Obama - lazy basketball playing welfare taking golfer, never worked a day in his life

[California Girl]

“Obama’s the one who never worked a day in his life. He never earned a penny that wasn’t public money. How many fund-raisers does he attend every week? How often does he play basketball and golf? I wish I had that kind of time. He’s lazy, but the media won’t report that.”

claiming the president “just has a different belief system from most Americans

Roger Ailes on His Looming Death, Whether God Is Partisan, and the Mementos He?s Collected to Leave His Son | Vanity Fair

Not American. Lazy. On welfare. Basketball. All this from the President of FOX and the white wing says they aren't racist? Really?

He hits all the Fox talking points doesn't he?

Racist? We're not racist

Yea, you are a racist... so is deanie.

 

[California Girl]

I stand by my original assertion

Ailes knows which buttons he is pushing with FoxNation

what is the "Fox Nation".....

Well, that's an interestingly racist post.

 

[Trajan]

To his credit, Obama must shower after basketball because he is "Clean and articulate" which apparently in Joe Biden's world is saying a lot -- for a black guy, "That's Storybook, Man!"

Exactly- thats because they don't even realize ( or want to) how enervated their own racist latent tendencies are due to their patronization.

See, they hear lazy and think black, then they turn around and accuse others of meaning what their mind tells them it means,totally devoid of emotion as to how heinous an accusation that is...( until they are the object of the charge of course) .......its associated I think with a sub-clinical pathology called disaffectation.

 

[rightwinger]

 

[freedombecki]

I stand by my original assertion

Ailes knows which buttons he is pushing with FoxNation

what is the "Fox Nation".....

Cartoons being proffered as facts. Ohhhmmmmmmmmm!

 

[Flopper]

Conservatives never did support the welfare system. Republicans have always supported each family taking care of its own.

Yep, you nailed. The Republican policy has always been survival of fittest.

No, I wrote quite a long post about people not being left behind. You excluded it from your my-way-or-the-highway omission of what I said.

Here's a refresher:

Conservatives never did support the welfare system. Republicans have always supported each family taking care of its own. Democrats are the ones who have fought the family with more laws to disable individual families from doing their part. All large governments who overtook family responsibilities away from the individual family eventually just fall apart. Recent history is full of examples of failed socialistic societies and failed redsitributive societies.

Turning us into socialistic Europe does not feed the world. No society wants to come up with enough money to bail out a fist-shaking mob in Greece, because it's money in a hole that grows bigger with each freebie it gets. Making the world into a place where rioting and hatred pays will not end well.

That's just my humble opinion speaking.

And while I'm on the subject, Democrat policies to help blacks have to be held accountable for why after all these years instead of having fewer children nurtured in families, why are so many of them being nurtured into lives of crime by gangs? All that money has brought is a 72% rate of children being born into single-parent homes in black communities. We should all step back and ask ourselves what is going on to make people turn their back on their own children to turn to lives of drugs, crime, and sex with everyone to the demise of the family?

I neither expect that to be free, but getting able-bodied people off the conveient government tit will come only when working Americans unite against big government screwups that have put our blacks in grave jeopardy of lifelong incarceration or sterner 3-strikes-you're-out laws that include the death penalty for lives so dedicated to crime they incorporate it into gang rule.

Conservatives seem to have two approaches to reducing dependency on social programs.

1. Force people to find means of supporting themselves and their family without regard to whether they are capable of doing so. This simply will not work. The media being what it is will fill TV screens with pictures of hungry children, homeless families, and question why are children going hunger in richest nation on earth. I think you're smart enough to see this approach will never fly.

2. Determine those that really need help versus those that are just sponging off the taxpayer. I have a close friend who has worked for DHS for 28 years. She says this is just not possible. DHS follows specific rules concerning assets, income, physical, and mental condition in determining who receives social services. You can't have government workers, denying services because they think you're lazy.

I have seen a lot of people that receive some form of social services and most of them truly need it. No matter what kind of social welfare system we have, we'll always have those that abuse it.

