Can Rand Paul beat Hillary?

[The Black Forrest]

What part of "brain-damaged bitch" did you not understand?


I know I don't have to use foul language to talk about her. I assure you it was purely voluntary.*

Because it would be absolutely pointless. There is no chance of any Third Party candidate getting anywhere or being anything other than a spoiler. Might as well not bother to vote, frankly. My state is so solidly blue (of which I am nevertheless glad) there really is little point in voting in a Presidential election anyway.

*Thanks a tip of the old bowler to Sir Winston Churchill.

It seems most of the USA is not satisfied with the 2 parties but they vote for them anyways.

No. Most people may not like what's going on but it's not a declaration that the two party system has failed. If you really want to get down to it, it's the people's fault.

However, think about the fact that we used to have Whigs. They don't exist anymore because they didn't please the people.

It was not that simple. When Henry Clay and Daniel Webster passed, that really weakened the party. There was also the compromise of 1850(?) which fractured the party along the lines of pro/anti slavery. The death knell was probably when Winfield Scott lost to Pierce. Basically people decided to abandon the party and join the R and D party.

Slavery was a large factor in fracturing the party.

The republicans were not always around. They started in 1854 and have managed to become an important party and win a few elections. Perhaps libertarians will do the same thing in the future.

Nahh Libertarians have been moaning about the two parties for over 30 years(well as I remember). They really don't have a master plan as for some reason they think if we can just get a libertarian in the white house! It will change everything!

If millions of people are willing to 'waste' their vote on a libertarian candidate than perhaps the candidate will win the election.

Untill there is a level headed libert with good plans, not going to happen. Heck just talking to many self proclaimed libertarians turns people off. Annecdotally, the liberts around my area all seem to be angry at the universe and are rather patronizing about what things should be. Seriously, "you are fucking retarded if you don't see libertarians are better" (actual quote of an ex-friend) is not a good way to attract a base.

The problem is millions of people choose an inferior candidate which is really wasting their vote. You should show your support for the right candidate. If the candidate gets 10% in an election, he will be taken more seriously the next time.

Libert candidates are usually more inferior then the main line guys.

http://www.ushistory.org/gop/origins.htm

Take heed to this below:

(Image)

And that mentality is why liberts will never amount to much.

Seriously, 43 years and they only have only achieved 1% of the vote?

[Death Metal]

Libert candidates are usually alwaysmore inferior and typically more pro-authoritarianismthen the main line guys.

ftfy.

And before anyone asks, "state's rights" is, again, nothing but an endorsement of big government hyper authoritarianism at the state level.

Again, it's no coincidence that their symbol is a literal Big Government Symbol.

[Republic of Coldwater]

Accidentally submitted the post twice, sawy

[Republic of Coldwater]

It seems most of the USA is not satisfied with the 2 parties but they vote for them anyways.

No. Most people may not like what's going on but it's not a declaration that the two party system has failed. If you really want to get down to it, it's the people's fault.

However, think about the fact that we used to have Whigs. They don't exist anymore because they didn't please the people.

It was not that simple. When Henry Clay and Daniel Webster passed, that really weakened the party. There was also the compromise of 1850(?) which fractured the party along the lines of pro/anti slavery. The death knell was probably when Winfield Scott lost to Pierce. Basically people decided to abandon the party and join the R and D party.

Slavery was a large factor in fracturing the party.

The republicans were not always around. They started in 1854 and have managed to become an important party and win a few elections. Perhaps libertarians will do the same thing in the future.

Nahh Libertarians have been moaning about the two parties for over 30 years(well as I remember). They really don't have a master plan as for some reason they think if we can just get a libertarian in the white house! It will change everything!

If millions of people are willing to 'waste' their vote on a libertarian candidate than perhaps the candidate will win the election.

Untill there is a level headed libert with good plans, not going to happen. Heck just talking to many self proclaimed libertarians turns people off. Annecdotally, the liberts around my area all seem to be angry at the universe and are rather patronizing about what things should be. Seriously, "you are fucking retarded if you don't see libertarians are better" (actual quote of an ex-friend) is not a good way to attract a base.

The problem is millions of people choose an inferior candidate which is really wasting their vote. You should show your support for the right candidate. If the candidate gets 10% in an election, he will be taken more seriously the next time.

