Unfortunately Von Brunn is not the exception.

[DamnYankee]

Yeah, and David Duke was a Republican.....what's your point....other than dodging a simple burden of proof request?

We're not talking about David Duke, are we? *shrug*

 

[DamnYankee]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So according to the assholes that gave us the last 8 years and their punditry...if you criticize neocons, you're an anti-semite. I swear the convoluted logic behind that BS would be funny if it weren't so pathetic once people read COMPREHENSIVELY the recent history and who is involved. Someone needs to clue this joker in.

From the Merriam-webster dictionary:

Neoconservatism

1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

FYI - "neo" means "new"

And here's a breakdown of how neoconservatism has taken in our political arena:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=19618

which is appropo to this little ditty and it's authors

http://www.newamericancentury.org/



Now this bloggers article expresses the OPINION that he doesn't like Obama and is not happy with what might happen with his foreign policy regarding Israel....and makes a LOT of accusations that Obama's campaign decisions happpened EXACTLY like he stated. Unfortunately, there is no corroboration from other sources. He's more than entitled to his opinion and theories.....but they are NOT conclusive facts as he states them.

And again, WHERE IS THE EXACT ANTI-SEMETIC RANTINGS QUOTE FROM OBAMA THAT YOU FIND THROUGHOUT Von Brunn's history of writings. Also, where are the FACTS that Obama is producing some sort of anti-Israel foreign policy. Remember, criticism of Israel/Palestine situation is not automatically anti-semetic.

I'm still waiting for an honest anwer.



Oh stop BS'ing.....everytime you're proven wrong on one point, you create some other nonsense as a deterent to admitting you were wrong. Stop being a child, grow up and answer a simple question about a statement YOU made. I'll wait.

Evert time Obama used the code word "neocon" he was anti-Semitic. *shrug*

 

[DamnYankee]

Here's what I told the other deluded neocon parrot:

If you're young, I'll excuse your ignorant rants because the school systems just are not what they use to be. If not....so much more to pity you.

Do a little research about 1968, master mind....what occured, who were the major players pro & con (I'm sick and tired of doing other's homework). Neil Young's song is about what he experienced. Apologist for bigots and racists are always trying to pretend that everything magically changed over night with regards to the Civil Rights movment. They highlight the positives, and ignore the negatives.

But unfortunately for jokers like you (and the rest of us) Von Brunn is a sobering reminder that old habits....and mindsets....die hard in this country.

Carry on, you Confederate flag waving cretin.

Neil Young never experienced whippings or witnessed them; these were probably stories heard, and again no historical or political context, since the events occurred under the tutelage of the Southern Democrat Party. The title of his song should be "Southern Democrat Man" or simply "Democrat Man". *shrug*

 

[DamnYankee]

McCain criticized the Shrub, was villified by the neocon driven GOP during the 2008 campaign as NOT a true conservative. Do the reasearch if you don't believe me.

O'Reilly has gone on record as criticizing both McCain and the Shrub when they deviated or disagreed with the PNAC agenda or what neocons consider true conservatism on key issues. Do the reasearch if you don't believe me.

The same thing can be said for the Weekly Standard and Fox News.

Yet NONE of these entities would EVER be considered "liberal".

Like I tried to educate you before, genius.....folk like Von Brunn were so extreme that they hated ANYONE who deviated from their own particular brand of values....EVEN THOUGH THOSE PEOPLE MAY HAVE SHARED MANY OF THEIR VIEWPOINTS PREVIOUSLY, BE THEY SOCIAL AND/OR POLITICAL. Case in point, Von Brunn was on the bandwagon about the "liberal" media persecuting Sarah Palin.

So if you're done rolling your eyes and shrugging, maybe you can honestly answer the question I put to: Can you produce the names of bonafide "liberals" that have stated the same racist viewpoints as Von Brunn? If you can't then you were wrong. Grow up.


Oh stop acting like a stubborn child....YOU set the standard, and I provided proof within that standard that your contention was WRONG. Now you try to change the standard YOU set. Grow up.

Again you're comparing criticism with hate. Do you see the difference?

