# David Duke On Presidential Bid: "Yes, I Am Considering It"



## USArmyRetired (Jul 5, 2011)

Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet. Apparently Duke was elected in the richest district of Louisiana when he ran for the House Seat that David Vitter held as well as former Governor David Treen. According to the article, Duke will go on a 25 state tour. He will get support I believe and he sure knows how to scare the media to death and they would surely give him media attention. This will be interesting to watch


David Duke on a Presidential Bid: 'Yes, I Am Considering It' - Garance Franke-Ruta - Politics - The Atlantic

White Supremacists Running for Political Office in 2012 in Growing Numbers - The Daily Beast

former Louisiana state representative David Duke confirms he's mulling tossing his hat into the 2012 presidential contest.

"Yes, I am considering it,"


Story going national:
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-/1?csp=34news


----------



## Sarah G (Jul 5, 2011)

Nobody is afraid of him.  He is sub human and a known racist.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 5, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet. Apparently Duke was elected in the richest district of Louisiana when he ran for the House Seat that David Vitter held as well as former Governor David Treen. According to the article, Duke will go on a 25 state tour. He will get support I believe and he sure knows how to scare the media to death and they would surely give him media attention. This will be interesting to watch
> 
> 
> David Duke on a Presidential Bid: 'Yes, I Am Considering It' - Garance Franke-Ruta - Politics - The Atlantic
> ...



Another thing we know about Duke:

He's a former Grand Wizard in the Klan and a current White Supremacist.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 5, 2011)

Here I thought Retard was just a run-of-the-mill Palin fruit loop.



Now he's excited over Duke running?

Fuck off, asshole, and take the US out of your username.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 5, 2011)

hortysir said:


> Here I thought Retard was just a run-of-the-mill Palin fruit loop.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You mean you are just now figuring out that he's a racist fuck-wit?

Slow on the uptake?


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 5, 2011)

David Duke has held elected office as a member of the Louisiana legislature.

David Duke has written several books.

David Duke has stayed consistently active as a white advocate for many years.

Duke '12.  Sounds a hell of a lot better than Obama '12.

*The phenomenon of white advocates running for office is only going to INCREASE, not decrease.  So get used to it.  You can't have a fucking white-hating black Marxist as the president and expect whites not to have SOME reaction.  Whites are falling into the minority.   Whites are getting attacked.  Illegal aliens are costing us billions.  Jews are running the Pentagon.  Minority mortgages are crashing the economy.  The wages of working people are going down while corporate profits go up.  Every small town in America now has to accommodate 13 languages.  THIS SHIT IS STARTING TO GET OUT OF HAND, AND THE ANSWER IS COMING.*


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 5, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> David Duke has held elected office as a member of the Louisiana legislature.
> 
> David Duke has written several books.
> 
> ...



This:





is not "white advocacy".


----------



## logical4u (Jul 5, 2011)

You can bet that the "press" would investigate a lot more thouroughly than they have Obama (that still hasn't happened).


----------



## Tank (Jul 5, 2011)

I wonder if Dukes church pastor says "God Dam America" too?


----------



## hortysir (Jul 6, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Here I thought Retard was just a run-of-the-mill Palin fruit loop.
> ...


I guess so 

I never really paid *too* much attention to him because of his hard-on for Palin.
The boner I can understand. Just not to the extreme he takes it with her.

No reason for racism though.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 6, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Here I thought Retard was just a run-of-the-mill Palin fruit loop.
> ...


You really seem excited by the concept of a racist in our government....is this new, or did you always feel this way?

Would I be spilling any beans by revealing that that's what made up the Democrat Party?

1.	Every segregationist who ever served in the Senate was a Democrat, and remained a Democratexcept for Strom Thurmond. He remained a Democrat for eighteen years after running for President as a Dixiecrat- before he became a Republican. Theres a reason they are not called Dixiecans.

2.	The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms. Democrats never denied a segregationist a committee chairmanship or a leadership position because of his noxious views on race. No Democrat has ever been punished for making a racist remark.More than 80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[The] record on race,  of Thurmond the Republican is pretty good. He was among the first of Southern senators to hire blacks for his staff. He supported blacks for judgeships. He voted for extension of the Voting Rights Act. Jack Kelly

a.	Ernest Hollings, Richard Russell, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd all voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Actand all remained Democrats. But, lest one think that only Southern Democrats were inclined against civil rights, the following Democrats were far from Southerners and all voted against allowing the 1957 civil rights bill on the calendar: Senators Wayne Morse of Oregon (a favorite target of Senator Joe McCarthy), Warren Magnuson of Washington, James Murray of Montana, Mike Mansfield of Montana, and Joseph OMahoney of Wyoming.


Got this from Coulter's new best-seller. You might like it.


----------



## hvywgt250 (Jul 6, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> Nobody is afraid of him.  He is sub human and a known racist.



   You talking about Obama??


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 6, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



What if your average white conservative spent 10 percent of the time they currently spend trying to prove that "Democrats are the real racists" on actually defending white people?

Concept!


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 6, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> > David Duke has held elected office as a member of the Louisiana legislature.
> ...



Sure it is.  Those people are FOR whites.  Not against.  For!

Concept!


----------



## rdean (Jul 6, 2011)

Another Republican enters the fray.

*He has to do something about diversity in the Republican Party.  Like get rid of the 10% that aren't white.*


----------



## uscitizen (Jul 6, 2011)

Duke/Coulter 2012.  A match made in hell.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 6, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



I'll see your three canned GOP talking points and raise you one "Nixon's Southern Strategy".

There is a reason the South is red now.  

Let's not play coy about it.  

As for what happened in the past, I could give a shit less.  I don't live in the past.  I live in the present.  I don't see the Democratic Party as flawless.  I just see it as the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Zona (Jul 6, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> Nobody is afraid of him.  He is sub human and a known racist.



He represents the right perfectly.  Ever see pics of his fans?  They are the same people who go to the RNC conventions.  they really are.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 6, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > William Joyce said:
> ...



You know what I like about that picture?  

The klucker on the right is wearing high heels.  

She must be the sow of the group.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 6, 2011)

hortysir said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



I actually commend you for not paying attention to the poser known as ArmyRetarded.


----------



## Tank (Jul 6, 2011)

The KKK and those pictures are so old.

Go on Youtube and check out the videos of black mobs attacking white folks.


----------



## Zona (Jul 6, 2011)

Tank said:


> The KKK and those pictures are so old.
> 
> Go on Youtube and check out the videos of black mobs attacking white folks.



Are there black cops in tose mobs?  Like you....there are with KKK members..

I know you are a racist tank but come on..comparing those idiot kids to the kkk?  Really?


----------



## Tank (Jul 6, 2011)

The KKK is so old, the racism today is anti-white.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 6, 2011)

Tank said:


> The KKK is so old, the racism today is anti-white.



You are right.  The Klan is just a memory..........

LIFE Goes Inside Today's KKK - Photo Gallery - LIFE

If the klan is marginalized today, it's because decent people stood up to their fucktardary.


----------



## Tank (Jul 6, 2011)

"Typical white people"


----------



## shintao (Jul 6, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Lots of luck Duke.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> Nobody is afraid of him.  He is sub human and a known racist.



whoa, just what is a "sub human"?
good grief.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 6, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet. Apparently Duke was elected in the richest district of Louisiana when he ran for the House Seat that David Vitter held as well as former Governor David Treen. According to the article, Duke will go on a 25 state tour. He will get support I believe and he sure knows how to scare the media to death and they would surely give him media attention. This will be interesting to watch
> ...



wait, you're talking about the LATE Robert Byrd A DEMOCRAT who the Democrat voters voted in over and over for something like 30 years?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 7, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Willie-J, I defend justice, not particular people.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 7, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet. Apparently Duke was elected in the richest district of Louisiana when he ran for the House Seat that David Vitter held as well as former Governor David Treen. According to the article, Duke will go on a 25 state tour. He will get support I believe and he sure knows how to scare the media to death and they would surely give him media attention. This will be interesting to watch
> 
> 
> David Duke on a Presidential Bid: 'Yes, I Am Considering It' - Garance Franke-Ruta - Politics - The Atlantic
> ...



What's the matter.
Were you booted off the Free Republic message board?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 7, 2011)

warrior102 said:


> usarmyretired said:
> 
> 
> > wouldn't this be something to have david duke go up and challenge obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'two' u.s. Citizen parents which qualifies him for article 2 section 1 purposes that obama doesn't meet. Apparently duke was elected in the richest district of louisiana when he ran for the house seat that david vitter held as well as former governor david treen. According to the article, duke will go on a 25 state tour. He will get support i believe and he sure knows how to scare the media to death and they would surely give him media attention. This will be interesting to watch
> ...



wtf?


----------



## Si modo (Jul 7, 2011)

OMG.  Duke?

And really, there are those who admire him???????

Really????????

Other than Stormfronters?

Seriously?

*picks jaw up from floor*



The guy is scum.


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 7, 2011)

he will run till he gets the matching federal funds then he will drop out....just like he did last time..and this man is total scum....he was the youngest grand wizard of the kkk...he has had plastic surgery.....just a side note there....he has lived in russia....he is born here but so was tim mcveigh....
anyone thinking this man is viable for anything is wrong....


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Hell-boy, this is my fav post of the day! The week!

Cause it shows that you have been raised like the proverbial mushroom...raised in the dark and fed you know what.

Now, hope you're sitting dow:
There never was a racist "Nixon's Southern Strategy".
It is a *totally fabricated idea by the Left*, supported by the Old Left Media, and bought- like it was on sale- by the gullible.

1. As president of the Senate, *Nixon strongly supported civil rights*, specifically the 1957 civil rights act, issuing an advisory opinion that a filibuster could be stopped with a simple majority, thereby changing Senate rules. Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 12 (Thursday, January 27, 2011)

a.	During the endless deliberations, Democrat *LBJ *warned his fellow segregationist Democrats, *Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again. *Borzoi Reader | Authors | Robert A. Caro

b.	Then there was *liberal Democrat Sam Ervin*- instrumental in the destruction of anti-communist Republicans Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon- who told fellow segregationists, Im on  your side, not theirs,  but *weve got to give the goddamned ******* something. *Ibid.

c.	*LBJ gutted the enforcement provisions of the 1957 bill*, i.e., anyone accused of violating a persons voting rights was guaranteed a jury trial- and, therefore, jury nullification by Democrat juries. To fix the enforcement provisions that Democrats had gutted, *Eisenhower introduced a bill to create the US Civil Rights Commission**Democrats staged the longest filibuster in history- over 125 hours.* But the bill passed and was *signed by Ike *on May 6, 1960.

2. Typical idiot education: When the Republicans won their gains in Congress, 2010, Bill *Maher said*: I havent seen Republicans so happy about taking seats since they made Rosa Parks stand up. HBO: Real Time with Bill Maher: Ep 196 November 5, 2010: Quotes

a.	When Rosa Parks refuse to give up her seat, the mayor of Montgomery enforcing segregation on the buses was- of course-* a segregationist Democrat*, William A. Tacky Gayle. The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Birth of a new age, December 1955, p. 80.

b. History provide the basis for a very different analysis. During the 1966 campaign,* Nixon was personally thanked by Dr. King for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. *Nixon also endorsed all Republicans, except the members of the John Birch Society. Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association

3.  Between *1969 and 1974, Nixon * who believed that blacks had gotten a raw deal in America and wanted to extend a helping hand: raised the *civil rights enforcement *budget 800 percent; doubled the budget for *black colleges*; *appointed more blacks to federal posts and high positions than any president*, including LBJ; adopted the *Philadelphia Plan *mandating quotas for blacks in unions, and for black scholars in colleges and universities; invented "Black Capitalism" (the Office of Minority Business Enterprise), raised U.S. purchases from black businesses from $9 million to $153 million, increased small business* loans to minorities 1,000 percent, *increased U.S. deposits in minority-owned banks 4,000 percent; raised the share of *Southern schools that were desegregated *from 10 percent to 70 percent. Wrote the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1975, "It has only been since 1968 that substantial reduction of racial segregation has taken place in the South."http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30233#ixzz1RH1WZDv8

a.Now, clearly, *conservatives do not favor racial quotas *of any kind, but Nixons efforts must be seen as *a reaction to a century of Democrat obstructionism on civil rights.* Purely a coincidence, Im sure, that Dems finally came around when blacks were voting in high enough numbers to make a difference at the ballot box. Note, Nixon did it even though it hurt him politically. Kotlowski, Dean J. ; "Richard Nixon and the Origins of Affirmative Action" The Historian. Volume: 60. Issue: 3. 1998. pp. 523 ff.



4. Do you get it yet? 
Everything you believe in politics is wrong!
You've been lied to...and worse...you never did your own research to see if it was true!!!

If there was a Southern Strategy, it was unfurled by the people of the South, who essentially rebelled again, against the *lawless, unprincipled Democrats, who they recognized as being responsible for, or at least accepting of *the legalized obscenity, student riots, the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Party, and the Black Panthers, skyrocketing crime rates, courts giving more and more elaborate rights to criminals, ended the death penalty, banned prayer from the schools, among other depredations. 

And, being patriots, (name a Southern university that banned ROTC. Even Duke has one) they appreciated the fact that the Republicans were hawks during the Cold War. So rather than a Republican strategy, it was the Democrats shift from the party of Harry Truman to the party of Rosie ODonnell!


You've been mislead-  but it's your own fault!  Pick up a book.
Do you feel dumb? Really, really dumb?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 7, 2011)

Unfortunate at times, ANYONE can run for President. I mean look at the Obama, he ran and FOOLED enough people to VOTE for him.

Wasn't David Duke a Democrat before he switched.


----------



## strollingbones (Jul 7, 2011)

duke has belonged to both parties....a fact that seems to escaped many.....duke is self serving and will use anyone or any movement that he can


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 7, 2011)

On the plus side, instead of 4 years of reading about what Michelle Obama is wearing, we'd get to read about David Duke's fabulous wardrobe:


----------



## rdean (Jul 7, 2011)

rdean said:


> Another Republican enters the fray.
> 
> *He has to do something about diversity in the Republican Party.  Like get rid of the 10% that aren't white.*



KKK used to be Democrats untill they moved to the Republican Party.  A place they feel much more at home.


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 7, 2011)

I wonder, if Duke is backed into a corner, will he play the race card?


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 7, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> I wonder, if Duke is backed into a corner, will he play the race card?



It's the only card his deck contains.


----------



## Tank (Jul 7, 2011)

Duke would be good for the white people of America.

Without white people America is a third world country.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 7, 2011)

Tank said:


> Duke would be good for the white people of America.



Which white people?  My kids are half Asian.  I'm pretty clear on the fact that having a white racist turd who thinks that non-whites are mudbloods and untermenschen would NOT be good for me.

Please stop speaking about whites as if we are some united force.  i want nothing to do with white trash supporters of David Duke.  Y'all can just pick up your trailers and move your little enclave to Montana where you belong, dammit.


----------



## Tank (Jul 7, 2011)

Come on, America has a President today that has said he would want to "expunge the white blood from his body" and that "white mans greed runs a world in need".

But more importantly, without white people America is a third world country.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



I am surprised it took you guys so long to bring Byrd into this thread.  You guys are slipping.

Byrd realized his affiliation with the klan was a mistake and was apologetic about it later on in his life.  

Secondly, your statement is not fully correct.  It should read "Democratic voters in West Virginia voted in.....".  It is doubtful that Byrd would have been able to rise any higher than he did due to his past, no matter how apologetic he was about it.  

Duke has never even hinted that his affiliation in the Klan was a mistake.  In fact, he's proud of it and retains his role as a White Supremacist.  

So there's your difference.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 7, 2011)

rdean said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Another Republican enters the fray.
> ...



Of course, as is true of some many of the things you believe....they never happened.

You are such an ignorant fellow, deanie-weanie....and it is so easy to prove if one is literate.

KKK segregationists moved into the Republican party? *Not likely*, as Republicans pushed *for integration*.
Nor did most Southerners support racism, as proven by their voting Republican.

*Example*? Sure: 

Do you think *segregationist Democrat Governor Orval Faubus *of Arkansas suddenly became a Republican when Nixon became President??? 

No, he became ex-gov when *Republican Winthop Rockefeller defeated him as an integrationist, in a state with 11% Republican registration*. BTW, *Clinton invited Faubus *to his inauguration as governor, warmly embracing him.

