Florida Congresswoman calls Bush officials "racist white men"

it doesnt bother me that much. in fact, it doesn't bother me at all, just kinda irks me a bit.

definitely aint gonna lose sleep over it, thats for damn sure.

 

Exactly,

my point is that these things cause different size blips on different groups' radars. The double standard complaint is about the people who make the noise about an issue. If this offended Republicans as much as the opposite defends Democrats, then it would probably cause a bigger uproar. But you can't expect Democrats to feed on their on, that's just silly. If you want to make a complaint that its hypocritical, you have to wait and see if it does cause a stink with Republicans, or whatever group, and then if those same groups that call for Lott's ouster defend this lady, then you have a point.

 

No, because Krugman isn't remotely like the people mentioned. He's intelligent, articulate and must drive people like you crazy with his excellent columns.

The other folks are clowns pretending to be pundits.

 

Well Reagan vetoed sanctions against South Africa. That was a huge one.

There was the recent Michigan admissions case. This is just to name a few.

There is the fact that Crack(more popular in urban areas populated by minorities) gets a harsher punishment than Cocaine.

These are just some things that are off the top of my head.

 

I think it was Bernard Goldberg and some others who described it as the "license to overkill." If you are supposedly "repressed" minority (gays, blacks and I know it is not a minority, but women and more specifically, feminazis), you can say the most outlandish things and get away with it because in the past, you were discriminated against.

As for Woofer's comment, I think that he may need to look to the vast majority of liars, criminals and reprobates on the left (Bill Clinton, Teddy Kennedy, James Carville, Paul Begala, tons of others) before he casts stones at those folks, who are not liars in the slightest. Maybe you should check out all the kind and patriotic things uttered by your kin at the democraticunderground forum. Talk about lies and hate speech! If you can't run with the big dogs, Woofer, stay on the porch if that "hate speech" hurts your feewings soooo much.

 

We could write a whole book dispelling the mistruths in Bernard Goldberg's book.

And I never defended any of the people you mentioned, though it was a nice try at getting me to take the other side of the argument in your misdirection ploy.

If you think those right wing folks I mentioned are paragons of the truth, you are beyond reach.

 

Back to the original topic. the congresswoman made a stupid remark and should apoligize. However that does not remedy the 1994 Congress spiteful attempt to hurt the Clinton administration by not funding the rebuilding of Haiti leading to the current situation, nor the official double standard between Cuban and Haitian immigrants - in an attempt to build a Republican base population in Florida.

 

Woofer,
You want to talk about an actual political policy, an actual issue? Wouldn't it be more fun to lambast this DEMONCRAT for saying "bunch of white guys" or whatever, and then, in nearby threads, insult a presidential candidate because he looks French (sic?)?

PS -- the Haiti issue is actually an important one... I don't know if a real thread about it would survive. Worth a try? The place is a complete mess, and it does boil down to some sad Washington politics.

 

Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly... "those folks" are not liars in the slightest?

Oh, I almost ruined another keyboard cracking up. Good one, bama!

 

Here we go.
http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/aam/symposium.html#Reddy
AAM and UN: partners in the international campaign against apartheid

E S Reddy

I think of the 'anti-apartheid movement' as a coalition of anti-apartheid organisations and individuals, as well as a growing number of governments, which in the 1960s was able to secure the active involvement of the United Nations, the Commonwealth, the Non-Aligned Movement, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and many other international organisations. This was a coalition which encompassed the world and consisted of international, regional, national and local bodies. It developed a broad range of actions from public boycotts to UN sanctions, from the provision of humanitarian assistance to refugees to military and non-military assistance to the liberation movement.


http://www.anc.org.za/ancdocs/history/aam/symposium.html#Minty

There is no doubt that the world-wide movement was effective because it was a coalition of committed governments and people's movements in the West which managed to influence policy at national level, as well as at institutions like the UN. We used to say that the degree of unarmed pressure mobilised against apartheid would determine the degree of armed pressure that would be necessary to end it. How then do we analyse that era? In the end it was a success primarily of the liberation struggle reinforced by the world-wide anti-apartheid movement that led to the dismantling of the apartheid system without a major racial conflagration. Was this a major achievement? Who takes the credit? How do we balance that credit? How can we assess the role of the Anti-Apartheid Movement? How are we to assess the role of its Presidents Barbara Castle, David Steel, Bishop Reeves, Trevor Huddleston? How are we to assess the roles of those in leadership like David Ennals, Vella Pillay, Bob Hughes and also the devoted work of people like Ros Ainslie, Dorothy Robinson, Ethel de Keyser, Mike Terry and so many others that I have not mentioned? Will the researchers recognise the central role of Ronald Segal and Ruth First in organising the 1964 sanctions conference in London and the subsequent international conference on Namibia in Oxford, chaired by Olaf Palme, which called for the termination of South Africa's mandate by the UN? Will people also see the tremendous impact on the liberation struggle of the murder of Ruth First who, though living in Africa, was in touch with us in Europe, and followed in a global context the kind of strategy that we needed to devise to counteract the menace of apartheid. There were these coalitions across continents and seas that interacted by telephone and at conferences where we spoke late at night in order to work out what we had to do.

Will those who record history recognise the central and quite unique role of Enuga Reddy who, with such genius, utilised the bureaucracy of the United Nations to ensure that it became a true servant of its Charter in upholding human rights and working to prevent a threat to world peace? If it had not been for his personal dedication, even if you had put 20 or 50 people at desks at the United Nations, it would not have triggered the resources and the direction of the UN machinery.

Above all, will the researchers understand the Movement's unique working relationship with the ANC, and especially the leadership and the inspirational role of Oliver Tambo who came to Europe in 1960 and who helped to nurture and defend the Anti-Apartheid Movement? How will historians capture the development of the Movement from 40 years ago, when small pickets outside South Africa House stood in tens and twenties, developing into major demonstrations, culminating in the Mandela marches involving hundreds of thousands of people, and the two Wembley concerts? How will they capture the dynamism of the Anti-Apartheid Movement as it grew to be the largest protest movement in Britain?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is from people in the Anti-Apartheid Movement, ANC, etc. People who were in South Africa, and experienced firsthand the effectiveness of those sanctions.

 

IIRC, the US still observes the Monroe Doctrine (some would argue with Iraq we've enlarged the scale...). We would not permit other countries to come in there without our permission which covers the UN.
The French have offered to send in a force but the US has said it wants a *diplomatic* solution.

 

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/world/story/0,4386,237292,00.html
France calls for security force in Haiti
In a move which takes even Washington by surprise, France wants international force sent immediately to restore order

PARIS - France has called for an international peacekeeping force to restore order immediately in its former colony of Haiti - a proposal that has taken even the United States by surprise.

France - which sees Haiti as part of its sphere of influence - has said it will contribute to the force.


An inter-ministerial committee was to meet in Paris yesterday to review security in Haiti and discuss possible commitments, officials said.

While the US has spoken about sending a peacekeeping force to Haiti, American officials seemed to be taken aback by the speed at which France wants to deploy the force.

.
.
.