By far the best way to reduce dependence on social welfare programs, is to create jobs that pay enough for people to support themselves and their family. Just creating low paid jobs is not enough because most people using social services have jobs. They just can't make enough to support themselves and their family.

 

[PredFan]

Wow! I just saw the title of this thread and who wrote it listed on the main page and I thought for a minute that rdean accidentally left his brain running. Then I read his OP.

 

[rdean]

Yep, you nailed. The Republican policy has always been survival of fittest.

No, I wrote quite a long post about people not being left behind. You excluded it from your my-way-or-the-highway omission of what I said.

Here's a refresher:

Conservatives never did support the welfare system. Republicans have always supported each family taking care of its own. Democrats are the ones who have fought the family with more laws to disable individual families from doing their part. All large governments who overtook family responsibilities away from the individual family eventually just fall apart. Recent history is full of examples of failed socialistic societies and failed redsitributive societies.

Turning us into socialistic Europe does not feed the world. No society wants to come up with enough money to bail out a fist-shaking mob in Greece, because it's money in a hole that grows bigger with each freebie it gets. Making the world into a place where rioting and hatred pays will not end well.

That's just my humble opinion speaking.

And while I'm on the subject, Democrat policies to help blacks have to be held accountable for why after all these years instead of having fewer children nurtured in families, why are so many of them being nurtured into lives of crime by gangs? All that money has brought is a 72% rate of children being born into single-parent homes in black communities. We should all step back and ask ourselves what is going on to make people turn their back on their own children to turn to lives of drugs, crime, and sex with everyone to the demise of the family?

I neither expect that to be free, but getting able-bodied people off the conveient government tit will come only when working Americans unite against big government screwups that have put our blacks in grave jeopardy of lifelong incarceration or sterner 3-strikes-you're-out laws that include the death penalty for lives so dedicated to crime they incorporate it into gang rule.

Conservatives seem to have two approaches to reducing dependency on social programs.

1. Force people to find means of supporting themselves and their family without regard to whether they are capable of doing so. This simply will not work. The media being what it is will fill TV screens with pictures of hungry children, homeless families, and question why are children going hunger in richest nation on earth. I think you're smart enough to see this approach will never fly.

2. Determine those that really need help versus those that are just sponging off the taxpayer. I have a close friend who has worked for DHS for 28 years. She says this is just not possible. DHS follows specific rules concerning assets, income, physical, and mental condition in determining who receives social services. You can't have government workers, denying services because they think you're lazy.

I have seen a lot of people that receive some form of social services and most of them truly need it. No matter what kind of social welfare system we have, we'll always have those that abuse it.

By far the best way to reduce dependence on social welfare programs, is to create jobs that pay enough for people to support themselves and their family. Just creating low paid jobs is not enough because most people using social services have jobs. They just can't make enough to support themselves and their family.

Republicans think hungry children work harder and they won't "breed".

 

[Trajan]

Yep, you nailed. The Republican policy has always been survival of fittest.

bzxh11
No, I wrote quite a long post about people not being left behind. You excluded it from your my-way-or-the-highway omission of what I said.

Here's a refresher:

Conservatives never did support the welfare system. Republicans have always supported each family taking care of its own. Democrats are the ones who have fought the family with more laws to disable individual families from doing their part. All large governments who overtook family responsibilities away from the individual family eventually just fall apart. Recent history is full of examples of failed socialistic societies and failed redsitributive societies.

Turning us into socialistic Europe does not feed the world. No society wants to come up with enough money to bail out a fist-shaking mob in Greece, because it's money in a hole that grows bigger with each freebie it gets. Making the world into a place where rioting and hatred pays will not end well.

That's just my humble opinion speaking.

And while I'm on the subject, Democrat policies to help blacks have to be held accountable for why after all these years instead of having fewer children nurtured in families, why are so many of them being nurtured into lives of crime by gangs? All that money has brought is a 72% rate of children being born into single-parent homes in black communities. We should all step back and ask ourselves what is going on to make people turn their back on their own children to turn to lives of drugs, crime, and sex with everyone to the demise of the family?

