If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   From the "you're not helping" department: Charlie Rangel (D-esk Meet Head) calls Tea Partiers "white crackers" who fought against civil rights   (livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 224
    More: Dumbass, tea party, civil rights, helping  
•       •       •

624 clicks; posted to Politics » on 02 Aug 2013 at 1:13 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2013-08-02 11:59:25 AM
I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.
 
2013-08-02 12:05:28 PM
Perhaps it would have been best to avoid the word 'cracker' but otherwise he's right.
 
2013-08-02 12:16:16 PM
It's also not fair to call an aardvark a "medium-sized insectivore with protruding nasal implement"
 
2013-08-02 12:19:04 PM
So yall support prejudice, bias and racism.
 
2013-08-02 12:20:40 PM

HoustonNick: So yall support prejudice, bias and racism.


No, but I am a fan of proper punctuation.
 
2013-08-02 12:47:25 PM
The tea party folks are against marriage equality and stuff like that, so yeah, they do fight against civil rights.

Rangel is still a douche though.
 
2013-08-02 12:50:39 PM
Hey, that's our word, Rangel, you corrupt, racist, twit.
 
2013-08-02 12:54:44 PM
lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs
 
2013-08-02 01:07:57 PM
I disagree. I think this is exactly the kind of spine the Democratic Party needs to grow. If we're ever going to get anything done in this country, then we need more of that Bush/Cheney arrogance in the Democrats. Less touchy-feely and more, "because fark you, that's why."
 
2013-08-02 01:13:06 PM
I know an Apache Tea Partier. Would he be a "fry breader"?
 
2013-08-02 01:14:51 PM
I wish Charlie Rangel would stick to constructive things like ending US oil wars by reinstating the draft.
 
2013-08-02 01:14:51 PM
I'm a white man. You can't even hurt my feelings.
 
2013-08-02 01:16:26 PM

Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs


Apparently. Until he comes back in and claims he was joking:

Nabb1: Hey, that's our word, Rangel, you corrupt, racist, twit.

 
2013-08-02 01:17:02 PM

HoustonNick: So yall support prejudice, bias and racism.


You sound thin and crispy
 
2013-08-02 01:17:10 PM
Go away, Rangel, you dumb old coot.
 
2013-08-02 01:17:25 PM

Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs


"Oh, ruined my day. Boy, shouldn't have called me a cracker, bringing me back to owning land and people. What a drag." - Louis CK
 
2013-08-02 01:18:24 PM
right wingers talk a good anti political correctness game but once someone comes out and tells the truth about them in a non politically correct way it's all "ohh we are so offended!"
 
2013-08-02 01:18:42 PM
If the shoe fits...
 
2013-08-02 01:18:45 PM

Tanishh: Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs

"Oh, ruined my day. Boy, shouldn't have called me a cracker, bringing me back to owning land and people. What a drag." - Louis CK


guess they should be proud of being crackers?
 
2013-08-02 01:19:49 PM
At least he didn't call us creepy, right?
 
2013-08-02 01:20:04 PM
And so here will come the inevitable chorus of "You called us a name so you have no right to criticize our blatant and obvious racism!" from the Teabaggers.
 
2013-08-02 01:21:11 PM

Tanishh: Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs

"Oh, ruined my day. Boy, shouldn't have called me a cracker, bringing me back to owning land and people. What a drag." - Louis CK


Actually cracker is what they called the poor white trash from Scotland
 
2013-08-02 01:21:13 PM
So... he didn't mean it in a derogatory way?  I'm confused here.  Or, if an ethnic group stops getting offended by something then it is ok to call them derogatory names?

Man I wish my grandfather was here and the Japanese grew some thick skin on some things.
 
2013-08-02 01:21:58 PM

CheetahOlivetti: I know an Apache Tea Partier. Would he be a "fry breader"?


Apple Turnover?
 
2013-08-02 01:22:23 PM
Cracker-ass crackers.  All of you.

Well most of you anyways.
 
2013-08-02 01:22:33 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me: I'm a white man. You can't even hurt my feelings.


came here for this...leaving satisfied.
 
2013-08-02 01:22:36 PM

Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs


Yep. Even after the Zimmerman trial, some of my fellow honkeys are still trying to push some kind of false equivalency. Almost makes me embarrassed to call myself a peckerwood.
 
2013-08-02 01:23:10 PM

ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.


Is the DNC allowed to throw him out of the party?
 
2013-08-02 01:23:13 PM
images.politico.com

Sad panda.
 
2013-08-02 01:23:55 PM
Um, I'm pretty sure the TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY Party only protests against the historically high taxes that Obama has imposed on the hard working people of America, preventing a true recovery from the Democrat Congress-led recession.

That's why no TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY Party member has commented on anything but taxes. READ A BOOK, LIBS!
 
2013-08-02 01:24:06 PM
So last night I referred to someone as "jumped up white trash". Was that racist? Should I not have done that? Did it offend the West Virginia community?
 
2013-08-02 01:25:20 PM
s.mcstatic.com

Time to take it back
 
2013-08-02 01:25:32 PM

stoli n coke: Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs

Yep. Even after the Zimmerman trial, some of my fellow honkeys are still trying to push some kind of false equivalency. Almost makes me embarrassed to call myself a peckerwood.


Ofay can you see, by the dawn's early light...
 
2013-08-02 01:26:10 PM

ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.


Please - provide legitimate proof of systemic racism in the Tea Party movement.

We've heard all about it - especially here on Fark, but alas it never studies out...

Rangel is a crook.  He should quit Congress.
 
2013-08-02 01:26:11 PM
So, Rangel's calling a spade a spade?
 
2013-08-02 01:26:16 PM
But... He isnt wrong.
 
2013-08-02 01:26:34 PM
creepy ass-cracka: Since you ungodly creatures marxistly deny us our rights and refuse to call us "creepy", I must positively DEMAND that you henceforth address myself and my ilk as nasal implements!

Oooooookey dokey.
Whaaaaatever you say thar, boy.
 
2013-08-02 01:27:19 PM

stoli n coke: Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs

Yep. Even after the Zimmerman trial, some of my fellow honkeys are still trying to push some kind of false equivalency. Almost makes me embarrassed to call myself a peckerwood.


img580.imageshack.us

Hey man, we don't want no trouble from no reefer addicts.
 
2013-08-02 01:27:22 PM
100% correct. This is the most lucid thing he has said in years.
 
2013-08-02 01:27:59 PM

Wooly Bully: stoli n coke: Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs

Yep. Even after the Zimmerman trial, some of my fellow honkeys are still trying to push some kind of false equivalency. Almost makes me embarrassed to call myself a peckerwood.

Ofay can you see, by the dawn's early light...


What so proudly we derped at Obamas last gleaming
 
2013-08-02 01:28:10 PM
I have no idea what Rangel would be talking about, so here's a picture of a Teabagger with a patriotic hat on his head.

clclt.com
 
2013-08-02 01:28:23 PM

Truther: ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.

Please - provide legitimate proof of systemic racism in the Tea Party movement.

We've heard all about it - especially here on Fark, but alas it never studies out...

Rangel is a crook.  He should quit Congress.


t.qkme.me
 
2013-08-02 01:29:07 PM

Kittypie070: creepy ass-cracka: Since you ungodly creatures marxistly deny us our rights and refuse to call us "creepy", I must positively DEMAND that you henceforth address myself and my ilk as nasal implements!

Oooooookey dokey.
Whaaaaatever you say thar, boy.


Can we call him 'in need of medication'?
Can we call the Ghostbusters?

/call it fate
//call it luck
///call it karma
 
2013-08-02 01:29:55 PM
img33.imageshack.us
 
2013-08-02 01:30:16 PM

mrshowrules: ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.

Is the DNC allowed to throw him out of the party?


They can censor him at least
 
2013-08-02 01:31:57 PM
I can't say he was wrong. He may be a crook, but on this sentiment, he is dead on. The wording could be altered though - not that I feel sorry for "crackers", but I hate when people use 5th grade playground insults instead of biting snarcasm (yes I intentionally types that word in).
 
2013-08-02 01:33:16 PM

ShadowKamui: Tanishh: Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs

"Oh, ruined my day. Boy, shouldn't have called me a cracker, bringing me back to owning land and people. What a drag." - Louis CK

Actually cracker is what they called the poor white trash from Scotland


There are a few different theories on where the term come from.  In Florida the term 'cracker' is actually used in a positive way by native Floridians who use the term to describe themselves - the story being that it was what the Florida cowboys were called way back in the day, although even in that case there are two different possible origin stories - one is that the term came from the cracking of the whips used to drive the cattle, the other is that in those times to 'crack' was to make jokes, boast, and generally act like a braggart, and as the cowboys were wont to do that, the term 'cracker' was applied to them.
 
2013-08-02 01:34:52 PM
So, if I said Rangel is a corrupt nubian, it's all OK, right?
 
2013-08-02 01:39:40 PM

JAGChem82: I can't say he was wrong. He may be a crook, but on this sentiment, he is dead on. The wording could be altered though - not that I feel sorry for "crackers", but I hate when people use 5th grade playground insults instead of biting snarcasm (yes I intentionally types that word in).


At least he didn't do the racist thing and call them Caucasians.
 
2013-08-02 01:44:01 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: So, if I said Rangel is a corrupt nubian, it's all OK, right?


Of course it's OK, because nobody cares what you say.
 
2013-08-02 01:44:14 PM

Lt. Cheese Weasel: So, if I said Rangel is a corrupt nubian, it's all OK, right?


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-08-02 01:44:57 PM

TimSTP: [img33.imageshack.us image 320x240]


Heh, thus the tag I put at the end of the URL

/subby
 
2013-08-02 01:45:41 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Perhaps it would have been best to avoid the word 'cracker' but otherwise he's right.


This, exactly.  Though I do maintain that using a racial slur - against anyone - is in and of itself racist.  No matter who does it.
 
2013-08-02 01:47:45 PM

Truther: ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.

Please - provide legitimate proof of systemic racism in the Tea Party movement.

We've heard all about it - especially here on Fark, but alas it never studies out...

Rangel is a crook.  He should quit Congress.


You should study it out.
 
2013-08-02 01:49:57 PM
(doi: 10.1177/001872679805101101)?
 
2013-08-02 01:51:23 PM

ShadowKamui: They can censor him at least


Censure, perhaps? To censor him is pretty much beyond their power.
 
2013-08-02 01:53:16 PM
So, in my youth I got into a bit of a verbal altercation with a black fellow student. During the argument, I was called a cracker. And I am in fact very white (despite my Portuguese heritage; my English overwhelmed my Portuguese). I'd never heard "cracker" used as a racial slur. Far from being offended, I thought it was super funny. I literally laughed in the other student's face and asked, "Cracker!?! What am I, a Ritz? Saltine? How about a Cheezit??"

