# Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



## Geaux4it

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.







It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.


Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…


----------



## Stratford57

Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.


----------



## Geaux4it

Stratford57 said:


> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.



Well Biden did speak to them about being in chains. He just lied and didn't tell them who had the keys

-Geaux


----------



## Freewill

Things have drastically changed since then and especially since the civil war and all those years of democrats holding down minorities.

Now the modern democrat is more then willing to have open borders to bring in low wage workers which they will hold the deportation threat over their heads.  The rhetoric has drastically changed but the party....not so much.  Still run by rich white folks.


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

The modern day Klan traded in their hoods and robes for business suits and live in the penthouses of NY and in Malibu/Hollywood Hills.


----------



## deanrd

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…







Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.


----------



## J.E.D

KKK’s official newspaper supports Donald Trump for president

Among the small number of American newspapers that have embraced Donald Trump’s campaign, there is one, in particular, that stands out.

It is called the Crusader — and it is one of the most prominent newspapers of the Ku Klux Klan.

Under the banner "Make America Great Again," the entire front page of the paper's current issue is devoted to a lengthy defense of Trump’s message — an embrace some have labeled a de facto endorsement.

"'Make America Great Again!' It is a slogan that has been repeatedly used by Donald Trump in his campaign for the presidency," Pastor Thomas Robb wrote in the Crusader. "You can see it on the shirts, buttons, posters and ball caps such as the one being worn here by Trump speaking at a recent rally. … But can it happen? Can America really be great again? This is what we will soon find out!"


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

Also, I just saw that Roy Innis is in that video. Mad respect for Mr. Innis:


----------



## Ame®icano

deanrd said:


> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.



Name five who did so. 

I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.


----------



## Moonglow

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…


You are right I don't like it at all, no porta potties available , instead public urination, disgusting...


----------



## Moonglow

Ame®icano said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
Click to expand...

Joe Dimaggio, until he married Marilyn Monroe..


----------



## Moonglow

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> The modern day Klan traded in their hoods and robes for business suits and live in the penthouses of NY and in Malibu/Hollywood Hills.


They also be living in shotgun shacks in Arkansas...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Um, the parties switched and Robert Byrd and LBJ are Conservatives, or something


----------



## CrusaderFrank

er, the Republicans ran the Tuskegee Experiments, or something


----------



## Carter Malone

Moonglow said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The modern day Klan traded in their hoods and robes for business suits and live in the penthouses of NY and in Malibu/Hollywood Hills.
> 
> 
> 
> They also be living in shotgun shacks in Arkansas...
Click to expand...



Trump's base because he understands. They believe his guttersnipe personality means he speaks for them.

How could they have gotten it so wrong and what's taking them so long?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## FJO

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



Was that Robert Byrd in the first row?


----------



## fncceo

Stratford57 said:


> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.



Not entirely ...


----------



## Moonglow

Carter Malone said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The modern day Klan traded in their hoods and robes for business suits and live in the penthouses of NY and in Malibu/Hollywood Hills.
> 
> 
> 
> They also be living in shotgun shacks in Arkansas...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's base because he understands. He speaks for them.
> 
> How could they have gotten it so wrong and what's taking them so long?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

I think they walked into a gator pit and are still in shock..


----------



## Moonglow

fncceo said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely ...
Click to expand...

Such a form fitting creation..


----------



## Moonglow

FJO said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was that Robert Byrd in the first row?
Click to expand...

Probably Joseph Kennedy..or Eddie Cantor...and there's FDR...


----------



## fncceo

Moonglow said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a form fitting creation..
Click to expand...


NOTHING should ever fit that form.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Who said it?

"I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years"

A. A Republican
B. A Democrat President famed for his "Civil Rights" Bill


----------



## norwegen

CrusaderFrank said:


> Um, the parties switched and Robert Byrd and LBJ are Conservatives, or something


Ah, yes.  They were of a mind with Barry Goldwater.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

norwegen said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, the parties switched and Robert Byrd and LBJ are Conservatives, or something
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes.  They were of a mind with Barry Goldwater.
Click to expand...


Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  Can you post any racists quotes by Barry Goldwater?

 “_I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard_…” -- Barry Goldwater


----------



## Carter Malone

deanrd said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
Click to expand...



Exactly true. Conservatives and progressives have changed names several times. Look at the the time of the Revolutionary. Conservatives did not want to be independent from England and became spies for King George.

It's unclear what the point of the OP is. Of course Democrats hate that photo. 

The real question is Why don't Republicans?mWhere is the condemnation from the OP? Or from other conservatives here? 

Conservative are the modern day kkk. Where is their shame?


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## norwegen

CrusaderFrank said:


> norwegen said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um, the parties switched and Robert Byrd and LBJ are Conservatives, or something
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, yes.  They were of a mind with Barry Goldwater.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.  Can you post any racists quotes by Barry Goldwater?
> 
> “_I am unalterably opposed to discrimination or segregation on the basis of race, color, or creed or on any other basis; not only my words, but more importantly my actions through years have repeatedly demonstrated the sincerity of my feeling in this regard_…” -- Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...

He didn't say them in public.  All that matters is that Byrd, LBJ, and Goldwater were conservatives.

Or something.


----------



## Carter Malone

CrusaderFrank is exactly right that the parties switched and that Byrd renounced the KKK. (But wrong about the Tuskegee experiments and I don't get the "or something")

So where are Republican's denouncing the KKK? 

Remember how long it took Trump to issue that lukewarm lie that he didn't know David Duke? Where were his fans' outcry against that?

They didn't because they are now the KKK.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ame®icano said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
Click to expand...


They became Republicans in the ballot box starting in 1964.


----------



## Carter Malone

Geaux4it that photo is anything but "newly  discovered".

Your source is garbage bug I do like the headline that right wing loon Allen West "delivered a blistering MASSAGE".


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Rustic

Racism will always be a part of progressivism… Fact


----------



## rightwinger

I love revisionist history

First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome

Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.

Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative




.


----------



## J.E.D

Just another Con circle jerk denying their heritage.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

Bbbbbut vague strategies and switching places.


----------



## Moonglow

fncceo said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a form fitting creation..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOTHING should ever fit that form.
Click to expand...

I mean really,,can you blame Bill for straying into the neighbor's yard with a spread like that pardner?


----------



## Hugo Furst

J.E.D said:


> Just another Con circle jerk denying their heritage.





J.E.D said:


> Just another Con circle jerk denying their heritage.



and  Dems denying theirs.


----------



## Hugo Furst

Moonglow said:


> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a form fitting creation..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOTHING should ever fit that form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean really,,can you blame Bill for straying into the neighbor's yard with a spread like that pardner?
Click to expand...

He was straying long before she looked like that


----------



## Moonglow

WillHaftawaite said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fncceo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Such a form fitting creation..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOTHING should ever fit that form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I mean really,,can you blame Bill for straying into the neighbor's yard with a spread like that pardner?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was straying long before she looked like that
Click to expand...

She was the bacon maker early on....and probably thinks the same as at twenty..


----------



## bodecea

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…


That is the way it was back then.  No denying it.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…




*This picture was taken in 1964 ......You ain't going to like it LOL wonder why ?*


----------



## bodecea

The title claims that liberals are not liking the photo....con-servative, however, are cheering.


----------



## Moonglow

When that picture was taken, there were KKK members from both parties and the KKK endorsed both Dems and Repubs..Deal with it...The third row back... Why that's Trump's Dad....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?


who is the KLan voting for in 2017

Trump   _____

Democrats______


----------



## usmbguest5318

Dear, God, OP-er!  You and the author of the _Top Secret Leaks_ article could not be any more dissembling in your depiction of the Democratic Party.  There is no question that the KKK had a material place in the Democratic Party of 1924.  This is 2017, however, and the KKK have shifted their allegiance to the Republican Party.

The protracted transformation of the GOP via what is called the "Southern Strategy" had its nascence in the post-Reconstruction days of GOP 19th century when it was little but an attempt not to entirely lose the South  and found its rhetorical mark in the 1960s, something that was apparent to then contemporary observers, and squarely hit that mark in the 1980s when the GOP unabashedly and in earnest employed the hateful pathos of racial angst, aggrievance, and animosity to court provincial Southern Democrats ("Blue Dog Democrats") who found themselves corrugated within an increasingly cosmopolitan party.

Quite simply, things change.

Lastly, it is lamentably ironic -- and frankly, piteously imbecilic -- that conservatives (or anyone, really) today broker the line you have insofar as in 1924, the GOP was the party of liberals.  The notion that the Democratic Party of early 20th century and before ideologically mirrors today's Democratic Party while the GOP has remained unchanged is a procrustean personification of perverse puerility.  I mean, really, dude.  It's just laughably f*cking-stupid!


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Moonglow said:


> When that picture was taken, there were KKK members from both parties and the KKK endorsed both Dems and Repubs..Deal with it...The third row back... Why that's Trump's Dad....


----------



## TyroneSlothrop




----------



## NYcarbineer

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



the Klan wasn't/isn't liberal, dumbass.


----------



## Moonglow

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> When that picture was taken, there were KKK members from both parties and the KKK endorsed both Dems and Repubs..Deal with it...The third row back... Why that's Trump's Dad....
Click to expand...


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?


*We have to ask who is the KKK thriving under Right now in 2017 ...LOL*
*



*


----------



## usmbguest5318

TyroneSlothrop said:


>



My, God! ...And she's "high yellow."  One hundred years ago, she'd have "passed" were she of a mind to.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

TyroneSlothrop said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> *We have to ask who is the KKK thriving under Right now in 2017 ...LOL*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
Click to expand...

