Jeb Bush: Many illegal immigrants come out of an ‘act of love’

[unsmiley 111]

1.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/24/lazy-blacks-daily-show_n_4159210.html;

A Republican precinct official in North Carolina resigned from his position Thursday, after The Daily Show aired a segment on the state's voter ID law in which he criticized "lazy black people that wants the government to give them everything."

2. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/20/paul-ryan-confronted_n_5000952.html

"The next day you said that statement was inarticulate. Well, I don’t believe that. You said what you meant," Gardner told Ryan. "Bottom line is this: This statement was not true, that’s a code word for black."

"There are people in the inner-city who are white, Hispanic, who are Armenians, Danish -- all types," he continued. "And everybody works. You got here in a car or a truck or something. Somebody from the inner city helped make that."

3. http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/04/28/161912/sally-kern-blacks-dont-work-hard/

“We have a high percentage of blacks in prison, and that’s tragic, but are they in prison just because they are black or because they don’t want to study as hard in school? I’ve taught school, and I saw a lot of people of color who didn’t study hard because they said the government would take care of them.”

And there's more where that came from. This is why hard working black people refuse to vote GOP.

As for your second paragraph: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/13/AR2005071302342.html

It was called "the southern strategy," started under Richard M. Nixon in 1968, and described Republican efforts to use race as a wedge issue -- on matters such as desegregation and busing -- to appeal to white southern voters.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, this morning will tell the NAACP national convention in Milwaukee that it was "wrong."

"By the '70s and into the '80s and '90s, the Democratic Party solidified its gains in the African American community, and we Republicans did not effectively reach out," Mehlman says in his prepared text. "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization. I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."

Marvin, you are bringing up a supposed "strategy" decades old. Before your time and my time. I should note that there were plenty of Southern Democrats that I am sure you would have considered racist in the 50s and 60s that you never mention when you bring up these historical points. Some that were KKK members! Yet minorities still overwhelmingly vote Democratic. It is not as simple as you make it. I think you have to move on. Let's deal with and improve the situation now and in the future.

And you do not ever acknowledge the role the government (ie: Dem party) has played in making minorities dependent on them, and hence buying votes. I think that has played a much greater role in why minorities won't vote Republican, more than anything else. And that quid pro quo only perpetuates a permanent underclass and is a policy that is shockingly racist, in my view, by saddling that group with low expectations.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Marvin, you are bringing up a supposed "strategy" decades old. Before your time and my time. I should note that there were plenty of Southern Democrats that I am sure you would have considered racist in the 50s and 60s that you never mention when you bring up these historical points. Some that were KKK members! Yet minorities still overwhelmingly vote Democratic. It is not as simple as you make it. I think you have to move on. Let's deal with and improve the situation now and in the future.

And you do not ever acknowledge the role the government (ie: Dem party) has played in making minorities dependent on them, and hence buying votes. I think that has played a much greater role in why minorities won't vote Republican, more than anything else. And that quid pro quo only perpetuates a permanent underclass and is a policy that is shockingly racist, in my view, by saddling that group with low expectations.

Unsmiley, did you see the quotes above the "strategy" or are you just going to ignore them because it shows there's a problem within the GOP? Everyone who's looked at history knows the KKK started as a Democratic Party. Let me ask you this, what's their political affiliation right now? Do you think they voted for Obama? It's amazing that people use that line of thinking. It's ok to go back 60 years when it's in your favor, but not ok when it doesn't support your view.

Since you can't grasp why minorities vote Dems so much, I'll try and take it slow. They used to be largely Repubs, because back then, the GOP was about civil rights and fair wages for all people. Not welfare and food stamps. All they wanted was to be treated like human beings. When Nixon and Atwater implemented the SS, they destroyed the base of black people to gain 5 southern states since they knew there were only a few black people in US. By sacrificing them, they brought in all the racists democrats that turned into republicans and made them more popular.