Libert candidates are usually more inferior then the main line guys.

http://www.ushistory.org/gop/origins.htm

Take heed to this below:

(Image)

And that mentality is why liberts will never amount to much.

Seriously, 43 years and they only have only achieved 1% of the vote?

The difference is that with the rise of the internet and also Libertarianism (A Pew Study shows that 9% of the populace are Libertarians and another 11% lean Libertarian), it wouldn't be long for the LP to garner more votes. With Gary Johnson being quite high-profile in 2012 and even some media coverage (RT did three election debates and CNN even did one), it is likely that in 2016, third parties will take more votes. Tom Tancredo of the Constitution Party in the 2010 Colorado Gubernatorial Elections was able to get more votes than the Republican Candidate, Robert Sarvis in the 2013 Virginia Gubernatorial Election got 6% of the vote, mostly from Conservatives and Libertarians. With a rise in third parties across the nation, it won't be surprising to see Gary Johnson perhaps getting 3-5% of the vote and securing a seat for the LP in 2020, or the CP and GP get 1-2% of the vote.

[Quintium]

As usual, your analysis is wrong. Demographics only matter when one or the other Party utterly ignores the needs of one constituency in order to capture another. American Republicans COULD win African-American votes if they really WANTED to (Richard Nixon got over 25% of the African-American vote in 1960; had Mitt Romney won a similar share of the black vote, he'd be President today); but most lack the imagination to come up with a set of policies that would be beneficial to minorities and/or urban voters, in no small part because they've spent the last 35 years catering to anti-urban, anti-minority whites.

Absolute nonsense. They've been doing what they thought was right, and that was trying to keep people out of the Great Society about which Johnson once remarked "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." Unfortunately, welfare dependence and being kept at the bottom of society because of permanent government handouts is already extremely popular, and the minorities that don't already side with the Republican Party will fight tooth and nail to keep their welfare even if it's what's keeping them poor and stupid.

But where Rand Paul comes up short is in drawing the outlines of a comprehensive urban policy; and indeed, this is a general failing of the Republican Party. Republicans constantly malign places like Detroit without ever even trying to compete for control of the local governments that they hold responsible for the problems in our cities.

They couldn't compete for the government on that platform, because in Detroit - as almost everywhere in the country - the African-American community wants what is killing that same community, and the Republican Party does not believe in handing it out. Like meth addicts, the people who utterly dominate the elections in Detroit want welfare and handouts and subsidies, without thinking for one moment that they themselves are the only people who can take the city and make it into a success again. Demanding more and more public money isn't going to fix a damned thing, and the only thing that'll do is strengthen the cycle of dependency and electoral support between welfare-dependent minorities and opportunistic, usually left-wing politicians.

In contrast, conservatives IMAGINE Latinos to be ready to jump on the same social ship as white evangelicals, and talk constantly about how the Hispanic community is "open" to their social conservative message. The thing is, that just ain't so. Latinos are Catholics, not Protestants; and historically Catholics are much more socially liberal than their Protestant compatriots, consistently running 8-9% more Democratic than their Protestant counterparts (and that's WITH African-American Protestants voting overwhelmingly Democratic!). Then, too, surveys show that Latinos have much greater levels of trust in government, as well as expecting more FROM government than do most whites.

I'm requesting that one survey which was posted to discredit me saying that Hispanics were conservative. Someone posted it without even reading it, assuming it would support his message, but it turned out Hispanics aren't actually that keen on things like abortion and gay marriage, and think people should try to depend on the government less and, in significant numbers, support a reduction in taxes and think everyone can make it in America without the government's help. In a way, they're whiter than the whites. Does anyone still have the link to that one?

It is, ironically (again) the African-American community that tends to distrust government most among minorities; yet this same community has learned that State government tends to oppress the Hell out of it, leaving the Federal government as the only friend it can turn to, the only savious against oppressive State and local power. If the GOP were smart, they would stop trying to tear down the ability of the Federal government to protect minorities from such oppression, while simultaneously playing on black distrust of State and local government. From there, they would try to organize young black Republicans to take control of local government and run it in accordance with conservative principles to maximize local business opportunity, effectively creating REPUBLICAN urban political machines in the middle of many of our Nation's "bluest" States.

