(03-09-2015 10:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Apologies are all well and good but it still speaks to the secret motives of those within the party. Byrd was a Dixicrat who stayed behind. You know where all the others went don't you?

Both Byrd and Atwater's opinions and the examples you use them as seem far more like the exception than the rule.

You don't hear republican's invoking Atwater in every speech or trying to clearly define black people as the enemy. You can find one example of almost anything for any cause or against any cause. What you can't do it take any current republican platform and twist it enough to make it mean that blacks are the enemy.

Agreed. However, what Atwater said in his speech is that if you hide the agenda, you dupe the rest of the party into accepting the motive. So maybe only a few believe blacks are the enemy but the rest further the agenda blindly.

(03-09-2015 10:56 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  DNC Chief Wasserman Schultz Scrubs Bush From “Powerful And Moving Image” Of Obama At Selma Event…

A Republican scrubs Obama … raaaacist!



Pre-Bush scrubbing:

lol, can't have any white folk in the image!

(03-09-2015 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Apologies are all well and good but it still speaks to the secret motives of those within the party. Byrd was a Dixicrat who stayed behind. You know where all the others went don't you?

Both Byrd and Atwater's opinions and the examples you use them as seem far more like the exception than the rule.

You don't hear republican's invoking Atwater in every speech or trying to clearly define black people as the enemy. You can find one example of almost anything for any cause or against any cause. What you can't do it take any current republican platform and twist it enough to make it mean that blacks are the enemy.

Agreed. However, what Atwater said in his speech is that if you hide the agenda, you dupe the rest of the party into accepting the motive. So maybe only a few believe blacks are the enemy but the rest further the agenda blindly.

There is no hidden agenda.

But remember: never let a crisis go to waste.

(03-09-2015 11:00 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Apologies are all well and good but it still speaks to the secret motives of those within the party. Byrd was a Dixicrat who stayed behind. You know where all the others went don't you?

Both Byrd and Atwater's opinions and the examples you use them as seem far more like the exception than the rule.

You don't hear republican's invoking Atwater in every speech or trying to clearly define black people as the enemy. You can find one example of almost anything for any cause or against any cause. What you can't do it take any current republican platform and twist it enough to make it mean that blacks are the enemy.

Agreed. However, what Atwater said in his speech is that if you hide the agenda, you dupe the rest of the party into accepting the motive. So maybe only a few believe blacks are the enemy but the rest further the agenda blindly.

There is no hidden agenda.

Thank you for providing a perfect example.

(03-09-2015 10:55 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Apologies are all well and good but it still speaks to the secret motives of those within the party. Byrd was a Dixicrat who stayed behind. You know where all the others went don't you?

Both Byrd and Atwater's opinions and the examples you use them as seem far more like the exception than the rule.

You don't hear republican's invoking Atwater in every speech or trying to clearly define black people as the enemy. You can find one example of almost anything for any cause or against any cause. What you can't do it take any current republican platform and twist it enough to make it mean that blacks are the enemy.

Here's the problem:

The Democrat Party goes out of its way to coddle blacks with welfare, affirmative action, and fawning all over Al Sharpton. So when the color-blind Republicans treat blacks the same way they treat whites, Hispanics, & Asians, the Republicans appear to be cold and indifferent.

Blacks won't get any special treatment from Republicans. Blacks are just Americans like the rest of us; they're no better or worse than anyone else.

I would say the distinction is far more subtle. The policies that you've mentioned aid whites for more than they do blacks just based on percentage of population. The subtly is that said programs are allowed to be categorized as primarily aids to blacks despite evidence to the contrary.

(03-09-2015 11:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:00 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Apologies are all well and good but it still speaks to the secret motives of those within the party. Byrd was a Dixicrat who stayed behind. You know where all the others went don't you?

Both Byrd and Atwater's opinions and the examples you use them as seem far more like the exception than the rule.

You don't hear republican's invoking Atwater in every speech or trying to clearly define black people as the enemy. You can find one example of almost anything for any cause or against any cause. What you can't do it take any current republican platform and twist it enough to make it mean that blacks are the enemy.

