David Duke On Presidential Bid: "Yes, I Am Considering It"

[catzmeow]

Finally, while you poke fun at my avi-pic, it speaks volumes that only one of us has provided a pic of him-herself...

Untrue. Those are my legs.

Political Chic, question. As a conservative, do you find it at all embarrassing for David Duke to be affiliated with the Republican party? Does it bother you that self-proclaimed Republicans on this board are welcoming him with open arms? Do you think that the Louisiana Republican Party should be subject to any sort of censure for allowing him to run as a candidate, given his long history of involvement with white supremacist/anti-minority groups?

 

[geauxtohell]

You have babbled some inconsequetial pap. Weak.

I have no problem in leaving up to any readers to consider your charges against the Republicans, the people of the South, and the suggesting that black Americans were tricked by the Republicans into aligning themselves with segregationists...

At no point have I stated that the GOP "tricked" black Americans into aligning themselves with segregationists. You either aren't reading what I am writing or are completely dense.

Even though you dismiss it, do you understand what the Southern Strategy was? Your comments on here suggest you have no earthly idea how it was used (even if just a conspiracy theory) which makes it hard for you to articulate an argument against it.

...I have no doubt that you will appear, based on the sources and documented material that I have provided, to all, as the easily-led Left-wing janissary that your are.

This statement does nothing for your argument.

In precis, I have championed the idea that for a century the Democrat party had been a segregationist and obstructionist party, and while it is the Republicans who have been responsible for the great gains of black Americans, in fact, it was the reason the Republican Party was created, and the monetary gifts offered by Democrats is the reason for the political shift of the black block-vote.

No doubt the GOP was responsible for emancipating the slaves, thought that was hardly the reason it was created. Lincoln was more concerned with preserving the union then freeing the slave and is on record as such. He still, (like LBJ) eventually round his way, changed his tune, and did the right thing.

At any rate, the Civil Rights act, as evidenced by simple numbers and the President who signed it into law (as opposed to Ms. Coulter's opinion) was a Democratic initiative.

Certainly elements within the GOP sought to make political capital out of the backlash that followed civil rights. I have provided those quotes and references.

You have chosen to simply ignore them and want to reference the internal debate within the Democratic party over civil rights. As if any issue, especially one as controversial as Civil Rights, would go through any party without debate and dissent.

It's all irrelevant. The end product is all that matters. Again (for the third time), I am more interested in where the GOP went after 1964.

As an aside, you have championed another false trope of the Left, that Liberals are not responsible for evicting ROTC from Liberal universities. Equally bogus.

In your opinion. After being presented with evidence to the contrary, the best you can do is offer your opinion. You are still wrong.

But what would I know about ROTC? I only was a part of it for four years. I am sure you and Ann Coulter know much more about this.

At any rate, whenever you want to address the actual substance behind the research in that OPED, feel free to do so.

Also feel free to comment on Hillsdale's policy towards ROTC. Principled or prejudiced? Why are they any different than Harvard?

This is why you are boring; you are partisan to the point of being dull. I don't claim that I am non-partisan, but I can give the GOP credit where it's due. You seem to have been dumbed down to an existence where you think one side is 100% good and the other is 100% evil.

Finally, while you poke fun at my avi-pic, it speaks volumes that only one of us has provided a pic of him-herself...

My picture is in my public profile, where it has been since I joined. In that picture, I am in a real uniform. When I wanted to be a soldier, I simply went and became a soldier. I didn't decide to wait until I was a bored suburbanite to play soldier.

But get down with your bad self. Whatever gets you through the night.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Now, hope you're sitting dow:
There never was a racist "Nixon's Southern Strategy".
It is a totally fabricated idea by the Left, supported by the Old Left Media, and bought- like it was on sale- by the gullible.

1. As president of the Senate, Nixon strongly supported civil rights, specifically the 1957 civil rights act, issuing an advisory opinion that a filibuster could be stopped with a simple majority, thereby changing Senate rules. Congressional Record, Volume 157 Issue 12 (Thursday, January 27, 2011)

a. During the endless deliberations, Democrat LBJ warned his fellow segregationist Democrats, ‘Be ready to take up the goddamned nigra bill again.” Borzoi Reader | Authors | Robert A. Caro

b. Then there was liberal Democrat Sam Ervin- instrumental in the destruction of anti-communist Republicans Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon- who told fellow segregationists, “I’m on your side, not theirs, “ but “we’ve got to give the goddamned ******* something.” Ibid.

c. LBJ gutted the enforcement provisions of the 1957 bill, i.e., anyone accused of violating a person’s voting rights was guaranteed a jury trial- and, therefore, jury nullification by Democrat juries. To fix the enforcement provisions that Democrats had gutted, Eisenhower introduced a bill to create the US Civil Rights Commission…Democrats staged the longest filibuster in history- over 125 hours. But the bill passed and was signed by Ike on May 6, 1960.