The issue of 'protection from the states' is nothing compared to the issue of welfare. The ugly truth is that, while African-Americans hate the state and everything it stands for, they are by far the most likely to depend utterly on the state for income, health care, housing and education. It's a love-hate relationship - or, rather, a hateful relationship between the two that does provide mutual benefits (welfare for the 'communities', a very consistent and reliable stream of votes for the politicians who sustain that welfare). And now, the Democrats are trying to expand that system to a national one, so that they'll never lose the presidency in a hundred years. I'm starting to think Johnson was right when he said "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

[Jocabia]

As usual, your analysis is wrong. Demographics only matter when one or the other Party utterly ignores the needs of one constituency in order to capture another. American Republicans COULD win African-American votes if they really WANTED to (Richard Nixon got over 25% of the African-American vote in 1960; had Mitt Romney won a similar share of the black vote, he'd be President today); but most lack the imagination to come up with a set of policies that would be beneficial to minorities and/or urban voters, in no small part because they've spent the last 35 years catering to anti-urban, anti-minority whites.

Absolute nonsense. They've been doing what they thought was right, and that was trying to keep people out of the Great Society about which Johnson once remarked "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." Unfortunately, welfare dependence and being kept at the bottom of society because of permanent government handouts is already extremely popular, and the minorities that don't already side with the Republican Party will fight tooth and nail to keep their welfare even if it's what's keeping them poor and stupid.

But where Rand Paul comes up short is in drawing the outlines of a comprehensive urban policy; and indeed, this is a general failing of the Republican Party. Republicans constantly malign places like Detroit without ever even trying to compete for control of the local governments that they hold responsible for the problems in our cities.

They couldn't compete for the government on that platform, because in Detroit - as almost everywhere in the country - the African-American community wants what is killing that same community, and the Republican Party does not believe in handing it out. Like meth addicts, the people who utterly dominate the elections in Detroit want welfare and handouts and subsidies, without thinking for one moment that they themselves are the only people who can take the city and make it into a success again. Demanding more and more public money isn't going to fix a damned thing, and the only thing that'll do is strengthen the cycle of dependency and electoral support between welfare-dependent minorities and opportunistic, usually left-wing politicians.

In contrast, conservatives IMAGINE Latinos to be ready to jump on the same social ship as white evangelicals, and talk constantly about how the Hispanic community is "open" to their social conservative message. The thing is, that just ain't so. Latinos are Catholics, not Protestants; and historically Catholics are much more socially liberal than their Protestant compatriots, consistently running 8-9% more Democratic than their Protestant counterparts (and that's WITH African-American Protestants voting overwhelmingly Democratic!). Then, too, surveys show that Latinos have much greater levels of trust in government, as well as expecting more FROM government than do most whites.

I'm requesting that one survey which was posted to discredit me saying that Hispanics were conservative. Someone posted it without even reading it, assuming it would support his message, but it turned out Hispanics aren't actually that keen on things like abortion and gay marriage, and think people should try to depend on the government less and, in significant numbers, support a reduction in taxes and think everyone can make it in America without the government's help. In a way, they're whiter than the whites. Does anyone still have the link to that one?

It is, ironically (again) the African-American community that tends to distrust government most among minorities; yet this same community has learned that State government tends to oppress the Hell out of it, leaving the Federal government as the only friend it can turn to, the only savious against oppressive State and local power. If the GOP were smart, they would stop trying to tear down the ability of the Federal government to protect minorities from such oppression, while simultaneously playing on black distrust of State and local government. From there, they would try to organize young black Republicans to take control of local government and run it in accordance with conservative principles to maximize local business opportunity, effectively creating REPUBLICAN urban political machines in the middle of many of our Nation's "bluest" States.

The issue of 'protection from the states' is nothing compared to the issue of welfare. The ugly truth is that, while African-Americans hate the state and everything it stands for, they are by far the most likely to depend utterly on the state for income, health care, housing and education. It's a love-hate relationship - or, rather, a hateful relationship between the two that does provide mutual benefits (welfare for the 'communities', a very consistent and reliable stream of votes for the politicians who sustain that welfare). And now, the Democrats are trying to expand that system to a national one, so that they'll never lose the presidency in a hundred years. I'm starting to think Johnson was right when he said "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

Please explain why rural whites, who with a huge frequency rely on the government and welfare, even when they aren't poor (farmers for example), vote for Republicans. According to your logic, they would have to be Democrats because they're as reliant on the government as any black person in the city. Perhaps, just perhaps, there is some nuance here you're missing.

