It's also a fact that FDR interred actual real life Americans, that happened to be of Japanese descent.
Will the President reconsider accepting Syrian refugees...
- Thread starter CBradSmith
- Start date
So, your version doesn't have millions of illegal aliens in this country and more coming in every single day? That's special bro.
Well, at least Obama is denying asylum and is deporting the Iraqi Christians that were being persecuted, made their way out of Iraq, into Mexico, then crossed the border illegally. We should all feel safer.
Last edited:
It's amazing how quick this administration will act when the outcome provides no personal or political benefit. The Iraqi Christians even have family here to take them in. Boot them while actively providing sanctuary for criminals from Mexico and trying to rush a bunch of minimally screened Muslims into the country. Nauseating. Disgusting actually.
And liberals wonder why people think Barry is a Muslim.
I have heard this theory before and have searched for data to confirm or refute it. I haven't been able to find it. If you have, I'm interested to know how this was determined.
It didn't. Democrats were mostly in control of southern states until recently. When racism became a political anchor (thanks to the GOP), they changed their narrative and went on a shit flinging rampage to try to put their own history on the GOP.
Plenty of Democrats are still racist. They've gone crazy to overcompensate for this reality and that's why they'll do irresponsible things to win the black and other minority vote. Hell, they continued to elect Robert Byrd for years. Of course his Klan background conveniently became a mistake when he found it benefited him politically.
https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/3to018/fog_of_war_eleven_lessons_from_the_life_of_robert/
Learn from other's experiences, fellows. Robert McNamara's lessons learned:
Learn from other's experiences, fellows. Robert McNamara's lessons learned:
- We misjudged then — and we have since — the geopolitical intentions of our adversaries … and we exaggerated the dangers to the United States of their actions.
- We viewed the people and leaders of South Vietnam in terms of our own experience … We totally misjudged the political forces within the country.
- We underestimated the power of nationalism to motivate a people to fight and die for their beliefs and values.
- Our misjudgments of friend and foe, alike, reflected our profound ignorance of the history, culture, and politics of the people in the area, and the personalities and habits of their leaders.
- We failed then — and have since — to recognize the limitations of modern, high-technology military equipment, forces, and doctrine. We failed, as well, to adapt our military tactics to the task of winning the hearts and minds of people from a totally different culture.
- We failed to draw Congress and the American people into a full and frank discussion and debate of the pros and cons of a large-scale military involvement … before we initiated the action.
- After the action got under way, and unanticipated events forced us off our planned course … we did not fully explain what was happening, and why we were doing what we did.
- We did not recognize that neither our people nor our leaders are omniscient. Our judgment of what is in another people's or country's best interest should be put to the test of open discussion in international forums. We do not have the God-given right to shape every nation in our image or as we choose.
- We did not hold to the principle that U.S. military action … should be carried out only in conjunction with multinational forces supported fully (and not merely cosmetically) by the international community.
- We failed to recognize that in international affairs, as in other aspects of life, there may be problems for which there are no immediate solutions … At times, we may have to live with an imperfect, untidy world.
- Underlying many of these errors lay our failure to organize the top echelons of the executive branch to deal effectively with the extraordinarily complex range of political and military issues.
Do you understand chronological time? FDR and Kennedy were dead before the civil rights movement. Byrd purportedly changed.
Actions speak louder than words.
Actions - Libya, April Spring, Muslim Brotherhood advocacy, Iran deal, troop withdrawal from Iraq, ignoring Israel, Syrian refugee onslaught, refusal to denounce radical Islam, apology tour, bowing to Middle Eastern potentates, shit-eating grin when Bergdahl's father spoke Arabic, Ft Hood murders "workplace violence", flaccid war against ISIS, Syria's red line, ...
Words - "You're absolutely right John McCain has not talked about my Muslim faith...er, my Christian faith..." (thank you George Stephanopoulos).
FDR and Kennedy would have never joined the Republican Party. They were hardcore racists. Byrd never changed. He just figured out his continued overt display of racism was going to kill his political career.
I understand that most (not all) liberal politicians don't give two shits about minorities except as far as they con them into supplying Democrat votes and that the meme that racist Democrats turned Republican is BS. Meme that has been shown to have no merit multiple times and that gutless lefties like you make that charge because you have nothing of substance to say.
Start with a prominent republican strategist:
And yet ANOTHER conspiracy! The minorities are all wrong - they don't know what's best for them and are voting democrat because they can't figure it out. What a loony, out of touch, paternalistic chickenshit.
They watch the news. In 10 years you'll all whine that Arab Americans are duped because they mistrust conservatives. Like Mexicans do. And blacks do. And gays do. All in overwhelming numbers. You take turns demonizing one group after another and then wonder why they vote democrat. Frankly it's fun to watch.
The immigration noise? Pisses off Hispanics. I know --someone will have a Mexican friend that is ok with it. The numbers don't lie -- conservatives have alienated many demographics. Arabs and Muslims are next.
Democrats thrive on low information single issue voters. The professional welfare recipients do not give two shits about gays or Arabs. The gays don't give a shit about professional welfare recipients. The Hispanics don't give a shit about either. The attempt to paint the Democratic party as some kind of enlightened utopia of voters is hilarious.
Obama was elected because he was a novelty, McCain was a putz, and many folks were pissed after Bush. Had the Republicans put forth a decent candidate in 2012, Barry would have been a one and done.
Obama was elected because he was a novelty, McCain was a putz, and many folks were pissed after Bush. Had the Republicans put forth a decent candidate in 2012, Barry would have been a one and done.
Disgusting. But my question was regarding this comment from you:
The video clip doesn't prove your claim at all. Are you saying that the Reagan Democrat voters were racists?
Had Romney not gone into a prevent defense following the 2nd debate he could have won. His problem and that of many professional politicians is they listen too much to the "strategists" they spend millions on.
I was part of an exchange in the boards a few years ago and I posted a story that referenced something about the descendants of Jim Crow - it had pretty specific voting patterns and demographics and yeah there was a pretty stark reversal from old demo/Dixiecrats and George Wallace types from the democrats to the republicans when the civil rights act was enacted and enforced. It's not a matter of opinion. It's simple fact that southern bigots now vote republican as opposed to the old democrat model. LBJ was right.
One thing is for sure if you have Steve Schmidt or Nicole Wallace on your payroll you are going to run as a politically correct wimp.
There's a reason they are paid to represent Republicans on MSNBC.
His only evidence is that people in the south vote republican. They're in the south, they're white and they vote Republican that's all a progressive needs to break out the trusty racist card.
Last edited:
Is this accurate, the part about deportation for some but not for others, specifically the people referenced?
I don't know why that would surprise me... it just seems, really bad. As in, what's the coherent Immigration and Deportation thought process of the people in the Executive branch. No conjecture...for real. What is the genuine thought process? How do they decide which group to allow to stay by selectively executing laws, and who do they not allow?