Here's a cheat sheet for you. I'm black, not on welfare, and in the military. By that virtue alone, I should be loving the GOP. My family and friends are all hard working and religious. But too many times they've let us know how they feel about us, even the ones who walk the line. Those quotes weren't 50 or 60 years old, they in most cases, this year. Your party has a problem with minorities, the sooner you realize that, the better.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Here's a cheat sheet for you. I'm black, not on welfare, and in the military. By that virtue alone, I should be loving the GOP. My family and friends are all hard working and religious. But too many times they've let us know how they feel about us, even the ones who walk the line. Those quotes weren't 50 or 60 years old, they in most cases, this year. Your party has a problem with minorities, the sooner you realize that, the better.

The stupid runs deep in both parties. Lord knows we have tried, to get a few Republican politicians to STFU, same as the Democrats roll their eyes when some of their folks step up to the podium, but they can't seem to help themselves. And for some reason, they seem to keep getting elected and hold leadership positions. That does not bode well for the future of American politics.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

The stupid runs deep in both parties. Lord knows we have tried, to get a few Republican politicians to STFU, same as the Democrats roll their eyes when some of their folks step up to the podium, but they can't seem to help themselves. And for some reason, they seem to keep getting elected and hold leadership positions. That does not bode well for the future of American politics.

I've seen Dems use the racism line from the other end. Charlie Rangel comes to mind: http://www.salon.com/2014/03/19/charlie_rangel_tea_party_is_made_up_of_mean_racist_people_from_former_slave_holding_states/

The issue is, it furthers the views within the community of politics. The Democrats know the minorities are in their back pocket, so when they call folks flat out racists, it cements their hold on those people. Same with the Republicans, every time they talk about us or some other minority group, the old guard of the GOP smiles.

[unsmiley 111]

Unsmiley, did you see the quotes above the "strategy" or are you just going to ignore them because it shows there's a problem within the GOP? Everyone who's looked at history knows the KKK started as a Democratic Party. Let me ask you this, what's their political affiliation right now? Do you think they voted for Obama? It's amazing that people use that line of thinking. It's ok to go back 60 years when it's in your favor, but not ok when it doesn't support your view.

Since you can't grasp why minorities vote Dems so much, I'll try and take it slow. They used to be largely Repubs, because back then, the GOP was about civil rights and fair wages for all people. Not welfare and food stamps. All they wanted was to be treated like human beings. When Nixon and Atwater implemented the SS, they destroyed the base of black people to gain 5 southern states since they knew there were only a few black people in US. By sacrificing them, they brought in all the racists democrats that turned into republicans and made them more popular.

Here's a cheat sheet for you. I'm black, not on welfare, and in the military. By that virtue alone, I should be loving the GOP. My family and friends are all hard working and religious. But too many times they've let us know how they feel about us, even the ones who walk the line. Those quotes weren't 50 or 60 years old, they in most cases, this year. Your party has a problem with minorities, the sooner you realize that, the better.

I clearly said that since you were going back decades for your argument, I was going back as well to make a point that you are conveniently leaving out some awful history of the Democratic party. Otherwise I would not have mentioned it. You cannot selectively remember things and use them to bolster your argument. There is awful history on both sides as the Postmaster alluded to. But no matter...

You still fail to acknowledge my main point about the Dems cementing their hold on minorities by essentially buying their votes. That is the major reason why over 90% voted for Obama -- I sincerely doubt many who voted know anything about the history you cite. I also wish you would try to understand that while perhaps originally well-intentioned, these largely Democratic programs and handouts have created an almost hopeless level of dependency that is counterproductive at best, and terribly destructive at worst.

And Marvin - in all seriousness - I should note you are just the type of citizen the GOP would love to have in the fold.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Nixon was not all bad:

The Philadelphia Order

Initiated by President Richard Nixon, the "Philadelphia Order" was the most forceful plan thus far to guarantee fair hiring practices in construction jobs. Philadelphia was selected as the test case because, as assistant secretary of labor Arthur Fletcher explained, "The craft unions and the construction industry are among the most egregious offenders against equal opportunity laws . . . openly hostile toward letting blacks into their closed circle." The order included definite "goals and timetables." As President Nixon asserted, "We would not impose quotas, but would require federal contractors to show 'affirmative action' to meet the goals of increasing minority employment."