When Bigotry Paraded Through the Streets


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

Xelor said:


> My, God! ...And she's "high yellow."  One hundred years ago, she'd have "passed" were she of a mind to.


she might have been an octoroon  one-eighth black by descent.


----------



## bodecea

NYcarbineer said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Klan wasn't/isn't liberal, dumbass.
Click to expand...

The poor OP is so confused.


----------



## WaitingFor2020

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…




Google image reverse search shows you to be a liar. 
This image has been used all over the web. It's from the Birmingham Times newspaper.
Not the Dem convention in 1924.
*Read 'em and weep, you're just another stupid sucker for a racist blog.*

Reconstruction Era  Black Codes, Poll Taxes, Jim Crow Laws, The Ku Klux Klan, White Leagues - Lessons - Tes Teach

Ku Klux Klan march

The Most Hated Clan In The U.S.: The Klu Klux Klan

Gateway to Hamptons, Ku Klux Klan Advertises for New Members


----------



## rightwinger

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?


Southern conservatives


----------



## usmbguest5318

TyroneSlothrop said:


> Xelor said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My, God! ...And she's "high yellow."  One hundred years ago, she'd have "passed" were she of a mind to.
> 
> 
> 
> she might have been an octoroon  one-eighth black by descent.
Click to expand...

Maybe....I know that is Mae Wiggins, but I don't know what her ancestry is.

(See also:  ‘No Vacancies’ for Blacks: How Donald Trump Got His Start, and Was First Accused of Bias)


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> When Bigotry Paraded Through the Streets


this is in 2017 we are living ...LOL
*Pariahs for Donald Trump: ISIS jihadists, North Korea and the K.K.K. *


----------



## NYcarbineer

bodecea said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Klan wasn't/isn't liberal, dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The poor OP is so confused.
Click to expand...


These Trump supporters are just looking for something to talk about that doesn't involve having to defend Trump.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

rightwinger said:


> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



"Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative..."

Only if you're a fucking lunatic


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Carter Malone said:


> CrusaderFrank is exactly right that the parties switched and that Byrd renounced the KKK. (But wrong about the Tuskegee experiments and I don't get the "or something")
> 
> So where are Republican's denouncing the KKK?
> 
> Remember how long it took Trump to issue that lukewarm lie that he didn't know David Duke? Where were his fans' outcry against that?
> 
> They didn't because they are now the KKK.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com



FDR and the Dems morphed the Tuskegee Experiments into something that would later influence Mengele and the Nazis


----------



## paperview

NYcarbineer said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They became Republicans in the ballot box starting in 1964.
Click to expand...

Indeed.


*"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank

What did LBJ call the Civil Rights Bill?

A. The proud and glorious bill to stop his fellow Democrats from acting like fucking savages
B The ****** Bill


----------



## rightwinger

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative..."
> 
> Only if you're a fucking lunatic
Click to expand...

There is little difference between the klans platform and republicans


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

TyroneSlothrop said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Bigotry Paraded Through the Streets
> 
> 
> 
> this is in 2017 we are living ...LOL
> *Pariahs for Donald Trump: ISIS jihadists, North Korea and the K.K.K. *
Click to expand...

ISIS came to prominence under what administration ? North Korea has been an issue for almost 70 years and the Klan had the most influence when it was overwhelmingly Democratic party controlled. I respect Gen Powell not the man who supported Obama


----------



## Seawytch

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?


Southern Conservatives. Party affiliation irrelevant.


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Bigotry Paraded Through the Streets
> 
> 
> 
> this is in 2017 we are living ...LOL
> *Pariahs for Donald Trump: ISIS jihadists, North Korea and the K.K.K. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ISIS came to prominence under what administration ? North Korea has been an issue for almost 70 years and the Klan had the most influence when it was overwhelmingly Democratic party controlled. I respect Gen Powell not the man who supported Obama
Click to expand...



* the history of ISIS: * The group was founded in 1999 and really grew up after the US invasion of Iraq. If any US president could be blamed for ISIS’s "founding," it would be George W. Bush, not Barack Obama.
.....................
Zarqawi returned from Afghanistan, and in 1999 in Jordan formed his own group, Jamaat al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTWJ), or the Organization of Monotheism and Jihad. For the first few years, Zarqawi's group was a bit player among jihadists, overshadowed by al-Qaeda. But this was the group, then little known, that would later become ISIS.

In 2003, the US led its invasion of Iraq and changed, in the world of jihadists, everything.

The American-led war, by destroying the Iraqi state, left much of the country in chaos. Foreign fighters and extremists began moving into Iraq, assisted by Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria, which sought to bog down the US. Zarqawi and his group were among them.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

TyroneSlothrop said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TyroneSlothrop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> When Bigotry Paraded Through the Streets
> 
> 
> 
> this is in 2017 we are living ...LOL
> *Pariahs for Donald Trump: ISIS jihadists, North Korea and the K.K.K. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ISIS came to prominence under what administration ? North Korea has been an issue for almost 70 years and the Klan had the most influence when it was overwhelmingly Democratic party controlled. I respect Gen Powell not the man who supported Obama
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> * the history of ISIS: * The group was founded in 1999 and really grew up after the US invasion of Iraq. If any US president could be blamed for ISIS’s "founding," it would be George W. Bush, not Barack Obama.
> .....................
> Zarqawi returned from Afghanistan, and in 1999 in Jordan formed his own group, Jamaat al-Tawhid wal-Jihad (JTWJ), or the Organization of Monotheism and Jihad. For the first few years, Zarqawi's group was a bit player among jihadists, overshadowed by al-Qaeda. But this was the group, then little known, that would later become ISIS.
> 
> In 2003, the US led its invasion of Iraq and changed, in the world of jihadists, everything.
> 
> The American-led war, by destroying the Iraqi state, left much of the country in chaos. Foreign fighters and extremists began moving into Iraq, assisted by Bashar al-Assad's regime in Syria, which sought to bog down the US. Zarqawi and his group were among them.
Click to expand...

I did not say anything about the foundation of ISIS but if you must bring it up 1999 was during the Clinton administration. What I said is that ISIS didn't gain prominence until the Obama administration and his draw down of US forces in Iraq. Obama also mistakenly or purposely underestimated them.


----------



## ricechickie

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



Shocking! Horrible!  I will never vote for any of those 1924 Democrats!


----------



## Yarddog

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…




This explains their obsession with white privilege but what they can't comprehend is while the protege of the modern Democrat was wearing white hoods and preaching hatred and violence, the proteges of modern conservatives were fighting for civil rights and promoting a healthy America. They expect us to carry the same guilt they do,  go figure


----------



## IsaacNewton

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…




Times change. This now looks like a rally for Donald Trump by his supporters. David Duke likey.


----------



## g5000

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



*With the Klan operating primarily within the Republican party...*




Hooded Americanism


----------



## g5000

Stratford57 said:


> Has anything changed since then?







*We're Republicans now.*


----------



## g5000




----------



## g5000




----------



## g5000




----------



## g5000




----------



## g5000

New York. Ohio. Maine. Missouri. Colorado. Kansas. Oklahoma.

Dominated by Klan Republicans.

The Klan dominated the Republican party across the entire nation. The Klan so infected the GOP that some Republicans wanted to start an independent party.

Kind of like those of us who are sick of Trump and his Chumps who have infected the modern GOP.

I guess I should not be surprised Trump's Chumps are so profoundly ignorant of American history. Trump depends on them forgetting shit from five minutes ago, after all. And they happily oblige.





*We're Republicans now.*


----------



## CrusaderFrank

KKK is like 3 people today 2 of which are Alinskyites, pretending to be Republicans


----------



## CrusaderFrank

g5000 said:


> New York. Ohio. Maine. Missouri. Colorado. Kansas. Oklahoma.
> 
> Dominated by Klan Republicans.
> 
> The Klan dominated the Republican party across the entire nation. The Klan so infected the GOP that some Republicans wanted to start an independent party.
> 
> Kind of like those of us who are sick of Trump and his Chumps who have infected the modern GOP.
> 
> I guess I should not be surprised Trump's Chumps are so profoundly ignorant of American history. Trump depends on them forgetting shit from five minutes ago, after all. And they happily oblige.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We're Republicans now.*



Sure, Jake.

American history: Dems are the Party of KKK, Tuskegee Experiments, Planned Parenthood Black Genocide, public schools, public housing and "I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years?


----------



## 2aguy

Stratford57 said:


> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.




They decided to admit racists of all colors into the party.....their whole purpose now is to gain power, then the racists of each color will fight over the spoils......


----------



## Theowl32

"I'll have those ni99ers voting democrat for the next 200 years."

LBJ








lol!


----------



## g5000

The Klan and the Nazis used to be mortal enemies.

A couple decades back, both of their numbers had dwindled to such a point, they merged and became White Nationalists.

Ever since then, their rhetoric has been leeching into pseudocon rhetoric.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Theowl32 said:


> "I'll have those ni99ers voting democrat for the next 200 years."
> 
> LBJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol!


----------



## CrusaderFrank

g5000 said:


> The Klan and the Nazis used to be mortal enemies.
> 
> A couple decades back, both of their numbers had dwindled to such a point, they merged and became White Nationalists.
> 
> Ever since then, their rhetoric has been leeching into pseudocon rhetoric.



