[Hold My Own]

No, it didnt work out well for them because they were "sellouts"

[jbock13]

Correct. My point is if the Democrats win based on racism and hate, then we've lost. You can't change overnight what has become mainstream. That's why no amount of pandering to any race or group will ever work.

There's also the whole "uncle Tom" thing but that strays away from politics. All I can say is in America, there's nothing more dangerous to Democrats than a black man who thinks for himself. It's no coincidence that Allen West, Clarance Thomas, and Thomas Sowell are vilified.

[LUminary]

I think it's more about party than race. I think if Romney had the been the Democrat he would have gotten a higher percentage of the black vote than a Republican Obama.

[Hold My Own]

Yeh, I almost used the term "Uncle Tom" but wasnt sure if that's racially insensitive or not. For all I knew it was one of those words that I cant say but that's because I'm not of a certain demographic haha

[jbock13]

Well, Uncle Tom originally was the hero of the novel. Now it's used as a negative term of submission, which is 180 from what Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote the book about. Tom stands up for himself rather than being submissive, which goes to show you that the term is only used by ignorant people who obviously have no idea what they're saying. Tom dies when he refused to be sold to another group of masters, thus dividing his family.

I must disagree LUminary. Race has plenty to do with it, and it's what the Democrats have done so well. We saw this with OJ, but yet we couldn't figure out why. But now we know. You can say it's not about race, but when one candidate gets 96% of the vote, it seems obviously clear.

Let's take a look at this video from Tuesday.

[youtube]

[/youtube]

It may be cute, but it's not funny. And the statistics show she's not kidding.

The only thing I feel sorry for more is the 4% of blacks who dare to be independent. They are the truly despised. Isn't it sad how we can judge the way a person vote, simply by the color of their skin? That's prejudice. But yet, can it be called racism, if it's true? But ginning up class warfare and race warfare has been the Democrat strategy for years. It's also been the Democrat strategy since the 1800's to keep blacks enslaved on the plantation. Yesterday, that was physical bondage. Today, that's intellectual bondage. And dare a black man wander from their Democrat masters, they will be severely punished. (Thomas Sowell, Allen West, Herman Cain, etc.)

It's a bit cruel to think of it like that. But it's none the less true.

[Cider Jim]

Well, Uncle Tom originally was the hero of the novel. Now it's used as a negative term of submission, which is 180 from what Harriet Beecher Stowe wrote the book about. Tom stands up for himself rather than being submissive, which goes to show you that the term is only used by ignorant people who obviously have no idea what they're saying. Tom dies when he refused to be sold to another group of masters, thus dividing his family.

Jbock, have you ever even read the novel? Part of what you say is correct; however, other parts aren't even close to being accurate.

Uncle Tom is still the hero of the novel, and "Uncle Tom" was a positive term for roughly 100 years (1851-1950s). The term didn't turn negative until Malcolm X used it several times in his Autobiography (written by Alex Haley). Tom never stands up for himself in the novel. Simon Legree has Tom beaten to death by Quimbo and Sambo, but it's because Tom would rather sacrifice himself than tell Legree where Cassy and Emmeline are hiding. And there is nothing in the novel about Tom refusing "to be sold to another group of masters."

And, for the record, Chris Darden who was one of OJ Simpson's prosecuting attorneys, was referred to in the media as an "Unce Tom", as was Denzel Washington's character in Remember the Titans.

[Purple Haize]

Sambos was a great restaurant. They had the best pancakes!

[Cider Jim]

We used to have one of those in Chattanooga. Their 99 cent silver dollar pancakes were the best!

[Wilberforce91]

I saw this article on Twitter and thought it might add to the current discussion (not regarding pancakes btw). http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

[jbock13]

Looks like I have a winter intercession reading assignment. Thanks Cider for the corrections and ill be sure to read that again.

[jbock13]

The only problem with Krauthammer's argument is that the Democrats will never agree to secure the border, and it's naive to pretend they will. Reagan found this out. If the Democrats view Latinos as voters, and government dependent, the more they will use them as political tools. They also justify this on some sort of fallacy of us being a nation of immigrants, but they fail to point out they were legal immigrants.

As for amnesty, I understand the argument. But as long as we have Democrats, there will be no secure border. Oh, and Republicans like McCain and Graham.

[01LUGrad]

Speaking of Republicans, Latinos, and Bush...

Where’s he running? George P. Bush’s campaign filing in Texas fueling speculation about 2014George P. Bush, a rising star among Hispanic conservatives and the grandson of one president and nephew of another, has taken the first step toward seeking elected office in Texas.

