Jindal: people are ready for a hostile takeover of D.C.

[Vandalshandle]

About a year before the powerbrokers in LA made a deal with Jindal in exchange for the governor's nomination, Jindal ran for mayor of my little town of Kenner, LA, a suburb of New Orleans, population, 72,000 souls.

He lost.

However, anyone who lives in Louisiana knows that no governor makes decisions in Louisiana. The entire political machine, from the city, through the parish, to the state, is bought and paid for by petrodollars. Nobody could even get elected to mayor of a fishing village in Louisiana without having cut a deal with the folks behind the scenes. At one point, we had four successive Insurance Commissioners under indictment for malfeasance in office. I think I read that the governor that was taking bribes to allow riverboat gambling is finally out of prison. That one had been elected by defeating the opposing candidate, David Duke, Grand Wizard of the KKK. Jindal is nothing but a front man for the people who really make the decisions in Louisiana. Louisiana is the only state that has had an active governor running his administration from a psychiatric hospital (Hughie Long's brother)

 

[Dad2three]

Notice how they dump on the BRONW guy when he's a Republican?

the racist party is the Democrat party...never forget that folks

Conservatives, mainly from the Southern states, today's' GOP base were the Confederates AND Klan leaders/Founders


Conservatives Try to Rewrite Civil Rights History (Again)

Jamelle Bouie April 29, 2013


"The Republican Party that championed civil rights in the mid-to-late 19th century all but abandoned the cause in the beginning of the 20th, as white America turned away from blacks, and left them to suffer at the hands of segregationists and lynch mobs. Key GOP politicians (like President Taft) embarked on a campaign to wash the Republican Party of its connection to blacks, in order to expand its constituency in the white South.

Likewise, the same Democratic Party that advanced white supremacy throughout the same period—and into the New Deal—began to shift in the opposite direction. First as a result of Roosevelt’s domestic programs—which gave Democrats a black constituency for the first time in history—and then as an attempt to win votes in Northern industrial cities, where blacks were migrating in large numbers. That’s not to discount principle—figures like Hubert Humphrey were genuine supporters of black rights, and successfully pushed the Democratic Party to adopt a civil rights plank at the 1948 convention (thus sparking a segregationist revolt)."

 

[Stephanie]

Notice how they dump on the BRONW guy when he's a Republican?

the racist party is the Democrat party...never forget that folks

Conservatives, mainly from the Southern states, today's' GOP base were the Confederates AND Klan leaders/Founders


Conservatives Try to Rewrite Civil Rights History (Again)

Jamelle Bouie April 29, 2013


"The Republican Party that championed civil rights in the mid-to-late 19th century all but abandoned the cause in the beginning of the 20th, as white America turned away from blacks, and left them to suffer at the hands of segregationists and lynch mobs. Key GOP politicians (like President Taft) embarked on a campaign to wash the Republican Party of its connection to blacks, in order to expand its constituency in the white South.

Likewise, the same Democratic Party that advanced white supremacy throughout the same period—and into the New Deal—began to shift in the opposite direction. First as a result of Roosevelt’s domestic programs—which gave Democrats a black constituency for the first time in history—and then as an attempt to win votes in Northern industrial cities, where blacks were migrating in large numbers. That’s not to discount principle—figures like Hubert Humphrey were genuine supporters of black rights, and successfully pushed the Democratic Party to adopt a civil rights plank at the 1948 convention (thus sparking a segregationist revolt)."

ok alright yep, you need to provide a link for all that spew
let me guess? thinkprogress, Salon, mother jones?

 

[Sarah G]

Notice how they dump on the BRONW guy when he's a Republican?

the racist party is the Democrat party...never forget that folks

Yes never forget that lie, folks. That's a whopper.

 

[Kosh]

Jindal: people are ready for a hostile takeover of D.C.

Some people, perhaps – that tiny minority that is the radical right.

Says the far left Obama drone!

 

[Peach]

Notice how they dump on the BRONW guy when he's a Republican?

the racist party is the Democrat party...never forget that folks

Conservatives, mainly from the Southern states, today's' GOP base were the Confederates AND Klan leaders/Founders


Conservatives Try to Rewrite Civil Rights History (Again)

Jamelle Bouie April 29, 2013


"The Republican Party that championed civil rights in the mid-to-late 19th century all but abandoned the cause in the beginning of the 20th, as white America turned away from blacks, and left them to suffer at the hands of segregationists and lynch mobs. Key GOP politicians (like President Taft) embarked on a campaign to wash the Republican Party of its connection to blacks, in order to expand its constituency in the white South.

