PDA

View Full Version : Black Republicans



ccmanuals
09-26-2015, 01:52 PM
"Did you bring the black guy?"
"No... did you?"
"I thought you had him."

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12038403_10206760994556233_6931410198813670512_n.j pg?oh=730b79e8cfd40f256ea84a32479b9e00&oe=5694D270

Old Dryfoot
09-26-2015, 02:09 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DYje57V_BY

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 02:13 PM
And all this talk about having minorities join the fold!

BrianW
09-26-2015, 02:22 PM
"It's funny because it's true"

Actually no. It could be funny, because at the time of the picture there were no black people in the booth. That's funny.

To propose that it's true, which leads to people like Jamie jumping on that bandwagon within minutes, is not funny.

http://www.durhamgop.com/#!black-republican-committee-of-durham/c3lb

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/4ecdc7_2cd60dab59014d49918fc10e395cde6f.jpg_srz_p_ 493_295_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/4ecdc7_1ac8be4cb5244e09adc17c1a8630b522.jpg_srz_p_ 389_290_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/4ecdc7_765222e5d0fe4001a01a7a0acf9b76fb.jpg_srz_p_ 413_278_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 02:23 PM
Republicans are overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white, at a level that is significantly higher than the self-identified white percentage of the national adult population. Just 2% of Republicans are black, and 6% are Hispanic.
Seventy percent of Americans who identify as independents are white, but independents have the highest representation of Hispanics (16%) of the three groups. Eight percent of independents are blacks.
Democrats remain a majority white party, but four in 10 Democrats are something other than non-Hispanic white. More than one in five Democrats are black, roughly twice the black representation in the adult population.

Based on the percentages (2% are blacks), it's apparent that finding a black adult going to a Repub. booth is like looking for a needle in a hay stack, Brian. You may have more luck than finding the needle!

Old Dryfoot
09-26-2015, 02:39 PM
"It's funny because it's true"

Actually no. It could be funny, because at the time of the picture there were no black people in the booth. That's funny.



Just laughing at the funny bits, or picture in this case, nothing more. :)

BrianW
09-26-2015, 02:49 PM
Based on the percentages (2% are blacks), it's apparent that finding a black adult going to a Repub. booth is like looking for a needle in a hay stack, Brian. You may have more luck than finding the needle!

And yet, I did so with ease.

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 02:52 PM
You proved my point actually, 2% black republican voters. Also, except for Steele who isn't an elected member of congress, I tried googling black republican elected officials. None listed. If you can, google it.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 02:54 PM
a lie is an attempt to cause anyone to believe something which is NOT true

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 02:58 PM
So, statistics is wrong but, it's shown to be true. If you want to argue statistics, give me something to prove the posted one's are wrong.

Peerie Maa
09-26-2015, 02:58 PM
Republicans are overwhelmingly non-Hispanic white, at a level that is significantly higher than the self-identified white percentage of the national adult population. Just 2% of Republicans are black, and 6% are Hispanic.
Seventy percent of Americans who identify as independents are white, but independents have the highest representation of Hispanics (16%) of the three groups. Eight percent of independents are blacks.
Democrats remain a majority white party, but four in 10 Democrats are something other than non-Hispanic white. More than one in five Democrats are black, roughly twice the black representation in the adult population.

Based on the percentages (2% are blacks), it's apparent that finding a black adult going to a Repub. booth is like looking for a needle in a hay stack, Brian. You may have more luck than finding the needle!

2% and 6% means massively under-represented. The Republicans have a lot of work to do.http://nrelecopress1.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/figure-1.jpg

Osborne Russell
09-26-2015, 02:59 PM
As Donald Trump strolls up with his Bible tucked under his arm.

<Not really. >

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 03:03 PM
"The Road To Hell Is Paved With Republicans" With our infrastructure, I hope so.

BrianW
09-26-2015, 03:04 PM
You proved my point actually...

Are there, or are there not, black people in the Durham Country Black Republican Committee?

That was the topic of the OP, and the topic of my reply.

You can feel free to go on to any topic you wish, but my point remains correct.

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 03:05 PM
You tell me. I'm referring to blacks in congress. Heck, how many are on the committee, Is it more than 5% of the pop. of Durham? As there are essentially 2% of the voters being black nationwide, I expect to see a few anywhere/everywhere. Politically, on the national scene, I only know of three, C. Powell and Carson, and Steele who are active. Locally, I don't know any.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 03:13 PM
Are there, or are there not, black people in the Durham Country Black Republican Committee?

That was the topic of the OP, and the topic of my reply.

You can feel free to go on to any topic you wish, but my point remains correct.

'they' are still changing topic as soon as they are caught in their foolishness... ya kain't fix dunning-kruger

ccmanuals
09-26-2015, 03:16 PM
Are there, or are there not, black people in the Durham Country Black Republican Committee?

That was the topic of the OP, and the topic of my reply.

You can feel free to go on to any topic you wish, but my point remains correct.

Brian, it's supposed to be humor. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it isn't funny.

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 03:20 PM
I'm not changing the topic at all. I accept the stats on 2% of the black voters in this country being republican. If I accept that, I also assume one or two are on some committee somewhere, some may even vote. It doesn't change the obvious, the GOP isn't trying to include black voters to their tent.

BrianW
09-26-2015, 03:22 PM
You proved my point actually, 2% black republican voters. Also, except for Steele who isn't an elected member of congress, I tried googling black republican elected officials. None listed. If you can, google it.

Your Google-Fu is extremely weak.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 03:25 PM
Your Google-Fu is extremely weak.

I can only be left with the question of why he said what he said... a science teacher must certainly know how to use google

BrianW
09-26-2015, 03:26 PM
Brian, it's supposed to be humor. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean it isn't funny.

Perhaps you simply missed my statement...


It could be funny, because at the time of the picture there were no black people in the booth. That's funny.

But I doubt it.

bobbys
09-26-2015, 03:29 PM
"Did you bring the black guy?"
"No... did you?"
"I thought you had him."

https://scontent-mia1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xap1/v/t1.0-9/12038403_10206760994556233_6931410198813670512_n.j pg?oh=730b79e8cfd40f256ea84a32479b9e00&oe=5694D270
.

Are you sure the Democrat front runners did not jump behind this table.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 03:30 PM
Perhaps you simply missed my statement...



But I doubt it.

just more wild-eyed defensiveness :)

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 04:27 PM
You need to get your Google tuned up:

Mia Love
Tim Scott
Will Hurd
Elbert Guillory
Boyd Rutherford
Scott Turner
Jackie Winters
Mike Hill (Florida)
Jill Upson So, about 2% wow! What did I say the percentage of black republicans is again? Google is a computer, often doesn't think out of the box. You have to search for something specific.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 04:33 PM
So, about 2% wow! What did I say the percentage of black republicans is again? Google is a computer, often doesn't think out of the box. You have to search for something specific.

how do you reconcile that with your claim there were none at all?

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 04:40 PM
I did, I posted on google the topics (subject) I thought could be searched and found. I used several variations. Donn found a link but, he found only 5-6 black republicans in congress which he posted. That seems about average if 2% (statistically) of the pop. consists of black republicans. Can you reconcile that the GOP for all their shouting to attract black republicans isn't working very well.

BrianW
09-26-2015, 04:57 PM
That seems about average if 2% (statistically) of the pop. consists of black republicans. Can you reconcile that the GOP for all their shouting to attract black republicans isn't working very well.

While there's a lot of work for the Republicans to do towards that goal, the fact is they get from 8-10% of the black vote during elections.

I see no problem with the Republicans continued attempt to reach out to black voters.

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 05:00 PM
Like the NRA and education, I don't see any effort for the reps to follow through on what they are saying. Certainly a lot of lip service, apparently very little action. Even what they try to pass in congress is just the opposite.

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 05:14 PM
Like the NRA and education, I don't see any effort for the reps to follow through on what they are saying. Certainly a lot of lip service, apparently very little action. Even what they try to pass in congress is just the opposite.

the NRA is becoming something like Godwin's Law... Jamie's on a tangent

Phillip Allen
09-26-2015, 05:15 PM
While there's a lot of work for the Republicans to do towards that goal, the fact is they get from 8-10% of the black vote during elections.