1. The truth was that it was *Eisenhower who broke the Democrats&#8217; hold on the South in 1952.* Want to know was appealing to bigots?  *Democrat Adlai Stevenson, known to experience &#8220;personal discomfort in the presence of Negroes.&#8221; *Taylor Branch, &#8220;Parting the Waters: America in the King Years,1954-1963,&#8221; p. 360. Oh, yes, and Stevenson chose John Sparkman of Alabama, a Democrat segregationist, as his running mate. Playing Defense - By Mark R. Levin - The Corner - National Review Online

a.	Eisenhower took Tenn., Va., and Fla. outright, and barely lost three others. And this just four years after Thurmond took four Southern states. *And in 1956, the Republican platform endorsed the 1954 SCOTUS desegregation decision&#8230;the Democrat platform did not. That&#8217;s why Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. endorsed Eisenhower.*

b.	And* Eisenhower sent in the 101st Airborne when progressive New Deal Democrat Governor Orval Faubus blocked Little Rock HS with his national guard to stop 9 black students from attending.* Yep, the Republican federalized the Arkansas guard and had the army walk the children into the school- and stay with them all day.

2. Eisenhower pushed for the *1960 Civil Rights Act,* which passed 71-18.* All 18 &#8216;no&#8217; votes came from a Democrat.* George McGovern voted &#8216;present.&#8217; Years earlier, Democrat Senator Carter Glass of Virginia had said &#8220;&#8220;Discrimination! Why that is exactly what we propose,&#8221; he declared to one journalist. &#8220;To remove every negro voter who can be gotten rid of, legally, without materially impairing the numerical strength of the white electorate.&#8221; When Bigots Become Reformers - Reason Magazine

3. But by 1964 more blacks were voters, thanks to the efforts of Republicans. And, again, *Republicans passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act:* 82 % of Senate Republicans and 80% of House Republicans; it was 66% of Senate Democrats and 63% of House Democrats. But the Democrat input in the &#8217;64 act made it different in a very important way: the rise of *blacks into professional and other high&#8211;level occupations was greater prior to the &#8217;64 act,* meaning that the &#8217;57 and &#8217;60 civil rights acts had far greater implications for black achievement&#8230;

4. Unlike the empty talk of the prior, Democrat, administration, between Nixon's election in &#8217;68 and the end of his second year in office, in &#8217;70, black students attending all-black schools in the South declined from 68% to 18.4%, and the percentage of black students attending majority white schools went from 18.4% to 38.1%. Conrad Black, &#8220;The Invincible Quest: The Life of Richard Milhous Nixon,&#8221; p. 647.

Egg on your face, deanie?

(psssst! deanie....Coulter explains it far better in her now book....if you decide to read.)


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Very wise of you to scamper away from your "Southern Strategy" fabrication, Hell-boy.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



LOL, I'm surprised it took so long for someone to come up with this lame ass excuse for Byrd. But hey, as I said, you all HAVE NO PROBLEM voting for someone who WAS A ADMITTED MEMBER of the KKK. and no one that I know give two sheets (pun intended) about Duke, but you lefties trying to tie him to Republicans.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 7, 2011)

The former Confederacy is a modern-day, Republican stronghold PoliChic. Cut 'n paste whatever you want but that aint goin to change that fact.  Sure there are people who migrated there for jobs but, on the whole, its Red State America/the Bible Belt/Creationist territory.


----------



## Tank (Jul 7, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> But hey, as I said, you all HAVE NO PROBLEM voting for someone who WAS A ADMITTED MEMBER of the KKK. and no one that I know give two sheets (pun intended) about Duke, but you lefties trying to tie him to Republicans.


People voted for a guy whos Church hates white people and America


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 7, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> The former Confederacy is a modern-day, Republican stronghold PoliChic. Cut 'n paste whatever you want but that aint goin to change that fact.  Sure there are people who migrated there for jobs but, on the whole, its Red State America/the Bible Belt/Creationist territory.



Dotty, how ironic for you to try to appear conversant with 'facts.'

In two or three posts I have documented and linked the actual facts, which show that

a) there was no racist Southern Strategy by Repubs

b) the Dems were always the party of the KKK and the racists.

c) it was the Republicans who were responsible for overcoming the Democrat obstructions to black civil rights.


Now,you may try to hide your bias and your ignornce by referring to 'cut and paste' or what the educated refer to as link and source, but I challenge you to prove you are not a dumb robot parrotting the bumper-stickers of your masters, the Left by producing any errors in the history lessons that I have provided in this thread...

Double dog dare ya'.

Of course, you cannot take the challenge...Considering your constellation of skills, I wonder how is it even possible for you to decide whether to defecate or to wind you watch?


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 7, 2011)

Tank said:


> Come on, America has *a President today that has said *he would want to "expunge the white blood from his body" and that "white mans greed runs a world in need".



Your claim is that Barack Obama said these exact things?  I believe I'd like to see a source for that claim.



Tank said:


> But more importantly, without white people America is a third world country.



Are you under the mistaken impression that if you keep repeating yourself, your words will magically become more true?  Lulz.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Hell-boy, this is my fav post of the day! The week!
> 
> Cause it shows that you have been raised like the proverbial mushroom...raised in the dark and fed you know what.
> 
> ...



You're idea of "research" is to regurgitate Ann Coulter's bullshit as if it were fact.  It's a shame, because you are educated and should know better.

http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf

If you want to read the actual words and thoughts of Nixon's political strategist, Kevin Phillip's, who pushed for the Southern Strategy here is the appropriate reference:

Phillips, Kevin (1969). The Emerging Republican Majority. New York: Arlington House. ISBN 0870000586. OCLC 18063.

The "Southern Strategy" is not a myth.  It's been written about extensively and the people who advocated for it (like Phillips) are on the record doing so.  There is some debate as to how much race played into the south's voting Demographic shift.  There is no doubt that the GOP tried to exploit race relations to win votes in the South (successfully).  

I also won't dispute that Johnson and Byrd probably were racist to a degree and certainly used racist language when discussing the issues.  With Johnson, that's a petty point, as he pushed for civil rights though he knew it would be extremely unpopular.  He knew it was the right thing to do.  I am actually not a fan of LBJ, but he was right on civil rights.  

As for the rest of your tripe, as I said before, do you have anything from within the last 50 years (other than a Maher) quote.  You keep referencing the internal strife within the Democratic Party over civil rights as if it's relevant to what is going on today.  The outcome is really the only important thing.  The DNC came out as the party of civil rights and the GOP inherited Strom Thurmond and the rest of the racist bastards that no longer felt at home in the party.  There is a reason Duke is a Republican now.  

Now, though it's not relevant to this topic, switching gears to the alleged "ROTC bannings", something which I am a little bit knowledgeable about as I was commissioned through ROTC (meaning I was in ROTC for four years of college and wore a uniform on campus and the whole nine yards (though it wasn't as cool as your cargo pants, wife beater, uzi get up)):

The Myth of the R.O.T.C. Ban - NYTimes.com



> The answer is that in all my research on the subject, I have found no universities that ban R.O.T.C., nor has the military initiated action against any institution for banning the program. We have grown accustomed to saying there are bans only because it fits with the assumption that certain colleges are unfriendly to the military.
> 
> It is true that many Ivy League colleges do not have R.O.T.C. detachments today. Forty years ago, the military started to close detachments in the Northeast and establish programs in the West and South.
> 
> ...



Ironically, that conservative beacon of academia:  Hillsdale College, refuses to let ROTC on their campus, because it would amount to federal funding (in the form of scholarships for people like me who paid their own way through college) which means the federal government would have a say over Hillsdale's policies.  I don't have a problem with that personally.  However, I just wanted to point out that this isn't (as you fantasize) a "liberal/conservative" thing.


----------



## Mr. Jones (Jul 7, 2011)

Damnit..I like what Duke does in promoting awareness of how our nation has been infiltrated and is seemingly being run to serve interests other then the American people, but his racism is the turnoff...
Can't we all just try to put a candidate in office that has ALL the peoples interests at heart? White, black, Hispanic, other??
Someone who does not prostrate before an outside entity, while encouraging others to proselytize to sources detrimental to America??
Someone who does not serve 2 masters, only America, and puts her and ALL her people first????


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



You apparently need a lesson in civics:

"You all" actually means 1/2 of the registered voters in West Virginia.  I have never lived in West Virginia.  Therefore, I never voted for Byrd.  However, I don't find the fact that he was at one time a klucker who saw the error of his ways a lifelong sin.   

"No one you know" gave "two sheets" about Duke?  I am willing to bet you know little/nothing about David Duke who was the GOP candidate for Governor against "Fast" Eddie Edwards (a corrupt Democrat to be sure, but at least he wasn't a fucking klucker) in a race that gave us one of the most hilarious political slogans of all time:



> A very popular bumpersticker urging support for Edwards (although clearly not produced by his campaign) read "Vote For the Crook. It's Important."[12][13] Another read "Vote for the Lizard, not the Wizard."



Louisiana gubernatorial election, 1991 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

Dot Com said:


> The former Confederacy is a modern-day, Republican stronghold PoliChic. Cut 'n paste whatever you want but that aint goin to change that fact.  Sure there are people who migrated there for jobs but, on the whole, its Red State America/the Bible Belt/Creationist territory.



Why cut and paste when you have Ann Coulter to simply re-write history?  Don't forget, Joe McCarthy was a good guy too!

The funny thing is that Ann Coulter basically writes the same book over and over and puts a different cover on it.  Poli has been suckered into buying the same material 7 times over.


----------



## elvis (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > The former Confederacy is a modern-day, Republican stronghold PoliChic. Cut 'n paste whatever you want but that aint goin to change that fact.  Sure there are people who migrated there for jobs but, on the whole, its Red State America/the Bible Belt/Creationist territory.
> ...



question:  I saw a documentary recently called secret history of the ku klux klan.  it said they burn crosses because it represents the light of Jesus coming down on them in a world of darkness.  if that's the case, how did the cross burning become so evil?  why do they burn crosses in people's yards?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



yea men, Is frums tham hils, Is knews nuthings..


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

elvis said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



I can't claim to know much about the Klan mentality so I don't know if I have a good answer.  I do think the post-Civil War Klan was very different from the pre-civil rights Klan which was very different from the current Klan/Neo Nazi/White Supremacist Movement.  

So I don't know the origins of burning a cross, but I do know that being black in the South and waking up to a burning cross in your yard wasn't seen as a sign of benevolence.  

I think the Klan was a visceral reaction by some Southerners to losing the war.  In the beginning, when blacks in the South essentially had few rights even after emancipation, they didn't need to focus on blacks as much as the carpet baggers.  That doesn't mean they weren't a racist organization which is obviously borne out by their shift in focus during civil rights.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hell-boy, this is my fav post of the day! The week!
> ...



1. "There is some debate as to how much race played into the south's voting Demographic shift. There is no doubt that the GOP tried to exploit race relations to win votes in the South (successfully). "


You wrote that?

"...some debate as to how much race played ..."

You did a great job destroying your own premise.
Means, simply, that you have no proof of any racist 'Southern Strategy."

2. I, on the other hand, gave you a ton of indicia that Nixon was a) not racist, 
b) worked hard and successfully to break the segregationist Democrat choke hold on the Southern black population.

Unless you can show where any of the facts that I provide are untrue....
.....you can't?  Shocking.


3. So, you would rather quote the NYTimes? And you need, what, liberal racism 'during the last fifty years'?
* To this very day, Democrats capitalize on the fallacious idea that the Republicans are the racists,* as this seems to be the very worst accusation one can make in polite company. Anything worse is one of the seven banned words!  

The Left hysterically defends Obama from any and all criticism as if liberals are at war with the Klan! Tea Party has been smeared as racist because Chris Matthews doesnt find a high enough number or blacks. Well, since blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, what would one expect?

 Still, the Tea Parties are not as white as Chris Matthews staff. Or as white as a Jon Stewart audience. Or Janeane Garofalos fans. Or the white private schools that Matthews sends his children tothink thats an accident?

a.	The placid acceptance of glaring contradictions is the essence of mob behavior.

b.	The longtime *NYTimes Leftie, Tom Wic*ker never tired of writing of civil rights, and racial reconciliation, but *sent his own children to a very white private school*, and when he retired, it was *to the whitest state, Vermont.* How's that for real racism??? 

He has been tagged a limousine liberal by critics who point out that although he advocates busing editorially, he sends his own children to private schools. *"It gives me a lot of intellectual discomfort," he admits. "But I am not going to disadvantage my children to win more support for my views."* Tom Wicker & Pam Hill: a Mixed-media Marriage Changes Their Luck : People.com 

 So, when is Matthews going to turn him in? Never?

The racists are the ones screaming 'racism' loudest.

4. Please quote what you feel is Kevin Phillips' argument that there was a racist cast to the efforts of Republicans.  What he belives is that the party became less northeastern-liberal.
And I showed why that was a good thing! And viewed as such in the South.

5. "Ivy League colleges do not have R.O.T.C. detachments today. Forty years ago, the military started to close detachments in the Northeast and establish programs in the West and South."
Are you denying that it was liberalism that caused the northeastern Ivy's to close out the ROTC????

I went to Columbia...they cancelled ROTC because of the military's policy toward gays.

My bud in Yale had to go to U-Conn for ROTC classes....he was commissioned Armored Cav the same day he graduated.

The NYTimes article is bogus...as is your contention that the South is filled with racists, and the GOP had a racist Southern Strategy.


Again: there was no racist Southern Strategy by Nixon, and your flaccid 'defense' of your post is insignificant.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



I am from the Missouri Ozarks.  So, I am from the hills too.  I am sure you know _something_.   You just don't know shit about Louisiana.  

Everyone in Louisiana knows about Duke.  Hell, he was the GOP gubernatorial candidate in 1991.  

Most people in Louisiana are appalled by Duke though.  His history of marching around LSU in a Nazi Uniform hasn't exactly ingratiated him to the voting public.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 7, 2011)

Sarah G said:


> Nobody is afraid of him.  He is sub human and a known racist.



So was Dem Sen Byrd but that didn't stop the dems from reelecting him time after time.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> > David Duke has held elected office as a member of the Louisiana legislature.
> ...



Did you know that there have been black members of the KKK?  Google it, it will surprise you, I know it surprised me.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



So, you like voting for evil?


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 7, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



But he was a democratic racist and that makes it okay.  You know, the lesser of two evils and the like?

Dems and Reps, the two most corrupt parties in the history of the world, and Americans still vote for them.  Guess that makes us stupid, doesn't it?


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 7, 2011)

Si modo said:


> OMG.  Duke?
> 
> And really, there are those who admire him???????
> 
> ...



So was Byrd, but that didn't stop the dems from supporting him for years on end.


----------



## Momanohedhunter (Jul 7, 2011)

He considers it every election.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Eight best sellers.

Now, this is an important and illustrative point...

...since you have explained that her books are all the same....


....could you please list which of the eight you have read?


'Cause...if you can't, you've moved even deeper into the 'fool' category, and would lead one to question why you believe you have any basis for intelligent opinions.


Balls in your court.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 7, 2011)

strollingbones said:


> duke has belonged to both parties....a fact that seems to escaped many.....duke is self serving and will use anyone or any movement that he can



Doesn't that apply to all politicians?


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 7, 2011)

Stephanie said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Personally, I'm sick of the reps dissing the dems and the dems dissing the reps when the truth is that they are both scum.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 7, 2011)

Tank said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > But hey, as I said, you all HAVE NO PROBLEM voting for someone who WAS A ADMITTED MEMBER of the KKK. and no one that I know give two sheets (pun intended) about Duke, but you lefties trying to tie him to Republicans.
> ...



good point.  Americans are stupid.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. "There is some debate as to how much race played into the south's voting Demographic shift. There is no doubt that the GOP tried to exploit race relations to win votes in the South (successfully). "
> 
> 
> You wrote that?
> ...



Yes.  Some scholars have recently questioned how much race relations factored into the voting shift in the south.  Some feel it was more of an economic issue.  Those scholars still don't debate that race was an influence, and no one (save for you and Coulter I suppose) claims that the "Southern Strategy was non-existent".  

I didn't impeach my argument, I am just employing some intellectual honesty.  You should try it.  



> 2. I, on the other hand, gave you a ton of indicia that Nixon was a) not racist,
> b) worked hard and successfully to break the segregationist Democrat choke hold on the Southern black population.
> 
> Unless you can show where any of the facts that I provide are untrue....
> ...



I didn't say Nixon was a racist.  Nixon was simply ambitious and not above using race to win an election.  I don't really give a crap about the man's personal beliefs.  I just care about his actions.  Contrast that with LBJ who most likely had the typical "Good Ol' Boy" mentality but was able to move beyond that to implement controversial policy that he though was important.  

You want to act as if the GOP was the force behind the Civil Rights act of 1964.  Perhaps you forget that it was introduced by a Democrat.  Perhaps you'd like to forget how the actual vote breakdown went:


> The original House version:[12]
> 
> * Democratic Party: 152-96   (61%-39%)
> * Republican Party: 138-34   (80%-20%)
> ...