I neither expect that to be free, but getting able-bodied people off the conveient government tit will come only when working Americans unite against big government screwups that have put our blacks in grave jeopardy of lifelong incarceration or sterner 3-strikes-you're-out laws that include the death penalty for lives so dedicated to crime they incorporate it into gang rule.

Conservatives seem to have two approaches to reducing dependency on social programs.

1. Force people to find means of supporting themselves and their family without regard to whether they are capable of doing so. This simply will not work. The media being what it is will fill TV screens with pictures of hungry children, homeless families, and question why are children going hunger in richest nation on earth. I think you're smart enough to see this approach will never fly.

2. Determine those that really need help versus those that are just sponging off the taxpayer. I have a close friend who has worked for DHS for 28 years. She says this is just not possible. DHS follows specific rules concerning assets, income, physical, and mental condition in determining who receives social services. You can't have government workers, denying services because they think you're lazy.

I have seen a lot of people that receive some form of social services and most of them truly need it. No matter what kind of social welfare system we have, we'll always have those that abuse it.

By far the best way to reduce dependence on social welfare programs, is to create jobs that pay enough for people to support themselves and their family. Just creating low paid jobs is not enough because most people using social services have jobs. They just can't make enough to support themselves and their family.

you missed a big one, but be that as it may we can come back to that, are you or, can you answer my question?

 

[Stephanie]

No, I wrote quite a long post about people not being left behind. You excluded it from your my-way-or-the-highway omission of what I said.

Here's a refresher:



I neither expect that to be free, but getting able-bodied people off the conveient government tit will come only when working Americans unite against big government screwups that have put our blacks in grave jeopardy of lifelong incarceration or sterner 3-strikes-you're-out laws that include the death penalty for lives so dedicated to crime they incorporate it into gang rule.

Conservatives seem to have two approaches to reducing dependency on social programs.

1. Force people to find means of supporting themselves and their family without regard to whether they are capable of doing so. This simply will not work. The media being what it is will fill TV screens with pictures of hungry children, homeless families, and question why are children going hunger in richest nation on earth. I think you're smart enough to see this approach will never fly.

2. Determine those that really need help versus those that are just sponging off the taxpayer. I have a close friend who has worked for DHS for 28 years. She says this is just not possible. DHS follows specific rules concerning assets, income, physical, and mental condition in determining who receives social services. You can't have government workers, denying services because they think you're lazy.

I have seen a lot of people that receive some form of social services and most of them truly need it. No matter what kind of social welfare system we have, we'll always have those that abuse it.

By far the best way to reduce dependence on social welfare programs, is to create jobs that pay enough for people to support themselves and their family. Just creating low paid jobs is not enough because most people using social services have jobs. They just can't make enough to support themselves and their family.

Republicans think hungry children work harder and they won't "breed".

man you are losing what little sanity you had..no Republican I know thinks this way..that is just you making up shit again because you have NOTHING ELSE..Your dear leader has been a failure, he's let you all down so now you must lash out at others..go get a life and be try and be happy
of course as we see NOTHING makes you liberals happy if you're not bitching

 

[Stephanie]

Yep, you nailed. The Republican policy has always been survival of fittest.

No, I wrote quite a long post about people not being left behind. You excluded it from your my-way-or-the-highway omission of what I said.

Here's a refresher:

Conservatives never did support the welfare system. Republicans have always supported each family taking care of its own. Democrats are the ones who have fought the family with more laws to disable individual families from doing their part. All large governments who overtook family responsibilities away from the individual family eventually just fall apart. Recent history is full of examples of failed socialistic societies and failed redsitributive societies.

Turning us into socialistic Europe does not feed the world. No society wants to come up with enough money to bail out a fist-shaking mob in Greece, because it's money in a hole that grows bigger with each freebie it gets. Making the world into a place where rioting and hatred pays will not end well.

That's just my humble opinion speaking.

And while I'm on the subject, Democrat policies to help blacks have to be held accountable for why after all these years instead of having fewer children nurtured in families, why are so many of them being nurtured into lives of crime by gangs? All that money has brought is a 72% rate of children being born into single-parent homes in black communities. We should all step back and ask ourselves what is going on to make people turn their back on their own children to turn to lives of drugs, crime, and sex with everyone to the demise of the family?