Sure, Jake


----------



## g5000

Theowl32 said:


> "I'll have those ni99ers voting democrat for the next 200 years."


"They're bringing crime. They're rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."


----------



## paperview

g5000 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *With the Klan operating primarily within the Republican party...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooded Americanism
Click to expand...

Hell, in Indiana the GOP Governor was KKK, along with most of the GOP General Assembly.


Indiana KKK:

"Staunchly anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, antisemitic, and of course prejudiced against African Americans, the new Klan spread into Indiana in the 1920s under the Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson.* The second KKK was almost exclusively Republican in Midwestern states like Indiana as well as northern and western states like Maine and Colorado*, although the KKK remained exclusively Democratic in the South. Under Stephenson's leadership, *the Klan flourished in Indiana and took over both the Governor's Office and much Republican Party in the General Assembly. *With over two-hundred and fifty thousand white males (approximately forty-percent of Indiana's population) paying their Klan dues in Indiana, Stephenson amassed a fortune estimated from two to five million dollars.

*In the 1924 Republican primary elections in Indiana, almost all candidates nominated for statewide office were Klansmen. One African American newspaper stated "the Ku Klux Klan has captured boot and breeches, the Republican party in Indiana and have [sic] turned what has been historically an organization of constitutional freedom into an agency for the promotion of religious and racial hate.Nobody now denies the Ku Klux Klan is the dominating power in Indiana Republican politics*. In fact, the Republican party exists in Indiana today only in name. Its place has been usurped by the Klan purposes and leadership and issues." Most blacks in Indiana in 1924 casted their first ever ballot for the Democratic Party, which had passed a resolution denouncing the KKK in its platform without mentioning the Klan by name. Blacks in other areas of the United States, in contrast, generally remained Republican until the following decade. Despite the influx of blacks into the Democratic party, Klansmen won most of the Indiana legislature and most statewide offices in the November 1924 general elections. However, once in office, the Klan-controlled legislature passed little to no anti-black, anti-Jewish or anti-Catholic legislation."

Indiana Republican Party - Wikipedia

The Political Realignment of Black Voters in Indianapolis,                     1924 | Giffin | Indiana Magazine of History

KKK controlled the Colorado GOP as well -- including the Governor:

"*After the general election of 1924, the republican governor, Clarence Morley, was a Klansman. Benjamin Stapleton,* the mayor of Denver, consulted the Klan when making appointments. U.S. Senator Rice Means was elected with open Klan support. *The state House of Representatives had a Klan majority*. Klansmen marched and burned crosses in small towns throughout the state, from Great Plains through the mountains to the Western Slope. A city council, or the mayor's office, or the police and sheriff's departments, or the county government -- many fell under the Klan's control. "

Welcome to Kolorado, Klan Kountry


----------



## Rustic

g5000 said:


> The Klan and the Nazis used to be mortal enemies.
> 
> A couple decades back, both of their numbers had dwindled to such a point, they merged and became White Nationalists.
> 
> Ever since then, their rhetoric has been leeching into pseudocon rhetoric.


Black lives matter are no different than white nationalists… Fact


----------



## g5000

Nixon's Southern Strategy: "It's All In The Charts"



> "*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...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The 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. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."


----------



## BlueGin

Stratford57 said:


> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.


And that's about it.


----------



## g5000

paperview said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *With the Klan operating primarily within the Republican party...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooded Americanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, in Indiana the GOP Governor was KKK, along with most of the GOP General Assembly.
> 
> 
> Indiana KKK:
> 
> "Staunchly anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, antisemitic, and of course prejudiced against African Americans, the new Klan spread into Indiana in the 1920s under the Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson.* The second KKK was almost exclusively Republican in Midwestern states like Indiana as well as northern and western states like Maine and Colorado*, although the KKK remained exclusively Democratic in the South. Under Stephenson's leadership, *the Klan flourished in Indiana and took over both the Governor's Office and much Republican Party in the General Assembly. *With over two-hundred and fifty thousand white males (approximately forty-percent of Indiana's population) paying their Klan dues in Indiana, Stephenson amassed a fortune estimated from two to five million dollars.
> 
> *In the 1924 Republican primary elections in Indiana, almost all candidates nominated for statewide office were Klansmen. One African American newspaper stated "the Ku Klux Klan has captured boot and breeches, the Republican party in Indiana and have [sic] turned what has been historically an organization of constitutional freedom into an agency for the promotion of religious and racial hate.Nobody now denies the Ku Klux Klan is the dominating power in Indiana Republican politics*. In fact, the Republican party exists in Indiana today only in name. Its place has been usurped by the Klan purposes and leadership and issues." Most blacks in Indiana in 1924 casted their first ever ballot for the Democratic Party, which had passed a resolution denouncing the KKK in its platform without mentioning the Klan by name. Blacks in other areas of the United States, in contrast, generally remained Republican until the following decade. Despite the influx of blacks into the Democratic party, Klansmen won most of the Indiana legislature and most statewide offices in the November 1924 general elections. However, once in office, the Klan-controlled legislature passed little to no anti-black, anti-Jewish or anti-Catholic legislation."
> 
> Indiana Republican Party - Wikipedia
> 
> The Political Realignment of Black Voters in Indianapolis,                     1924 | Giffin | Indiana Magazine of History
> 
> KKK controlled the Colorado GOP as well -- including the Governor:
> 
> "*After the general election of 1924, the republican governor, Clarence Morley, was a Klansman. Benjamin Stapleton,* the mayor of Denver, consulted the Klan when making appointments. U.S. Senator Rice Means was elected with open Klan support. *The state House of Representatives had a Klan majority*. Klansmen marched and burned crosses in small towns throughout the state, from Great Plains through the mountains to the Western Slope. A city council, or the mayor's office, or the police and sheriff's departments, or the county government -- many fell under the Klan's control. "
> 
> Welcome to Kolorado, Klan Kountry
Click to expand...

The tards are completely ignorant of American history, which their propaganda masters absolutely depend upon.


----------



## g5000

bodecea said:


> The title claims that liberals are not liking the photo....con-servative, however, are cheering.


Exactly.

This is just another stupid topic trying to conflate the right wing Christian terrorists of long ago with the liberal Democrats of today.

The requisite historical ignorance to buy into this bullshit is profound, really.


----------



## Muhammed

deanrd said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
Click to expand...

Actually they lynched Republicans.


----------



## rightwinger

Theowl32 said:


> "I'll have those ni99ers voting democrat for the next 200 years."
> 
> LBJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol!



He never said that
What he DID say is that he had lost the southern vote for a generation


----------



## g5000

I heard these Christian terrorists demanded affirmative action for negroes, and called for the federal government to intervene more in our lives.  They also supported higher taxes and gun control.

Yeah!  If you have seven pounds of brain damage, you'll totally buy into this shit these are the same kind of Democrats as today.


----------



## g5000

*Another photo the liberals aren't liking...

*





RACE MIXING IS COMMUNISM

STOP THE RACE MIXING MARCH OF THE ANTICHRIST


----------



## g5000

Democrats and their anti-communist stance.  Man, they should be so embarrassed about that.


----------



## Avatar4321

Carter Malone said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly true. Conservatives and progressives have changed names several times. Look at the the time of the Revolutionary. Conservatives did not want to be independent from England and became spies for King George.
> 
> It's unclear what the point of the OP is. Of course Democrats hate that photo.
> 
> The real question is Why don't Republicans?mWhere is the condemnation from the OP? Or from other conservatives here?
> 
> Conservative are the modern day kkk. Where is their shame?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...


Why should I be ashamed of a claim they is absolute bs?


----------



## g5000

Gosh...

Do you think maybe...just maybe...these church going, cross-wielding, anti-communist haters of negroes were...(*gasp*)...right wingers?

Oh...magod!


----------



## Avatar4321

rightwinger said:


> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



You certainly do love revisionist history


----------



## g5000

*Jesus, country, bible, flag, sword.  To the profoundly brain damaged tards who start topics like this one, this photo screams "liberal".  BWA-HA-HA-HA-HA-HA!

*


----------



## rightwinger

Official Ku Klux Klan Party Platform IS The GOP And Tea Party Agenda


----------



## g5000

Theowl32 said:


> "I'll have those ni99ers voting democrat for the next 200 years."


That sounds exactly like something LBJ would say, and you clearly don't know a fucking thing about him.


----------



## Avatar4321

NYcarbineer said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the Klan wasn't/isn't liberal, dumbass.
Click to expand...


Neither are liberals


----------



## g5000

Nixon's Southern Strategy: "It's All In The Charts":

"*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...but Republicans would be shortsighted if they weakened enforcement of the Voting Rights Act. The 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. Without that prodding from the blacks, the whites will backslide into their old comfortable arrangement with the local Democrats."

*
Listen to what else this Republican strategist had to say.  It will blow the little ignorant pseudocon minds:
*


"I have some ideas of my own for positive programming: Federal grants-in-aid for better fire and police protection; street lighting and sanitation assistance in slum neighborhoods; a new Civilian Conservation Corps to take kids out of slums and put them to work cleaning up the country -- maybe it could be a National Ecology Corps and we would have a chance to see if the young people will put their muscle where their mouth is; massive redevelopment programs for Appalachia and the industrially redundant reaches of New England; large-scale Works Progress Administration-type guaranteed employment with the work force to be used to rebuild, reconstruct or clean up America's history lands and historic buildings for the Bicentennial in 1976; some kind of National Health Insurance or Medicredit; full-fledged Federal aid to parochial schools."*


----------



## g5000

So as you can see, dipshits, the old timey racist Democrats are your political ancestors.