Perhaps you'd like to forget who the President was who signed the bill into law?  Here's a hint:  It wasn't Nixon.  

The Democratic party had a majority in the House and Senate at the time.  You keep referencing the GOP.  It's great that the GOP supported the bill, but they weren't the driving force behind it's passage.  They were just along for the ride.  More hilarious, you keep wanting to point to the internal strife in the Democratic party as evidence of racism without avoiding the larger point that an overwhelming majority of the Democrats in office at the time voted for the bill and supported it, which ensured it's passage.

All this is aside the point.  As I said, the more interesting story isn't where the GOP was in 1964.  It's where they went after that.  Somewhere along the way, the GOP became a party of cynical exploitation of issues of race, sexuality, religion, and gun ownership.  It's completely hilarious (but oh so predictable) that Coulter would ignore this and write a book about the evils of the Democratic party on "wedge politics".  



> The Left hysterically defends Obama from any and all criticism as if liberals are at war with the Klan! Tea Party has been smeared as racist because Chris Matthews doesnt find a high enough number or blacks. Well, since blacks vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, what would one expect?



Fuck Chris Matthews.  What does he have to do with anything?  Can you stay on topic?  



> Still, the Tea Parties are not as white as Chris Matthews staff. Or as white as a Jon Stewart audience. Or Janeane Garofalos fans. Or
> the white private schools that Matthews sends his children tothink thats an accident?



See above.  



> a.	The placid acceptance of glaring contradictions is the essence of mob behavior.
> 
> b.	The longtime *NYTimes Leftie, Tom Wic*ker never tired of writing of civil rights, and racial reconciliation, but *sent his own children to a very white private school*, and when he retired, it was *to the whitest state, Vermont.* How's that for real racism???



According to whom?  Coulter and her dusty ovaries?  Do you think if Coulter had children, she (being the magnificent person you think she is) would send them to NYC public schools out of a spirit of equality?  Carter sent his kids to the Washignton D.C. public school for that reason.  Does he get credit?  I mean, since we are using individual actions to paint with a broad brush, you might as well use people I've actually heard of.  

It's an asinine point anyways.  I don't find the notion that a politician has to force their kids to be a social experiment to be particularly appealing or fair.  So, if that's the tact you are going to take with me, I am disinterested.  



> He has been tagged a limousine liberal by critics who point out that although he advocates busing editorially, he sends his own children to private schools. *"It gives me a lot of intellectual discomfort," he admits. "But I am not going to disadvantage my children to win more support for my views."* Tom Wicker & Pam Hill: a Mixed-media Marriage Changes Their Luck : People.com
> 
> So, when is Matthews going to turn him in? Never?
> 
> The racists are the ones screaming 'racism' loudest.



See above.  You're posts are needlessly redundant and I see no need to also be redundant.  



> 4. Please quote what you feel is Kevin Phillips' argument that there was a racist cast to the efforts of Republicans.  What he belives is that the party became less northeastern-liberal.
> And I showed why that was a good thing! And viewed as such in the South.



From my previous source:  


> 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.



"No Southern Strategy" my ass. 



> 5. "Ivy League colleges do not have R.O.T.C. detachments today. Forty years ago, the military started to close detachments in the Northeast and establish programs in the West and South."
> Are you denying that it was liberalism that caused the northeastern Ivy's to close out the ROTC????
> 
> I went to Columbia...they cancelled ROTC because of the military's policy toward gays.
> ...



LMAO.   According to you?  You conveniently dismiss the article.  You can believe what you want, the research disagrees with you.  

I am denying that liberalism had anything to do with "banning" of ROTC.  I am denying that ROTC was in fact banned.  If you had bothered to read the article, you would have found that ROTC left the Universities and not the other way around.  

Not that I'd expect you to know anything about it.  As someone who actually was in ROTC (see, I don't have to rely on what happened to "my bud") at a secular, liberal university, I can say I never experienced any sort of animosity for being in ROTC from the students or administration.  

So what about Hillsdale?  I respect their reason for denying ROTC, but if you are going to whine about one instance of ROTC being restricted from "liberal" campuses (which is not true) then you shouldn't hide from it being restricted from a conservative one (which is true.  ROTC is absolutely forbidden at Hillsdale).  



> The NYTimes article is bogus...



Again, why?  Because you say so?  Once again, a Laura Croft get up and an Uzi doesn't mean you know jack and shit about the military.  



> as is your contention that the South is filled with racists, and the GOP had a racist Southern Strategy.



I contended that the GOP had a Southern Strategy.  I never contended that the South is "filled with racists".  Are you always this dishonest.  Wait, I already know the answer to that.  



> Again: there was no racist Southern Strategy by Nixon, and your flaccid 'defense' of your post is insignificant.



Again, you seem to think you have fiat power over this issue.  You do not.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody is afraid of him.  He is sub human and a known racist.
> ...



You are late to the party.  For the sake of not being redundant, I won't repeat the points that have already been made about Byrd.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > William Joyce said:
> ...



Well, there was this guy:
Frontline - Clayton Bigsby - Chappelles Show - Video Clip | Comedy Central

If you are going to claim that the KKK is some egalitarian inclusive non-discriminatory group, you have really gone around the bend.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 7, 2011)

elvis said:


> why do they burn crosses in people's yards?


It's a form of intimidation.


----------



## 007 (Jul 7, 2011)

You can blame odumbo for emboldening Duke.

Duke sees the pure black racism against whites in the odumbo administration and figures, if the kenyan can get away with it and people look the other way, then so can he.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> I am from the Missouri Ozarks.  So, I am from the hills too.  I am sure you know _something_.   You just don't know shit about Louisiana.



I'm going to guess you know more than a little about racism and the KKK if you're from the Ozarks.  (my dad grew up in Pleasant Hope...south Missouri is...a pretty unique place).


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

Pale Rider said:


> You can blame odumbo for emboldening Duke.
> 
> Duke sees the pure black racism against whites in the odumbo administration and figures, if the kenyan can get away with it and people look the other way, then so can he.



Blame Obama for a former Klucker being racist?

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.  

Is being stupid actually physically painful?


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 7, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> But he was a democratic racist and that makes it okay.  You know, the lesser of two evils and the like?
> 
> Dems and Reps, the two most corrupt parties in the history of the world, and Americans still vote for them.  Guess that makes us stupid, doesn't it?


Neither were okay.  Robert Byrd's racism doesn't make David Duke's racism any more palatable.  Both parties have more than their fair share of racist morons.

I've voted Republican for most of my life, but the responses of many of the self-proclaimed conservatives on this thread are downright disheartening.

Is Robert Byrd the only response that some of the more koolaid swilling Republicans have to this shit?  You don't feel mortified about David Duke associating his scary white butt with the party?  You aren't put out with the Louisiana Republican party for allowing it?  You have zero words of condemnation for this self-serving race baiter?

David Duke is the scum of the earth.  So was Robert Byrd.  Robert Byrd has been a shame and a black eye to the Democratic party for the last 50 years. The fact that they tolerated it does them no credit.  Republicans need to stand up and rebuke this idiotic mofo as forcefully as we know how, along with the douchecanoes who bring up racist tactics against Obama, instead of falling back on Robert Byrd as a defense mechanism.

Why is it that some Republicans' brains have turned to pablum?  Y'all are so fucking disheartening. Stop drinking the koolaid, and start standing up for what is best for the party.  And, what is best for the party is to vigorously and forcefully disavow ANY CONNECTION AT ALL to the racebaiting fucktards on the far right, including this miscegenated offspring of a troll and a retarded albino chimp.


----------



## elvis (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You can blame odumbo for emboldening Duke.
> ...



No.  He's blaming obama for emboldening Duke.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 7, 2011)

elvis said:


> No.  He's blaming obama for emboldening Duke.



Obama didn't have to do anything beside be born half black to "embolden" the seriously moronic Duke.  Duke was hating on black folks long before Obama ever came on the political scene, and having a black man in the white house was just about all it took to send his already crazy ass right over the edge.  The problem is...he's dragging a lot of the party with him, or they're already there.

Using racial slurs against Obama only plays into the image of Republican tolerance of racism, and it is one of the more moronic tactics i've seen in politics in the last 20 years.  Some of these self-proclaimed conservatives would make Reagan want sit up in his grave and zombie throat punch them.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > I am from the Missouri Ozarks.  So, I am from the hills too.  I am sure you know _something_.   You just don't know shit about Louisiana.
> ...



Actually, not really.  Southern Missouri is pretty homogeneous.  Racism (to me) didn't seem to be a problem as we only had a few black people in my town (about 8000) people.  Now, I might have a different perspective if I were not white.  

When I was growing up, the KKK moved it's "Headquarters" to Harrison Arkansas, which was pretty close to me.  They must have been a shell of what they used to be.  I never saw a white hood in my area.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 7, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > But he was a democratic racist and that makes it okay.  You know, the lesser of two evils and the like?
> ...



Don't ask me, I'm not a republican, or a democrat anymore.  They can't pay me enough to vote for either of those parties anymore.


----------



## 007 (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > You can blame odumbo for emboldening Duke.
> ...



I see reading comprehension isn't one of your strong suits, is it ya fucking jerk off?

Now back your little third grade brain up, read it again, and maybe you see that that's not what I said at all ya dumbass, pea brained twit.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 7, 2011)

LOL, the other residential KKK member, Big Hoss, touted Double D also. He couldn't even come close to winning any primaries.  He is a joke!



USArmyRetired said:


> Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet. Apparently Duke was elected in the richest district of Louisiana when he ran for the House Seat that David Vitter held as well as former Governor David Treen. According to the article, Duke will go on a 25 state tour. He will get support I believe and he sure knows how to scare the media to death and they would surely give him media attention. This will be interesting to watch
> 
> 
> David Duke on a Presidential Bid: 'Yes, I Am Considering It' - Garance Franke-Ruta - Politics - The Atlantic
> ...


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

elvis said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Emboldening him how?  By being 1/2 black?


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

Pale Rider said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Oh, I understood completely.  It was just stupid.  I'd rather blame the fucking racist for being a fucking racist.  

Somehow I doubt Duke's motivated by Obama's platform.


----------



## 007 (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



Maybe you would rather blame a racist for being racist... so the fuck what?

The point I made is there's already a blatant racist in the White House with a racist lap dog attorney general on down working for him, so why in the hell should Duke think he doesn't have a shot when obviously racism doesn't appear to mean shit? Nothing stupid about that other than you getting your depends up your crack because I thought of it and you didn't, moron.


----------



## hvywgt250 (Jul 7, 2011)

This is America isn't it.....if the race baiters al Sharpton and Jackson can run for president....I don't see why Duke can't.....has to be better then what we have now, thats for sure.....and I don't think anyone can see what the future has in store for us....so Duke might make a good president...


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1. "There is some debate as to how much race played into the south's voting Demographic shift. There is no doubt that the GOP tried to exploit race relations to win votes in the South (successfully). "
> ...



1.	"Nixon's Southern Strategy". This was your response to my pointing out that every segregationist in the Senate was a Democrat.
I refer to racists..and you say "Nixon's Southern Strategy"

But now, *you attempt to run away *from the only possible implication with I didn't say Nixon was a racist.

Glad I was able to teach you a lesson.

2.	You want to act as if the *GOP was the force behind the Civil Rights *act of 1964. Perhaps you forget that it was introduced by a Democrat.

Since you evince an advanced case of ADD, let me remind you of what I said: 

But by 1964 more blacks were voters, thanks to the efforts of Republicans. And, again, Republicans passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act: 82 % of Senate Republicans and 80% of House Republicans; it was 66% of Senate Democrats and 63% of House Democrats. But the Democrat input in the 64 act made it different in a very important way: the rise of blacks into professional and other highlevel occupations was greater prior to the 64 act, meaning that the 57 and 60 civil rights acts had far greater implications for black achievement post #45

Do you recognize this? Do you deny any of the quote?
No? Then I am correct that *a smaller part of the Democrat Party *favored same than the Republican Party.

a.	Did the Dems and LBJ wish to support civil rights for blacks? Consider LBJs comment about an earlier (1957) civil rights bill: During the endless deliberations, LBJ warned his fellow segregationist Democrats, *Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill *again. Borzoi Reader | Authors | Robert A. Caro

b.	*LBJ gutted the enforcement provisions of the 1957 bill*, i.e., anyone accused of violating a persons voting rights was guaranteed a jury trial- and, therefore, jury nullification by Democrat juries. To fix the enforcement provisions that Democrats had gutted, *Eisenhower introduced a bill to create the US Civil Rights CommissionDemocrats staged the longest filibuster in history- over 125 hours. *But the bill passed and was signed by Ike on May 6, 1960. 	
				              So, what is the essence of your Perhaps you forget that it was introduced by a Democrat.  In the face of the above, are  you claiming that LBJ wished to support civil rights? Or retain power???

2.	GOP became a party of *cynical exploitation of issues *of race, sexuality, religion, and gun ownership.	
			                      Exactly the opposite: the Democrats were co-opted by the far Left, forfeiting traditional values, as I posted here: against the lawless, unprincipled Democrats, who they recognized as being responsible for, or at least accepting of the legalized obscenity, student riots, the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Party, and the Black Panthers, skyrocketing crime rates, courts giving more and more elaborate rights to criminals, ended the death penalty, banned prayer from the schools, among other depredations. And, being patriots, (name a Southern university that banned ROTC. Even Duke has one) they appreciated the fact that the Republicans were hawks during the Cold War. So rather than a Republican strategy, it was the Democrats shift from the party of Harry Truman to the party of Rosie ODonnell."



3.	Chris Matthews. What does he have to do with anything? 
                       You may pretend that MSNBC and the other segments of the Old Left Media are other that the on-air Democrat Party, but they are.  And they scream racist , while behaving as racists.

4.	From your Phillips quote: 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.                                                                      

 You actually dont see *what a bonehead this makes you appear*??? The Republicans are racist because they want to help blacks register to vote??????

5.	I am *denying that liberalism *had anything to do with "banning" of ROTC. I am denying that ROTC was in fact banned.  

 		                   Wow! With all your chest thumping and sneers about my outfit, you sure make yourself look like a chump. Read this and weep:			
Harvard, with other elite universities to follow, has *rectified a mistake *it never should have made. On Friday, it signed an agreement with the Pentagon to *allow the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps back on campus* In the uproar and protests over the Vietnam War, *ROTC found itself being evicted from the campuses of various colleges and universities.* There was a strong *animus between liberal *academia and the traditional military, and opposition to dont ask, dont tell provided a useful pretext for keeping it off. ROTC marches back to Harvard | Davis Enterprise

Turns out your NYTimes article was bogus, eh?
Turns out you dont know anything, eh?


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Actually, not really.  Southern Missouri is pretty homogeneous.  Racism (to me) didn't seem to be a problem as we only had a few black people in my town (about 8000) people.  Now, I might have a different perspective if I were not white.
> 
> When I was growing up, the KKK moved it's "Headquarters" to Harrison Arkansas, which was pretty close to me.  They must have been a shell of what they used to be.  I never saw a white hood in my area.



In large part, the racial purity is due to the lynchings in Springfield in 1906.  Those lynchings changed the racial hue of that section of Missouri.  Newspaper reports suggest that thousands of blacks fled the area.  Joplin, in contrast, is extremely racially diverse.

(I grew up near KC).


----------



## hortysir (Jul 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> 2.    You want to act as if the *GOP was the force behind the Civil Rights *act of 1964. Perhaps you forget that it was introduced by a Democrat.
> 
> Since you evince an advanced case of ADD, let me remind you of what I said:
> 
> ...