Read more: Affirmative Action Timeline | Infoplease.com http://www.infoplease.com/spot/affirmativetimeline1.html

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I clearly said that since you were going back decades for your argument, I was going back as well to make a point that you are conveniently leaving out some awful history of the Democratic party. Otherwise I would not have mentioned it. You cannot selectively remember things and use them to bolster your argument. There is awful history on both sides as the Postmaster alluded to. But no matter...

You still fail to acknowledge my main point about the Dems cementing their hold on minorities by essentially buying their votes. That is the major reason why over 90% voted for Obama -- I sincerely doubt many who voted know anything about the history you cite. I also wish you would try to understand that while perhaps originally well-intentioned, these largely Democratic programs and handouts have created an almost hopeless level of dependency that is counterproductive at best, and terribly destructive at worst.

And Marvin - in all seriousness - I should note you are just the type of citizen the GOP would love to have in the fold.

What point did I leave out? I already pointed out where the KKK came from. My point was that where does the KKK reside now. The GOP, after all this time still has a problem with minorities.

Dude, everyone knows the history I cite. Here's what you can't wrap your head around. When you talk bad mouth an entire group of people, it draws AWAY from your audience. My grandfather, whose 95 by the way, lived through that time, so have my parents, and many other elders. Here's the thing, it's not about handouts and dependency for most of us. It's how you perceive us as a whole. When you have a party of Presidential candidates that each discriminate against a certain demographic, it says a lot about the mindset of that party.

And to drive my point home, look at the last two pieces of legislation that the Republicans have touched on. The first was to get rid of the civil rights voting act, the second allowed businesses to discriminate against gays. Not something I or people who think like me want to be a part of.

Nixon was not all bad:

And I applaud him for at least doing that. I hate AA though, because it makes us look like we can't do it on our own.

[unsmiley 111]

What point did I leave out? I already pointed out where the KKK came from. My point was that where does the KKK reside now. The GOP, after all this time still has a problem with minorities.

Dude, everyone knows the history I cite. Here's what you can't wrap your head around. When you talk bad mouth an entire group of people, it draws AWAY from your audience. My grandfather, whose 95 by the way, lived through that time, so have my parents, and many other elders. Here's the thing, it's not about handouts and dependency for most of us. It's how you perceive us as a whole. When you have a party of Presidential candidates that each discriminate against a certain demographic, it says a lot about the mindset of that party.

And to drive my point home, look at the last two pieces of legislation that the Republicans have touched on. The first was to get rid of the civil rights voting act, the second allowed businesses to discriminate against gays. Not something I or people who think like me want to be a part of.

And I applaud him for at least doing that. I hate AA though, because it makes us look like we can't do it on our own.

I think you overestimate the public. I am afraid people of all stripes have an abysmal grasp of history (and most other academic subjects). Our public schools suck and most students do not pay attention anyway. People that lived through those eras are likely aware, but very few that followed are.

It is an inaccurate statement to refer to the GOP as a "..party of Presidential candidates that each discriminate..." Sorry but you cannot say any of the major GOP candidates of the past couple of decades has been guilty of practicing discrimination. Not true. And I should add you are painting a group of people with the same brush, a tactic that I know riles you. Those candidates may not push positions that favor minorities, but that does NOT make them guilty of discrimination. I am pretty sure this is unintentional by you, but this type of loose usage of such loaded words like "racist", "homophobe", and in this case "discrimination" is so common, but it is incorrect and unhelpful. (For example, just because someone doesn't support affirmative action does NOT make them a racist, as much as liberals try to paint it as such.)

Since you are a student of history (more than me) -- here's a fun fact to chew on: Did you know that the Civil Rights Act got more Republican votes than Democratic votes???

And the second law in question you bring up DID NOT allow discrimination against gays, despite the biased coverage in the mainstream media. You can have objections to either side of this debate, but for people like me, there are already many laws on the books that properly ban discrimination AGAINST ALL PEOPLE, no need to have this type of "feel good" legislation to pander to a specific group. We already have way too many laws. So you can be against this type of legislation without being against gays.

