Obama: Doing the right thing the wrong way

The fuck does that have to do with anything?

For many Southern whites, sure.

For all the Southern Blacks, not so much.

It's also a complete misrepresentation of what was actually said during that debate -- and by "misrepresentation," I basically mean a bald-faced lie -- but, hey, whatever.

And anyone who thinks race disappeared as an issue after 1968 is living in a fantasy world.

No, no, you don't understand gul and garamet said blogs are opinions only and even if there are facts contained within them, it doesn't matter. They are only opinions nothing else, so posting a blog doesn't count. I don't make the rules man, sorry. Gul and garamet make the rules, so if you have a problem with that, take it up with them.

Your Nation article is almost three years old now. And again, the Solid South didn't break until a quarter century after LBJ signed the voting rights act. For two decades the Southern Democrats did just what Democrats elsewhere did, which is celebrate that they won all the black votes, too. It elections went the same way as they do in Massachusetts, Chicago, or New Jersey, except that the Southern Democrats who held the South were fiscally conservative Democrats who supported natural defense instead of tax-and-spend liberal Democrats who only supported defense if the money was spent in their district.

With Benghazi, ISIS, Ukraine, and all the other foreign policy and defense disasters, there was no way a white Democrat was going to win in the South in 2014 unless he ran in a black majority district - or in a Florida county that was filled with people from New Jersey.

You are stupidly confusing the last gasps before extinction with "breaking". The southern white vote "broke" for Republicans decades ago, junior.

Yes it did, about twenty years ago, whereas the Civil Rights Act was passed about 45 years ago. The one did not cause the other. However, what I specifically said was "there was no way a white Democrat was going to win in the South in 2014." And not a single one did. That has never happened before.

Yeah, why not look up Nixon's southern strategy? Afraid your propaganda won't hold up to reality?

Would that be the same Richard Nixon who went to Harlem and declared that "America can't afford the costs of segregation!", and did so in 1956 - as Vice President? Would that be the same Richard Nixon whose boss ordered the US Army to enforce desegregation of Southern schools against strident Democrat opposition? Would that be the same Richard Nixon who voted for the Civil Rights Acts of 1964, 1965, and 1968? Would that be the same Richard Nixon who said Democrats were "trying to squeeze the last ounce of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice?" Would that be the same Richard Nixon who called on LBJ and Bobby Kennedy to repudiate segregationist Democrats? They refused. While LBJ had voted against every single Civil Rights bill in the Senate until the last one, Bobby Kennedy ordered the FBI to harass Martin Luther King, sending him letter demanding that he kill himself. Johnson drug his feet on desegregation. Nixon implemented it.

Derp.

So you are now ignorant of the difference between words and actions (especially actions in the run up to election time vs words years later when his presidency was being destroyed by his corruption and illegal activities)?

The southern strategy was a FACT! Nixon himself admitted it, numerous other Rpublicans have publicly admitted it, and your attempts at historical revisionism are as stupid as they are untrue.

So explain his Southern strategy - which was to somehow win over white Southern Democrats by ramming desegregation and civil rights down their throats while massively increasing spending on social welfare programs for blacks, because that's both what he said and what he did. His strategy for winning the Southern votes in a Presidential election was simply to be ardently anti-communist and anti-hippy. That actually worked, because all true Southerners hate communists and hippies.

Yet more proof that Republicans really aren't racist. The incoming Republican speaker for the Nevada state legislature said democrats have a "master-slave relationship" with "simple minded darkies". Nope, no racism there.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ira-hansen-nevada-speaker-simple-minded-darkies

He allegedly said: "The Democratic coalition would split asunder if the NAACP & co. actually promoted what black Americans truly desire—educational choice. The shrewd and calculating [black] ’leaders’ are willing to sacrifice the children of their own race to gratify their lust for power and position. The relationship of Negroes and Democrats is truly a master-slave relationship, with the benevolent master knowing what’s best for his simple minded darkies. For American blacks, being denied choice and forced to attend the failing and inferior government school system is a form of involuntary servitude. Let’s call it what it truly is—educational slavery."

So, protesting Democrat racism makes you racist... You can find black conservatives saying exactly the same thing, but in saltier terms. But it's a good find by an alternative weekly that says the quotes from the original newspaper articles are only on microfilm. The rest of his articles are online Daily Sparks Tribune.

So, just to be clear, are you denying he called blacks "simple minded darkies" who are slaves to democrats?

You won't fix the problems Republicans have with black Americans until you start to honestly look at how Republicans are CONSTANTLY spewing and appealing to racism. You can keep deflecting and denying but nobody buys your bullshit non-arguments judging by black voting patterns and you poor idiots won't stop digging deeper.

So it's okay for Democrats to treat blacks as simple minded darkies, and hold them in educational bondage and slavery, but it's not okay for us to point this out. Democrats always used to get highly upset when we'd lecture them about how they were treating the blacks, and they'd retort that we should mind our own business and keep our hands off their property. Their attitude hasn't changed a bit.

On Air Force one with some skeptical Southern governors, Lyndon Johnson reassured them that "I'll have them niggers voting Democrat for the next 200 years." That they still vote like he wanted is nothing to be proud of. Why? Because Johnson had also said, "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."

That is still the DNC's core principle. They need the black votes to proclaim their innocence about slavery, literacy tests, the KKK, and segregation. They need to parade them around so everybody notices. In discussing his appointment of Thurgood Marshall to the US Supreme Court, Johnson said "Son, when I appoint a nigger to the court, I want everyone to know he's a nigger."

What he has chosen to do unilaterally has been unsuccessful when done in the past by other Presidents. Reagan had a similar amnesty plan that wasn't as large in my opinion as this one is. Trying the same old things over and over again isn't going to get better with age.

I agree with the goal of what Obama is doing but he seems to think that if Congress doesn't do what he wants he will do it on his own. That is just wrong.

OK, it's time to stop now. As much of a loon as the speaker may be, it's extremely clear from the context that the "simple-minded darkies" line was his portrayal of how he believes Democrats think.

are you even dumber than we think you are? Or do you know that you're lying? You have absolutely no credibility here. About anything.

You're the one who said blogs don't count. Or is it only left wing blogs count?

Just stop.

Some blogs are good some are not. It all depends on where they link back to.

Some people don't want to read they want to slam and disagree. Some people don't read what the blog is linked back to. It's up to the person using the blog to tell how something is important and what is backing up the point.

You're too reasonable to post here.

You got it figures out, too bad gul can't figure it out.

She's saying exactly what gul and I have been saying: If the blog links back to a primary source, then you cite the primary source and explain why it supports your opinion.

Do you know what a primary source is?

If the blog is just "Federal Farmer says Obamacare is all lies because Federal Farmer says so," it has no credibility.

See the difference?

The blogs I posted did link to the primar source.

It's one blog, and it links to another blog, and all you did was say "Hey, here's a blog."

So (A) find a primary source and (B) defend your position.

It's funny how Federal Farmer can read the same statement and agree to it, when he's spent a few dozen posts claiming he doesn't. It's almost as though he doesn't understand what he's reading.

What's not so funny is that the one factoid @Federal Farmer has presented in this entire thread - viz. the graph in the Forbes piece - is bullshit.

Because it's not a liberal blog, right?

Because the data in the graph are grossly inaccurate.

Oh, and the fact that it is a liberal blog, and you couldn't even figure that out.

ETA: Where's @Federal Farmer?