Perspective: How It All Happened

[bendog]

jmo, but the entire thread is skewed. I don't see how the gop is more, or less, racist that the democratic party. Race is a factor in south side chicago elections and in the miss. delta. Whites need not apply. And that's fine. Neither my city nor Atl are likely to have a white mayor again. And that's fine too. People have a right to be bigots or to vote for someone for any reason. And, there's plenty of good reasons when political appointments are made, or employees hired, or students admitted to want a wide social diversity.

Many non-racist white southerners resent northern politicians telling them there must be minority maj districts gerrymandered and approved by the DOJ. The problem for blacks and the gop in the South is really simple. Nobody's gonna win a state wide race, even in Miss where blacks are about 1/3 of the population, without saying they believe every vote should be equal, and dividing up districts just to make minority maj districts is not right.

The ugliness comes in when someone plays the race card, as happened in Tenn when Harold Ford Jr. ran against Corker. But chicago's had some racially devisive mayoral elections, and so has NYC.

ps, yeah JFK would fit. But by God he'd have drones bombing the crap out of those bastards, and hoover would be on your party line. (-:

 

[NYcarbineer]

Eisenhower nationalizing the NG in Little Rock, Kennedy using federal marshalls, and LBJ in effect saying to the segregationists, "Lissen up, fuckheads, you are going to change or you are going to have the federal government all over your ass for the rest of your miserable worthless lives," all of which created the necessary change. The Civil Rights Act was the lynch pin with the full force and commitment of the feebs behind it.

The worthless race haters have not forgotten, not forgiven, and are still failing to rewrite the history their way.

I wonder what would have happened to MLK and his marching if Eisenhower hadn't passed those bills?
PS....I consider Martin Luther King a great man.

Where's the Eisenhower wing of the Republican Party today?

Ok, so how long will this question have to go unanswered before we can reasonably confirm that there is no Eisenhower wing of the Republican Party today, and with that put an end to any false comparisons made between Ike's party and the modern GOP?

24 hours? More? Less?

 

[bendog]

There's no Eisenhower wing on several fronts. Ike thought 90% marginal rates were ok. Ike had no problem with the feds inceasing control over states, though it's gone so far now that I think he'd be more a states rights kind of guy.

raciists exist. the tea partys have racist components. Bushjr for all his warts went out of his way to respect American muslims. Neither he nor Romney had any desire to resegregate the military.

 

[Bfgrn]

I wonder what would have happened to MLK and his marching if Eisenhower hadn't passed those bills?
PS....I consider Martin Luther King a great man.

Where's the Eisenhower wing of the Republican Party today?

Ok, so how long will this question have to go unanswered before we can reasonably confirm that there is no Eisenhower wing of the Republican Party today, and with that put an end to any false comparisons made between Ike's party and the modern GOP?

24 hours? More? Less?

I can give it to you now...

The United States of America was founded on Liberal principals...

I continue to hear over and over the argument from the right that today's Liberals have changed; they no longer share the Liberal ideals of our founding fathers...WRONG...

And...I continue to hear over and over the argument from the right that the Republican Party HASN'T changed..WRONG...AGAIN...

Today's GOP was hijacked by the far right AND the far left.

The neoconservatives came from the far LEFT...yet they feel right at home with the far right theocrats...

There's an old saying..."Robins and Blue Jays don't nest together"

HERE is what the Republican Party USED to stand for...

Excerpt from:
Republican Party Platform of 1956
August 20, 1956


Our Government was created by the people for all the people, and it must serve no less a purpose.

The Republican Party was formed 100 years ago to preserve the Nation's devotion to these ideals.

On its Centennial, the Republican Party again calls to the minds of all Americans the great truth first spoken by Abraham Lincoln: "The legitimate object of Government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. But in all that people can individually do as well for themselves, Government ought not to interfere."

Our great President Dwight D. Eisenhower has counseled us further: "In all those things which deal with people, be liberal, be human. In all those things which deal with people's money, or their economy, or their form of government, be conservative.

"We shall ever build anew, that our children and their children, without distinction because of race, creed or color, may know the blessings of our free land.

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs-expansion of social security-broadened coverage in unemployment insurance - improved housing- and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.

Labor
"Under the Republican Administration, as our country has prospered, so have its people. This is as it should be, for as President Eisenhower said: "Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this country...they are America."

The Eisenhower Administration has brought to our people the highest employment, the highest wages and the highest standard of living ever enjoyed by any nation. Today there are nearly 67 million men and women at work in the United States, 4 million more than in 1952. Wages have increased substantially over the past 3 1/2 years; but, more important, the American wage earner today can buy more than ever before for himself and his family because his pay check has not been eaten away by rising taxes and soaring prices.

