafdeb
Zil
August 6th, 2004, 01:21 PM
Let's see. We have a guy that was a member of the KKK in the 1950's and has publically renounced them. Versus a guy showing us his "Favorite Races" coloring book in 2004 after the Republicans nominated him for Congress.
Hard to tell which is worse?
NOT
I think being a member or former member of the KKK is DEFINITELY worse than showing a book and proclaiming prejudice ideas.
I wonder how many lynchings, cross burnings, and beatings Sen. Byrd carried out before he "renounced" them.
Cleetus
August 6th, 2004, 01:24 PM
So once again, the democrat cannot be forgiven for his past, yet a Republican can?
Zil
August 6th, 2004, 01:35 PM
So once again, the democrat cannot be forgiven for his past, yet a Republican can?
Just like Trent Lott when he apologized? Or is it only ok when Clinton says he's sorry?
amyb
August 6th, 2004, 01:38 PM
Just like Trent Lott when he apologized? Or is it only ok when Clinton says he's sorry?
Trent was dragged through the coals even after he apoligized.
Ya_know
August 6th, 2004, 01:51 PM
So once again, the democrat cannot be forgiven for his past, yet a Republican can?
No Cleetus, they're all retards, theres just different degrees of retardation...
amyb
August 6th, 2004, 01:53 PM
No Cleetus, they're all retards, theres just different degrees of retardation...
Agreed.
Escape_Driver
August 6th, 2004, 01:57 PM
You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
- Malcolm X
meatwad
August 6th, 2004, 02:00 PM
You're not to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it.
- Malcolm X
Uhhh...wasn't Malcom X a racist?
meatwad
August 6th, 2004, 02:01 PM
That coloring book is stupid! You don't need any crayons!
paraflyer
August 6th, 2004, 02:05 PM
Uhhh...wasn't Malcom X a racist?
Malcom X, M.L. King, no.
Louis Farrakhan, yes.
meatwad
August 6th, 2004, 02:14 PM
Malcom X, M.L. King, no.
Louis Farrakhan, yes.
I knew MLK wasn't. I knew Farrahkan was. I stand corrected on Malcom X. :thumbs:
techs
August 6th, 2004, 02:42 PM
I knew MLK wasn't. I knew Farrahkan was. I stand corrected on Malcom X. :thumbs:
I disagree on Malcom X. I think people were influenced by the movie which covered up his racism.
And as to Byrd vs. Hart are you really comparing them? Have the Republican at any cost faction resorted to comparing a current racist who was just nominated against a man who for 40 years has foresworn his past and worked towards racial harmony.
Can it be that being Republican can really make you think this way?
Cleetus
August 6th, 2004, 02:47 PM
Just like Trent Lott when he apologized? Or is it only ok when Clinton says he's sorry?
Trent Lott was an idiot that never learned to keep his mouth shut. That is why a lot of Rep's were after him as well.
Ya_know
August 6th, 2004, 02:48 PM
Can it be that being Republican can really make you think this way?
How about...I don't know either of these retards, don't care about their records, they don't run in a state that I vote it (I currently vote in 4...), and since there is still so much to debate about concerning topics I actually do give a sh!t about, I say that we just move on here. Unless you have something of real importance to add.
Zil
August 6th, 2004, 03:55 PM
And as to Byrd vs. Hart are you really comparing them? Have the Republican at any cost faction resorted to comparing a current racist who was just nominated against a man who for 40 years has foresworn his past and worked towards racial harmony.
Can it be that being Republican can really make you think this way?
Did your side forgive Trent Lott? Or Strom Thurmond? Or do you just like Byrd because he is a Democrat?
Titchski
August 6th, 2004, 11:27 PM
Racism of any type is abhorrent and should not be tolerated in the corridors of power. Unless it's directed at the French, then it's alright. :thumbs:
My take: Kick out Lott, Sheets, the colouring book man and any other avowed racist senators/congressmen etc, and while you're at it, ban Sharpton and Jesse "Affirmitive Action-Jackson" from ever running for political office - they're just as bad.
Just my take.
Major Kong
August 7th, 2004, 12:47 AM
Being someone who was born in West "By God" Virginia and raised in Virginia in the 50's and 60's I have first person experience, and memories, with the KKK (any of y'all remember the KKK's Footprint of the American Chicken symbol? I most certainly do). They were a frightning bunch of crackers.