Ill have them ******* voting Democrat for the next two hundred years.
 ~~~ 1964, President Lyndon Johnson vows after he signed into law civil     rights legislation.


----------



## rdean (Jul 7, 2011)

Tank said:


> Duke would be good for the white people of America.
> 
> Without white people America is a third world country.



Better stay away from "southern states".


----------



## hortysir (Jul 7, 2011)

rdean said:


> Better stay away from "southern states".


I get really tired of the constant attempt to label southerners as racists.

Idiocy knows no state borders:

  Members served in state legislatures and Congress, and were elected to  the governorship in several states.  *Indiana*, Oklahoma, Texas and  *Oregon* saw significant klan influence.
Resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan

Maybe it was Southern Indiana or Southern Oregon


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

Pale Rider said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



LMAO.

What kind of racial discriminatory practices against whites has the Obama Administration enacted that would prompt Duke to feel he was "emboldened" to run in order to protect the poor, down-trodden white folk of this land.

Don't blow your last neuron trying to think of an example.  

If Duke is going to run, the reason is obvious.

He won't win, but he knows that.


----------



## random3434 (Jul 7, 2011)

*So we have:*

USArmy
Tank
Political Chick
Pale Rider

On Board for the 2012 David Duke GOP Race. Should be interesting to watch! 

Anyone else on Duke's side?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.	"Nixon's Southern Strategy". This was your response to my pointing out that every segregationist in the Senate was a Democrat&#8230;.
> I refer to racists&#8230;..and you say "Nixon's Southern Strategy"
> 
> But now, *you attempt to run away *from the only possible implication with &#8220;I didn't say Nixon was a racist.&#8221;



That's where you fucked up.  You made saw an "implication" that wasn't there.  



> Glad I was able to teach you a lesson.
> 
> 2.	&#8220;You want to act as if the *GOP was the force behind the Civil Rights *act of 1964. Perhaps you forget that it was introduced by a Democrat.&#8221;
> 
> ...



The GOP had no power in 1964.  They weren't driving policy.  As I said, it's nice that they were along for the ride (most of them), but they weren't driving the bus. 

As I said, the GOP's evolution after civil rights is a much more interesting story.   




> a.	Did the Dems and LBJ wish to support civil rights for blacks? Consider LBJ&#8217;s comment about an earlier (1957) civil rights bill: During the endless deliberations, LBJ warned his fellow segregationist Democrats, *&#8216;Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill *again.&#8221; Borzoi Reader | Authors | Robert A. Caro
> 
> b.	*LBJ gutted the enforcement provisions of the 1957 bill*, i.e., anyone accused of violating a person&#8217;s voting rights was guaranteed a jury trial- and, therefore, jury nullification by Democrat juries. To fix the enforcement provisions that Democrats had gutted, *Eisenhower introduced a bill to create the US Civil Rights Commission&#8230;Democrats staged the longest filibuster in history- over 125 hours. *But the bill passed and was signed by Ike on May 6, 1960.
> So, what is the essence of your &#8220;Perhaps you forget that it was introduced by a Democrat.&#8221;  In the face of the above, are  you claiming that LBJ wished to support civil rights? Or retain power???



Yada, yada, yada.  Who had the majority and who signed it into law?  Acting like LBJ wasn't the driving force behind the civil rights act is laughably retarded.  I don't even like LBJ and can give credit where it is due.  



> 2.	&#8220;GOP became a party of *cynical exploitation of issues *of race, sexuality, religion, and gun ownership.&#8221;
> Exactly the opposite: the Democrats were co-opted by the far Left, forfeiting traditional values, as I posted here: &#8220;&#8230;against the lawless, unprincipled Democrats, who they recognized as being responsible for, or at least accepting of the legalized obscenity, student riots, the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Party, and the Black Panthers, skyrocketing crime rates, courts giving more and more elaborate rights to criminals, ended the death penalty, banned prayer from the schools, among other depredations. And, being patriots, (name a Southern university that banned ROTC. Even Duke has one) they appreciated the fact that the Republicans were hawks during the Cold War. So rather than a Republican strategy, it was the Democrats&#8217; shift from the party of Harry Truman to the party of Rosie O&#8217;Donnell."



The oh-so-lame "traditional values" card.  Ironically, you expect me to respond to your asinine opinion pionts when you simply ignore my points, which at least are sourced.  



> 3.	&#8220;Chris Matthews. What does he have to do with anything?&#8221;
> You may pretend that MSNBC and the other segments of the Old Left Media are other that the on-air Democrat Party, but they are.  And they scream &#8220;racist&#8221; , while behaving as racists.



I don't pretend anything.  I simply don't care about MSNBC or Chris Matthews.  Ironic that you would bash Matthews while parroting Coulter.  

I also fail to see how it's germane to this topic.  



> 4.	From your Phillips quote: &#8220;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.&#8221;
> 
> You actually don&#8217;t see *what a bonehead this makes you appear*??? The Republicans are racist because they want to help blacks register to vote??????



How you could read that from that quote is beyond me.  Maybe Phillips wants blacks to register so that more "negrophobe" whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans because _that's where the votes are_?

Let me spell this out for you, as your brain has obviously been corroded:  Phillips wants racist whites in the South to become disenfranchised with the Democrats over civil rights so that the GOP can take the South.

There's your Southern Strategy.



> 5.	&#8220;I am *denying that liberalism *had anything to do with "banning" of ROTC. I am denying that ROTC was in fact banned.&#8221;
> 
> Wow! With all your chest thumping and sneers about my outfit, you sure make yourself look like a chump. Read this and weep:
> &#8220;Harvard, with other elite universities to follow, has *rectified a mistake *it never should have made. On Friday, it signed an agreement with the Pentagon to *allow the Naval Reserve Officer Training Corps back on campus*&#8230; In the uproar and protests over the Vietnam War, *ROTC found itself being evicted from the campuses of various colleges and universities.* There was a strong *animus between liberal *academia and the traditional military, and opposition to &#8220;don&#8217;t ask, don&#8217;t tell&#8221; provided a useful pretext for keeping it off.&#8221; ROTC marches back to Harvard | Davis Enterprise
> ...



No, I think the writer of this OPED, like you and so many others, was misinformed.  Though, I wouldn't expect a (comparatively) small local paper from Davis, California to carry the weight of the Times.  

The NYTimes article covers all of this, if you had bothered to read it.  Perhaps you could respond to the substance of that article as opposed to simply claiming the author is lying.   

What about Hillsdale?  They actually _do_ ban ROTC from their campuses.



> Turns out you don&#8217;t know anything, eh?



I know you look positively ridiculous in that paramilitary get-up.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 7, 2011)

Tank said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > But hey, as I said, you all HAVE NO PROBLEM voting for someone who WAS A ADMITTED MEMBER of the KKK. and no one that I know give two sheets (pun intended) about Duke, but you lefties trying to tie him to Republicans.
> ...


Talk about hating America: your House Majority Leader - right now - has $15,000 invested, betting AGAINST the U.S. economy.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, not really.  Southern Missouri is pretty homogeneous.  Racism (to me) didn't seem to be a problem as we only had a few black people in my town (about 8000) people.  Now, I might have a different perspective if I were not white.
> ...



I don't think I would use the term "racial purity".  

For my part of the world, no one was driven out.  There simply wasn't any industry (agricultural for slaves) or industry for factory work to attract anything other than the natives:  Hill people from Tennessee and Kentucky who were heading West and stopped in because it reminded them of home.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 7, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Sarah G said:
> 
> 
> > Nobody is afraid of him.  He is sub human and a known racist.
> ...


Byrd wasn't a racist, and you cannot produce a single quote or action by him that denigrates Blacks.

He joined the KKK to get ahead - go along to get along.  He admitted that was a mistake.


----------



## random3434 (Jul 7, 2011)

With all this blame on who was/is/ a 'racist' in politics, the cut and pastes, the "he said, she said" what it boils down to is  David Duke is throwing his white hood into the Presidential Race.

It's a free country, anyone that's qualified can run, but it's hysterical to watch all the detractors spin what has happened in the past, or what one's political party was in history, instead of addressing the fact that this ex Grand Wizard of the KKK is running for POTUS.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 7, 2011)

Pale Rider said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > Pale Rider said:
> ...



Then why hasn't he prosecuted one damn White Wall Streeter?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 7, 2011)

Echo Zulu said:


> *So we have:*
> 
> USArmy
> Tank
> ...



Add:

William Joyce
Defiant1
logical4U


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 7, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...





> Hi, you have received* 0 reputation points *from hvywgt250.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> ...



The fucking irony...............


----------



## Salt Jones (Jul 7, 2011)

David Duke has a few supporters here, who would have figured?


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 7, 2011)

rdean said:


> Another Republican enters the fray.
> 
> *He has to do something about diversity in the Republican Party.  Like get rid of the 10% that aren't white.*



Meanwhile, the Democrats are driving every last white person from their ranks with their explicitly anti-white policies.  Democrats are the party of "everyone but whites".  Howard Dean said Democrats should reach out to the Confederate flag guys, and they pretty much ended his career.

Just evens the score, eh?


----------



## rdean (Jul 7, 2011)

hortysir said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Better stay away from "southern states".
> ...



Attempt?  The Republican Party is 90% white.  It's "home base" are the southern states, home to slavery and Jim Crowe. 

It even has it's own flag:




 Where does "attempt" fit in?


----------



## Tank (Jul 8, 2011)

Call me what you want, but I have a problem with America becoming a third world country.

If it's going to take a radical like Duke to turn the ship around, well I'm on board.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 8, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > 1.	"Nixon's Southern Strategy". This was your response to my pointing out that every segregationist in the Senate was a Democrat.
> ...



Weak.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 8, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > geauxtohell said:
> ...



So....without emoticons, you'd be mute?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 8, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Sarah G said:
> ...



You can't be this dumb...someone must be paying you to say this......


Byrd didn't 'join the KKK...."



"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds." --- KKK Byrd

...he was unanimously elected Exalted Cyclops, or leader, of his local chapter. 

According to Byrd, a KKK official told him "You have a talent for leadership, Bob... The country needs young men like you in the leadership of the nation." Byrd recalls that "suddenly lights flashed in my mind! Someone important had recognized my abilities! I was only 23 or 24 years old, and the thought of a political career had never really hit me. But strike me that night, it did."[4] He participated in the KKK during World War II, holding the titles Kleagle (recruiter) and Exalted Cyclops. He did not serve in the military during the war, working instead as a welder in a Baltimore, Maryland shipyard, where he helped build warships.[citation needed]

Byrd commented on the 1945 controversy about racially integrating the military. Byrd, when he was 28 years old, wrote to segregationist Senator Theodore Bilbo, of Mississippi, vowing never to serve in such a military:

"Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.[5]" 

He had earlier written "I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side".[6][7] 

Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



So....how many times have you been elected Exalted Cyclops?

Kleagle??  That means he influenced other to choose that path in life.....You too?

Now, don't be hangin' with any 'race mongrels,' or they may not let you bend elbows wit' the boys....

BTW....segregationist Senator Bilbo?  Another Democrat.....I wonder why they regularly leave that out?
...And I'll bet you were one of the dummies who said that the TeaParty was two holes in a pillowcase short of a Klansman
I get such a kick out of you Leftie-automatons,,,,Byrd was just a good ol' boy trying to get ahead, but the Tea Party is made of racists.
The left says jump, and you get your trampoline.


Does everybody laugh at you this way?


----------



## Warrior102 (Jul 8, 2011)

rdean said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



My God, you're a flaming idiot. Seriously.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 8, 2011)

hortysir said:


> I get really tired of the constant attempt to label southerners as racists.



I think that the implication is that parts of the South ARE a third world country, which if you've spent any time in sections of Alabama or Mississippi is the goddamn truth, and don't get me started on West Virginia.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 8, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> Meanwhile, the Democrats are driving every last white person from their ranks with their explicitly anti-white policies.  Democrats are the party of "everyone but whites".  Howard Dean said Democrats should reach out to the Confederate flag guys, and they pretty much ended his career.
> 
> Just evens the score, eh?



Please take a moment and list the anti-white policies espoused by the democrats.  I can't wait to hear this.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 8, 2011)

rdean said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > rdean said:
> ...



Deanie....this may be over your head, but let me give it a try: much of the movement of black Americans to the Democrat Party was based on promises of remuneration.

This is not to say that material benefits would be refused by any individuals--or groups- but it would be *perceptive of you to see beyond *said perks to the *moral decay *that resulted:

"1966 LBJ expanded the *Aid to Families with Dependent Children program*under FDR, AFDC had been limited to widows, those who had lost their husbands and now lacked a breadwinner at home to help support the children.

Then began to *loosen and expand the rules *of AFDC eligibility, eventually getting to the point where *any woman *living alone with children could take advantage of this program. In doing so, they not only bought a large number of new votes, they also incentivized out of wedlock births and single motherhood.

As Charles Murray described in Losing Ground, the *"Great Society" incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.*

Millions of women discovered that they could be better off financially by *not marrying*. 
*Prior to 1957, LBJ had never supported civil rights legislation- any civil rights legislation*. In the Senate and House alike, his record was an unbroken one of *votes against *every civil rights bill that had ever come to a vote: against voting rights bills; against bills that would have struck at job discrimination and at segregation in other areas of American life; even against bills that would have protected blacks from lynching. Robert Caro, Master of the Senate: The Years of Lyndon Johnson, vol.3, p. xv.

So, what happened? An epiphany? The cynic in me says it was something elseIn 1964, he received 96% of the black vote, a record in presidential elections until 2008. 


So, deanie, it would be wise for you to *put aside your hate and bias*...and see the damage that LBJ and the Democrats have done to black folks....and whites, as well.
The  rise in single-parent families, and the commensurate crime, i.e., the case we all just witnessed is directly attributable to the Democrat anti-traditional-value policies.


Again, As Charles Murray described in Losing Ground, the *"Great Society" incentivized the same negative behaviors that cause poverty in the first place.*


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 8, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> rdean said:
> 
> 
> > Another Republican enters the fray.
> ...



WTF are you talking about?  Dean left on his own after kicking the GOP ass in two consecutive elections.  

Acting like he was "removed for cause" is just bunk.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 8, 2011)

Tank said:


> Call me what you want, but I have a problem with America becoming a third world country.
> 
> If it's going to take a radical like Duke to turn the ship around, well I'm on board.



As if you aren't already on board and as if it has anything to do with policy.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Weak.



Running up the white banner?  

I don't blame you for moving on to "easier prey".  You really had no leg to stand on with this absurd civil rights argument.

You are also ignorant of what happened to ROTC programs and why.  

You also have simply refused to acknowledge Hillsdale's ROTC policy.  It is principled or prejudicial?  Why or why not?  If so, how is it any different then Harvard.  There is even a WSJ article on this very thing for you to do what you are best at:  copy and paste.

You really are a dead-weight poster without an original thought.  Other than cutting and pasting other people's arguments, you bring absolutely nothing to the table.  

Back to playing G.I. Jane!


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 8, 2011)

"Many people think they are thinking when they are merely rearranging their prejudices."
Voltaire

&#8220;Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness.&#8221;
Mark Twain


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 8, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Weak.
> ...



You have babbled some inconsequetial pap. Weak.

I have no problem in leaving up to any readers to consider your charges against the Republicans, the people of the South, and the suggesting that black Americans were tricked by the Republicans into aligning themselves with segregationists...

...I have no doubt that you will appear, based on the sources and documented material that I have provided,  to all, as the easily-led Left-wing janissary that your are.

In precis, I have championed the idea that for a century the Democrat party had been a segregationist and obstructionist party, and while it is the Republicans who have been responsible for the great gains of black Americans, in fact, it was the reason the Republican Party was created, and the monetary gifts offered by Democrats is the reason for the political shift of the black block-vote.

As an aside, you have championed another false trope of the Left, that Liberals are not responsible for evicting ROTC from Liberal universities. Equally bogus.

Finally, while you poke fun at my avi-pic, it speaks volumes that only one of us has provided a pic of him-herself...


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Finally, while you poke fun at my avi-pic, it speaks volumes that only one of us has provided a pic of him-herself...



Untrue.  Those are my legs.

Political Chic, question.  As a conservative, do you find it at all embarrassing for David Duke to be affiliated with the Republican party?  Does it bother you that self-proclaimed Republicans on this board are welcoming him with open arms?  Do you think that the Louisiana Republican Party should be subject to any sort of censure for allowing him to run as a candidate, given his long history of involvement with white supremacist/anti-minority groups?


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> You have babbled some inconsequetial pap. Weak.
> 
> I have no problem in leaving up to any readers to consider your charges against the Republicans, the people of the South, and the suggesting that black Americans were tricked by the Republicans into aligning themselves with segregationists...



At no point have I stated that the GOP "tricked" black Americans into aligning themselves with segregationists.  You either aren't reading what I am writing or are completely dense.  

Even though you dismiss it, do you understand what the Southern Strategy was?  Your comments on here suggest you have no earthly idea how it was  used (even if just a conspiracy theory) which makes it hard for you to articulate an argument against it.



> ...I have no doubt that you will appear, based on the sources and documented material that I have provided,  to all, as the easily-led Left-wing janissary that your are.



This statement does nothing for your argument.  



> In precis, I have championed the idea that for a century the Democrat party had been a segregationist and obstructionist party, and while it is the Republicans who have been responsible for the great gains of black Americans, in fact, it was the reason the Republican Party was created, and the monetary gifts offered by Democrats is the reason for the political shift of the black block-vote.



