You know what's Communist?

[Tangible]

Apparently, integration. The far right likes to label absolutely anything that deviates from traditional norm as communist, even when it dealt with integration.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
http://themormonworker.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/commie-school.jpg

[Mike88]

Oh you mean we like to label self admitted communists as communist?

[thr3]

Another stimulating thread I see.

[Tangible]

Oh you mean we like to label self admitted communists as communist?

so you feel integration was a communist plot? si or no?

[CaptainPike]

so you feel integration was a communist plot? si or no?

Did Van Jones admit to being a commie?

[Tangible]

Did Van Jones admit to being a commie?

I'm not talking about Van Jones.

[johnrocks]

I don't think it can be labeled communist although I oppose forced intergration, let it be natural and voluntary, might would have taken longer however resentment and violence might not have occurred so much either,imho.

[thr3]

I'm not talking about Van Jones.

Who is Van Jones?

[Tangible]

Who is Van Jones?

some irrelevant guy.

[Kelzan]

I'm not talking about Van Jones.

Because even with liberal mental gymnastics it's hard to explain how someone who describes himself as a Communist isn't one.

[Tangible]

Because even with liberal mental gymnastics it's hard to explain how someone who describes himself as a Communist isn't one.

I mean, you're free to derail, but I'm not talking about Van Jones, if you want to fine...I'm not a moderator.

[goodlife]

I meant to put "what's" instead of "what" in the thread title.

but, You know what's communist?

Apparently, integration. The far right likes to label absolutely anything that deviates from traditional norm as communist, even when it dealt with integration.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
http://themormonworker.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/commie-school.jpg

I fixed your thread title for you.

[killSocialism]

You know what's communist?

George Soros......Media Matters.......Daily Kos......Van Jones.......Black liberation theology.......A lot of college professors......liberals

[old guy]

You know what's communist?

George Soros......Media Matters.......Daily Kos......Van Jones.......Black liberation theology.......A lot of college professors......liberals

george soros communist????? you really have no idea what communist is then..

[Tangible]

I fixed your thread title for you.

thank you.

[thr3]

Because even with liberal mental gymnastics it's hard to explain how someone who describes himself as a Communist isn't one.


Communist, Capitalist.

All the same really.

[Kelzan]

I mean, you're free to derail, but I'm not talking about Van Jones, if you want to fine...I'm not a moderator.

Even if it was the central subject of this thread you wouldn't answer, or you'd give standard liberal talking points. The far-left never criticizes left-wing radicals.

Integration. I sure some Communists were working in the cause of integration, but that doesn't mean it was Communist on it's own. Segregation actually helped Communists because the unfair discrimination caused legitimate bitterness among its victims that Communists could exploit.

This is different from the ever growing scope of government power over us the left-wing seeks with a passion.

[johnrocks]

The guy asked a simple question, am I going to be the only one that directly answers?

[Kelzan]

Communist, Capitalist.

All the same really.

Know any other jokes?

[osamayomama]

race-mixing is communist. see link below.

[Tangible]

Even if it was the central subject of this thread you wouldn't answer, or you'd give standard liberal talking points. The far-left never criticizes left-wing radicals.

Integration. I sure some Communists were working in the cause of integration, but that doesn't mean it was Communist on it's own. Segregation actually helped Communists because the unfair discrimination caused legitimate bitterness among its victims that Communists could exploit.

This is different from the ever growing scope of government power over us the left-wing seeks with a passion.

well thanks for the direct answer.

I did address Jones in a different thread, though.... I'm not afraid of it. I just didn't want to derail.

[thr3]

Know any other jokes?


As you ask...

[Constantine the Great]

The problem with your OP is that it's based on a false premise. Since one concept may have been falsely labeled communist, then anytime something is labeled as communist must be false. This is a logical fallacy andd makes your thread pretty much null and void. The fact of the matter is that there are many people and many ideas coming and going from this administration that are clearly leftist and communist and you cannot explain it away via a false premise.
Van Jones was a member of the Obama Administration and an avowed communist.
Nationalizing anything (healthcare, industry, finance, et. al.) is communist.
Appointing people to quasi-government positions but not accountable to the people that elect the government is totalitarian in nature and reminiscent of the old Politburo of the Soviet Union. You and other liberals can stick your head in the sand all you want, but if it steps like a goose, it is a goose.

[Constantine the Great]

You want more leftist/communist ideas from the Admin?
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar supports abortions and forced sterlization for population control. This is reminiscent of Communist China and Nazi Germany, which was a leftist regime.

[Tiberious]

Also, if you actually do your research, you'll find that those protesters are very likely Democrats.

[ddye]

Even if it was the central subject of this thread you wouldn't answer, or you'd give standard liberal talking points. The far-left never criticizes left-wing radicals.
Do you have proof that the thread starter is in fact a "far leftist"?

And yes, the far right has traditionally been resistant to any kind of change. Ever hear about the "fluoridated water" controversy?

"Water fluoridation has frequently been the subject of conspiracy theories. During the "Red Scare" in the United States during the late 1940s and 1950s, and to a lesser extent in the 1960s, activists on the far right of American politics routinely asserted that fluoridation was part of a far-reaching plot to impose a socialist or communist regime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridation

Doug

[Tangible]

The problem with your OP is that it's based on a false premise. Since one concept may have been falsely labeled communist, then anytime something is labeled as communist must be false. This is a logical fallacy andd makes your thread pretty much null and void. The fact of the matter is that there are many people and many ideas coming and going from this administration that are clearly leftist and communist and you cannot explain it away via a false premise.

No, it's not based on a false premise at all. Some think that any non libertarian stance is communism. Any interference by government to try to persuade the public good, is communism....to some people. Now, you may disagree...but that doesn't make the OP invalid.

Van Jones was a member of the Obama Administration and an avowed communist.
Nationalizing anything (healthcare, industry, finance, et. al.) is communist.


This thread isn't about him, don't derail.

[ThinkingMan]

Apparently, integration. The far right likes to label absolutely anything that deviates from traditional norm as communist, even when it dealt with integration.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
http://themormonworker.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/commie-school.jpg

You do realize that Bull Connor and those people on the school house steps that morning in Alabama were Democrats, right?

You do know that MLK was a Republican, right?

And you do realize that using fringe protesters to characterize all conservatives is the very product of the MSM's forge, right?

Do you work for msnbc?

[Tangible]

You want more leftist/communist ideas from the Admin?
John Holdren, Obama's Science Czar supports abortions and forced sterlization for population control. This is reminiscent of Communist China and Nazi Germany, which was a leftist regime.

No where in Marx's communist manifesto, is there any ideal in which forced abortions or sterilization endorsed. Now, within a communist regime, have such ideas been promoted? Of course. However, that is not the core of communism. Communism, in it's purest sense, is about the role of government. That communist governments choose certain paths, does not mean communism at it's core is a proponent of totalitarianism or abortion.

So, if you say that Van Jones is a communist, I will retort with the proposition that Dr. Martin Luther King could also be labled a communist. I don't think Dr. King supported abortion, nor murder, nor anything else which can be associated with communist regimes.

[Tangible]

Also, if you actually do your research, you'll find that those protesters are very likely Democrats.

Political parties aren't inherently right or left. Lincoln certainly wouldn't be considered a republican, today. Likewise, people who were against integration would find no home in today's democratic party.

[ThinkingMan]

Political parties aren't inherently right or left. Lincoln certainly wouldn't be considered a republican, today. Likewise, people who were against integration would find no home in today's democratic party.

Now they are for forced integration.