2. Typical idiot education: When the Republicans won their gains in Congress, 2010, Bill Maher said: “I haven’t seen Republicans so happy about taking seats since they made Rosa Parks stand up.” HBO: Real Time with Bill Maher: Ep 196 November 5, 2010: Quotes

a. When Rosa Parks refuse to give up her seat, the mayor of Montgomery enforcing segregation on the buses was- of course- a segregationist Democrat, William A. “Tacky” Gayle. “The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr.: Birth of a new age, December 1955,” p. 80.

b. History provide the basis for a very different analysis. “During the 1966 campaign, Nixon was personally thanked by Dr. King for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Nixon also endorsed all Republicans, except the members of the John Birch Society.” Frequently Asked Questions | National Black Republican Association

3. Between 1969 and 1974, Nixon – who believed that blacks had gotten a raw deal in America and wanted to extend a helping hand: raised the civil rights enforcement budget 800 percent; doubled the budget for black colleges; appointed more blacks to federal posts and high positions than any president, including LBJ; adopted the Philadelphia Plan mandating quotas for blacks in unions, and for black scholars in colleges and universities; invented "Black Capitalism" (the Office of Minority Business Enterprise), raised U.S. purchases from black businesses from $9 million to $153 million, increased small business loans to minorities 1,000 percent, increased U.S. deposits in minority-owned banks 4,000 percent; raised the share of Southern schools that were desegregated from 10 percent to 70 percent. Wrote the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1975, "It has only been since 1968 that substantial reduction of racial segregation has taken place in the South."http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30233#ixzz1RH1WZDv8

a.Now, clearly, conservatives do not favor racial quotas of any kind, but Nixon’s efforts must be seen as a reaction to a century of Democrat obstructionism on civil rights. Purely a coincidence, I’m sure, that Dems finally came around when blacks were voting in high enough numbers to make a difference at the ballot box. Note, Nixon did it even though it hurt him politically. Kotlowski, Dean J. ; "Richard Nixon and the Origins of Affirmative Action" The Historian. Volume: 60. Issue: 3. 1998. pp. 523 ff.



4. Do you get it yet?
Everything you believe in politics is wrong!
You've been lied to...and worse...you never did your own research to see if it was true!!!

If there was a Southern Strategy, it was unfurled by the people of the South, who essentially ‘rebelled’ again, against the lawless, unprincipled Democrats, who they recognized as being responsible for, or at least accepting of the legalized obscenity, student riots, the Weather Underground, the Symbionese Liberation Party, and the Black Panthers, skyrocketing crime rates, courts giving more and more elaborate rights to criminals, ended the death penalty, banned prayer from the schools, among other depredations.

And, being patriots, (name a Southern university that banned ROTC. Even Duke has one) they appreciated the fact that the Republicans were hawks during the Cold War. So rather than a Republican strategy, it was the Democrats’ shift from the party of Harry Truman to the party of Rosie O’Donnell!


You've been mislead- but it's your own fault! Pick up a book.
Do you feel dumb? Really, really dumb?

So....without emoticons, you'd be mute?

When you use your own words, I'll be happy to converse. When you cut & paste Coulter, it only deserves mocking and ROTF smilies.

Especially when you end by saying "pick up a book".

 

[Tank]

The way America is heading, expect Duke and people like him to become more popular.

 

[Synthaholic]

Not all Dukes are bad:

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[Synthaholic]

 

[PoliticalChic]

Finally, while you poke fun at my avi-pic, it speaks volumes that only one of us has provided a pic of him-herself...

Untrue. Those are my legs.

Political Chic, question. As a conservative, do you find it at all embarrassing for David Duke to be affiliated with the Republican party? Does it bother you that self-proclaimed Republicans on this board are welcoming him with open arms? Do you think that the Louisiana Republican Party should be subject to any sort of censure for allowing him to run as a candidate, given his long history of involvement with white supremacist/anti-minority groups?

As you note, I'm a concervative. If someone with whom I don't find sympatico were to don the conservative label, I'm articuate enough to explain same.

Since you know that I'm a conservative, you probably know my postition on most of the issues on which I have posted.

Or would you ask a black to explain their exact reaction if a black person committed some horrendous crime?

 

[PoliticalChic]

So....without emoticons, you'd be mute?

When you use your own words, I'll be happy to converse. When you cut & paste Coulter, it only deserves mocking and ROTF smilies.