I see no problem with the Republicans continued attempt to reach out to black voters.

Dad used to call such play as "stealing the other guy's thunder"

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 05:20 PM
While there's a lot of work for the Republicans to do towards that goal, the fact is they get from 8-10% of the black vote during elections.

I see no problem with the Republicans continued attempt to reach out to black voters. Can you show me some of these efforts? Proposals in congress anything! NO, didn't think so.

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 05:23 PM
the NRA is becoming something like Godwin's Law... Jamie's on a tangent No, just giving another example which those in the NRA is saying they are doing., the main subject hasn't changed one bit. Both examples are just lip service.

BrianW
09-26-2015, 05:45 PM
Can you show me some of these efforts? Proposals in congress anything! NO, didn't think so.

Interesting concept.

Are you suggesting the only way to reach out to the black population of the US is through legislation directed specifically towards black people? That would be disingenuous at best.

The better scenario is educating a targeted group about the party position on various topics, hoping to clear up any misconceptions, and convincing them to vote for that party.

Paul Pless
09-26-2015, 05:51 PM
what a thread

our republican leaning members here seem a little touchy, and perhaps overly defensive, one must wonder why??? :D

Paul Pless
09-26-2015, 05:56 PM
that was pretty funny
not as funny as the op, but still, funny. . .

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 06:02 PM
Interesting concept.

Are you suggesting the only way to reach out to the black population of the US is through legislation directed specifically towards black people? That would be disingenuous at best.

The better scenario is educating a targeted group about the party position on various topics, hoping to clear up any misconceptions, and convincing them to vote for that party.No, it's an example of what they are not doing. In fact, they seem to be doing the opposite. Defunding PP. Lets see, blacks and the poor use PP's services. Something people can read about in any paper.

David G
09-26-2015, 06:19 PM
Of course there are some black Republicans. I bet there is some representation from every 'minority'.

And there were Native Americans who worked with the settlers who were wiping out the tribes and wiping out the buffalo they depended upon. And there were working class men and women who infiltrated the unions and sold their secrets to the bosses. And there were blacks who worked and cooperated with even the most repressive of plantation owners. And there are plenty of folks - not in the upper 10% of wealthy -who have been sold a bill of goods about patriotism, the American Dream, or some overweening SingleIssue... who continue to vote Republican to their own long-term detriment. And there have always been folks in prison camps who ratted out those who were plotting an escape. And Stockhold Syndrome is real.

Oh... and the OP is still funny. As are those who react so defensively to it <G>

David G
09-26-2015, 06:24 PM
'cept it's called Stockholm Syndrome.

OK, OK, so that's my one speeling errir for the year.

David G
09-26-2015, 06:44 PM
OH LOOK! A SQUIRREL!!!

<just trying to help out Brian & Donn here>

oznabrag
09-26-2015, 06:54 PM
You don't have to be a Republican to vote for one.
...

No, but you DO have to be a little...addled.

Impaired?

Inchoate?

That's if you're not imbecilic, mentally challenged or downright evil.

Take your pick!

oznabrag
09-26-2015, 06:57 PM
While there's a lot of work for the Republicans to do towards that goal, the fact is they get from 8-10% of the black vote during elections.

I see no problem with the Republicans continued attempt to reach out to black voters.

Well, they're already getting the masochists, sooo...

Old Dryfoot
09-26-2015, 07:03 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIiiD-ffxcg

Too soon?




:D

David G
09-26-2015, 07:17 PM
Yes, but LOOK... a cute kitten!!!

Rum_Pirate
09-26-2015, 07:26 PM
Why is there a 'black' republican committee?

I would have thought that was invoking racism, particularly in this day and age of political correctness.

Why does one's color have to be brought into it?

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 07:52 PM
The congress has a black caucus, I think they joined the group and being essentially their own, I suspect they named them what they are. Not racist in a true sense.

Rum_Pirate
09-26-2015, 08:46 PM
The congress has a black caucus, I think they joined the group and being essentially their own, I suspect they named them what they are. Not racist in a true sense. Care to expand on that?

Does congress have a white caucus?

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 08:48 PM
Not that I know of although I wouldn't be surprised to hear the T party group caucuses.

Rum_Pirate
09-26-2015, 08:49 PM
Not that I know of although I wouldn't be surprised to hear the T party group caucuses.

I suspect that the T party group caucuses would not be based on race. :rolleyes:

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 08:51 PM
I suspect that the T party group caucuses would not be based on race. :rolleyes: No, just stupidity.

Rum_Pirate
09-26-2015, 08:59 PM
No, just stupidity.

Let us not digress from the issue I raised in #51.

Why is there a congress caucus based on race?

S.V. Airlie
09-26-2015, 09:06 PM
Let us not digress from the issue I raised in #51.

Why is there a congress caucus based on race?I've answered this already.. More than once. You didn't listen and it's obviously a waste of time to keep repeating myself. again and again. It's like the bengahzi invstigations.

BrianW
09-27-2015, 12:21 AM
that was pretty funny
not as funny as the op, but still, funny. . .




Oh... and the OP is still funny. As are those who react so defensively to it <G>

Once again, I agreed the OP was funny. I objected to the suggestion it was true. So I posted the truth from the Durham Country Black Republican Committee.

Exactly who reacted defensively to the OP?

bobbys
09-27-2015, 01:59 AM
"It's funny because it's true"

Actually no. It could be funny, because at the time of the picture there were no black people in the booth. That's funny.

To propose that it's true, which leads to people like Jamie jumping on that bandwagon within minutes, is not funny.

http://www.durhamgop.com/#!black-republican-committee-of-durham/c3lb

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/4ecdc7_2cd60dab59014d49918fc10e395cde6f.jpg_srz_p_ 493_295_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/4ecdc7_1ac8be4cb5244e09adc17c1a8630b522.jpg_srz_p_ 389_290_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/4ecdc7_765222e5d0fe4001a01a7a0acf9b76fb.jpg_srz_p_ 413_278_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz
.

It's obvious there are Durham county black republicans just going by the sign, Did the OP get the pic from someone just waiting untill there were no black republicans standing there and where did he get the pic,? From a left wing site, The OP is intullctully Lazy enough to not think it through or goes to sites that are dishonest..

At any rate it's the race baiting, political high jinx of the left.

Too bad the OP plays into this sick game..

The question is, is he embarassed enough to admit he was played.

BrianW
09-27-2015, 02:12 AM
The question is, is he embarassed enough to admit he was played.

No, he is not.

After his initial funny post, which I acknowledged, he decided to incorrectly characterize my reaction to his post. All in an attempt to back the up the incorrect responses by others.

Completely ingenious. A hard facade to carry in this forum, unless you're unlikely to meet the people you disparage. As someone who has met a lot of forum members, even those I disagree with politically, I'm comfortable with my comments.

slug
09-27-2015, 02:34 AM
Republcans are the party of wealth creation. liberals are the party of entitlement creation.

whenever the Republicans propose policies to assist minorities with wealth creation, the liberals take fright and start handing out even more entitlements.

hard to break this cycle and increase minority presence in the republican party

im sure that as more minorities become wealth creators thier representation in the republican party will grow.


http://s12.postimg.org/uzacel0xp/image.jpg (http://postimage.org/)
subir fotos online (http://postimage.org/index.php?lang=spanish)

Peerie Maa
09-27-2015, 04:40 AM
Why is there a 'black' republican committee?

I would have thought that was invoking racism, particularly in this day and age of political correctness.

Why does one's color have to be brought into it?


Care to expand on that?

Does congress have a white caucus?


Let us not digress from the issue I raised in #51.

Why is there a congress caucus based on race?

Many Trades Unions have committees and democratic structures set up to deal with transgender issues. That is exactly the opposite of discriminating on the basis of gender. Please try to get your brain into gear.

Phillip Allen
09-27-2015, 07:16 AM
Let us not digress from the issue I raised in #51.