[ddye]

You do realize that Bull Connor and those people on the school house steps that morning in Alabama were Democrats, right?

You do know that MLK was a Republican, right?

And you do realize that using fringe protesters to characterize all conservatives is the very product of the MSM's forge, right?

Do you work for msnbc?
For a "thinking man" you're wrong about a few things. MLK wasn't a Republican, his FATHER was. That was debunked here a long time ago.

And the segregationists were social CONSERVATIVES. You should know better than to think that Republicans are always more conservatives than Democrats.

Doug

[Tangible]

You do realize that Bull Connor and those people on the school house steps that morning in Alabama were Democrats, right?

You do know that MLK was a Republican, right?

Those meaning mean absolutely nothing today. If you don't realize that political parties are not static in their message, then I don't know what to tell you. Plenty of people from that era would be in different parties today.

And you do realize that using fringe protesters to characterize all conservatives is the very product of the MSM's forge, right?

Do you work for msnbc?

Anti-integration folks were hardly the "fringe," but I guess you care nothing about history.

[AvgGuyIA]

Do you have proof that the thread starter is in fact a "far leftist"?

And yes, the far right has traditionally been resistant to any kind of change. Ever hear about the "fluoridated water" controversy?

"Water fluoridation has frequently been the subject of conspiracy theories. During the "Red Scare" in the United States during the late 1940s and 1950s, and to a lesser extent in the 1960s, activists on the far right of American politics routinely asserted that fluoridation was part of a far-reaching plot to impose a socialist or communist regime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridation

DougI remember those movie clips warning us about fluoridation between featured films at intermission in the movie theatres I went to. Well...we got fluoridated water and our Country has been on the down slope toward socialism ever since.

IMPEACH EARL WARREN!

[Tangible]

Now they are for forced integration.

Yes, democrats today, unlike yesteryear, are for forced integration. So to compare them to the dems of the pre-civil rights era is indeed ludicrous.

[ThinkingMan]

Those meaning mean absolutely nothing today. If you don't realize that political parties are not static in their message, then I don't know what to tell you. Plenty of people from that era would be in different parties today.



Anti-integration folks were hardly the "fringe," but I guess you care nothing about history.

Anti-integration folks were Democrats.

You care nothing about history, or current events, if you think Democrats are the party for the black community.

[Constantine the Great]

This thread isn't about him, don't derail.

I'm not making it about him, no matter how much you want to deflect, especially by only quoting the portion of my post that serves your purpose to deflect. THe Obama administration is crawling with marxists/leftists/communists. I already have given you a small sample.

[Tangible]

Anti-integration folks were Democrats.

They WERE democrats. Those democrats, mostly, but not fully, migrated to the republican party.


You care nothing about history, or current events, if you think Democrats are the party for the black community.

You care not to realize that parties change positions through history.

I'm not even going to get in this partisan rant. This is about what is and what isn't communism.

[Tangible]

I'm not making it about him, no matter how much you want to deflect, especially by only quoting the portion of my post that serves your purpose to deflect. THe Obama administration is crawling with marxists/leftists/communists. I already have given you a small sample.

I'm not talking about the Obama administration, but it seems that you have one track mind.

[Constantine the Great]

No where in Marx's communist manifesto, is there any ideal in which forced abortions or sterilization endorsed. Now, within a communist regime, have such ideas been promoted? Of course. However, that is not the core of communism. Communism, in it's purest sense, is about the role of government. That communist governments choose certain paths, does not mean communism at it's core is a proponent of totalitarianism or abortion.
The progression and evolution of policies within an ideology becomes part of the ideology itself. Euthanasia was a tenet of Nazism, and it is supported by leftists across the globe. You can tout purism in communism all you want, but as long as mankind is impure, no ideology will remain so.

[Jabbamagnus]

No interrogation has no political orientations.

People and governments however do.

[Constantine the Great]

I'm not talking about the Obama administration, but it seems that you have one track mind.

Too bad, this is the Washington POlitics forum, and you are basing your OP on reactions of conservative Americans to the Obama agenda.

[Tangible]

The progression and evolution of policies within an ideology becomes part of the ideology itself. Euthanasia was a tenet of Nazism, and it is supported by leftists across the globe. You can tout purism in communism all you want, but as long as mankind is impure, no ideology will remain so.

The military-industrial complex is also part of Nazism, so it's obvious that conservatism support Hitler! Do you see how utterly absurd my previous sentence was?

Christians are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, so killing non-believers is the central tenent of Christianity. Do you see how utterly absurd my previous sentence was?

Likewise, to place any person with a social agenda, into the same tank as the USSR is also utterly absurd.

[cj234]

did van jones admit to being a commie?

yes!!!

[Constantine the Great]

The military-industrial complex is also part of Nazism, so it's obvious that conservatism support Hitler! Do you see how utterly absurd my previous sentence was?
You mean the "military-industrial complex" (a marxist term) which was the backbone of the Soviet regime? Place that one in your pipe and smoke it.

Christians are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, so killing non-believers is the central tenent of Christianity. Do you see how utterly absurd my previous sentence was?
Yes it is absurd, especially since even the Catholic Church has acknowledged such actions have no place within Christianity. Has marxism/socialism disavowed euthanasia and population control? I'll wait for Holdren to renounce, but I won't hold my breath.

[Tangible]

Too bad, this is the Washington POlitics forum, and you are basing your OP on reactions of conservative Americans to the Obama agenda.

Yes, but the point of this thread is about whether or not everything that can be labeled communist is "bad."

If you want to be strict about it, Dr. Martin Luther King, at the very least, was a communist sympathizer. So, according to conservatives on this forum, Dr. Martin Luther King was an enemy of the United States government.

I suggest we no longer celebrate MLK day.

[ddye]

I remember those movie clips warning us about fluoridation between featured films at intermission in the movie theatres I went to. Well...we got fluoridated water and our Country has been on the down slope toward socialism ever since.

IMPEACH EARL WARREN!
I am sooooooooo glad somebody else here is as old as me! :D

Doug

[ddye]

Anti-integration folks were Democrats.

You care nothing about history, or current events, if you think Democrats are the party for the black community.
Anti-integration folks were CONSERVATIVES. But most conservatives today are not racists, I want to make that clear, which is more than the right will admit about the left these days.

And as far as "the party for the black community", I would bet that "the black community" would disagree with you.

Doug

[Tangible]

You mean the "military-industrial complex" (a marxist term) which was the backbone of the Soviet regime? Place that one in your pipe and smoke it.

The military industrial complex is part of America that conservatives support.


Yes it is absurd, especially since even the Catholic Church has acknowledged such actions have no place within Christianity. Has marxism/socialism disavowed euthanasia and population control? I'll wait for Holdren to renounce, but I won't hold my breath.

But Christians did it, therefore, according to the logic you used earlier, it is a part of Christianity.

The millions upon millions that have died through conquest done by Christians, is about Christianity.

Now, I know that my above statement is absurd...just as absurd as your generalizations.

[Crossriflesonblue]

The military-industrial complex is also part of Nazism, so it's obvious that conservatism support Hitler! Do you see how utterly absurd my previous sentence was?

Christians are responsible for the Spanish Inquisition, so killing non-believers is the central tenent of Christianity. Do you see how utterly absurd my previous sentence was?

Likewise, to place any person with a social agenda, into the same tank as the USSR is also utterly absurd.

Not when they surround themselves with folks like Stanley Levison and Hunter Pitts O'Dell ...in the midst of a Cold War...even then Kennedy and Hoover did not consider King a Communist....but it didn't inspire any trust that he wouldn't be used as a tool.....