Agreed. However, what Atwater said in his speech is that if you hide the agenda, you dupe the rest of the party into accepting the motive. So maybe only a few believe blacks are the enemy but the rest further the agenda blindly.

There is no hidden agenda.

Thank you for providing a perfect example.

Do you worry about black helicopters?

(03-09-2015 11:06 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:00 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Both Byrd and Atwater's opinions and the examples you use them as seem far more like the exception than the rule.

You don't hear republican's invoking Atwater in every speech or trying to clearly define black people as the enemy. You can find one example of almost anything for any cause or against any cause. What you can't do it take any current republican platform and twist it enough to make it mean that blacks are the enemy.

Agreed. However, what Atwater said in his speech is that if you hide the agenda, you dupe the rest of the party into accepting the motive. So maybe only a few believe blacks are the enemy but the rest further the agenda blindly.

There is no hidden agenda.

Thank you for providing a perfect example.

Do you worry about black helicopters?

If you think there isn't people within the republican party that are trying to keep minorities from achieving full equality in this country then how do you explain the fact that the vast majority of minorities vote Democrat?

(03-09-2015 11:18 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:06 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:00 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Agreed. However, what Atwater said in his speech is that if you hide the agenda, you dupe the rest of the party into accepting the motive. So maybe only a few believe blacks are the enemy but the rest further the agenda blindly.

There is no hidden agenda.

Thank you for providing a perfect example.

Do you worry about black helicopters?

If you think there isn't people within the republican party that are trying to keep minorities from achieving full equality in this country then how do you explain the fact that the vast majority of minorities vote Democrat?

Define equality. Equality of opportunity is a goal of the Republican Party. Equality of results is not. Those are two vastly different goals.

(03-09-2015 11:18 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:06 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:00 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Agreed. However, what Atwater said in his speech is that if you hide the agenda, you dupe the rest of the party into accepting the motive. So maybe only a few believe blacks are the enemy but the rest further the agenda blindly.

There is no hidden agenda.

Thank you for providing a perfect example.

Do you worry about black helicopters?

If you think there isn't people within the republican party that are trying to keep minorities from achieving full equality in this country then how do you explain the fact that the vast majority of minorities vote Democrat?

Because the kool-aid gets passed around at quite a high dosage.

Jim Jones was from the religious right.

(03-09-2015 11:18 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:06 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:04 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:00 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Agreed. However, what Atwater said in his speech is that if you hide the agenda, you dupe the rest of the party into accepting the motive. So maybe only a few believe blacks are the enemy but the rest further the agenda blindly.

There is no hidden agenda.

Thank you for providing a perfect example.

Do you worry about black helicopters?

If you think there isn't people within the republican party that are trying to keep minorities from achieving full equality in this country then how do you explain the fact that the vast majority of minorities vote Democrat?

Because people are entitled to their opinions, despite contradictory evidence.

(03-09-2015 11:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Jim Jones was from the religious right.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were on the left.

Typical of the leftist media and Obama's White House. Sure am glad this was a thread so I could point out the exclusion of the Bushes in coverage.

Quote:The decision by The New York Times to run a front-page image on Sunday of President Obama -- and family -- leading a march to mark the 50th anniversary of the Selma civil rights clashes, while leaving out of the image former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura, apparently was mirrored in the "official White House photo" of the event.

The official White House blog's Sunday entry on the Alabama march led with a similar image, focusing on Obama and his family, as well as civil rights figures, but leaving out the Bushes.

Both images show Obama walking alongside Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis, and even Al Sharpton, as they led thousands across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

The White House blog does acknowledge in the caption that the Bushes were there, and the photo at the bottom of the page includes them off to the side.

Part of the problem may have been the staging of the event itself.

Basil Smikle Jr., a Democratic strategist and former advance team member for the Clinton White House, noted that the Bushes were not standing directly next to the Obamas. He told Fox News he would have liked to see both presidents together, at least in the New York Times photo.

"Both presidents should have been close together," he said.

Regardless, the Bushes were standing but a few feet away from the first family and were included in other photos.

A spokeswoman for the Times told FoxNews.com that the newspaper did not crop the Bush family out of the original image for the front-page display.

Still, the decision not to run a photo that did include them drew criticism on Monday.