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

I think you overestimate the public. I am afraid people of all stripes have an abysmal grasp of history (and most other academic subjects). Our public schools suck and most students do not pay attention anyway. People that lived through those eras are likely aware, but very few that followed are.

It is an inaccurate statement to refer to the GOP as a "..party of Presidential candidates that each discriminate..." Sorry but you cannot say any of the major GOP candidates of the past couple of decades has been guilty of practicing discrimination. Not true. And I should add you are painting a group of people with the same brush, a tactic that I know riles you. Those candidates may not push positions that favor minorities, but that does NOT make them guilty of discrimination. I am pretty sure this is unintentional by you, but this type of loose usage of such loaded words like "racist", "homophobe", and in this case "discrimination" is so common, but it is incorrect and unhelpful. (For example, just because someone doesn't support affirmative action does NOT make them a racist, as much as liberals try to paint it as such.)

Since you are a student of history (more than me) -- here's a fun fact to chew on: Did you know that the Civil Rights Act got more Republican votes than Democratic votes???

And the second law in question you bring up DID NOT allow discrimination against gays, despite the biased coverage in the mainstream media. You can have objections to either side of this debate, but for people like me, there are already many laws on the books that properly ban discrimination AGAINST ALL PEOPLE, no need to have this type of "feel good" legislation to pander to a specific group. We already have way too many laws. So you can be against this type of legislation without being against gays.

Well, allow me to educate you on this last Presidential election:

Herman Cain, doesn't trust Muslims: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/herman-cains-anti-muslim-prejudice-returns/248471/

I'm a muslim, meaning he doesn't trust a Navy Sailor who has served his country for 20 years coming this February

Newt Gingrich, doesn't think blacks or hispanics can handle anything, but loves asians: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/newt-gingrich-latinos-blacks-weath-gop-2012_n_1224939.html

SInce I'm black, I don't have a clue about making money

Michelle Bachmann, can't stand the gays: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/michele-bachmann-gay-bullying_n_4937510.html

If I were gay, I'd be the trifecta:)

Rick Santorum, came this close to calling Obama the N-word on video, and he doesn't like Islam

Glad I don't have to go through the airport with him

Now I can keep going, with Rick Perry, but that's to me overkill since I pretty much just named the entire 2012 Presidential candidates for the GOP.

Show me some examples of laws that discriminate against you.

[LibCampFireClub 635]

Not a chance in hell that Jeb Bush will even be in the running. End of story.

[unsmiley 111]

Well, allow me to educate you on this last Presidential election:

Herman Cain, doesn't trust Muslims: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/11/herman-cains-anti-muslim-prejudice-returns/248471/

I'm a muslim, meaning he doesn't trust a Navy Sailor who has served his country for 20 years coming this February

Newt Gingrich, doesn't think blacks or hispanics can handle anything, but loves asians: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/23/newt-gingrich-latinos-blacks-weath-gop-2012_n_1224939.html

SInce I'm black, I don't have a clue about making money

Michelle Bachmann, can't stand the gays: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/03/10/michele-bachmann-gay-bullying_n_4937510.html

If I were gay, I'd be the trifecta:)

Rick Santorum, came this close to calling Obama the N-word on video, and he doesn't like Islam

Glad I don't have to go through the airport with him

Now I can keep going, with Rick Perry, but that's to me overkill since I pretty much just named the entire 2012 Presidential candidates for the GOP.

Show me some examples of laws that discriminate against you.

Sorry for the delay, haven't been on the site for a while.

But Marvin: You are constantly trying to "educate" me (and others). I do not mind your opinions, in fact I welcome them, but your constant harping on "educating" those who disagree with you is insulting. I happen to have more education than most people here... but that is not my point. My issue is your insistence that those who disagree lack knowledge or smarts, and hence have to be taught to buy what you are selling. Sorry but it ain't true.

This is just like when Obama was supposedly puzzled why the public did not support Obamacare, he said something like: "We must not be communicating our message well." That was insulting to the public. We got the message, and were thoroughly informed about Obamacare. And after carefully considering it, we hated it.