And as long as you don't understand what that nuance is and how to fix it, Republicans are going to continue going the direction of the minority party.

[SaintB]

Libert candidates are usually alwaysmore inferior and typically more pro-authoritarianismthen the main line guys.

ftfy.

And before anyone asks, "state's rights" is, again, nothing but an endorsement of big government hyper authoritarianism at the state level.

Again, it's no coincidence that their symbol is a literal Big Government Symbol.

I honestly haven't heard many endorsements for personal liberty from American libertarians and thats a fact.

[The Black Forrest]

ftfy.

And before anyone asks, "state's rights" is, again, nothing but an endorsement of big government hyper authoritarianism at the state level.

Again, it's no coincidence that their symbol is a literal Big Government Symbol.

I honestly haven't heard many endorsements for personal liberty from American libertarians and thats a fact.

They think their stance on drugs covers that......

[Alien Space Bats]

As usual, your analysis is wrong. Demographics only matter when one or the other Party utterly ignores the needs of one constituency in order to capture another. American Republicans COULD win African-American votes if they really WANTED to (Richard Nixon got over 25% of the African-American vote in 1960; had Mitt Romney won a similar share of the black vote, he'd be President today); but most lack the imagination to come up with a set of policies that would be beneficial to minorities and/or urban voters, in no small part because they've spent the last 35 years catering to anti-urban, anti-minority whites.

Absolute nonsense. They've been doing what they thought was right, and that was trying to keep people out of the Great Society about which Johnson once remarked "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years." Unfortunately, welfare dependence and being kept at the bottom of society because of permanent government handouts is already extremely popular, and the minorities that don't already side with the Republican Party will fight tooth and nail to keep their welfare even if it's what's keeping them poor and stupid.

Are you SO lacking in imagination that you can't CONCIEVE of a set of policies the GOP could develop that would increase levels of black entrepreneurship, stimulate business within black communities, and thus improve employment prospects for African-Americans?

<pause>

It's like the only possible Republican response to the Democrats' enunciation of social welfare as a means of fighting poverty is to say, "Well, we don't believe in social welfare, so those people will just have to stay poor!"

The thing is, rural Appalachia got (and still gets) just as much "love" from the Democratic Party's welfare policies, and yet you don't see Republicans writing off the rural poor in the same way they write off blacks, do you? You don't hear Republicans blathering on and on in the most insulting way imaginable about the "deficiency" in rural white values, their "lack" of a work ethic, or their "addiction" to "government dependency", now do you?

Republicans assume that poor rural whites can get themselves out of poverty if they get the right resources, so why do they universally fail to give poor urban blacks the same benefit of the doubt?

But where Rand Paul comes up short is in drawing the outlines of a comprehensive urban policy; and indeed, this is a general failing of the Republican Party. Republicans constantly malign places like Detroit without ever even trying to compete for control of the local governments that they hold responsible for the problems in our cities.

They couldn't compete for the government on that platform, because in Detroit - as almost everywhere in the country - the African-American community wants what is killing that same community, and the Republican Party does not believe in handing it out. Like meth addicts, the people who utterly dominate the elections in Detroit want welfare and handouts and subsidies, without thinking for one moment that they themselves are the only people who can take the city and make it into a success again. Demanding more and more public money isn't going to fix a damned thing, and the only thing that'll do is strengthen the cycle of dependency and electoral support between welfare-dependent minorities and opportunistic, usually left-wing politicians.

What, have leaders lost the ability to lead?

First, when I listen to urban blacks, I don't hear them begging for welfare. I hear them begging for JOBS. That's the constant cry from the inner cities; it's the cry from the pulpits and the cry from the crowds that show up at town hall meetings to raise up their voices for change.

And so what do Republicans offer in response? They cry, "There are lots of jobs out there! All you have to do is go get yourself one!" They don't LISTEN to black voters; they dismiss what black voters have to say about conditions in our inner cities out of hand; and then their talking heads bloviate endlessly about the lack of a "strong work ethic" on the part of urban blacks.

So here's an idea: WHY NOT FUCKING LISTEN?!? Why not actually heed the voice of the black community and look into getting them more JOBS, like they say they WANT? Republicans CLAIM to believe in opportunity, so why not think of new and creative ways to bring it to our inner cities? I mean, what has the GOP got to LOSE?!? If they fail, at least they can say that they tried; and if they succeed, they could change American politics for the next 50 years.