The record of performance of the Republican Administration on behalf of our working men and women goes still further. The Federal minimum wage has been raised for more than 2 million workers. Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million workers and the benefits raised for 6 1/2 million. The protection of unemployment insurance has been brought to 4 million additional workers. There have been increased workmen's compensation benefits for longshoremen and harbor workers, increased retirement benefits for railroad employees, and wage increases and improved welfare and pension plans for federal employees.

In addition, the Eisenhower Administration has enforced more vigorously and effectively than ever before, the laws which protect the working standards of our people.

Workers have benefited by the progress which has been made in carrying out the programs and principles set forth in the 1952 Republican platform. All workers have gained and unions have grown in strength and responsibility, and have increased their membership by 2 millions.

Furthermore, the process of free collective bargaining has been strengthened by the insistence of this Administration that labor and management settle their differences at the bargaining table without the intervention of the Government. This policy has brought to our country an unprecedented period of labor-management peace and understanding...

Republican action created the Department of Health, Education and Welfare as the first new Federal department in 40 years, to raise the continuing consideration of these problems for the first time to the highest council of Government, the President's Cabinet.... We have supported the distribution of free vaccine to protect millions of children against dreaded polio.

Republican leadership has enlarged Federal assistance for construction of hospitals, emphasizing low-cost care of chronic diseases and the special problems of older persons, and increased Federal aid for medical care of the needy.

We have asked the largest increase in research funds ever sought in one year to intensify attacks on cancer, mental illness, heart disease and other dread diseases."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25838


Equality, rightly understood as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences; wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism.
Barry Goldwater (R) Late Senator & Father of the Conservative movement

 

[PoliticalChic]

A black dude is president and a black lady is first lady. Not to mention all the black pols and millionaires. Do you honestly think that would have happened yet if Republicans had their way?

The economy is in the tank, and his foreign policy has given us Egypt, Libya, Iran and Syria.
Do you honestly think that would have happened if some less of an ideologue had been elected?

Or is skin color that important to you?

Who crashed the economy? Our foreign policy of interventionism in the ME has been a bipartisan one. If any thing is to blame for the popular uprising throughout the ME is/was our support for brutal dictators, like the Shah, Saddam, Mubarak... for a share of their countries oil wealth.

"Who crashed the economy?"

Democrat policy of shredding the Constitution and manipulating the private economy...housing.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.
He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA
Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.
Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.




"Our foreign policy of interventionism in the ME has been a bipartisan one. If any thing is to blame for the popular uprising throughout the ME is/was our support for brutal dictators, like the Shah, Saddam, Mubarak... for a share of their countries oil wealth."

It was Obama's childlike decisions to remove the 'American footprint' in the Middle East, and turn those nations over to radical savages.

In order to further your education, and correct some of your errors, study my posts in this thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/middle-east-general/297233-syria-savagery-of-the-blood-cult.html


Better do so on an empty stomach......



In summary, Obama is a supreme failure in so very many areas that his having the support of lap-dogs like yourself defies explanation.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh man, your na na na boo boo style post has convinced me that what I said was untrue after you posted that mountain of evidence /sarcasm

Like I said the ONLY time your name shows up on the board is another complaint about blacks being sooooo stupid because they don't vote GOP. Those that do vote GOP you hold them up as Mensa members strickly from the way they vote.

Good job!

Poor, poor ClosedMind......one neuron short of a synapse.


1. It's 'As I said....' not 'Like I said..."

So...this seems to add credence to my suspicion...you are stupid....or, at least, uneducated.

2. " ONLY time your name shows up on the board is another complaint about blacks being sooooo stupid because they don't vote GOP..."

Proof?
None?

So...now you are making a play for 'dishonest'?



I can be Solomon here, and cut the baby in half: you're equally stupid and dishonest.

Feel better?



Tell me....how often have you been told that you're as useful as a mint-flavored suppository.

When you have nothing go for grammer errors which really add to your point which is nothing really.

My proof of you only showing up to complain about blacks is simple. You do it. And when a spotlight was put on it instead of saying "No I don't" you say "prove it".

Thanks for playing one trick pony.

Why don't you step your ass into the black community at least once for every 10 posts you make on this subject and add something to it. You wont, you'd rather sit on your perch of judgement and tell messageboards what will fix this place you see from a distance.