Why is there a congress caucus based on race?

any 'white' caucus would be racist by definition... :)

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 08:32 AM
any 'white' caucus would be racist by definition... :)

The caucus has grown steadily as more black members have been elected. In 1969, the caucus had nine members.[citation needed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)]. As of 2013, it had 43 members, including two who are non-voting members of the House, representing the District of Columbia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia) and the U.S. Virgin Islands (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Virgin_Islands).
Senate members[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Congressional_Black_Caucus&action=edit&section=3)]As of 2014, there have been only seven black senators since the caucus's founding. Edward Brooke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Brooke), a Republican senator from Massachusetts in the 60s and 70s, was not a member of the CBC. In 2013, Tim Scott (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Scott), Republican of South Carolina, also chose not to join the CBC after being appointed to fill the senate seat of Jim DeMint (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_DeMint). The remaining five black senators, all Democrats, have served as members of the Congressional Black Caucus. They are Senator Cory Booker (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cory_Booker) of New Jersey, elected in 2013 and currently serving; Carol Moseley Braun (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Moseley_Braun) (1993–1999) of Illinois, then-Senator Barack Obama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama) (2005–2008) of Illinois, Mo Cowan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Cowan) (2013) of Massachusetts, and Roland Burris (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roland_Burris) (2008–2010). Burris was appointed by Illinois Governor (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Governor_of_Illinois) Rod Blagojevich (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_Blagojevich) in December 2008 to fill Obama's seat for the remaining two years of his senate term. Cowan was appointed to temporarily serve until a special election after the seat was vacated by John Kerry (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kerry) following his appointment as Secretary of State.
Black Republicans in the CBC[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Congressional_Black_Caucus&action=edit&section=4)]The caucus is officially non-partisan; but, in practice, the vast majority of African Americans elected to Congress have been members of the Democratic Party (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Democratic_Party). Eight black Republicans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Republican_Party) have been elected to Congress since the caucus was founded in 1971: Senator Edward W. Brooke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_W._Brooke) of Massachusetts (1967-1979), Delegate (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delegate_(United_States_Congress)) Melvin H. Evans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_H._Evans) of the Virgin Islands (1979-1981), Representative Gary Franks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Franks) of Connecticut (1991-1997), Representative J. C. Watts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Watts) of Oklahoma (1995-2003), Representative Allen West (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(politician)) of Florida (2011-2013), Senator Tim Scott (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Scott) of South Carolina (2013–present), Representative Will Hurd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Hurd) of Texas (2015–present), and Representative Mia Love (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mia_Love) of Utah (2015–present). Of these eight, only half have joined the CBC: Evans, Franks, West, and Love.
Edward W. Brooke (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_W._Brooke) was the only serving black U.S. Senator when the CBC was founded in 1971, but he never joined the group and often clashed with its leaders.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus#cite_note-4) In 1979 Melvin H. Evans (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melvin_H._Evans), a non-voting delegate from the Virgin Islands, became the first Republican member in the group's history. Gary Franks (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Franks) was the first Republican voting congressman to join in 1991, though he was at times excluded from CBC strategy sessions, skipped meetings, and threatened to quit the caucus.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus#cite_note-5) J. C. Watts (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._C._Watts) did not join the CBC when he entered Congress in 1995, and after Franks left Congress in 1997, no Republicans joined the CBC for fourteen years until Allen West (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_West_(politician)) joined the caucus in 2011, though fellow freshman congressman Tim Scott (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tim_Scott) declined to join.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus#cite_note-6) After West was defeated for re-election, the CBC became a Democrat-only caucus once again in 2013.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus#cite_note-WestConcedes-7) After Democrat Mo Cowan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mo_Cowan) stepped down in July 2013, the political situation bore a striking resemblance to four decades earlier: the only serving black Republican congressman (Edward Brooke in the 1971, Tim Scott in 2013) was a U.S. Senator who refused to join the CBC.
In 2014 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections,_ 2014), two black Republicans were elected to the House. Upon taking office, Will Hurd (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Hurd) of Texas declined to join the caucus, while Mia Love (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mia_Love) of Utah, the first black Republican congresswoman, joined,[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus#cite_note-Congressional_Black_Caucus_Members-8) declaring an intent to "try to take that that thing apart from the inside out," and opining that "in order to affect change, you can't do it from the outside in."[9] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus#cite_note-Love.2FHurd-9)
Non-Black membership[edit (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Congressional_Black_Caucus&action=edit&section=5)]All past and present members of the caucus have been black. In 2006, while running for Congress in a Tennessee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee) district which is 60% black, white candidate Steve Cohen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Cohen) pledged to apply for membership in order to represent his constituents. However, after his election, his application was refused.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus#cite_note-10) Although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black". In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen referred to his campaign promise as "a social faux pas" because "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."
Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lacy_Clay,_Jr.), D-MO., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clay), D-MO., a co-founder of the caucus, said: "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." Clay also issued the following statement:

Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.

ccmanuals
09-27-2015, 08:46 AM
And here is why it's funny. Democrats get it but republicans are spinning so hard I'm getting dizzy.


Jeb Bush told a South Carolina crowd Thursday that Democrats play to African-American voters by offering "free stuff,"

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 08:49 AM
And here is why it's funny. Democrats get it but republicans are spinning so hard I'm getting dizzy. It's amazing how so many blacks are 1%ers. Jolly good statement JEB.

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2015, 08:49 AM
All past and present members of the caucus have been black. In 2006, while running for Congress in a Tennessee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee) district which is 60% black, white candidate Steve Cohen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Cohen) pledged to apply for membership in order to represent his constituents. However, after his election, his application was refused.[10] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Black_Caucus#cite_note-10) Although the bylaws of the caucus do not make race a prerequisite for membership, former and current members of the caucus agreed that the group should remain "exclusively black". In response to the decision, Rep. Cohen referred to his campaign promise as "a social faux pas" because "It's their caucus and they do things their way. You don't force your way in. You need to be invited."
Rep. William Lacy Clay, Jr. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lacy_Clay,_Jr.), D-MO., the son of Rep. William Lacy Clay Sr. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clay), D-MO., a co-founder of the caucus, said: "Mr. Cohen asked for admission, and he got his answer. He's white and the caucus is black. It's time to move on. We have racial policies to pursue and we are pursuing them, as Mr. Cohen has learned. It's an unwritten rule. It's understood." Clay also issued the following statement:
Quite simply, Rep. Cohen will have to accept what the rest of the country will have to accept—there has been an unofficial Congressional White Caucus for over 200 years, and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. Primarily, we are concerned with the needs and concerns of the black population, and we will not allow white America to infringe on those objectives.


"the group should remain "exclusively black" This appears to be absolutely racist.

"and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club." That sounds like a kindergarden tit-for-tat attitude. How can progress be made like that? OK so they are not going to move on and be progressive and have a united country and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' This appears to be rather racist.

He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. This is certainly racist.

Sounds like the joining requirements of the racist KKK organization. :rolleyes:

I bet if the 'T party' had joining requirements (IE 'white requirement') there would be a tremendous uproar, including by many on this forum?


Yes, racism in America is alive and well and apparently thriving led by the Congress Black Caucus.

Phillip Allen
09-27-2015, 08:53 AM
[/INDENT]

"the group should remain "exclusively black" This appears to be absolutely racist.

"and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club." That sounds like a kindergarden tit-for-tat attitude. How can progress be made like that? OK so they are not going to move on and be progressive and have a united country and now it's our turn to say who can join 'the club.' This appears to be rather racist.

He does not, and cannot, meet the membership criteria, unless he can change his skin color. This is certainly racist.

Sounds like the joining requirements of the racist KKK organization. :rolleyes:

I bet if the 'T party' had joining requirements (IE 'white requirement') there would be a tremendous uproar, including by many on this forum?


Yes, racism in America is alive and well and apparently thriving led by the Congress Black Caucus.



uh-oh... you weren't supposed to say that out loud... you racist :)

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 08:53 AM
Well, the black congressman formed it. Give them the moniker then

oznabrag
09-27-2015, 10:39 AM
Well, the black congressman formed it. Give them the moniker then

That's what he's doing, Jamie. He's calling the Black Congressional Caucus a racist organization.

To Rummy, I say when the institutional racism in this country disappears, and half the black men are NOT imprisoned as a matter of course, and when black people are NOT murdered by the police on a daily basis as a matter of course, and when black people are NOT disenfranchised by the Republican machine as a matter of course, you can, MAYBE, begin to obtain to some semblance of moral standing in this accusation.