He would be an absolute lock for the nomination in 8 or 12 years if his name didn't happen to be George Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... story.html

[jbock13]

You'll never out Democrat the Democrats. That's why I reject picking candidates based on race. Rush put it rather eloquently this afternoon.

Latinos vote majority Democrat because the Democrats are Santa Claus.

[Sly Fox]

It is not that simple, jbock13. Entitlement is not part of Hispanic culture and they collectively are perhaps the hardest-working voting bloc in America. But they have been led to believe that the differences between the two primary parties is along class lines. The GOP completely dropped the ball in their belief that illegal immigration would be the issue to rally their base. It failed. Now they have a real challenge on their hands recovering from their missteps the past decade.

[jbock13]

Most Latinos are hard working. But some aren't. And anyone of any race who votes Democrat, likely doesn't work hard, or work at all.

As for illegal immigration, it is what it is. I understand you can't just round up 20 million people. But the Denocrats know they are political firewood. That's why they want them to break our laws.

[Purple Haize]

Most Latinos are hard working. But some aren't. And anyone of any race who votes Democrat, likely doesn't work hard, or work at all.

As for illegal immigration, it is what it is. I understand you can't just round up 20 million people. But the Denocrats know they are political firewood. That's why they want them to break our laws.

Here is my Grand Compromise
Amnesty for illegal immigrants under certain criteria AFTER border security has been met
Raise taxes on those making 1 million or more only AFTER budget cuts take effect. This also takes the Millionaires and Billionaires talking point off the table.


Then elect enough Senators so that the House can vote to repeal Obamacare, the Senate can OK it and it will be shipped to Obama. Who will veto and the get over ridden. I don't care if the Senate candidate is a complete moron, just that they will vote to repeal Obama care

[jbock13]

I liked Rush Limbaugh's half way sarcastic idea.

Grant a probationary period, anyone convicted of a felony is deported. But any benefactors don't get to vote for 25 years.

Then we'll see if the Democrats really care about immigration reform

[ALUmnus]

Anytime I see the words "evangelical kingmaker" I cringe, but interesting article.

http://www.businessinsider.com/karl-rov ... ns-2012-11

Grassroots Republican operatives and Movement conservatives are quickly turning against the GOP Establishment in the wake of the party's expensive defeat this election cycle.

Republicans we spoke to this week voiced a near-universal disgust with the national Republican Party leaders and Washington political class, who are seen as having put their personal financial interest above winning the election.

As this internecine struggle gathers steam, the first target appears to be Karl Rove, the former Bush campaign mastermind who has dictated much of the GOP's strategy over the past decade.

In the wake of the party's 2012 losses, however, Rove and his well-funded American Crossroads super PAC have become a symbol of misguided Establishment strategy, party cronyism, and Beltway bloat. The fall from grace is perhaps unsurprising, given his group's disastrous performance this cycle. According to a new report, American Crossroads got a mere 1% return on its $104 million investment in 2012 races.

For social conservatives, Rove's treason began long before election day, when the Fox News contributor led the party's tar-and-feathering of Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin, who came under fire for his now infamous "legitimate rape" comments. The party's perceived betrayal of Akin confirmed what many grassroots conservative activists had long suspected: That the Republican Establishment was willing to throw the base under the bus to serve the interests of deep-pocketed donors.

Chief among Rove's critics is David Lane, a powerful evangelical kingmaker and conservative operative who organizes briefings between pastors and politicians. In an email obtained by Business Insider, Lane lays out his criticism of Rove and sets the stage clearly for the coming war between the GOP Establishment and the party base.

Lane writes:

Karl Rove presents a different problem -- while [evangelical leaders] are politically naive (from my angle) — Karl is not, he's as shrewd as a serpent.

Karl is far more formidable...in the presidential Republican primary in 12', Karl stepped on Rick Perry and then Newt Gingrich every chance he got — albeit with deceit and sophistication — and elevated Mitt Romney at strategic, crucial points along their way to the Republican nomination — Rove's candidate.

As an example of how sophisticated Rove is…Karl Rove was out raising money to keep Santorum alive until they could kill Newt — Santorum basically ran for Governor of Iowa in 2011, visiting all 99 counties; Santorum, out of Iowa, had no organization, no money and no chance in 2012 to be the Republican nominee; he was only a stalking horse for Mitt Romney — Rove kept Santorum alive until he could kill Rick Perry first, and then Newt Gingrich.

