WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

1964 was the civil war?

Given that it was the Republicans who pushed for the Civil Rights Act and put it into law, this is just hyperbole from the party of slavery. 

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because Democrats are liars.

Anyways, here's the actual results.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Republicans were far more likely in 1964 to have voted for the bill than the Democrats. Ergo - the party of Slavery is trying it's very, very best to lie.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Because the Party of Slavery is desperately trying to cover up the truth.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Actually I was thinking more along the lines of George Wallace (D).

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Given I supported Herman Cain, and plenty of other conservatives like me were thrilled to vote for Herman Cain in the primaries, I think it's safe to say that your narrative is long on emotion and short on facts.

Republicans have NEVER supported slavery. Not once - not ever. Democrats have always been the party of slavery - except now they are telling black people that they should abort their kids.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm sure that's your opinion. That and 4 bucks will get you a cup at starbucks.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Do you hope that if you lie enough people will believe you?

Show me where Republicans have EVER supported slavery in any way, shape and form. If you can't then you'll have to concede that the Republicans have NEVER supported slavery. Not once, not ever.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then why does FDR get credit for what he did?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Didn't Obama say he was running on revenge?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't have it both ways. The Republican party is opposed to slavery. I can quote Woodrow Wilson, telling black men that they were dumb for voting for him.

[Wisconsin+17]

Woodrow Wilson:

"I stand for the national policy of exclusion. The whole question is one of assimilation of diverse races. We cannot make a homogeneous population of a people who do not blend with the Caucasian race...Oriental coolieism will give us another race problem to solve, and surely we have had our lesson."

[Wisconsin+17]

You're citing Newt Gingrich? Really? He's badly mistaken.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, the parties are not the 'exact opposite'. They are the same parties they've always been. The Democrats were the party of slavery - and they still don't believe in racial equality. They don't believe that black people are equal to everyone else. They believe in racial quotas - they believe in making it easier for black people because they don't believe that black people are equally capable. They believe in congressional 'black' seats, because they don't believe that if seats were drawn in a neutral manner that black people would be capable of winning seats.

Why did the Republicans appoint Clarence Thomas - if they have a race problem? The only ones who think the Republicans have a race problem are Democrats, and why would you trust the democrats? They don't understand what racial equality actually is. They seem to think that just because you treat them differently that this means you see them as equal.

Please - if you want to tell me that you believe in racial equality - why is it that you discriminate against people in your hiring decisions, in your accommodation into university. Why is it a black man with worse grades gets in ahead of a white student with better ones?

Why is this, oh party of Slavery?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yessir, answer the question please.

Remember I'm a minority too - just not one the democrats care about. So I 'don't exist' in this bold new world.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yeah, he did.

He said you should vote out of revenge.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Answer the question, nathan.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Answer mine and I'll answer yours.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

When a presidential candidate takes a direct attack at my livelihood and then talks about revenge, then yes, I am going to be upset. His policies are terrible. His policies are designed to hurt me and many other Americans struggling to make ends meet.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

But why Clarence Thomas? It's not like he's less qualified than any of the other members of the court. That's my point - Thomas was qualified and was selected for the position by the president because of his qualifications first.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Not so. Go through the archives and look at the previous responses to Supreme Court Nominees. It didn't used to be political - but the Democrats drug Thomas through the mud (see the whole Anita Hill nonsense). This was after Bork and they tried their best to actually deny Thomas the nomination. That's right - the party of Slavery voted en masse against Clarence Thomas. Isn't that the sign that the Democrats have a racism problem?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So you think Thomas has been a disgrace to the court in the 20 years that he's served? I think he's proven that he was eminently well-qualified for the position.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, it's not about race then. That's what I'm saying. Thomas was chosen because he was a qualified justice who didn't have a long record (remember the crap that Bork got tossed out), who was a conservative.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So show me where the present republican party is being racist - or is opposition to Obama automatically racist?

Anyways, I'm deaf. The Obama administration doesn't care about me, which is just fine. I just wish he would leave me alone.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By cutting Obamacare's threshold to 30 hours. I lost 4 hours a week thanks to the President.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then Democrats should support neutral redistricting. You and I both know - that they have attempted to carve out enclaves.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I find his opinions to be well-written and well-argued. You're free to disagree - but I think he's been one of the better justices, and certainly better than the current crop. He's better than Roberts, Alito, Kagan and Sotomayer.

He's going to be the best remembered black supreme court justice fwiw.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, for starters, your contraception is covered in Obamacare, but my hearing aids, and hearing tests are not covered. The recommendation is to get a new one every 10 years or so (because technology marches on, and it becomes difficult to find old-style batteries). That costs upwards of a grand per. If you're lucky.

Bush was better than Obama has been - when I graduated there was some funding, I actually owe my first laptop to President Bush - since I qualified for assistive learning devices (laptops are incredibly helpful to deaf people who communicate through typing).

From what I understand those programs are no longer available, and wouldn't get someone like me a laptop.

So not only is Obama making things harder for me - he just doesn't care. We aren't on his radar.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I ask that question genuinely, because black people get a better deal than I do - I don't qualify for welfare (because I've worked), and I don't qualify for UI (because I'm not union), and same with EBT. I don't get disability (because I have a degree and more qualifications than most), despite the fact that I should qualify.

So I really fall between the cracks, but then Obamacare comes around and I'm losing hours with my job because Obama changed it. And yes, it is because of the policy change - it was announced and the next day my hours were cut. I believe I even predicted that in a thread here where I read that. .

I don't make much, but that's a 1/7th cut in my wages, AND my taxes are going up. So, yeah, I'm not a happy camper.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Quick, name an opinion he wrote that people still quote.

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Right, that's because they aren't drawn to preserve minorities to create a 'congressional black district'. That's what some people used to call segregation back in the day. How does that convey an attitude of racial integration and harmony?

[Wisconsin+17]

So you're saying that Democrats are willing to hurt minorities?

[Wisconsin+17]

Ate my reply. If the Democrats were sincerely the defenders of the downtrodden, wouldn't they seek to maximize their representation?

You're arguing that they deliberately adopt a strategy that minimizes their representation. Why?

[Wisconsin+17]

He said the best revenge was voting. Revenge against whom? Evil Republicans? Racists?

[Wisconsin+17]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So the way to kick out existing politicians, you vote to re-elect him. I see.

Revenge against whom, Zioneer? Does Obama have some kind of grudge against the Tastee-Freez Man? What?