The moral of the story is racist slurs against white people are stupid and inoffensive. That doesn't mean we shouldn't call someone out for using them because there's no excuse for racism, it just means they fail to carry the same weight as racial slurs used against everyone else. And that might be because whites weren't systematically oppressed by non-whites for generations in our country.
 
2013-08-02 01:54:08 PM
Attention white people including myself:

You are still in the majority. You have a long history of being in the majority. You continue to statistically have social and economic benefits over minorities. Slurs do not carry nearly as much weight when used against you because of this. These slurs can, at worst, hurt your feelings. They do not represent generations of systematic social oppression of your entire group. Nut the fark up, you goddamn crackers.
 
2013-08-02 01:54:36 PM

ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.


The messenger?  Yeah.  The message?  He's right; Tea Party are pretty much the same group of people that fought against civil rights; racist, ignorant, dumb and proud of it.
 
2013-08-02 01:54:37 PM

abb3w: ShadowKamui: They can censor him at least

Censure, perhaps? To censor him is pretty much beyond their power.


No, I'm pretty sure he was thinking:
2.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-02 01:55:42 PM
i46.tinypic.com
 
2013-08-02 01:56:25 PM
I submit there's not a white person on earth who's actually offended by being called a "cracker". There are, however, a lot that like to play-act being offended because in their tiny little cracker minds it justifies some of the shiat they want to call/do to their Others.
 
2013-08-02 01:56:44 PM

Rwa2play: ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.

The messenger?  Yeah.  The message?  He's right; Tea Party are pretty much the same group of people that fought against civil rights; racist, ignorant, dumb and proud of it.


Yup. At least they are a dwindling breed.
 
2013-08-02 01:57:51 PM
Mike Birbiglia would like a word


/I'm a bear
//etc
 
2013-08-02 01:59:10 PM

FlashHarry: [i46.tinypic.com image 494x649]


When I see that pic I always wonder his other shirts say...
 
2013-08-02 01:59:59 PM

Headso: When I see that pic I always wonder his other shirts say...


NUGENT '82 WORLD TOUR
 
2013-08-02 02:02:00 PM

ShadowKamui: mrshowrules: ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.

Is the DNC allowed to throw him out of the party?

They can censor him at least


I think you mean censure. And I don't think they do that when someone is telling the truth
 
2013-08-02 02:03:05 PM
lbdarling.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-08-02 02:03:44 PM
Disclaimer: Charlie Rangel does indeed suck and is not helping, but I refuse to lend any tacit credibility to whiny right-wingers feigning offense at being called a cracker.
 
2013-08-02 02:04:24 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs

Apparently. Until he comes back in and claims he was joking:

Nabb1: Hey, that's our word, Rangel, you corrupt, racist, twit.


Semi-joking, yes. It ain't exactly a term of endearment, Chuckles, but I would not in a million years expect you to ever find fault with any of your heroes. Do I find it deeply offensive? No. Am I fully aware that the term is used as an epithet? Yes.
 
2013-08-02 02:04:59 PM
How is it not helping?

His supporters believe that white people possess negative traits. Racially denigrating them is something they support. If anything, he'll be defended and supported even more.

It only hurts him if you expect his supporters to posssess the cognitive ability to evenly apply standards of behavior regardless of race. And as this thread shows, Rangel supporters are dumb.
 
2013-08-02 02:05:32 PM
If you are falling all over yourself to defend Charlie Rangel, you probably need to back away from the Kool-Aid.
 
2013-08-02 02:05:58 PM

Bloody William: Disclaimer: Charlie Rangel does indeed suck and is not helping, but I refuse to lend any tacit credibility to whiny right-wingers feigning offense at being called a cracker.


This.

When some cracker expresses outrage, I just assume they're pissed that they're not allowed to be racist in polite company anymore.
 
2013-08-02 02:06:02 PM

Lelo34: ShadowKamui: mrshowrules: ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.

Is the DNC allowed to throw him out of the party?

They can censor him at least

I think you mean censure. And I don't think they do that when someone is telling the truth


So everyone else can now call him a corrupt worthless pos when ever he opens his mouth?
 
2013-08-02 02:08:36 PM
That seems about right. What's the problem?
 
2013-08-02 02:09:37 PM
They are and they did.
 
2013-08-02 02:09:52 PM
But is he wrong? Thats the real question tardmitter.
 
2013-08-02 02:10:29 PM

Mrbogey: How is it not helping?

His supporters believe that white people possess negative traits.



By "negative traits" you mean "have oppressed his people for centuries?"  Look, you're welcome to get your knickers in a twist because Charlie Rangel called you a bad name, but the adults in the room will roll our eyes and carry on.
 
2013-08-02 02:11:31 PM

Nabb1: If you are falling all over yourself to defend Charlie Rangel, you probably need to back away from the Kool-Aid.


Is suggesting what he said is probably true defending him?
 
2013-08-02 02:13:41 PM

Evil High Priest: That seems about right. What's the problem?


Well it's racist.
 
2013-08-02 02:14:34 PM

Headso: Nabb1: If you are falling all over yourself to defend Charlie Rangel, you probably need to back away from the Kool-Aid.

Is suggesting what he said is probably true defending him?


He could have argued his point without resorting to an epithet. Well, intelligent people are able to do that, so maybe he couldn't.
 
2013-08-02 02:15:50 PM

mrshowrules: Evil High Priest: That seems about right. What's the problem?

Well it's racist.


Yes, it's perpetuating structural inequities and a system that marginalizes white conservatives. That is a thing. Sure.
 
2013-08-02 02:17:35 PM

Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: If you are falling all over yourself to defend Charlie Rangel, you probably need to back away from the Kool-Aid.

Is suggesting what he said is probably true defending him?

He could have argued his point without resorting to an epithet. Well, intelligent people are able to do that, so maybe he couldn't.


Should we bring out the fainting couch?
 
2013-08-02 02:18:33 PM
Fat White cracker is not amused by the uppity people of society.
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-02 02:19:00 PM

Stile4aly: Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: If you are falling all over yourself to defend Charlie Rangel, you probably need to back away from the Kool-Aid.

Is suggesting what he said is probably true defending him?

He could have argued his point without resorting to an epithet. Well, intelligent people are able to do that, so maybe he couldn't.

Should we bring out the fainting couch?


Oh, no. People who use that sort of language should not be taken seriously, so there's no reason to get upset over it, really. It's like announcing to the world that one has the cognitive abilities to rival the most intelligent of sea cucumbers. And, of course, the people who defend such nonsense, as well.
 
2013-08-02 02:19:57 PM

Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: If you are falling all over yourself to defend Charlie Rangel, you probably need to back away from the Kool-Aid.

Is suggesting what he said is probably true defending him?

He could have argued his point without resorting to an epithet. Well, intelligent people are able to do that, so maybe he couldn't.


If a pundit type speaks without hyperbole or angry rhetoric does he actually make a sound?
 
2013-08-02 02:21:10 PM

A Dark Evil Omen: mrshowrules: Evil High Priest: That seems about right. What's the problem?

Well it's racist.

Yes, it's perpetuating structural inequities and a system that marginalizes white conservatives. That is a thing. Sure.


The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.
 
2013-08-02 02:23:26 PM

Headso: Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: If you are falling all over yourself to defend Charlie Rangel, you probably need to back away from the Kool-Aid.

Is suggesting what he said is probably true defending him?

He could have argued his point without resorting to an epithet. Well, intelligent people are able to do that, so maybe he couldn't.

If a pundit type speaks without hyperbole or angry rhetoric does he actually make a sound?


Is Charlie Rangel a pundit, now? Let's ask Don Imus what he thinks...
 
2013-08-02 02:26:05 PM

Nabb1: Oh, no. People who use that sort of language should not be taken seriously, so there's no reason to get upset over it, really. It's like announcing to the world that one has the cognitive abilities to rival the most intelligent of sea cucumbers. And, of course, the people who defend such nonsense, as well.


It's Charlie Rangel. His expertise, opinions, and ethics are already suspect. Did his use of the word "cracker" really lower your opinion of him any further?

mrshowrules: The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.


By definition, yes, but the term does not carry a fraction of the weight that other slurs do, and feigning offense at being called it and drawing any hint of parallels between your group and other groups that have dealt with their own slurs paired with generations of systematic social and economic oppression is just vulgar.
 
2013-08-02 02:28:07 PM

Bloody William: Nabb1: Oh, no. People who use that sort of language should not be taken seriously, so there's no reason to get upset over it, really. It's like announcing to the world that one has the cognitive abilities to rival the most intelligent of sea cucumbers. And, of course, the people who defend such nonsense, as well.

It's Charlie Rangel. His expertise, opinions, and ethics are already suspect. Did his use of the word "cracker" really lower your opinion of him any further?


No, but it did lower my opinion of a number of people here based on their reactions.

mrshowrules: The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.

By definition, yes, but the term does not carry a fraction of the weight that other slurs do, and feigning offense at being called it and drawing any hint of parallels between your group and other groups that have dealt with their own slurs paired with generations of systematic social and economic oppression is just vulgar.


I agree, but it is still racist in intent and usage.
 
2013-08-02 02:29:30 PM
WE ARE THE
CRACKERS
FOR OBAMA'S
GIANT BOWL
OF SOUP

 
2013-08-02 02:30:14 PM

Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: If you are falling all over yourself to defend Charlie Rangel, you probably need to back away from the Kool-Aid.

Is suggesting what he said is probably true defending him?

He could have argued his point without resorting to an epithet. Well, intelligent people are able to do that, so maybe he couldn't.

If a pundit type speaks without hyperbole or angry rhetoric does he actually make a sound?

Is Charlie Rangel a pundit, now? Let's ask Don Imus what he thinks...


probably something regarding the nappyness of his hair I'd imagine...
 
2013-08-02 02:30:42 PM
As a cracker, I don't give a damn if anybody of any color calls me cracker, so Charlie can cracker on with his bad self. Stupid crackers oughta stop being racist.

/cracker
//He oughta have known them stupid racist crackers would be mad though
 
2013-08-02 02:36:48 PM

mrshowrules: A Dark Evil Omen: mrshowrules: Evil High Priest: That seems about right. What's the problem?

Well it's racist.

Yes, it's perpetuating structural inequities and a system that marginalizes white conservatives. That is a thing. Sure.

The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.


I've been oppressed my entire life by getting called a cracker. The term 'honkey' lacerates my soul.

And my butt.
Because it hurts.
Butthurt.
 
2013-08-02 02:37:02 PM

Bloody William: Nabb1: Oh, no. People who use that sort of language should not be taken seriously, so there's no reason to get upset over it, really. It's like announcing to the world that one has the cognitive abilities to rival the most intelligent of sea cucumbers. And, of course, the people who defend such nonsense, as well.

It's Charlie Rangel. His expertise, opinions, and ethics are already suspect. Did his use of the word "cracker" really lower your opinion of him any further?

Granted he is a sleezeball to begin with.  I have little respect for Carrot Top either but if he used N-Word like this in an interview, I would have a lower opinion of him even if I had to dig.

mrshowrules: The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.

