• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Coulter, "Our blacks are better than their blacks"



Any of you conservative types want to defend these lies? I know Ann don't speak for all republicans, but Fox news is the channel most Republicans prefer.

"Fox News is not racist, but #1 with racists" - the Simpsons

You have to admit, blacks on the left are kind of shiftless.
 
And a list of prominent conservative black leaders/thinkers/decent people is far more impressive by any reasonable consideration.

Go ahead, post your most impressive black lefty/liberal/progressive/Democrats...

Rufus R. Jones.
 

Attachments

  • Rufus_R._Jones.jpg
    Rufus_R._Jones.jpg
    34.2 KB · Views: 405
Last edited:
Personally, I think it is commendable that White Democrats have overcome their racist, lynching history.

I think you might be confused. The racists were always conservatives, regardless of the shifting sands of political party affiliation. The racist Democrats didn't stop being racist. They became Republicans.
 
Go ahead, post your most impressive black lefty/liberal/progressive/Democrats...

Most blacks who have achieved great feats tend to be liberal or progressive. It would be difficult for me to name the same list for conservatives. The most important figure in modern black history, Dr. Martin Luther King, was also a progressive. So as of now, your argument is nothing but solipsistic inference.

I think you might want to read up on this.

Yeah, it amazes me at times when some republicans will go out there way and say how racist the democrats were, when in fact most of the racists left our party and joined theirs. :D
 
Last edited:
You've got to give them credit for not having Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton in their corner.
 
Last edited:
That BS again? Did you know that Richard Nixon got a lower percentage of the vote in every state of the old Confederacy in 1968 than he did in 1960?

And how did Nixon do in 1972, two years after his political strategist Kevin Phillips told the New York Times "From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...[t]he more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are."?
 
And how did Nixon do in 1972, two years after his political strategist Kevin Phillips told the New York Times "From now on, the Republicans are never going to get more than 10 to 20 percent of the Negro vote and they don't need any more than that...[t]he more Negroes who register as Democrats in the South, the sooner the Negrophobe whites will quit the Democrats and become Republicans. That's where the votes are."?

So you mean the whites in the south registered as Republicans not because of something the Republicans did (i.e., the Southern Strategy) but because of something blacks in the South did?

And of course Nixon did well in the South in 1972. He did well everywhere except Massachusetts.
 
So you mean the whites in the south registered as Republicans not because of something the Republicans did (i.e., the Southern Strategy) but because of something blacks in the South did?

You don't seem to understand what the "Southern Strategy" actually was, if you actually think the above.

And of course Nixon did well in the South in 1972. He did well everywhere except Massachusetts.

The shift in voting patterns and racial demographics of the two major parties is a tiny, tiny bit more complex than something you can dismiss as "BS" just because Nixon didn't do so well in the old Confederacy in the '68 elections (you can thank the fact that southern White racists liked Wallace more than they liked Nixon for that).
 
So you mean the whites in the south registered as Republicans not because of something the Republicans did (i.e., the Southern Strategy) but because of something blacks in the South did?

And of course Nixon did well in the South in 1972. He did well everywhere except Massachusetts.

You don't appear to be an ignorant person, yet why would you try and revisit this most recent history. There was a reason black people of the 60's chose to flock to the Democratic Party, it had to do with Johnson, and civil rights. I don't think this is rocket science.

As blacks gained the right to vote and joined the Democratic Party, the racist white southerners switched teams, and joined the Republicans. When Jerry Falwell came along with his Moral Majority, the deal was sealed, the right had won the south, and surrendered the black vote to the Democrats.
 
You don't appear to be an ignorant person, yet why would you try and revisit this most recent history. There was a reason black people of the 60's chose to flock to the Democratic Party, it had to do with Johnson, and civil rights. I don't think this is rocket science.

As blacks gained the right to vote and joined the Democratic Party, the racist white southerners switched teams, and joined the Republicans. When Jerry Falwell came along with his Moral Majority, the deal was sealed, the right had won the south, and surrendered the black vote to the Democrats.

We seem to be in agreement here.
 
That BS again? Did you know that Richard Nixon got a lower percentage of the vote in every state of the old Confederacy in 1968 than he did in 1960?

Simple reason: George Wallace was running in 1968 on the American Independent Party--a real racist KKK supported party.
 
here's An Coulter's "biblically based" view on environmentalism (noted in Monkey Girl):

"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"
Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01

Pretty sure that the "rape it" isn't in the Bible.

I checked. :p
 
"God gave us the earth. We have dominion over the plants, the animals, the trees. God said, 'Earth is yours. Take it. Rape it. It's yours.'"
Hannity & Colmes, 6/20/01
I never understand this POV, we can just mess things up as bad as we want because the Rapture is coming soon.

It's been 2,000 years so far - do you think it might be a while still?
 

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom