Democrats hate Carson because he is black

[Faun]

When was Powell running against Clinton? I don't recall Powell ever running against anyone.

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

Huh? You said...

"YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices."

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

Despute what? Your hypothetical that Democrats wouldn't elect a black in 2000? It's not possible to prove they would or would not have.

REally? Obviously I meant, "would have been". You really could't figure that out from the context?


My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

Like anyone is supposed to know you meant Powell wasn't running against Clinton when you said he was.

Yes.

also.

My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

No. Readers can only go by what you write. If you mean something other than what you write, don't expect others to know you meant something else.

And I see nothing to indicate the right will elect a black Republican as president when they struggle just to elect them to Congress. There hasn't been a single black Republican governor since Reconstruction.

 

[Correll]

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

Huh? You said...

"YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices."

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

Despute what? Your hypothetical that Democrats wouldn't elect a black in 2000? It's not possible to prove they would or would not have.

REally? Obviously I meant, "would have been". You really could't figure that out from the context?


My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

Like anyone is supposed to know you meant Powell wasn't running against Clinton when you said he was.

Yes.

also.

My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

No. Readers can only go by what you write. If you mean something other than what you write, don't expect others to know you meant something else.

And I see nothing to indicate the right will elect a black Republican as president when they struggle just to elect them to Congress. There hasn't been a single black Republican governor since Reconstruction.

And as I said, similar things could have been said about the Dems in 2000.

YOu are just repeating your initial claim without addressing my counter points.

 

[Faun]

You want to read up on where the Christian Right was on Colin Powell back in 96:

Q UESTION OF THE M ONTH
Where does the religious right
stand on Colin Powell?

Powell's rhetoric appeals to the Religious Right. "I have the moral fortitude" he said, "and the blessings of a Christian education and Christian upbringing and the blessings of a strong moral family." And, although Powell wrote in his book, My American Journey, that he is "troubled by the passion of those on the extreme right who seem to claim divine wisdom on political as well as spiritual matters," he has responded positively to the Christian Coalition. "I am totally supportive of their mission," he said. "I think they should be applauded for their efforts to make America shape up again."

Ralph Reed responded that Powell has "shown a real evolution" in his thinking. "He agreed with many of the things we were promoting — traditional family values, school choice and things of that nature."

However, in an effort to check growing support for Powell among conservative Christians, Gary Bauer, who heads Family Research Council, sent a fax to 5,000 conservative leaders warning that "the current flirtation with Colin Powell as the 1996 GOP Presidential nominee has gone far enough."

Paul Weyrich of the Free Congress Foundation said, "If [Powell] should get the Republican nomination it would be as if Ronald Reagan never lived and Nelson Rockefeller never died."

In its October 1995 newsletter, The Capitol Hill Prayer Alert wrote: "Nothing underscores the need for strong conservative, Christian leaders more than the political phenomena [sic] of retired Army General Colin Powell. While Powell is brazenly pro-abortion, anti-school prayer, pro-gun control, anti-death penalty, pro-affirmative action, is unwilling to commit to 'no-new-taxes', and unashamedly criticizes conservative Christians, preeminent conservative leaders swoon over him."

"His positions," the group concludes, "are anathema to Bible-believing Christians...A Bill Clinton reelection or a Colin Powell presidency (Republican or Independent) will spell disaster for America."

Conservative Christians who vote only for anti-abortion candidates would reject Powell. However, in recent national elections, abortion took a back seat to the economy and other issues.

I don't need to read up on it, I lived though it.

Yes, some of the hard core Pro-lifers, especially among the leadership was against Powell.

On the other hand, you can see by the level of their concern, that they thought he was a real contender.

Eventually the Colin Powell's of the world will take over the GOP.

I doubt that. Moderate is not the trend on either side, for the foreseeable future.

Huh? Which Republican candidate is more moderate than Trump?

Bush for one.

Aside from your opinion?

On the Crowdpac scale:

Trump: 1.5C
Bush: 4.9C

2016 Presidential Candidates and Polls on Crowdpac

 

[Faun]

Huh? You said...

"YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices."

Despute what? Your hypothetical that Democrats wouldn't elect a black in 2000? It's not possible to prove they would or would not have.

REally? Obviously I meant, "would have been". You really could't figure that out from the context?


My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

Like anyone is supposed to know you meant Powell wasn't running against Clinton when you said he was.

Yes.

also.