In other words, you can disagree with me, but don't call me stupid or uninformed.

Edited May 7, 2014 by unsmiley

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Sorry for the delay, haven't been on the site for a while.

But Marvin: You are constantly trying to "educate" me (and others). I do not mind your opinions, in fact I welcome them, but your constant harping on "educating" those who disagree with you is insulting. I happen to have more education than most people here... but that is not my point. My issue is your insistence that those who disagree lack knowledge or smarts, and hence have to be taught to buy what you are selling. Sorry but it ain't true.

This is just like when Obama was supposedly puzzled why the public did not support Obamacare, he said something like: "We must not be communicating our message well." That was insulting to the public. We got the message, and were thoroughly informed about Obamacare. And after carefully considering it, we hated it.

In other words, you can disagree with me, but don't call me stupid or uninformed.

I didn't call you either or. You've said flat out these things don't exist within the GOP. I've shown you proof it does. Look at your last request:

It is an inaccurate statement to refer to the GOP as a "..party of Presidential candidates that each discriminate..." Sorry but you cannot say any of the major GOP candidates of the past couple of decades has been guilty of practicing discrimination. Not true.

Once you made that statement, you opened a door. I walked through it and brought facts with me. You can believe what you want, but don't be mad because what you see isn't what you want.

So, either now you know what I'm talking about or you can continue to ignore it. Your move.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sorry for the delay, haven't been on the site for a while.

But Marvin: You are constantly trying to "educate" me (and others). I do not mind your opinions, in fact I welcome them, but your constant harping on "educating" those who disagree with you is insulting. I happen to have more education than most people here... but that is not my point. My issue is your insistence that those who disagree lack knowledge or smarts, and hence have to be taught to buy what you are selling. Sorry but it ain't true.

This is just like when Obama was supposedly puzzled why the public did not support Obamacare, he said something like: "We must not be communicating our message well." That was insulting to the public. We got the message, and were thoroughly informed about Obamacare. And after carefully considering it, we hated it.

In other words, you can disagree with me, but don't call me stupid or uninformed.

Really? Then how do you explain that there is more support for the Affordable Care Act than there is for Obamacare even though they are one and the same? That reality simply doesn't support your claim that people are thoroughly informed about Obamacare. They're not. Many don't even know that Obamacare is just another name for the Affordable Care Act. This lack of information becomes even more apparent when considering that the main components of Obamacare actually enjoy the support of the vast majority of Americans. And just to shoot that ridiculous claim about the American people being thoroughly informed about the Affordable Care Act totally out of the sky, a plurality of people late last year still believed that the Affordable Care Act includes death panels. Death Panels, for crying out loud. If that's what you call "thoroughly informed", then your bar for thoroughly informed is hanging alarmingly low. And no, I am not surprised about that.

Edited May 7, 2014 by Mr. Big Dog

[We Keep Receipts 9,238]

Really? Then how do you explain that there is more support for the Affordable Care Act than there is for Obamacare even though they are one and the same? That reality simply doesn't support your claim that people are thoroughly informed about Obamacare. They're not. Many don't even know that Obamacare is just another name for the Affordable Care Act. This lack of information becomes even more apparent when considering that the main components of Obamacare actually enjoy the support of the vast majority of Americans. And just to shoot that ridiculous claim about the American people being thoroughly informed about the Affordable Care Act totally out of the sky, a plurality of people late last year still believed that the Affordable Care Act includes death panels. Death Panels, for crying out loud. If that's what you call "thoroughly informed", then your bar for thoroughly informed is hanging alarmingly low. And no, I am not surprised about that.

The issue I see here, and I might be wrong, is that he only wants to have a conversation that suits his point of view. Which I see is basically futile since all this surmounts to is him making a bunch of statements that are inaccurate, yet he gets upset when you post facts to the contrary.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

The issue I see here, and I might be wrong, is that he only wants to have a conversation that suits his point of view. Which I see is basically futile since all this surmounts to is him making a bunch of statements that are inaccurate, yet he gets upset when you post facts to the contrary.

Facts are rarely welcome by that crowd.