But let's go one step further: Let's assume that you're right and that welfare dependency IS what makes the cities unwinnable by Republicans. Can't the case be made to at least a FEW blacks — the more energetic ones, the self-starters, those who have a spark of entrepreneurship in them — that however comfortable WELFARE might be (and believe me, welfare is NOT comfortable), a JOB or a BUSINESS would be better? Remember what I said at the outset: Nixon got 25% of the black vote in 1960, and if Romney had managed to match that performance, he'd be President today.

You don't need MANY black votes to cut the legs out from under the Democratic Party. Right now, going into 2016, no Republican can win the White House without at least 60-61% of the white vote; lower the Democratic share of the black vote to 85-90%, and you can win with 58-59%; lower it to 80-85%, and you can win with 57-58%. The Democrats need a massive supermajority of black voters to remain competitive nationally; slice hard into that majority, and the Democratic Party collapses into complete and utter irrelevance overnight.

And so I come to leaders leading: Politicians are — or, rather, CAN BE — voices striving for change by mobilizing voters, offering ideas that fall upon ears and change minds. They needn't just be useless shills who parrot whatever they think that the public wants to hear. Politics is NOT just the art of giving people what they want: It involves ENGAGING people.

You LISTEN, you HEAR, you RESPOND, you PERSUADE, and then you MOBILIZE. That's how politics OUGHT to work, and with the right leadership, that's how it CAN work.

So THERE'S the challenge to the GOP: To see if they can rise beyond whining about how blacks are "lazy, good-for-nothing thugs addicted to government handouts," and actually ENGAGE the black community in an effort to bring them into the Republican coalition. But there's a hitch: They're going to have to find a way to make their ideology WORK for blacks before they can expect to see blacks vote for THEM.

In contrast, conservatives IMAGINE Latinos to be ready to jump on the same social ship as white evangelicals, and talk constantly about how the Hispanic community is "open" to their social conservative message. The thing is, that just ain't so. Latinos are Catholics, not Protestants; and historically Catholics are much more socially liberal than their Protestant compatriots, consistently running 8-9% more Democratic than their Protestant counterparts (and that's WITH African-American Protestants voting overwhelmingly Democratic!). Then, too, surveys show that Latinos have much greater levels of trust in government, as well as expecting more FROM government than do most whites.

I'm requesting that one survey which was posted to discredit me saying that Hispanics were conservative. Someone posted it without even reading it, assuming it would support his message, but it turned out Hispanics aren't actually that keen on things like abortion and gay marriage, and think people should try to depend on the government less and, in significant numbers, support a reduction in taxes and think everyone can make it in America without the government's help. In a way, they're whiter than the whites. Does anyone still have the link to that one?

Due to emerging family issues, I don't have the time to pull up the links you seek; but on the issue of Latino voter attitudes (as well as the attitudes of religious voters, which I also cited), I would direct you to the Pew Research Center. Pew's Hispanic Trends section should have the voter surveys that you're looking for; Pew's Center on Religion and Public Life should have the others. It should not take long to find what you want once you're there.

In general, though, the Hispanic polls show that Latinos seek a more activist government on economic issues, which is quite different from the current Republican Party message.

It is, ironically (again) the African-American community that tends to distrust government most among minorities; yet this same community has learned that State government tends to oppress the Hell out of it, leaving the Federal government as the only friend it can turn to, the only savious against oppressive State and local power. If the GOP were smart, they would stop trying to tear down the ability of the Federal government to protect minorities from such oppression, while simultaneously playing on black distrust of State and local government. From there, they would try to organize young black Republicans to take control of local government and run it in accordance with conservative principles to maximize local business opportunity, effectively creating REPUBLICAN urban political machines in the middle of many of our Nation's "bluest" States.

The issue of 'protection from the states' is nothing compared to the issue of welfare. The ugly truth is that, while African-Americans hate the state and everything it stands for, they are by far the most likely to depend utterly on the state for income, health care, housing and education. It's a love-hate relationship - or, rather, a hateful relationship between the two that does provide mutual benefits (welfare for the 'communities', a very consistent and reliable stream of votes for the politicians who sustain that welfare). And now, the Democrats are trying to expand that system to a national one, so that they'll never lose the presidency in a hundred years. I'm starting to think Johnson was right when he said "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

I'm guessing you haven't heard of Moral Monday, or gauged the depth of black opposition to the efforts in Michigan to strip local communities of home rule through the appointment of EFM's.