No doubt the GOP was responsible for emancipating the slaves, thought that was hardly the reason it was created.  Lincoln was more concerned with preserving the union then freeing the slave and is on record as such.  He still, (like LBJ) eventually round his way, changed his tune, and did the right thing.  

At any rate, the Civil Rights act, as evidenced by simple numbers and the President who signed it into law (as opposed to Ms. Coulter's opinion) was a Democratic initiative.  

Certainly elements within the GOP sought to make political capital out of the backlash that followed civil rights.  I have provided those quotes and references. 

You have chosen to simply ignore them and want to reference the internal debate within the Democratic party over civil rights.  As if any issue, especially one as controversial as Civil Rights, would go through any party without debate and dissent.

It's all irrelevant.  The end product is all that matters.  Again (for the third time), I am more interested in where the GOP went after 1964.  



> As an aside, you have championed another false trope of the Left, that Liberals are not responsible for evicting ROTC from Liberal universities. Equally bogus.



In your opinion.  After being presented with evidence to the contrary, the best you can do is offer your opinion.  You are still wrong.  

But what would I know about ROTC?  I only was a part of it for four years.  I am sure you and Ann Coulter know much more about this.

At any rate, whenever you want to address the actual substance behind the research in that OPED, feel free to do so.

Also feel free to comment on Hillsdale's policy towards ROTC.  Principled or prejudiced?  Why are they any different than Harvard?

This is why you are boring; you are partisan to the point of being dull.  I don't claim that I am non-partisan, but I can give the GOP credit where it's due.  You seem to have been dumbed down to an existence where you think one side is 100% good and the other is 100% evil.  



> Finally, while you poke fun at my avi-pic, it speaks volumes that only one of us has provided a pic of him-herself...



My picture is in my public profile, where it has been since I joined.  In that picture, I am in a real uniform.  When I wanted to be a soldier, I simply went and became a soldier.  I didn't decide to wait until I was a bored suburbanite to play soldier.

But get down with your bad self.  Whatever gets you through the night.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...


When you use your own words, I'll be happy to converse.  When you cut & paste Coulter, it only deserves mocking and ROTF smilies.

Especially when you end by saying "pick up a book".


----------



## Tank (Jul 8, 2011)

The way America is heading, expect Duke and people like him to become more popular.


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 8, 2011)

Not all Dukes are bad:


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 8, 2011)




----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 8, 2011)




----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 8, 2011)




----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 8, 2011)




----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 8, 2011)




----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 8, 2011)




----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 8, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Finally, while you poke fun at my avi-pic, it speaks volumes that only one of us has provided a pic of him-herself...
> ...



As you note, I'm a concervative. If someone with whom I don't find sympatico were to don the conservative label, I'm articuate enough to explain same.

Since you know that I'm a conservative, you probably know my postition on most of the issues on which I have posted.

Or would you ask a black to explain their exact reaction if a black person committed some horrendous crime?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 8, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Synthaholic said:
> ...



But, here is where you'd run into a problem...I collect links that identify my thinking...

...since you haven't attained a level that migh be identified as 'thought,' you had best stick to emoticons and pics and cartoons.


It's a win-win: we each pick the characteristics of our own posts!


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Or would you ask a black to explain their exact reaction if a black person committed some horrendous crime?



No, but I do find muslim disavowals of muslim terrist acts rather comforting.  Don't you?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...




Well, there's our difference:  I think for myself, and collect links that confirm what I know to be the truth.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 8, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > You have babbled some inconsequetial pap. Weak.
> ...



Now, don't run from the essence of your original post: your post identified the reason why Southerners vote Republican is a racist Nixonian Southern Strategy.

My refutation was that the policy that won over that population was one that resisted the far left policies assumed and championed by the Democrat Party.

1. "No doubt the GOP was responsible for emancipating the slaves, thought that was hardly the reason it was created."
That is exatly the reason it was created. Learn some history.


2."... the Civil Rights act, as evidenced by simple numbers and the President who signed it into law (as opposed to Ms. Coulter's opinion) was a Democratic initiative."
There were several civil rights acts....those prior to 1964 produced greater achievements for black Americans than the '64.

a.	Democrats blocked Republican-instituted civil rights bills, 1890 protection for black voters; anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938; anti-poll tax bills in 1942,1944, and 1946. 

b. A far greater proportion of Republicans voted for the '64 act than did Democrats.

3. "...do you understand what the Southern Strategy was?"
The Southern Strategy as you identify it never existed, and the concept is firmly embedded in the fantasy-mythology that the left has used with the weak minded.
The same applies to your erroneous belief that ROTC left the Northeastern Liberal universities of their own volition.

4. "elements within the GOP sought to make political capital out of the backlash that followed civil rights."
Southerners voted for Republican integrationist policies.
Case in point: the idea of a Southern Strategy as some kind of racist appeal to Southerners seems to be less than supportable when one observes the fate of  segregationist Democrat Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas.

Did he suddenly became a Republican when Nixon became President??? No, he became retired when *Republican Winthop Rockefeller defeated him as an integrationist,* in a state with 11% Republican registration, Arkansas.
 BTW, Clinton invited Faubus to his inauguration as governor, warmly embracing him.


5. "But what would I know about ROTC?  I only was a part of it for four years."
And this proves that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Which Ivy did you attend?
With which that evicted ROTC do you have experience?
Oh- none and none?
Doesn't stop you from swallowing every bit of propagana that the NYTimes puts on your tray,eh.


6. "you are partisan to the point of being dull."
OH....if only you had the gift of irony.

You attempt to propound a Democrat idyll in the face of multiple examples of Republican civil rights legislative endeavors. 
That pretty much identifies you as a close your eyes, cover your ears, stamp your foot, partisan loyalist.  Learn some history.

7. One more time, and a most telling episode: *LBJ and the Democrats  gutted the enforcement provisions of the 1957 bill*, i.e., anyone accused of violating a persons voting rights was guaranteed a jury trial- and, therefore, jury nullification by Democrat juries.

*To fix the enforcement provisions that Democrats had gutted, Eisenhower introduced a bill to create the US Civil Rights CommissionDemocrats staged the longest filibuster in history- over 125 hours.* But the bill passed and was signed by Ike on May 6, 1960.

Yet in '64, these same segretationist Democrats became civil rights activists???
Baloney.

And, you see these same Republicans as using some anti-civil rights racist 'Southern Strategy.'
Bogus.

It's a fabrication that you have been taught, and haven't the intellectual strength to overcome.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 8, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Or would you ask a black to explain their exact reaction if a black person committed some horrendous crime?
> ...



No feeling either way.

You are saying that if I, as a conservative, say some Republican organization is right, or wrong....that would mean what?

That would comfort you???
Why?


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> You are saying that if I, as a conservative, say some Republican organization is right, or wrong....



I find it disheartening when conservatives are more interested in focusing on Robert Byrd than in rooting out the outright racists in their own party that give them all a black eye.  And, more than a little hypocritical.

In no way would I allow someone like David Duke to associate himself with me (ditto Elijah Muhammed or ANY OTHER RACIST).  Why does the association of David Duke with the Republican party appear to bother you less than the association of Robert Byrd with the Democratic Party?

Why aren't more republicans involved in forcefully calling out and disavowing racists like David Duke, and demanding that their peers in the party dissasociate themselves from him?


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 8, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > You are saying that if I, as a conservative, say some Republican organization is right, or wrong....
> ...



I find it disheartening that so many think this is a conservative vs liberals issue, or a republican vs democrats issue.  

Why not accept that both parties are corrupt and have stopped doing anything for the good of the American people.  Anyone who votes for either of those parties is voting for evil, they'll even admit that themselves with their "I voted for the lesser of two evils."  Well guess what?  The lesser of two evils is EVIL!!!!


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 8, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> I find it disheartening that so many think this is a conservative vs liberals issue, or a republican vs democrats issue.
> 
> Why not accept that both parties are corrupt and have stopped doing anything for the good of the American people.  Anyone who votes for either of those parties is voting for evil, they'll even admit that themselves with their "I voted for the lesser of two evils."  Well guess what?  The lesser of two evils is EVIL!!!!



Are you under the mistaken impression that I'm a fan of the democrats/liberals?  If so, get over it.  This thread is about David Duke running for the presidency -- as a republican.

I find the crickets chirping in the republican seats to be rather nauseating.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 8, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > I find it disheartening that so many think this is a conservative vs liberals issue, or a republican vs democrats issue.
> ...



I don't care...IMO, the dems are just as bad and I didn't hear anybody crying about the racists in their party.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Now, don't run from the essence of your original post: your post identified the reason why Southerners vote Republican is a racist Nixonian Southern Strategy.



No, my original point is that neither party has a clean bill of health on racial issues.  Shocker.  I know. 



> My refutation was that the policy that won over that population was one that resisted the far left policies assumed and championed by the Democrat Party.



No, that was your lame, OPED rebuttal. No wonder you stick to cut and paste.  You can't hack it when you have to swim on your own.

You can follow the voting trends in the South which point a fairly clear picture to when the change occurred.  My contention is that this was facilitated by GOP strategists who sought to capitalize on the the backlash of the Civil Rights movement and this was a driving force behind the change in voting patterns in the South.  You claim this never happened, but I have provided the actual words of one of Nixon's chief strategists who said that is exactly what the plan was.  Of course, you (quite hilariously) claimed he said something completely different.  I guess Ann didn't prep you for that one, huh?

At any rate, your contention that the south turned Red because of hippies or abortion or whatever the fuck you claim is the actual reason (and not race) is absurd and solely your opinion.  There is some debate as to if the reason was more economic and not race related, but you've never referenced that.  

Either way, it is clear that the GOP, beginning in the late 60's, sought to gain the South purely on capitalizing on the blow back of civil rights.

How is that for your party of civil rights?



> 1. "No doubt the GOP was responsible for emancipating the slaves, thought that was hardly the reason it was created."
> That is exatly the reason it was created. Learn some history.
> 
> 2."... the Civil Rights act, as evidenced by simple numbers and the President who signed it into law (as opposed to Ms. Coulter's opinion) was a Democratic initiative."
> ...



When we speak of Civil Rights in the 21st century, it is generally understood (by everyone that isn't a hack) that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was the Watershed event.  Eisenhower made some gains in '57, but that bill feel short in it's scope and reach.  Even the original bill wasn't as audacious as the '64 bill.  Furthermore, it was the '64 bill that caused the greatest upheaval in the south.  The fallout was virtually immediate.  It is why Goldwater beat LBJ in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, and South Carolina in the '64 presidential election (Though, with Civil Rights having passed and LBJ's shameful handling of Viet Nam, I think the country would have been better off with Goldwater).

I'll give credit to member of both parties for doing what is right.  That is the difference between us, you want to pretend that the credit belongs to the GOP, which wasn't even in power at the time.    



> 3. "...do you understand what the Southern Strategy was?"
> The Southern Strategy as you identify it never existed, and the concept is firmly embedded in the fantasy-mythology that the left has used with the weak minded.
> The same applies to your erroneous belief that ROTC left the Northeastern Liberal universities of their own volition.



You opinion on both of these issues is not sufficient when stacked up against the actual evidence I have provided.  

Right.  The "Southern Strategy" is a complete fabrication.



> But most important is the Republican Party's recent record as the vehicle of white supremacy in the South, beginning with the Goldwater campaign and reaching its apex in Richard M. Nixon's ''Southern strategy'' in 1968 and 1972. Republicans appealed to Nixon Democrats (later Reagan Democrats) in the Northern suburbs, many of them ethnic voters who had left the cities to escape from blacks, with promises to crack down on welfare cheats and to bring law and order; the party also fought affirmative action.



POLITICS - THE ISSUES - G.O.P. Tries Hard to Win Black Votes, but Recent History Works Against It - An Analysis; News Analysis - NYTimes.com



> 4. "elements within the GOP sought to make political capital out of the backlash that followed civil rights."
> Southerners voted for Republican integrationist policies.
> Case in point: the idea of a &#8216;Southern Strategy&#8217; as some kind of racist appeal to Southerners seems to be less than supportable when one observes the fate of  segregationist Democrat Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas.
> 
> ...



Faubus was wrong on race issues.  Most Southern politicians were at the time.  Some of those Southerners came around in their later years.  Some never did.  People are products of the time they live in.  At any rate, Faubus was still an extremely popular governor of Arkansas.  If you are stating that Clinton acknowledging that was, in some form, a tacit approval of Faubus' segregationist views?  That's stupid beyond belief.  That's as stupid as liberals who claim that Trent Lott slapping Strom Thurmond on the back at his birthday party made him some sort of closet racist.  

Your point about Faubus remaining a Democrat is well taken.  But you see, this is the point that is being made (and you are doing your damndest to ignore), after Civil Rights the South slowly evolved from overwhelmingly Democratic to overwhelmingly Republican.  The vast majority of Governors in the South in the last 30 years have been Republican.  The south has generally voted Republican.  Gone are the days of the "Southern Democrat" 



> 5. "But what would I know about ROTC?  I only was a part of it for four years."
> And this proves that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
> Which Ivy did you attend?
> With which that evicted ROTC do you have experience?



I'll assume the "not the sharpest knife" comment has something to do with my comments and not the fact that I was in ROTC.

I didn't attend an "Ivy".  I believe you went to Columbia.  And yet, you were not in ROTC. (and I can't imagine you had much interest in ROTC when you were a student, so the fact that you did go to an Ivy isn't terribly relevant either).

I get the nuance behind ROTC programs.  I can understand why more elite schools would want to address the fact that ROTC classes are not terribly academically rigorous (Which is true.  Learning the ins and outs of an OPORDER isn't exactly a high academic endeavor) and that the faculty at ROTC, Commissioned Officers (usually without Ph.D.'s) and NCOs were not on par with the usual expectations of the faculty.  That was the divide.   Not opposition to the Viet Nam war (which has now evolved into opposition to DADT, which will eventually evolve into something else now that DADT is kaput).

It's an urban legend.  As the author starts out:  



> EVERYONE knows that Ivy League universities banned the Reserve Officer Training Corps from their campuses during the Vietnam War.



As he goes on to point out, it's simply not true.

Fact:
- ROTC has not been banned from any single Northeast College.  If you dispute this, you should easily be able to provide documentation to the contrary.  
- The Federal Government has never sanctioned any University under the Solomon Amendment.
10 U.S.C. § 983 : US Code - Section 983: Institutions of higher education that prevent ROTC access or military recruiting on campus: denial of grants and contracts from Department of Defense, Department of Education, and certain other departments and

These are the facts.  You are left with your opinion, which is ill-formed and researched.  

Perhaps a separate thread should be started on this.  



> Oh- none and none?
> Doesn't stop you from swallowing every bit of propagana that the NYTimes puts on your tray,eh.



Propaganda?  As opposed to your opinion and Ann Coulter snippets?  



> 6. "you are partisan to the point of being dull."
> OH....if only you had the gift of irony.
> 
> You attempt to propound a Democrat idyll in the face of multiple examples of Republican civil rights legislative endeavors.
> ...



Not Democrats.  Democrat.  Who was that Democrat?  Strom Thurmond.  You do remember Strom Thurmond, right?







Now why would he become a Republican in 1964?  Gee, what could have happened?  

On the one hand, you want to chide the Democrats for Faubus, but you conveniently omit that the GOP picked up the Thurmond-nator.  

As I said, you are partisan to the point of being dull.   



> Yet in '64, these same segretationist Democrats became civil rights activists???
> Baloney.



No, their was just enough popular support within the party to marginalize them and over ride them.  As I noted, the Democrats had a majority in the house and senate.  The bill would not have passed without the Democrats.   



> And, you see these same Republicans as using some anti-civil rights racist 'Southern Strategy.'
> Bogus.
> 
> It's a fabrication that you have been taught, and haven't the intellectual strength to overcome.



Just like Tailgunner Joe was such a Great American and the multitude of other bullshit that Ann Coulter tells you?  

Irony is you lecturing anyone on intellectual strength.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 8, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Equally lame are the "They all suck, I am going to take my ball and go home!" crowd.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 8, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."



So, political chic, you WOULD like to see this happen?


----------



## Shogun (Jul 8, 2011)

*The Southern Strategy as you identify it never existed, and the concept is firmly embedded in the fantasy-mythology that the left has used with the weak minded.
The same applies to your erroneous belief that ROTC left the Northeastern Liberal universities of their own volition.*





yea... 

*

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes*

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"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," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "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." 

RNC Chief to Say It Was 'Wrong' to Exploit Racial Conflict for Votes


Political Chic... you so stooopid.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 8, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...



I'm not taking my ball home.  I am kicking and screaming and doing everything I can to get those idiots to realize that they are voting for EVIL and the continuing ruination of our country.  Take that!  <I say while throwing my ball in your face>