Until then, you are merely shoring up the now-crumbling edifice of institutional racism.

I hope you can look inward and realize what your behavior in this signifies, because you seem like a pretty good fellow, and someone I wouldn't mind bending an elbow with...but for this.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 10:53 AM
If I read Wiki correctly, the congressional black caucus is to promote the African-American agendas so it maybe be strictly racist. But, understandable. It's hard for me to determine white congressional members to be advocating for African Americans better. I'm surprised (maybe there is) there isn't a woman's caucus to advocate woman's rights as well.

bobbys
09-27-2015, 11:01 AM
.

It's obvious there are Durham county black republicans just going by the sign, Did the OP get the pic from someone just waiting untill there were no black republicans standing there and where did he get the pic,? From a left wing site, The OP is intullctully Lazy enough to not think it through or goes to sites that are dishonest..

At any rate it's the race baiting, political high jinx of the left.

Too bad the OP plays into this sick game..

The question is, is he embarassed enough to admit he was played.
.

Nope he is not embarassed, It's like the kid crying wolf , one day there is a wolf but no one believes the kid.

Likewise all this fake racism stuff waters down the real thing when it happens.

However if a liberal sees a political advantage, all bets and honesty goes out the window.

oznabrag
09-27-2015, 11:02 AM
If I read Wiki correctly, the congressional black caucus is to promote the African-American agendas so it maybe be strictly racist. But, understandable. It's hard for me to determine white congressional members to be advocating for African Americans better. I'm surprised (maybe there is) there isn't a woman's caucus to advocate woman's rights as well.

Indeed there is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Caucus_for_Women's_Issues).

Rummy will be along shortly to decry them as sexists.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 11:06 AM
I thought there probably was. Saved me the time to check though to confirm. Thanks!

oznabrag
09-27-2015, 11:06 AM
.

Nope he is not embarassed, It's like the kid crying wolf , one day there is a wolf but no one believes the kid.

Likewise all this fake racism stuff waters down the real thing when it happens.

However if a liberal sees a political advantage, all bets and honesty goes out the window.

Reduced to quoting yourself?

You probably don't notice, 'cause you're white, but racism against black people is alive and well and living in your home town.

Open your eyes and learn to see it.

Just because it doesn't happen to YOU, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Canoeyawl
09-27-2015, 11:09 AM
Indeed there is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Caucus_for_Women's_Issues).

Rummy will be along shortly to decry them as sexists.

Or another ad feminam attack :D

bobbys
09-27-2015, 11:19 AM
Reduced to quoting yourself?

You probably don't notice, 'cause you're white, but racism against black people is alive and well and living in your home town.

Open your eyes and learn to see it.

Just because it doesn't happen to YOU, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
.

I see ,there is so much racism liberals have to make it up to be "funny" or to use it for political gain.

Perhaps you should ask the Durham black republicans how they feel about being used..

Or maybe going by what liberals post here they do not exist.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 11:22 AM
.

I see ,there is so much racism liberals have to make it up to be "funny" or to use it for political gain.

Perhaps you should ask the Durhem black republicans how they feel about being used..

Or maybe going by what liberals post here they do not exist.Apparently, only 2% are black repubs nationally so, it could be assumed that they are an endangered species.

ccmanuals
09-27-2015, 11:26 AM
.

I see ,there is so much racism liberals have to make it up to be "funny" or to use it for political gain.

Perhaps you should ask the Durham black republicans how they feel about being used..

Or maybe going by what liberals post here they do not exist.

On the path to self awareness what stage is denial?

bobbys
09-27-2015, 11:30 AM
On the path to self awareness what stage is denial?.

I thought you would be busy lingering around black political tables waiting for the moment the black people left and white people walked by for another "funny"..

Say where did you get this picture?

oznabrag
09-27-2015, 11:33 AM
On the path to self awareness what stage is denial?

That'd be Square Zero.

bobbys
09-27-2015, 11:36 AM
That'd be Square Zero.
.

If one cannot defend a lie one has to attack the one that pointed it out.

Phillip Allen
09-27-2015, 11:36 AM
.

If one cannot defend a lie one has to attack the one that pointed it out.

exactly

oznabrag
09-27-2015, 11:49 AM
.

If one cannot defend a lie one has to attack the one that pointed it out.

Which is what you just did to me.

bobbys
09-27-2015, 11:56 AM
Which is what you just did to me.
.

I looked it up and , addicting info came up with the pic, A favorite site of liberals here, The OP refused to say where he got the pic from .

But getting back to my question for YOU think it was fair to Black Durham republicans to be used by liberals to insinuate they do not exist.?.

Sound racist to me to insinuate blacks do not even exsist..
The OP should apologize .

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 12:01 PM
Did you ask the OP where it came from? No, figured!

Boater14
09-27-2015, 12:11 PM
Those people in that booth are prosperous traitors. All races have them. They back a party that won't let their grandparents vote. This is one stupid thing to discuss. The reeps can baffle the poor whites but the black folks aren't buying it.

oznabrag
09-27-2015, 12:13 PM
That'd be Square Zero.


.

If one cannot defend a lie one has to attack the one that pointed it out.


Which is what you just did to me.


On the path to self awareness what stage is denial?


.

I looked it up and , addicting info came up with the pic, A favorite site of liberals here, The OP refused to say where he got the pic from .

But getting back to my question for YOU think it was fair to Black Durham republicans to be used by liberals to insinuate they do not exist.?.

Sound racist to me to insinuate blacks do not even exsist..
The OP should apologize .

I looked it up, and you were quoting ME when you said "If one cannot defend a lie one has to attack the one that pointed it out".

That means you just called me a liar, see?

Phillip Allen
09-27-2015, 12:39 PM
political football... no one really cares about ideology so much as their side MUST win... it's not about humanitarianism at all... what a bunch of frauds

YAY our side and BOO your side!!!

Paul Pless
09-27-2015, 12:40 PM
political football... no one really cares about ideology so much as their side MUST win... it's not about humanitarianism at all... what a bunch of frauds

speak for yourself buddy

Phillip Allen
09-27-2015, 12:43 PM
speak for yourself buddy

did I strike a nerve? :)

oznabrag
09-27-2015, 12:47 PM
did I strike a nerve? :)

You struck your OWN nerve, you're just too numb to know it.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 12:49 PM
Brain functioning, synapses not.....

Paul Pless
09-27-2015, 12:50 PM
just saying you make that bull**** claim all the time and while that may well be your approach to politics, which I can easily see, it not everyone's approach
for many of us here, the outcomes sought through politics are relevant and of value

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 12:51 PM
just saying you make that bull**** claim all the time and while that may well be your approach to politics, which I can easily see, it not everyone's approach
for many of us here, the outcomes sought through politics are relevant and of value That's all, just politics?:)

Paul Pless
09-27-2015, 12:53 PM
You struck your OWN nerve, you're just too numb to know it.agreed, it was a typical kneejerk post from phillip

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 12:56 PM
agreed, it was a typical kneejerk post from phillip Aw heck, he's just got a twitch or an itch!

bobbys
09-27-2015, 01:47 PM
I wonder which Black they will pay to attend the RNC? Ben Carson doesn't count.
.

Durham black republicans did not count to libs here either.

Still waiting for our libs to apologize to them for not existing...

They would rather play word games and switch the subject.

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2015, 01:50 PM
That's what he's doing, Jamie. He's calling the Black Congressional Caucus a racist organization.

To Rummy, I say when the institutional racism in this country disappears, and half the black men are NOT imprisoned as a matter of course, and when black people are NOT murdered by the police on a daily basis as a matter of course, and when black people are NOT disenfranchised by the Republican machine as a matter of course, you can, MAYBE, begin to obtain to some semblance of moral standing in this accusation.

Until then, you are merely shoring up the now-crumbling edifice of institutional racism.

I hope you can look inward and realize what your behavior in this signifies, because you seem like a pretty good fellow, and someone I wouldn't mind bending an elbow with...but for this.

I don't understand why things should be based on color.