Especially when you end by saying "pick up a book".

But, here is where you'd run into a problem...I collect links that identify my thinking...

...since you haven't attained a level that migh be identified as 'thought,' you had best stick to emoticons and pics and cartoons.


It's a win-win: we each pick the characteristics of our own posts!

 

[catzmeow]

Or would you ask a black to explain their exact reaction if a black person committed some horrendous crime?

No, but I do find muslim disavowals of muslim terrist acts rather comforting. Don't you?

 

[Synthaholic]

So....without emoticons, you'd be mute?

When you use your own words, I'll be happy to converse. When you cut & paste Coulter, it only deserves mocking and ROTF smilies.

Especially when you end by saying "pick up a book".

But, here is where you'd run into a problem...I collect links that identify my thinking...

...since you haven't attained a level that migh be identified as 'thought,' you had best stick to emoticons and pics and cartoons.


It's a win-win: we each pick the characteristics of our own posts!

Well, there's our difference: I think for myself, and collect links that confirm what I know to be the truth.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have babbled some inconsequetial pap. Weak.

I have no problem in leaving up to any readers to consider your charges against the Republicans, the people of the South, and the suggesting that black Americans were tricked by the Republicans into aligning themselves with segregationists...

At no point have I stated that the GOP "tricked" black Americans into aligning themselves with segregationists. You either aren't reading what I am writing or are completely dense.

Even though you dismiss it, do you understand what the Southern Strategy was? Your comments on here suggest you have no earthly idea how it was used (even if just a conspiracy theory) which makes it hard for you to articulate an argument against it.

...I have no doubt that you will appear, based on the sources and documented material that I have provided, to all, as the easily-led Left-wing janissary that your are.

This statement does nothing for your argument.



No doubt the GOP was responsible for emancipating the slaves, thought that was hardly the reason it was created. Lincoln was more concerned with preserving the union then freeing the slave and is on record as such. He still, (like LBJ) eventually round his way, changed his tune, and did the right thing.

At any rate, the Civil Rights act, as evidenced by simple numbers and the President who signed it into law (as opposed to Ms. Coulter's opinion) was a Democratic initiative.

Certainly elements within the GOP sought to make political capital out of the backlash that followed civil rights. I have provided those quotes and references.

You have chosen to simply ignore them and want to reference the internal debate within the Democratic party over civil rights. As if any issue, especially one as controversial as Civil Rights, would go through any party without debate and dissent.

It's all irrelevant. The end product is all that matters. Again (for the third time), I am more interested in where the GOP went after 1964.

As an aside, you have championed another false trope of the Left, that Liberals are not responsible for evicting ROTC from Liberal universities. Equally bogus.

In your opinion. After being presented with evidence to the contrary, the best you can do is offer your opinion. You are still wrong.

But what would I know about ROTC? I only was a part of it for four years. I am sure you and Ann Coulter know much more about this.

At any rate, whenever you want to address the actual substance behind the research in that OPED, feel free to do so.

Also feel free to comment on Hillsdale's policy towards ROTC. Principled or prejudiced? Why are they any different than Harvard?

This is why you are boring; you are partisan to the point of being dull. I don't claim that I am non-partisan, but I can give the GOP credit where it's due. You seem to have been dumbed down to an existence where you think one side is 100% good and the other is 100% evil.

Finally, while you poke fun at my avi-pic, it speaks volumes that only one of us has provided a pic of him-herself...

My picture is in my public profile, where it has been since I joined. In that picture, I am in a real uniform. When I wanted to be a soldier, I simply went and became a soldier. I didn't decide to wait until I was a bored suburbanite to play soldier.

But get down with your bad self. Whatever gets you through the night.

Now, don't run from the essence of your original post: your post identified the reason why Southerners vote Republican is a racist Nixonian Southern Strategy.

My refutation was that the policy that won over that population was one that resisted the far left policies assumed and championed by the Democrat Party.

1. "No doubt the GOP was responsible for emancipating the slaves, thought that was hardly the reason it was created."
That is exatly the reason it was created. Learn some history.


2."... the Civil Rights act, as evidenced by simple numbers and the President who signed it into law (as opposed to Ms. Coulter's opinion) was a Democratic initiative."
There were several civil rights acts....those prior to 1964 produced greater achievements for black Americans than the '64.

a. Democrats blocked Republican-instituted civil rights bills, 1890 protection for black voters; anti-lynching bills in 1922, 1935, and 1938; anti-poll tax bills in 1942,1944, and 1946.

b. A far greater proportion of Republicans voted for the '64 act than did Democrats.