Likewise, the same Democratic Party that advanced white supremacy throughout the same period—and into the New Deal—began to shift in the opposite direction. First as a result of Roosevelt’s domestic programs—which gave Democrats a black constituency for the first time in history—and then as an attempt to win votes in Northern industrial cities, where blacks were migrating in large numbers. That’s not to discount principle—figures like Hubert Humphrey were genuine supporters of black rights, and successfully pushed the Democratic Party to adopt a civil rights plank at the 1948 convention (thus sparking a segregationist revolt)."

ok alright yep, you need to provide a link for all that spew
let me guess? thinkprogress, Salon, mother jones?

The subject is more complex, Truman, and especially, Eisenhower were the first Presidents to actually fight for desegregation, Eisenhower never gets the credit he deserves:

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow. A National Struggle . The President | PBS

Is PBS acceptable?

 

[blackhawk]

You should inform Staph.

I'm sure can read my post just as people who claim his comment was a call to rally the extremist can.

The problem is that there are people out there who take words seriously. Do I think that Jindal is seriously calling for a vioebt revolution? Not really. But when high profile politicians start throwing around words like 'hostile' when talking about ways to bring change to politics or govt, some people do take them seriously.

Look at the responses in this very thread from some extremists. Another example:

A military coup is just what this country needs. It should have happened when obama changed the rules of engagement.

Liberals are afraid we will turn into Ukraine. Good

You act oh so concerned when someone on the right uses words like hostile takeover afraid someone might take them serious yet when people on the left use inflammatory language you show no such concern or feel the need to pull out the extremist label. As for the quotes you might check out the word sarcasm as I believe that is what you were getting there.

 

[LadyGunSlinger]

You should inform Staph.

I'm sure can read my post just as people who claim his comment was a call to rally the extremist can.

The problem is that there are people out there who take words seriously. Do I think that Jindal is seriously calling for a vioebt revolution? Not really. But when high profile politicians start throwing around words like 'hostile' when talking about ways to bring change to politics or govt, some people do take them seriously.

Look at the responses in this very thread from some extremists. Another example:

A military coup is just what this country needs. It should have happened when obama changed the rules of engagement.

Liberals are afraid we will turn into Ukraine. Good

OMG, ban the word HOSTILE-- God forbid someone uses it in a sentence! Once again we have the far left Kook brigade deciding what words can be used and in what context.. Note they never object when a liberal uses words.. It's selective outrage..

 

[Erand7899]

Louisiana is actually an unhappy marriage between two different states. The Protestant white Republican Christian rednecks in the North, and the black and Catholic democrats in the South. Jindal was elected, and is popular simply because he is white, republican, and not catholic. The majority , which is the north, would vote for a dead republican rather than allow the black democratic south to elect a governor. Jindal is Louisiana's answer to Sarah Palin, except he is not quite as dumb as she is.

This is a white man?

Since when is people from India white?

Do I really have to spell it out to you, Peach? You obviously do not live in the South. Jindal, to a Southerner is white. Nobody in the South is going to consider an African American to be the equivalent of an Indian, or any other race, for that matter.

Damn! You got your decoder ring, didn't you? Apparently though, they didn't include the instructions in grade schooleze, and you can't use it properly. What you ought to try to spell out is where you got the stupid notion that racism is just a Southern thing. It isn't now, and it never was.

Up to the Seventies, Democrats and racism went hand in hand, anywhere that Democrats existed in sufficient numbers to pull it off, and that included every state north and west of the Mason/Dixon line. Northern unions and blue colllar workers were the worst, only outdone by the Jim Crow laws in Democrat controlled Southern states. Those Democrats didn't change their stripes, they just went underground with their racism.

 

[Peach]

This is a white man?

Since when is people from India white?

Do I really have to spell it out to you, Peach? You obviously do not live in the South. Jindal, to a Southerner is white. Nobody in the South is going to consider an African American to be the equivalent of an Indian, or any other race, for that matter.

Damn! You got your decoder ring, didn't you? Apparently though, they didn't include the instructions in grade schooleze, and you can't use it properly. What you ought to try to spell out is where you got the stupid notion that racism is just a Southern thing. It isn't now, and it never was.

Up to the Seventies, Democrats and racism went hand in hand, anywhere that Democrats existed in sufficient numbers to pull it off, and that included every state north and west of the Mason/Dixon line. Northern unions and blue colllar workers were the worst, only outdone by the Jim Crow laws in Democrat controlled Southern states. Those Democrats didn't change their stripes, they just went underground with their racism.

Yes, until the Republican "southern strategy" started, the South was the home of racist Democrats, though the change began in the late 1940s, with the Dixiecrats gradually splitting from the nominally more desegregation Democrats, and no, they didn't all switch to the Republican party. LBJ was racist, but a politician first & foremost, votes were votes.