[ddye]

You mean the "military-industrial complex" (a marxist term) which was the backbone of the Soviet regime? Place that one in your pipe and smoke it.
The same "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhour warned about, pertaining to AMERICAN companies? You know, just because a "Marxist" uses a term doesn't make it "communist".

Yes it is absurd, especially since even the Catholic Church has acknowledged such actions have no place within Christianity. Has marxism/socialism disavowed euthanasia and population control? I'll wait for Holdren to renounce, but I won't hold my breath.
So an "acknowledgement" from liberals disavowing euthanasia will convince you? OK:

I HEREBY DISAVOW EUTHANASIA!!!! EUTHANASIA HAS NO PLACE IN AMERICAN LIBERALISM!!!!

Wow, that's a load off MY mind... :))

Doug

[Tangible]

Anti-integration folks were CONSERVATIVES. But most conservatives today are not racists, I want to make that clear, which is more than the right will admit about the left these days.

I guess people don't know what "conservatism" means. Conservatism, means to keep with tradition...while liberalism is about change. Throughout our history, there has been conservative democrats as well as liberal democrats, just as there has been liberal republicans, as well as conservative republicans.

Those who sought to stop or promote civil rights legislation, can only be labeled either "Liberals" or "Conservatives." To state that democrats were against it, means nothing in this argument, as those democrats were conservatives.

[ddye]

I guess people don't know what "conservatism" means. Conservatism, means to keep with tradition...while liberalism is about change. Throughout our history, there has been conservative democrats as well as liberal democrats, just as there has been liberal republicans, as well as conservative republicans.

Those who sought to stop or promote civil rights legislation, can only be labeled either "Liberals" or "Conservatives." To state that democrats were against it, means nothing in this argument, as those democrats were conservatives.
In this forum, Lincoln was a conservative, southern democrats never migrated to the Republican party, the Southern Strategy never happened and black people have no power in the Democratic party.

Doug

[Rurudyne]

Do I know what's Communist?

Well, Saul Alinsky apparently was so his Rules for Radicals should qualify.

The Weathermen Underground — Bill Ayers' group — apparently was ... they debated the shape of the country after it had been physically occupied by the Russians, ChiComs and Cubans and also debated what to "do" with capitalist who couldn't be reeducated.

James Cone's style of Black Liberation Theology is not merely warmed over communism but also is openly antichrist, proclaiming infamously in one book that unless God is onboard the effort to destroy the white enemy then blacks should reject His love.

And while the meaning of "radical" is open to interpretation it would seem that the President, as a young man, decided that to not be a sell-out that he should be "radical".

One can only suppose that it was an unintended coincidence that along with this decision he became a disciple of Alinsky, friends with Ayers, and spend two decades in a congregation teaching some version of James Cone's "theology"....

[ThinkingMan]

Anti-integration folks were CONSERVATIVES. But most conservatives today are not racists, I want to make that clear, which is more than the right will admit about the left these days.

And as far as "the party for the black community", I would bet that "the black community" would disagree with you.

Doug

Despite that they vote Democrat at about what, 95%?

[Constantine the Great]

The same "military-industrial complex" that Eisenhour warned about, pertaining to AMERICAN companies? You know, just because a "Marxist" uses a term doesn't make it "communist".


So an "acknowledgement" from liberals disavowing euthanasia will convince you? OK:

I HEREBY DISAVOW EUTHANASIA!!!! EUTHANASIA HAS NO PLACE IN AMERICAN LIBERALISM!!!!

Wow, that's a load off MY mind... :))

Doug

So why don't you explain to us why such concepts keep popping up amongst the Marxist crowd.

[Kelzan]

I guess people don't know what "conservatism" means. Conservatism, means to keep with tradition...while liberalism is about change. Throughout our history, there has been conservative democrats as well as liberal democrats, just as there has been liberal republicans, as well as conservative republicans.

Those who sought to stop or promote civil rights legislation, can only be labeled either "Liberals" or "Conservatives." To state that democrats were against it, means nothing in this argument, as those democrats were conservatives.

You are being too literal. Conservatives, in general, support a limited role for government while Liberals support an expanded role. The tradition part does come in on some of the social issues where Conservatives favor traditional marriage and culture.

[ThinkingMan]

They WERE democrats. Those democrats, mostly, but not fully, migrated to the republican party.



You care not to realize that parties change positions through history.

I'm not even going to get in this partisan rant. This is about what is and what isn't communism.

You're already ranting that "conservative" (what you are calling "far right" - just like the MSM) opposition to integration is based on cries of communism.

I would love to know why you think those in the pictures in your links are "far right."

[Rurudyne]

So why don't you explain to us why such concepts keep popping up amongst the Marxist crowd.
Why should he? Doug isn't a Marxist (though I do hear he is partial to Groucho).

[ddye]

Despite that they vote Democrat at about what, 95%?
That's my point, the FACT that Democrats are the "party of black community" is evidenced by black peoples' overwhelming support of the Democratic party.

Did you read my post wrong or something?
Why should he? Doug isn't a Marxist (though I do hear is is partial to Groucho).
Thanks. I appreciate it. As far as me joining the Communist Party, I would not join any organization that would have me as a member (there's some Groucho for ya)!

Doug

[Kelzan]

No where in Marx's communist manifesto, is there any ideal in which forced abortions or sterilization endorsed. Now, within a communist regime, have such ideas been promoted? Of course. However, that is not the core of communism. Communism, in it's purest sense, is about the role of government. That communist governments choose certain paths, does not mean communism at it's core is a proponent of totalitarianism or abortion.

So, if you say that Van Jones is a communist, I will retort with the proposition that Dr. Martin Luther King could also be labled a communist. I don't think Dr. King supported abortion, nor murder, nor anything else which can be associated with communist regimes.

Van Jones was a self-professed Communist no one else labeled him unfairly.

[ThinkingMan]

That's my point, the FACT that Democrats are the "party of black community" is evidenced by black peoples' overwhelming support of the Democratic party.

Did you read my post wrong or something?

<>

Doug

I must have - it sounded like you thought blacks don't consider Dems are their proponents.

My point is, why? Since they don't do anything for them, never have. In fact, quite the opposite.

[Rurudyne]

Thanks. I appreciate it. As far as me joining the Communist Party, I would not join any organization that would have me as a member (there's some Groucho for ya)!

Doug
Excuse me, there's a damsel that needs distressing....

(I have to put my handicapped sister in bed)

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

I must have - it sounded like you thought blacks don't consider Dems are their proponents.

My point is, why? Since they don't do anything for them, never have. In fact, quite the opposite.

Um, they actually do, that's why they vote Democrat.

It doesn't hurt that Republicans never try to recruit black voters and then cry incessantly about not getting them.

[Constantine the Great]

Why should he? Doug isn't a Marxist (though I do hear he is partial to Groucho).

So then why stand up and decide to speak for Holdren and others?

[Constantine the Great]

Let's see if I get the gist of all these responses; Obama and all his cronies are not marxists inspite of all the obvious parallels between them and notorious leftists in history, and we're all kooks for seeing these parallels. Right.

[Kelzan]

Do you have proof that the thread starter is in fact a "far leftist"?

And yes, the far right has traditionally been resistant to any kind of change. Ever hear about the "fluoridated water" controversy?

