Leftist Nightmare: Black Conservatives Running for Office

[buckeye45_73]

Gasp! Here's the author

He points out that more and more blacks running for political action are conservatives even one who confessed once being a welfare cheat. What is happening here? Are minorities waking up to the fact that Democrats have, for decades, done their best to keep them indebted to them for political gain?

More of this excellent article @ Articles: Leftist Nightmare: Black Conservatives Running for Office

What about the gay conservatives?

Actually, with the black conservative, y'all have to pretend you don't hate his skin color. Dems just don't like his politics.

Gay is not a race. Gay is a sexual perversion.

Hazleton can't help it, he really said the other day, Clarence Thomas was not a real black man.......hazlnut is a racist and a pig....he looks at color, probably to fill his quota..while us conservatives do not

 

[Conservative65]

It will keep them from being slaves to the Democrats

Conservatives always wonder why blacks are too stupid to know why they should be voting Republican.

And so unaware that explains the reason why blacks don't vote Republican.

I wonder why the 95% that do continue to do so with all the good results Democrats have been able to do on their behalf.

You call African Americans slaves- and you believe you know better than 95% of African American voters.

And call a poster a 'stupid negro'

Conservatives always wonder why blacks are too stupid to know why they should be voting Republican.

And so unaware that explains the reason why blacks don't vote Republican.

I said they enslaved themselves.

I know that what they've been voting for hasn't produced very good results. It's easy to tell that by looking at the numbers.

The negro didn't have a problem referring to me as a stupid white boy. You know, I don't care because I know I'm not. Maybe the both of you care about what I said because you know I'm correct.

Maybe I should have used insane. Insane is doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result. Blacks have been voting Democrats heavily for just over 50 years now. Doing so hasn't produced very good results yet they keep doing the same thing. Is it that they don't want to try something else or they just don't realize how things haven't worked out for them with the Democrats. The former would mean insane and the latter would mean incapable.

Uhhhh .. check the record sir .. I dare you to.

Scroll back and see who fired fist. .. YOU DID.

I just wanted you to know that first, you can't insult me .. you don't qualify. :0) Secondly, I can play that insult game game better than you.

That being said, I prefer civil conversation .. conversation that should be able to take place irrespective of labels, political party affiliation, or race. If you were a true student of American history, you would find the political journey of African-Americans to be a fascinating one. It tells the story of strategies of the two major parties. It speaks to the course that both parties took with regards to race in America. They reversed course, and republicans, the party built on anti-slavery, went drastically to the right to 'protect' race .. and democrats / dixiecrats turned left and sought the power of diversity .. not just as a political strategy, but with conscience and humanity.

One of my favorite civil rights heroes is conservative Republican Senator Everett Dirksen. He almost single-handedly brought republicans together to help pass the Civil Rights Bill with one of the most powerful speeches ever delivered.

"The gallery was packed on June 10, 1964, as all one hundred senators were present for the climactic moment of the longest filibuster in Senate history. Late in the morning Everett Dirksen rose from his seat to address the Senate. In poor health, drained from working fourteen-, fifteen-, and sixteen-hour days, his words came quietly. "There are many reasons why cloture should be invoked and a good civil rights measure enacted. It is said that on the night he died, Victor Hugo wrote in his diary substantially this sentiment, 'Stronger than all the armies is an idea whose time has come.' The time has come for equality of opportunity in sharing of government, in education, and in employment. It must not be stayed or denied." After Dirksen spoke for fifteen minutes the motion for a roll call vote for cloture was heard. As each name was read, members of the press and spectators in the gallery kept tally. At 11:15 a.m., Senator John Williams of Delaware replied "aye" to the question. It was the sixty-seventh vote; cloture had passed, opening the way for the Civil Rights bill to be passed. After successfully defeating the eighty-three-day filibuster, Dirksen, when asked how he had become a crusader in this cause, replied, "I am involved in mankind, and whatever the skin, we are all included in mankind." Somewhat anticlimactically, the bill was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964.

That's power. That is what the Republican Party USED to be .. THAT is why black Americans were republicans.

Point being, the Republican Party took the wrong course. It had the hopes and imaginations of a people who had been terrorized in this country for more than 350 years. A people destined to have voice in the future of this nation. It squandered that ADVANTAGE and chose to chase racists instead with the Southern Strategy. No charge for the lesson.

I'd prefer civil argument .. not that you have any chance of winning that either .. you're a republican, you have no chance.

However, I have no problem with the nasty with those who bring it. None.