 

[DamnYankee]

So if you're done rolling your eyes and shrugging, maybe you can honestly answer the question I put to: Can you produce the names of bonafide "liberals" that have stated the same racist viewpoints as Von Brunn? If you can't then you were wrong. Because all you've done is given me some absurd conjecture from willfully ignorant neocon bloggers who make generalized states, relate to half of history and fill the rest with supposition. Someone should clue in your source material authors that fascism like that of Mussolini's Italy was NOT liberal...the National Front in England HATES people of African and Arab/Indian descent. Oh and Chomsky is NOT a Holocaust denier....Never has been and NONE of his writings suggest or allude to such. Hate mongers latch onto ANYONE who criticizes the policies of the Israeli gov't...take bits and parts, and attach their racist propaganda to it. You have Jewish people calling other Jews "self hating" because they criticize Israel, and their is an entire sect of Hasidic Jews that will point to scripture to bolster their claim that the State of Israel was a creation of man's politics that doesn't follow the prophetic teachings. These people are NOT Holocaust deniers or anti-semites...but bigots and racists will take parts of their message to claim a false legitimacy for their racism. (hate the Jew, but agree with him at the same time? Can you say convoluted, boys and girls?)


You "assert" a lot of things, but when taken to task with facts and the logic derived from them, you can't provide anything to support your claims other than half truths and along with your supposition and conjecture. Your answer here just side steps the facts that I disproved the previous bunk you posted, and (once again) you avoid answering a simple question of one of your previous statements. Of course, since you don't have a leg to stand on, you just shrug. That and a metro card will only get you on the bus, bunky....but it can't pass for an honest fact based debate point. But deep down, you know that.

These are all undeniable truths: the Democrat Party was historically resistance to civil rights, used of the KKK as a terrorist wing, developed segregation laws, and by Affirmative Action. These are all racist policies, since it forces men to be judged based on the color of their skin not the content of their character. *shrug*

 

[maineman]

These are all undeniable truths: the Democrat Party was historically resistance to civil rights, used of the KKK as a terrorist wing, developed segregation laws, and by Affirmative Action. These are all racist policies, since it forces men to be judged based on the color of their skin not the content of their character. *shrug*

Nixon's southern strategy is an equally undeniable truth.

the difference being: the democratic party of segregation has made a conscious effort to change its position, and the results of that are also equally undeniable... whereas the republican party that embraced Nixon's southern strategy still does... and the results of THAT are also equally undeniable.

 

[DamnYankee]

Nixon's southern strategy is an equally undeniable truth.

the difference being: the democratic party of segregation has made a conscious effort to change its position, and the results of that are also equally undeniable... whereas the republican party that embraced Nixon's southern strategy still does... and the results of THAT are also equally undeniable.

As usual you wish to re-write history to suit your party. Here's what Nixon's "Southern Strategy" actually was, as written by one of it's co-architects:

Now, as a co-architect of the Nixon strategy that gave the GOP a lock on the White House for a quarter century, let me say that Kristol’s opportunism is matched only by his ignorance. Richard Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column on the South (by this writer) that declared we would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to the “party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.”

In that ‘66 campaign, Nixon who had been thanked personally by Dr. King for his help in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1957 endorsed all Republicans, except members of the John Birch Society.

In 1968, Nixon chose Spiro Agnew for vice president. Why? Agnew had routed George (”Your home is your castle!”) Mahoney for governor of Maryland but had also criticized civil-rights leaders who failed to condemn the riots that erupted after the assassination of King. The Agnew of 1968 was both pro-civil rights and pro-law and order.

When the ‘68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey.

Between 1969 and 1974, Nixon – who believed that blacks had gotten a raw deal in America and wanted to extend a helping hand:

* raised the civil rights enforcement budget 800 percent;

* doubled the budget for black colleges;

* appointed more blacks to federal posts and high positions
than any president, including LBJ;

* adopted the Philadelphia Plan mandating quotas for blacks
in unions, and for black scholars in colleges and
universities;

* invented “Black Capitalism” (the Office of Minority Business
Enterprise), raised U.S. purchases from black businesses
from $9 million to $153 million, increased small business
loans to minorities 1,000 percent, increased U.S. deposits
in minority-owned banks 4,000 percent;

* raised the share of Southern schools that were
desegregated from 10 percent to 70 percent. Wrote the
U.S. Commission on Civil Rights in 1975, “It has only been
since 1968 that substantial reduction of racial segregation
has taken place in the South.”