"Water fluoridation has frequently been the subject of conspiracy theories. During the "Red Scare" in the United States during the late 1940s and 1950s, and to a lesser extent in the 1960s, activists on the far right of American politics routinely asserted that fluoridation was part of a far-reaching plot to impose a socialist or communist regime."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opposition_to_water_fluoridation

Doug

He uses the same deflection tactics of the far-left and doesn't criticize radicals. I know if I were a non extremist liberal in the Democratic party I'd be worried at the extremists President Obama is placing in his administration, and the far-left leadership in congress.
I even considered voting Dem in 2004 for a short period, worried about the influence the religious right has in the GOP, but the Dems cured me of that with their support of far left-wingers like Michael Moore and the anti-war goons.
If he has no problem with these people, the only rational conclusion leads me to think he is of the far-left. Believe me, I wish your party would purge itself of the moonbats, I really, really do.

[ThinkingMan]

Um, they actually do, that's why they vote Democrat.

It doesn't hurt that Republicans never try to recruit black voters and then cry incessantly about not getting them.

The Democrats are inimical to anything going on in the black community.

Good Republicans don't really recruit. Unlike the Dems, they influence by example and ideals of opportunity and personal responsibility - not empty groupist platitudes.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

The Democrats are inimical to anything going on in the black community.

Good Republicans don't really recruit. Unlike the Dems, they influence by example and ideals of opportunity and personal responsibility - not empty groupist platitudes.

Same lame excuse everyone has.

If you don't do GOTV, you don't get voters.

Republicans make absolutely no effort to recruit voters in the inner city, outside of the swankier neighborhoods. I've never seen it.

[WildRose]

Who is Van Jones?A recently unemployed Black nationalist, Racist, Communist. That this administration was "So proud of"-Valerie Jarrett.

[WildRose]

Same lame excuse everyone has.

If you don't do GOTV, you don't get voters.

Republicans make absolutely no effort to recruit voters in the inner city, outside of the swankier neighborhoods. I've never seen it.Why waste precious resources where they will do no good?

Is there anything in the republcan platform or conservative philosophy that innercity people can't find out if they care to without rallies being held in their neighborhoods?

Considering the hate that was spewing from innercity neighborhoods during the last election cycle how safe would conservatives or republicans feel to go door to door there to spread the word? When black republicans and conservatives are pilloried as "Uncle Tom's" and "sell outs" how prifitible would such efforts be any how?

When Black Panters can block access to polling places while brandishing weapons, and then get a free pass from the Atty Gen of the US why would any conservative or republican feel safe going into their neighborhoods to try and raise awareness and recruit members?

If people in the innercity every want to improve their lives, it's easy. If people in the innercity ever want to change parties, that's even easier.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Why waste precious resources where they will do no good?

Is there anything in the republcan platform or conservative philosophy that innercity people can't find out if they care to without rallies being held in their neighborhoods?

Considering the hate that was spewing from innercity neighborhoods during the last election cycle how safe would conservatives or republicans feel to go door to door there to spread the word? When black republicans and conservatives are pilloried as "Uncle Tom's" and "sell outs" how prifitible would such efforts be any how?

When Black Panters can block access to polling places while brandishing weapons, and then get a free pass from the Atty Gen of the US why would any conservative or republican feel safe going into their neighborhoods to try and raise awareness and recruit members?

If people in the innercity every want to improve their lives, it's easy. If people in the innercity ever want to change parties, that's even easier.

Yeah yeah yeah, you're full of excuses, we're scared, they won't listen, blah blah blah.

And it flies directly in the face of the facts: Field work is the heart of politics, and all politics is local. Doorknockers, canvassers, phone-bankers, register-ers. . . .without these people at a local level, you will not get votes. This goes from dogcatcher to president.

I mean, you don't want to do it, fine. Just quit complaining about if you're not going to even try.

[Tangible]

Martin Luther King = Communist scum, a danger to America.

[reflechissez]

Now they are for forced integration.

i don't follow you. what do you mean?

[Gabby]

Apparently, integration. The far right likes to label absolutely anything that deviates from traditional norm as communist, even when it dealt with integration.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg]
Um, that photo is from Little Rock.. Those are most likely Democrats in that photo as the south was largely Democrat in that day.



http://themormonworker.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/commie-school.jpg

Did you know that many of the blacks in the 1960's and before were communists and/or at least gave that political ideology a very close look. It was felt that democracy had failed the black community. Communists took advantage of the disenfranchisement of the blacks and worked very hard to recruit them into the communist movement.
Those of us who lived through that time experienced this.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

i don't follow you. what do you mean?

School busing. There was 2007 case that eviscerated one of the central rulings of Brown v. Board of Education, so it's been a hot issue recently.

[WildRose]

Yeah yeah yeah, you're full of excuses, we're scared, they won't listen, blah blah blah.

And it flies directly in the face of the facts: Field work is the heart of politics, and all politics is local. Doorknockers, canvassers, phone-bankers, register-ers. . . .without these people at a local level, you will not get votes. This goes from dogcatcher to president.

I mean, you don't want to do it, fine. Just quit complaining about if you're not going to even try.Nice way to deflect and ignore every point made, while answering none of the questions I asked.

Typical.

[Tangible]

Um, that photo is from Little Rock.. Those are most likely Democrats in that photo as the south was largely Democrat in that day.



Yes, they were conservative democrats....nothing like modern liberals.



Did you know that many of the blacks in the 1960's and before were communists and/or at least gave that political ideology a very close look. It was felt that democracy had failed the black community. Communists took advantage of the disenfranchisement of the blacks and worked very hard to recruit them into the communist movement.
Those of us who lived through that time experienced this.

Yes, so all of those communists sympathizers, including Dr. Mart Luther King, were horrible people, and a threat to America.

[WildRose]

Yes, they were conservative democrats....nothing like modern liberals.

Really? Some of them were named "Senator Robert Byrd".

[Tangible]

Really? Some of them were named "Senator Robert Byrd".

who changed his stance.

[nunyadb]

You know what's Communist?

Why yes, as a matter of fact I do.
O and his personal band of commissars along with Pelosi's politburo
fit the bill quite nicely.

[flowercopter]

Yes, they were conservative democrats....nothing like modern liberals.




Yes, so all of those communists sympathizers, including Dr. Mart Luther King, were horrible people, and a threat to America.

not to mention Susan “Give us suffrage and we’ll give you socialism” B Anthony,

Helen "Under the fire of the great guns, the workers of all lands, becoming conscious of their class, are preparing to take possession of their own" Keller

and of course

Albert "capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil" Einstein.

[nunyadb]

who changed his stance.

Horse ****.
When you join the Klan, it's for life.
Just like the mafia.
Once in, you're in, and you never leave.

You really don't know all that much about the Klan do you ?

[WildRose]

Apparently, integration. The far right likes to label absolutely anything that deviates from traditional norm as communist, even when it dealt with integration.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
http://themormonworker.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/commie-school.jpg
You mean the far right types like Bobby Kennedy who ordered the investigations of numerous civil right's leaders including MLKjr on the grounds they were suspected communists?

From American Public Radio.
Beginning in 1962, the FBI conducted an extensive program of surveillance and harassment against Martin Luther King Jr. Under the guidance of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover - and with the permission of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy -- the FBI tapped King's home and office phones and those of his associates. FBI agents also bugged King's hotel rooms, recording the civil rights leader's extramarital activities. The FBI used selected parts of its round-the-clock surveillance to try to discourage and discredit King. On orders from Hoover, information characterizing King as a communist dupe and a moral degenerate was circulated throughout the government, and to journalists, church leaders and others. Emphasis mine


Those right wingers?

[Roberts_the_man]

<snipped.>
Yes, so all of those communists sympathizers, including Dr. Mart Luther King, were horrible people, and a threat to America.

Communist sympathizers are good for the security of the nation ? :think: :))


Wow just wow!