----------



## Norman

fncceo said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not entirely ...
Click to expand...


Have to say the masks looked a lot better in the golden old days.


----------



## Avatar4321

rightwinger said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern conservatives
Click to expand...


Woodrow Wilson is a southern conservative?


----------



## Harry Dresden

Moonglow said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Joe Dimaggio, until he married Marilyn Monroe..
Click to expand...

DiMaggio in the clan?....i dont think so moon,you will have to prove that one.....


----------



## rightwinger

Avatar4321 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson is a southern conservative?
Click to expand...


From 1915 to 1925 the klan thrived under southern conservatives and Midwestern factory workers afraid to lose their jobs to foreigners and negroes


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

rightwinger said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson is a southern conservative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From 1915 to 1925 the klan thrived under southern conservatives and Midwestern factory workers afraid to lose their jobs to foreigners and negroes
Click to expand...

They thrived under Democrats all but one Politician switched to Republican the rest of the Klan supporters stayed lifelong Democrats that's a fact


----------



## rightwinger

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson is a southern conservative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From 1915 to 1925 the klan thrived under southern conservatives and Midwestern factory workers afraid to lose their jobs to foreigners and negroes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They thrived under Democrats all but one Politician switched to Republican the rest of the Klan supporters stayed lifelong Democrats that's a fact
Click to expand...

Wrong again

During the second generation of the Klan, Republican states Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania were klan strongholds as the klan churned up hatred of immigrants and negroes

TODAYS klan is exclusively Republican....however it has NEVER been liberal


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter




----------



## rightwinger

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


>



That was the KKK who endorsed Trump

Trump's father was a klan member


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

rightwinger said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the KKK who endorsed Trump
> 
> Trump's father was a klan member
Click to expand...


Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. The Democrats want to bring slavery back by putting all minorities on food stamps and welfare and keeping them there.


----------



## sartre play

rightwinger said:


> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I'll have those ni99ers voting democrat for the next 200 years."
> 
> LBJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He never said that
> What he DID say is that he had lost the southern vote for a generation
Click to expand...

Think he said when siging the civil rights act that we have lost the south for 50 years


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter




----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter




----------



## NYcarbineer

rightwinger said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson is a southern conservative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From 1915 to 1925 the klan thrived under southern conservatives and Midwestern factory workers afraid to lose their jobs to foreigners and negroes
Click to expand...


Gee, when has that ever happened again?


----------



## NYcarbineer

sartre play said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Theowl32 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I'll have those ni99ers voting democrat for the next 200 years."
> 
> LBJ
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lol!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He never said that
> What he DID say is that he had lost the southern vote for a generation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think he said when siging the civil rights act that we have lost the south for 50 years
Click to expand...


And it started in 1964.  Barry Goldwater got 88% of the vote in Mississippi in that first election after the Civil Rights Act passed...

...those were conservative Democrats becoming Republicans almost instantaneously.


----------



## Hutch Starskey

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…




Those aren't liberals. They're your red state brethren.


----------



## theDoctorisIn

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


>



Alveda King does not represent all of MLK's family.


----------



## NYcarbineer

theDoctorisIn said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alveda King does not represent all of MLK's family.
Click to expand...


Alveda King was a Southern Democrat until 1990.  Now a Republican. Radical anti-abortionist.  See how that works?


----------



## Carter Malone

paperview said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *With the Klan operating primarily within the Republican party...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooded Americanism
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, in Indiana the GOP Governor was KKK, along with most of the GOP General Assembly.
> 
> 
> Indiana KKK:
> 
> "Staunchly anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, antisemitic, and of course prejudiced against African Americans, the new Klan spread into Indiana in the 1920s under the Grand Dragon D.C. Stephenson.* The second KKK was almost exclusively Republican in Midwestern states like Indiana as well as northern and western states like Maine and Colorado*, although the KKK remained exclusively Democratic in the South. Under Stephenson's leadership, *the Klan flourished in Indiana and took over both the Governor's Office and much Republican Party in the General Assembly. *With over two-hundred and fifty thousand white males (approximately forty-percent of Indiana's population) paying their Klan dues in Indiana, Stephenson amassed a fortune estimated from two to five million dollars.
> 
> *In the 1924 Republican primary elections in Indiana, almost all candidates nominated for statewide office were Klansmen. One African American newspaper stated "the Ku Klux Klan has captured boot and breeches, the Republican party in Indiana and have [sic] turned what has been historically an organization of constitutional freedom into an agency for the promotion of religious and racial hate.Nobody now denies the Ku Klux Klan is the dominating power in Indiana Republican politics*. In fact, the Republican party exists in Indiana today only in name. Its place has been usurped by the Klan purposes and leadership and issues." Most blacks in Indiana in 1924 casted their first ever ballot for the Democratic Party, which had passed a resolution denouncing the KKK in its platform without mentioning the Klan by name. Blacks in other areas of the United States, in contrast, generally remained Republican until the following decade. Despite the influx of blacks into the Democratic party, Klansmen won most of the Indiana legislature and most statewide offices in the November 1924 general elections. However, once in office, the Klan-controlled legislature passed little to no anti-black, anti-Jewish or anti-Catholic legislation."
> 
> Indiana Republican Party - Wikipedia
> 
> The Political Realignment of Black Voters in Indianapolis,                     1924 | Giffin | Indiana Magazine of History
> 
> KKK controlled the Colorado GOP as well -- including the Governor:
> 
> "*After the general election of 1924, the republican governor, Clarence Morley, was a Klansman. Benjamin Stapleton,* the mayor of Denver, consulted the Klan when making appointments. U.S. Senator Rice Means was elected with open Klan support. *The state House of Representatives had a Klan majority*. Klansmen marched and burned crosses in small towns throughout the state, from Great Plains through the mountains to the Western Slope. A city council, or the mayor's office, or the police and sheriff's departments, or the county government -- many fell under the Klan's control. "
> 
> Welcome to Kolorado, Klan Kountry
Click to expand...



Thanks for posting this. Instead of trying to hide their KKK history,my he right would be better served if they worked to eradicate from their party today.

I remember when Republicans were the party of small government and now they're the opposite. I remember when they were known for personal responsibility. 

Now all we hear from them is that they are entitled to a free ride because they're white.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com


----------



## Syriusly

Stratford57 said:


> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.



Sure- African Americans went from being Republicans to Democrats. 

If that parade were happening today it would be all Trump supporters.


----------



## Syriusly

Look at the list of Religious leaders who spoke at the Democratic convention.....

Each of the convention's 23 sessions was opened with an invocation by a different nationally prominent clergyman. The choices represented the party's coalition at the time: there were five Episcopalian ministers; three Presbyterians; three Lutherans; two Roman Catholics; two Baptists; two Methodists; one each from the Congregationalists, Disciples of Christ, Unitarians, and Christian Scientists; and two Jewish rabbis.


----------



## Syriusly

From the 1924 Republican National Convention

It also made history by being the first GOP convention to give women equal representation. The Republican National Committee approved a rule providing for a national committee-man and a national committee-woman from each state.[2] More controversy ensued over whether to condemn the Ku Klux Klan with the result ultimately being to say nothing either way.


----------



## Syriusly

Remember Barry Goldwater?

The GOP Presidential nominee who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

[Ku Klux Klan members supporting Barry Goldwater's campaign for the presidential nomination at the Republican National Convention, San Francisco, California, as an African American man pushes signs back] / [WKL].


----------



## Syriusly

Study: The Ku Klux Klan Played a Serious Role In Garnering White Southern Support for Republican Party - Atlanta Black Star

The Klan’s push for white voters to focus on voting against policies that would help Blacks encouraged many of the voters to toss their political affiliations aside and gravitate towards politicians who were opposed to desegregation and anything else that would treat Black people as equals.

The effect the Klan had on political results was made evident as former Democratic voters started giving their support to Republican candidate Barry Goldwater in 1964 and third-party candidate Alabama Gov. George Wallace in 1968 after he took a firm stance against desegregation.



After analyzing county voting records in 10 Southern states where the KKK was actively recruiting members in the 1960s, the study’s authors confirmed the white supremacy group’s impact on voting behaviors.

“The Klan played an active role in encouraging white southerners to prioritize white supremacy over party loyalty,” the authors wrote.

Counties with an active Klan chapter were found to be much more likely to back Goldwater and Wallace.

Despite the fact that chapters of the white supremacy group were often formed in counties with high home ownership rates and a high percentage of Black residents, counties that were considered less prosperous and subjected white people to economic competition with Blacks housed the most active KKK participants.

“Given the barriers to voting still in place in the South for blacks in 1964, prior to the passage of the Voting Rights Act, this finding reflects high support among white voters in counties where the perceived threat posed by African-Americans to white interest was greatest,” the authors continued.

By the time the 1970s rolled around, most white voters in the South felt loyal to the Republican Party because they were “more in line with the interest of those opposed to civil rights than was the Democratic Party.”


----------



## Syriusly

Republicans aren't liking this 'newly discovered quote by Martin Luther King Jr.'