I neither expect that to be free, but getting able-bodied people off the conveient government tit will come only when working Americans unite against big government screwups that have put our blacks in grave jeopardy of lifelong incarceration or sterner 3-strikes-you're-out laws that include the death penalty for lives so dedicated to crime they incorporate it into gang rule.

Conservatives seem to have two approaches to reducing dependency on social programs.

1. Force people to find means of supporting themselves and their family without regard to whether they are capable of doing so. This simply will not work. The media being what it is will fill TV screens with pictures of hungry children, homeless families, and question why are children going hunger in richest nation on earth. I think you're smart enough to see this approach will never fly.

2. Determine those that really need help versus those that are just sponging off the taxpayer. I have a close friend who has worked for DHS for 28 years. She says this is just not possible. DHS follows specific rules concerning assets, income, physical, and mental condition in determining who receives social services. You can't have government workers, denying services because they think you're lazy.

I have seen a lot of people that receive some form of social services and most of them truly need it. No matter what kind of social welfare system we have, we'll always have those that abuse it.

By far the best way to reduce dependence on social welfare programs, is to create jobs that pay enough for people to support themselves and their family. Just creating low paid jobs is not enough because most people using social services have jobs. They just can't make enough to support themselves and their family.

nobody is forcing anyone to do anything..but here you are proving my point by saying people are too stupid to go out and take care of themselves and their families..
most people who are using social services have jobs...you full of it..it used to be people worked two jobs if they couldn't make it on one..it used to be only dads worked to take of the family but since you all busted up families now you encourage them to go live off the back of others...this country is ruined thanks to bleeding hearts like you and your party has made a whole slew of people SLAVES to the state which is what you intended all so they will vote Democrats into POWER and CONTROL

People like you have no problems with a President making this disgusting video

 

[Flopper]

No, I wrote quite a long post about people not being left behind. You excluded it from your my-way-or-the-highway omission of what I said.

Here's a refresher:



I neither expect that to be free, but getting able-bodied people off the conveient government tit will come only when working Americans unite against big government screwups that have put our blacks in grave jeopardy of lifelong incarceration or sterner 3-strikes-you're-out laws that include the death penalty for lives so dedicated to crime they incorporate it into gang rule.

Conservatives seem to have two approaches to reducing dependency on social programs.

1. Force people to find means of supporting themselves and their family without regard to whether they are capable of doing so. This simply will not work. The media being what it is will fill TV screens with pictures of hungry children, homeless families, and question why are children going hunger in richest nation on earth. I think you're smart enough to see this approach will never fly.

2. Determine those that really need help versus those that are just sponging off the taxpayer. I have a close friend who has worked for DHS for 28 years. She says this is just not possible. DHS follows specific rules concerning assets, income, physical, and mental condition in determining who receives social services. You can't have government workers, denying services because they think you're lazy.

I have seen a lot of people that receive some form of social services and most of them truly need it. No matter what kind of social welfare system we have, we'll always have those that abuse it.

By far the best way to reduce dependence on social welfare programs, is to create jobs that pay enough for people to support themselves and their family. Just creating low paid jobs is not enough because most people using social services have jobs. They just can't make enough to support themselves and their family.

nobody is forcing anyone to do anything..but here you are proving my point by saying people are too stupid to go out and take care of themselves and their families..
most people who are using social services have jobs...you full of it..it used to be people worked two jobs if they couldn't make it on one..it used to be only dads worked to take of the family but since you all busted up families now you encourage them to go live off the back of others...this country is ruined thanks to bleeding hearts like you and your party has made a whole slew of people SLAVES to the state which is what you intended all so they will vote Democrats into POWER and CONTROL

People like you have no problems with a President making this disgusting video
[ame=http://youtu.be/96QTR9Q4VrY]The Life of Julia! - YouTube[/ame]

People too stupid to go out and take care of themselves
Liberals busted up families
Encourage them to go live off the back of others
Country is ruined thanks to bleeding hearts
Made a whole slew of people SLAVES to the state

Now you've got that off chest, do have anything constructive to say?