What an absolutely silly statement.


MLK started to get more and more radical towards the end of his life and his later speeches reflected this and this was because he was being radicalized by his communist handlers.

JFK and Robert Kennedy tried to get MLK to break away from his communist associates but he was too far gone and ignored the Kennedy brother's pleas.

The MLK speeches that everyone hears on a regular basis and are familiar with are quite tame in comparison to his later stuff which advocated radical solutions.

His later life public personae has been sanitized to make everyone think he never advocated racism, etc.


Nothing could be farther from the truth.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2269

"By 1967, King had also become the country's most prominent opponent of the Vietnam War, and a staunch critic of overall U.S. foreign policy, which he deemed militaristic. In his "Beyond Vietnam" speech delivered at New York's Riverside Church on April 4, 1967 — a year to the day before he was murdered — King called the United States "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today." (Not unlike Barry's "air raiding villages" statement. )

"King's economic bill of rights called for massive government jobs programs to rebuild America's cities. He saw a crying need to confront a Congress that had demonstrated its "hostility to the poor" — appropriating "military funds with alacrity and generosity," but providing "poverty funds with miserliness."


His words not so ironically echo Bill Ayers writings for the WU:


http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/individualProfile.asp?indid=2169

In 1974 Ayers co-authored -- along with Dohrn, Jeff Jones, and Celia Sojourn -- a book titled Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism. This book contained the following statements:







"We are a guerrilla organization. We are communist women and men ... deeply affected by the historic events of our time in the struggle against U.S. imperialism."
"Our intention is to disrupt the empire, to incapacitate it, to put pressure on the cracks, to make it hard to carry out its bloody functioning against the people of the world, to join the world struggle, to attack from the inside."


http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=70
"Wealth should be taken from the Pentagon budget and used to rebuild our cities, schools and hospitals."






Any communist is a danger to this nation's security and they are working hard to make our form of government a distant memory and are willing to create racial strife which leads to riots, etc. to do it.


Not so coincidently Barry the Marxist and all of his Marxist cronies share this same whacked out vision for America.



Really save your liberal diatribe for the uninformed.

[WildRose]

who changed his stance.Sure, for the sake of political expediency. Did he change his heart? No evidence of that.

[Roberts_the_man]

Apparently, integration. The far right likes to label absolutely anything that deviates from traditional norm as communist, even when it dealt with integration.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
http://themormonworker.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/commie-school.jpg


Yes actually it was:

"Our job is to tap the discontent seething in many sectors of the population, to find allies everywhere people are hungry or angry, to mobilize poor and working people against imperialism.

"Socialism is the total opposite of capitalism/imperialism. It is the rejection of empire and white supremacy. Socialism is the violent overthrow ***of the bourgeoisie, the establishment of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and the eradication of the social system based on profit."" - Bill Ayers "Prairie Fire"



But hey at least those communists don't intend to hurt anyone *** ! :boohoo:

[EnchantedFrog]

"In the meantime, we have some immediate struggles on our hands
But the good news is that the broad movement that elected President Obama
and larger majorities in the Congress is up and running."

Sam Webb, Chairman, Communist Party USA

[nunyadb]

"In the meantime, we have some immediate struggles on our hands
But the good news is that the broad movement that elected President Obama
and larger majorities in the Congress is up and running."

Sam Webb, Chairman, Communist Party USA

Y'know, that REALLY ought to be a sticky.
Shows just exactly where O's roots are.

[Rurudyne]

who changed his stance.
Is that why his nickname to this day is "sheets"?

[Cletus Wilbury]

Apparently, integration. ...

I've got a good one on this topic. I worked for a company that made electronic weigh scales. We were making a scale to work on trash trucks. Some of our customers were cities who collect trash. They were going to start charging people for trash pickup based on weight.

Some people complained "That's communist" (to charge for picking up trash)

Um, actually having the government pick up your trash for free is at least socialistic.


Those were probably the same people who claim "Government never does anything for anybody".

Hmmm, who handles your sewage? Who delivers water to your house?

[WildRose]

I've got a good one on this topic. I worked for a company that made electronic weigh scales. We were making a scale to work on trash trucks. Some of our customers were cities who collect trash. They were going to start charging people for trash pickup based on weight.

Some people complained "That's communist" (to charge for picking up trash)

Um, actually having the government pick up your trash for free is at least socialistic.


Those were probably the same people who claim "Government never does anything for anybody".

Hmmm, who handles your sewage? Who delivers water to your house?I lived in two different cities where due to extreme drought conditions and corresponding cratering water tables severe water restrictions were imposed to cut useage.

In both cases the next year there were "severe budget shortfalls" due to reduced useage so rates were jacked up considerably.

In another sewage rates were based on water useage, and we had two consecutive years at near double normal rainfall. Again useage fell off because people didnt' need to water yards, and the sewage rates were then doubled. Of course, they were not lowered once useage came back to normal.

Of course no private enterprise could get away with either and consumers had zero choice but to pay what they were ordered since the cities had the monopolies on those services.

Actually in many cities garbage collection is more of a Fascist system since it's a close association between government and private enterprise ensuring monopolies.

[F_Rat-46]

I've got a good one on this topic. I worked for a company that made electronic weigh scales. We were making a scale to work on trash trucks. Some of our customers were cities who collect trash. They were going to start charging people for trash pickup based on weight.

Some people complained "That's communist" (to charge for picking up trash)

Um, actually having the government pick up your trash for free is at least socialistic.


Those were probably the same people who claim "Government never does anything for anybody".

Hmmm, who handles your sewage? Who delivers water to your house?

And your point is? Government doesn't pick up garbage for free. People pay taxes for that and usually only that occurs in cities anyway. I live in the country and have my own well that I payed to have dug myself, my own septic that I payed to have installed myself and I maintain with my money and I pay a company to remove my trash. Yet I still pay as much taxes as anyone else does. The less government does for me the better I like it.

[blackcatrun]

The present system being deployed by thefederal government is both communist and socialist. Both having control measures that work in diffrent parts of this nation. Socialist: Services increased government run programs,controling all food, health, water and most marketable rescources .
Communist: collaspe and federal recovery of privet enterprise, voiding the checks and balances of government law making. IE: CZARS.

Both are working in the same direction for the same results.

Your question is answered.

[tobybear]

The World is going to end in 1990 also!


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v380/tobybear/earthday1970.jpg?t=1252494176

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Nice way to deflect and ignore every point made, while answering none of the questions I asked.

Typical.

Here's the answer: It's hysterical nonsense. It's a bunch of excuses for ceding the entire inner city to Democrats, not just blacks, and then playing the victim when called on it. You're not gonna get beat up if you go doorknocking in the hood. There is no black conspiracy out to lynch conservatives.

[nortman]

george soros communist????? you really have no idea what communist is then..
I think he misspoke. George Soros is not a communist, he just wants to make sure that everyone else is forced to live like one.

[tobybear]

Hmmm, who handles your sewage?


My Local Governmnet charges us fees, and pays some Private Company to pick it up!


Who delivers water to your house?

A Local Waterboard that charges us certain fees!

Its all Local, not Federal!

Everyone pays the same Fees!


I dont demand 0bama pay for all our water and garbage needs because water is necessary for life, and sanitation is good for health!

And I dont have my bill delivered to my neighbor across the street because he is richer than me and can afford to live on the Lake, with a boat dock!

[Cletus Wilbury]

My Local Government charges us fees, and pays some Private Company to pick it up!


It's still a government service if they contract it out. The contractors are working for the government.