From 1964 (not 1924)_
*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*

*
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*_


----------



## Syriusly

rightwinger said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson is a southern conservative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From 1915 to 1925 the klan thrived under southern conservatives and Midwestern factory workers afraid to lose their jobs to foreigners and negroes
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They thrived under Democrats all but one Politician switched to Republican the rest of the Klan supporters stayed lifelong Democrats that's a fact
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong again
> 
> During the second generation of the Klan, Republican states Indiana, Ohio and Pennsylvania were klan strongholds as the klan churned up hatred of immigrants and negroes
> 
> TODAYS klan is exclusively Republican....however it has NEVER been liberal
Click to expand...


And it has always been Christian Conservative.


----------



## Syriusly

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the KKK who endorsed Trump
> 
> Trump's father was a klan member
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. The Democrats want to bring slavery back by putting all minorities on food stamps and welfare and keeping them there.
Click to expand...


Fascinating- since 95% of African American voters are Democrats- why exactly do you think that African Americans want to bring back slavery in the United States?


----------



## rightwinger

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the KKK who endorsed Trump
> 
> Trump's father was a klan member
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. The Democrats want to bring slavery back by putting all minorities on food stamps and welfare and keeping them there.
Click to expand...

Helping people who need help is not slavery

Republicans want to let them die


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

rightwinger said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the KKK who endorsed Trump
> 
> Trump's father was a klan member
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. The Democrats want to bring slavery back by putting all minorities on food stamps and welfare and keeping them there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Helping people who need help is not slavery
> 
> Republicans want to let them die
Click to expand...


Wrong:


----------



## rightwinger

AsianTrumpSupporter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the KKK who endorsed Trump
> 
> Trump's father was a klan member
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves. The Democrats want to bring slavery back by putting all minorities on food stamps and welfare and keeping them there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Helping people who need help is not slavery
> 
> Republicans want to let them die
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong:
Click to expand...

Just think if Ray Charles were affected today. He would have had the best doctors available to him


----------



## Ame®icano

NYcarbineer said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They became Republicans in the ballot box starting in 1964.
Click to expand...

 
Then you sure can provide four more names of those Democrats who became Republicans in the ballot box starting in 1964. Let's see them.


----------



## Ame®icano

rightwinger said:


> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> .



First off, the klan was started by Democrats.

Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).

Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?


----------



## Ame®icano

rightwinger said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern conservatives
Click to expand...


Democrats.


----------



## Ame®icano

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative..."
> 
> Only if you're a fucking lunatic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is little difference between the klans platform and republicans
Click to expand...


How about you put two actual platforms next to each other and we compare them. That means, posting link to some website who makes it look that they're similar doesn't count. Actual platforms.

Also, do you know the difference between Democrat and Nazi party platforms?


----------



## Ame®icano

Seawytch said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern Conservatives. Party affiliation irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Irrelevant because they were all Democrats?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Stratford57 said:


> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.




not a thing


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter




----------



## Ame®icano

g5000 said:


>



You sure know that Klan was founded and established in almost every southern state to *resist the Republican Party’s Reconstruction-era policies* aimed at establishing political and economic equality for blacks.

Your little snippets that "prove" Klans attempts to infiltrate Republican party, because they couldn't win anything as Democrats just shows how desperate you are to prove "something", when in reality you got nothing.


----------



## Ame®icano

rightwinger said:


> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the KKK who endorsed Trump
> 
> Trump's father was a klan member
Click to expand...


That came from... let me guess, your father?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ame®icano said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They became Republicans in the ballot box starting in 1964.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you sure can provide four more names of those Democrats who became Republicans in the ballot box starting in 1964. Let's see them.
Click to expand...


Who won the South in the 1964 presidential election?


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ame®icano said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern Conservatives. Party affiliation irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because they were all Democrats?
Click to expand...


Irrelevant because Democrat is the name of a party.  Conservative is the name of a set of political beliefs.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Ame®icano said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats.
Click to expand...


Robert E. Lee was a Democrat.  Can you prove he was a liberal?


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

NYcarbineer said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern Conservatives. Party affiliation irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because they were all Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because Democrat is the name of a party.  Conservative is the name of a set of political beliefs.
Click to expand...

Your so called Liberal Democrats haven't changed much since the parties slave owning days they just try to be more subtle about. From Clinton's comments about Obama serving coffee to LBJ's next 200 years words they are still racist. You base folks just don't want to hear about it. So you cling to myths.


----------



## NYcarbineer

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern Conservatives. Party affiliation irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because they were all Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because Democrat is the name of a party.  Conservative is the name of a set of political beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your so called Liberal Democrats haven't changed much since the parties slave owning days they just try to be more subtle about. From Clinton's comments about Obama serving coffee to LBJ's next 200 years words they are still racist. You base folks just don't want to hear about it. So you cling to myths.
Click to expand...


Democrats aren't the ones that want to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

That would be conservatives like you.


----------



## rightwinger

Ame®icano said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).
> 
> Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?
Click to expand...

No, the klan was started by people who happened to be Democrats along with southerners, conservative, Baptist


----------



## rightwinger

Ame®icano said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the KKK who endorsed Trump
> 
> Trump's father was a klan member
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That came from... let me guess, your father?
Click to expand...

Trumps father was in the klan

It's a conservative thing, you know
Fear and hatred


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

rightwinger said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the KKK who endorsed Trump
> 
> Trump's father was a klan member
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That came from... let me guess, your father?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trumps father was in the klan
> 
> It's a conservative thing, you know
> Fear and hatred
Click to expand...

Trumps never been and never will be a Conservative.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965

NYcarbineer said:


> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern Conservatives. Party affiliation irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because they were all Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because Democrat is the name of a party.  Conservative is the name of a set of political beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your so called Liberal Democrats haven't changed much since the parties slave owning days they just try to be more subtle about. From Clinton's comments about Obama serving coffee to LBJ's next 200 years words they are still racist. You base folks just don't want to hear about it. So you cling to myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats aren't the ones that want to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> That would be conservatives like you.
Click to expand...

Because most of that bill is redundant crap that Democrats use to discriminate against the religious by pushing the LBT and whatever the other 50 fucking letters agenda.. Anyway I'm tired of this shit.the kkk is a sorry sad little group far from their Democratic Party glory days.The overwhelming majority of Republicans reject their BS. Own your fucking history Democrat.


----------



## Seawytch

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Southern Conservatives. Party affiliation irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because they were all Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because Democrat is the name of a party.  Conservative is the name of a set of political beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your so called Liberal Democrats haven't changed much since the parties slave owning days they just try to be more subtle about. From Clinton's comments about Obama serving coffee to LBJ's next 200 years words they are still racist. You base folks just don't want to hear about it. So you cling to myths.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats aren't the ones that want to repeal the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> That would be conservatives like you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Because most of that bill is redundant crap that Democrats use to discriminate against the religious by pushing the LBT and whatever the other 50 fucking letters agenda.. Anyway I'm tired of this shit.the kkk is a sorry sad little group far from their Democratic Party glory days.The overwhelming majority of Republicans reject their BS. Own your fucking history Democrat.
Click to expand...


The 1964 Civil Rights Act does not protect those who are gay or lesbian. In fact, it requires that gay serve the Christian not vice versa.


----------



## Ame®icano

NYcarbineer said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They became Republicans in the ballot box starting in 1964.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you sure can provide four more names of those Democrats who became Republicans in the ballot box starting in 1964. Let's see them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who won the South in the 1964 presidential election?
Click to expand...


Johnson.


----------



## Ame®icano

NYcarbineer said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Robert E. Lee was a Democrat.  Can you prove he was a liberal?
Click to expand...


Did he owned a slaves?


----------



## Ame®icano

rightwinger said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).
> 
> Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the klan was started by people who happened to be Democrats along with southerners, conservative, Baptist
Click to expand...


It just happened they were Democrats, right?


----------



## Ame®icano

rightwinger said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the KKK who endorsed Trump
> 
> Trump's father was a klan member
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That came from... let me guess, your father?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trumps father was in the klan
> 
> It's a conservative thing, you know
> Fear and hatred
Click to expand...


You're king of your own mind.


----------



## Seawytch

Ame[emoji768]icano said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).
> 
> Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the klan was started by people who happened to be Democrats along with southerners, conservative, Baptist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just happened they were Democrats, right?
Click to expand...


Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South. 

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).
> 
> Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?
Click to expand...


The Klan was started by White Christian Southern men- who may have been Democrats- but they certainly were White Christian Southern men. 

Funny how the rabid right wing loves to say that the Democratic Party is exactly the same as it was in 1860- but somehow White Christian Southern men have all changed.....

The KKK in the 20th century included both Republicans and Democrats- but starting in 1964, as Martin Luther King Jr. put very well- 

From 1964 (not 1924)_
*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*

*
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*_


----------



## Syriusly

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern Conservatives. Party affiliation irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because they were all Democrats?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Irrelevant because Democrat is the name of a party.  Conservative is the name of a set of political beliefs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Your so called Liberal Democrats haven't changed much since the parties slave owning days they just try to be more subtle about. From Clinton's comments about Obama serving coffee to LBJ's next 200 years words they are still racist. You base folks just don't want to hear about it. So you cling to myths.
Click to expand...


The Republicans haven't changed since 1964- when they nominated for President the Senator who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And of course then nominated two more Presidents who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 
Reagan- and Bush

From 1964 (not 1924)_
*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*

*
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*_


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats.
Click to expand...


LOL- they were Southern white conservative Christians- and Democrats.

The rabid right wing party which nominated three candidates for President who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- of course only wants to mention the 'Democrat' part.

Because of course their base is now Southern white conservative Christians. 

Like the people who started the KKK.


