Anybody see her latest comments? Doesn't Harry Alford realize he's supposed to march in a straight line and never question the party line? Hey Harry, Boxer just wants your vote but not your opinion. Doesn't Boxer represent the party that claims to be the party of inclusion and the one that enables minorities to advance? A leading representative of a party that benefits from race attempting to use race against a man of a particular race...wow! If people would wake up and stop believing the myth that this party cares about them, you could see things change (for the better) quickly. His "Cap & Trade hustle" comments didn't go over well with Boxer so she attempted to silence him by using racial comments. I've searched the internet and watched several national news channels and can't find much. Why isn't this getting more coverage? Ooops...I forgot about the media's double standard. :yelwink2:
Its funny how people post something about race but skip over numerous stories about it pertaining to their party. I said I was taking a break from FSA, but I cant let this kind of hypocrisy go on unchecked. 1# The GOP's Young Hatemonger - Page 1 - The Daily Beast New GOP "Racist" Headache - Page 1 - The Daily Beast 2#Rusty DePass, South Carolina GOP Activist, Says Escaped Gorilla Was Ancestor Of Michelle Obama (VIDEO) 3#Nashville - Nashville Scene - Pith in the Wind - Republican Staffer E-Mails Obama 'Spook' Photo So there you have it the republican party, the party of inclusion, the party that minorities should flock to in droves!!! I cant wait to switch.
Alford, head of the Black Chamber of Commerce, was speaking out against Cap and Trade. Boxer tried to rebut his comments by offering a quote from the NAACP leader which supported Cap and Trade. This pissed Alford off. Basically his issue was that Boxer felt by using a black group's opposition, she could show him that he should toe the black line and quit making trouble. He later said that Boxer doesn't love blacks. She loves poor blacks.
Here is a transcript from O'Reilly which has the entire exchange. Alford made the issue all about himself. He wanted to speak soley for black America and when Boxer presented other black organizations views that showed that there was diversity of opinion in the black community, he exploded and made a racial accusation out of it. Are you really defending this chump?
OK, we need some "rules of hypocrisy" that are all-inclusive. Here's my thoughts: We've seen members of both parties get caught with their hands in the cookie jar of immorality on occasion. But when (not quoting you, here, MM, but a lot of Dems out there feel this way) the outrage starts, it usually only flows at the GOP. Reason being, we're the party that always talks about morals, so we're the only party that gets held up to that standard. As long as a Dem never speaks out in the name of God, family and apple pie, he's got a get-out-of-morality-jail free card. Fine, I can live with that. But let's apply the same standards both ways. We're always hearing that it is the Democratic party that is the all-inclusive party, that the GOP is a whites-only party, that all of the David Duke, KKK, hate everyone but good ole' white boys are in the GOP. If you truly believe that, then by the "rules of hypocrisy", you should only be outraged by racism when it manifests itself in Democrats. If a Republican demonstrates it....well, that's what you think we are anyway! We get a free pass! Maybe it would be best if we just applied the same rules and expectations to everyone, regardless of party affiliation.
I was clearly responding to this in the initial post As if the GOP is the party I should be apart of because inclusiveness, because of this situation with Boxer.
Thats really taken out of context Red. I saw the entire exchange replayed on CNBC. It lasted a lot longer then the quote would suggest and take several pages of transcripts to reproduce. Boxer was condescending to that man from the outset and inferred more than once that he should tote the company line. Her approach to mitigate his organizations opposition was to offer up opposite opinions from only black organizations. She came off like the plantation marm trying to get a "boy" in line. At one point she took offense to being addressed as mame and told him to address her as Senator. Boxer looked like a fool and deserves any criticism she gets for it.
At this point, I'm willing to concede that neither party is looking out for anyone's best interests, regardless of race, creed or color. They're clearly concerned only with winning the next election and consolidating their own personal power, and that of their party. I've said it before, I'll say it again. Angry mob, torches, pitchforks, on the steps of the Capitol. Your code word is "wolverine."
No way you spin this Red. I saw the exchange between Boxer and Alford and the interview on O'Reilly. Boxer clearly tried to show that as a black man, he should agree with the NAACP and Alford rightly took offense. Boxer got stomped and she knew it. She came across like Meathead trying to patronize Lionel. And Alford was speaking for businesses.. He happens to be the head of the Black Chamber of Commerce, but his testimony was against the Cap and Hustle and had zero racial component...until Boxer tried to inject race into it.