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 8, 2011)

Shogun said:


> Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong".



Yeah.

Because a homosexual JEW is really likely to stick up for whites in America.

More like stick up things where they shouldn't go.


----------



## rdean (Jul 8, 2011)

Warrior102 said:


> I wonder, if Duke is backed into a corner, will he play the race card?



You could give him yours.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 8, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong".
> ...



he was speaking about the reality of the Southern Strategy used by the GOP.  Being gay or Jewish really has nothing to do with it.

3 Reasons There Are So Many Jews In Comedy | Cracked.com


----------



## Modbert (Jul 8, 2011)

Michael Steele Acknowledges GOP Had &#8220;Southern Strategy&#8221; For Decades | The Plum Line



> Steele made his remarks at DePaul University on Tuesday night. He acknowledged that we havent done a very good job of giving African Americans a reason to vote Republican. Thats actually unremarkable. But heres what he also said:
> 
> We have lost sight of the historic, integral link between the party and African-Americans, Steele said. This party was co-founded by blacks, among them Frederick Douglass. The Republican Party had a hand in forming the NAACP, and yet we have mistreated that relationship. People dont walk away from parties. Their parties walk away from them.
> 
> For the last 40-plus years we had a Southern Strategy that alienated many minority voters by focusing on the white male vote in the South. Well, guess what happened in 1992, folks, Bubba went back home to the Democratic Party and voted for Bill Clinton.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 8, 2011)

Modbert said:


> Michael Steele Acknowledges GOP Had &#8220;Southern Strategy&#8221; For Decades | The Plum Line
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Clearly, Michael Steele represents some kind of jewish-black-mud people conspiracy to destroy America.

amirite?


----------



## Wry Catcher (Jul 8, 2011)

If David Duke runs on the Republican ticket would he be considered a moderate?


----------



## SwingVoter (Jul 9, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> Those people are FOR whites.  Not against.  For!



So dressing up like a douchebag with a cone hat and lighting fires to crosses makes you proud?  

I think the Klan would be a little more intimidating if they updated their wardrobe and recruited people who were under 50 and didn't have beer guts.    I can't take them seriously about superior races when they look like a bunch of Wal Mart greeters in Ghost costumers.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 9, 2011)

Shogun said:


> *The Southern Strategy as you identify it never existed, and the concept is firmly embedded in the fantasy-mythology that the left has used with the weak minded.
> The same applies to your erroneous belief that ROTC left the Northeastern Liberal universities of their own volition.*
> 
> 
> ...



Tell me, oh-wise-one...
If, rather than quoting someone, I were to list, say ten or fifteen specific items that showed that during the so-called "Southern Strategy" the Republians, i.e., the Nixon adminstration 'effectively reached out" and accomplished what the Democrats did not, for the black community in the South, would that pretty much make you appear....

..."so stooopid?"

1. Let&#8217;s see what the Nixon adminstration did as examples of their &#8220;Republican-racist tilt:&#8221;

a.	As president of the Senate, *Nixon strongly supported civil rights,* specifically the 1957 civil rights act, issuing an advisory opinion that a filibuster could be stopped with a simple majority, thereby changing Senate rules. Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 12 (Thursday, January 27, 2011)

b.	 &#8220;During the 1966 campaign, *Nixon was personally thanked by Dr. King *for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957http://www.nbra.info/FrequentlyAskedQuestions#Nixon_s_Southern_Strategy_Was_Not_A_Racist_Appeal

c.	Between 1969 and 1974, Nixon  *raised the civil rights enforcement *budget 800 percent, and

d.	*doubled the budget *for black colleges;

e.	*appointed more blacks *to federal posts and high positions than any president, including LBJ;

f.	adopted *the Philadelphia Plan *mandating quotas for blacks in unions,

g.	and for *black scholars *in colleges and universities;

h.	* invented "Black Capitalism"* (the Office of Minority Business Enterprise),

i.	raised U.S. purchases from *black businesses *from $9 million to $153 million,

j.	increased small business *loans to minorities *1,000 percent,

k.	 increased U.S. deposits in *minority-owned banks *4,000 percent;

l.	raised the share of Southern schools that were* desegregated *from 10 percent to 70 percent.

m.	This was written by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1975, "It has only been *since 1968 that substantial reduction of racial segregation *has taken place in the South."

n.	Unlike the empty talk of the prior, Democrat, administration, between Nixon&#8217;s election in &#8217;68 and the end of his second year in office, in &#8217;70, *black students attending all-black schools in the South declined* from 68% to 18.4%, and the percentage of black students attending majority white schools went from 18.4% to 38.1%. Conrad Black, &#8220;The Invincible Quest: The Life of Richard Milhous Nixon,&#8221; p. 647.  


Now, all you have to do is deny the above to prove your argument....
...oh, you can't?

*Well, then, "...you so stooopid!"*

Well, then,....explain how the dozen or so items above indicate "efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters."

What? They don't "use race to appeal to white southern voters"????

*Well, then, "...you so stooopid!"*


Now, do you see how the Democrats and their allies in the Old Left Media have manipulated you into believing that there was a racist Southern Strategy?

No- you still don't see it?

*Well, then, "...you so stooopid!"*


&#8220;There are none so blind as those, that will not see&#8221;
That would be you....'cause...

*....."...you so stooopid!"*


----------



## 007 (Jul 9, 2011)

&#8220;Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.&#8221;
*- Robert Byrd - D*

&#8220;I am a former kleagle of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County and the adjoining counties of the state &#8230;. The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia &#8230;. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state of the Union. Will you please inform me as to the possibilities of rebuilding the Klan in the Realm of W. Va &#8230;. I hope that you will find it convenient to answer my letter in regards to future possibilities.&#8221;
*- Robert Byrd - D*

&#8220;I&#8217;ll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years.&#8221;
*- Lyndon B. Johnson - D*

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/20-great-moments-in-liberal-bigotry


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 9, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
> ...



Willie, in my experience, the term 'race mongrels' is simply a fictional pejorative that doesn't exist outside of the folks invested with a primal hate.

I have seen- and so have you- good folks of every possible makeup and combination.
And you know that throughout history there have been all sorts of combination, and the results of same require a certain kind of blindness in order for all of same to be placed in one category, i.e. 'mongrels.'

I believe in the greatness of America, and don't find racial proportionality to be a factor in either direction.
But, I am sad for whatever events or conditions in live led you to feel the way you do, but I'm glad to see you continue on the board. This is the markeplace to exchange these ideas.

To your point, no I would never wish to "see Old Glory trampled in the dirt..."
I love this great nation.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 9, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> If David Duke runs on the Republican ticket would he be considered a moderate?



Wry-Catcher....a silly boy aching to be relevant.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 9, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > "Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds."
> ...



Willie-J, so, I'm still thinking of your post, and it just occurred to me that the phrase..."a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds"...is exactly the way I tend to view the progressives!

OMG! I'm obsessed as well. I see those folks as de-societal-evolutionalry! They want a 'king' with no restrictions, who endorses pagen earth-worship, and lock-step collectivism!

Oh, well....

....so we each have our bete noire, eh?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 9, 2011)

Some years ago, some of the far righty extremist fools in the party wanted Duke to come speak to our fraternal clubs and political committee leadership.  Right thinking Republicans immediately stepped on that as if it were a cockroach.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 9, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> > PoliticalChic said:
> ...



Well, it just doesn't sound to me like you'd ever be honest about what makes this a great nation.  Not blacks.  Not Jews.  Not Hispanics.

It was the Christian Whites who made this a great nation.

That's the Alpha and the Omega of it.

The fact that there are some good blacks, or good Hispanics...  sure.  But, it just doesn't change anything.  If this country were 100 percent black, first of all, YOU wouldn't be here.  And if you were, you'd be pretty isolated.  

PC, it doesn't mean you're a bad person (i.e., "racist") if you feel this way.  It just makes you a realist.

I was like you for a long time... "I'm conservative, but I'm not racist."  The thought of being racist scared me...  I thought, that's pretty much the ONE THING I could never consider.

But a few people woke me up.  And I started following reality.  And I finally came around.

Race really does have something to do with it.

Minority-white America, political chic, will not be the America you knew, your parents knew, or your grandparents knew.  It will be the same soil, but a different place altogether.  Already, our currency is devalued.  Our debt is distrusted.  We slip down, down, down, in so many categories.  We will soon slip down to Brazil's level.  

Is that a good thing?  Think about it.

"Conservative"--  right.  You "conserve" nothing if you don't "conserve" the race that made it.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 9, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Some years ago, some of the far righty extremist fools in the party wanted Duke to come speak to our fraternal clubs and political committee leadership.  Right thinking Republicans immediately stepped on that as if it were a cockroach.



Right-thinking Republicans like Ken Mehlman, the homosexual Jew who lives with his boyfriend in a multi-million-dollar apartment in Manhattan?

Does that sound like the voice of conservatism to you?

How about you, political chic, daveman, etc.?  Your former party leader is a HOMOSEXUAL JEW...   What do you think of that?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 9, 2011)

Willie, racism should never be a part of any honest Americanism or anti-Semitism.

If Ken can keep the far freaks, like political chic and daveman, who pretend to be GOP, from corrupting the nominating process next year, good for Ken.


----------



## Zona (Jul 9, 2011)

Wry Catcher said:


> If David Duke runs on the Republican ticket would he be considered a moderate?



Regan would be.

(By the way, that was funny)....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 9, 2011)

Reagan then would be far too left for the GOP today.


----------



## rdean (Jul 10, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > *The Southern Strategy as you identify it never existed, and the concept is firmly embedded in the fantasy-mythology that the left has used with the weak minded.
> ...



OK, we know what happened in the 60's.  What have Republican done since then?  "Willy Horton"?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 10, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet.


You're a  fucking moron. II.1 requires natural born status, not two citizen parents.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 10, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet.
> ...



The only candidate born outside of the U.S. in 2008 was John McCain.  Both meet II.1.


----------



## random3434 (Jul 10, 2011)

Hey Racists, where do Asians fit in David Dukes "Cleansing" of America?


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 10, 2011)

Echo Zulu said:


> Hey Racists, where do Asians fit in David Dukes "Cleansing" of America?



They're almost whites.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 10, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> Minority-white America, political chic, will not be the America you knew, your parents knew, or your grandparents knew.  It will be the same soil, but a different place altogether.  Already, our currency is devalued.  Our debt is distrusted.  We slip down, down, down, in so many categories.  We will soon slip down to Brazil's level.



The devaluation of our currency has more to do with white politicians and bankers than black hood rats.


----------



## random3434 (Jul 10, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > Hey Racists, where do Asians fit in David Dukes "Cleansing" of America?
> ...



Ah, I see. So they are AOK in Dukes *KKK *Handbook then?


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 10, 2011)

Echo Zulu said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Echo Zulu said:
> ...



This is REALLY important to me......what page would that be????


----------



## random3434 (Jul 10, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...



Not sure, I don't have a copy.

Maybe Tank or WJ does.

Just wondering since some in my family are Asian,,,don't want their  new POTUS wanna-be to put them in internment camps or such........


----------



## Tank (Jul 10, 2011)

I myself think Asians are great, high IQ's and very low crime rates.


----------



## Againsheila (Jul 10, 2011)

Tank said:


> I myself think Asians are great, high IQ's and very low crime rates.



Why are we calling them "Asians" when Russia takes up most of Asia and they are Caucasian?


----------



## Synthaholic (Jul 10, 2011)

Againsheila said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > I myself think Asians are great, high IQ's and very low crime rates.
> ...


WillowTree has "European American" in her usertitle.  I don't think she means Turks, Greeks, or Portuguese.


----------



## USArmyRetired (Jul 10, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet.
> ...



Sorry but your wrong. The founders intent was to have a president born with sole allegiance to America. The only way that can happen is if both parents were U.S. citizens. Obama was born a dual citizen since his father passed to him his British Nationality which means he was born with dual allegiances. He doesn't meet the test of natural born citizenship. Senate Resolution 511 confirmed McCain was a natural born citizen because he was born to Citizen parents (plural). All presidents post grandfather clause have been born to TWO U.S. citizen parents. Again, Obama is usurping the presidency. Duke qualifies as well as Sarah Palin and any other candidate with TWO citizen parents.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 10, 2011)

Synthaholic said:


> Againsheila said:
> 
> 
> > Tank said:
> ...


I think I asked her about that once.


USArmyRetired said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...


Cheer up  What will you do if Obama is reelected though? Bore everyone here w/ 4 more years of birfer threads?


----------



## random3434 (Jul 10, 2011)

USArmy, Poly Chick, Tank, WJ-did you know you can go post with your hero at St***t too? 


_In 1995, Don Black and Chloê Hardin, former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's ex-wife, began a small bulletin board system (BBS) called St***t  Today, St****t has become a prominent online forum for white nationalism, Neo-Nazism, hate speech, racism, and antisemitism.Duke has an account on St****t which he uses to post articles from his own website, as well as polling forum members for opinions and questions, in particular during his internet broadcasts. Duke has worked with Don Black on numerous projects including Operation Red Dog in 1980._

I think you'll get a more postive replies with your wish to see him as our next president. 

Maybe they even sell T-shirts! 



*Not that we don't want you all to post here too with the your love for David Duke, but at least there your 'own kind' will welcome you with open arms. 


***Name of forum edited out by me because of rules not advertising other sites. But thought it was funny that David Duke is a member of a site like that!


----------



## Tank (Jul 10, 2011)

Zulu, I know what kind of guy Duke is, but this is what things are coming too.

America will soon be a majority Hispanic country and I don't know how you feel but alot of people don't want that.

So if it's going to take someone like Duke to stop this then I'm for it.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 10, 2011)

Tank said:


> Zulu, I know what kind of guy Duke is, but this is what things are coming too.
> 
> America will soon be a majority Hispanic country and I don't know how you feel but alot of people don't want that.
> 
> So if it's going to take someone like Duke to stop this then I'm for it.



What percentage of America is currently Hispanic?


----------



## random3434 (Jul 10, 2011)

Tank said:


> Zulu, I know what kind of guy Duke is, but this is what things are coming too.
> 
> America will soon be a majority Hispanic country and I don't know how you feel but alot of people don't want that.
> 
> So if it's going to take someone like Duke to stop this then I'm for it.



What about the Jews? Does he embrace them too?


----------



## Tank (Jul 10, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> tank said:
> 
> 
> > zulu, i know what kind of guy duke is, but this is what things are coming too.
> ...


15% - 20%


----------



## Tank (Jul 10, 2011)

Echo Zulu said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > Zulu, I know what kind of guy Duke is, but this is what things are coming too.
> ...


As much as Obama


----------



## PoliticalChic (Jul 10, 2011)

Echo Zulu said:


> USArmy, Poly Chick, Tank, WJ-did you know you can go post with your hero at St***t too?
> 
> 
> _In 1995, Don Black and Chloê Hardin, former KKK Grand Wizard David Duke's ex-wife, began a small bulletin board system (BBS) called St***t  Today, St****t has become a prominent online forum for white nationalism, Neo-Nazism, hate speech, racism, and antisemitism.Duke has an account on St****t which he uses to post articles from his own website, as well as polling forum members for opinions and questions, in particular during his internet broadcasts. Duke has worked with Don Black on numerous projects including Operation Red Dog in 1980._
> ...



Why would you claim that he's my hero?


----------



## random3434 (Jul 10, 2011)

Tank said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > Tank said:
> ...



Nice try Hack. This thread isn't about Obama, it's about David Duke. Start another thread about Obama. Now, as for your hero: 

KKK's David Duke Tells Iran Holocaust Conference That Gas Chambers Not Used to Kill Jews - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News - FOXNews.com

David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Are Jews a Race? | The Official Website of Representative David Duke, PhD


----------



## Tank (Jul 10, 2011)

I said I know who Duke is, but what else can be done to stop Hispanics from taking over America?


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 10, 2011)

Tank said:


> I said I know who Duke is, but what else can be done to stop Hispanics from taking over America?



The same thing that we could do to stop Italian, Sicilian, English,  and Irish immigrants over 100 years ago.

The same thing the native americans did to stop the wave of Dutch and English  that came over  100 years prior to that.

Fucktard.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 10, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Sorry but your wrong. The founders intent was to have a president born with sole allegiance to America. The only way that can happen is if both parents were U.S. citizens.


That's not the only way that can happen - nearly all of the Founders had parents who were not U.S. citizens. You've got serious mental defects. 


> Obama was born a dual citizen since his father passed to him his British Nationality which means he was born with dual allegiances



He's never claimed any citizenry but U.S. 



> Again, Obama is usurping the presidency.



OMG, why do conspiracy nutbags like yourself have to WHINE like such pussyboys all the time? If you think he's usurped the Presidency why don't you take a stand for your cuontry and do something to fix that instead of whining like a fucking PUSSY? We're all quite sick of it and in fact are appalled by the apparent fact that if the Presidency really were usurped - you'd do NOTHING about it - yet you claim to be a greater patriot than the rest of us. That's fucked up dude!


----------



## USArmyRetired (Jul 10, 2011)

Tank said:


> I said I know who Duke is, but what else can be done to stop Hispanics from taking over America?



Initiate President Eisenhowers 'Operation Wetback' he used but on a larger scale. Google it.


----------



## USArmyRetired (Jul 10, 2011)

OohPooPahDoo said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but your wrong. The founders intent was to have a president born with sole allegiance to America. The only way that can happen is if both parents were U.S. citizens.
> ...