----------



## rightwinger

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the KKK who endorsed Trump
> 
> Trump's father was a klan member
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That came from... let me guess, your father?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trumps father was in the klan
> 
> It's a conservative thing, you know
> Fear and hatred
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Trumps never been and never will be a Conservative.
Click to expand...

Trump is a god to Conservatives


----------



## Ame®icano

Seawytch said:


> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).
> 
> Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the klan was started by people who happened to be Democrats along with southerners, conservative, Baptist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just happened they were Democrats, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


 Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).
> 
> Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan was started by White Christian Southern men- who may have been Democrats- but they certainly were White Christian Southern men.
> 
> Funny how the rabid right wing loves to say that the Democratic Party is exactly the same as it was in 1860- but somehow White Christian Southern men have all changed.....
> 
> The KKK in the 20th century included both Republicans and Democrats- but starting in 1964, as Martin Luther King Jr. put very well-
> 
> From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*_
Click to expand...


The Klan was started exclusively by butthurt Democrats who lost the civil war and slavery and desperately needed to re-establish white supremacy over black men. Every single Jim Crow, segregation, lynching law in the South was voted for by Democrat legislator, signed by Democrat Governor and enforced by the Democrat sheriffs and law enforcement.


----------



## Seawytch

Ame®icano said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).
> 
> Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the klan was started by people who happened to be Democrats along with southerners, conservative, Baptist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just happened they were Democrats, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
Click to expand...

 You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.


----------



## Ame®icano

Seawytch said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).
> 
> Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?
> 
> 
> 
> No, the klan was started by people who happened to be Democrats along with southerners, conservative, Baptist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just happened they were Democrats, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
Click to expand...


Again, they were members of what party?


----------



## Seawytch

Ame®icano said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the klan was started by people who happened to be Democrats along with southerners, conservative, Baptist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just happened they were Democrats, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
Click to expand...


Democrats. That changed in the 60s.  How are you this dense...Or is it intentionally obtuse?


----------



## WheelieAddict

Ame®icano said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the klan was started by people who happened to be Democrats along with southerners, conservative, Baptist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just happened they were Democrats, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
Click to expand...

What party are the KKK members of today? The answer is Republican. You lose.


----------



## Ame®icano

Seawytch said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just happened they were Democrats, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats. That changed in the 60s.  How are you this dense...Or is it intentionally obtuse?
Click to expand...


Now tell me, if Klan being Democrat doesn't mean anything, why does it mean if they're Republican?


----------



## Seawytch

Ame®icano said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats. That changed in the 60s.  How are you this dense...Or is it intentionally obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now tell me, if Klan being Democrat doesn't mean anything, why does it mean if they're Republican?
Click to expand...


The Klan was made up primary of Democrats until the 60s. They have been predominantly Republican since then. 

The only thing it means is that the Klan has *always* been predominantly white, southern, conservative Christians and have *never* been liberal.


----------



## Ame®icano

WheelieAddict said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just happened they were Democrats, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What party are the KKK members of today? The answer is Republican. You lose.
Click to expand...


How many elected Democrats were Klan members? 
How many elected Republicans were Klan members?


----------



## WheelieAddict

Ame®icano said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What party are the KKK members of today? The answer is Republican. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many elected Democrats were Klan members?
> How many elected Republicans were Klan members?
Click to expand...

What party and president does the klan endorse today? Republican. Fact. You lose again.


----------



## Ame®icano

Seawytch said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats. That changed in the 60s.  How are you this dense...Or is it intentionally obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now tell me, if Klan being Democrat doesn't mean anything, why does it mean if they're Republican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan was made up primary of Democrats until the 60s. They have been predominantly Republican since then.
> 
> The only thing it means is that the Klan has *always* been predominantly white, southern, conservative Christians and have *never* been liberal.
Click to expand...


Than you wont have problem to give names of five Republicans that were Klan members.

What makes you think that being conservative or Christian is relevant, but being Democrat is not.

You see, Democrats took people like that into their party and constantly trying to deny so while accusing Republicans of being the Klan party. If so, than you won't have problem to provide names or Republican Klan members. You may begin any time you like.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Ame®icano said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats. That changed in the 60s.  How are you this dense...Or is it intentionally obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now tell me, if Klan being Democrat doesn't mean anything, why does it mean if they're Republican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan was made up primary of Democrats until the 60s. They have been predominantly Republican since then.
> 
> The only thing it means is that the Klan has *always* been predominantly white, southern, conservative Christians and have *never* been liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than you wont have problem to give names of five Republicans that were Klan members.
> 
> What makes you think that being conservative or Christian is relevant, but being Democrat is not.
> 
> You see, Democrats took people like that into their party and constantly trying to deny so while accusing Republicans of being the Klan party. If so, than you won't have problem to provide names or Republican Klan members. You may begin any time you like.
Click to expand...

Today klan members endorse president trump and the republican party. Fact.


----------



## Ame®icano

WheelieAddict said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What party are the KKK members of today? The answer is Republican. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many elected Democrats were Klan members?
> How many elected Republicans were Klan members?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What party and president does the klan endorse today? Republican. Fact. You lose again.
Click to expand...


All three members of the Klan? Are you sure?

They're free to endorse whoever they want. Now, have Republicans endorsed Klan? Today, year ago, a hundred years ago?

Just as communists, who are far bigger threat to our country, endorse Democrats.


----------



## Ame®icano

WheelieAddict said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats. That changed in the 60s.  How are you this dense...Or is it intentionally obtuse?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now tell me, if Klan being Democrat doesn't mean anything, why does it mean if they're Republican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan was made up primary of Democrats until the 60s. They have been predominantly Republican since then.
> 
> The only thing it means is that the Klan has *always* been predominantly white, southern, conservative Christians and have *never* been liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than you wont have problem to give names of five Republicans that were Klan members.
> 
> What makes you think that being conservative or Christian is relevant, but being Democrat is not.
> 
> You see, Democrats took people like that into their party and constantly trying to deny so while accusing Republicans of being the Klan party. If so, than you won't have problem to provide names or Republican Klan members. You may begin any time you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today klan members endorse president trump and the republican party. Fact.
Click to expand...


And?


----------



## WheelieAddict

Ame®icano said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What party are the KKK members of today? The answer is Republican. You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many elected Democrats were Klan members?
> How many elected Republicans were Klan members?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What party and president does the klan endorse today? Republican. Fact. You lose again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All three members of the Klan? Are you sure?
> 
> They're free to endorse whoever they want. Now, have Republicans endorsed Klan? Today, year ago, a hundred years ago?
> 
> Just as communists, who are far bigger threat to our country, endorse Democrats.
Click to expand...

The klan endorses trump and republicans. Fascists, who are the biggest threat to our country, endorse republicans.


----------



## WheelieAddict

Ame®icano said:


> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats. That changed in the 60s.  How are you this dense...Or is it intentionally obtuse?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now tell me, if Klan being Democrat doesn't mean anything, why does it mean if they're Republican?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan was made up primary of Democrats until the 60s. They have been predominantly Republican since then.
> 
> The only thing it means is that the Klan has *always* been predominantly white, southern, conservative Christians and have *never* been liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than you wont have problem to give names of five Republicans that were Klan members.
> 
> What makes you think that being conservative or Christian is relevant, but being Democrat is not.
> 
> You see, Democrats took people like that into their party and constantly trying to deny so while accusing Republicans of being the Klan party. If so, than you won't have problem to provide names or Republican Klan members. You may begin any time you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today klan members endorse president trump and the republican party. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
Click to expand...

What matters is who they endorse today, not yesterday. Fact is today the klan is republican.


----------



## konradv

Ame®icano said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.  I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
Click to expand...

Seems like quite a few more than five.  It first reared its head in '64.


----------



## Ame®icano

konradv said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.  I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like quite a few more than five.  It first reared its head in '64.
Click to expand...


Names please.


----------



## Ame®icano

WheelieAddict said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WheelieAddict said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Now tell me, if Klan being Democrat doesn't mean anything, why does it mean if they're Republican?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan was made up primary of Democrats until the 60s. They have been predominantly Republican since then.
> 
> The only thing it means is that the Klan has *always* been predominantly white, southern, conservative Christians and have *never* been liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Than you wont have problem to give names of five Republicans that were Klan members.
> 
> What makes you think that being conservative or Christian is relevant, but being Democrat is not.
> 
> You see, Democrats took people like that into their party and constantly trying to deny so while accusing Republicans of being the Klan party. If so, than you won't have problem to provide names or Republican Klan members. You may begin any time you like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Today klan members endorse president trump and the republican party. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What matters is who they endorse today, not yesterday. Fact is today the klan is republican.
Click to expand...


Did they accepted the endorsement? 

Unlike Republicans, Democrats didn't just accepted it, they were part of the Klan.


----------



## Tax Man

I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people


----------



## Ame®icano

Tax Man said:


> I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people



Try using common sense and explain, why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it? 

Sides didn't switch, only the rhetoric.


----------



## Tax Man

Ame®icano said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try using common sense and explain, why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?
> 
> Sides didn't switch, only the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

No my friend the sides have made a dramatic switch especially when Obama won the election.


----------



## bodecea

Ame®icano said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try using common sense and explain, why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?
> 
> Sides didn't switch, only the rhetoric.
Click to expand...

Sides switch all the time.   They really do.


----------



## konradv

Ame®icano said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.  I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like quite a few more than five.  It first reared its head in '64.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Names please.
Click to expand...