Arrogant? Yes. Elitist? Yes

"Arrogant? Yes. Elitist? Yes."

Guilty as charged.


But none of that makes my posts less than totally correct.
You should treat them as lessons, and learn from them.
Use the links I provide as starting points for the education you so
sorely require.



To this moment you have not found any errors.

Your posts are nothing but 'Is not! Is not!"



Perhaps it's time for you to go to the dentist to have your cranial cavity filled.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Tell us specifically what you would change.

Who is "us"?

Is this an attempt to pretend that there are sentient humans who would admit association with you?



But if the pretense makes you feel better....what the heck: six out of seven dwarfs are not happy.

'Us' refers to the more than one person reading this thread.

Now obviously you do not want to tell us, or me, or the man behind the tree, what specifically you would change.

So despite your claim to be obsessed about what is best for America,

you are incapable of even citing one single thing you would like to see done to make America better.

You're a self-hating bitch who likes to bitch, for the sake of bitching.

Good for you, you found a large category of American women you can fit right into. LOLOLOL, the Americanization of PC.

"'Us' refers to the more than one person reading this thread."

By what stretch of credulity do you imagine to speak for them????

 

[Bfgrn]

The economy is in the tank, and his foreign policy has given us Egypt, Libya, Iran and Syria.
Do you honestly think that would have happened if some less of an ideologue had been elected?

Or is skin color that important to you?

Who crashed the economy? Our foreign policy of interventionism in the ME has been a bipartisan one. If any thing is to blame for the popular uprising throughout the ME is/was our support for brutal dictators, like the Shah, Saddam, Mubarak... for a share of their countries oil wealth.

"Who crashed the economy?"

Democrat policy of shredding the Constitution and manipulating the private economy...housing.

1. Democrat FDR shredded the Constitution....ignoring article I, section 8, the enumerated powers.
He created GSE's Fannie and Freddie to do something the Constitution didn't authorize: meddle in housing.

2. Democrat Carter....the CRA, constraining banking policy

3. Democrat Clinton....strengthened the CRA
Under Clinton, HUD threatened banks, again, to give unrequited loans.
Henchmen: Democrats Cisneros and Cuomo.

4. Democrats Frank and Dodd barred any governmental discipline in this area.




"Our foreign policy of interventionism in the ME has been a bipartisan one. If any thing is to blame for the popular uprising throughout the ME is/was our support for brutal dictators, like the Shah, Saddam, Mubarak... for a share of their countries oil wealth."

It was Obama's childlike decisions to remove the 'American footprint' in the Middle East, and turn those nations over to radical savages.

In order to further your education, and correct some of your errors, study my posts in this thread:
http://www.usmessageboard.com/middle-east-general/297233-syria-savagery-of-the-blood-cult.html


Better do so on an empty stomach......



In summary, Obama is a supreme failure in so very many areas that his having the support of lap-dogs like yourself defies explanation.

Herein lies your problem:

1) The financial crisis was not caused by low and middle income families buying a home.

2) It was not caused by dead beat poor people.

3) Fannie and Freddie were not to cause.

4) The Community Investment Act was not the culprit either.

The crisis was caused by private lending, to mostly upper middle class and the wealthy. ONLY 6% of of all the higher-priced loans were extended by CRA-covered lenders to lower-income borrowers or neighborhoods in their CRA assessment areas. The majority of those foreclosed on were wealthy and upper middle class, plus a large segment of buyers who were wealthy speculators, home flippers looking for a fast buck. They strategically walked away from a bad investment. They were not buying a homestead.

AND, what really sucks for the right wing propaganda of lies, all the way back to the late '90's there was one very outspoken and vocal critic of predatory lending practices, they even held protests at companies like Wells Fargo and Lehman Brothers...ACORN


WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA

WSJ - Fed’s Kroszner: Don’t Blame CRA - The Sequel

Reuters - UPDATE 2-Lending to poor didn't spur crisis

Don't Blame the Community Reinvestment Act

Business Insider - Here's Why Fannie And Freddie Are Not At Fault For The Housing Bubble

Center for Responsible Lending - CRA is not to Blame for the Mortgage Meltdown

Don't blame Fannie and Freddie

Private sector loans, not Fannie or Freddie, triggered crisis

ForeclosureS.com - ACORN - Progress in the Fight Against Predatory Lending

Acorn Led Financial Sector With Warnings on Lending

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

The Millionaire Foreclosure Club

Foreclosure double standard: Why the rich get away with defaulting

More Rich People Default On Mortgages

The rich bail faster on mortgages

Biggest Defaulters on Mortgages Are the Rich

Rich Borrowers More Likely to Default on Mortgage

Foreclosures & Walking Away: 60 Minutes Eyes an ‘Epidemic’

Speculation By Investors Largely Cause Of Foreclosure Crisis

How the Foreclosure Crisis Started: Investors, Speculators, Mortgage Fraud & Lax Lending Standards


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

 

[JakeStarkey]

But none of that makes my posts less than totally correct.