Why can't people of all colors work together for the benefit of all, and that includes all 'minorities' etc?

In making it a 'black only' caucus it eliminates the (possibly highly desirable) contributions of people of other races/colours in the same country, when people are trying hard to make a united country.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 01:51 PM
I admitted they did. Now explain why nationally only 2% are black repubs?

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2015, 02:11 PM
If I read Wiki correctly, the congressional black caucus is to promote the African-American agendas so it maybe be strictly racist. But, understandable. It's hard for me to determine white congressional members to be advocating for African Americans better. I'm surprised (maybe there is) there isn't a woman's caucus to advocate woman's rights as well.


Indeed there is (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Caucus_for_Women's_Issues).

Rummy will be along shortly to decry them as sexists.

From the link:

In 1981 men were invited to join and the name of the organization was therefore changed to the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues.[5] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Caucus_for_Women%27s_Issues#cite_not e-5) However, in January 1995, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to eliminate funding for offices and staff of caucus organizations on Capitol Hill; therefore, the Congresswomen reorganized themselves into a Members’ organization.[6] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Caucus_for_Women%27s_Issues#cite_not e-6) It is still called the Congressional Caucus for Women’s Issues, but men no longer belong to it.[7] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Caucus_for_Women%27s_Issues#cite_not e-7) Today its membership consists of all women in the U.S. House of Representatives.[8] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Caucus_for_Women%27s_Issues#cite_not e-8)


From the link: I do find it particularly strange that in 1991 men were invited to join, then in 1995, although it was then reorganized, it then decided to eliminate men for being part of it and assisting in that regard.

Thus, oznabrag, on that basis, I would say that they are indeed sexist.

Are you saying that they are not?

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 02:13 PM
I don't think so! I think most "libs" don't think so.

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2015, 02:17 PM
If I read Wiki correctly, the congressional black caucus is to promote the African-American agendas so it maybe be strictly racist. But, understandable. It's hard for me to determine white congressional members to be advocating for African Americans better. I'm surprised (maybe there is) there isn't a woman's caucus to advocate woman's rights as well.


I don't think so! I think most "libs" don't think so.


On that (your) basis it would appear that an organization/caucus that restricted it's membership to exclude black people and women, would not be racist or sexist !

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

bobbys
09-27-2015, 02:21 PM
So in a nutshell libs here go to left wing sites that use trickery.

liberals will believe black republicans do not exist thus discounting them based on political leanings.

The Question is when liberals are spoon fed lies how can they come to any legitimate conclusion.

When faced with a mistruth they refuse to apologize to these Black Republicans..

Instead they hide under cover of "humor".

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 02:22 PM
If you notice in wiki, whites have been allowed to apply for membership. One recently, and they refused his particular application. Reason not forthcoming, could be anything. Why would a guy apply if the caucus said membership was open to all. Is he just stupid? I'm sure the woman's caucus would question why a white male would apply to theirs too.

Old Dryfoot
09-27-2015, 03:17 PM
Wow. . . just wow. That an ironically funny picture could produce three pages of whinging and hurt feelings says so much about your current political climate.

I should think that people on both sides would want to fix that.

I know that all nations have their own political issues, but seriously, this level of dysfunction is debilitating.

Phillip Allen
09-27-2015, 04:34 PM
Wow. . . just wow. That an ironically funny picture could produce three pages of whinging and hurt feelings says so much about your current political climate.

I should think that people on both sides would want to fix that.

I know that all nations have their own political issues, but seriously, this level of dysfunction is debilitating.

it's very visible but no one wants to be the first one to admit the problem except in the most indirect way...if someone says much about it here, he will be savaged. I call it biting one's own wounds

Keith Wilson
09-27-2015, 04:42 PM
God help us, are you guys still banging on about this? Look, the picture in the OP was a JOKE. The point of the joke is that although there are obviously some black Republicans, there aren't many. Over the past 50 years, the Republicans have become more and more the white man's party. This is a real demographic problem for them, and the leadership recognizes it very clearly, although whether they'll be able to do anything about it remains to be seen. Durham County NC votes pretty overwhelmingly Democratic, 75-25 or so (http://www.ncsbe.gov/ncsbe/Elections/Election-Results-Display?ED1=11xx06xx2012&EL1=GENERAL&YR1=2012&CR1=A). Demographic data here. (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37063.html)

And Phillip, black-white relations in the US are NOT symmetrical, whether you like it or not. They won't be for a long time, although we may eventually get there. History does not just go away because we passed civil rights laws.

Phillip Allen
09-27-2015, 04:54 PM
God help us, are you guys still banging on about this? Look, the picture in the OP was a JOKE. The point of the joke is that although there are obviously some black Republicans, there aren't many. Over the past 50 years, the Republicans have become more and more the white man's party. This is a real demographic problem for them, and the leadership recognizes it very clearly, although whether they'll be able to do anything about it remains to be seen. Durham County NC votes pretty overwhelmingly Democratic, 75-25 or so.

And Phillip, black-white relations in the US are NOT symmetrical, whether you like it or not. They won't be for a long time, although we may eventually get there. History does not just go away because we passed civil rights laws.

what has been an apparent lack of a sense of humor on the left's part is now happening on the right... if the signs had said democrat white caucus and everyone in the pic were black, it would be YOU who lacked the sense of humor... THAT is symmetry!

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 05:01 PM
Well, I suppose, if you'd expect to see any blacks at a republican booth, you may have A POINT.I have never seen one at a Repub booth myself. Lets ask if anyone else has? In other words, it's a pretty big "if".

Phillip Allen
09-27-2015, 05:04 PM
Well, I suppose, if you'd expect to see any blacks at a republican booth, you may have A POINT.I have never seen one at a Repub booth myself. Lets ask if anyone else has? In other words, it's a pretty big "if".

Jamie... (shaking my head)

there are none so blind as those who will not see

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 05:06 PM
Don't rattle it Phillip, you'll get cused

bobbys
09-27-2015, 05:20 PM
God help us, are you guys still banging on about this? Look, the picture in the OP was a JOKE. The point of the joke is that although there are obviously some black Republicans, there aren't many. Over the past 50 years, the Republicans have become more and more the white man's party. This is a real demographic problem for them, and the leadership recognizes it very clearly, although whether they'll be able to do anything about it remains to be seen. Durham County NC votes pretty overwhelmingly Democratic, 75-25 or so (http://www.ncsbe.gov/ncsbe/Elections/Election-Results-Display?ED1=11xx06xx2012&EL1=GENERAL&YR1=2012&CR1=A). Demographic data here. (http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/37/37063.html)

And Phillip, black-white relations in the US are NOT symmetrical, whether you like it or not. They won't be for a long time, although we may eventually get there. History does not just go away because we passed civil rights laws.
.

Race baiting,, waiting untill the blacks disappear , discounting black republicans is always a lib kneeslaper

David G
09-27-2015, 05:32 PM
OK... just to refresh my memory... I went back and looked at the OP.

Still funny <G>

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 05:32 PM
Discount no but, they're numbers are so low they don't have much clout.

Lets see, 13.?% blacks are registered. Two percent of that, are registered republicans. Do the math!

Phillip Allen
09-27-2015, 05:45 PM
OK... just to refresh my memory... I went back and looked at the OP.

Still funny <G>

I don't have any trouble with the obvious joke

however, our attitude toward one another is a very sad joke as well

BETTY-B
09-27-2015, 05:59 PM
One thing we can certainly all agree on is the fact that if there is indeed an extremely small amount of black Republicans, they most certainly don't have a sense of humor.

ccmanuals
09-27-2015, 06:24 PM
OK... just to refresh my memory... I went back and looked at the OP.

Still funny <G>

Of course it's funny. Problem is it hits kinda close to home for some folks.

bobbys
09-27-2015, 06:32 PM
"It's funny because it's true"

Actually no. It could be funny, because at the time of the picture there were no black people in the booth. That's funny.

