Freepers, this was a HIDEOUS article from the Chicago defender. Fortunately, THEY have a message board. Aside from his bias against the right to keep and bear arms (hey, he's in Chicago, Gungrabber Central), he can't seem to carry a logical argument against what Dr. Rice was trying to say: that the Constitution provides protections for all of us, even though the Framers didn't intend to protect people who looked like Dr. Rice.
Then this hideous billingsgate meanders into a personal attack on her deceased mother and father. That is the best Curry can do.
Okay Freeps. It's SECOND AMENDMENT TIME!!!!!
Be Seeing You,
Chris
What a self-important,libelous prig this guy is!
Few things are as repulsive as Black conservatives trying to advance the Republican agenda by mischaracterizing the Civil Rights Movement or distorting history. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice provided a textbook example of this during a recent appearance on CNNs Larry King Live.
Nothing like the mindless rants of a pure unadulterated racism.
Nothing is as repulsive as a black liberal (I assume he is) dissing a black conservative.
Gee, George and AlQ critizing Condi at the same time. I'm sure it's just a coincidence.
Of course the Founding fathers were not worrying about blacks in Birmingham in the 1960s being unarmed.
What they were worried about were American citizens being caught unarmed and unable to defend themselves.
And Secretary Rice made the point that her folks were American citizens caught in a situation where, if they had no weapons, they would have been at the tender mercies of a terrorist organization.
This guy completely missed the point of her argument.
The key point the guy misses is that the black citizens didn't get full rights until they exercised their right of self-defense by being armed. Gun control laws were first put in place to keep blacks from exercising their rights as citizens.
It's hilarious how this, uh, "writer" keeps changing the subject. Condi mentions the (general, non-race-restricted) right to keep and bear arms as something important to the Founders because that right assured self-protection. Idiot writer responds, first, with an irrelevant slam at the founders as "fondlers," then attempts to assert that the issue is one of race, THEN pirouettes into assaulting them as horrific racists. Scuse me?
Later, when Condi is talking about why she's Republican, and she mentions that the Democrats around whom she grew up -- who ran Alabama -- would not register her father to vote, this moron writer says A HA! Political parties don't register voters! I WIN!, which is simply silly. To get a position in Alabama as a voter-registration worker in that state at that time, you'd have to have been a white Democrat, and moron-writer knows this full well.
Does the fact that the Founding fathers werent thinking about blacks protecting themselves with guns mean they dont have that right today? According to this dick it does.
Does George Curry think that Condi Rice's statement is automatically limited to "The Black Experience" just because she happens to be black. Clearly she's speaking as an unhyphenated American. She's Secretary of State fer cryin' out loud.
This POS article is HIDEOUS on so many levels...
This kind of vitriol from his is no surprise, given his background.
Black conservative ping
If you want on (or off) of my black conservative ping list, please let me know via FREEPmail. (And no, you don't have to be black to be on the list!)
Extra warning: this is a high-volume ping list.
Obviously, George can't see the 2nd Amendment issue except through the prism of racism. And so, he misses Condi's point.
>>There is no evidence that the Founding Fathers or the Fondling Fathers, as I like to call some of them were in the least bit worried about African-Americans being able to protect themselves against White supremacists.<<
What a self-important, self-verified idiot. This is a pure racist remark by him. Fact is, the founding fathers proved their intelligence and integrity by protecting the rights generically, regardless of race. Unlike him, race was not an issue. The issue was to protect the individuals right to protect himself from others that would do him harm, be he black against white, white against black, or girl against boy.
This guy is a real piece of work. It is amazing his voice is given any more prominence than the average letter to the editor.
Just another pimp of the Race Industry tryng for press coverage!
Yeah, but one of the things that is MORE repulsive is Black liberals trying to advance the socialist agenda by mischaracterizing the Civil Rights Movement or distorting history. Yet that happens every day. Ask Jesse Jackson. Or Al Sharpton. Or Kwesi Mfume. Or Julian Bond. Or Andrew Young. Or Coleman Young. Or Marion Barry. Or Louis Farrakhan. Or any of their fellow travelers/apologists.
What a frickin' stupid moron. He can't follow a simple line of reasoning. He's a racist b@st@rd! Apparently the only constitutional right granted blacks in this @$$h@t'$ opinion is the constitutionally guaranteed right to commit genocide via abortion....
Very interesting how they dissect her family tree all the way back to slavery but slobber all over Barack Obama.
That was left to authors and legislators who wrote and passed the 13th and 14th amendments, which extended the protections of US citizenship to blacks, either newly freed, or descendants of generations of free blacks.
This expert on Soviet history obviously hasnt studied enough American history. There is no evidence that the Founding Fathers or the Fondling Fathers, as I like to call some of them were in the least bit worried about African-Americans being able to protect themselves against White supremacists
That was left to authors and legislators who wrote and passed the 13th and 14th amendments, which extended the protections of US citizenship to blacks, either newly freed, or descendants of generations of free blacks.