Your problem is that your argument is stupid .. and you're probably not too happy about some black guy with his cyber boot up your ass. I suggest civil conversation .. or no conversation at all. With your blinders, lack of honesty, and mindfucked brain .. I suggest you run for the latter.

Blacks have voted Democrat for 50 of the 200 years LBJ said he have you doing so. The results of that for blacks is horrendous yet you keep doing it. That's insane and stupid.

You're not capable of kicking your own ass figuratively in cyberspace or literally in real life. I don't worry about you being able to do either one to anyone else, BOY. If you and your 95% of blacks wan't to continue to be stupid and vote for a party that has done you so well, go ahead. Don't come crying to white people to pick up the slack when you can't.

 

[Conservative65]

Gasp! Here's the author

He points out that more and more blacks running for political action are conservatives even one who confessed once being a welfare cheat. What is happening here? Are minorities waking up to the fact that Democrats have, for decades, done their best to keep them indebted to them for political gain?

More of this excellent article @ Articles: Leftist Nightmare: Black Conservatives Running for Office

What about the gay conservatives?

Actually, with the black conservative, y'all have to pretend you don't hate his skin color. Dems just don't like his politics.

Gay is not a race. Gay is a sexual perversion.

Hazleton can't help it, he really said the other day, Clarence Thomas was not a real black man.......hazlnut is a racist and a pig....he looks at color, probably to fill his quota..while us conservatives do not

To Liberals, a black is only truly black if they stay on the Democrat plantation.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why did the Democratic Party split in 1860? Why did the Democratic Party split in 1948? Why did the Democratic Party split on the vote on the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Why do you give Robert Byrd a pass when it comes to what he did related to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You can make all the excuses that he "saw the error of his ways" yet what you can't change is that his ACTIONS occurred.

I don't. Why do you give Barry Goldwater a pass?

Well look at his record, he voted for all Civil Rights legislation except that one.......because he didn't want the feds to tell businesses how they could be run....he was right and now we have to bake cakes for fags.

He voted against it because he considered states rights more important than civil rights and racial equality.

That is the classic argument of the segregationists all the way back to slavery.

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

 

[Conservative65]

Why do you give Robert Byrd a pass when it comes to what he did related to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You can make all the excuses that he "saw the error of his ways" yet what you can't change is that his ACTIONS occurred.

I don't. Why do you give Barry Goldwater a pass?

Well look at his record, he voted for all Civil Rights legislation except that one.......because he didn't want the feds to tell businesses how they could be run....he was right and now we have to bake cakes for fags.

He voted against it because he considered states rights more important than civil rights and racial equality.

That is the classic argument of the segregationists all the way back to slavery.

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Why do you hate the Constitution.

 

[owebo]

Why do you give Robert Byrd a pass when it comes to what he did related to the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You can make all the excuses that he "saw the error of his ways" yet what you can't change is that his ACTIONS occurred.

I don't. Why do you give Barry Goldwater a pass?

Well look at his record, he voted for all Civil Rights legislation except that one.......because he didn't want the feds to tell businesses how they could be run....he was right and now we have to bake cakes for fags.

He voted against it because he considered states rights more important than civil rights and racial equality.

That is the classic argument of the segregationists all the way back to slavery.

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Are you seriously that fucking clueless?

The Constitution is a charter of negative rights against the .gov....

We formed the Republican Party to stop you democrats from enslavimg blacks....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Why is that a nightmare? A black Conservative managed to convince another African American to be a Conservative?
Hell, I am all in favor of Republicans getting African Americans to run for office.

There are 43 African Americans in the House- all Democrat. If Republicans can manage to elect African Americans to the House- I will applaud their efforts.

You can bet all the welfare checks for the remainder of your life, that if a black person gets elected to the House or Senate he /she would NOT be welcomed to the Congressional Black Caucus.

And if he/she is a person of honor, he/she would not want to be.

Was J.C. Watts welcome?

Watts’s victory established several milestones. He was the first black Representative elected from Oklahoma and the first Republican to win the district in 72 years

WATTS, Julius Caesar, Jr. (J. C.) | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

Now ain't that a bitch, the first republican in 72 years to win a district in Oklahoma...was black.....how the fuck did the KKK let this happen? Oh the KKK isn't in the republican party!!!!

1st Republican in 72 years to win a district in Oklahoma??

I'm going to add you to my list of pathological liars.