To propose that it's true, which leads to people like Jamie jumping on that bandwagon within minutes, is not funny.

http://www.durhamgop.com/#!black-republican-committee-of-durham/c3lb

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/4ecdc7_2cd60dab59014d49918fc10e395cde6f.jpg_srz_p_ 493_295_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/4ecdc7_1ac8be4cb5244e09adc17c1a8630b522.jpg_srz_p_ 389_290_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz

http://static.wixstatic.com/media/4ecdc7_765222e5d0fe4001a01a7a0acf9b76fb.jpg_srz_p_ 413_278_75_22_0.50_1.20_0.00_jpg_srz
.

Dear Black Republicans, Thank you for being involved..

I'm sorry some lib waited untill none of youse was at the table in order to have a real big joke at Yer expense..

See, to libs unless you are a part of the Democrat machine you do not exist...

It's not racism they say, it's a joke.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 06:37 PM
Whose the white guy?

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2015, 08:27 PM
If you notice in wiki, whites have been allowed to apply for membership. One recently, and they refused his particular application. Reason not forthcoming, could be anything. Why would a guy apply if the caucus said membership was open to all. Is he just stupid? I'm sure the woman's caucus would question why a white male would apply to theirs too.


You appear to be (deliberately?) missing the point, organizations that restrict membership to a particular are racist and organizations that restrict membership to a particular sex are sexist.

Plain and simple.

They are racist and sexist (respectively) . . . except that some people (on this forum) are trying to make excuse for them, which is wrong.

As I stated in my post #104, you can't have for cake and eat it.

Then again, if you think you can, please post the definitions of 'racist' and 'sexist' to support your position.

BrianW
09-27-2015, 08:32 PM
Those people in that booth are prosperous traitors. All races have them. They back a party that won't let their grandparents vote. This is one stupid thing to discuss. The reeps can baffle the poor whites but the black folks aren't buying it.

I think you need to revisit that part of history which covers racial discrimination, and the Democratic Party...





http://russp.us/racism.htm

The following are a few basic historical facts that every American should know.
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Why is this indisputable fact so rarely mentioned? PBS documentaries about slavery and the Civil War barely mention it, for example. One can certainly argue that the parties have changed in 150 years (more about that below), but that does not change the historical fact that it was the Democrats who supported slavery and the Republicans who opposed it. And that indisputable fact should not be airbrushed out for fear that it will tarnish the modern Democratic Party.
Had the positions of the parties been the opposite, and the Democrats had fought the Republicans to end slavery, the historical party roles would no doubt be repeated incessantly in these documentaries. Funny how that works.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Yes, that was indeed a radical idea at the time!
Fact: Lincoln's Vice President, Andrew Johnson, was a strongly pro-Union (but also pro-slavery) Democrat who had been chosen by Lincoln as a compromise running mate to attract Democrats. After Lincoln was assassinated, Johnson thwarted Republican efforts in Congress to recognize the civil rights of the freed slaves, and Southern Democrats continued to thwart any such efforts for close to a century.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
Regardless of what has happened since then, shouldn't we be grateful to the Republicans for these Amendments to the Constitution? And shouldn't we remember which party stood for freedom and which party fiercely opposed it?
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party. Its mission was to terrorize freed slaves and "ni**er-loving" (their words) Republicans who sympathized with them.
Why is this fact conveniently omitted in so many popular histories and depictions of the KKK, including PBS documentaries? Had the KKK been founded by Republicans, that fact would no doubt be repeated constantly on those shows.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
Fact: Contrary to popular misconception, the parties never "switched" on racism. The Democrats just switched from overt racism to a subversive strategy of getting blacks as dependent as possible on government to secure their votes. At the same time, they began a cynical smear campaign to label anyone who opposes their devious strategy as greedy racists.

...






https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_ManifestoSouthern Manifesto From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Declaration of Constitutional Principles (known informally as the Southern Manifesto) was a document written in February and March 1956, in the United States Congress (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress), in opposition to racial integration of public places.[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Manifesto#cite_note-Historical_Journal-1) The manifesto was signed by 101 politicians (99 Southern Democrats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29)) from Alabama (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alabama), Arkansas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkansas), Florida (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida), Georgia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_%28U.S._state%29), Louisiana (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana), Mississippi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi), North Carolina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina), South Carolina (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Carolina), Tennessee (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee), Texas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas), and Virginia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia).[1] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Manifesto#cite_note-Historical_Journal-1) The Congressmen drafted the document to counter the landmark Supreme Court 1954 ruling Brown v. Board of Education (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education), which determined that segregation of public schools was unconstitutional. School segregation laws were some of the most enduring and best-known of the Jim Crow laws (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_law) that characterized the American South (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Southern_states) and several northern states at the time.
Senators led the opposition, with Strom Thurmond (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond) writing the initial draft and Richard Russell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Russell,_Jr.) the final version.[2] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Manifesto#cite_note-Time_Magazine_1-2) The manifesto was signed by 19 Senators and 82 Representatives, including the entire congressional delegations of the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, Mississippi, South Carolina and Virginia. All of the signatories were Southern Democrats (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats) except two Republicans, Joel Broyhill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel_Broyhill) and Richard Poff (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Harding_Poff) of Virginia. However, four Southern Democrats refused to sign: Albert Gore, Sr. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Gore,_Sr.); Estes Kefauver (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estes_Kefauver); Ralph Yarborough (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ralph_Yarborough) and Lyndon B. Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lyndon_B._Johnson). Their opposition earned them the enmity of their colleagues for a time.
The Southern Manifesto accused the Supreme Court of "clear abuse of judicial power." It promised to use "all lawful means to bring about a reversal of this decision which is contrary to the Constitution and to prevent the use of force in its implementation." [3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Manifesto#cite_note-3) The Manifesto suggested that the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution) should limit the reach of the Supreme Court on such issues.[4] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Manifesto#cite_note-4)

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 08:35 PM
I agree with that in many cases but, not all. There are provisions where others of a different race can apply for membership. Unlike Golf clubs that prohibit Jews specifically in their rule book is an example of what is racist beyond doubt. Along those lines, The black caucus has one purpose, to improve/strengthen/support the African American role in this country. Regarding the woman's caucus which has a sim. purpose, why would a white man want to join? Their priorities are not a function of that caucus..

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2015, 08:46 PM
I agree with that in many cases but, not all. There are provisions where others of a different race can apply for membership. Unlike Golf clubs that prohibit Jews specifically in their rule book is an example of what is racist beyond doubt. Along those lines, The black caucus has one purpose, to improve/strengthen/support the African American role in this country. Regarding the woman's caucus which has a sim. purpose, why would a white man want to join? Their priorities are not a function of that caucus..

"why would a white man want to join?" that is a red herring.

ANY man regardless of his color should be allowed to join.

Otherwise it is racist/sexist. Plain and simple.



PS Even in deigning to give the red herring "why would a white man want to join?" consideration, the man in question may have important abilities/contacts/position/civil conscience to help/etc, etc, etc.

and

"Their priorities are not a function of that caucus.." says who?




http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZggiwS7iv2A/hqdefault.jpg

Phillip Allen
09-27-2015, 08:53 PM
"why would a white man want to join?" that is a red herring.

ANY man regardless of his color should be allowed to join. Otherwise it is racist/sexist. Plain and simple.



PS Even in deigning to give the red herring "why would a white man want to join?" consideration, the man in question may have important abilities/contacts/position/civil conscience to help/etc, etc, etc.

and

"Their priorities are not a function of that caucus.." says who?




http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZggiwS7iv2A/hqdefault.jpg

I never gave Jamie that much credit... I may have been wrong in that he so consistently 'misses the point' that he may, indeed, be drawing attention away from the argument...

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 08:56 PM
It's easy to miss your points, I agree totally with that statement. In fact, you've been worse at explain your points quite a lot lately. Phillip

David G
09-27-2015, 09:02 PM
I think you need to revisit that part of history which covers racial discrimination, and the Democratic Party...

All those lovely references are very likely accurate.

But they're disingenuous. The parties, as you know, switched hats/labels. The Republicans of Lincoln's day, are the Democrats of present day. To attempt to discount the point being made by way of being strictly literal is a dodge... not an argument.

BrianW
09-27-2015, 09:18 PM
All those lovely references are very likely accurate.

But they're disingenuous. The parties, as you know, switched hats/labels. The Republicans of Lincoln's day, are the Democrats of present day. To attempt to discount the point being made by way of being strictly literal is a dodge... not an argument.

