Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Wouldn't this be something to have David Duke go up and challenge Obama for the presidency? At least we know one thing. Duke is a natural born citizen born to 'Two' U.S. citizen parents which qualifies him for Article 2 Section 1 purposes that Obama doesn't meet. Apparently Duke was elected in the richest district of Louisiana when he ran for the House Seat that David Vitter held as well as former Governor David Treen. According to the article, Duke will go on a 25 state tour. He will get support I believe and he sure knows how to scare the media to death and they would surely give him media attention. This will be interesting to watch
David Duke on a Presidential Bid: 'Yes, I Am Considering It' - Garance Franke-Ruta - Politics - The Atlantic
White Supremacists Running for Political Office in 2012 in Growing Numbers - The Daily Beast
former Louisiana state representative David Duke confirms he's mulling tossing his hat into the 2012 presidential contest.
"Yes, I am considering it,"
Story going national:
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...-/1?csp=34news
Another thing we know about Duke:
He's a former Grand Wizard in the Klan and a current White Supremacist.
He should fit right in with the Democrats then.
Can you say "Robert Byrd"?
He should fit right in with the Democrats then. Can you say "Robert Byrd"?
The Robert Byrd who repented his sins, stayed with his party, and worked to atone for his ways. That Robert Byrd?
Compared to Strom Thurmond, Democratic governor of South Carolina, presidential candidate of the uber racist DixieCrats in 1948, changed to the GOP so he would not have to change his racist past, had a black daughter out of wedlock and hid the truth from the world? That Strom Thurmond?
Take your hypocrisy elsewhere, sonny.
Hell-boy, this is my fav post of the day! The week!
Cause it shows that you have been raised like the proverbial mushroom...raised in the dark and fed you know what.
You're idea of "research" is to regurgitate Ann Coulter's bullshit as if it were fact. It's a shame, because you are educated and should know better.
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/html/books/phillips-southern.pdf
If you want to read the actual words and thoughts of Nixon's political strategist, Kevin Phillip's, who pushed for the Southern Strategy here is the appropriate reference:
Phillips, Kevin (1969). The Emerging Republican Majority. New York: Arlington House. ISBN 0870000586. OCLC 18063.
The "Southern Strategy" is not a myth. It's been written about extensively and the people who advocated for it (like Phillips) are on the record doing so. There is some debate as to how much race played into the south's voting Demographic shift. There is no doubt that the GOP tried to exploit race relations to win votes in the South (successfully).
I also won't dispute that Johnson and Byrd probably were racist to a degree and certainly used racist language when discussing the issues. With Johnson, that's a petty point, as he pushed for civil rights though he knew it would be extremely unpopular. He knew it was the right thing to do. I am actually not a fan of LBJ, but he was right on civil rights.
As for the rest of your tripe, as I said before, do you have anything from within the last 50 years (other than a Maher) quote. You keep referencing the internal strife within the Democratic Party over civil rights as if it's relevant to what is going on today. The outcome is really the only important thing. The DNC came out as the party of civil rights and the GOP inherited Strom Thurmond and the rest of the racist bastards that no longer felt at home in the party. There is a reason Duke is a Republican now.
Now, though it's not relevant to this topic, switching gears to the alleged "ROTC bannings", something which I am a little bit knowledgeable about as I was commissioned through ROTC (meaning I was in ROTC for four years of college and wore a uniform on campus and the whole nine yards (though it wasn't as cool as your cargo pants, wife beater, uzi get up)):
The Myth of the R.O.T.C. Ban - NYTimes.com
The answer is that in all my research on the subject, I have found no universities that ban R.O.T.C., nor has the military initiated action against any institution for banning the program. We have grown accustomed to saying there are bans only because it fits with the assumption that certain colleges are unfriendly to the military.
It is true that many Ivy League colleges do not have R.O.T.C. detachments today. Forty years ago, the military started to close detachments in the Northeast and establish programs in the West and South.
This shift stems from a disagreement in the late 1960s between the Ivy League colleges and the military. Should R.O.T.C. have to comply with the host college’s rules for academic course content and professor qualifications? R.O.T.C. said no, colleges said yes, and the two had to agree to disagree. R.O.T.C. then walked away from Northeastern campuses.
While Harvard is often described as “expelling” R.O.T.C. in 1969, the story is more nuanced. After the military refused to meet Harvard’s standards on academic coursework, the faculty voted to relegate the program to an extracurricular activity, and the military decided to leave. But Harvard did not abolish the program, and it was only much later that people began to talk of a ban.
Ironically, that conservative beacon of academia: Hillsdale College, refuses to let ROTC on their campus, because it would amount to federal funding (in the form of scholarships for people like me who paid their own way through college) which means the federal government would have a say over Hillsdale's policies. I don't have a problem with that personally. However, I just wanted to point out that this isn't (as you fantasize) a "liberal/conservative" thing.
You know, the board is never so much fun as when somebody bites it big time....
...that's where you come in.
1. Some time back (this post) you disputed my assertion that many of the Ivy's banned ROTC.
So, you brought out the 'Big Guns' (note the military lingo, here)...the NYTimes!
"...in all my research on the subject, I have found no universities that ban R.O.T.C., nor has the military initiated action against any institution for banning the program."
Well then, that settles it...the 'newspaper of record' is never wrong!
Wait...
Jason Blair: "A staff reporter for The New York Times committed frequent acts of journalistic fraud..." CORRECTING THE RECORD - CORRECTING THE RECORD - Times Reporter Who Resigned Leaves Long Trail of Deception - NYTimes.com
2. But you said " I am a little bit knowledgeable about as I was commissioned through ROTC (meaning I was in ROTC for four years of college and wore a uniform on campus and the whole nine yards..."
Wow! A personal guarantee...based on 'expertise'...
Who could argue...
Oh, how about this:
"After months of debate, Columbia University is poised to reverse its 42-year ban on military recruiters and training programs on campus. On Friday, the University Senate approved a resolution to explore inviting back the Reserve Officers Training Corps program to campus. The resolution now goes to the University’s Board of Trustees for final approval."
The Return of ROTC to Columbia - Page 1 - News - New York - Village Voice
But...but....NYTimes 'all my research'...and you so knowledgeable!!
And:
"Even after the Vietnam War ended, student opposition to military programs remained high, and after President Clinton issued his “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” directive in 1993, Columbia and several other universities, including Dartmouth, Yale, Harvard, and Stanford, based their continued refusal to allow ROTC on campus on the grounds that military policy violated their own anti-discrimination rules." Ibid.
More?
"Despite his continued opposition to the military as “a machine for global domination,” and his role in getting ROTC kicked out in the first place, [Mark] Rudd..." Ibid.
So what have we learned?
1. You should never doubt me.
2. The great 'research' of the NYTimes is surpassed by the little 'ol (Left wing) Village Voice.
3. Your personal guarantees and 'knowledge' are worthless.
4. "You're idea of "research" is to regurgitate [Old Left Media] bullshit as if it were fact."
5. I started the timer to see how long it takes for you to apologize....
...no hurry, it registers eons.