By definition, yes, but the term does not carry a fraction of the weight that other slurs do, and feigning offense at being called it and drawing any hint of parallels between your group and other groups that have dealt with their own slurs paired with generations of systematic social and economic oppression is just vulgar.


I'm not saying Rangel is a racist or even a bigot, just that would he said in that particular instance was actually racist and bigoted.
 
2013-08-02 02:38:02 PM
Yeah, I'm definitely not offended and I don't think any other white person should be either, but I still think elected officials should probably refrain from using the word cracker. I don't think it's doing a lot to foster healthy race relations. I'm surprised to see that so many people in here seemingly don't have a problem with it.
 
2013-08-02 02:38:04 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: mrshowrules: A Dark Evil Omen: mrshowrules: Evil High Priest: That seems about right. What's the problem?

Well it's racist.

Yes, it's perpetuating structural inequities and a system that marginalizes white conservatives. That is a thing. Sure.

The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.

I've been oppressed my entire life by getting called a cracker. The term 'honkey' lacerates my soul.

And my butt.
Because it hurts.
Butthurt.


That's irrelevant.
 
2013-08-02 02:39:07 PM

Uranus Is Huge!: mrshowrules: A Dark Evil Omen: mrshowrules: Evil High Priest: That seems about right. What's the problem?

Well it's racist.

Yes, it's perpetuating structural inequities and a system that marginalizes white conservatives. That is a thing. Sure.

The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.

I've been oppressed my entire life by getting called a cracker. The term 'honkey' lacerates my soul.

And my butt.
Because it hurts.
Butthurt.


Just because somebody isn't oppressed doesn't mean you get to be a racist f**k-wade to them
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-08-02 02:39:39 PM
Who cares.  Chuck Rangel is giant, gaping asshole for what he did in 1986.  If I had a time machine, preventing his birth would be real high on the list of priorities.  (Feinstein and Boxer, too.)

Eat a bucket of cocks, shiathead.
 
2013-08-02 02:39:57 PM

ShadowKamui: Uranus Is Huge!: mrshowrules: A Dark Evil Omen: mrshowrules: Evil High Priest: That seems about right. What's the problem?

Well it's racist.

Yes, it's perpetuating structural inequities and a system that marginalizes white conservatives. That is a thing. Sure.

The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.

I've been oppressed my entire life by getting called a cracker. The term 'honkey' lacerates my soul.

And my butt.
Because it hurts.
Butthurt.

Just because somebody isn't oppressed doesn't mean you get to be a racist f**k-wade to them


Cry moar, whitey!
 
2013-08-02 02:40:41 PM
I guess this is why the great civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., was a Republican.

Mr. Rangel disgusts me with his vile racial slur.

Proud of this, Farklibs?
 
2013-08-02 02:45:33 PM

Bloody William: Nabb1: Oh, no. People who use that sort of language should not be taken seriously, so there's no reason to get upset over it, really. It's like announcing to the world that one has the cognitive abilities to rival the most intelligent of sea cucumbers. And, of course, the people who defend such nonsense, as well.

It's Charlie Rangel. His expertise, opinions, and ethics are already suspect. Did his use of the word "cracker" really lower your opinion of him any further?

mrshowrules: The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.

By definition, yes, but the term does not carry a fraction of the weight that other slurs do, and feigning offense at being called it and drawing any hint of parallels between your group and other groups that have dealt with their own slurs paired with generations of systematic social and economic oppression is just vulgar.


As a black guy and a chemist, let me get to use a completely nerd analogy for you all: the slur cracker and the n-word is like comparing a mole of helium atoms to a mole of uranium atoms. Are they equivalent in terms of being defined as a slur towards races of people? Yes, but the mole of uranium is much heavier than helium, and much more devastating. Helium is used to fill balloons for kids, while uranium is used to blow shiat up. Think of those two slurs in that way, and you'll understand.

/there has to be one scientist in this thread or Fark who knows what I'm talking about
 
2013-08-02 02:46:16 PM

Nabb1: Bloody William: Nabb1: Oh, no. People who use that sort of language should not be taken seriously, so there's no reason to get upset over it, really. It's like announcing to the world that one has the cognitive abilities to rival the most intelligent of sea cucumbers. And, of course, the people who defend such nonsense, as well.

It's Charlie Rangel. His expertise, opinions, and ethics are already suspect. Did his use of the word "cracker" really lower your opinion of him any further?

No, but it did lower my opinion of a number of people here based on their reactions.

mrshowrules: The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.

By definition, yes, but the term does not carry a fraction of the weight that other slurs do, and feigning offense at being called it and drawing any hint of parallels between your group and other groups that have dealt with their own slurs paired with generations of systematic social and economic oppression is just vulgar.

I agree, but it is still racist in intent and usage.


No. It is not a term meant to dehumanize a person considered to be racially inferior.

When someone calls you a cracker, they are calling you a racist. A whip-wielding negro-hating good-old-boy with raping and lynching in your heart racist.
 
2013-08-02 02:46:53 PM

Nabb1: Stile4aly: Nabb1: Headso: Nabb1: If you are falling all over yourself to defend Charlie Rangel, you probably need to back away from the Kool-Aid.

Is suggesting what he said is probably true defending him?

He could have argued his point without resorting to an epithet. Well, intelligent people are able to do that, so maybe he couldn't.

Should we bring out the fainting couch?

Oh, no. People who use that sort of language should not be taken seriously, so there's no reason to get upset over it, really. It's like announcing to the world that one has the cognitive abilities to rival the most intelligent of sea cucumbers. And, of course, the people who defend such nonsense, as well.


By that logic, we can safely disregard the opinions of the majority of Republicans.
 
2013-08-02 02:47:10 PM
Why are we even talking about this? "Cracker" when used as an (attempted) slur is not offensive in any way, shape, or form. It represents nothing and recalls nothing except "The Jeffersons."

That-other-word when used as a slur represents centuries of enslavement, contempt, belittlement and hostility. It recalls the Antebellum South, Jim Crow, and segregation.

There is literally no comparison between the two. Rep. Rangel can call me a Cracker morning noon and night for 20 years and I wouldn't even notice.
 
2013-08-02 02:51:47 PM

jake_lex: And so here will come the inevitable chorus of "You called us a name so you have no right to criticize our blatant and obvious racism!" from the Teabaggers.


and botox and the democrats will continue to support him, right?
 
2013-08-02 02:52:58 PM

kieran57: Why are we even talking about this? "Cracker" when used as an (attempted) slur is not offensive in any way, shape, or form. It represents nothing and recalls nothing except "The Jeffersons."

That-other-word when used as a slur represents centuries of enslavement, contempt, belittlement and hostility. It recalls the Antebellum South, Jim Crow, and segregation.

There is literally no comparison between the two. Rep. Rangel can call me a Cracker morning noon and night for 20 years and I wouldn't even notice.


There are a laundry list of racial slurs beyond those 2 and well as numerous sexist ones.  A member of Congress should be using none of them
 
2013-08-02 02:54:50 PM

ivan: Nabb1: Bloody William: Nabb1: Oh, no. People who use that sort of language should not be taken seriously, so there's no reason to get upset over it, really. It's like announcing to the world that one has the cognitive abilities to rival the most intelligent of sea cucumbers. And, of course, the people who defend such nonsense, as well.

It's Charlie Rangel. His expertise, opinions, and ethics are already suspect. Did his use of the word "cracker" really lower your opinion of him any further?

No, but it did lower my opinion of a number of people here based on their reactions.

mrshowrules: The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.

By definition, yes, but the term does not carry a fraction of the weight that other slurs do, and feigning offense at being called it and drawing any hint of parallels between your group and other groups that have dealt with their own slurs paired with generations of systematic social and economic oppression is just vulgar.

I agree, but it is still racist in intent and usage.

No. It is not a term meant to dehumanize a person considered to be racially inferior.

When someone calls you a cracker, they are calling you a racist. A whip-wielding negro-hating good-old-boy with raping and lynching in your heart racist.


That's actually not the correct etymology of the word "cracker." A common misconception, to be sure, but the root usage referred to a specific kind of lower class white person in certain regions of the South.
 
2013-08-02 02:55:11 PM

kieran57: Why are we even talking about this? "Cracker" when used as an (attempted) slur is not offensive in any way, shape, or form. It represents nothing and recalls nothing except "The Jeffersons."

That-other-word when used as a slur represents centuries of enslavement, contempt, belittlement and hostility. It recalls the Antebellum South, Jim Crow, and segregation.

There is literally no comparison between the two. Rep. Rangel can call me a Cracker morning noon and night for 20 years and I wouldn't even notice.


How much it offends you personally is irrelevant.  It is a racial slur nonetheless.
 
2013-08-02 02:56:31 PM

Aristocles: Proud of this, Farklibs?


Tea Partiers own it proudly, your point being?
 
2013-08-02 02:57:54 PM

ShadowKamui: Just because somebody isn't oppressed doesn't mean you get to be a racist f**k-wade to them



Actually, the point isn't that Rangel or others don't get to be a racist f**k-wade to people who aren't in an oppressed group.  They do.  We all get to be racist if we want to.  That's not the point.  The point is that doing so is to work against the very idea that a person's skin color doesn't tell us about their character.  Rangel makes it clear that he doesn't want to live in a world where skin color doesn't matter.  He wants to live in a world where black people are not systematically treated as inferiors to white people.  There's a definite difference between those two desired worlds.  He (and many others of all different backgrounds and races) does not make it clear whether he would prefer a colorblind society over one where his own race was held up superior.  And that's too bad, really.
 
2013-08-02 02:59:27 PM

Snarfangel: WE ARE THE
CRACKERS
FOR OBAMA'S
GIANT BOWL
OF SOUP


mmm....soup...
 
2013-08-02 03:03:16 PM
Since "cracker" does not refer to the color of one's skin, it is not a "racist" epithet. Bigoted, yes, but not racist.
 
2013-08-02 03:09:08 PM

theorellior: Since "cracker" does not refer to the color of one's skin, it is not a "racist" epithet. Bigoted, yes, but not racist.


Webster's:usually disparaging: a poor usually Southern white
 
2013-08-02 03:13:24 PM

theorellior: Since "cracker" does not refer to the color of one's skin, it is not a "racist" epithet. Bigoted, yes, but not racist.


uh... dude, it's racist. When someone calls you a cracker, they're being racist.
 
2013-08-02 03:17:31 PM
1.  Democrat?   check
2.  African American?  check

Congratulations, you get a free pass from the left regardless of what you do.
 
2013-08-02 03:18:19 PM

Cataholic: 1.  Democrat?   check
2.  African American?  check

Congratulations, you get a free pass from the left regardless of what you do.


Most libbies on this site are not giving him a pass
 
2013-08-02 03:18:54 PM

Cataholic: 1.  Democrat?   check
2.  African American?  check

Congratulations, you get a free pass from the left regardless of what you do.


This.
 