Stick around and keep your eyes open, you'll see it...

[Death Metal]

I honestly haven't heard many endorsements for personal liberty from American libertarians and thats a fact.

They think their stance on drugs covers that......

With all the sincerity of Charles Ponzi.

[Shnercropolis]

lolno.

[Jinwoy]

lolno.

this. this guy has finished the thread for you.

[Empire of Narnia]

I thought his name was Ron Paul.

[Jinwoy]

I thought his name was Ron Paul.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=Rand ... 2&ie=UTF-8

I thought it was a reference to Ayn Rand at first, too.

[Mavorpen]

I'm requesting that one survey which was posted to discredit me saying that Hispanics were conservative. Someone posted it without even reading it, assuming it would support his message, but it turned out Hispanics aren't actually that keen on things like abortion and gay marriage, and think people should try to depend on the government less and, in significant numbers, support a reduction in taxes and think everyone can make it in America without the government's help. In a way, they're whiter than the whites. Does anyone still have the link to that one?

Stop fucking lying. I already disproved this utter bullshit nonsense. YOU were the one that didn't read it. And when I pointed this out to you, you fucking ran.

[Mavorpen]

Absolute nonsense. They've been doing what they thought was right, and that was trying to keep people out of the Great Society about which Johnson once remarked "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

Oh, and, source this quote.

Because I have NEVER, EVER seen a single person source this quote.

[Death Metal]

Absolute nonsense. They've been doing what they thought was right, and that was trying to keep people out of the Great Society about which Johnson once remarked "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

Oh, and, source this quote.

Because I have NEVER, EVER seen a single person source this quote.

"Everyone knows quotes on the internet are always 100% factual."- Oscar Wilde

[Freiheit Reich]

Absolute nonsense. They've been doing what they thought was right, and that was trying to keep people out of the Great Society about which Johnson once remarked "I'll have those niggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."

Oh, and, source this quote.

Because I have NEVER, EVER seen a single person source this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-relen ... 33995.html

A liberal newspaper even mentioned it along with other quotes from the party that cares about minorities:

"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
~ Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One

I had never heard the above quote from Ronald Kessler's book, Inside the White House before but my father had told me about LBJ's terrible mouth and frightful personality.

If you listen to Democrats (many of you do -- at least those who watch MSNBC and read the NY Times rabidly), you hear fanciful yarns spun so sweetly about how LBJ ended racism, segregation and voting inequality in America. They make him sound like Mr. Rogers.

How long will the Democrats continue their absurd charade? All the while claiming Republicans are racist, meanwhile the Democrats are the party clearly responsible for the contemptible Jim Crow laws. Let's see how proud these secret, racist beliefs make current day Democrats. Let's see how they like the real truth being told about their party.

When I was nine, a friend of my father's worked in the LBJ White House and was unhappily close with LBJ. He was writing a book about his experiences with this foul-mouthed, racist president and somehow I got my hands on it. I was fascinated. I had never encountered such words or their rampant use -- even when no vulgarity was necessary, an inside view of a president that 99.9% of the country never saw.

LBJ was an awful man. He only promoted and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act because he thought it was politically expedient. He disagreed violently and kept it a secret, something I think is unreservedly detestable. Or is it a common politician's disease?

Let's look at another quote attributed to "Great Society & Civil Rights Hero" LBJ:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

Could this be the type of man -- it was whispered -- who had his boss killed to get his job?

Here are more devastating quotes from the 'party that cares' (or pretends to care, to deceive voters):

"Mr. President, the crime of lynching . . . is not of sufficient importance to justify this legislation."
-- Sen. Claude Pepper (D., Fla.), 1938, spoken during a six-hour speech against the anti-lynching bill

"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union."
-- Robert C. Byrd, 1946, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-2010, Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88, Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-2010

President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill ... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."
-- Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948, U.S. Senator, 1949-61, Senate Majority Leader, 1955-61, President, 1963-69

"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."
-- Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961.
(Kennedy later authorized wire-tapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)

"Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."
-- Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) 1993, Chairman, Commerce Committee, 1987-95 and 2001-03, candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 1984

"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation."
-- Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008

To add insult to injury for African-Americans, Bill Clinton, the absurdly-titled, "First Black President," was apparently not as big a supporter of black Americans as his esteemed title would imply. In his book, Ron Brown's Body, Jack Cashill first refers to Clinton's White House as a place where "minorities," such as Brown, "were not only exploitable but expendable."