You expect me to give you millions of names?  Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world?  Take the hit.  People in the South switched parties.  It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.


----------



## Ame®icano

Tax Man said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try using common sense and explain, why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?
> 
> Sides didn't switch, only the rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No my friend the sides have made a dramatic switch especially when Obama won the election.
Click to expand...


What Obama has to do with 1964 elections?


----------



## Ame®icano

konradv said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.  I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like quite a few more than five.  It first reared its head in '64.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Names please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You expect me to give you millions of names?  Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world?  Take the hit.  People in the South switched parties.  It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.
Click to expand...


No dupe, just read the post you replied to and you'll eventually figure out what am I asking. If not, read it again, as many times is necessary until it hits you.

So, start being dupe and name, not millions, but just five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party.


----------



## konradv

Ame®icano said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.  I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seems like quite a few more than five.  It first reared its head in '64.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Names please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You expect me to give you millions of names?  Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world?  Take the hit.  People in the South switched parties.  It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dupe, just read the post you replied to and you'll eventually figure out what am I asking. If not, read it again, as many times is necessary until it hits you.
> 
> So, start being dupe and name, not millions, but just five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party.
Click to expand...

If I were to do that, I would be a dupe for playing your little game.  We all know what the deal was.  Nixon even had a name for it, The Southern Strategy.  What difference does it make if I can name Billy Bob Wilson, Billy Bob Smith, Billy Bob Jones, Billy Bob Lee and Billy Bob James?


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).
> 
> Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan was started by White Christian Southern men- who may have been Democrats- but they certainly were White Christian Southern men.
> 
> Funny how the rabid right wing loves to say that the Democratic Party is exactly the same as it was in 1860- but somehow White Christian Southern men have all changed.....
> 
> The KKK in the 20th century included both Republicans and Democrats- but starting in 1964, as Martin Luther King Jr. put very well-
> 
> From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan was started exclusively by butthurt Democrats who lost the civil war t.
Click to expand...


The Klan was started exclusively by butthurt Christian White men who lost the civil war.


Funny how the rabid right wing loves to say that the Democratic Party is exactly the same as it was in 1860- but somehow White Christian Southern men have all changed.....

The KKK in the 20th century included both Republicans and Democrats- but starting in 1964, as Martin Luther King Jr. put very well-

From 1964 (not 1924)
_*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*

*
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, the klan was started by people who happened to be Democrats along with southerners, conservative, Baptist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It just happened they were Democrats, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
Click to expand...


The party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try using common sense and explain, why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?
> 
> Sides didn't switch, only the rhetoric.
Click to expand...


Try using common sense and explain. Why would Conservative white southern men who opposed equal rights for blacks- suddenly embrace equal rights for men?

Try using common sense and explain. Why would 'blacks' who originally voted overwhelmingly Republican- switch to voting overwhelmingly Democratic. 

Yeah- the sides switched.


----------



## Syriusly

How the GOP became the “White Man’s Party”

The 1964 presidential election marked the beginning of the realignment we live with today. Where in 1962 both parties were perceived as equally, if tepidly, supportive of civil rights, two years later 60 percent of the public identified Democrats as more likely to pursue fair treatment, versus only 7 percent who so identified the Republican Party. What happened?

Groundwork for the shift was laid in the run-up to the 1964 election by rightwing elements in the Republican Party, which gained momentum from the loss of the then-moderate Nixon to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This faction of the party had never stopped warring against the New Deal. Its standard bearer was Barry Goldwater, a senator from Arizona and heir to a department store fortune. His pampered upbringing and wealth notwithstanding, Goldwater affected a cowboy’s rough-and-tumble persona in his dress and speech, casting himself as a walking embodiment of the Marlboro Man’s disdain for the nanny state. Goldwater and the reactionary stalwarts who rallied to him saw the Democratic Party as a mortal threat to the nation: domestically, because of the corrupting influence of a powerful central government deeply involved in regulating the marketplace and using taxes to reallocate wealth downward, and abroad in its willingness to compromise with communist countries instead of going to war against them. Goldwater himself, though, was no racial throwback. For instance, in 1957 and again in 1960 he voted in favor of federal civil rights legislation. By 1961, however, Goldwater and his partisans had become convinced that the key to electoral success lay in gaining ground in the South, and that in turn required appealing to racist sentiments in white voters, even at the cost of black support. As Goldwater drawled, “We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”

This racial plan riled more moderate members of the Republican establishment, such as New York senator Jacob Javits, who in the fall of 1963 may have been the first to refer to a “Southern Strategy” in the context of repudiating it. By then, however, the right wing of the party had won out. As the conservative journalist Robert Novak reported after attending a meeting of the Republican National Committee in Denver during the summer of 1963: “A good many, perhaps a majority of the party’s leadership, envision substantial political gold to be mined in the racial crisis by becoming in fact, though not in name, the White Man’s Party. ‘Remember,’ one astute party worker said quietly . . . ‘this isn’t South Africa. The white man outnumbers the Negro 9 to 1 in this country.’ ” The rise of a racially-identified GOP is not a tale of latent bigotry in that party. It is instead a story centered on the strategic decision to use racism to become “the White Man’s Party.”

Yet, heralding the incipient emergence of the new politics of party alignment along racial lines, Barry Goldwater also voted against the civil rights bill. He was one of only five senators from outside the South to do so. Goldwater claimed he saw a looming Orwellian state moving to coerce private citizens to spy on each other for telltale signs of racism. “To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill,” Goldwater contended from the Senate floor, “bids fair to result in the development of an ‘informer’ psychology in great areas of our national life—neighbor spying on neighbor, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen.” This all seemed a little hysterical. More calculatingly, it could not have escaped Goldwater’s attention that voting against a civil rights law associated with blacks, Kennedy, and Johnson would help him “go hunting where the ducks are.”
....
Running for president in 1964, the Arizonan strode across the South, hawking small-government bromides and racially coded appeals. In terms of the latter, he sold his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a bold stand in favor of “states’ rights” and “freedom of association.” States’ rights, Goldwater insisted, preserved state autonomy against intrusive meddling from a distant power—though obviously the burning issue of the day was the federal government’s efforts to limit state involvement in racial degradation and group oppression. Freedom of association, Goldwater explained, meant the right of individuals to be free from government coercion in choosing whom to let onto their property—but in the South this meant first and foremost the right of business owners to exclude blacks from hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, and retail establishments. Like Wallace, Goldwater had learned how to talk about blacks without ever mentioning race.

Another factor also worked against Goldwater: he was a Republican, and the South reviled the Party of Lincoln. If across the nation neither party was seen as more or less friendly toward civil rights, the South had its own views on the question. There, it was the local Democratic machine that represented white interests, while the GOP was seen as the proximate cause of the Civil War and as the party of the carpetbaggers who had peremptorily ruled the South during Reconstruction. The hostility of generations of white Southerners toward Republicans only intensified with the Republican Eisenhower’s decision to send in federal troops to enforce the Republican Warren’s ruling forbidding school segregation in Brown. Most white Southerners had never voted Republican in their lives, and had vowed—like their parents and grandparents before them— that they never would.

Ultimately, however, these handicaps barely impeded Goldwater’s performance in the South. He convinced many Southern voters to vote Republican for the first time ever, and in the Deep South, comprised of those five states with the highest black populations, Goldwater won outright. The anti-New Deal Republican carried Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, states in which whites had never voted for a Republican president in more than miniscule numbers. This was a shocking transformation, one that can only be explained by Goldwater’s ability to transmit a set of codes that white voters readily understood as a promise to protect racial segregation.


----------



## Ame®icano

konradv said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.  I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like quite a few more than five.  It first reared its head in '64.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Names please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You expect me to give you millions of names?  Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world?  Take the hit.  People in the South switched parties.  It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dupe, just read the post you replied to and you'll eventually figure out what am I asking. If not, read it again, as many times is necessary until it hits you.
> 
> So, start being dupe and name, not millions, but just five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I were to do that, I would be a dupe for playing your little game.  We all know what the deal was.  Nixon even had a name for it, The Southern Strategy.  What difference does it make if I can name Billy Bob Wilson, Billy Bob Smith, Billy Bob Jones, Billy Bob Lee and Billy Bob James?
Click to expand...


The "southern strategy" as described by leftists is complete fiction. Richard Nixon is alleged to have made racist appeal to southern Democrats to become Republicans without ever providing single example of him doing that in public. 

Again, I am asking again that you name five southern, white, racist, *elected officials* that switched from Democrat to Republican party. Just five...


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame[emoji768]icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> It just happened they were Democrats, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.
Click to expand...


Yep, who just happen to be Democrats.


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tax Man said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember when Demos were racists. It was the way I was raised as a child. Conservatives used to care about Americans. Seems that in the 1960's the party philosophies switched. Now the repukes are the racist ones and the dems care about the American people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try using common sense and explain, why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?
> 
> Sides didn't switch, only the rhetoric.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try using common sense and explain. Why would Conservative white southern men who opposed equal rights for blacks- suddenly embrace equal rights for men?
> 
> Try using common sense and explain. Why would 'blacks' who originally voted overwhelmingly Republican- switch to voting overwhelmingly Democratic.
> 
> Yeah- the sides switched.
Click to expand...