 

[Flopper]

you missed a big one, but be that as it may we can come back to that, are you or, can you answer my question?

I think you asked what the Southern Strategy did to make the party racist.

The Southern Strategy certainly brought many racists from the South into the party such as:

Strom Thurmond, US Senator - "I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theatres into our swimming pools into our homes and into our churches."

David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan - Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.

But no, I’m not saying all Republicans are racist or even the party itself is raciist. I’m saying that as a party, ever since Goldwater and Nixon concocted the benighted, openly racist “Southern Strategy” in the ’60s, the Republican Party has profited from overt and covert racism. For example, the Southern converts to the party brought with them a strong belief in states rights, a hatred of a big federal government, opposition to welfare, support for 2nd amendment rights, a strong distrust of the counterculture, and a blend of religion and politics. All of these issues have become strongly rooted in Republican conservatism.

 

[squeeze berry]

you missed a big one, but be that as it may we can come back to that, are you or, can you answer my question?

I think you asked what the Southern Strategy did to make the party racist.

The Southern Strategy certainly brought many racists from the South into the party such as:

Strom Thurmond, US Senator - "I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theatres into our swimming pools into our homes and into our churches."

David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan - Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.

But no, I’m not saying all Republicans are racist or even the party itself is raciist. I’m saying that as a party, ever since Goldwater and Nixon concocted the benighted, openly racist “Southern Strategy” in the ’60s, the Republican Party has profited from overt and covert racism. For example, the Southern converts to the party brought with them a strong belief in states rights, a hatred of a big federal government, opposition to welfare, support for 2nd amendment rights, a strong distrust of the counterculture, and a blend of religion and politics. All of these issues have become strongly rooted in Republican conservatism.

here are some conservative GOP raycists , no wait

Barack Obama
Chris Matthews
Maxine Waters
John Conyers
the New Black Panther Party
NAACP
Cynthia McKinney
Al Sharpton
Jesse Jackson
John Wiley
SPLC

 

[Trajan]

you missed a big one, but be that as it may we can come back to that, are you or, can you answer my question?

I think you asked what the Southern Strategy did to make the party racist.

The Southern Strategy certainly brought many racists from the South into the party such as:

Strom Thurmond, US Senator - "I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theatres into our swimming pools into our homes and into our churches."

David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan - Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.

But no, I’m not saying all Republicans are racist or even the party itself is raciist. I’m saying that as a party, ever since Goldwater and Nixon concocted the benighted, openly racist “Southern Strategy” in the ’60s, the Republican Party has profited from overt and covert racism. For example, the Southern converts to the party brought with them a strong belief in states rights, a hatred of a big federal government, opposition to welfare, support for 2nd amendment rights, a strong distrust of the counterculture, and a blend of religion and politics. All of these issues have become strongly rooted in Republican conservatism.

No, thats not what I asked, I have asked you the same question 3 times.YOU say they have made them racist ( as if its a fact )


I told you, and gave you 2 pre- 1960 sources you can check ( as apparently you don't appear to have a grounding whatsoever at all regards these issues and conservatism) ....


you need to make a case, you're not, you're repeating yourself.....and thats not an argument-

4th time I am asking-



do you have some concrete examples of this rhetoric turned to conclusion via states rights issues culminating in racist policy?

 

[rdean]

Conservatives seem to have two approaches to reducing dependency on social programs.

1. Force people to find means of supporting themselves and their family without regard to whether they are capable of doing so. This simply will not work. The media being what it is will fill TV screens with pictures of hungry children, homeless families, and question why are children going hunger in richest nation on earth. I think you're smart enough to see this approach will never fly.

2. Determine those that really need help versus those that are just sponging off the taxpayer. I have a close friend who has worked for DHS for 28 years. She says this is just not possible. DHS follows specific rules concerning assets, income, physical, and mental condition in determining who receives social services. You can't have government workers, denying services because they think you're lazy.

