• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Another racist democrat

Their group photo from 1984 shows them gathered around a huge confederate battle flag.
 
Most of them are online. https://library.digitalnc.org/cdm/s...l/conn/and!and/display/200/order/datea/ad/asc

I remember there was a drawing from the last page from a Howler in the 1920's or 30's that got posted in the early 2000's that was pretty bad.

If I remember, it was a picture or drawing of a lynched black man and underneath it said “The End.”

People like to ignore how many people think terrorizing and extrajudicial killing of black people is funny.
 
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/06/6920...-forward-with-account-of-alleged-sexual-assau
"According to Tyson's statement, she and Fairfax had struck up a "cordial, but not flirtatious" relationship by the third day of the convention in 2004. On July 28, Tyson said, Fairfax invited her to his hotel room to "retrieve documents" — and upon their arrival, began to kiss her.

"What began as consensual kissing quickly turned into a sexual assault," Tyson alleges in a statement released on her attorneys' letterhead. She says he forced her to perform oral sex on him despite her struggles against doing so."

Check out who the lawyers representing the alleged victim and the accused are.
 
^

Wonder if Lindsey Graham is available to chastise anyone sympathetic to the accuser and critical of the accused?
 
Check out who the lawyers representing the alleged victim and the accused are.

I mean if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Northam did essentially the same thing as Kavanaugh with the attempts to frame the stories as harmless horseplay.
 
https://www.npr.org/2019/02/06/6920...-forward-with-account-of-alleged-sexual-assau
"According to Tyson's statement, she and Fairfax had struck up a "cordial, but not flirtatious" relationship by the third day of the convention in 2004. On July 28, Tyson said, Fairfax invited her to his hotel room to "retrieve documents" — and upon their arrival, began to kiss her.

"What began as consensual kissing quickly turned into a sexual assault," Tyson alleges in a statement released on her attorneys' letterhead. She says he forced her to perform oral sex on him despite her struggles against doing so."

Check out who the lawyers representing the alleged victim and the accused are.

Certainly not toxic masculinity.
 
So you’ve switched back now that Republicans are rallying around Trump, Kavanaugh, and the like?
 
This is a new one to me: We can’t blame democrats for not coming down harder on Clinton because #metoo hadn’t happened yet in 1998. What a load of shit. I was a Democrat in 1998. Among other things, I was so disgusted with Clinton and the way the democrats circled the wagons I ultimately changed affiliation.

Also, Trump made his pussy remark in 2005, not 2016. That was only 7 years after Bill Clinton inserted a cigar into an intern’s vagina in the White House. By your logic, Trump’s remark wasn’t that big of a deal because it was also pre-#metoo.

Don’t be such a hack.

You switched party affiliation because of the moral failings of Bill Clinton? That’s new information. My folks were the same way. Now they have a MAGA hat Christmas ornament, and my pops tweeted about 50 times before the SOTU that he would volunteer for the human wall.
 
And keep in mind he switched because of how Democrats tolerated Bill Clinton within a year of the Anita Hill hearings.

I wasn’t happy with how Democrats, especially boomer women tolerated Bill but I was disgusted with both parties.
 
Tell me what I got wrong, whatever your profession is. Both of us can look up dates and know math. We both know October 1991 was during the 1992 election cycle.
 
1998 - 1991 = 7

What? You just found Clinton was a philander during the Lewinsky scandal? Are you serious?

You don’t even know how to hate the Clinton’s properly.
 
This is a new one to me: We can’t blame democrats for not coming down harder on Clinton because #metoo hadn’t happened yet in 1998. What a load of shit. I was a Democrat in 1998. Among other things, I was so disgusted with Clinton and the way the democrats circled the wagons I ultimately changed affiliation.

Also, Trump made his pussy remark in 2005, not 2016. That was only 7 years after Bill Clinton inserted a cigar into an intern’s vagina in the White House. By your logic, Trump’s remark wasn’t that big of a deal because it was also pre-#metoo.

Don’t be such a hack.

LOL, Junebug. I'm not defending Clinton, I'm saying that if the metoo movement had been around then things would almost certainly have been different. Come down hard on Clinton all you want, it doesn't excuse the GOP's current actions on sexual assault/harassment cases. "A crock of shit" is leaving the Democratic Party because of Clinton's actions and having no problems, apparently, with placing Thomas and Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court despite credible allegations very similar to what Clinton did, so they can overturn progressive legislation and give landmark cases to the "people" (states) to remove gay rights, abortion rights, and so on. You clearly stated as much in the threads on the Kavanaugh hearings. I'm well aware that Trump made those remarks in 2005, but as you well know they weren't publicized until a couple of weeks before the election in 2016, so it was a far more recent case than Clinton, and the GOP still voted for him overwhelmingly. Do you think Democrats today would overwhelmingly support Clinton with the womanizing charges made against him, given the current climate in the Democratic Party? For a guy who found Clinton's actions disgusting, you certainly don't seem to have any problems with the actions of Kavanaugh or Trump, or else you wouldn't be here defending them most of the time.

ETA: You said you didn't leave the Democratic Party until 1998, yet Clinton faced a variety of womanizing charges in 1992. So you weren't bothered by any of the previous charges against Clinton, just Lewinsky?
 