My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

No. Readers can only go by what you write. If you mean something other than what you write, don't expect others to know you meant something else.

And I see nothing to indicate the right will elect a black Republican as president when they struggle just to elect them to Congress. There hasn't been a single black Republican governor since Reconstruction.

And as I said, similar things could have been said about the Dems in 2000.

YOu are just repeating your initial claim without addressing my counter points.

Your counterpoints were that Democrats came close to electing a black a few elections earlier and that Colin Powell faired well on a [non-linked] exit poll where he wasn't running against Clinton (after saying he ran against Clinton).

i.e., you have conjecture and hypotheticals, not counterpoints.

 

[Correll]

I don't need to read up on it, I lived though it.

Yes, some of the hard core Pro-lifers, especially among the leadership was against Powell.

On the other hand, you can see by the level of their concern, that they thought he was a real contender.

Eventually the Colin Powell's of the world will take over the GOP.

I doubt that. Moderate is not the trend on either side, for the foreseeable future.

Huh? Which Republican candidate is more moderate than Trump?

Bush for one.

Aside from your opinion?

On the Crowdpac scale:

Trump: 1.5C
Bush: 4.9C

2016 Presidential Candidates and Polls on Crowdpac

Sounds like a flawed scale. Anyone who does not want to deport the illegals is in effect supporting the dems/libs on all other issues despite what their stated positions are.


For the demographic shift they represent will end the GOP ability to implement any conservative policies.

 

[Correll]

REally? Obviously I meant, "would have been". You really could't figure that out from the context?


My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

Like anyone is supposed to know you meant Powell wasn't running against Clinton when you said he was.

Yes.

also.

My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

No. Readers can only go by what you write. If you mean something other than what you write, don't expect others to know you meant something else.

And I see nothing to indicate the right will elect a black Republican as president when they struggle just to elect them to Congress. There hasn't been a single black Republican governor since Reconstruction.

And as I said, similar things could have been said about the Dems in 2000.

YOu are just repeating your initial claim without addressing my counter points.

Your counterpoints were that Democrats came close to electing a black a few elections earlier and that Colin Powell faired well on a [non-linked] exit poll where he wasn't running against Clinton (after saying he ran against Clinton).

i.e., you have conjecture and hypotheticals, not counterpoints.

NOpe. I can see that you refuse to honestly continue the conversation.

Which is the norm for libs when the Myth of the Racist GOP is seriously challenged.

 

[NYcarbineer]

You lie. Powell is pro-choice.

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

When was Powell running against Clinton? I don't recall Powell ever running against anyone.

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

You've committed yourself to a belief in the indisputability of polls.

No, I have not.

I have supported the polling with my personal observations and discussions with strong Powell supporters and my analysis on the political situation of the time.


THe high level of support for POwell within and without the Republican Party in the 96 election is a matter of historical record.

If this historical reality clashes with your opinion of the Republican Party, than it is your opinion that needs adjusted, for the historical reality is not subject to change.

You have taken the position that the GOP needs to move to the left to compete with the Democrats,

and you have used the theoretical success of Colin Powell from 20 years ago as the primary piece of evidence to support your opinion.

You should probably be arguing with your RW pals, and not me.

 

[Faun]

Eventually the Colin Powell's of the world will take over the GOP.

I doubt that. Moderate is not the trend on either side, for the foreseeable future.

Huh? Which Republican candidate is more moderate than Trump?

Bush for one.

Aside from your opinion?

On the Crowdpac scale:

Trump: 1.5C
Bush: 4.9C

2016 Presidential Candidates and Polls on Crowdpac

Sounds like a flawed scale. Anyone who does not want to deport the illegals is in effect supporting the dems/libs on all other issues despite what their stated positions are.


For the demographic shift they represent will end the GOP ability to implement any conservative policies.

Your opinion is noted. Doesn't mean anything, but it's noted.

 

[Faun]

Like anyone is supposed to know you meant Powell wasn't running against Clinton when you said he was.

Yes.

also.

My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

No. Readers can only go by what you write. If you mean something other than what you write, don't expect others to know you meant something else.

And I see nothing to indicate the right will elect a black Republican as president when they struggle just to elect them to Congress. There hasn't been a single black Republican governor since Reconstruction.

And as I said, similar things could have been said about the Dems in 2000.

YOu are just repeating your initial claim without addressing my counter points.