2013-08-02 03:23:05 PM

theorellior: Since "cracker" does not refer to the color of one's skin, it is not a "racist" epithet. Bigoted, yes, but not racist.


Maybe not where you're from.
 
2013-08-02 03:23:12 PM
Wait!! Teabaggers are Democrats now since the Democrats back in the 60's with the likes of Robert "Grand Kleagle" Byrd fighting against letting them darkies get equal rights now?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2013-08-02 03:23:17 PM

Stoj: So... he didn't mean it in a derogatory way?  I'm confused here.  Or, if an ethnic group stops getting offended by something then it is ok to call them derogatory names?


Are racists an ethnic group?
 
2013-08-02 03:25:17 PM
The etymology of the term comes from cracking whips or cracking boasts, as mentioned above. It does not have anything intrinsically to do with ethnicity of skin color. It's like the joke in "Three Kings": don't refer to Arabs as "sand-attractive and successful African Americans", that's racist. Call them "towelheads" because that's just making fun of their haberdashery.
 
2013-08-02 03:26:18 PM

Cataholic: 1.  Democrat?   check
2.  African American?  check

Congratulations, you get a free pass from the left regardless of what you do.


*YAWN*

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-02 03:28:04 PM

theorellior: The etymology of the term comes from cracking whips or cracking boasts, as mentioned above. It does not have anything intrinsically to do with ethnicity of skin color.


It refers to a specific kind of white person, similar to poor white trash. Would you use the term on any non-Caucasians?
 
2013-08-02 03:29:58 PM
I'll be out working for the people if anyone calls..
encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com
 
Bf+
2013-08-02 03:30:13 PM
i.qkme.me
 
2013-08-02 03:31:19 PM
A racist term for people of lighter skin color would be "caspers", as in "Casper the Friendly Ghost", who was white.

"Cracker" is bigoted, yes, and derogatory, but it is not inherently racist.
 
2013-08-02 03:33:53 PM

vpb: Stoj: So... he didn't mean it in a derogatory way?  I'm confused here.  Or, if an ethnic group stops getting offended by something then it is ok to call them derogatory names?

Are racists an ethnic group?


Hmm.  He said "white crackers". I suppose he should have said "white non-hispanic" crackers just to be clear.

Good point.  I have changed my mind on this and now it is totally ok.
 
2013-08-02 03:34:14 PM

theorellior: A racist term for people of lighter skin color would be "caspers", as in "Casper the Friendly Ghost", who was white.

"Cracker" is bigoted, yes, and derogatory, but it is not inherently racist.


Dude or dudette, just stop. You're wrong. It happens to the best of us, but, especially if you're arguing that a racial slur is not racist, sometimes it's best to just stop.
 
2013-08-02 03:37:35 PM

Nabb1: ivan: Nabb1: Bloody William: Nabb1: Oh, no. People who use that sort of language should not be taken seriously, so there's no reason to get upset over it, really. It's like announcing to the world that one has the cognitive abilities to rival the most intelligent of sea cucumbers. And, of course, the people who defend such nonsense, as well.

It's Charlie Rangel. His expertise, opinions, and ethics are already suspect. Did his use of the word "cracker" really lower your opinion of him any further?

No, but it did lower my opinion of a number of people here based on their reactions.

mrshowrules: The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.

By definition, yes, but the term does not carry a fraction of the weight that other slurs do, and feigning offense at being called it and drawing any hint of parallels between your group and other groups that have dealt with their own slurs paired with generations of systematic social and economic oppression is just vulgar.

I agree, but it is still racist in intent and usage.

No. It is not a term meant to dehumanize a person considered to be racially inferior.

When someone calls you a cracker, they are calling you a racist. A whip-wielding negro-hating good-old-boy with raping and lynching in your heart racist.

That's actually not the correct etymology of the word "cracker." A common misconception, to be sure, but the root usage referred to a specific kind of lower class white person in certain regions of the South.


Meaning does not always track with etymology (although the whip theory is as good as any). What do you think you're being called if someone calls you a cracker? I think it's a little more specific and damning than "poor white person from the rural South".
 
2013-08-02 03:39:02 PM
I fail to see where he's wrong.
 
2013-08-02 03:39:08 PM

Nabb1: theorellior: The etymology of the term comes from cracking whips or cracking boasts, as mentioned above. It does not have anything intrinsically to do with ethnicity of skin color.

It refers to a specific kind of white person, similar to poor white trash. Would you use the term on any non-Caucasians?


Yes, it refers to a specific kind of white person: Negro-hating ignorant racist white person. That's why it's an insult.
 
2013-08-02 03:39:53 PM
'fought' against civil rights?  That implies that they stopped doing that.
 
2013-08-02 03:40:43 PM

Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs


I judge a slur by the way it affects a person or a group of people.

I know women who fume over being called the C word. I have a handicapped friend who cringes when someone says retarded. I knew a poor kid that was tormented with the slur garbage picker on a daily basis. A gay person being called a f** is hurtful. I just don't see it with cracker.
 
2013-08-02 03:41:14 PM

ivan: Nabb1: ivan: Nabb1: Bloody William: Nabb1: Oh, no. People who use that sort of language should not be taken seriously, so there's no reason to get upset over it, really. It's like announcing to the world that one has the cognitive abilities to rival the most intelligent of sea cucumbers. And, of course, the people who defend such nonsense, as well.

It's Charlie Rangel. His expertise, opinions, and ethics are already suspect. Did his use of the word "cracker" really lower your opinion of him any further?

No, but it did lower my opinion of a number of people here based on their reactions.

mrshowrules: The term "cracker" is racist.  Calling white people "crackers" is racist.  This isn't rocket science.  Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.  Sure they are is racism in the movement and that topic can be dealt with but he sure as hell isn't helping.

By definition, yes, but the term does not carry a fraction of the weight that other slurs do, and feigning offense at being called it and drawing any hint of parallels between your group and other groups that have dealt with their own slurs paired with generations of systematic social and economic oppression is just vulgar.

I agree, but it is still racist in intent and usage.

No. It is not a term meant to dehumanize a person considered to be racially inferior.

When someone calls you a cracker, they are calling you a racist. A whip-wielding negro-hating good-old-boy with raping and lynching in your heart racist.

That's actually not the correct etymology of the word "cracker." A common misconception, to be sure, but the root usage referred to a specific kind of lower class white person in certain regions of the South.

Meaning does not always track with etymology (although the whip theory is as good as any). What do you think you're being called if someone calls you a cracker? I think it's a little more specific and damning than "poor white person from the rural South".


Well, I'm from San Diego, so I'm pretty sure the black dude who called 19-year-old me a cracker wasn't referring to me as a poor white person from the rural South.
 
2013-08-02 03:43:08 PM

ivan: Nabb1: theorellior: The etymology of the term comes from cracking whips or cracking boasts, as mentioned above. It does not have anything intrinsically to do with ethnicity of skin color.

It refers to a specific kind of white person, similar to poor white trash. Would you use the term on any non-Caucasians?

Yes, it refers to a specific kind of white person: Negro-hating ignorant racist white person. That's why it's an insult.


Oh, please. I didn't just arrive in this country on the last boat. It's a racial epithet. If you're okay with it because it was used by a politician you like, just be honest, please.
 
2013-08-02 03:46:19 PM
The Tea Party is still fighting civil rights today.  Marriage rights, voting rights, women's health, trying to re-ban sodomy.
 
2013-08-02 03:47:26 PM
oops... party of facts strikes again. someone should tell rangel that 60 years ago, democrats opposed civil rights legislation and most the heavy lifting was done by republicans.
 
2013-08-02 03:48:28 PM

ecmoRandomNumbers: I fail to see where he's wrong.


Bf+:

i.qkme.me
 
2013-08-02 03:48:30 PM
Because "honky" and "paddy" are sooo outdated.
 
2013-08-02 03:59:29 PM

Nabb1: ivan: Nabb1: theorellior: The etymology of the term comes from cracking whips or cracking boasts, as mentioned above. It does not have anything intrinsically to do with ethnicity of skin color.

It refers to a specific kind of white person, similar to poor white trash. Would you use the term on any non-Caucasians?

Yes, it refers to a specific kind of white person: Negro-hating ignorant racist white person. That's why it's an insult.

Oh, please. I didn't just arrive in this country on the last boat. It's a racial epithet. If you're okay with it because it was used by a politician you like, just be honest, please.


Ok, let's pretend that I just arrived in this country on the last boat:

My good new American friend Nabb1: A person of dark complection not one moment ago said that I am a "cracker". I do not comprehend in what manner I resemble an American snack food, so I suspect the term is laden with yet another meaning. Could you explain what this person meant when he called me a "cracker"?
 
2013-08-02 04:04:57 PM
How can a "cracker" be any color but white?

Other than that, they're guilty as charged.

/white + cracker = whacker
 
2013-08-02 04:09:20 PM

the_dude_abides: oops... party of facts strikes again. someone should tell rangel that 60 years ago, democrats opposed civil rights legislation and most the heavy lifting was done by republicans.


lol
 
2013-08-02 04:11:30 PM

mrshowrules: ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.

Is the DNC allowed to throw him out of the party?


Nope. He has to decide for himself. I wonder if the next congressman for that district will be as bad as the last two.
 
2013-08-02 04:12:19 PM
Perhaps voting by color is a sign of racism now?
 
2013-08-02 04:13:34 PM

Aristocles: Dude or dudette, just stop. You're wrong. It happens to the best of us, but, especially if you're arguing that a racial slur is not racist, sometimes it's best to just stop.


The word may have racist connotations through usage, but the term itself does not, in itself, make any mention of a racial group, skin tone or ethnicity.

"Whitey" is racist. "Honkey" is not.
 
2013-08-02 04:17:44 PM

ginandbacon: Truther: ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.

Please - provide legitimate proof of systemic racism in the Tea Party movement.

We've heard all about it - especially here on Fark, but alas it never studies out...

Rangel is a crook.  He should quit Congress.

You should study it out.



Very fancy study. Especially liked te part where they assumed that opposition to President Obama or the Affordable Health Care Act is based in racial prejudices.Again, any proof the Tea Party is racist?
 
2013-08-02 04:17:51 PM
PECKERWOODS!
 
2013-08-02 04:21:03 PM
I wish some of you guys had been around to tell the Atlanta Black Crackers of the Negro Leagues that "cracker" is a term only used to describe white folks.
 
2013-08-02 04:28:43 PM

BunkoSquad: I wish some of you guys had been around to tell the Atlanta Black Crackers of the Negro Leagues that "cracker" is a term only used to describe white folks.


Um, I'd probably warn everyone about Hitler instead, but that's me. I want to save millions of lives instead of win an internet argument.

WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU?!?!
 
2013-08-02 04:32:03 PM

Truther: ginandbacon: Truther: ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.

Please - provide legitimate proof of systemic racism in the Tea Party movement.

We've heard all about it - especially here on Fark, but alas it never studies out...