My final quote on race hypocrisy comes from our current President, Barack Hussein Obama:

From Dreams of My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

These quotes from Dems are why minority voters are starting to understand how they've been swindled into thinking that the Democratic Party best represents their interests. That's worrisome for Democrats at large. The facts, coming home to roost, will create a major backlash against the Democratic Party.

[Mavorpen]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-relen ... 33995.html

A liberal newspaper even mentioned it along with other quotes from the party that cares about minorities:

...You didn't actually read that article, did you? That's an OPINION piece (aka blog) by someone under the alias of "The Relentless Conservative." The article DOESN'T actually source ANYTHING legitimate. When I asked for a source, I meant a source that actually confirms that the quote was actually said and from what primary source it came from. The article doesn't give me that.

So again, I have YET to see anyone actually source that bullshit quote.

[Freiheit Reich]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-relen ... 33995.html

A liberal newspaper even mentioned it along with other quotes from the party that cares about minorities:

...You didn't actually read that article, did you? That's an OPINION piece (aka blog) by someone under the alias of "The Relentless Conservative." The article DOESN'T actually source ANYTHING legitimate. When I asked for a source, I meant a source that actually confirms that the quote was actually said and from what primary source it came from. The article doesn't give me that.

So again, I have YET to see anyone actually source that bullshit quote.

It is in this book. Ron Kessler's book 'Inside the White House.' Here is the link if you want to buy it.

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-White-Hous ... 1433244985

More democrat quotes. Keep this in mind when you are planning on pulling the lever for Mrs. Clinton

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2484587/posts

[Ashmoria]

Oh, and, source this quote.

Because I have NEVER, EVER seen a single person source this quote.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-relen ... 33995.html

A liberal newspaper even mentioned it along with other quotes from the party that cares about minorities:

"I'll have those n*ggers voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
~ Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One

I had never heard the above quote from Ronald Kessler's book, Inside the White House before but my father had told me about LBJ's terrible mouth and frightful personality.

If you listen to Democrats (many of you do -- at least those who watch MSNBC and read the NY Times rabidly), you hear fanciful yarns spun so sweetly about how LBJ ended racism, segregation and voting inequality in America. They make him sound like Mr. Rogers.

How long will the Democrats continue their absurd charade? All the while claiming Republicans are racist, meanwhile the Democrats are the party clearly responsible for the contemptible Jim Crow laws. Let's see how proud these secret, racist beliefs make current day Democrats. Let's see how they like the real truth being told about their party.

When I was nine, a friend of my father's worked in the LBJ White House and was unhappily close with LBJ. He was writing a book about his experiences with this foul-mouthed, racist president and somehow I got my hands on it. I was fascinated. I had never encountered such words or their rampant use -- even when no vulgarity was necessary, an inside view of a president that 99.9% of the country never saw.

LBJ was an awful man. He only promoted and signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the 1965 Voting Rights Act because he thought it was politically expedient. He disagreed violently and kept it a secret, something I think is unreservedly detestable. Or is it a common politician's disease?

Let's look at another quote attributed to "Great Society & Civil Rights Hero" LBJ:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

Could this be the type of man -- it was whispered -- who had his boss killed to get his job?

Here are more devastating quotes from the 'party that cares' (or pretends to care, to deceive voters):

"Mr. President, the crime of lynching . . . is not of sufficient importance to justify this legislation."
-- Sen. Claude Pepper (D., Fla.), 1938, spoken during a six-hour speech against the anti-lynching bill

"I am a former Kleagle [recruiter] of the Ku Klux Klan in Raleigh County . . . The Klan is needed today as never before and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia. It is necessary that the order be promoted immediately and in every state in the union."
-- Robert C. Byrd, 1946, Democratic Senator from West Virginia, 1959-2010, Senate Majority Leader, 1977-80 and 1987-88, Senate President Pro Tempore, 1989-95, 2001-03, 2007-2010

President Truman's civil rights program "is a farce and a sham--an effort to set up a police state in the guise of liberty. I am opposed to that program. I have voted against the so-called poll tax repeal bill ... I have voted against the so-called anti-lynching bill."
-- Rep. Lyndon B. Johnson (D., Texas), 1948, U.S. Senator, 1949-61, Senate Majority Leader, 1955-61, President, 1963-69

"I did not lie awake at night worrying about the problems of Negroes."
-- Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, 1961.
(Kennedy later authorized wire-tapping the phones and bugging the hotel rooms of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.)