I just want to keep this in my unique perspective. First Robert Byrd. Yes he was a member of the KKK in his early days. The voters of WV know about it. He renounced the KKK, and the fine people of WV have kept sending him back to the US Senate since '58 in record #'s (before that he was in the House). I think it's more important to judge the man on the present and what he's done since then. Read a bio on the man he's truly remarkable (just because you don't agree with his politics, which I often don't, you can't take away his accomplishments) and there are some other facets with his family that you might find interesting (his oldest daughter is an interesting story in irony).
Now to Mr. Hart. He's a stain there is no doubt about it. Will he win in November? Not hardly. But let me say this - techs your statement "Versus a guy showing us his "Favorite Races" coloring book in 2004 after the Republicans nominated him for Congress." is just plain DUUUMMMBBB!!! It also shows a wonderfully naive lack of understanding of how the political process works in certain places, especially in the South. Mr. Hart wasn't nominated by the Republican Party! What happened was he got enough signatures on a petition to be put on a ballot and because the Republican were not going to mount a challenge to the current Democratic representative this guy got the open spot (actually the Eddie Murphy movie "The Distinguished Gentleman" uses this theme). The man isn't even a Republican and doesn't have the endorsement of the local Republican committee. Shame on you techs for that statement. You don't like the Republican Party that is fine, but before you post such drivel please use a little common sense and unbiased thinking into your post please. I know I would appreciate it (Ah Thank Ya Very Much).
Now to Bob Packwood he was just a touchy. feely sort of guy! I mean come on he never met a pubescent female he couldn't lick, well unless she fought him off! :p
Jediab
August 7th, 2004, 05:05 AM
Mr. Hart wasn't nominated by the Republican Party! What happened was he got enough signatures on a petition to be put on a ballot and because the Republican were not going to mount a challenge to the current Democratic representative this guy got the open spot (actually the Eddie Murphy movie "The Distinguished Gentleman" uses this theme). The man isn't even a Republican and doesn't have the endorsement of the local Republican committee. Shame on you techs for that statement. You don't like the Republican Party that is fine, but before you post such drivel please use a little common sense and unbiased thinking into your post please. I know I would appreciate it (Ah Thank Ya Very Much).
STOP THE PRESSES!!!! You mean to tell us that Michael Moore....err I mean techs lied? :eek:
techs
August 7th, 2004, 05:44 AM
STOP THE PRESSES!!!! You mean to tell us that Michael Moore....err I mean techs lied? :eek:
Errr....NOT. I didn't lie. Hart is a Republican. He won the Republican primary.
Major Kong
August 7th, 2004, 10:21 AM
Errr....NOT. I didn't lie. Hart is a Republican. He won the Republican primary.
I just want to clarify that techs DID NOT lie!
He was just misinformed by his advisors >>> http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~dmason/probs/clipart/3stooges.gif and he was unable to make a correct salient observation. :thumbs:
techs
August 7th, 2004, 01:59 PM
I just want to clarify that techs DID NOT lie!
He was just misinformed by his advisors >>> http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~dmason/probs/clipart/3stooges.gif and he was unable to make a correct salient observation. :thumbs:
Isn't that Rumsfield, Cheney and Bush going over the "evidence" of WMD in Iraq?
Wayward Clam
August 7th, 2004, 03:27 PM
Whooop woop woop woop woop woop woop woop woop!!!!
techs
August 7th, 2004, 07:17 PM
Jediab: if you're not with him, you're doing the Devil's work.
:devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil: :devil:
jaeger
August 7th, 2004, 10:57 PM
Put a couple hundred people in a room, you will get a few ****heads. Put a few hundred congressmen and sentators in a room, you get a room full of ****heads. Don't pretend that any of you would pass up a chance to kick any one of them in the shins. Or balls.
techs
August 7th, 2004, 11:04 PM
Put a couple hundred people in a room, you will get a few ****heads. Put a few hundred congressmen and sentators in a room, you get a room full of ****heads. Don't pretend that any of you would pass up a chance to kick any one of them in the shins. Or balls.
There are SOME decent ones. But they are becoming scarcer.
Major Kong
August 7th, 2004, 11:38 PM
Isn't that Rumsfield, Cheney and Bush going over the "evidence" of WMD in Iraq?
Now techs ewe know better than that. Everyone knows that those gentlemen are from the law firm Howard, Howard and Fine. They represented Al Gore before the Supreme Court in November 2000. :thumbs2:
paraflyer
August 9th, 2004, 11:54 AM
Now techs ewe know better than that. Everyone knows that those gentlemen are from the law firm Howard, Howard and Fine. They represented Al Gore before the Supreme Court in November 2000. :thumbs2:
No, that was "Dewey, Cheatham, and Howe" :p