Rangel is a crook.  He should quit Congress.

You should study it out.


Very fancy study. Especially liked te part where they assumed that opposition to President Obama or the Affordable Health Care Act is based in racial prejudices.Again, any proof the Tea Party is racist?


"Although initial levels of White identity did not predict change in Tea Party identification, initial levels of Tea Party identification predicted increases in White identity over the study period."

Is there some part of this you didn't understand?
 
2013-08-02 04:35:30 PM

BunkoSquad: I wish some of you guys had been around to tell the Atlanta Black Crackers of the Negro Leagues that "cracker" is a term only used to describe white folks.


That was a play on words because the white pro team in Atlanta was simply "the Crackers."

/Wearing an "ABC" cap right now, getting kick out of the replies, etc.
 
2013-08-02 04:41:14 PM

Nabb1: BunkoSquad: I wish some of you guys had been around to tell the Atlanta Black Crackers of the Negro Leagues that "cracker" is a term only used to describe white folks.

That was a play on words because the white pro team in Atlanta was simply "the Crackers."

/Wearing an "ABC" cap right now, getting kick out of the replies, etc.


Plus he's trying to claim the sport that has Chief Wahoo is some how sensitive to racial names

upload.wikimedia.org
 
wee [TotalFark]
2013-08-02 04:45:01 PM

theorellior: "Cracker" is bigoted, yes, and derogatory, but it is not inherently racist.


Well isn't that a load of trollish bullshiat.
 
2013-08-02 05:20:25 PM

the_dude_abides: oops... party of facts strikes again. someone should tell rangel that 60 years ago, democrats opposed civil rights legislation and most the heavy lifting was done by republicans.


And 60 years ago your grandma was selling it on street corners for a nickel. What's your point?

/The Southern racists who opposed civil rights left the Democratic party starting in 1964, exactly as LBJ predicted, their exodus completeing when Reagan told them it was OK to be racist in the Republican party.
 
2013-08-02 05:34:22 PM

ShadowKamui: mrshowrules: ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.

Is the DNC allowed to throw him out of the party?

They can censor him at least


censure
 
2013-08-02 05:51:29 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Perhaps it would have been best to avoid the word 'cracker' but otherwise he's right.


There are more productive ways to discuss the connection between the Tea Party and the conservatives who fought against the civil rights movement (or "The Negro Revolt," as William F. Buckley insisted on calling it), and why the Southern takeover of the GOP has become problematic.  Calling them crackers is definitely from the "you're not helping" department.

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112365/why-republicans-are-party- wh ite-people

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98jun/gop.htm
 
2013-08-02 06:00:41 PM
Was he at a Kenny Chesney concert?
 
2013-08-02 06:21:03 PM

Dubya's_Coke_Dealer: And 60 years ago your grandma was selling it on street corners for a nickel. What's your point?


lol i'm in trouble, here come the yo mama jokes
 
2013-08-02 06:33:24 PM

the_dude_abides: oops... party of facts strikes again. someone should tell rangel that 60 years ago, democrats opposed civil rights legislation and most the heavy lifting was done by republicans.


What heavy lifting looks like:

1964 Civil Rights Act:
Democratic yes votes in the House:  153
Republican yes votes in the House:  136
Democratic yes votes in the Senate:  46
Republican yes votes in the Senate:  27
 
2013-08-02 06:34:05 PM
images1.wikia.nocookie.net

/seemed appropriate somehow
 
2013-08-02 06:34:18 PM

ginandbacon: HoustonNick: So yall support prejudice, bias and racism.

No, but I am a fan of proper punctuation.


Come on, admit it, you're all of these things...don't be ashamed of being a Democratic Renaissance Man!  Embrace your complexity and contradictions!
 
2013-08-02 06:42:28 PM

dmaestaz: Wait!! Teabaggers are Democrats now since the Democrats back in the 60's with the likes of Robert "Grand Kleagle" Byrd fighting against letting them darkies get equal rights now?


All Americans owe liberalism a great debt for having fought so passionately to end segregation.  The liberal commitment to ending segregation and the colonization of the Third World are liberalism's two great contributions to the 20th century.  And they often did that in the face of conservative indifference or hostility.

--Newt Gingrich (who obviously has a liberal bias)

http://www.riponsociety.org/forum-newt.htm
 
2013-08-02 06:53:54 PM

the_dude_abides: oops... party of facts strikes again. someone should tell rangel that 60 years ago, democrats opposed civil rights legislation and most the heavy lifting was done by republicans.


Heavy lifting (part two)

1965 Voting Rights Act:
Democratic yes votes in the House: 49
Republican yes votes in the House:  30
Democratic yes votes in the Senate: 217
Republican yes votes in the Senate: 111

You can smirk about all the Southern Democrats that voted against civil rights legislation, but the Northern Democrats that supported it outnumbered them, and now they're the base of the Democratic Party, and the Southerners are now the base of the Republican Party (see links a few posts back).

Have a nice day!
 
2013-08-02 07:05:01 PM

HighOnCraic: the_dude_abides: oops... party of facts strikes again. someone should tell rangel that 60 years ago, democrats opposed civil rights legislation and most the heavy lifting was done by republicans.

Heavy lifting (part two)

1965 Voting Rights Act:
Democratic yes votes in the House: 49
Republican yes votes in the House:  30
Democratic yes votes in the Senate: 217
Republican yes votes in the Senate: 111

You can smirk about all the Southern Democrats that voted against civil rights legislation, but the Northern Democrats that supported it outnumbered them, and now they're the base of the Democratic Party, and the Southerners are now the base of the Republican Party (see links a few posts back).

Have a nice day!


I think you got something backwards there.
 
2013-08-02 07:10:33 PM

vygramul: HighOnCraic: the_dude_abides: oops... party of facts strikes again. someone should tell rangel that 60 years ago, democrats opposed civil rights legislation and most the heavy lifting was done by republicans.

Heavy lifting (part two)

1965 Voting Rights Act:
Democratic yes votes in the House Senate: 49
Republican yes votes in the House Senate:  30
Democratic yes votes in the Senate House: 217
Republican yes votes in the Senate House

 : 111

You can smirk about all the Southern Democrats that voted against civil rights legislation, but the Northern Democrats that supported it outnumbered them, and now they're the base of the Democratic Party, and the Southerners are now the base of the Republican Party (see links a few posts back).

Have a nice day!

I think you got something backwards there.


D'oh!

/Fixed that for myself. . .
 
2013-08-02 07:34:01 PM

Trey Le Parc: ginandbacon: HoustonNick: So yall support prejudice, bias and racism.

No, but I am a fan of proper punctuation.

Come on, admit it, you're all of these things...don't be ashamed of being a Democratic Renaissance Man!  Embrace your complexity and contradictions!


That would certainly be odd since I'm a woman.
 
2013-08-02 07:37:25 PM

ginandbacon: Truther: ginandbacon: Truther: ginandbacon: I'm not sure he's strictly wrong, but he really is embarrassing.

Please - provide legitimate proof of systemic racism in the Tea Party movement.

We've heard all about it - especially here on Fark, but alas it never studies out...

Rangel is a crook.  He should quit Congress.

You should study it out.


Very fancy study. Especially liked te part where they assumed that opposition to President Obama or the Affordable Health Care Act is based in racial prejudices.Again, any proof the Tea Party is racist?

"Although initial levels of White identity did not predict change in Tea Party identification, initial levels of Tea Party identification predicted increases in White identity over the study period."

Is there some part of this you didn't understand?



It's ONE study. As you know, studies can often come to different conclusions based on particular facts.Do you have any ACTUAL PROOF that the Tea Party is racist?Holy crap man - this ain't rocket science...
 
2013-08-02 07:49:04 PM
I'm going to start calling Black people "crackers" just to see what kind of reactions I get.
 
2013-08-02 08:06:35 PM

HighOnCraic: What heavy lifting looks like:

1964 Civil Rights Act:
Democratic yes votes in the House:  153
Republican yes votes in the House:  136
Democratic yes votes in the Senate:  46
Republican yes votes in the Senate:  27


lol here we go, another intellectually dishonest dickbag trying to rewrite history. congratulations, you've managed to show that there were more democrats than republicans in congress at the time. now let's look at reality...

first off, your numbers are wrong. second, your everything else is wrong.

civil rights act of 1957
- house vote: 167 republicans for, 19 against; 118 democrats for, 107 against
- that's 90% of republicans voting for it and 10% voting against it in the house
- that's 52% of democrats voting for it and 48% voting against it in the house
- senate vote: 43 republicans voted for, 0 against; 29 democrats voted for, 18 against
- that's 100% of republicans voting for it and 0% voting against it in the senate
- that's 62% of democrats voting for it and 38% voting against it in the senate
- bonus herp: filibustered by democrat strom thurmond

civil rights act of 1964
- house vote: 138 republicans for, 34 against; 152 democrats for, 96 against
- that's 80% of republicans voting for it and 20% voting against it in the house
- that's 61% of democrats voting for it and 39% voting against it in the house
- senate vote: 27 republicans voted for, 6 against; 44 democrats voted for, 23 against
- that's 82% of republicans voting for it and 18% voting against it in the senate
- that's 66% of democrats voting for it and 34% voting against it in the senate
- bonus derp: filibustered by democrat robert byrd

so yeah, republicans did the heavy lifting, legislation never would have passed without them. now fark off.

ohsnap.jpg
 
2013-08-02 08:21:06 PM
Let's be real.  Cracker isn't hurtful to anyone.  However, it was said with unkind intent, which is demeritorious for a public official.

It's 2013.  We're supposed to be beyond race-baiting demagoguery by now.
 
2013-08-02 08:22:54 PM
Well, they ARE brittle and salty.
 
2013-08-02 08:25:40 PM
And give me a farking break about Republicans and civil rights.  Everyone knows that the racist Dixiecrats of yesteryear realigned parties when the GOP tacitly promised a hands-off approach on segregation.  It's embarrassing to feign otherwise.
 
2013-08-02 08:27:02 PM

the_dude_abides: HighOnCraic: What heavy lifting looks like:

1964 Civil Rights Act:
Democratic yes votes in the House:  153
Republican yes votes in the House:  136
Democratic yes votes in the Senate:  46
Republican yes votes in the Senate:  27

lol here we go, another intellectually dishonest dickbag trying to rewrite history. congratulations, you've managed to show that there were more democrats than republicans in congress at the time. now let's look at reality...

first off, your numbers are wrong. second, your everything else is wrong.

civil rights act of 1957
- house vote: 167 republicans for, 19 against; 118 democrats for, 107 against
- that's 90% of republicans voting for it and 10% voting against it in the house
- that's 52% of democrats voting for it and 48% voting against it in the house
- senate vote: 43 republicans voted for, 0 against; 29 democrats voted for, 18 against
- that's 100% of republicans voting for it and 0% voting against it in the senate
- that's 62% of democrats voting for it and 38% voting against it in the senate
- bonus herp: filibustered by democrat strom thurmond

civil rights act of 1964
- house vote: 138 republicans for, 34 against; 152 democrats for, 96 against
- that's 80% of republicans voting for it and 20% voting against it in the house
- that's 61% of democrats voting for it and 39% voting against it in the house
- senate vote: 27 republicans voted for, 6 against; 44 democrats voted for, 23 against
- that's 82% of republicans voting for it and 18% voting against it in the senate
- that's 66% of democrats voting for it and 34% voting against it in the senate
- bonus derp: filibustered by democrat robert byrd

so yeah, republicans did the heavy lifting, legislation never would have passed without them. now fark off.

ohsnap.jpg


I think you're missing a number: how many yards you wanted your goalposts moved.