Trump is like a drug pusher peddling those sweet sweet federalist society judges. You don’t have to like the murder and mule process that got your product into the country to enjoy a long toke of that conservative jurisprudence. Junebug doesn’t have to love his pusher man to be hooked on his appointees. Now that he has a good stash, trump is expendable to him.
 
If you maintained your donkeyhood throughout the 90s, you have no ground to stand on w/r/t Trump. Don’t try to sell me on this “different era” crap. This wasn’t slaveholders 250 years ago. This was 20 years ago. Moreover, I don’t actually believe things within the donkey party would be materially different; see, e.g., Keith Ellison, Justin Fairfax, etc.

I, like many, was willing to believe the Clintons in the early 90s when they claimed the accusations of Bill’s philandering were the product of a politically motivated witch hunt. The Lewinsky scandal, which included a sitting president lying under oath, turned the tide for me.

As for Kavanaugh, you are not accurately stating my conclusion. I came down on the side of voting him down because of what I believed to be his lies under oath. Sound familiar? If you believe that Clinton shouldn’t have been impeached and removed but Kavanaugh should have been voted down, then you are a partisan hack.

As for my alleged support of Trump, find one post—one—where I defended Trump the person, much less his philandering. Don’t lash out at me with false accusations because you are angry I’ve called you on your hypocrisy.

LOL. I was actually a Republican for most of the 90s, Junebug, unlike you I've moved in the other direction, starting with Dubya and Cheney, although I was never a fan of Gingrich either. If you seriously think that things would be the same for Clinton now I think you're very mistaken, as Fairfax seems to be catching hell, and Ellison (who should also now be out of public office) is, it seems to me, a relatively isolated case among Democrats. I have repeatedly said I'm not defending Clinton, I think he should have resigned, although I'm dubious about impeaching a POTUS for lying under oath about having an affair (I felt that way at the time too). I'm not defending any of these people who have been accused, so I'm not a hypocrite. What I am saying, very clearly, is that someone who supports Trump and or Kavanaugh has no room to criticize Democratic politicians who have been accused of the same, and I stand by that. If you thought Kavanaugh shouldn't be confirmed then my apologies, although my statements about your support of his originalist view of the judiciary is accurate, I do believe. And, for a guy who says he doesn't defend Trump, you certainly seem to defend many of the things he believes in and pushes for a great deal of the time on here, as Deacfreak has pointed out.
 
I’m trying to reconcile how you switched your party affiliation over the moral failings of Bill Clinton, but all of your positions seem to be pretty conservative. I’m not sure how one OWG banging an intern can alter your whole political ideology. What aspects of the Democratic Party (sorry I mean Donkey) platform do you support?
 
Of course I’m going to align with Trump on certain issues. I’m a center-right conservative, and, on at least some issues, Trump’s policies are conservative. But that doesn’t mean I support Trump the man. I voted against him in the presidential primary, I voted against him in the general, I will vote against him in the 2020 primary, and, god forbid he is re-nominated, I will vote against him again in the general.

Why is that so difficult to understand? Or are you and DF07 just trying to score points?

Well, you're the one who jumped in and starting slamming me - I get the impression that it's you who doesn't understand what I'm trying to say. I'm not defending any of these guys, but I do think that it's a wee bit hypocritical for Republicans to slam Fairfax and Democrats in general on this issue, given that the GOP has Trump as its POTUS. Is that not clear?
 
Also, not to derail the thread too much, I am an originalist, but an originalist’s view of the correct hermeneutical approach to the constitution does not, necessarily anyway, have anything to do with political outcomes. I have posted many times that I think the political process is important, by constitutional design and policy, and that rights not explicit in the constitution should not be created from whole cloth because the constitution reserves those issues for the people. There are scores of issues where I think the constitution does not create rights but the legislature should, including homosexual activity, homosexual unions and the attendant rights, abortion rights, various areas of criminal procedure, etc. Rights creation is a one-way ratchet. A holding that the constitution creates rights grants them, and they can’t be undone until the decision is overruled. But a holding that the constitution doesn’t create a right can always be practically overruled by the legislature simply enacting a law creating the right at issue. Originalism is thus an exercise in democracy, whereas activism is an exercise in oligarchy.

When did you go to law school and do your clerkship?
 
Also, not to derail the thread too much, I am an originalist, but an originalist’s view of the correct hermeneutical approach to the constitution does not, necessarily anyway, have anything to do with political outcomes. I have posted many times that I think the political process is important, by constitutional design and policy, and that rights not explicit in the constitution should not be created from whole cloth because the constitution reserves those issues for the people. There are scores of issues where I think the constitution does not create rights but the legislature should, including homosexual activity, homosexual unions and the attendant rights, abortion rights, various areas of criminal procedure, etc. Rights creation is a one-way ratchet. A holding that the constitution creates rights grants them, and they can’t be undone until the decision is overruled. But a holding that the constitution doesn’t create a right can always be practically overruled by the legislature simply enacting a law creating the right at issue. Originalism is thus an exercise in democracy, whereas activism is an exercise in oligarchy.

very well put
 
Back
Top