That's why the founders created a grandfather clause for Article 2 Section 1 until a first generation president born to TWO U.S. citizen parents were able to become a natural born citizen president with born sole allegiance to the U.S. Also Obama admitted his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 on his own campaign website Fight The Smears. In essence he is a dual citizen and not a natural born citizen which Article 2 Section 1 calls for.


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 10, 2011)

Tank said:


> Zulu, I know what kind of guy Duke is, but this is what things are coming too.
> 
> America will soon be a majority Hispanic country and I don't know how you feel but alot of people don't want that.
> 
> So if it's going to take someone like Duke to stop this then I'm for it.



The hell we don't.  Latino women are hot.


----------



## Tank (Jul 10, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > I said I know who Duke is, but what else can be done to stop Hispanics from taking over America?
> ...


What other politician then Duke would inact such a law?


----------



## Tank (Jul 10, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > Zulu, I know what kind of guy Duke is, but this is what things are coming too.
> ...


Soon "Latino women" will be all there is.


----------



## OohPooPahDoo (Jul 10, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> That's why the founders created a grandfather clause for Article 2 Section 1 until a first generation president born to TWO U.S. citizen parents
> were able to become a natural born citizen president with born sole allegiance to the U.S.


Sorry, but where in II.1 does it say both a president's parents have to be citizens? It doesn't. So just shut the fuck up.



> Also Obama admitted his birth was governed by the British Nationality Act of 1948 on his own campaign website Fight The Smears. In essence he is a dual citizen and not a natural born citizen which Article 2 Section 1 calls for.



You can't "in essence" be a dual citizen shit for brains, you either are or you aren't. Now stop wasting everyone's time and go bitch about the blacks to someone else.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> OohPooPahDoo said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



You are sorry and wrong both, USAR, dead wrong on your interpretation.  If one of your parents are American, you are American, period.  Anyone who states differently does not understand the Founders, the War of Independence and the reasons for it, the failure of the weak Articles of Congress government, the need for a strong national government, the Constitutional process, and its history since 1787.

USAR is a Far Righty Extremist Fascist, for sure, with those kind of statements.


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > OohPooPahDoo said:
> ...



I thought you had to be born in the United States, as Obama clearly was, in order to be President.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 11, 2011)

elvis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...


You do, to be POTUS.


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2011)

Si modo said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



that's what I have always thought.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2011)

elvis said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



No, one has only to be born of an American parent.  McCain was born in the Republic of Panama, and is qualified because at least one of his parents was an American citizen.  The far righties have come up with this silliness that some how Obama is not constitutionally qualified to be president.  No basis in American constitutional jurisprudence supports the nonsense.

USAR's real issue is the Obama is not white, that is all it is.


----------



## Si modo (Jul 11, 2011)

elvis said:


> Si modo said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...


Yes.  I think Jake is confusing being a citizen with being a natural born citizen.

And, it would seem silly that so many were concerned about Obama's birth certificate if that weren't the case.


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



well, I have ALWAYS thought one had to be born here.  Obama WAS born here, so I'm satisfied with that.  I agree USAR has a problem with Obama's skin color.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2011)

From the weight of USAR's writings on the board, I think you have the right of it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 11, 2011)

> well, I have ALWAYS thought one had to be born here. Obama WAS born here, so I'm satisfied with that.



Correct, even if both of ones parents are illegal aliens if one is born in the US, he is a citizen and may serve as president: 

_Amendment 14 

All persons born...in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. _



> I agree USAR has a problem with Obama's skin color.



Or it could be something as simple as party affiliation. If Obama were a republican wed be hearing none of this.


----------



## elvis (Jul 11, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > well, I have ALWAYS thought one had to be born here. Obama WAS born here, so I'm satisfied with that.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I can't go into why I think it's because of skin color.  I am pretty confident it plays a huge role.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 11, 2011)

Only 1 parent has to be American for you to be an American, even if you are not born in the country. Americans are born overseas all the time on Military bases in Germany and Japan and they are still citizens, get over it. If Obamas father was a white man from Denmark or Ireland nobody would be acting this way about this birth certificate, even if he was not born here.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Spot fucking on.


----------



## hvywgt250 (Jul 11, 2011)

High_Gravity said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > elvis said:
> ...



   Go ahead make him a victim...because hes black... what a load of bull shit....or should I say typical answer from a negro...."spot fucking on" another intelligent answer from high gravity....or should i say another typical answer from a half wit negro.....yes that will do.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2011)

Obama is not the victim, sonny, only those, who have announced elsewhere on the board at various times that America needs racial segregation again, are the victims.  The thinking Americans of us have absolutely no intention of going down the stupid ass road of racial denigration.  You don't like it?  Who cares?


----------



## Tank (Jul 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Obama is not the victim, sonny, only those, who have announced elsewhere on the board at various times that America needs racial segregation again, are the victims.  The thinking Americans of us have absolutely no intention of going down the stupid ass road of racial denigration.  You don't like it?  Who cares?


What make you think other races want to be around you?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2011)

Tank, that you would think to speak for other races' intentions and desires out of the goodness of your heart is a hoot.

Do that again, please?


----------



## Tank (Jul 11, 2011)

Blacks and Hispanics make it very clear they don't want to live around other races, and white liberals like to pretend they do.


----------



## hvywgt250 (Jul 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Obama is not the victim, sonny, only those, who have announced elsewhere on the board at various times that America needs racial segregation again, are the victims.  The thinking Americans of us have absolutely no intention of going down the stupid ass road of racial denigration.  You don't like it?  Who cares?



  No people like you,make him out to be the victim...Sonny....the only ones that I see that want racial segregation are the negroes....and I could careless which road you take....your nothing to me but a few key strokes....and a source of cheap entertainment..


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2011)

Tank said:


> Blacks and Hispanics make it very clear they don't want to live around other races, and white liberals like to pretend they do.



I live in an interracial neighborhood of working and middle class.  Our kids and grand kids went to school together, we go to church together, we run this town together, we do business together.

Where are you living?  In a barrel?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2011)

hvywgt250 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Obama is not the victim, sonny, only those, who have announced elsewhere on the board at various times that America needs racial segregation again, are the victims.  The thinking Americans of us have absolutely no intention of going down the stupid ass road of racial denigration.  You don't like it?  Who cares?
> ...



So you are one with tank and USAR and the other losers, nothing but stains on the fabric of America.  Time is erasing your stains, sonny.


----------



## Tank (Jul 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > Blacks and Hispanics make it very clear they don't want to live around other races, and white liberals like to pretend they do.
> ...


I live in Los Angeles, you?


----------



## dannyboy (Jul 11, 2011)

Us Army Retired, You are right on the money. David Duke is an extremely intelligent and well versed man. He has not gotten a fair shake by those who do not know his story. You w/ the middle finger, try to put your resume' up against this man. I am sure you cannot come close. Former House of Rep. LA, University Professor w/ Doctorate in History and European Politics, etc. Oh yeah, 30 yrs ago he was a Clansman w/ most of the same beliefs today.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2011)

Tank said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Tank said:
> ...



I have a beach house in Carlsbad, but spend most of the time in the South.

So you live in a barrel in LA and are goofy on race.


----------



## Shogun (Jul 11, 2011)

PoliticalChic said:


> Shogun said:
> 
> 
> > *The Southern Strategy as you identify it never existed, and the concept is firmly embedded in the fantasy-mythology that the left has used with the weak minded.
> ...



the more you post this semi-literate bullshit the funnier you make the punchline of your total disregard for the political history of the Republican Southern Strategy.  

Please, continue digging, stooopid.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 11, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> > Minority-white America, political chic, will not be the America you knew, your parents knew, or your grandparents knew.  It will be the same soil, but a different place altogether.  Already, our currency is devalued.  Our debt is distrusted.  We slip down, down, down, in so many categories.  We will soon slip down to Brazil's level.
> ...



Hmmm....  not so sure about your police work there, Lou.  There's a lot of blame to go around, but most of the big bankers are Jews, not whites, and the current economy was triggered by the "minority mortgage meltdown", i.e., careless mortgages to blacks and Hispanics -- some illegal.  Bush didn't help matters by pushing so hard for all that, and yes, he's a white politician, but no kind white folks need right now.

Duke just might fit the ticket, though!


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 11, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



New York City, seven years.
Washington, D.C., four years.
Philadelphia, two years.

People, races don't live together.  They work together because the law says they must.  As soon as they get the chance, they get away from each other.

Multiracialism is a fucking failure.  NObody actually does it, they just say they do.  The live all-white lives, but point to the one black dude in their frat -- who ALL the others invited to their wedding and made sure to get in the pictures -- as "proof" of how integrated they are.

It's the biggest "Emperor's New Clothes" going!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 11, 2011)

Multiculturalism is a marvelous wonder.  The great majority of Americans under thirty-five believe the racialist thing is the stupidest thing in the world.  You really need to catch up or stay left out.


----------



## JoeB131 (Jul 12, 2011)

I thought this fool went away a long time ago.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2011)

Yeah, but it seems the racialists never seem to completely go away.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 12, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> Hmmm....  not so sure about your police work there, Lou.  There's a lot of blame to go around, but *most of the big bankers are Jews, not whites,* and the current economy was triggered by the "minority mortgage meltdown", i.e., careless mortgages to blacks and Hispanics -- some illegal.  Bush didn't help matters by pushing so hard for all that, and yes, he's a white politician, but no kind white folks need right now.
> 
> Duke just might fit the ticket, though!


Oh.  Jews aren't white people?  Interesting how it always comes back to the Jews with you people.

Duke doesn't have a chance in hell of winning his own state, much less the country.  And, we both know that, but keep deluding yourself.


----------



## random3434 (Jul 12, 2011)

Yeah, David Duke LOVES the whites, unless they are Joooooooooooooooooooooos!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 12, 2011)

Echo Zulu said:


> Yeah, David Duke LOVES the whites, unless they are Joooooooooooooooooooooos!!!!!!!!!!!!!



OMG, the Jooooooossss!!!  They're out to destroy this country, one gentile at a time.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 12, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> Echo Zulu said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, David Duke LOVES the whites, unless they are Joooooooooooooooooooooos!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> ...



Don't worry.  They'll leave a few around to fix their cars.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 12, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Multiculturalism is a marvelous wonder.



I saw that on a poster in a state government building once.

It made me feel kind of creepy, like I was in the middle of "1984" or something.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 12, 2011)

Your head is a 1984 wasteland, William.  Afraid of Jews and other minorities.  What a dork of an attitude.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 15, 2011)

Yeah.  The fact that a black person is 50 times more likely to commit murder than a white person is no reason to think any differently of them.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2011)

Yep, that's what I mean.  Trot out a valid source and cite that can be checked.  Otherwise, we are dealing with another Joyceism.


----------



## hortysir (Jul 15, 2011)

It's actually between 9 and 12 times more often that blacks commit murder.

Black on white crime is 50 times more often than white on black crime.


But WJ being wrong, I'm sure, is more important to you than the actual statistics.
Interracial Rape Statistics
The Color Of Crime


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2011)

hortysir, trot out valid stats, please.  Make sure you make the stats in a historical sense as well, from before the end of slavery until today.  I know that context is important to you.  Factor is as well that blacks to white inverse are about 8:1 to 7:1 in ratio as well.  Let's get some context.


----------



## Tank (Jul 15, 2011)

Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Trends by race


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 15, 2011)

Tank said:


> Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Trends by race



That's a start.


----------



## Tank (Jul 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Tank said:
> 
> 
> > Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Trends by race
> ...


Start to what?


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 16, 2011)

Stats in a vacuum aren't particularly helpful.  Yes, the rate of violent crime committed by blacks is higher than the rate of violent crime committed by whites.  However, blacks tend to victimize other blacks, and whites tend to victimize other whites.  Whites outnumber blacks 72% to 12%.  It's statistically easier for a black person to commit a crime against a white person, *there are a lot more of us.*

But, generally speaking, blacks murder blacks, and whites murder whites.  There is no epidemic of blacks murdering whites, or vice versa, whereas there is an epidemic, IMO, of blacks murdering each other. People tend to stick to their own kind, even when killing.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 16, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> People tend to stick to their own kind, even when killing.



So.  Totally.  Racist.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 16, 2011)

One of the main problems with black crime is that WHITES HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, even if they're not direct victims.  They pay for police, jails, courts, etc.

I say "free us from that burden."

Whites should not bother with crime when it's black-on-black.  Just ignore it.  No police response.  Blacks can set up their own police and pay for it THEMFUCKINGSELVES.

And then they won't be able to claim "racist police"!  Or courts!  Brilliant!


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 16, 2011)

dannyboy said:


> Us Army Retired, You are right on the money. David Duke is an extremely intelligent and well versed man. He has not gotten a fair shake by those who do not know his story. You w/ the middle finger, try to put your resume' up against this man. I am sure you cannot come close. Former House of Rep. LA, University Professor w/ Doctorate in History and European Politics, etc. Oh yeah, 30 yrs ago he was a Clansman w/ most of the same beliefs today.



You talking to me Danny Boy?  

As tempting as it is to put up my resume', there are a few key things that are not on my resume that are automatic trump cards.

- "Never a member of the Ku Klux Klan".
- "Did not lie about military service."



> Senate candidate and Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard David Duke also ran on his Vietnam "war record," claiming he'd participated in rice drops behind enemy lines for the CIA. Real Vietnam veterans exposed him. Duke's only military "service," it turned out, consisted of brief membership in the ROTC at Louisiana State University, where authorities kicked him out when Duke began airing his nutty beliefs.


Fake War Stories Exposed - CBS News

- "Did not march around his respective univeristy wearing Nazi uniforms."
- "Is not a white supremacist".

Having spent significant time in Lousiana and having several family members in Baton Rough, I know Duke's story as well as most.  For instance, I know the LSU ROTC detachment commander pulled Duke in his office and told his actions (wearing a Nazi Uniform on campus) were an embarassment before booting him out.

Duke is such a tool, that even a known criminal, Eddie Edwards trounced him.  If you are from that part of the world, you are either in the idiotic minority that think Duke is some sort of misunderstood hero or the vast majority that think he's a total frigging joke.


----------



## Tank (Jul 16, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> It's statistically easier for a black person to commit a crime against a white person, *there are a lot more of us.*


You are stupid


----------



## random3434 (Jul 16, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> dannyboy said:
> 
> 
> > Us Army Retired, You are right on the money. David Duke is an extremely intelligent and well versed man. He has not gotten a fair shake by those who do not know his story. You w/ the middle finger, try to put your resume' up against this man. I am sure you cannot come close. Former House of Rep. LA, University Professor w/ Doctorate in History and European Politics, etc. Oh yeah, 30 yrs ago he was a Clansman w/ most of the same beliefs today.
> ...



But these idiots won't let FACTS get in the way of wanting him to run for POTUS. 

USAR also has a thread on Sarah Palin running, I wonder between the two, who he will pick? I told him to get one of these, so he doesn't have to make that hard, hard choice:


----------



## geauxtohell (Jul 16, 2011)

Echo Zulu said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > dannyboy said:
> ...



Watching the bigots try and turn Duke into some sort of anti-hero is comical.  

I say again:  Nazi Uniform/stances at LSU.  

Game Over.

Some things you can't come back from.  Outside of White Flight Land NOLA, he can't get elected Dog Catcher.  That much was obvious when Fast Eddie beat him for Governor.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 16, 2011)

Tank said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > It's statistically easier for a black person to commit a crime against a white person, *there are a lot more of us.*
> ...



Tank, ol buddy, you are a fucking moron.  If this is about racial stupidity, you alone by yourself are making the white race the stupidest of earth.  You are exceeded only by USAR and Contumacious as outright stupid on this board.  Heaven help us.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 16, 2011)

David Duke is the antithesis of all that is good with America.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 17, 2011)

Jewish pornography and financial swindling, Mexican invasion and black welfare and crime are "all that is good with America"?

Who knew?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2011)

You are asspompous.  All of that is done by all races, with white Americans here doing most of it.  William, that is why your ideas are laughable.  You mistake hope for fact.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 17, 2011)

Tank said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > It's statistically easier for a black person to commit a crime against a white person, *there are a lot more of us.*
> ...