[WildRose]

Here's the answer: It's hysterical nonsense. It's a bunch of excuses for ceding the entire inner city to Democrats, not just blacks, and then playing the victim when called on it. You're not gonna get beat up if you go doorknocking in the hood. There is no black conspiracy out to lynch conservatives.Neither of which I asserted. I don't play victim and neither do any of the conservatives I know personally or on the national scene.

It's a matter or expense vs return. When you have a limited amount of money to spend trying to convince people to vote for your candidate it makes no sense to go where you know you can get less than 10% of the vote when you can spend the same amount of money campaigning where you traditionally get forty to sixty percent of the vote.

You don't win elections by stealing the other side's base, you win them by securing your own base, then convincing those "undecided voters" to go your way. I've never seen a poll anywhere that suggests that there are, or have been in recent history a significant number of "undecided voters" in the inner city. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Do you have any evidence that spending those resources in the inner city is going to pull more than 10% of their votes?

Give conservatives and republicans a reason to go there and they will. Make them feel welcome there and they will go.

If you can show something different please do. While you are at it why don't you actually answer the questions I posed. They arent' that hard and they certainly aren't "Hysterical Nonsense".

[Cletus Wilbury]

And your point is? Government doesn't pick up garbage for free. People pay taxes for that and usually only that occurs in cities anyway... .

That government does things. (whether they contract the work out or not)

Matter of fact, our most essential services the government handles.

That's one of the primary functions of government.

[coodaddy]

Apparently, integration. The far right likes to label absolutely anything that deviates from traditional norm as communist, even when it dealt with integration.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fa/Little_Rock_integration_protest.jpg
http://themormonworker.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/commie-school.jpg


Let's take another ride on that spinning merry-go-round...... :rolleyes:

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Neither of which I asserted. I don't play victim and neither do any of the conservatives I know personally or on the national scene.

It's a matter or expense vs return. When you have a limited amount of money to spend trying to convince people to vote for your candidate it makes no sense to go where you know you can get less than 10% of the vote when you can spend the same amount of money campaigning where you traditionally get forty to sixty percent of the vote.

You don't win elections by stealing the other side's base, you win them by securing your own base, then convincing those "undecided voters" to go your way. I've never seen a poll anywhere that suggests that there are, or have been in recent history a significant number of "undecided voters" in the inner city. Do you have evidence to the contrary?

Do you have any evidence that spending those resources in the inner city is going to pull more than 10% of their votes?

Give conservatives and republicans a reason to go there and they will. Make them feel welcome there and they will go.

If you can show something different please do. While you are at it why don't you actually answer the questions I posed. They arent' that hard and they certainly aren't "Hysterical Nonsense".

Fine, don't do it, just stop complaining about blacks not voting Republican.

Oh, and with a concerted effort the Republicans could probably get a quarter of black voters on social issues. Black folks, especially older ones, tend to be very socially conservative.

[WildRose]

It's still a government service if they contract it out. The contractors are working for the government.So when you neighbor doesn't pay for his water, sewer, and garbage service is it discontinued, or do they just make you and your other neighbors pay more?

Really this is completely pointless conversation wise. If you don't have a centralized federal authority controlling everything and owning both the means of production, and managing the distribution of resources it's not communism.

[Cletus Wilbury]

So when you neighbor doesn't pay for his water, sewer, and garbage service is it discontinued, or do they just may you pay for your neighbor's needs?

There is a basic 'allowance' which is very cheap. So cheap, it costs more for the government to deliver the water than they charge you. The government makes that up by charging those who use more a higher price. So, at the low end, water is subsidized.

That's a seperate issue. My point is that government does the job of delivering water. I say that to those who claim government can't do anything right.

[johnrocks]

Fine, don't do it, just stop complaining about blacks not voting Republican.

Oh, and with a concerted effort the Republicans could probably get a quarter of black voters on social issues. Black folks, especially older ones, tend to be very socially conservative.

I worked in the Party(GOP) campaigns a lot in my younger years and recall when David Duke ran for Governor and US Senator, he got like 10% of the black vote and had he gotten 12%, he would have won since he already had got close to 70% of the white vote; my numbers may be off a little,going from memory, my point is, if David Duke can get 10% of the black vote in Louisiana, surely the GOP could get a few points better in places like Philly or Cincinnati, I would think anyway.

[WildRose]

Fine, don't do it, just stop complaining about blacks not voting Republican.

Oh, and with a concerted effort the Republicans could probably get a quarter of black voters on social issues. Black folks, especially older ones, tend to be very socially conservative.Exactly where have I ever complained about not getting the votes of any race? Please post links.

Again, quit being contrary and actually engage in a reasoned conversation by actually addressing the points directly, as well as actually answering the questions.

You aren't convincing anything by being combative other than perhaps convincing us there's simply no point in attempting to engage you in a polite conversation on much of anything.

[WildRose]

I worked in the Party(GOP) campaigns a lot in my younger years and recall when David Duke ran for Governor and US Senator, he got like 10% of the black vote and had he gotten 12%, he would have won since he already had got close to 70% of the white vote; my numbers may be off a little,going from memory, my point is, if David Duke can get 10% of the black vote in Louisiana, surely the GOP could get a few points better in places like Philly or Cincinnati, I would think anyway.Thank God he didn't!

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

I worked in the Party(GOP) campaigns a lot in my younger years and recall when David Duke ran for Governor and US Senator, he got like 10% of the black vote and had he gotten 12%, he would have won since he already had got close to 70% of the white vote; my numbers may be off a little,going from memory, my point is, if David Duke can get 10% of the black vote in Louisiana, surely the GOP could get a few points better in places like Philly or Cincinnati, I would think anyway.

I know for a fact they could if they did three things:

Stop with the whole welfare queen, Democratic plantation stuff.

Drop the "bury 'em under the jail" philosophy in the War on Drugs. Ending the War on Drugs should be a conservative issue anyway.

Stress social issues. Remember who helped defeat Prop 8.

[johnrocks]

I know for a fact they could if they did three things:

Stop with the whole welfare queen, Democratic plantation stuff.

Drop the "bury 'em under the jail" philosophy in the War on Drugs. Ending the War on Drugs should be a conservative issue anyway.

Stress social issues. Remember who helped defeat Prop 8.

Yeah, I like it except for the social issue part, that's already lost a lot of more libertarian slanted conservatives, perhaps keep it on the down low,locally.:think:

[nunyadb]

I worked in the Party(GOP) campaigns a lot in my younger years and recall when David Duke ran for Governor and US Senator, he got like 10% of the black vote and had he gotten 12%, he would have won since he already had got close to 70% of the white vote; my numbers may be off a little,going from memory, my point is, if David Duke can get 10% of the black vote in Louisiana, surely the GOP could get a few points better in places like Philly or Cincinnati, I would think anyway.

John, I've got to ask, just how in HELL did David Duke ( der feurher ) get any
of the black community to vote for him. He's a frikkin loon.

[WildRose]

Had to go do a little research. Checked US population by race and ethnicity.

Again, let's talk resources.

Blacks make up approximately 13% of the population. Approximately 40% of those eligible to vote do so. So cut that to about 6% of the total voting population. So of the 40 million blacks, approximately 10 million are registered eligible voters.

Of those, approximately 1 million ever vote republican. Let's say if the republicans were willing to pour fifty million dollars into attracting black voters hoping to double that percentage to 2 million votes. Does that make economic sense to anyone?

Divide that out by the 20 states with the highest black populations and concentrate on trying to pick up those 4 million votes in those twenty states and you are spending fifty million dollars, to hopefully increase your vote totals by 100,000 in each of the twenty states. What presidential election in history would have swung by 100,000 votes in each of those twenty states?