 

[Lovebears65]

I'd say he's just pandering to the extremists in the GOP base, but it seems that there are nothing but extremists in their base these days. They've taken over the GOP to the extent that a mainstream politician thinks it's normal to call for armed revolution over democratic rule.

Bobby Jindal Says Rebellion Brewing Against Washington

Honestly I am quite surprised our military havent done something .. Obama has screwed with them over and over. Sooner or later someone is going to crack..

And assasinate him you mean? Ya psycho.

No, I mean arrest him. Because they are supposed to protect us from enemies domestic and abroad. To me he is an enemy of the military and to the united states

 

[Stephanie]

man oh man, now they see someone assassinating him from this article

I bet they cared as much when someone tried to really assassinate President Reagan

good grief Sarah...get off the dramatics

 

[Sarah G]

man oh man, now they see someone assassinating him from this article

I bet they cared as much when someone tried to really assassinate President Reagan

good grief

Bull. You should read what she said again.

 

[freedombecki]

I'd say he's just pandering to the extremists in the GOP base, but it seems that there are nothing but extremists in their base these days. They've taken over the GOP to the extent that a mainstream politician thinks it's normal to call for armed revolution over democratic rule.

Bobby Jindal Says Rebellion Brewing Against Washington

Jindal spoke at the annual conference hosted by the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a group led by longtime Christian activist Ralph Reed. Organizers said more than 1,000 evangelical leaders attended the three-day gathering. Republican officials across the political spectrum concede that evangelical voters continue to play a critical role in GOP politics."I can sense right now a rebellion brewing amongst these United States," Jindal said, "where people are ready for a hostile takeover of Washington, D.C., to preserve the American Dream for our children and grandchildren."

Sounds like stuff you hear in the cafes in our county, except Goveernor Jindal has a nicer way of saying it.

 

[Dad2three]

This is a white man?

Since when is people from India white?

Do I really have to spell it out to you, Peach? You obviously do not live in the South. Jindal, to a Southerner is white. Nobody in the South is going to consider an African American to be the equivalent of an Indian, or any other race, for that matter.

Damn! You got your decoder ring, didn't you? Apparently though, they didn't include the instructions in grade schooleze, and you can't use it properly. What you ought to try to spell out is where you got the stupid notion that racism is just a Southern thing. It isn't now, and it never was.

Up to the Seventies, Democrats and racism went hand in hand, anywhere that Democrats existed in sufficient numbers to pull it off, and that included every state north and west of the Mason/Dixon line. Northern unions and blue colllar workers were the worst, only outdone by the Jim Crow laws in Democrat controlled Southern states. Those Democrats didn't change their stripes, they just went underground with their racism.

You need to get off hate talk radio, it's destroying your 'mind'

The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights

The civil rights movement, once a controversial left-wing fringe, has grown deeply embedded into the fabric of our national story. This is a salutary development, but a problematic one for conservatives, who are the direct political descendants of (and, in the case of some of the older members of the movement, the exact same people as) the strident opponents of the civil rights movement. It has thus become necessary for conservatives to craft an alternative story, one that absolves their own ideology of any guilt. The right has dutifully set itself to its task, circulating its convoluted version of history, honing it to the point where it can be repeated by any defensive College Republican in his dorm room. Kevin Williamson’s cover story in National Review is the latest version of what is rapidly congealing into conservatism’s revisionist dogma.

The mainstream, and correct, history of the politics of civil rights is as follows. Southern white supremacy operated out of the Democratic Party beginning in the nineteenth century, but the party began attracting northern liberals, including African-Americans, into an ideologically cumbersome coalition. Over time the liberals prevailed, forcing the Democratic Party to support civil rights, and driving conservative (and especially southern) whites out, where they realigned with the Republican Party.

Williamson crafts a tale in which the Republican Party is and always has been the greatest friend the civil rights cause ever had. The Republican takeover of the white South had absolutely nothing to do with civil rights, the revisionist case proclaims, except insofar as white Southerners supported Republicans because they were more pro-civil rights.

One factoid undergirding this bizarre interpretation is that the partisan realignment obviously took a long time to complete — Southerners still frequently voted Democratic into the seventies and eighties. This proves, according to Williamson, that a backlash against civil rights could not have driven southern whites out of the Democratic Party. “They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow,” he insists.

His story completely ignores the explicit revolt by conservative Southerners against the northern liberal civil rights wing, beginning with Strom Thurmond, who formed a third-party campaign in 1948 in protest against Harry Truman’s support for civil rights. Thurmond received 49 percent of the vote in Louisiana, 72 percent in South Carolina, 80 percent in Alabama, and 87 percent in Mississippi. He later, of course, switched to the Republican Party.