It's instructive to note that Santorum placed 3rd in the South Carolina Presidential Primary the third week of January, and placed 3rd again the next week in Florida — yet Rove [by encouraging GOP donors to donate Santorum] was able to parlay two third place finishes into a $1M shot of money to keep Santorum alive...this is political gamesmanship on a whole other level, plus access to unlimited money.

That FOX News and the The Wall Street Journal worked out a hefty financial contract with Karl Rove is of no concern to me, Karl has every right to be paid well and — like me —participate in the political process. But giving Karl Rove the perch as a neutral analyst and an unbiased observer -- honest broker — when in reality Karl is driven by his desire to enhance his clients and/or personal interests — corrupts the process.

Being whipsawed…[by] Karl Rove & the GOP chieftains and lieutenants has to be dealt with on our way toward 2016.

Attacks on the GOP Establishment and Washington political class have not been limited to Rove. In a post leading the conservative site RedState this weekend, the Romney campaign is accused of being a "con job," in which consultants spun "false data as truth in order to paint a rosy picture of a successful campaign as a form of job security."

The feeling that Republicans were duped by their own is echoed around the conservative blogosphere, as right-leaning writers, activists, and the party's rank-and-file collectively process how the GOP lost an election that less than a year ago looked to be in the bag.


Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/karl-rov ... z2C1I41SMA

[jbock13]

I agree with most of that.

I hate to bring this up again, but why not. If Boehner caves in on Obamacare and the fiscal situation right now, it's time to go third party.

[El Scorcho]

And anyone of any race who votes Democrat, likely doesn't work hard, or work at all.

If you really believe that, then I'd say you live in a bubble and that you might need to get some perspective.

[jbock13]

And anyone of any race who votes Democrat, likely doesn't work hard, or work at all.

If you really believe that, then I'd say you live in a bubble and that you might need to get some perspective.

Lets ask those who receive government transfers of funds (welfare, government employees, teachers, etc), who they voted for? You'll find the answer might surprise you.

Who do you think wants free government supported cell phones? Republican voters? Or Democrat voters?

[Humble_Opinion]

I agree with most of that.

I hate to bring this up again, but why not. If Boehner caves in on Obamacare and the fiscal situation right now, it's time to go third party.

The only way to right the ship is for a charismatic, trueblood Conservative to emerge in the party that can properly articulate the values that made us great without the need for an army of consultants to make him/her look good. If this doesn't happen, I'd agree with you wholly JB. The best way for the grassroots to win this 'civil war' is to defect. The establishment needs us alot more than we need them. That is something they need to remember.

[El Scorcho]

And anyone of any race who votes Democrat, likely doesn't work hard, or work at all.

If you really believe that, then I'd say you live in a bubble and that you might need to get some perspective.

Lets ask those who receive government transfers of funds (welfare, government employees, teachers, etc), who they voted for? You'll find the answer might surprise you.

Who do you think wants free government supported cell phones? Republican voters? Or Democrat voters?

Well, Republican voters elected the man who started the free phone program, so I think the answer to that second question isn't as clear as you'd like it to be.

I get the point you're trying to make, but when you go around making absolute statements like "anyone who votes Democrat doesn't work hard or at all", then you're setting yourself up for failure. There are plenty of hard working and independently wealthy people who vote democrat. I happen to know quite a few of them. Generalizing with insulting statements like that isn't going to do the conservative cause any favors. That's the point I'm trying to make to you.

[From the class of 09]

I get the point you're trying to make, but when you go around making absolute statements like "anyone who votes Democrat doesn't work hard or at all", then you're setting yourself up for failure. There are plenty of hard working and independently wealthy people who vote democrat. I happen to know quite a few of them. Generalizing with insulting statements like that isn't going to do the conservative cause any favors. That's the point I'm trying to make to you.

+1

[jbock13]

I didn't say anyone who votes Democrat. I said most.

Also I'm not trying to win anyone over. You can't argue with liberals as it is anyway, its a waste of time. The majority of the leech of the government, or are dependent on government, so no amount of persuasion will help them. Just ask them about issues of tax policy and economics. They have no clue. All they do is puppet "tax the rich", just like good little parrots. They don't know the causation of such policies, and nor are most of them intelligent enough to understand them.

As to your point Bush and free government phones, correct. That's what we call compassionate conservatism (also known as handing out freebies to prove we don't hate people, as an excuse to compromise to the Democrats once again.)