Wow.  Coming from a person with your superior intellect, this really wounds me.  But, thanks for demonstrating your fundamental inability to understand basic statistics.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2011)

Tank is almost illiterate.  You will have to put it to him in a way he understands, such as "Youz confuzd."


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You mistake hope for fact.



It is the racial egalitarians who mistake hope for fact.  For decades, they've portrayed blacks as doctors and scientists, but the truth is that they are far more likely to be criminals or welfare recipients.  That is mistaking hope for fact.  Nobody likes to think about it because it's too "mean."  But it is true.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2011)

Obama would kick Duke's ass, USAR.  Far more whites are opposed to Duke's racism than to whatever they dislike about Obama.  The president would carry more than 60% of the total vote.


----------



## Lars (Jul 17, 2011)

Tank said:


> Bureau of Justice Statistics Homicide trends in the U.S.: Trends by race



Do you think it is an accident they lump Whites and Hispanics together? I think not. If they stopped categorizing Mexicans, Guatemalans, El Salvadorans and the like who are clearly mixed race with Whites the disparities would be far more glaring between the three groups.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 17, 2011)

Reading what Duke has to say, I think he would be best suited for a position in the Third Reich.

These Jews who run things, who are producing this mental illness - teenage suicide... all these Jewish sicknesses. That's nothing new. The Talmud's full of things like sex with boys and girls.

Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.

The Jews are trying to destroy all other cultures - as a survival mechanism - the only Nazi country in the world is Israel.


----------



## Lars (Jul 17, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> Stats in a vacuum aren't particularly helpful.  Yes, the rate of violent crime committed by blacks is higher than the rate of violent crime committed by whites.  However, blacks tend to victimize other blacks, and whites tend to victimize other whites.  Whites outnumber blacks 72% to 12%.  It's statistically easier for a black person to commit a crime against a white person, *there are a lot more of us.*
> 
> But, generally speaking, blacks murder blacks, and whites murder whites.  There is no epidemic of blacks murdering whites, or vice versa, whereas there is an epidemic, IMO, of blacks murdering each other. People tend to stick to their own kind, even when killing.



I agree, it is statistically easier for a Black to victimize another white. But of the 700,000 or so interracial crimes(Black on White, White on Black), 85% percent of the offenders are Black, and 15% are White. If we are going on pure percentage of the population , the numbers should almost be reversed. 
http://www.colorofcrime.com/colorofcrime2005.pdf


----------



## eots (Jul 17, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet. Apparently Duke was elected in the richest district of Louisiana when he ran for the House Seat that David Vitter held as well as former Governor David Treen. According to the article, Duke will go on a 25 state tour. He will get support I believe and he sure knows how to scare the media to death and they would surely give him media attention. This will be interesting to watch
> 
> 
> David Duke on a Presidential Bid: 'Yes, I Am Considering It' - Garance Franke-Ruta - Politics - The Atlantic
> ...



it does beg the question..who really cares ?


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 17, 2011)

Flopper said:


> These Jews who run things, who are producing this mental illness - teenage suicide... all these Jewish sicknesses. That's nothing new. The Talmud's full of things like sex with boys and girls.
> 
> Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.
> 
> The Jews are trying to destroy all other cultures - as a survival mechanism - the only Nazi country in the world is Israel.



All true!

Duke is the man.  There's a reason they try to smear him to death.  They can't refute his facts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2011)

_New Century Foundation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
New Century Foundation Founded 	1994

Website 	New Century Foundation

The New Century Foundation describes itself as "a 501(c)(3) organization founded in 1994 to study immigration and race relations so as to better understand the consequences of America's increasing diversity. It has been described as *a white supremacist group*.[1] It sponsors publications and books, and holds occasional conferences." From 1994 to 1999 its activities received considerable funding by the Pioneer Fund.[2][3][4]_

The Color of Crime is one of its publications.  Bunch of racist creeps.  Will you little fucking creeps just grow up.  You don't have the numbers, you never will, and if you rise up, you will be put down.

Enough already.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2011)

No one in either significant numbers or significant merit cares.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> > These Jews who run things, who are producing this mental illness - teenage suicide... all these Jewish sicknesses. That's nothing new. The Talmud's full of things like sex with boys and girls.
> ...



Duke is entitled to his opinion, not his own facts.  This why 98% of America thinks you guys are creeps.  Just creepy men in vans.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You don't have the numbers, you never will, and if you rise up, you will be put down.



Ha!

"You will be put down" -- this sounds like a threat to kill whites who seek to defend their race.

But why worry about us "having the numbers" to "rise up"?

You worry about that because you know it's coming.

And maybe it will come to violence.

But who's going to win?  Whites are pretty sleepy now, but just wake up a few of them, and you're fucking toast.  Who's going to pick up a weapon and kill for affirmative action, gay marriage, crack, the inner cities, Mexican cock fighting and socialism?  Fucking nobody, JakeStupid.  Who's going to pick up a gun and kill for white children, neat farms, sunshine, green grass, Christianity, and freedom?  Lots of people.

Keep being afraid.  I love it!


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2011)

To enforce the law when wackos try to disrupt it with violence is not a threat: it is a constitutional and legal requirement.  Go ahead and try it and see what happens.


----------



## Lars (Jul 17, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> _New Century Foundation
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> New Century Foundation Founded 	1994
> 
> ...


I think the fact that you result to insults shows how weak of an argument you have. It is based in emotion, not the facts.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 17, 2011)

Lars said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > _New Century Foundation
> ...



It's *your own material*, and you creeps sling language all day long, *and you you are whining*?  Priceless.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 17, 2011)

eots said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet. Apparently Duke was elected in the richest district of Louisiana when he ran for the House Seat that David Vitter held as well as former Governor David Treen. According to the article, Duke will go on a 25 state tour. He will get support I believe and he sure knows how to scare the media to death and they would surely give him media attention. This will be interesting to watch
> ...


Not just a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents, but two parents without a drop negro or Jewish blood in their veins.  That should certainly appeal to some voters.


----------



## Lars (Jul 18, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lars said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What do you mean, "my material"? Do you think I am the FBI? Are the FBI and Crime Victims part of some grand white supremacist conspiracy to promote lies about disparities in crime rates between? What proof do you have that New Century and the FBI are lying about this?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 18, 2011)

I am saying that (1) you are a white supremacist if you support this junk, and (2) I am saying the venue is automatically condemned because it is a white supremacist organization.  The material is twisted to bad conclusions.


----------



## Lars (Jul 20, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> I am saying that (1) you are a white supremacist if you support this junk, and (2) I am saying the venue is automatically condemned because it is a white supremacist organization.  The material is twisted to bad conclusions.


Well, I am not a white supremacist, I don't Whites to be legally or politically supreme over anyone, I support equal protection under the law. But I am a race realist and recognize that their are objective differences between the races on the aggregate, but I don't think one race is objectively superior to all others, preference is entirely subjective.  I just want to preserve the Indo-European Race and enable policies that sustain Whites Majorities and sustain our cultures in America and Europe.  I support global diversity and self-determination for all people's regardless of race. 

That is a cop out. What is your proof the numbers are lies? Just because the SPLC and ADL throw a couple buzzwords their way, doesn't discount FBI numbers.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 20, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> Keep being afraid.  I love it!



Nobody is afraid of you, socially retarded tool.  We laugh at you.  You and your little friends, in spite of your delusions that people are listening, are nothing more than chew toys here.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 20, 2011)

Lars said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > I am saying that (1) you are a white supremacist if you support this junk, and (2) I am saying the venue is automatically condemned because it is a white supremacist organization.  The material is twisted to bad conclusions.
> ...



"I support global diversity and self-determination for all people's regardless of race."  Too bad that your other words undermine that unsupportable assertion.  I said nothing about numbers, you did.  Yes, you are a racist, regardless of your protestations.

The venue is corrupt, thus the narratives are corrupt and twisted.  The conclusions are worthless.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 20, 2011)

The white supremacists all know that if they rise up, their neighbors will put them down before LEO arrives.

They just like to talk.


----------



## Lars (Jul 21, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lars said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



What have I said that would undermine the assertion that I support nationalism for all peoples? Please, show me an example. And are you now admitting the numbers are true?

Racist is just a subjective and pejorative term, it holds no weight in a debate, it doesn't discount or dismiss anything about crime rates that I have posted. It just shows you have no counter-arguments.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 21, 2011)

Your words undermine your comments about self determination.  You are a racist, and as such, just like Hitler's words, what you say is automatically suspect.  We take your votes at election time, but we never ever let you have a say in local  polity and decision making.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 21, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your words undermine your comments about self determination.  You are a racist, and as such, just like Hitler's words, what you say is automatically suspect.  We take your votes at election time, but we never ever let you have a say in local  polity and decision making.



Who is this "we"?

Racist is a good thing, not a bad thing.  "Racist" just means a person of any race who puts the interest of their race over others.  That is perfectly natural.  

In fact, when blacks do it, it's not called racism but "civil rights"!

Only when whites look out for each other is it called "racism".  

Whites are becoming the minority.  They aren't going to care about being called "racist" much longer.  They are starting to see that it's just a power game that ALL races are playing.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 21, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> Whites are becoming the minority.


Simply not accurate.  In fact, you're not even close.


2010 Census Data - 2010 Census

Whites:  56.3%
Hispanics:  16.3%
Blacks:  12.6%


In other words, there are 4 times as many whites as there are hispanics or blacks in the U.S.


----------



## Tank (Jul 21, 2011)

What were the racial populations like 50 years ago or so?


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 21, 2011)

Tank said:


> What were the racial populations like 50 years ago or so?



Strawman.  William didn't say that minority populations were drastically increasing (actually, the black population has remained relatively stable).  He said that whites were becoming a minority.  His position was patently false.  Whites are not even remotely close to minority status.


----------



## Tank (Jul 21, 2011)

Strawoman, in the 1950's the white population was over 90%, thats a decline.

 Around the year 2040 Hispanics will be the majority in America.


----------



## Lars (Jul 21, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Your words undermine your comments about self determination.  You are a racist, and as such, just like Hitler's words, what you say is automatically suspect.  We take your votes at election time, but we never ever let you have a say in local  polity and decision making.



What words? What proof do you have that I don't support self-determination and nationalism for all people. You need to give an example. 

And what does "racist" mean, and how do I fit the criteria? And how are FBI crime stats suspect because of your subjective categorization of me. How are they even connected.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 21, 2011)

USArmyRetired said:


> Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet. Apparently Duke was elected in the richest district of Louisiana when he ran for the House Seat that David Vitter held as well as former Governor David Treen. According to the article, Duke will go on a 25 state tour. He will get support I believe and he sure knows how to scare the media to death and they would surely give him media attention. This will be interesting to watch
> 
> 
> David Duke on a Presidential Bid: 'Yes, I Am Considering It' - Garance Franke-Ruta - Politics - The Atlantic
> ...



Wow, how will you decide between him and Palin?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 21, 2011)

Lars said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Your words undermine your comments about self determination.  You are a racist, and as such, just like Hitler's words, what you say is automatically suspect.  We take your votes at election time, but we never ever let you have a say in local  polity and decision making.
> ...



Lars, you are using an article that subjectively categorizes the FBI crime statistics, not me.

Let's stay objective here.  Self determination for Swaziland is not the same for its inhabitants as in South Africa or Rhodesia.  You condemn yourself with your own words.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 22, 2011)

catzmeow said:


> William Joyce said:
> 
> 
> > Whites are becoming the minority.
> ...



What Tank said.  Whites are presently the majority, but I said they were BECOMING the minority.  And indeed, they are the minority in four states RIGHT NOW, whereas a decade ago they were not.  The U.S. Census Bureau projects whites as the minority by 2040 in America.  Right now, whites are the minority among new births.

2040 is not far away.

Very close, in fact.


----------



## catzmeow (Jul 22, 2011)

William Joyce said:


> What Tank said.  Whites are presently the majority, but I said they were BECOMING the minority.  And indeed, they are the minority in four states RIGHT NOW, whereas a decade ago they were not.  2040 is not far away.
> 
> Very close, in fact.



There are twice as many whites in this country are there are blacks AND Hispanics.  There are four times as many whites as there are blacks or Hispanics. That's not remotely close to "becoming a minority."



> The U.S. Census Bureau projects whites as the minority by 2040 in America.



Source?



> Right now, whites are the minority among new births.



Source?


----------



## Tank (Jul 22, 2011)

Census Shows Whites are in Minority Among New Births in U.S. - FoxNews.com


----------



## Tank (Jul 22, 2011)

America's Face Is Changing - CBS News


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 22, 2011)

Hispanics are white by Census records.  The whites no where are in danger of losing their civil liberties, other than discriminating against growing minorities.

Wow!  Just as the Constitution wanted.


----------



## Tank (Jul 22, 2011)




----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 22, 2011)

Tank, sorry, bub, you can't discriminate against folks you don't like.


----------



## Tank (Jul 22, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Tank, sorry, bub, you can't discriminate against folks you don't like.


Look at Mr Constitution here telling me I don't have the freedom of association.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 22, 2011)

You have the right of private association, and I am glad you understand that.  You cannot use the law anymore to discriminate, and you will never have that power again.


----------



## William Joyce (Jul 22, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Hispanics are white by Census records.  The whites no where are in danger of losing their civil liberties, other than discriminating against growing minorities.
> 
> Wow!  Just as the Constitution wanted.



Even the individual letters in this post are wrong.  That's quite a feat!


----------



## Tank (Jul 22, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You cannot use the law anymore to discriminate


Sure you can, it's called Affirmative Action.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Jul 22, 2011)

No, it is not.  You will have to do far better than that, bro.


----------



## Tank (Jul 22, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> You have the right of private association, and I am glad you understand that.  You cannot use the law anymore to discriminate,


If I "have the right of private association", then I have the right to discriminate with my private association.


----------



## Lars (Jul 22, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> No, it is not.  You will have to do far better than that, bro.


the definition of discrimination according to dictionary.com
"treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit: racial and religious intolerance and discrimination."

Affirmative Action is making a distinction in favor of or against an individual based on their race; in favor of if they are Black or Hispanic and against if they are Asian or White.


----------



## Wicked Jester (Aug 15, 2011)

Paul/Duke 2012

I could see it happenin'!

They're both nuts so, why not?


----------



## Free Thinker (Aug 15, 2011)

*David DICK would only get the vote of a small group of nutcase racists.  He will never be President.   He will just die a twisted, bitter loser who will be primarily forgotten by history. *


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 15, 2011)

Lars said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > No, it is not.  You will have to do far better than that, bro.
> ...



That is your narrow definiton, unrecognized by law.  That is certainly your right to believe so and sincerely, but you believe both sincerely and wrongly.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Aug 15, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> USArmyRetired said:
> 
> 
> > Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet. Apparently Duke was elected in the richest district of Louisiana when he ran for the House Seat that David Vitter held as well as former Governor David Treen. According to the article, Duke will go on a 25 state tour. He will get support I believe and he sure knows how to scare the media to death and they would surely give him media attention. This will be interesting to watch
> ...



He should fit right in with the Democrats then.


Can you say "Robert Byrd"?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Aug 15, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> He should fit right in with the Democrats then.  Can you say "Robert Byrd"?



The Robert Byrd who repented his sins, stayed with his party, and worked to atone for his ways.  That Robert Byrd?

Compared to Strom Thurmond, Democratic governor of South Carolina, presidential candidate of the uber racist DixieCrats in 1948, changed to the GOP so he would not have to change his racist past, had a black daughter out of wedlock and hid the truth from the world?  That Strom Thurmond?

Take your hypocrisy elsewhere, sonny.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 15, 2011)

Lonestar_logic said:


> geauxtohell said:
> 
> 
> > USArmyRetired said:
> ...



Wow.  You brought up Robert Byrd.  How shocking.

1.)  You do realize that Byrd is dead, right?
2.)  Scroll back to see my response to this typical and much anticipated talking point that was already brought up by another poster.


----------



## geauxtohell (Aug 15, 2011)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > He should fit right in with the Democrats then.  Can you say "Robert Byrd"?
> ...



Yes.  The same Strom Thurmond who brought Caroline in for Reagan.


----------



## PoliticalChic (Aug 24, 2011)

geauxtohell said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> > Hell-boy, this is my fav post of the day! The week!
> ...


----------