Your counterpoints were that Democrats came close to electing a black a few elections earlier and that Colin Powell faired well on a [non-linked] exit poll where he wasn't running against Clinton (after saying he ran against Clinton).

i.e., you have conjecture and hypotheticals, not counterpoints.

NOpe. I can see that you refuse to honestly continue the conversation.

Which is the norm for libs when the Myth of the Racist GOP is seriously challenged.

Sure. I can only go by what you say. Perhaps you again said something you didn't mean; but that's what you said.

 

[Correll]

Your assumption that everyone who is religious is a one issue pro-life voter is just an example of your lack of understanding of people who are different than you.

YOu also have to consider that he was running against Bill Clinton, so it would have been a choice between a Pro-choice Republican who might appoint Justices who would do their jobs, and Bill Clinton who would use a litmus test to make sure to appoint pro-abortion activist Justices. (from the POV of a social conservative considering Powell)


You are the one trying to rewrite history to fit your biases and assumptions. I am citing historical facts.

DO you have anything to say about the historical facts other than to just denial them, sorry, I meant deny them?


Here. SOme more.

"Despite not standing in the race, Powell won the Republican New Hampshire Vice-Presidential primary on write-in votes.[42]"

When was Powell running against Clinton? I don't recall Powell ever running against anyone.

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

You've committed yourself to a belief in the indisputability of polls.

No, I have not.

I have supported the polling with my personal observations and discussions with strong Powell supporters and my analysis on the political situation of the time.


THe high level of support for POwell within and without the Republican Party in the 96 election is a matter of historical record.

If this historical reality clashes with your opinion of the Republican Party, than it is your opinion that needs adjusted, for the historical reality is not subject to change.

You have taken the position that the GOP needs to move to the left to compete with the Democrats,

and you have used the theoretical success of Colin Powell from 20 years ago as the primary piece of evidence to support your opinion.

You should probably be arguing with your RW pals, and not me.

My position is that the non-theoretical support for Colin Powell in 96 shows that Faun's claim that the GOP is not prepared to elect a candidate that happens to be black is not true (ie Ben Carson)

If you think that Colin Powell's high level of support was because of, instead of despite his moderate views, then you are welcome to make and defend that position that you dishonestly assigned to me.

Your failed attempts at cuteness does not hide the fact that you are running from truths that dispute your view of reality.

 

[Correll]

Yes.

also.

My hypothetical was that Democrats WOULD have elected a black in 2000, and that using your rule of thumb that because they hadn't that meant they wouldn't was nonsense.

No. Readers can only go by what you write. If you mean something other than what you write, don't expect others to know you meant something else.

And I see nothing to indicate the right will elect a black Republican as president when they struggle just to elect them to Congress. There hasn't been a single black Republican governor since Reconstruction.

And as I said, similar things could have been said about the Dems in 2000.

YOu are just repeating your initial claim without addressing my counter points.

Your counterpoints were that Democrats came close to electing a black a few elections earlier and that Colin Powell faired well on a [non-linked] exit poll where he wasn't running against Clinton (after saying he ran against Clinton).

i.e., you have conjecture and hypotheticals, not counterpoints.

NOpe. I can see that you refuse to honestly continue the conversation.

Which is the norm for libs when the Myth of the Racist GOP is seriously challenged.

Sure. I can only go by what you say. Perhaps you again said something you didn't mean; but that's what you said.

You play dumb poorly.

 

[francoHFW]

Totally brainwashed out of your tiny little mind.

NOpe. My point stands.

I am using the word as it has been used for quite some time.

Insulting me is not a challenge to my logic, it is a logical fallacy.

Is that all you have?

Your new Rush WHATEVER definition is ridiculous double talk.

Haven't listed to Rush in years. My definition is based on the way I see the word used.

If it is ridiculous double talk, then ask yourself why you libs did that.

As if it's not one big propaganda service lol...brought to you by 5 or 6 greedy idiot lying billionaires and the dupes.

Your remark doesn't make a lot of sense.

My point stands. You libs have redefined the word over the last several years.

Deal with it, racist.

A racist thinks some races are inferior to his, and discriminates against. WTF is your definition ferchrissake?

 

[francoHFW]

When was Powell running against Clinton? I don't recall Powell ever running against anyone.

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

You've committed yourself to a belief in the indisputability of polls.

No, I have not.

I have supported the polling with my personal observations and discussions with strong Powell supporters and my analysis on the political situation of the time.


THe high level of support for POwell within and without the Republican Party in the 96 election is a matter of historical record.