Reporting this post.... I said THIS district....you purposely misquoted me.......don't lie like that

That's hilarious. Misquoting yourself:

"Now ain't that a bitch, the first republican in 72 years to win a district in Oklahoma."

A district. Not THIS district. You're stupid.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't. Why do you give Barry Goldwater a pass?

Well look at his record, he voted for all Civil Rights legislation except that one.......because he didn't want the feds to tell businesses how they could be run....he was right and now we have to bake cakes for fags.

He voted against it because he considered states rights more important than civil rights and racial equality.

That is the classic argument of the segregationists all the way back to slavery.

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Why do you hate the Constitution.

You don't dispute anything I said. Case closed.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't. Why do you give Barry Goldwater a pass?

Well look at his record, he voted for all Civil Rights legislation except that one.......because he didn't want the feds to tell businesses how they could be run....he was right and now we have to bake cakes for fags.

He voted against it because he considered states rights more important than civil rights and racial equality.

That is the classic argument of the segregationists all the way back to slavery.

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Are you seriously that fucking clueless?

The Constitution is a charter of negative rights against the .gov....

We formed the Republican Party to stop you democrats from enslavimg blacks....

Argue with the other poster. He thinks civil rights should be left up to the states.

 

[Conservative65]

I don't. Why do you give Barry Goldwater a pass?

Well look at his record, he voted for all Civil Rights legislation except that one.......because he didn't want the feds to tell businesses how they could be run....he was right and now we have to bake cakes for fags.

He voted against it because he considered states rights more important than civil rights and racial equality.

That is the classic argument of the segregationists all the way back to slavery.

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Are you seriously that fucking clueless?

The Constitution is a charter of negative rights against the .gov....

We formed the Republican Party to stop you democrats from enslavimg blacks....

He's a Liberal. What do you expect. The Constitution is designed to protect our rights FROM abused by the government. In recent controversial issue like abortion and same sex marriage, those arguing in favor of both of them argued from the point that the government couldn't do with laws what they were doing. They didn't argue that the government was supposed to secure their rights like NYCarbineer claims, they were arguing that the government's law were violating their rights and it should stop.

 

[Conservative65]

Well look at his record, he voted for all Civil Rights legislation except that one.......because he didn't want the feds to tell businesses how they could be run....he was right and now we have to bake cakes for fags.

He voted against it because he considered states rights more important than civil rights and racial equality.

That is the classic argument of the segregationists all the way back to slavery.

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Why do you hate the Constitution.

You don't dispute anything I said. Case closed.

Can't refute a statement that refutes itself. It's already been done by you when you made the error stating it. What you're asking me to do would be like asking me to lock a door behind someone that already locked it. You refuted it for me by making an incorrect statement.

 

[Conservative65]

Well look at his record, he voted for all Civil Rights legislation except that one.......because he didn't want the feds to tell businesses how they could be run....he was right and now we have to bake cakes for fags.

He voted against it because he considered states rights more important than civil rights and racial equality.

That is the classic argument of the segregationists all the way back to slavery.

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Are you seriously that fucking clueless?

The Constitution is a charter of negative rights against the .gov....

We formed the Republican Party to stop you democrats from enslavimg blacks....

Argue with the other poster. He thinks civil rights should be left up to the states.

You think the Constitution is there to secure our rights. That is wrong.

 

[owebo]

Well look at his record, he voted for all Civil Rights legislation except that one.......because he didn't want the feds to tell businesses how they could be run....he was right and now we have to bake cakes for fags.

He voted against it because he considered states rights more important than civil rights and racial equality.

That is the classic argument of the segregationists all the way back to slavery.

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Are you seriously that fucking clueless?

The Constitution is a charter of negative rights against the .gov....

We formed the Republican Party to stop you democrats from enslavimg blacks....

Argue with the other poster. He thinks civil rights should be left up to the states.

I was correcting your ignorance however....

 

[NYcarbineer]

He voted against it because he considered states rights more important than civil rights and racial equality.

That is the classic argument of the segregationists all the way back to slavery.

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Why do you hate the Constitution.

You don't dispute anything I said. Case closed.

Can't refute a statement that refutes itself. It's already been done by you when you made the error stating it. What you're asking me to do would be like asking me to lock a door behind someone that already locked it. You refuted it for me by making an incorrect statement.

You never offered any evidence it's incorrect.

Are you saying it's incorrect to say there's anything in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights?

 

[NYcarbineer]

He voted against it because he considered states rights more important than civil rights and racial equality.

That is the classic argument of the segregationists all the way back to slavery.