/And you can't "ohsnap.jpg" yourself.
 
2013-08-02 08:40:48 PM

Captain Dan: And give me a farking break about Republicans and civil rights.  Everyone knows that the racist Dixiecrats of yesteryear realigned parties when the GOP tacitly promised a hands-off approach on segregation.  It's embarrassing to feign otherwise.


"well yeah, they were racists and they were democrats but, like, everybody knows they weren't REALLY democrats. let's just pretend it never happened."

that's a solid argument dude
 
2013-08-02 08:53:03 PM

the_dude_abides: "well yeah, they were racists and they were democrats but, like, everybody knows they weren't REALLY democrats. let's just pretend it never happened."


Most racists in the 1950s were Democrats.  Those racists, many of whom are still alive, re-labeled themselves as Republicans.

There are individual exceptions, but as a general trend, this is is not in dispute.

If we speak of racism in the distant past tense, it's appropriate to blame Democrats for harboring racists.  If we speak of America's recent history, the half-century of civil rights and racial integration, or of America as it is today, than it is tendentious and disreputable to pretend that racism is not primarily concentrated within Republican ranks.

There are exceptions.  Charles Rangel offers one clear example.  However, this is a matter where the facts are in, and no amount of revisionism is going to fool anyone.
 
2013-08-02 08:54:24 PM

Aristocles: I guess this is why the great civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., was a Republican.

Mr. Rangel disgusts me with his vile racial slur.

Proud of this, Farklibs?


Oh no not this shiat yet again.

Seriously, f**k you, you gods damn robot.
 
2013-08-02 08:54:54 PM

LoneWolf343: /And you can't "ohsnap.jpg" yourself.


Then I'll do it!

the_dude_abides: HighOnCraic: What heavy lifting looks like:

1964 Civil Rights Act:
Democratic yes votes in the House:  153
Republican yes votes in the House:  136
Democratic yes votes in the Senate:  46
Republican yes votes in the Senate:  27

lol here we go, another intellectually dishonest dickbag trying to rewrite history. congratulations, you've managed to show that there were more democrats than republicans in congress at the time. now let's look at reality...

first off, your numbers are wrong. second, your everything else is wrong.

civil rights act of 1957
- house vote: 167 republicans for, 19 against; 118 democrats for, 107 against
- that's 90% of republicans voting for it and 10% voting against it in the house
- that's 52% of democrats voting for it and 48% voting against it in the house
- senate vote: 43 republicans voted for, 0 against; 29 democrats voted for, 18 against
- that's 100% of republicans voting for it and 0% voting against it in the senate
- that's 62% of democrats voting for it and 38% voting against it in the senate
- bonus herp: filibustered by democrat strom thurmond

civil rights act of 1964
- house vote: 138 republicans for, 34 against; 152 democrats for, 96 against
- that's 80% of republicans voting for it and 20% voting against it in the house
- that's 61% of democrats voting for it and 39% voting against it in the house
- senate vote: 27 republicans voted for, 6 against; 44 democrats voted for, 23 against
- that's 82% of republicans voting for it and 18% voting against it in the senate
- that's 66% of democrats voting for it and 34% voting against it in the senate
- bonus derp: filibustered by democrat robert byrd

so yeah, republicans did the heavy lifting, legislation never would have passed without them. now fark off.

ohsnap.jpg


www.ayola.com
 
2013-08-02 08:57:46 PM

Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs


You know why the word has no power? Because white people don't give a fark about it.

If black people stopped giving a fark about the word I can't even post here it would stop having the power it has.

The power of a word is in the reaction to it.
 
2013-08-02 09:01:56 PM

Bloody William: Attention white people including myself:
You are still in the majority. You have a long history of being in the majority. You continue to statistically have social and economic benefits over minorities. Slurs do not carry nearly as much weight when used against you because of this. These slurs can, at worst, hurt your feelings. They do not represent generations of systematic social oppression of your entire group. Nut the fark up, you goddamn crackers.


No, the slurs don't carry weight because white people generally don't care that you called them cracker.
 
2013-08-02 09:23:27 PM
Oh my.

It looks like someone may be claiming that this guy and his strategy never really existed.

www.rvv.com

Next thing I know someone is gonna claim that he never resigned.
 
2013-08-02 09:26:18 PM

Aristocles: ohsnap.jpg

[www.ayola.com image 375x500]


That GOP is not this GOP.  If it were you'd get out as as you can because 'MURICA~!
 
2013-08-02 09:29:45 PM

Captain Dan: If we speak of racism in the distant past tense, it's appropriate to blame Democrats for harboring racists.  If we speak of America's recent history, the half-century of civil rights and racial integration, or of America as it is today, than it is tendentious and disreputable to pretend that racism is not primarily concentrated within Republican ranks.


please show me the science behind that claim. not saying you're wrong, but i'd like to see what you're basing that on.
 
2013-08-02 09:31:11 PM

Rwa2play: Aristocles: ohsnap.jpg

[www.ayola.com image 375x500]

That GOP is not this GOP.  If it were you'd get out as as you can because 'MURICA~!


This GOP is heir of the Honorable and Righteous legacy handed down by that GOP.
 
2013-08-02 09:34:52 PM

Aristocles: Rwa2play: Aristocles: ohsnap.jpg

[www.ayola.com image 375x500]

That GOP is not this GOP.  If it were you'd get out as as you can because 'MURICA~!

This GOP is heir of the Honorable and Righteous legacy handed down by that GOP.


LOL, really?  So why don't they support an updated VRA that restores those provisions knocked down by the Supreme Court?  Wanna answer that?
 
2013-08-02 09:35:22 PM

Aristocles: Rwa2play: Aristocles: ohsnap.jpg

[www.ayola.com image 375x500]

That GOP is not this GOP.  If it were you'd get out as as you can because 'MURICA~!

This GOP is heir of the Honorable and Righteous legacy handed down by that GOP.


An inheritance that have squandered contemptuously.
 
2013-08-02 09:43:34 PM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-02 10:13:41 PM

the_dude_abides: HighOnCraic: What heavy lifting looks like:

1964 Civil Rights Act:
Democratic yes votes in the House:  153
Republican yes votes in the House:  136
Democratic yes votes in the Senate:  46
Republican yes votes in the Senate:  27

lol here we go, another intellectually dishonest dickbag trying to rewrite history. congratulations, you've managed to show that there were more democrats than republicans in congress at the time. now let's look at reality...

first off, your numbers are wrong. second, your everything else is wrong.

civil rights act of 1957
- house vote: 167 republicans for, 19 against; 118 democrats for, 107 against
- that's 90% of republicans voting for it and 10% voting against it in the house
- that's 52% of democrats voting for it and 48% voting against it in the house
- senate vote: 43 republicans voted for, 0 against; 29 democrats voted for, 18 against
- that's 100% of republicans voting for it and 0% voting against it in the senate
- that's 62% of democrats voting for it and 38% voting against it in the senate
- bonus herp: filibustered by democrat strom thurmond

civil rights act of 1964
- house vote: 138 republicans for, 34 against; 152 democrats for, 96 against
- that's 80% of republicans voting for it and 20% voting against it in the house
- that's 61% of democrats voting for it and 39% voting against it in the house
- senate vote: 27 republicans voted for, 6 against; 44 democrats voted for, 23 against
- that's 82% of republicans voting for it and 18% voting against it in the senate
- that's 66% of democrats voting for it and 34% voting against it in the senate
- bonus derp: filibustered by democrat robert byrd

so yeah, republicans did the heavy lifting, legislation never would have passed without them. now fark off.

ohsnap.jpg


What's the name of the Democrat who set the solo filibuster record when he filibustered the CRA?
 
2013-08-02 11:03:55 PM

the_dude_abides: HighOnCraic: What heavy lifting looks like:

1964 Civil Rights Act:
Democratic yes votes in the House:  153
Republican yes votes in the House:  136
Democratic yes votes in the Senate:  46
Republican yes votes in the Senate:  27

lol here we go, another intellectually dishonest dickbag trying to rewrite history. congratulations, you've managed to show that there were more democrats than republicans in congress at the time. now let's look at reality...

first off, your numbers are wrong. second, your everything else is wrong.

civil rights act of 1957
- house vote: 167 republicans for, 19 against; 118 democrats for, 107 against
- that's 90% of republicans voting for it and 10% voting against it in the house
- that's 52% of democrats voting for it and 48% voting against it in the house
- senate vote: 43 republicans voted for, 0 against; 29 democrats voted for, 18 against
- that's 100% of republicans voting for it and 0% voting against it in the senate
- that's 62% of democrats voting for it and 38% voting against it in the senate
- bonus herp: filibustered by democrat strom thurmond

civil rights act of 1964
- house vote: 138 republicans for, 34 against; 152 democrats for, 96 against
- that's 80% of republicans voting for it and 20% voting against it in the house
- that's 61% of democrats voting for it and 39% voting against it in the house
- senate vote: 27 republicans voted for, 6 against; 44 democrats voted for, 23 against
- that's 82% of republicans voting for it and 18% voting against it in the senate
- that's 66% of democrats voting for it and 34% voting against it in the senate
- bonus derp: filibustered by democrat robert byrd

so yeah, republicans did the heavy lifting, legislation never would have passed without them. now fark off.

ohsnap.jpg


Looking at the numbers for the '64 Civil Rights Act and the '65 Voting Rights Act, Democrats providing a larger number of yes votes than Republicans.  My whole point is that Republicans at that time didn't have enough members in either chamber to do any heavy lifting.  Legislation is not passed by looking at the percentage of each party that votes on a bill, it's passed based on the number of yes and no votes.  You'd have a point if the Northern Democrats had sided with the Southern Democrats, but that's not what happened.  There were enough Northern Democrats in the Senate to pass the VRA without any help from the Republicans, but it's cute that you think the Republicans deserve all the credit.


Conference Report:

Senate: 79-18

Democrats: 49-17

(four Southern Democrats voted in favor: Albert Gore, Sr.,

Ross Bass, George Smathers and Ralph Yarborough).

Republicans: 30-1 (the lone nay was Strom Thurmond; John Tower who did not

vote was paired as a nay vote with Eugene McCarthy who would have voted in

favor.)

