Well, Bush is not currently an elected member representing anyone so the core point of the OP still stands as far as him being in attendance goes.
Yet here we are in a thread lambasting the fact that no Republicans attended a high visibility civil rights ceremony.
I watched the news on several different stations over the weekend and saw many shots of Obama crossing the bridge and none of Bush (and also zero mention of Bush). I didn't find out until today that Bush was even there and wouldn't have known if the OP wasn't getting his panties in a bunch because no Republican leaders attended. And frankly, I can see how he came to that conclusion given the coverage I saw. Spin, spin, spin.
why do liberals spend all their time looking thru the rear view mirror of history rather then deal with the black on black genocide taking place every day in the liberal states and cities??
Republicans want a better future. Democrats want to relive the Hatred of the past.
I never met a slave.
Because no one gives a shit? Are they obligated now to attend every dumb event.
<<Not a Republican.
Republicans want a better future. Democrats want to relive the Hatred of the past.
I never met a slave.
IGBT said:gas was $1.84 a gallon prior to obama inauguration.
"Senator Tim Scott (R-SC), currently the only Black senator serving in the United States government, was not invited to speak...."
Guess you can only spin this so far huh?
No doubt had they attended you would have found a reason to piss and moan about their attendance or whatever they chose to say. Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Typical political BS.
You mean like Republicans tripping over themselves to hear Bibi??
GOP more concerned for foreign citizens then their own
How many blacks were you elected to represent?
None, I am not in a public office. Though, shouldnt the issue be "How many people were you elected to represent"? It seems to me that segregating individuals based on their skin color is actually making the problem worse, not better.
why do liberals spend all their time looking thru the rear view mirror of history rather then deal with the black on black genocide taking place every day in the liberal states and cities??
That's probably the most racist thing I've read on these forums.
Right, so there's the first half of the answer to your question, "I didnt attend either, does that make me a bad person too?" You are NOT an elected official. Therefore, your personal actions are irrelevant to the issue.None, I am not in a public office.
That might be true is all people are homogeneous clones, with identical histories and values. Here in the real world, however, the Selma anniversary has great significance to a large segment of Americans, most notably black Americans. Congress is elected to serve all Americans, including that large constituency who commemorate Selma. Given this, it is perfectly reasonable to expect Congressional leadership to be represented there.Though, shouldnt the issue be "How many people were you elected to represent"? It seems to me that segregating individuals based on their skin color is actually making the problem worse, not better.
Lie....House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy was there. Also, where is your outrage that Harry Reid wasn't there? You seem to hear dog whistles everywhere you go...but where is your outrage over recent allegations of Reid's racism...allegations made by Democrats? From my perspective it appears that your 'Us vs. Them' mentality has forced you into two intellectually tortured positions: (1) bald-faced lying and (2) hypocrisy. Some might even say "Something ain't right with you".Something ain't right with you. None of the GOP leadership showed up. How hard was it for any of them to show up to an event marking the anniversary that was so significant tor the lives of a large portion of their population. How would you think that population would regard that? And you claim not to understand the dog whistle politics of the GOP.
This us vs. them you have forces you into these intellectually tortured positions.
Bigotry comes in many ugly shapes and sizes...not just color of skin. Am I wrong?Yes, but unlike DSF and other decent Conservatives, just because I am not a racist doesn't mean I can see it as the unconscious motivation for lots and lots of other conservatives, and that that part of the conservative capture of the south is based on closet racism. My answer was the answer I believe to be the one at the core of the Republican party, bigotry against blacks for the bigoted white vote, while pretending to be otherwise, but not so overtly as too lose that base.
Bigotry comes in many ugly shapes and sizes...not just color of skin. Am I wrong?
This is so Orwellian...seems that liberals now have full control of the "Ministry of Truth". Bush was cropped out of most of the media pictures of the event.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/03/08/ny-times-crops-bush-out-of-selma-picture-highlights-ferguson/
I fully understand the definition of bigotry. It seems that you don't understand what I'm talking about.As you can see from the definition below, disliking another person or idea for a RATIONAL and FAIR reason IS NOT BIGOTRY. Since I get to define what are rational and fair reasons, it is physically impossible for me to be a bigot.
Looks like two different photos taken within seconds of each other at slightly different angles.Another interesting note, the photo that conservatives are using to claim that Bush was 'cropped out' of was in fact an entirely different photo from the one that was actually on the NYT's front page.
NYT image:
Supposed NYT picture Bush was cut out of:
Note that Obama is looking in different directions, the photos are from different angles, etc, etc.
Duped again. When will people learn?