I'm sure RNC strategists work on these equations and if they saw there being a viable way to do it they would.

Again I'll ask. Is there anything about the conservative agenda that blacks do not understand, or do not have the ability to learn on their own?

No one has ever done anything to come into any area I live in to "get my vote". Yet I know that I'm a conservative, agree with the conservative agenda, and thus vote for conservative candidates.

I don't need anyone to do that and my vote cannot be bought for any amount of money. My principles dictate my votes and nothing else.

[WildRose]

There is a basic 'allowance' which is very cheap. So cheap, it costs more for the government to deliver the water than they charge you. The government makes that up by charging those who use more a higher price. So, at the low end, water is subsidized.

That's a seperate issue. My point is that government does the job of delivering water. I say that to those who claim government can't do anything right.Your point fails completely though because local government is always more efficent and responsive to their constituents than the federal government.

I have no problem, and in fact have laid out repeatedly how the entire health care issue can be solved efficiently at the state level. Again, 85% are covered and more than 85% are content with the coverage we have. Of those that aren't half are uninsured by choice, a quarter are temporarily uninsured for a period of 4 months, and a quarter cannot get insurance but want it.

Again, solving the problem by destroying the system that works for more than 85% to take care of about five or six percent is ludicrous. The only two examples we have of "government run health care" at the federal level are Medicare and Medicaid which are both bankrupting the nation. Medicare will be paying more out each month than it takes in, inside of two years.

You can't solve that problem by putting more people who can't pay into the same system.

[johnrocks]

John, I've got to ask, just how in HELL did David Duke ( der feurher ) get any
of the black community to vote for him. He's a frikkin loon.

He seeked out and got the endorsement of a well known civil rights activist from Mississippi for one thing and also did what Tommy stated, he actively campaigned in black precincts.

James Meredith was the civil rights activist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Meredith

[johnrocks]

Thank God he didn't!

Should have seen his rallies, rock stars don't get audiences as excited. He came within a whisper of winning, he beat out the sitting Governor and Edwin Edwards won.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

He seeked out and got the endorsement of a well known civil rights activist from Mississippi for one thing and also did what Tommy stated, he actively campaigned in black precincts.

James Meredith was the civil rights activist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Meredith

And this was David Duke.

But, yeah, it's impossible for Republicans to get black votes. :rolleyes:

[johnrocks]

And this was David Duke.

But, yeah, it's impossible for Republicans to get black votes. :rolleyes:

He knew that every vote counted, look at the close elections, like in Minnesota, had dumbass campaigned in the black precincts, the comedian might not be US Senator now.

[WildRose]

Should have seen his rallies, rock stars don't get audiences as excited. He came within a whisper of winning, he beat out the sitting Governor and Edwin Edwards won.Oh I well remember. I also remember how he was just flat excorriated as a lunatic and a racist shortly thereafter.

[johnrocks]

Oh I well remember. I also remember how he was just flat excorriated as a lunatic and a racist shortly thereafter.

He was a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard , he garnered national attention, he was on everything from the Phil Donahue Show to the nightly news, it took the concerted effort of both parties, the NFL threatening to never have a Super Bowl in Louisiana again, the Business and Tourism industry threatening to boycott the entire State and go elsewhere for conventions and other things to beat him and he still got the majority of the votes north of Alexandria and the White vote statewide.

[nunyadb]

Sorry man, but he did not get my vote.
I saw his name and just hit the switch for the name next to it.
Didn't even look at who it was, didn't care, long as it wasn't him.

[johnrocks]

Sorry man, but he did not get my vote.
I saw his name and just hit the switch for the name next to it.
Didn't even look at who it was, didn't care, long as it wasn't him.

I understand but he won the town and the Parish you live in.

[WildRose]

And this was David Duke.

But, yeah, it's impossible for Republicans to get black votes. :rolleyes:Who said that? They average around 10-12% historically over the last twenty or so years in every presidential election.

[nunyadb]

I understand but he won the town and the Parish you live in.

I'm well aware of that, hell, he even got 30+% of the black vote here.
Thing is, I know enough of the local Klan people that I know exactly what the
guy really is, and what he isn't.
Sure, he's personable, smart, and actually likable in person.
But he's not somebody I'd trust to make public policy decisions.
Simply because I know what he really is.

Of course, in hindsight, he'd probably have been better than what we ended up with.
Which in itself is one hell of an indictment of what people are willing to buy into.

[Gaetano "Tommy" Lucchese]

Who said that? They average around 10-12% historically over the last twenty or so years in every presidential election.

Go lower. Remember the big deal made that Bush might actually crack ten percent of the black vote in 2004, and it didn't happen?

[johnrocks]

I'm well aware of that, hell, he even got 30+% of the black vote here.
Thing is, I know enough of the local Klan people that I know exactly what the
guy really is, and what he isn't.
Sure, he's personable, smart, and actually likable in person.
But he's not somebody I'd trust to make public policy decisions.
Simply because I know what he really is.

Of course, in hindsight, he'd probably have been better than what we ended up with.
Which in itself is one hell of an indictment of what people are willing to buy into.

Yeah, I know all those things too, have talked to him at length and in private. I wasn't trying to turn this into a Duke thread,lol., my only point is, the votes are everywhere , just like in sales,it's a number's game, you talk to as many as possible,knowing that the majority will say no, it's that minority that will make you successful though.

[nunyadb]

Yeah, I know all those things too, have talked to him at length and in private. I wasn't trying to turn this into a Duke thread,lol., my only point is, the votes are everywhere , just like in sales,it's a number's game, you talk to as many as possible,knowing that the majority will say no, it's that minority that will make you successful though.

Yeah, I see the point. Don't mean I like it, but i do see the point.

[Rurudyne]

That government does things. (whether they contract the work out or not)

Matter of fact, our most essential services the government handles.

That's one of the primary functions of government.
Local government, yes.

The federal though lacks delegated power to perform social services among the several States.

[Cletus Wilbury]

Your point fails completely though because local government is always more efficent and responsive to their constituents than the federal government. ...


Good point. I like your response much better than some of the previous ones.

The idea of state run HMOs is not new.

I looked this stuff up out of my own curiosity, no point to it:

http://calhealthreform.org/


The year 2007 was hailed by many as California's "Year of Health Reform." After intense legislative development and negotiations throughout the year, broad efforts to expand coverage stalled in January 2008.
...
(from link within)
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's health reform proposal aims to provide affordable health coverage to all Californians. The proposal imposes a mandate that all Californians obtain health coverage. The Governor’s plan would require employers to offer coverage or contribute up to 4% of payroll toward the cost of employees' coverage through a purchasing pool. A purchasing pool would be established to administer premium subsidies and offer coverage.
...


HMOs say they don't cover pre-existing conditions because they don't want people just signing up when they get sick. (that's certainly reasonable) HMOs like the idea of mandating health insurance, for obvious reasons.

But many don't like the idea of requiring people to buy health care or pay a fine if they don't. That is one feature of the House plan I read, one that some don't like.

A more recent article on health care bills being proposed in the California Health bills

http://www.californiaprogressreport.com/2009/08/key_health_bill_1.html

[Cletus Wilbury]

Local government, yes.....

Thanks for agreeing with that much.

[Roberts_the_man]

"In the meantime, we have some immediate struggles on our hands
But the good news is that the broad movement that elected President Obama
and larger majorities in the Congress is up and running."

Sam Webb, Chairman, Communist Party USA

+1

Bump for a great find on a quote that paints it as it is for Barry the Marxist . :lol:

[Rurudyne]

Thanks for agreeing with that much.
I'm a big fan of lawful government and an opponent to unlawful.