The Northern Democrats provided the bulk of the yes votes, and it's great the Northeastern Republicans that existed at the time provided a few extra votes, but the reality is, they don't have much influence in the party anymore; hell, Goldwater, the GOP nominee in '64 (who voted against the CRA of '64) wanted to saw the whole Northeast off of the country.  Look at the regional numbers.  Read some books about the Southern Strategy, like Kevin Phillips' "The Emerging Republican Majority."  Study it out.

And have a good night.
 
2013-08-02 11:15:04 PM

vygramul: the_dude_abides: HighOnCraic: What heavy lifting looks like:

1964 Civil Rights Act:
Democratic yes votes in the House:  153
Republican yes votes in the House:  136
Democratic yes votes in the Senate:  46
Republican yes votes in the Senate:  27

lol here we go, another intellectually dishonest dickbag trying to rewrite history. congratulations, you've managed to show that there were more democrats than republicans in congress at the time. now let's look at reality...

first off, your numbers are wrong. second, your everything else is wrong.

civil rights act of 1957
- house vote: 167 republicans for, 19 against; 118 democrats for, 107 against
- that's 90% of republicans voting for it and 10% voting against it in the house
- that's 52% of democrats voting for it and 48% voting against it in the house
- senate vote: 43 republicans voted for, 0 against; 29 democrats voted for, 18 against
- that's 100% of republicans voting for it and 0% voting against it in the senate
- that's 62% of democrats voting for it and 38% voting against it in the senate
- bonus herp: filibustered by democrat strom thurmond

civil rights act of 1964
- house vote: 138 republicans for, 34 against; 152 democrats for, 96 against
- that's 80% of republicans voting for it and 20% voting against it in the house
- that's 61% of democrats voting for it and 39% voting against it in the house
- senate vote: 27 republicans voted for, 6 against; 44 democrats voted for, 23 against
- that's 82% of republicans voting for it and 18% voting against it in the senate
- that's 66% of democrats voting for it and 34% voting against it in the senate
- bonus derp: filibustered by democrat robert byrd

so yeah, republicans did the heavy lifting, legislation never would have passed without them. now fark off.

ohsnap.jpg

What's the name of the Democrat who set the solo filibuster record when he filibustered the CRA?


I looked it up: "Strum Thurmond." Oh, and I found this extra tidbit in the first hit on Google: "But the Southern Democrats, feeling that they had been betrayed by Thurmond, were not amused and did not rally behind their colleague as Thurmond had hoped. "
 
2013-08-02 11:29:54 PM
The wife and I got called an American family, really whitebread by a black bum in the park a few weeks ago. I didn't know how to respond so I said, "Thanks, I guess."

We had a debate for a good thirty minutes on whether or not that was meant as a compliment. We still don't know.
 
2013-08-02 11:34:15 PM
you guys are trying too hard. i know that you're shackled to your party and it's painful to admit, but what's done is done. the major civil rights battles have been fought and most were championed by people with an R next to their name. i know that liberals today have a huge chip on their shoulder about that, and that's why they try to turn every event (real or imagined) into selma-montgomery, circa '65. but like i said, that history has been written. let's move on. dot org.
 
2013-08-02 11:59:37 PM
So as a white guy I'm only allowed to be offended if someone calls me a slur in regards to my Sicilian heritage then? Tough it out white guy, though your grandparents entered the U.S. through Ellis Island well after the Emancipation Proclamation, you have to shrug off implications that your heritage has roots in the enslavement of Africans brought to this country centuries ago. That's bull, and you can bite my lily white dago ass./Jerk.
 
2013-08-03 12:14:07 AM
Southern Italians aren't white. I mean, I guess they're white, like how Jews and Arabs are white, but yeah.
 
2013-08-03 12:34:57 AM

NutWrench: I disagree. I think this is exactly the kind of spine the Democratic Party needs to grow. If we're ever going to get anything done in this country, then we need more of that Bush/Cheney arrogance in the Democrats. Less touchy-feely and more, "because fark you, that's why."


I've been saying this for YEARS, since Clinton, in fact, when he caved on universal health care and don't ask, don't tell and DOMA. We need as much arrogant aggression in the progressives as the regressives do, or we will never get anywhere. Of course, that's not really in most of our natures, but we must fight fire with fire.

We are seeing too much backsliding lately to let it go. We have to toughen up, grow spines, and repeat the ugly truth over and over and over again until it starts to sink in.
 
2013-08-03 01:01:11 AM

the_dude_abides: you guys are trying too hard. i know that you're shackled to your party and it's painful to admit, but what's done is done. the major civil rights battles have been fought and most were championed by people with an R next to their name. i know that liberals today have a huge chip on their shoulder about that, and that's why they try to turn every event (real or imagined) into selma-montgomery, circa '65. but like i said, that history has been written. let's move on. dot org.


You have to remember that the Civil Rights Act of '64 and the Voting Rights Act of '65 were the catalysts that led Southern whites to begin abandoning the Democratic Party (at the presidential level at first, and eventually at the Congressional level).  There was already a conflict withing the Democratic Party that started when Hubert Humphrey gave a speech in favor of civil rights at the '48 Democratic National Convention, prompting Thurmond's third-party presidential run.  You can keep claiming that "most were championed by people with an R next to their name," even though the numbers we've been looking at prove otherwise.  Certainly Ike deserves credit for sending Federal troops to Little Rock, and by all means, Everett Dirksen deserves credit for helping get the Civil Rights Act passed, but it's crazy to claim he did it without the majority of Democrats in Congress supporting it.

From wiki:
Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Nixon's political strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[9] but merely popularized it.[10] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:
    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.[2]
While Phillips sought to polarize ethnic voting in general, and not just to win the white South, the South was by far the biggest prize yielded by his approach. Its success began at the presidential level, gradually trickling down to statewide offices, the Senate, and the House, as some legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP. In addition, the Republican Party worked for years to develop grassroots political organizations across the South, supporting candidates for local school boards and offices, as one example.
 

 Following Bush's re-election, Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager and Chairman of the RNC, held several large meetings with African-American business, community, and religious leaders. In his speeches, he apologized for his party's use of the Southern Strategy in the past. When asked about the strategy of using race as an issue to build GOP dominance in the once-Democratic South, Mehlman replied, "Republican candidates often have prospered by ignoring black voters and even by exploiting racial tensions," and, "by the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African-American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out. Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."[41][42]

Too many Republicans have admitted this for your fantasy to be remotely credible.  But hey, feel free to keep believe that you're winning.

Cheers!
 
2013-08-03 01:14:56 AM
It's so nice when Fark features some Democratic loon instead of focusing exclusively on right wing ones. Unfortunately I see a lot of "He put it badly, but I agree" here. The Dems seem to have a lot of loon understudies.
 
2013-08-03 01:15:53 AM
From a previous link:

"Who needs Manhattan when we can get the electoral votes of eleven Southern states?" Kevin Phillips, the prophet of "the emerging Republican majority," asked in 1968, when he was piecing together Richard Nixon's electoral map. The eleven states, he meant, of the Old Confederacy. "Put those together with the Farm Belt and the Rocky Mountains, and we don't need the big cities. We don't even want them. Sure, Hubert [Humphrey] will carry Riverside Drive in November. La-de-dah. What will he do in Oklahoma?"

"'Integration' and 'Communization' are, after all, pretty closely synonymous," one of the magazine's most eminent contributors, Richard Weaver, a Southern agrarian perched at the University of Chicago, wrote in July 1957, when the civil rights bill was being debated. From this perspective, the Little Rock Nine, far from personifying the hopes of a community, were instead the "pawns and guinea pigs" of liberal social experimenters. The actual conflicts were almost irrelevant. "Segregated schooling, in terms of the larger issues involved, is about as important as Jenkin's Ear," Buckley wrote in 1956. And the judicial enforcement provision in the original 1957 Civil Rights Act, which some saw as a practical necessity, was for NR's editors a potential "extension of unchecked federal power ... without precedent in our history or in that of any Anglo-Saxon nation since the decline of the doctrine of the Divine Right of Kings."

/I guess Republicans are comfortable with being labeled as pro-Communist if they're willing to take credit for the civil rights movement. . .
 
2013-08-03 01:19:59 AM

jjorsett: It's so nice when Fark features some Democratic loon instead of focusing exclusively on right wing ones. Unfortunately I see a lot of "He put it badly, but I agree" here. The Dems seem to have a lot of loon understudies.


Newt Gingrich said it better:  "All Americans owe liberalism a great debt for having fought so passionately to end segregation.  The liberal commitment to ending segregation and the colonization of the Third World are liberalism's two great contributions to the 20th century.  And they often did that in the face of conservative indifference or hostility."

/And once again, I think Rangel is an idiot for using the word cracker.
 
2013-08-03 04:32:03 AM
The blacks are most racist segment of the American population. Since the democrat party convinced them that they were entitled because of something that happened long, long ago, many blacks think that they're entitled to life-long govment cheese. That's why blacks like Rangeley think they can get away with being complete racist douchbags. and the libs will go out of their way to accommodate.
 
2013-08-03 05:15:36 AM

ginandbacon: HoustonNick: So yall support prejudice, bias and racism.

No, but I am a fan of proper punctuation.


Take it up with my parents, Ayn Rand and God.
 
2013-08-03 08:48:04 AM
He is right, but he should have called them Dixiecrats.
 
2013-08-03 09:26:50 AM

Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs


Because black people can't be racist, amirite?!
 
2013-08-03 09:30:56 AM

creepy ass-cracka: The blacks are most racist segment of the American population. Since the democrat party convinced them that they were entitled because of something that happened long, long ago, many blacks think that they're entitled to life-long govment cheese. That's why blacks like Rangeley think they can get away with being complete racist douchbags. and the libs will go out of their way to accommodate.


1/10
 
2013-08-03 09:50:06 AM

Terrible Old Man: Jackson Herring: lol is this where we pretend that "cracker" is in any way insulting and totally equivalent to actual racial slurs

Because black people can't be racist, amirite?!


www.visi.com
 
2013-08-03 10:08:42 AM
Looks like them porch monkeys are trying to take that word back.

3.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-08-03 10:12:07 AM

Aristocles: I guess this is why the great civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., was a Republican.

Mr. Rangel disgusts me with his vile racial slur.

Proud of this, Farklibs?


 After the nomination of Barry Goldwater for the presidency, King wrote in his Autobiography, "The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of good will viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The best man at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade."

http://books.google.com/books?id=pynSnGuC964C&pg=PT229&lpg=PT229&dq= ma rtin+luther+king+barry+goldwater+cow+palace&source=bl&ots=ufz3xILP3R&s ig=6go0C8zOFbnOi8nQsjyonXx3BTU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dA79UdL1KPSi4AOw74DgBA&ve d=0CEsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=martin%20luther%20king%20barry%20goldwater%2 0cow%20palace&f=false
 
2013-08-03 10:24:14 AM

HighOnCraic: Aristocles: I guess this is why the great civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., was a Republican.