....Williamson concedes, with inadvertently hilarious understatement, that the party “went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress” — that would be the century that passed between Reconstruction and President Eisenhower’s minimalist response to massive resistance in 1957.


...To the extent that the spirit of the all-white, pro-states' rights, rigidly “Constitutionalist” southern Democrats exists at all today, Williamson locates it not in the nearly all-white, pro-states' rights, rigidly “Constitutionalist” southern Republicans, but rather in the current Democratic Party. This is possibly the most mind-boggling claim in Williamson’s essay:T


...BUT conservative Republicans — those represented politically by Goldwater, and intellectually by William F. Buckley and National Review — did oppose the civil rights movement. Buckley wrote frankly about his endorsement of white supremacy: “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.”


More often conservatives argued on grounds of states’ rights, or freedom of property, or that civil rights leaders were annoying hypocrites, or that they had undermined respect for the law.


The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights -- NYMag




Rush Limbaugh and the long, sordid history of pitting whites against blacks in America

Rush Limbaugh and the long, sordid history of pitting whites against blacks in America

 

[Stephanie]

Do I really have to spell it out to you, Peach? You obviously do not live in the South. Jindal, to a Southerner is white. Nobody in the South is going to consider an African American to be the equivalent of an Indian, or any other race, for that matter.

Damn! You got your decoder ring, didn't you? Apparently though, they didn't include the instructions in grade schooleze, and you can't use it properly. What you ought to try to spell out is where you got the stupid notion that racism is just a Southern thing. It isn't now, and it never was.

Up to the Seventies, Democrats and racism went hand in hand, anywhere that Democrats existed in sufficient numbers to pull it off, and that included every state north and west of the Mason/Dixon line. Northern unions and blue colllar workers were the worst, only outdone by the Jim Crow laws in Democrat controlled Southern states. Those Democrats didn't change their stripes, they just went underground with their racism.

You need to get off hate talk radio, it's destroying your 'mind'

The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights

The civil rights movement, once a controversial left-wing fringe, has grown deeply embedded into the fabric of our national story. This is a salutary development, but a problematic one for conservatives, who are the direct political descendants of (and, in the case of some of the older members of the movement, the exact same people as) the strident opponents of the civil rights movement. It has thus become necessary for conservatives to craft an alternative story, one that absolves their own ideology of any guilt. The right has dutifully set itself to its task, circulating its convoluted version of history, honing it to the point where it can be repeated by any defensive College Republican in his dorm room. Kevin Williamson’s cover story in National Review is the latest version of what is rapidly congealing into conservatism’s revisionist dogma.

The mainstream, and correct, history of the politics of civil rights is as follows. Southern white supremacy operated out of the Democratic Party beginning in the nineteenth century, but the party began attracting northern liberals, including African-Americans, into an ideologically cumbersome coalition. Over time the liberals prevailed, forcing the Democratic Party to support civil rights, and driving conservative (and especially southern) whites out, where they realigned with the Republican Party.

Williamson crafts a tale in which the Republican Party is and always has been the greatest friend the civil rights cause ever had. The Republican takeover of the white South had absolutely nothing to do with civil rights, the revisionist case proclaims, except insofar as white Southerners supported Republicans because they were more pro-civil rights.

One factoid undergirding this bizarre interpretation is that the partisan realignment obviously took a long time to complete — Southerners still frequently voted Democratic into the seventies and eighties. This proves, according to Williamson, that a backlash against civil rights could not have driven southern whites out of the Democratic Party. “They say things move slower in the South — but not that slow,” he insists.

His story completely ignores the explicit revolt by conservative Southerners against the northern liberal civil rights wing, beginning with Strom Thurmond, who formed a third-party campaign in 1948 in protest against Harry Truman’s support for civil rights. Thurmond received 49 percent of the vote in Louisiana, 72 percent in South Carolina, 80 percent in Alabama, and 87 percent in Mississippi. He later, of course, switched to the Republican Party.


....Williamson concedes, with inadvertently hilarious understatement, that the party “went through a long dry spell on civil-rights progress” — that would be the century that passed between Reconstruction and President Eisenhower’s minimalist response to massive resistance in 1957.