I knew someone would say that. Please do recall that Boater14 was referring to history. I pointed out the history, and it's factual.

Besides, the theory that the parties have switched hats has it's detractors as well. It does make modern Democrats feel better about their party, but the fact is neither modern Democrats or Republicans can be generalized as racists, so it doesn't matter.

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 09:28 PM
There is a difference new dems are determined to rid themselves of any any stigmas of racism where ever possible among ourselves. It appears that many repubs revel in being racist. My old neighbor, a cut in the wool Repub. can't even utter one sentence without bringing in some racial slur. Nothing I say thwarts him from his duty to do so.

Phillip Allen
09-27-2015, 09:29 PM
There is a difference new dems are determined to rid themselves of any any stigmas of racism where ever possible among ourselves. It appears that many repubs revel in being racist. My old neighbor, a cut in the wool Repub. can't even utter one sentence without bringing in some racial slur. Nothing I say thwarts him from his duty to do so.

and how big is THAT sampling?

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 09:32 PM
I just read the news. Confederate flags flying at demonstrations. They say it their heritage. Yup, their heritage of enslaving a race. Apparently they are proud of that.

David G
09-27-2015, 09:36 PM
I knew someone would say that. Please do recall that Boater14 was referring to history. I pointed out the history, and it's factual.

Besides, the theory that the parties have switched hats has it's detractors as well. It does make modern Democrats feel better about their party, but the fact is neither modern Democrats or Republicans can be generalized as racists, so it doesn't matter.

I have to disagree. You can quibble. You can dodge. You can hide behind the literal interpretation. Whatever it takes to make YOU feel better about the party you are misguidedly supporting <G>

But to my eye, what he said is - at the core - true. Black Republicans are backing a party (or - if you want to get technical... their ideological ancestors) that wouldn't let their grandparents vote... and, btw, are actively working to disenfrancise as many of them as possible today.

BrianW
09-27-2015, 10:04 PM
I have to disagree. You can quibble. You can dodge. You can hide behind the literal interpretation.

You mean the facts? Yes I accept the literal interpretation of the fact that the Democratic Party has a long history of racial discrimination.

It's not hiding, it's simply history.

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2015, 10:18 PM
"why would a white man want to join?" that is a red herring.

ANY man regardless of his color should be allowed to join.

Otherwise it is racist/sexist. Plain and simple.



PS Even in deigning to give the red herring "why would a white man want to join?" consideration, the man in question may have important abilities/contacts/position/civil conscience to help/etc, etc, etc.

and

"Their priorities are not a function of that caucus.." says who?




http://i.ytimg.com/vi/ZggiwS7iv2A/hqdefault.jpg

Jamie appears to have gone rather quiet on this subject. I wonder why?

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 10:21 PM
Because there is no real sense discussing anything with idiots. I can understand why you "wonder why", you don't look in the mirror when you ask this. Just remain on your rock, check the perimeters for those little pesky immigrants that are gonna swarm all over you RP.

Rum_Pirate
09-27-2015, 10:26 PM
Because there is no real sense discussing anything with idiots. I can understand why you "wonder why", you don't look in the mirror when you ask this.

I suspect that you can't bring yourself to admit that it is plain and simple racist/sexist. Plain and simple.


Anyway I'm off to bed, may you have a good night's rest. Y>

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-b8UPnW5n-jI/UQncU8o55yI/AAAAAAAAAgU/uEyNZaabF64/s320/duty_calls.png

S.V. Airlie
09-27-2015, 10:38 PM
SUSPECT suggests some thinking. You now lose. Oh wait, I hear sirens, those pesky immigrants are about to breach you perimeter. They're gonna use your pool. Increase the chlorine quick.

David G
09-27-2015, 10:47 PM
You mean the facts? Yes I accept the literal interpretation of the fact that the Democratic Party has a long history of racial discrimination.

It's not hiding, it's simply history.

It's not incorrect. But it IS incomplete. And therefore disingenuous.

BrianW
09-27-2015, 10:56 PM
It's not incorrect. But it IS incomplete. And therefore disingenuous.

So you deny the history of the Democrat Party. Dangerous. Those who forget history and all that...

Hey, you could rewrite it! I'd start with some fallacy about parties 'switching' and that it was actually the Republicans being racist in the past, and how Democrats were really the good guys.

Oh wait, someone has beat you to that one.

David G
09-27-2015, 11:30 PM
Brian - are you seriously suggesting that the 'switch' did not happen? I don't deny at all that the Republicans, during Lincoln's time, and all the way up thru Reconstruction and beyond, were the progressive party on issues of race. Hell, George Wallace was a Democrat - and this is what he said at his inauguration as Governor of Alabama in 1963, "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

But the Republicans haven't been that party since I was a kid. LBJ doing what he thought was the right thing... knowing full well that it would cost the Democrats the South? Lee Atwater and the 'Southern Strategy'? None of that happened?? REPUBLICAN politicians were the ones marching arm-in-arm with Medgar Evers and MLK?

OK... out of sheer morbid curiosity... I have to ask. How - in your analysis of history - did it occur that the Democrats became the ones supporting Civil Rights when they hadn't, historically? And the Republicans became the party of resistance to racial equality? Make it good... because I think you are speaking from a place of ignorance and denial on this one. (I can't believe we're actually having this conversation... again)

BrianW
09-28-2015, 12:08 AM
How - in your analysis of history - did it occur that the Democrats became the ones supporting Civil Rights[/B] when they hadn't, historically? And the Republicans became the party of resistance to racial equality?

If I'm reading this sentence correctly, you have misunderstood something. My analysis of history is not as described above, but rather the opposite. The Congressional Voting record for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voters Rights Act also show the above to be the opposite of reality.

Keith Wilson
09-28-2015, 09:21 AM
The Congressional Voting record for the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 1965 Voters Rights Act . . Oy, do we have to go over this again?? http://forums.snapstream.com/vb/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif OK, one more time, the history of US political parties and racial issues over the last 150 years, viewed from 25,000 feet:

The Republicans were founded as the anti-slavery party. The secession of the slave-holding states was promoted by the election of Lincoln, the first Republican president. After the Civil War and the abolition of slavery, there was a radical (for the time) faction of the Republicans who tried to impose more or less equal rights for blacks on white southerners. This effort was abandoned as part of the deal over the disputed Hayes-Tilden election of 1876. Hayes became president, Reconstruction ended, federal troops were withdrawn from the south, and white southerners proceeded to take all political power away from blacks and establish legal segregation. For the next 80 years, the ex-Confederacy voted pretty much solid Democratic (only white folks voting, of course), and the Democratic party in the south was often overtly racist, both when that was more or less respectable, and later as well.

During the late 19th and the first half of the 20th century, parties were neither purely ideological nor purely regional. The Democrats were more economically populist and pro-union on average, the Republicans tending to represent monied interests, although there was also a strong populist reforming faction in the Republicans as well (Teddy Roosevelt, Willian H. Taft). After Roosevelt's unsuccessful third-party run in 1912, the Republican party became more economically conservative. Racial issues tended to divide regionally, with both northern Democrats and Republicans tending to favor civil rights, while southern Democrats opposed them. Opinions on women's suffrage tended to divide regionally as well rather than by party, the west in favor, the south and parts of the east opposed.

All of the changed with the civil rights moment in the 1960s. When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he said that the Democrats had lost the (white) south for a generation, and he was too optimistic; that was 50 years ago, and they've lost it for the foreseeable future. White southerners have since then almost entirely switched parties, partly because of the Democratic parties' move to the left on various social issues, partly through Republican efforts (the 'Southern Strategy'). One way or another, we now have parties that divide clearly on ideological lines, a Liberal Party and a Conservative Party. They are also divided regionally, the Democrats coastal and urban, the Republicans southern and rural.

Check out the maps from the 1908 and 2008 elections. They look much the same, but colors are reversed.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/26/1908_Electoral_Map.png/640px-1908_Electoral_Map.png

https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/2008-Electoral-Map.jpg

bobbys
09-28-2015, 09:28 AM
Brian - are you seriously suggesting that the 'switch' did not happen? I don't deny at all that the Republicans, during Lincoln's time, and all the way up thru Reconstruction and beyond, were the progressive party on issues of race. Hell, George Wallace was a Democrat - and this is what he said at his inauguration as Governor of Alabama in 1963, "In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever."