I have seen a lot of people that receive some form of social services and most of them truly need it. No matter what kind of social welfare system we have, we'll always have those that abuse it.

By far the best way to reduce dependence on social welfare programs, is to create jobs that pay enough for people to support themselves and their family. Just creating low paid jobs is not enough because most people using social services have jobs. They just can't make enough to support themselves and their family.

Republicans think hungry children work harder and they won't "breed".

man you are losing what little sanity you had..no Republican I know thinks this way..that is just you making up shit again because you have NOTHING ELSE..Your dear leader has been a failure, he's let you all down so now you must lash out at others..go get a life and be try and be happy
of course as we see NOTHING makes you liberals happy if you're not bitching

Missouri lawmaker on child hunger: ‘Hunger can be a positive motivator.’

Can’t they get a job during the summer by the time they are 16? Hunger can be a positive motivator. What is wrong with the idea of getting a job so you can get better meals?

A report by Feeding America found that one in five Missouri children currently lives with hunger. Taking apart Davis’ other arguments, a St. Louis Post-Dispatch editorial noted that most of the summer feeding program sites are actually hosted by churches and that the program, which is funded by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, fed 3.7 million meals at a total cost of less than $9.5 million last summer — “a pretty good use of federal money.”

Missouri lawmaker on child hunger: 'Hunger can be a positive motivator.'

I couldn't make this shit up. Do a little research and it doesn't stop there. Remember when Republicans were calling the unemployed "hobo's" and wanted drug tests for the unemployed? How many of those unemployed were that way from GOP policies?

Republicans are mean and sick. Maybe not all of them, but the vast majority. To vote people into office that do these terrible things PROVES they are either sick and sadistic or ignorant. With the Internet and video,, neither is an excuse, but USMB Republicans sure have a lot of excuses anyway. How do you people live with this trash representing your party and your votes?

 

[Flopper]

you missed a big one, but be that as it may we can come back to that, are you or, can you answer my question?

I think you asked what the Southern Strategy did to make the party racist.

The Southern Strategy certainly brought many racists from the South into the party such as:

Strom Thurmond, US Senator - "I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theatres into our swimming pools into our homes and into our churches."

David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan - Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.

But no, I’m not saying all Republicans are racist or even the party itself is raciist. I’m saying that as a party, ever since Goldwater and Nixon concocted the benighted, openly racist “Southern Strategy” in the ’60s, the Republican Party has profited from overt and covert racism. For example, the Southern converts to the party brought with them a strong belief in states rights, a hatred of a big federal government, opposition to welfare, support for 2nd amendment rights, a strong distrust of the counterculture, and a blend of religion and politics. All of these issues have become strongly rooted in Republican conservatism.

No, thats not what I asked, I have asked you the same question 3 times.YOU say they have made them racist ( as if its a fact )


I told you, and gave you 2 pre- 1960 sources you can check ( as apparently you don't appear to have a grounding whatsoever at all regards these issues and conservatism) ....


you need to make a case, you're not, you're repeating yourself.....and thats not an argument-

4th time I am asking-



do you have some concrete examples of this rhetoric turned to conclusion via states rights issues culminating in racist policy?

I said, "Conservative rhetoric today defending states rights, attacking the the welfare system, and moral decay in America is right out the mouths of southern republicans of the 1960's." I never claimed it resulted in racist policy. As usually, you totally missed the point.

 

[squeeze berry]

I think you asked what the Southern Strategy did to make the party racist.

The Southern Strategy certainly brought many racists from the South into the party such as:

Strom Thurmond, US Senator - "I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theatres into our swimming pools into our homes and into our churches."

David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan - Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.

But no, I’m not saying all Republicans are racist or even the party itself is raciist. I’m saying that as a party, ever since Goldwater and Nixon concocted the benighted, openly racist “Southern Strategy” in the ’60s, the Republican Party has profited from overt and covert racism. For example, the Southern converts to the party brought with them a strong belief in states rights, a hatred of a big federal government, opposition to welfare, support for 2nd amendment rights, a strong distrust of the counterculture, and a blend of religion and politics. All of these issues have become strongly rooted in Republican conservatism.