...To the extent that the spirit of the all-white, pro-states' rights, rigidly “Constitutionalist” southern Democrats exists at all today, Williamson locates it not in the nearly all-white, pro-states' rights, rigidly “Constitutionalist” southern Republicans, but rather in the current Democratic Party. This is possibly the most mind-boggling claim in Williamson’s essay:T


...BUT conservative Republicans — those represented politically by Goldwater, and intellectually by William F. Buckley and National Review — did oppose the civil rights movement. Buckley wrote frankly about his endorsement of white supremacy: “the White community in the South is entitled to take such measures as are necessary to prevail, politically and culturally, in areas in which it does not predominate numerically.”


More often conservatives argued on grounds of states’ rights, or freedom of property, or that civil rights leaders were annoying hypocrites, or that they had undermined respect for the law.


The Conservative Fantasy History of Civil Rights -- NYMag




Rush Limbaugh and the long, sordid history of pitting whites against blacks in America

Rush Limbaugh and the long, sordid history of pitting whites against blacks in America

and you NEED TO stop telling others who and what they need tlisten to and also shoot your damn high horsey
gawd, zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz as if we haven't SEEN all this here before

 

[J.E.D]

I'm sure can read my post just as people who claim his comment was a call to rally the extremist can.

The problem is that there are people out there who take words seriously. Do I think that Jindal is seriously calling for a vioebt revolution? Not really. But when high profile politicians start throwing around words like 'hostile' when talking about ways to bring change to politics or govt, some people do take them seriously.

Look at the responses in this very thread from some extremists. Another example:

Liberals are afraid we will turn into Ukraine. Good

You act oh so concerned when someone on the right uses words like hostile takeover afraid someone might take them serious yet when people on the left use inflammatory language you show no such concern or feel the need to pull out the extremist label. As for the quotes you might check out the word sarcasm as I believe that is what you were getting there.

Nice red herring. Please show me where I have ever failed to criticize a Democrat politician for using violent language. Please show me a quote from a contemporary Democrat politician using similar language and will be glad to condemn them.

And please, don't tell me that you seriously believe this was sarcasm:

A military coup is just what this country needs. It should have happened when obama changed the rules of engagement.

Isn't it time that YOU criticize the extremists in your party?

 

[J.E.D]

I'm sure can read my post just as people who claim his comment was a call to rally the extremist can.

The problem is that there are people out there who take words seriously. Do I think that Jindal is seriously calling for a vioebt revolution? Not really. But when high profile politicians start throwing around words like 'hostile' when talking about ways to bring change to politics or govt, some people do take them seriously.

Look at the responses in this very thread from some extremists. Another example:

Liberals are afraid we will turn into Ukraine. Good

OMG, ban the word HOSTILE-- God forbid someone uses it in a sentence! Once again we have the far left Kook brigade deciding what words can be used and in what context.. Note they never object when a liberal uses words.. It's selective outrage..

It's not the word but the context. Even you aren't too stupid to see that.

 

[Peach]

The problem is that there are people out there who take words seriously. Do I think that Jindal is seriously calling for a vioebt revolution? Not really. But when high profile politicians start throwing around words like 'hostile' when talking about ways to bring change to politics or govt, some people do take them seriously.

Look at the responses in this very thread from some extremists. Another example:

OMG, ban the word HOSTILE-- God forbid someone uses it in a sentence! Once again we have the far left Kook brigade deciding what words can be used and in what context.. Note they never object when a liberal uses words.. It's selective outrage..

It's not the word but the context. Even you aren't too stupid to see that.

Jindal is a first generation American, and lectures on the "American dream". He converted to Christianity less than 30 years ago, is he going to lecture on the life of Christ also? Not impressive, a politician, and not a wise one, thus far.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'd say he's just pandering to the extremists in the GOP base, but it seems that there are nothing but extremists in their base these days. They've taken over the GOP to the extent that a mainstream politician thinks it's normal to call for armed revolution over democratic rule.

Bobby Jindal Says Rebellion Brewing Against Washington

Jindal spoke at the annual conference hosted by the Faith and Freedom Coalition, a group led by longtime Christian activist Ralph Reed. Organizers said more than 1,000 evangelical leaders attended the three-day gathering. Republican officials across the political spectrum concede that evangelical voters continue to play a critical role in GOP politics."I can sense right now a rebellion brewing amongst these United States," Jindal said, "where people are ready for a hostile takeover of Washington, D.C., to preserve the American Dream for our children and grandchildren."

-----------------------------------------

What you call extremists today, used to be known as the Silent Majority.

Federal Givaway programs and the Mexican Invasion may have reduced their percentage...but they are going to be silent no more.

The "Silent Majority" is the working class, the middle class and poor working class. This group has seen "The American Dream" disappear before their very eyes. Jobs shipped off-shore, flat wages for 30 plus years and upper mobility on the decline. This has all happened under several different presidents and congresses from both parties. The US is becoming a third rate nation with a disappearing middle class.