But the Republicans haven't been that party since I was a kid. LBJ doing what he thought was the right thing... knowing full well that it would cost the Democrats the South? Lee Atwater and the 'Southern Strategy'? None of that happened?? REPUBLICAN politicians were the ones marching arm-in-arm with Medgar Evers and MLK?

OK... out of sheer morbid curiosity... I have to ask. How - in your analysis of history - did it occur that the Democrats became the ones supporting Civil Rights when they hadn't, historically? And the Republicans became the party of resistance to racial equality? Make it good... because I think you are speaking from a place of ignorance and denial on this one. (I can't believe we're actually having this conversation... again)
.

I cannot believe you are bringing up the "southern strategy" and Lee Atwater again, I have debunked that a dozen times here.

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2015, 09:32 AM
Keith why bother? As you say, you've repeated this many times and, the repubs still don't get it. Hard to believe but, that's the way it is.

Rum_Pirate
09-28-2015, 10:11 AM
suspect suggests some thinking. You now lose. Oh wait, i hear sirens, those pesky immigrants are about to breach you perimeter. They're gonna use your pool. Increase the chlorine quick.


deflection alert.

sop!

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2015, 10:13 AM
I'm taking lessons from PA et al.:) I'm getting an "A" too.

oznabrag
09-28-2015, 10:24 AM
I think you need to revisit that part of history which covers racial discrimination, and the Democratic Party...

Somehow, your delusion is that there is some discreet "part of history which covers racial discrimination, and the Democratic Party".

The claim was that it is the Republican Party that wouldn't let those people's grandparents vote, and that claim is true. Grandparents were not born in 1840. That would be great, great, great grandparents to most folk.


Buddy, I grew up in the South, and I have lived here all my life, to date, and it is the Republican Party that works so hard at keepin' the black folks down.

You can cite your rightie blather all day, but the FACT is that every single black person I ever met who bothers to vote, votes straight Democratic ticket.

Now, I know that FACT doesn't fit inside your neat little bubble, and you and your ilk will squirm and whine and weasel and spin to try and convince yourselves otherwise, but there it is.

Y'all 'make your own reality' because 'you can't handle the truth'.

oznabrag
09-28-2015, 10:27 AM
.

I cannot believe you are bringing up the "southern strategy" and Lee Atwater again, I have debunked that a dozen times here.

No, you just tromped around spouting one-liners and then declared you had debunked it.

You manufactured a delusion for yourself.

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2015, 10:28 AM
oznabrag. I don't disagree with much here but, percentagewise. Blacks are actually Independents. Bottom line though, they ain't republicans!

Keith Wilson
09-28-2015, 11:46 AM
I cannot believe you are bringing up the "southern strategy" and Lee Atwater again, I have debunked that a dozen times here.Right. http://forums.liveleak.com/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif Whenever you tried to debunk, you just rolled out and landed on your head.

David G
09-28-2015, 12:03 PM
Again... poor little feller.

David G
09-28-2015, 12:43 PM
I know you far left whiney Libs won't believe this but it's true. There are LOTS of racist Democrats, at least in this part of the country, that I know of. Guess what? They are all Black!

Mmmm... I don't recall any of the liberals here... or any of my liberal friends... claiming that black people are inherently more saintly than asian, white, or purple folks. Did you hear someone say that?

So there very easily COULD be a bunch of racist blacks. I've met some, so I know they exist. To what extent, I couldn't speculate.

And, of course, some of what you view as racist may be a slightly different phenomenon. When your ancestors were captured, shipped across an ocean, and sold as property to those of another race... and when you were theoretically given your freedom, but in fact were kept down by a corrupt political system... and when there still lingers to this day an institutional bias against you solely based upon you skin color... you might develop an antipathy toward those of the race of your former owners. A certain clannishness could be understood, eh? AND that rational and understandable sort of reaction could very easily tilt over into an irrational racism.

bobbys
09-28-2015, 01:02 PM
No, you just tromped around spouting one-liners and then declared you had debunked it.

You manufactured a delusion for yourself.
.

Go ahead and prove it then or resort to drive by petty insults.

oznabrag
09-28-2015, 01:07 PM
.

Go ahead and prove it then or resort to drive by petty insults.

I think you need to work on the obscure pronoun references.

Prove what?

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2015, 01:11 PM
Well, I guess that whiney Lib shot ME down. :) I know of Black people that would just as soon shoot you dead as look at you. You hang out with a great crowd. I wonder whether they care who the target is actually. Might end up gunning for you!

David G
09-28-2015, 01:20 PM
http://hateandanger.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/martin-luther-king-jr-rarely-do-we-find-men-who-willingly-engage-in-hard-solid-thinking-there-is-an-almost-universal-quest-for-easy-answers-and-halfbaked-solutions-nothing-pains-some-peo.jpg

http://quoteaddicts.com/media/q3/137015.png

bobbys
09-28-2015, 01:24 PM
I think you need to work on the obscure pronoun references.

Prove what?
.

You need to have another lib do the work for you.

bobbys
09-28-2015, 01:26 PM
http://hateandanger.files.wordpress.com/2012/08/martin-luther-king-jr-rarely-do-we-find-men-who-willingly-engage-in-hard-solid-thinking-there-is-an-almost-universal-quest-for-easy-answers-and-halfbaked-solutions-nothing-pains-some-peo.jpg

http://quoteaddicts.com/media/q3/137015.png.

Here come the quotes and bumper stickers. Instead of debate..

Notice he puts people on ignore, responds to others after reading the posts then declares victory.

LOL.

oznabrag
09-28-2015, 01:27 PM
.

You need to have another lib do the work for you.

Evasion, deflection...the rumor of some 'issue'...no concrete assertions of anything.

Just about what I expect from you.

oznabrag
09-28-2015, 01:28 PM
.

Here come the quotes and bumper stickers. Instead of debate..

Notice he puts people on ignore, responds to others after reading the posts then declares victory.

LOL.

I have never seen you 'debate' anybody about anything, bub.

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2015, 01:31 PM
The battle of the Nile was a French victory using bobbys' version of victory!

BrianW
09-28-2015, 02:50 PM
Check out the maps from the 1908 and 2008 elections. They look much the same, but colors are reversed.


Nice charts as always Keith. ;)

If the 'switch' being referred to was so simple and benign, I don't think we'd be discussing it.

The 'switch' often mentioned requires that instead of Democrats simply seeing the light on racial injustice, end of story, some require that the Republicans had to renounce their support for minorities (mainly black in this conversation) and become the racists themselves.

It's not enough for some that Democrats got better, they had to drag Republicans down.

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2015, 02:53 PM
If they don't like it, maybe they will stop dragging down African-Americans. A taste of their own medicine

oznabrag
09-28-2015, 04:15 PM
Nice charts as always Keith. ;)

If the 'switch' being referred to was so simple and benign, I don't think we'd be discussing it.

The 'switch' often mentioned requires that instead of Democrats simply seeing the light on racial injustice, end of story, some require that the Republicans had to renounce their support for minorities (mainly black in this conversation) and become the racists themselves.

It's not enough for some that Democrats got better, they had to drag Republicans down.

Just how deeply in denial are you?

Phillip Allen
09-28-2015, 04:27 PM
Just how deeply in denial are you?

don't see it, do you :)

ever thought about vote slavery?

bobbys
09-28-2015, 04:36 PM
Just how deeply in denial are you?
.

Carefully study the pictures in post 4 and get back to us about denial.

S.V. Airlie
09-28-2015, 04:42 PM
It pictures a few Black Republicans not a room full!. Few in number at best! Obviously, it's NOT a very big committee.

Nicholas Scheuer
09-28-2015, 05:16 PM
Funn-neee! (the OP)

Michael D. Storey
09-28-2015, 06:51 PM
a lie is an attempt to cause anyone to believe something which is NOT true
like an attempt to keep your mother from taking your set of keys to the family car when you came home drunk