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Are you seriously that fucking clueless?

The Constitution is a charter of negative rights against the .gov....

We formed the Republican Party to stop you democrats from enslavimg blacks....

Argue with the other poster. He thinks civil rights should be left up to the states.

I was correcting your ignorance however....

You people are arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to protect rights.

Prove it.

 

[owebo]

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Are you seriously that fucking clueless?

The Constitution is a charter of negative rights against the .gov....

We formed the Republican Party to stop you democrats from enslavimg blacks....

Argue with the other poster. He thinks civil rights should be left up to the states.

I was correcting your ignorance however....

You people are arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to protect rights.

Prove it.

Correct....only we the people do....

Public school?

 

[Conservative65]

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Why do you hate the Constitution.

You don't dispute anything I said. Case closed.

Can't refute a statement that refutes itself. It's already been done by you when you made the error stating it. What you're asking me to do would be like asking me to lock a door behind someone that already locked it. You refuted it for me by making an incorrect statement.

You never offered any evidence it's incorrect.

Are you saying it's incorrect to say there's anything in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights?

I say it's incorrect to say government secures (provides) you with those rights. The Constitution was designed to protect you FROM the government abusing those rights. You make it out as if the government granted (secured them for) them to you. That's not the case.

When the faggots were arguing for same sex marriage, they didn't argue for the government to give them their rights. They argued that government laws were denying them their rights. If that is their claim, they weren't asking for the government to secure something for them but to stop the prevention of something they believed they already had.

Rights are already secured. The government doesn't do that for you. The role of the Constitution is to prevent the government from abusing them and denying you the ability to use them. Due process in the Constitution doesn't grant, secure, or provide you anything. It protects what you already have from being taken away by the government.

 

[Conservative65]

Wow you're dumb......first it's not states rights, it was liberty.....individual rights.
And he's not a commie wanting the.givt to tell him who to hire and fire......maybe you're so racist you need a law before hiring a minority, but we don't need a law, we prefer the best candidate

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Are you seriously that fucking clueless?

The Constitution is a charter of negative rights against the .gov....

We formed the Republican Party to stop you democrats from enslavimg blacks....

Argue with the other poster. He thinks civil rights should be left up to the states.

I was correcting your ignorance however....

You people are arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to protect rights.

Prove it.

That's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that the government can't secure for you something you have and the Constitution protects you FROM the government. At least it used to until Liberals like you started believing it was the government's job to do for you whatever you weren't willing to do for yourselves.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Why do you hate the Constitution.

You don't dispute anything I said. Case closed.

Can't refute a statement that refutes itself. It's already been done by you when you made the error stating it. What you're asking me to do would be like asking me to lock a door behind someone that already locked it. You refuted it for me by making an incorrect statement.

You never offered any evidence it's incorrect.

Are you saying it's incorrect to say there's anything in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights?

I say it's incorrect to say government secures (provides) you with those rights. The Constitution was designed to protect you FROM the government abusing those rights. You make it out as if the government granted (secured them for) them to you. That's not the case.

When the faggots were arguing for same sex marriage, they didn't argue for the government to give them their rights. They argued that government laws were denying them their rights. If that is their claim, they weren't asking for the government to secure something for them but to stop the prevention of something they believed they already had.

Rights are already secured. The government doesn't do that for you. The role of the Constitution is to prevent the government from abusing them and denying you the ability to use them. Due process in the Constitution doesn't grant, secure, or provide you anything. It protects what you already have from being taken away by the government.

Founding document, Declaration of Independence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed....

 

[NYcarbineer]

So slavery should have been left up to the states. And the right of women to vote. And gay rights, etc., etc.

Isn't there something in our founding principles that says that governments are formed to secure our rights? How can a government secure our rights if it doesn't have that jurisdiction and authority?

Are you seriously that fucking clueless?

The Constitution is a charter of negative rights against the .gov....

We formed the Republican Party to stop you democrats from enslavimg blacks....

Argue with the other poster. He thinks civil rights should be left up to the states.

I was correcting your ignorance however....

You people are arguing that the federal government doesn't have the power to protect rights.

Prove it.

That's not what I'm arguing. My argument is that the government can't secure for you something you have and the Constitution protects you FROM the government. At least it used to until Liberals like you started believing it was the government's job to do for you whatever you weren't willing to do for yourselves.

The Constitution IS the government. The Constitution can't protect a black man from being denied equal rights if the federal government doesn't have power over the individual states who would by their own laws in fact deny blacks rights.