"Everybody likes to go to Geneva. I used to do it for the Law of the Sea conferences and you'd find these potentates from down in Africa, you know, rather than eating each other, they'd just come up and get a good square meal in Geneva."
-- Sen. Ernest F. Hollings (D., S.C.) 1993, Chairman, Commerce Committee, 1987-95 and 2001-03, candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 1984

"I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia [Sen. Robert C. Byrd, a former Ku Klux Klan recruiter] that he would have been a great senator at any moment . . . He would have been right during the great conflict of civil war in this nation."
-- Sen. Christopher Dodd (D., Conn.), 2004, Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, 2008

To add insult to injury for African-Americans, Bill Clinton, the absurdly-titled, "First Black President," was apparently not as big a supporter of black Americans as his esteemed title would imply. In his book, Ron Brown's Body, Jack Cashill first refers to Clinton's White House as a place where "minorities," such as Brown, "were not only exploitable but expendable."

My final quote on race hypocrisy comes from our current President, Barack Hussein Obama:

From Dreams of My Father: "I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites."

These quotes from Dems are why minority voters are starting to understand how they've been swindled into thinking that the Democratic Party best represents their interests. That's worrisome for Democrats at large. The facts, coming home to roost, will create a major backlash against the Democratic Party.

good work!

in the end (im not black) what difference does it make if lbj talked ugly so some guy on a plane? he passed the civil rights act and the voting rights act and changed America forever. that matters more than all the "nice talk" that sounds good but does nothing.

[Ashmoria]

...You didn't actually read that article, did you? That's an OPINION piece (aka blog) by someone under the alias of "The Relentless Conservative." The article DOESN'T actually source ANYTHING legitimate. When I asked for a source, I meant a source that actually confirms that the quote was actually said and from what primary source it came from. The article doesn't give me that.

So again, I have YET to see anyone actually source that bullshit quote.

It is in this book. Ron Kessler's book 'Inside the White House.' Here is the link if you want to buy it.

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-White-Hous ... 1433244985

More democrat quotes. Keep this in mind when you are planning on pulling the lever for Mrs. Clinton

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2484587/posts

and heres the bit from the book:

http://books.google.com/books?id=lJz-yI ... rs&f=false

[Mavorpen]

It is in this book. Ron Kessler's book 'Inside the White House.' Here is the link if you want to buy it.

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-White-Hous ... 1433244985

And? Was this book corroborated by any other source? Because I'm perfectly aware that this book claims he said this. I am completely unaware of ANY source that corroborates the claim made by that book.

So again, do you, or ANYONE else have an actual source I can take seriously that demonstrates he said that?

[Ashmoria]

It is in this book. Ron Kessler's book 'Inside the White House.' Here is the link if you want to buy it.

http://www.amazon.com/Inside-White-Hous ... 1433244985

And? Was this book corroborated by any other source? Because I'm perfectly aware that this book claims he said this. I am completely unaware of ANY source that corroborates the claim made by that book.

So again, do you, or ANYONE else have an actual source I can take seriously that demonstrates he said that?

the only people who could say its true are the guys he said it to. they are probably dead now.

it doesn't seem to be particularly lbj-ish to me but he was known to say and do what needed to be done in order to get the job done. so if it made those governors understand that there was an upside to giving black americans full civil rights then it was a job well done.

[Mavorpen]

And? Was this book corroborated by any other source? Because I'm perfectly aware that this book claims he said this. I am completely unaware of ANY source that corroborates the claim made by that book.

So again, do you, or ANYONE else have an actual source I can take seriously that demonstrates he said that?

the only people who could say its true are the guys he said it to. they are probably dead now.

it doesn't seem to be particularly lbj-ish to me but he was known to say and do what needed to be done in order to get the job done. so if it made those governors understand that there was an upside to giving black americans full civil rights then it was a job well done.

I'm willing to believe he said something along those lines. I'm NOT willing to believe he said it when the only source is a gossip book. Yes, that's what that book is. It's a gossip book, like ALL of the books Kessler has written. He's less reliable than Ann Coulter.