"This is a stunning example of media bias," said Deneen Borelli, a Fox News contributor and outreach director for the conservative FreedomWorks.

The Associated Press also ran a variety of photos after they crossed the bridge, some of which show the Bushes and some of which do not. However, it appears the AP did not run photos showing the Bushes before they marched across the bridge.

The Times' article on the event did mention the Bushes' attendance, after the jump. The article notes that in 2006, he signed the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/...lma-march/

(03-09-2015 11:50 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Jim Jones was from the religious right.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were on the left.

None of those leaders were American.

(03-09-2015 11:56 AM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

Typical of the leftist media and Obama's White House. Sure am glad this was a thread so I could point out the exclusion of the Bushes in coverage.

Quote:The decision by The New York Times to run a front-page image on Sunday of President Obama -- and family -- leading a march to mark the 50th anniversary of the Selma civil rights clashes, while leaving out of the image former President George W. Bush and his wife Laura, apparently was mirrored in the "official White House photo" of the event.

The official White House blog's Sunday entry on the Alabama march led with a similar image, focusing on Obama and his family, as well as civil rights figures, but leaving out the Bushes.

Both images show Obama walking alongside Georgia Democratic Rep. John Lewis, and even Al Sharpton, as they led thousands across the Edmund Pettus Bridge.

The White House blog does acknowledge in the caption that the Bushes were there, and the photo at the bottom of the page includes them off to the side.

Part of the problem may have been the staging of the event itself.

Basil Smikle Jr., a Democratic strategist and former advance team member for the Clinton White House, noted that the Bushes were not standing directly next to the Obamas. He told Fox News he would have liked to see both presidents together, at least in the New York Times photo.

"Both presidents should have been close together," he said.

Regardless, the Bushes were standing but a few feet away from the first family and were included in other photos.

A spokeswoman for the Times told FoxNews.com that the newspaper did not crop the Bush family out of the original image for the front-page display.

Still, the decision not to run a photo that did include them drew criticism on Monday.

"This is a stunning example of media bias," said Deneen Borelli, a Fox News contributor and outreach director for the conservative FreedomWorks.

The Associated Press also ran a variety of photos after they crossed the bridge, some of which show the Bushes and some of which do not. However, it appears the AP did not run photos showing the Bushes before they marched across the bridge.

The Times' article on the event did mention the Bushes' attendance, after the jump. The article notes that in 2006, he signed the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/...lma-march/

......and the lefties on here cry when we bring up MSM media bias. Nope, purposely cropping out the Bush's isn't bias at all.

Run along now.........................nothing to see here. Literally.

(03-09-2015 10:58 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:36 AM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 10:28 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Apologies are all well and good but it still speaks to the secret motives of those within the party. Byrd was a Dixicrat who stayed behind. You know where all the others went don't you?

Both Byrd and Atwater's opinions and the examples you use them as seem far more like the exception than the rule.

You don't hear republican's invoking Atwater in every speech or trying to clearly define black people as the enemy. You can find one example of almost anything for any cause or against any cause. What you can't do it take any current republican platform and twist it enough to make it mean that blacks are the enemy.

Agreed. However, what Atwater said in his speech is that if you hide the agenda, you dupe the rest of the party into accepting the motive. So maybe only a few believe blacks are the enemy but the rest further the agenda blindly.

Well what tenets of the Republican platform (current please) exist in their hidden form that paint black people as the enemy? I just fail to see this on any level, hidden or otherwise.

(03-09-2015 12:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:50 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Jim Jones was from the religious right.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were on the left.

None of those leaders were American.

And Many on the Left act UnAmerican

(03-09-2015 12:42 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 12:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:50 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Jim Jones was from the religious right.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were on the left.

None of those leaders were American.

And Many on the Left act UnAmerican

Can you give some examples?

(03-09-2015 01:49 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 12:42 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 12:04 PM)Fitbud Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:50 AM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(03-09-2015 11:46 AM)Fitbud Wrote:  Jim Jones was from the religious right.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao were on the left.

None of those leaders were American.

And Many on the Left act UnAmerican

Can you give some examples?

Jane Fonda, who was political. Jim Jones was *not* political.

Jim Jones was a Marxist. He loudly proclaimed it.