Mr. Rangel disgusts me with his vile racial slur.

Proud of this, Farklibs?

 After the nomination of Barry Goldwater for the presidency, King wrote in his Autobiography, "The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of good will viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The best man at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade."

http://books.google.com/books?id=pynSnGuC964C&pg=PT229&lpg=PT229&dq= ma rtin+luther+king+barry+goldwater+cow+palace&source=bl&ots=ufz3xILP3R&s ig=6go0C8zOFbnOi8nQsjyonXx3BTU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dA79UdL1KPSi4AOw74DgBA&ve d=0CEsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=martin%20luther%20king%20barry%20goldwater%2 0cow%20palace&f=false


I can't help but wonder if Republicans genuinely think that the racists of the South didn't become Republicans. Do they really not believe the Southern Strategy of appealing to racists didn't happen? I know lots of racists come in here and troll away, but do the bona fide Republicans in here really not see this?
 
2013-08-03 10:49:19 AM

Rwa2play: : Rwa2play: Aristocles: ohsnap.jpg

[www.ayola.com image 375x500]

That GOP is not this GOP.  If it were you'd get out as as you can because 'MURICA~!

This GOP is heir of the Honorable and Righteous legacy handed down by that GOP.

LOL, really?  So why don't they support an updated VRA that restores those provisions knocked down by the Supreme Court?  Wanna answer that?


So I see that neither Aristocles nor LoneWolf343 have responded to this question.  No surprise; take credit for things you don't support then run away when challenged.  Typical RW cowardice.
 
2013-08-03 10:55:52 AM

vygramul: HighOnCraic: Aristocles: I guess this is why the great civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., was a Republican.

Mr. Rangel disgusts me with his vile racial slur.

Proud of this, Farklibs?

 After the nomination of Barry Goldwater for the presidency, King wrote in his Autobiography, "The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of good will viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The best man at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade."

http://books.google.com/books?id=pynSnGuC964C&pg=PT229&lpg=PT229&dq= ma rtin+luther+king+barry+goldwater+cow+palace&source=bl&ots=ufz3xILP3R&s ig=6go0C8zOFbnOi8nQsjyonXx3BTU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dA79UdL1KPSi4AOw74DgBA&ve d=0CEsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=martin%20luther%20king%20barry%20goldwater%2 0cow%20palace&f=false

I can't help but wonder if Republicans genuinely think that the racists of the South didn't become Republicans. Do they really not believe the Southern Strategy of appealing to racists didn't happen? I know lots of racists come in here and troll away, but do the bona fide Republicans in here really not see this?


You'd think that after RNC Chairman Ken Mehlman officially apologized for the Southern Strategy it would be difficult for people to claim that it never happened.

/Reality won't stop the trolls from claiming they've won.
 
2013-08-03 11:20:42 AM

HighOnCraic: Aristocles: I guess this is why the great civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., was a Republican.

Mr. Rangel disgusts me with his vile racial slur.

Proud of this, Farklibs?

 After the nomination of Barry Goldwater for the presidency, King wrote in his Autobiography, "The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of good will viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The best man at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade."

http://books.google.com/books?id=pynSnGuC964C&pg=PT229&lpg=PT229&dq= ma rtin+luther+king+barry+goldwater+cow+palace&source=bl&ots=ufz3xILP3R&s ig=6go0C8zOFbnOi8nQsjyonXx3BTU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dA79UdL1KPSi4AOw74DgBA&ve d=0CEsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=martin%20luther%20king%20barry%20goldwater%2 0cow%20palace&f=false


He sounds like a T.E.A. Party Patriot criticizing the GOP for being RINOs!

Truly a man ahead of his time.
 
2013-08-03 11:28:24 AM

the_dude_abides: you guys are trying too hard. i know that you're shackled to your party


HAHAHAHA, obvious troll makes a hundred troll posts and says other people are "trying too hard." Irony meter permanently destroyed.
 
2013-08-03 11:28:30 AM

Rwa2play: Rwa2play: : Rwa2play: Aristocles: ohsnap.jpg

[www.ayola.com image 375x500]

That GOP is not this GOP.  If it were you'd get out as as you can because 'MURICA~!

This GOP is heir of the Honorable and Righteous legacy handed down by that GOP.

LOL, really?  So why don't they support an updated VRA that restores those provisions knocked down by the Supreme Court?  Wanna answer that?

So I see that neither Aristocles nor LoneWolf343 have responded to this question.  No surprise; take credit for things you don't support then run away when challenged.  Typical RW cowardice.


Ya know, updating doesn't mean "restoring" what was "knocked down" because it's outdated. Doing away with those outdated provisions was, in fact, an update.
 
2013-08-03 12:13:53 PM

Aristocles: HighOnCraic: Aristocles: I guess this is why the great civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr., was a Republican.

Mr. Rangel disgusts me with his vile racial slur.

Proud of this, Farklibs?

 After the nomination of Barry Goldwater for the presidency, King wrote in his Autobiography, "The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of good will viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The best man at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade."

http://books.google.com/books?id=pynSnGuC964C&pg=PT229&lpg=PT229&dq= ma rtin+luther+king+barry+goldwater+cow+palace&source=bl&ots=ufz3xILP3R&s ig=6go0C8zOFbnOi8nQsjyonXx3BTU&hl=en&sa=X&ei=dA79UdL1KPSi4AOw74DgBA&ve d=0CEsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=martin%20luther%20king%20barry%20goldwater%2 0cow%20palace&f=false

He sounds like a T.E.A. Party Patriot criticizing the GOP for being RINOs!

Truly a man ahead of his time.


10/10

You've become more amusing.  It's not like anyone was taking you seriously prior to this.
 
2013-08-03 01:30:03 PM

Rwa2play: Rwa2play: : Rwa2play: Aristocles: ohsnap.jpg

[www.ayola.com image 375x500]

That GOP is not this GOP.  If it were you'd get out as as you can because 'MURICA~!

This GOP is heir of the Honorable and Righteous legacy handed down by that GOP.

LOL, really?  So why don't they support an updated VRA that restores those provisions knocked down by the Supreme Court?  Wanna answer that?

So I see that neither Aristocles nor LoneWolf343 have responded to this question.  No surprise; take credit for things you don't support then run away when challenged.  Typical RW cowardice.


...I think you've radically misinterpreted me somewhere.
 
2013-08-03 03:15:30 PM

mrshowrules: Saying everyone in a group the (e.g., the Tea Party) is racist is bigoted.


I'm sure not everyone in the KKK "hates ni*CLANG*", but the KKK is a racist group.

I'm sure not everyone in the Tea Party hates Obama for his race, but the tea party is a racist group.
 
2013-08-03 03:28:19 PM

Captain Dan: Let's be real.  Cracker isn't hurtful to anyone.  However, it was said with unkind intent, which is demeritorious for a public official.

It's 2013.  We're supposed to be beyond race-baiting demagoguery by now.



I agree. Cracker doesn't bother me. It's race baiting that needs to stop if we are ever going to move beyond ...
 
2013-08-03 07:08:12 PM

Shakin_Haitian: Southern Italians aren't white. I mean, I guess they're white, like how Jews and Arabs are white, but yeah.


and Moroccans, Algerians, Egyptians, and Libyans aren't black.  so when blacks say they are "African-American" what are the Moroccan-Americans, Algerian-Americans, Egyptian-Americans and Libyan-Americans?
 
2013-08-03 07:19:49 PM

Truther: Captain Dan: Let's be real.  Cracker isn't hurtful to anyone.  However, it was said with unkind intent, which is demeritorious for a public official.

It's 2013.  We're supposed to be beyond race-baiting demagoguery by now.


I agree. Cracker doesn't bother me. It's race baiting that needs to stop if we are ever going to move beyond ...


So when you have a president of the United States that says (with regard to the verdict) "he could have been trevon martin twenty five years ago" - isn't that "race-baiting demagoguery?"

He could have said, "while i disagree with the jury's decision, this is the system of justice we have in this country, and it has worked for over 200 years, we have to move forward.  please do not seek justice for martin by 'going after and getting george zimmerman.'  protest all you want, but please don't riot....[etc]"

Isn't a president supposed to bring the country together?   Instead, his comments after the incident - "if I had sons, they would look like trevon martin," and his comments about the verdict only continue to divide the country along racial lines.
 
2013-08-03 10:48:43 PM

Truther: Captain Dan: Let's be real.  Cracker isn't hurtful to anyone.  However, it was said with unkind intent, which is demeritorious for a public official.

It's 2013.  We're supposed to be beyond race-baiting demagoguery by now.

I agree. Cracker doesn't bother me. It's race baiting that needs to stop if we are ever going to move beyond ...


Don't kid yourself.  If Rangel had said "assholes" instead of "white crackers" we would still be having this thread and there would still be just as much right-wing butthurt.

This isn't about racism, this is about playing the victim.
 
2013-08-03 11:06:20 PM

Stile4aly: Truther: Captain Dan: Let's be real.  Cracker isn't hurtful to anyone.  However, it was said with unkind intent, which is demeritorious for a public official.

It's 2013.  We're supposed to be beyond race-baiting demagoguery by now.

I agree. Cracker doesn't bother me. It's race baiting that needs to stop if we are ever going to move beyond ...

Don't kid yourself.  If Rangel had said "assholes" instead of "white crackers" we would still be having this thread and there would still be just as much right-wing butthurt.

This isn't about racism, this is about playing the victim.



Way to be judgmental and make blanket assertions. What is wrong with you?
 
2013-08-03 11:29:17 PM

Truther: Stile4aly: Truther: Captain Dan: Let's be real.  Cracker isn't hurtful to anyone.  However, it was said with unkind intent, which is demeritorious for a public official.

It's 2013.  We're supposed to be beyond race-baiting demagoguery by now.

I agree. Cracker doesn't bother me. It's race baiting that needs to stop if we are ever going to move beyond ...

Don't kid yourself.  If Rangel had said "assholes" instead of "white crackers" we would still be having this thread and there would still be just as much right-wing butthurt.

This isn't about racism, this is about playing the victim.


Way to be judgmental and make blanket assertions. What is wrong with you?


I'm observant of history, that's what's wrong with me.
 
2013-08-04 12:41:46 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-08-04 01:40:59 AM

Soonerpsycho: [i.imgur.com image 850x637]


Oh look, another Rtard who doesn't have the first clue as to how how and why the Southern Strategy was put into play.

Granted Rangel was being a bit of a counter-productive idiot here for using a racially charged term to try to point out that the TEA Party mentality of today are direct ideological descendants of entrenched bigots from days gone by.

That carefully noted, he is not incorrect.

Antigay? Anti-black? Anti-Muslim? Anti-woman? Anti-Immigrant?

There is a home for you in the GOP and there has been for years. Especially in the TP crowd.

/All the trolls ITT making their feeble "Rangel is the real racist" rants are either in total denial or too stupid for words.
 
Displayed 224 of 224 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report