3. "...do you understand what the Southern Strategy was?"
The Southern Strategy as you identify it never existed, and the concept is firmly embedded in the fantasy-mythology that the left has used with the weak minded.
The same applies to your erroneous belief that ROTC left the Northeastern Liberal universities of their own volition.

4. "elements within the GOP sought to make political capital out of the backlash that followed civil rights."
Southerners voted for Republican integrationist policies.
Case in point: the idea of a ‘Southern Strategy’ as some kind of racist appeal to Southerners seems to be less than supportable when one observes the fate of segregationist Democrat Governor Orval Faubus of Arkansas.

Did he suddenly became a Republican when Nixon became President??? No, he became retired when Republican Winthop Rockefeller defeated him as an integrationist, in a state with 11% Republican registration, Arkansas.
BTW, Clinton invited Faubus to his inauguration as governor, warmly embracing him.


5. "But what would I know about ROTC? I only was a part of it for four years."
And this proves that you are not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Which Ivy did you attend?
With which that evicted ROTC do you have experience?
Oh- none and none?
Doesn't stop you from swallowing every bit of propagana that the NYTimes puts on your tray,eh.


6. "you are partisan to the point of being dull."
OH....if only you had the gift of irony.

You attempt to propound a Democrat idyll in the face of multiple examples of Republican civil rights legislative endeavors.
That pretty much identifies you as a close your eyes, cover your ears, stamp your foot, partisan loyalist. Learn some history.

7. One more time, and a most telling episode: LBJ and the Democrats gutted the enforcement provisions of the 1957 bill, i.e., anyone accused of violating a person’s voting rights was guaranteed a jury trial- and, therefore, jury nullification by Democrat juries.

To fix the enforcement provisions that Democrats had gutted, Eisenhower introduced a bill to create the US Civil Rights Commission…Democrats staged the longest filibuster in history- over 125 hours. But the bill passed and was signed by Ike on May 6, 1960.

Yet in '64, these same segretationist Democrats became civil rights activists???
Baloney.

And, you see these same Republicans as using some anti-civil rights racist 'Southern Strategy.'
Bogus.

It's a fabrication that you have been taught, and haven't the intellectual strength to overcome.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Or would you ask a black to explain their exact reaction if a black person committed some horrendous crime?

No, but I do find muslim disavowals of muslim terrist acts rather comforting. Don't you?

No feeling either way.

You are saying that if I, as a conservative, say some Republican organization is right, or wrong....that would mean what?

That would comfort you???
Why?

 

[catzmeow]

You are saying that if I, as a conservative, say some Republican organization is right, or wrong....

I find it disheartening when conservatives are more interested in focusing on Robert Byrd than in rooting out the outright racists in their own party that give them all a black eye. And, more than a little hypocritical.

In no way would I allow someone like David Duke to associate himself with me (ditto Elijah Muhammed or ANY OTHER RACIST). Why does the association of David Duke with the Republican party appear to bother you less than the association of Robert Byrd with the Democratic Party?

Why aren't more republicans involved in forcefully calling out and disavowing racists like David Duke, and demanding that their peers in the party dissasociate themselves from him?

 

[Againsheila]

You are saying that if I, as a conservative, say some Republican organization is right, or wrong....

I find it disheartening when conservatives are more interested in focusing on Robert Byrd than in rooting out the outright racists in their own party that give them all a black eye. And, more than a little hypocritical.

In no way would I allow someone like David Duke to associate himself with me (ditto Elijah Muhammed or ANY OTHER RACIST). Why does the association of David Duke with the Republican party appear to bother you less than the association of Robert Byrd with the Democratic Party?

Why aren't more republicans involved in forcefully calling out and disavowing racists like David Duke, and demanding that their peers in the party dissasociate themselves from him?

I find it disheartening that so many think this is a conservative vs liberals issue, or a republican vs democrats issue.

Why not accept that both parties are corrupt and have stopped doing anything for the good of the American people. Anyone who votes for either of those parties is voting for evil, they'll even admit that themselves with their "I voted for the lesser of two evils." Well guess what? The lesser of two evils is EVIL!!!!

 

[catzmeow]

I find it disheartening that so many think this is a conservative vs liberals issue, or a republican vs democrats issue.

Why not accept that both parties are corrupt and have stopped doing anything for the good of the American people. Anyone who votes for either of those parties is voting for evil, they'll even admit that themselves with their "I voted for the lesser of two evils." Well guess what? The lesser of two evils is EVIL!!!!

Are you under the mistaken impression that I'm a fan of the democrats/liberals? If so, get over it. This thread is about David Duke running for the presidency -- as a republican.

I find the crickets chirping in the republican seats to be rather nauseating.