Your posts are "correct" through the application of nonobjective evidence and lack of critical thinking skills. Using your own facts, own definitions, and own narratives only make you a laughing stock to people who understand the facts, definitions, and narratives of our country.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Poor, poor ClosedMind......one neuron short of a synapse.


1. It's 'As I said....' not 'Like I said..."

So...this seems to add credence to my suspicion...you are stupid....or, at least, uneducated.

2. " ONLY time your name shows up on the board is another complaint about blacks being sooooo stupid because they don't vote GOP..."

Proof?
None?

So...now you are making a play for 'dishonest'?



I can be Solomon here, and cut the baby in half: you're equally stupid and dishonest.

Feel better?



Tell me....how often have you been told that you're as useful as a mint-flavored suppository.

When you have nothing go for grammer errors which really add to your point which is nothing really.

My proof of you only showing up to complain about blacks is simple. You do it. And when a spotlight was put on it instead of saying "No I don't" you say "prove it".

Thanks for playing one trick pony.

Why don't you step your ass into the black community at least once for every 10 posts you make on this subject and add something to it. You wont, you'd rather sit on your perch of judgement and tell messageboards what will fix this place you see from a distance.

Arrogant? Yes. Elitist? Yes

"Arrogant? Yes. Elitist? Yes."

Guilty as charged.


But none of that makes my posts less than totally correct.
You should treat them as lessons, and learn from them.
Use the links I provide as starting points for the education you so
sorely require.



To this moment you have not found any errors.

Your posts are nothing but 'Is not! Is not!"



Perhaps it's time for you to go to the dentist to have your cranial cavity filled.

I'mma black man, why in the fuck would I listen to you about anything other than being a Korean girl? You know nothing about blacks at all. I might as well ask a penguin what a shark likes to do....it'll be coming from the same ignorance

 

[NYcarbineer]

[sorely require.



To this moment you have not found any errors.

.

You were absolutely wrong when you claimed that the South returned to voting Democrat for decades after the 1964 election when the South went for Goldwater.

 

[Foxfyre]

[sorely require.



To this moment you have not found any errors.

.

You were absolutely wrong when you claimed that the South returned to voting Democrat for decades after the 1964 election when the South went for Goldwater.

I don't usually use Wikipedia as a source, but I'm pretty sure they have this right and in its condensed form, it is easier to post than digging out the information from more trustworthy sources. (Emphasis mine.)

Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South. In the 19th century, they were the definitive pro-slavery wing of the party, opposed to both the anti-slavery Republicans (GOP) and the more liberal Northern Democrats. . . .

. . . .After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

When Richard Nixon courted voters with his Southern Strategy, many Democrats became Republicans and the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal.

However, Democratic incumbents still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. Although Republicans won most presidential elections in Southern states starting in 1964, Democrats controlled nearly every Southern state legislature until the mid-1990s and had a moderate(although not huge) amount of members in state legislatures until 2010. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control gradually collapsed, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade.
Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[boedicca]

...and Robert Byrd.

'nuff said.

 

[bendog]

I've come to doubt the southern strategy theory. First of all, it didn't work for Nixon in 68 because Wallace pretty much dominated the old south. Secondly, it's predicated on Phillip's notion that left to themselves, the dems would come back to the dems even after the civil rights acts. That dog won't hunt. Moreover, Phillips is another NE intellectual, and they haven't been right about the South ever.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[sorely require.



To this moment you have not found any errors.

.

You were absolutely wrong when you claimed that the South returned to voting Democrat for decades after the 1964 election when the South went for Goldwater.

I don't usually use Wikipedia as a source, but I'm pretty sure they have this right and in its condensed form, it is easier to post than digging out the information from more trustworthy sources. (Emphasis mine.)

Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South. In the 19th century, they were the definitive pro-slavery wing of the party, opposed to both the anti-slavery Republicans (GOP) and the more liberal Northern Democrats. . . .

. . . .After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

When Richard Nixon courted voters with his Southern Strategy, many Democrats became Republicans and the South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal.