The charge that we built our Republican coalition on race is a lie. Nixon routed the left because it had shown itself incompetent to win or end a war into which it had plunged the United States and too befuddled or cowardly to denounce the rioters burning our cities or the brats rampaging on our campuses.

Nixon led America out of a dismal decade and was rewarded with a 49-state landslide. By one estimate, he carried 18 percent of the black vote in 1972 and 25 percent in the South. No Republican has since matched that.

http://buchanan.org/blog/pjb-the-neocons-and-nixons-southern-strategy-512

 

[maineman]

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Richard Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[1] but merely popularized it.[2] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[3]
While Phillips was concerned with polarizing ethnic voting in general, and not just with winning the white South, this was by far the biggest prize yielded by his approach. Its success began at the presidential level, gradually trickling down to statewide offices, the Senate and House, as legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP. The strategy suffered a brief apparent reversal following Watergate, with broad support for the Southern Democrat Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

 

[DamnYankee]

Although the phrase "Southern strategy" is often attributed to Richard Nixon strategist Kevin Phillips, he did not originate it,[1] but merely popularized it.[2] In an interview included in a 1970 New York Times article, he touched on its essence:

From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that... but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats.[3]
While Phillips was concerned with polarizing ethnic voting in general, and not just with winning the white South, this was by far the biggest prize yielded by his approach. Its success began at the presidential level, gradually trickling down to statewide offices, the Senate and House, as legacy segregationist Democrats retired or switched to the GOP. The strategy suffered a brief apparent reversal following Watergate, with broad support for the Southern Democrat Jimmy Carter in the 1976 election.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Wow wikipedia. I prefer to get the explanation from the original co-architect. *shrug*

 

[maineman]

Wow wikipedia. I prefer to get the explanation from the original co-architect. *shrug*

are you denying the veracity of the quote from Kevin Phillips?

and I just can't BELIEVE that Pat Buchanan would ever want to put a little lipstick on that pig that he supposedly helped create! :lmao:

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, and David Duke was a Republican.....what's your point....other than dodging a simple burden of proof request?

We're not talking about David Duke, are we? *shrug*

I keep forgetting that you're incapable (or unwilling) of conceptual thinking during a discussion. Let me dumb it down for you: Von Brunn, a self professed racist, is a registered Democrat. David Duke, a registered white supremacist, is a registered Republican. Does this mean that all Dems are racists? Nope. Does this mean that all Republicans are white supremacists? Nope.

The issue here is that there are people who vocalize the nonsense that festered with Von Brunn....identifying them is just a matter of fact. If they make up SECTIONS of a particular party, then it's up to the party to exorcise these folks. If the party does not, then they ALL must expect to be categorized along with the Von Brunn...despite all not being of the same mindset. That is why Republicans must stand up to the neocons that took over their party and idolize the likes of Limbaugh. I thought you understood this, but then again I assumed you were as smart as a freshman in high school. Guess I was wrong. *shrug*

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
So according to the assholes that gave us the last 8 years and their punditry...if you criticize neocons, you're an anti-semite. I swear the convoluted logic behind that BS would be funny if it weren't so pathetic once people read COMPREHENSIVELY the recent history and who is involved. Someone needs to clue this joker in.

From the Merriam-webster dictionary:

Neoconservatism

1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

FYI - "neo" means "new"

And here's a breakdown of how neoconservatism has taken in our political arena:

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=19618

which is appropo to this little ditty and it's authors

http://www.newamericancentury.org/



Now this bloggers article expresses the OPINION that he doesn't like Obama and is not happy with what might happen with his foreign policy regarding Israel....and makes a LOT of accusations that Obama's campaign decisions happpened EXACTLY like he stated. Unfortunately, there is no corroboration from other sources. He's more than entitled to his opinion and theories.....but they are NOT conclusive facts as he states them.

And again, WHERE IS THE EXACT ANTI-SEMETIC RANTINGS QUOTE FROM OBAMA THAT YOU FIND THROUGHOUT Von Brunn's history of writings. Also, where are the FACTS that Obama is producing some sort of anti-Israel foreign policy. Remember, criticism of Israel/Palestine situation is not automatically anti-semetic.

I'm still waiting for an honest anwer.