If this historical reality clashes with your opinion of the Republican Party, than it is your opinion that needs adjusted, for the historical reality is not subject to change.

You have taken the position that the GOP needs to move to the left to compete with the Democrats,

and you have used the theoretical success of Colin Powell from 20 years ago as the primary piece of evidence to support your opinion.

You should probably be arguing with your RW pals, and not me.

My position is that the non-theoretical support for Colin Powell in 96 shows that Faun's claim that the GOP is not prepared to elect a candidate that happens to be black is not true (ie Ben Carson)

If you think that Colin Powell's high level of support was because of, instead of despite his moderate views, then you are welcome to make and defend that position that you dishonestly assigned to me.

Your failed attempts at cuteness does not hide the fact that you are running from truths that dispute your view of reality.

We'll see when the GOP nominates a black lol...

 

[Faun]

No. Readers can only go by what you write. If you mean something other than what you write, don't expect others to know you meant something else.

And I see nothing to indicate the right will elect a black Republican as president when they struggle just to elect them to Congress. There hasn't been a single black Republican governor since Reconstruction.

And as I said, similar things could have been said about the Dems in 2000.

YOu are just repeating your initial claim without addressing my counter points.

Your counterpoints were that Democrats came close to electing a black a few elections earlier and that Colin Powell faired well on a [non-linked] exit poll where he wasn't running against Clinton (after saying he ran against Clinton).

i.e., you have conjecture and hypotheticals, not counterpoints.

NOpe. I can see that you refuse to honestly continue the conversation.

Which is the norm for libs when the Myth of the Racist GOP is seriously challenged.

Sure. I can only go by what you say. Perhaps you again said something you didn't mean; but that's what you said.

You play dumb poorly.

Guess I'll have to work harder to get as good at it as you.

 

[Correll]

NOpe. My point stands.

I am using the word as it has been used for quite some time.

Insulting me is not a challenge to my logic, it is a logical fallacy.

Is that all you have?

Your new Rush WHATEVER definition is ridiculous double talk.

Haven't listed to Rush in years. My definition is based on the way I see the word used.

If it is ridiculous double talk, then ask yourself why you libs did that.

As if it's not one big propaganda service lol...brought to you by 5 or 6 greedy idiot lying billionaires and the dupes.

Your remark doesn't make a lot of sense.

My point stands. You libs have redefined the word over the last several years.

Deal with it, racist.

A racist thinks some races are inferior to his, and discriminates against. WTF is your definition ferchrissake?

That's really, really old school.

THat meaning hasn't been used in years, maybe decades.

Don't play dumb with me.

Racist is any white who disagrees with or criticizes a black.

That's the meaning you libs have been using to slam US cons with over the last 8 years, and we have learned our lesson.

Now, you don't get to play double standards, you lib jerk.

 

[Correll]

Obviously I was not claiming that Powell actually ran against Clinton. Don't be a dishonest jerk.

I made my point above.

If you cannot dispute it, then admit that I am right.

You've committed yourself to a belief in the indisputability of polls.

No, I have not.

I have supported the polling with my personal observations and discussions with strong Powell supporters and my analysis on the political situation of the time.


THe high level of support for POwell within and without the Republican Party in the 96 election is a matter of historical record.

If this historical reality clashes with your opinion of the Republican Party, than it is your opinion that needs adjusted, for the historical reality is not subject to change.

You have taken the position that the GOP needs to move to the left to compete with the Democrats,

and you have used the theoretical success of Colin Powell from 20 years ago as the primary piece of evidence to support your opinion.

You should probably be arguing with your RW pals, and not me.

My position is that the non-theoretical support for Colin Powell in 96 shows that Faun's claim that the GOP is not prepared to elect a candidate that happens to be black is not true (ie Ben Carson)

If you think that Colin Powell's high level of support was because of, instead of despite his moderate views, then you are welcome to make and defend that position that you dishonestly assigned to me.

Your failed attempts at cuteness does not hide the fact that you are running from truths that dispute your view of reality.

We'll see when the GOP nominates a black lol...

And you really didn't address anything I said, so,

 

[Faun]

You've committed yourself to a belief in the indisputability of polls.

No, I have not.

I have supported the polling with my personal observations and discussions with strong Powell supporters and my analysis on the political situation of the time.


THe high level of support for POwell within and without the Republican Party in the 96 election is a matter of historical record.

If this historical reality clashes with your opinion of the Republican Party, than it is your opinion that needs adjusted, for the historical reality is not subject to change.