However, Democratic incumbents still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. Although Republicans won most presidential elections in Southern states starting in 1964, Democrats controlled nearly every Southern state legislature until the mid-1990s and had a moderate(although not huge) amount of members in state legislatures until 2010. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control gradually collapsed, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade.
Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From your own link:

After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, white voters who became tolerant of diversity began voting against Democratic incumbents for GOP candidates. The Republicans carried many Southern states for the first time since before the Great Depression.

That's bullshit. Goldwater didn't win the South because Democrats who had become 'tolerant' voted for him. Goldwater won the South because the Democratic Party at the national level had become intolerant of segregationists.

 

[Meister]

Gee, none of you want to talk about Zell Miller? Zell Miller the actual real life Southern Democrat who precisely fits the description of the kind of Democrat you people are trying to smear the Democratic Party as a whole with?

You managed to bring up the late Robert Byrd in a derogatory manner, well, comon...

...let's talk about Zell Miller.

I can only guess that you are admitting that the democrat party really has gone all liberal on us, Carb. When Miller retired he had stated that the party left him behind....he wasn't referring to segregation, he was referring to the liberalism. Kennedy wouldn't have been a democrat in todays version of your party.

Where do you come up with this shit Meister? Both parties have moved to the right. I remember voting for a Republican Senator (Javits) who was proud to be a liberal Republican. The Governor of New York was proud to be a liberal Republican.

John F. Kennedy was proud to be a liberal.

Accepting the NY Liberal Party Nomination, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

From your source:

For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.
What happened along the way?????
You people have morphed the word "liberal".

More from your source:

I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others.

What happened?????
You people morphed the word "liberal".

 

[PoliticalChic]

When you have nothing go for grammer errors which really add to your point which is nothing really.

My proof of you only showing up to complain about blacks is simple. You do it. And when a spotlight was put on it instead of saying "No I don't" you say "prove it".

Thanks for playing one trick pony.

Why don't you step your ass into the black community at least once for every 10 posts you make on this subject and add something to it. You wont, you'd rather sit on your perch of judgement and tell messageboards what will fix this place you see from a distance.

Arrogant? Yes. Elitist? Yes

"Arrogant? Yes. Elitist? Yes."

Guilty as charged.


But none of that makes my posts less than totally correct.
You should treat them as lessons, and learn from them.
Use the links I provide as starting points for the education you so
sorely require.



To this moment you have not found any errors.

Your posts are nothing but 'Is not! Is not!"



Perhaps it's time for you to go to the dentist to have your cranial cavity filled.

I'mma black man, why in the fuck would I listen to you about anything other than being a Korean girl? You know nothing about blacks at all. I might as well ask a penguin what a shark likes to do....it'll be coming from the same ignorance

I'm sure that your mental condition prevents you from realizing what a dim-wit you are. Only those withing a black skin can know about, write about, blacks???

Based on your analogy, I have to admit that you know more about stupidity than I.

 

[Oddball]

I wonder what would have happened to MLK and his marching if Eisenhower hadn't passed those bills?
PS....I consider Martin Luther King a great man.

Where's the Eisenhower wing of the Republican Party today?

Ok, so how long will this question have to go unanswered before we can reasonably confirm that there is no Eisenhower wing of the Republican Party today, and with that put an end to any false comparisons made between Ike's party and the modern GOP?

24 hours? More? Less?

They became "blue dog" democrats and eventually got run out of the party because they weren't socialistic enough.

Now, where is the Grover Cleveland -or even the Scoop Jackson- wing of the Democrat Party?

Nowhere to be found, that's where.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I notice you have no reason why a black person should be taking advice from a Korean girl. Thanks again for proving my point that you just say things but don't know why you say them. It's just a girl thing

I'm not taking tips from someone who isn't in the community and just observes from a perch doesn't know anymore than Pailin knows about Russia just because she can see it.

Keep up with the insults, when you have nothing you stick out your tongue. It's funny.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where's the Eisenhower wing of the Republican Party today?

Ok, so how long will this question have to go unanswered before we can reasonably confirm that there is no Eisenhower wing of the Republican Party today, and with that put an end to any false comparisons made between Ike's party and the modern GOP?

24 hours? More? Less?

They became "blue dog" democrats and eventually got run out of the party because they weren't socialistic enough.

Now, where is the Grover Cleveland -or even the Scoop Jackson- wing of the Democrat Party?

Nowhere to be found, that's where.

Then you agree that these repeated attempts to somehow malign the current Democratic Party by making some guilt-by-association connection to it and the conservative faction of the Democratic Party in the South from 50 years ago or more

is idiocy.