Oh stop BS'ing.....everytime you're proven wrong on one point, you create some other nonsense as a deterent to admitting you were wrong. Stop being a child, grow up and answer a simple question about a statement YOU made. I'll wait.

Evert time Obama used the code word "neocon" he was anti-Semitic. *shrug*

And there you have it folks.......faced with the facts and the logical conclusion that his original assertions were wrong, Southern Man goes the Karl Rove route and creates YET ANOTHER convoluted claim that is only proven via his own supposition and conjecture...and thus repeats himself ad nauseum. All this just to avoid admitting that he cannot provide the names and/or quotes from Obama or any other "liberals" that mouth the same platitudes as Von Brunn.

So I've proven that Southern Man is just another willfully ignorant neocon parrot who cannot logically or factually support his claims, yet proudly professing and congratulating himself on his ignorance. He's just a waste of space on this thread, shrugging his stupidity away. So be it....I'm done with him.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

LOL... The ONLY thing I've ever seen you prove here Chicklet, is that you like the color blue.

 

[Taichiliberal]

LOL... The ONLY thing I've ever seen you prove here Chicklet, is that you like the color blue.

You've already demonstrated willful ignorance and an inability to conduct a rational debate....which is why I reduced you to babbling on several occasions. Now you follow me around like a bitchy little school girl screaming for attention....which is all you're good for being that you can't debate an issue worth a damn.

Carry on, my Confederate flag waving little fool. I enjoy a good clown show.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

You've already demonstrated willful ignorance and an inability to conduct a rational debate....which is why I reduced you to babbling on several occasions. Now you follow me around like a bitchy little school girl screaming for attention....which is all you're good for being that you can't debate an issue worth a damn.

Carry on, my Confederate flag waving little fool. I enjoy a good clown show.

You obviously spend a lot of time at the mirror then.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You obviously spend a lot of time at the mirror then.

Now he's stealing lines from TV shows; ie: Burn Notice.

GAWD, he's such a pathetic wall flower.

 

[DamnYankee]

And there you have it folks.......faced with the facts and the logical conclusion that his original assertions were wrong, Southern Man goes the Karl Rove route and creates YET ANOTHER convoluted claim that is only proven via his own supposition and conjecture...and thus repeats himself ad nauseum. All this just to avoid admitting that he cannot provide the names and/or quotes from Obama or any other "liberals" that mouth the same platitudes as Von Brunn.

So I've proven that Southern Man is just another willfully ignorant neocon parrot who cannot logically or factually support his claims, yet proudly professing and congratulating himself on his ignorance. He's just a waste of space on this thread, shrugging his stupidity away. So be it....I'm done with him.

LOL You've asked me to provide an answer to your straw man and I ain't biting. *shrug*

 

[DamnYankee]

I keep forgetting that you're incapable (or unwilling) of conceptual thinking during a discussion. Let me dumb it down for you: Von Brunn, a self professed racist, is a registered Democrat. David Duke, a registered white supremacist, is a registered Republican. Does this mean that all Dems are racists? Nope. Does this mean that all Republicans are white supremacists? Nope.

The issue here is that there are people who vocalize the nonsense that festered with Von Brunn....identifying them is just a matter of fact. If they make up SECTIONS of a particular party, then it's up to the party to exorcise these folks. If the party does not, then they ALL must expect to be categorized along with the Von Brunn...despite all not being of the same mindset. That is why Republicans must stand up to the neocons that took over their party and idolize the likes of Limbaugh. I thought you understood this, but then again I assumed you were as smart as a freshman in high school. Guess I was wrong. *shrug*

You've created yet another straw man to deflect your ignoring my point that no republicans have claimed that David Duke is a left wing nut, while nearly all liberals here as well as many in the main stream media have claimed von Brunn to be a right winger. *shrug*

 

[DamnYankee]

are you denying the veracity of the quote from Kevin Phillips?

and I just can't BELIEVE that Pat Buchanan would ever want to put a little lipstick on that pig that he supposedly helped create! :lmao:

You ignore the fact that Nixon's enacted policies were nothing like the policies that Phillips is claiming was his strategy. *shrug*

 

[maineman]

You ignore the fact that Nixon's enacted policies were nothing like the policies that Phillips is claiming was his strategy. *shrug*

Mr. Shrug... why can't you answer a simple question? Are you denying the veracity of the Phillips quote in wikipedia or aren't you?