The federal simply has no delegated authority for offering social services or subsidizing local agencies among the several States.

By now, though, the federal has robbed the people of their means for unlawful purposes to such an extent that it has become as much the ongoing need for those very illegal subsidies. Simply, local authorities who may have legitimate authority for these functions cannot raise funds to provide for them locally while the federal is taking so much for fraudulent use.

[Roberts_the_man]

He was a former Ku Klux Klan Grand Wizard , he garnered national attention, he was on everything from the Phil Donahue Show to the nightly news, it took the concerted effort of both parties, the NFL threatening to never have a Super Bowl in Louisiana again, the Business and Tourism industry threatening to boycott the entire State and go elsewhere for conventions and other things to beat him and he still got the majority of the votes north of Alexandria and the White vote statewide.

Some people just don't pay attention...

As proof I point out Barry the Marxist the friend of so many Marxist and radicals...

[Tangible]

Sure, for the sake of political expediency. Did he change his heart? No evidence of that.

There's no evidence that he didn't. I suppose conservatives don't believe that people can change.

[Tangible]

Horse ****.
When you join the Klan, it's for life.
Just like the mafia.
Once in, you're in, and you never leave.

You really don't know all that much about the Klan do you ?

No man is bound by any click. He renounced his membership. Now whether or not you think politics were involved, it shows the shift in the democratic party from conservatism to liberalism. He had to become liberal to be accepted in the new democratic party.

[Cletus Wilbury]

I'm a big fan of lawful government and an opponent to unlawful....

What do you think about Article III of the Constitution that it's the Supreme Court that has the judicial Power which "shall extend to all Cases ... under this Constitution" ?

[Rurudyne]

What do you think about Article III of the Constitution that it's the Supreme Court that has the judicial Power which "shall extend to all Cases ... under this Constitution" ?
Simple, the Court too has delegated power and A3:S2 defines the limits of it.

With respect to the Constitution it imposes few specific limits on the several States and only one broad requirement (A4:S2 should require the several States to respect our common law P&I as per Corfield v Coryell and others) so that sCOTUS should have jurisdiction over State affairs arising under the Constitution.

Also consider the 10th Amendment: there are only a few delegated powers for the federal government and all other potential powers are reserved, unincorporated for the federal government, to the States or the people.

As such there are innumerable sorts of Cases or Petitions which do not arise under "the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;" (a treaty cannot presume to delegate powers not possessed by the federal nor obligate the federal to engage in activities that the Constitution makes no allowance for or else such is agreed to under some other authority than a constitutional one) and thus innumerable sorts of Cases or Petitions for which the Court has NO LAWFUL jurisdiction at all.

For example: Roe is a Case for which the Court had no lawful jurisdiction to even hear. Texas was under no obligation under A4:S2 to honor any privilege to an abortion nor had Congress enacted any law under their delegated power as per the 14th's "poi" clause to prevent the several States from outlawing abortion. As such there was no matter arising under either the Constitution or the Laws of the United States by which the Court had lawful jurisdiction.

Here I'll point to Marbury for a point of comparison:
If an act of the Legislature repugnant to the Constitution is void, does it, notwithstanding its invalidity, bind the Courts and oblige them to give it effect? Or, in other words, though it be not law, does it constitute a rule as operative as if it was a law? This would be to overthrow in fact what was established in theory, and would seem, at first view, an absurdity too gross to be insisted on.... please remember that Marbury has been misrepresented and that the actual conclusion hinges on:
From these and many other selections which might be made, it is apparent that the framers of the Constitution contemplated that instrument as a rule for the government of courts, as well as of the Legislature.The Court has no more authority to expand its jurisdiction by ordinary means at its disposal than the Congress does (remember, Congress had attempted to alter the Court's original jurisdiction by means of an ordinary statute and the Petition actually hinged on if the Court had lawful ability to agree to accept this new power).

So in a matter of jurisdiction, which is the power of the Court, it cannot presume to accept any Case or Petition that does not arise from its delegated jurisdiction.

As such, the States (and specifically the relevant State supreme court, who actually HAVE valid jurisdiction) should no more consider uppity rulings of the Court as binding than the courts should respect pretend laws for which there is no delegated authority.

sCOTUS is only the Supreme Court of the United States and not the 'Supreme Court Over the Several States".

[WildRose]

There's no evidence that he didn't. I suppose conservatives don't believe that people can change.People can change a lot of things. It's Pretty uncommon though to change your deep core beliefs. How you can hate an entire race of people simply because of their color, to such an extent as to join an organization hell bent on their destruction and remain in that organization for a significant portion of your life and suddenly clear that hatred from your heart becoming a completely new person without Jesus Christ himself taking you by the hand and healing your heart I think is pretty unlikely.

If you think however that kind of change is possible and common what on earth makes you think that the republican party is the home of racists today, when they espouse nothing but equality for all....:think:

[Cletus Wilbury]

....
For example: Roe is a Case for which the Court had no lawful jurisdiction to even hear. ....

You know what they say about opinions.

But "under this Constitution" it's SCOTUS' opinion that applies to law.

(don't bother to reply, because you're just spinning)

[Rurudyne]

You know what they say about opinions.

But "under this Constitution" it's SCOTUS' opinion that applies to law.

(don't bother to reply, because you're just spinning)
My wheels?

And no, I'm not spinning in that other sense.

The Court too had limited jurisdiction beyond which they have no lawful power to go. Mere opinions do not rise to the dignity of amendments to the Constitution or else the Court would not be governed by said document as is the Congress. You should really read Marbury ... it did not establish judicial review much as Marshall himself sought to demonstrate by citing the Cases that DID. Instead, Marbury hinged on the proper methodology for judicial review — a methodology that strongly refutes fraudulent notions like the living Constitution.

As for the Court: there is nothing in Marbury that grants to that body ALONE the power of interpretation. Under these present circumstances, when the Court has been so long in labor to subvert the Constitution and replace it with their commentary as if they were like the Rabbis of old surrounding Torah with margin notes: that power so long neglected has as much reverted to nature not very different from the way that the writers of the DoI said that the legislative power had done so in their time.

But if you think you're able to refute my arguments yourself, I would welcome the attempt.

PS: the fact that many kinds of Cases do not ever arise under the delegated jurisdiction of the Court gives lie to the fatuous insistence in favor of the living Constitution that the Framers could not have anticipated all possible cases so that the Constitution should speak to them ... it does not and the Court has no authority over such Cases.

[Cletus Wilbury]

My wheels?....

Yes. I was initially gonna say wheels, but then thought of O'Reilly & decided to leave it off as as low blow. Good job spotting it.

[Rurudyne]

No interest in debating the merits of these matters or are you too dazzled by people in high offices to question their pronouncements?

I prefer to offer arguments and logics for debate and so forth.

Here's a question: Butler 1939ish (from memory) ...

Was it a valid exercise of the Court's power to essentially amend the Constitution by altering its long standing and universally recognized reading of the Commerce Clause to give FDR the neigh limitless power he craved?

This strikes to the root of the question raised by and on which Marbury was decided: can the Court agree to alter its own delegated powers in concurrence with a second branch of government but without an amendment to the Constitution?

I would also point out that the 10th Amendment's reservation of powers to those besides the federal speaks to how government was established both initially and as an ongoing concern: that powers unincorporated by Law (i.e. an amendment) were expressly not possessed by the federal at all. So where comes this supposed power for the federal to incorporate new abilities for itself (if by statute, executive order, or opinion)?