You have taken the position that the GOP needs to move to the left to compete with the Democrats,

and you have used the theoretical success of Colin Powell from 20 years ago as the primary piece of evidence to support your opinion.

You should probably be arguing with your RW pals, and not me.

My position is that the non-theoretical support for Colin Powell in 96 shows that Faun's claim that the GOP is not prepared to elect a candidate that happens to be black is not true (ie Ben Carson)

If you think that Colin Powell's high level of support was because of, instead of despite his moderate views, then you are welcome to make and defend that position that you dishonestly assigned to me.

Your failed attempts at cuteness does not hide the fact that you are running from truths that dispute your view of reality.

We'll see when the GOP nominates a black lol...

And you really didn't address anything I said, so,

Yes, it does. Your whole contention rests on the notion that Republicans exhibited the ability to elect a black based on a poll of a imaginary race; when in real races, the right rarely elects any blacks to Congress, no less the White House.

Franco's perfect succinctness sumed the idiocy of that point.

 

[francoHFW]

Your new Rush WHATEVER definition is ridiculous double talk.

Haven't listed to Rush in years. My definition is based on the way I see the word used.

If it is ridiculous double talk, then ask yourself why you libs did that.

As if it's not one big propaganda service lol...brought to you by 5 or 6 greedy idiot lying billionaires and the dupes.

Your remark doesn't make a lot of sense.

My point stands. You libs have redefined the word over the last several years.

Deal with it, racist.

A racist thinks some races are inferior to his, and discriminates against. WTF is your definition ferchrissake?

That's really, really old school.

THat meaning hasn't been used in years, maybe decades.

Don't play dumb with me.

Racist is any white who disagrees with or criticizes a black.

That's the meaning you libs have been using to slam US cons with over the last 8 years, and we have learned our lesson.

Now, you don't get to play double standards, you lib jerk.

Hilarious.

 

[Correll]

No, I have not.

I have supported the polling with my personal observations and discussions with strong Powell supporters and my analysis on the political situation of the time.


THe high level of support for POwell within and without the Republican Party in the 96 election is a matter of historical record.

If this historical reality clashes with your opinion of the Republican Party, than it is your opinion that needs adjusted, for the historical reality is not subject to change.

You have taken the position that the GOP needs to move to the left to compete with the Democrats,

and you have used the theoretical success of Colin Powell from 20 years ago as the primary piece of evidence to support your opinion.

You should probably be arguing with your RW pals, and not me.

My position is that the non-theoretical support for Colin Powell in 96 shows that Faun's claim that the GOP is not prepared to elect a candidate that happens to be black is not true (ie Ben Carson)

If you think that Colin Powell's high level of support was because of, instead of despite his moderate views, then you are welcome to make and defend that position that you dishonestly assigned to me.

Your failed attempts at cuteness does not hide the fact that you are running from truths that dispute your view of reality.

We'll see when the GOP nominates a black lol...

And you really didn't address anything I said, so,

Yes, it does. Your whole contention rests on the notion that Republicans exhibited the ability to elect a black based on a poll of a imaginary race; when in real races, the right rarely elects any blacks to Congress, no less the White House.

Franco's perfect succinctness sumed the idiocy of that point.

There is nothing idiotic about considering a high level of support as demonstrated by numerous polls and personal observation to be a demonstration of willingness.


YOu libs are just desperate to hold on to your fantasy of the GOP as Evul Racist.

 

[Correll]

Haven't listed to Rush in years. My definition is based on the way I see the word used.

If it is ridiculous double talk, then ask yourself why you libs did that.

As if it's not one big propaganda service lol...brought to you by 5 or 6 greedy idiot lying billionaires and the dupes.

Your remark doesn't make a lot of sense.

My point stands. You libs have redefined the word over the last several years.

Deal with it, racist.

A racist thinks some races are inferior to his, and discriminates against. WTF is your definition ferchrissake?

That's really, really old school.

THat meaning hasn't been used in years, maybe decades.

Don't play dumb with me.

Racist is any white who disagrees with or criticizes a black.

That's the meaning you libs have been using to slam US cons with over the last 8 years, and we have learned our lesson.

Now, you don't get to play double standards, you lib jerk.

Hilarious.

Thanks.

Mac has made the case better than I in the rest of the thread.

But yes.



You libs made the rules and we are just playing by them.

What's that line? DO hate the player, hate the game?

This game is your game.