No, thats not what I asked, I have asked you the same question 3 times.YOU say they have made them racist ( as if its a fact )


I told you, and gave you 2 pre- 1960 sources you can check ( as apparently you don't appear to have a grounding whatsoever at all regards these issues and conservatism) ....


you need to make a case, you're not, you're repeating yourself.....and thats not an argument-

4th time I am asking-



do you have some concrete examples of this rhetoric turned to conclusion via states rights issues culminating in racist policy?

I said, "Conservative rhetoric today defending states rights, attacking the the welfare system, and moral decay in America is right out the mouths of southern republicans of the 1960's." I never claimed it resulted in racist policy. As usually, you totally missed the point.

1. states rights: some things the states can do better and the FEDS should stand aside. Example: Education. the FEDS are botching this aspect.

2. attacking welfare: or wanting reform and relief for the working class

3. moral decay: some segment of society since the dawn of time has said that and in some cases it's true.

4. southern republicans of the 1960s: most were dems


Seems you are attempting to call southern GOP racists by any means necessary. Once again specious claims of racism from the far left.

Do you realize that YOU are playing racial politics?

 

[Article 15]

you missed a big one, but be that as it may we can come back to that, are you or, can you answer my question?

I think you asked what the Southern Strategy did to make the party racist.

The Southern Strategy certainly brought many racists from the South into the party such as:

Strom Thurmond, US Senator - "I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theatres into our swimming pools into our homes and into our churches."

David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan - Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.

But no, I’m not saying all Republicans are racist or even the party itself is raciist. I’m saying that as a party, ever since Goldwater and Nixon concocted the benighted, openly racist “Southern Strategy” in the ’60s, the Republican Party has profited from overt and covert racism. For example, the Southern converts to the party brought with them a strong belief in states rights, a hatred of a big federal government, opposition to welfare, support for 2nd amendment rights, a strong distrust of the counterculture, and a blend of religion and politics. All of these issues have become strongly rooted in Republican conservatism.

No, thats not what I asked, I have asked you the same question 3 times.YOU say they have made them racist ( as if its a fact )


I told you, and gave you 2 pre- 1960 sources you can check ( as apparently you don't appear to have a grounding whatsoever at all regards these issues and conservatism) ....


you need to make a case, you're not, you're repeating yourself.....and thats not an argument-

4th time I am asking-



do you have some concrete examples of this rhetoric turned to conclusion via states rights issues culminating in racist policy?

You're having a real hard time coping with the slow death of the GOP, aren't you?

 

[squeeze berry]

I think you asked what the Southern Strategy did to make the party racist.

The Southern Strategy certainly brought many racists from the South into the party such as:

Strom Thurmond, US Senator - "I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to force the southern people to break down segregation and admit the ****** race into our theatres into our swimming pools into our homes and into our churches."

David Duke, Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan - Our clear goal must be the advancement of the white race and separation of the white and black races. This goal must include freeing of the American media and government from subservient Jewish interests.

But no, I’m not saying all Republicans are racist or even the party itself is raciist. I’m saying that as a party, ever since Goldwater and Nixon concocted the benighted, openly racist “Southern Strategy” in the ’60s, the Republican Party has profited from overt and covert racism. For example, the Southern converts to the party brought with them a strong belief in states rights, a hatred of a big federal government, opposition to welfare, support for 2nd amendment rights, a strong distrust of the counterculture, and a blend of religion and politics. All of these issues have become strongly rooted in Republican conservatism.

No, thats not what I asked, I have asked you the same question 3 times.YOU say they have made them racist ( as if its a fact )


I told you, and gave you 2 pre- 1960 sources you can check ( as apparently you don't appear to have a grounding whatsoever at all regards these issues and conservatism) ....


you need to make a case, you're not, you're repeating yourself.....and thats not an argument-

4th time I am asking-



do you have some concrete examples of this rhetoric turned to conclusion via states rights issues culminating in racist policy?

You're having a real hard time coping with the slow death of the GOP, aren't you?

1 party system wet dream ^