I'll answer your questions right after you answer mine. Your turn.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> How the GOP became the “White Man’s Party”
> 
> The 1964 presidential election marked the beginning of the realignment we live with today. Where in 1962 both parties were perceived as equally, if tepidly, supportive of civil rights, two years later 60 percent of the public identified Democrats as more likely to pursue fair treatment, versus only 7 percent who so identified the Republican Party. What happened?
> 
> Groundwork for the shift was laid in the run-up to the 1964 election by rightwing elements in the Republican Party, which gained momentum from the loss of the then-moderate Nixon to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This faction of the party had never stopped warring against the New Deal. Its standard bearer was Barry Goldwater, a senator from Arizona and heir to a department store fortune. His pampered upbringing and wealth notwithstanding, Goldwater affected a cowboy’s rough-and-tumble persona in his dress and speech, casting himself as a walking embodiment of the Marlboro Man’s disdain for the nanny state. Goldwater and the reactionary stalwarts who rallied to him saw the Democratic Party as a mortal threat to the nation: domestically, because of the corrupting influence of a powerful central government deeply involved in regulating the marketplace and using taxes to reallocate wealth downward, and abroad in its willingness to compromise with communist countries instead of going to war against them. Goldwater himself, though, was no racial throwback. For instance, in 1957 and again in 1960 he voted in favor of federal civil rights legislation. By 1961, however, Goldwater and his partisans had become convinced that the key to electoral success lay in gaining ground in the South, and that in turn required appealing to racist sentiments in white voters, even at the cost of black support. As Goldwater drawled, “We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”
> 
> This racial plan riled more moderate members of the Republican establishment, such as New York senator Jacob Javits, who in the fall of 1963 may have been the first to refer to a “Southern Strategy” in the context of repudiating it. By then, however, the right wing of the party had won out. As the conservative journalist Robert Novak reported after attending a meeting of the Republican National Committee in Denver during the summer of 1963: “A good many, perhaps a majority of the party’s leadership, envision substantial political gold to be mined in the racial crisis by becoming in fact, though not in name, the White Man’s Party. ‘Remember,’ one astute party worker said quietly . . . ‘this isn’t South Africa. The white man outnumbers the Negro 9 to 1 in this country.’ ” The rise of a racially-identified GOP is not a tale of latent bigotry in that party. It is instead a story centered on the strategic decision to use racism to become “the White Man’s Party.”
> 
> Yet, heralding the incipient emergence of the new politics of party alignment along racial lines, Barry Goldwater also voted against the civil rights bill. He was one of only five senators from outside the South to do so. Goldwater claimed he saw a looming Orwellian state moving to coerce private citizens to spy on each other for telltale signs of racism. “To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill,” Goldwater contended from the Senate floor, “bids fair to result in the development of an ‘informer’ psychology in great areas of our national life—neighbor spying on neighbor, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen.” This all seemed a little hysterical. More calculatingly, it could not have escaped Goldwater’s attention that voting against a civil rights law associated with blacks, Kennedy, and Johnson would help him “go hunting where the ducks are.”
> ....
> Running for president in 1964, the Arizonan strode across the South, hawking small-government bromides and racially coded appeals. In terms of the latter, he sold his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a bold stand in favor of “states’ rights” and “freedom of association.” States’ rights, Goldwater insisted, preserved state autonomy against intrusive meddling from a distant power—though obviously the burning issue of the day was the federal government’s efforts to limit state involvement in racial degradation and group oppression. Freedom of association, Goldwater explained, meant the right of individuals to be free from government coercion in choosing whom to let onto their property—but in the South this meant first and foremost the right of business owners to exclude blacks from hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, and retail establishments. Like Wallace, Goldwater had learned how to talk about blacks without ever mentioning race.
> 
> Another factor also worked against Goldwater: he was a Republican, and the South reviled the Party of Lincoln. If across the nation neither party was seen as more or less friendly toward civil rights, the South had its own views on the question. There, it was the local Democratic machine that represented white interests, while the GOP was seen as the proximate cause of the Civil War and as the party of the carpetbaggers who had peremptorily ruled the South during Reconstruction. The hostility of generations of white Southerners toward Republicans only intensified with the Republican Eisenhower’s decision to send in federal troops to enforce the Republican Warren’s ruling forbidding school segregation in Brown. Most white Southerners had never voted Republican in their lives, and had vowed—like their parents and grandparents before them— that they never would.
> 
> Ultimately, however, these handicaps barely impeded Goldwater’s performance in the South. He convinced many Southern voters to vote Republican for the first time ever, and in the Deep South, comprised of those five states with the highest black populations, Goldwater won outright. The anti-New Deal Republican carried Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, states in which whites had never voted for a Republican president in more than miniscule numbers. This was a shocking transformation, one that can only be explained by Goldwater’s ability to transmit a set of codes that white voters readily understood as a promise to protect racial segregation.




You're a dunce.

1.George Wallace votes went to Democrats.

*Wallace was a Democrat, and the same people who voted for Wallace voted Democrat...*
Slavers, segregationists, and other racists.


2.      "Four years after Goldwater, the segregationist vote went right back to Democrats:*Humphrey got half of Wallace’s supporters on election day. Nixon got none of ‘em.* “When the '68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. *The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had gone to Humphrey.” *Pat Buchanan - The neocons & Nixon's southern strategy


3. Watch how Buchanan characterizes the Democrat Party:
"Richard Nixon kicked off his historic comeback in 1966 with a column on the South (by Buchanan) that declared we would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states rights, human rights, small government and a strong national defense, and leave it to t*he "party of Maddox, Mahoney and Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice." *



4. "When the '68 campaign began, Nixon was at 42 percent, Humphrey at 29 percent, Wallace at 22 percent. When it ended, Nixon and Humphrey were tied at 43 percent, with Wallace at 13 percent. The 9 percent of the national vote that had been peeled off from Wallace had* gone to Humphrey." *Pat Buchanan - The neocons & Nixon's southern strategy



5. The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second -class citizenship.
That fact is proven by Bill Clinton, life-long racist, as the personification of everything the Democrats stand for.



Did I mention that you're a dunce?


----------



## Ame®icano

Of course he a dunce. Processing facts may take awhile.

Just as answering questions... like every other leftard, he never does it, but demand answers to theirs.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the GOP became the “White Man’s Party”
> 
> The 1964 presidential election marked the beginning of the realignment we live with today. Where in 1962 both parties were perceived as equally, if tepidly, supportive of civil rights, two years later 60 percent of the public identified Democrats as more likely to pursue fair treatment, versus only 7 percent who so identified the Republican Party. What happened?
> 
> Groundwork for the shift was laid in the run-up to the 1964 election by rightwing elements in the Republican Party, which gained momentum from the loss of the then-moderate Nixon to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This faction of the party had never stopped warring against the New Deal. Its standard bearer was Barry Goldwater, a senator from Arizona and heir to a department store fortune. His pampered upbringing and wealth notwithstanding, Goldwater affected a cowboy’s rough-and-tumble persona in his dress and speech, casting himself as a walking embodiment of the Marlboro Man’s disdain for the nanny state. Goldwater and the reactionary stalwarts who rallied to him saw the Democratic Party as a mortal threat to the nation: domestically, because of the corrupting influence of a powerful central government deeply involved in regulating the marketplace and using taxes to reallocate wealth downward, and abroad in its willingness to compromise with communist countries instead of going to war against them. Goldwater himself, though, was no racial throwback. For instance, in 1957 and again in 1960 he voted in favor of federal civil rights legislation. By 1961, however, Goldwater and his partisans had become convinced that the key to electoral success lay in gaining ground in the South, and that in turn required appealing to racist sentiments in white voters, even at the cost of black support. As Goldwater drawled, “We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”
> 
> This racial plan riled more moderate members of the Republican establishment, such as New York senator Jacob Javits, who in the fall of 1963 may have been the first to refer to a “Southern Strategy” in the context of repudiating it. By then, however, the right wing of the party had won out. As the conservative journalist Robert Novak reported after attending a meeting of the Republican National Committee in Denver during the summer of 1963: “A good many, perhaps a majority of the party’s leadership, envision substantial political gold to be mined in the racial crisis by becoming in fact, though not in name, the White Man’s Party. ‘Remember,’ one astute party worker said quietly . . . ‘this isn’t South Africa. The white man outnumbers the Negro 9 to 1 in this country.’ ” The rise of a racially-identified GOP is not a tale of latent bigotry in that party. It is instead a story centered on the strategic decision to use racism to become “the White Man’s Party.”
> 
> Yet, heralding the incipient emergence of the new politics of party alignment along racial lines, Barry Goldwater also voted against the civil rights bill. He was one of only five senators from outside the South to do so. Goldwater claimed he saw a looming Orwellian state moving to coerce private citizens to spy on each other for telltale signs of racism. “To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill,” Goldwater contended from the Senate floor, “bids fair to result in the development of an ‘informer’ psychology in great areas of our national life—neighbor spying on neighbor, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen.” This all seemed a little hysterical. More calculatingly, it could not have escaped Goldwater’s attention that voting against a civil rights law associated with blacks, Kennedy, and Johnson would help him “go hunting where the ducks are.”
> ....
> Running for president in 1964, the Arizonan strode across the South, hawking small-government bromides and racially coded appeals. In terms of the latter, he sold his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a bold stand in favor of “states’ rights” and “freedom of association.” States’ rights, Goldwater insisted, preserved state autonomy against intrusive meddling from a distant power—though obviously the burning issue of the day was the federal government’s efforts to limit state involvement in racial degradation and group oppression. Freedom of association, Goldwater explained, meant the right of individuals to be free from government coercion in choosing whom to let onto their property—but in the South this meant first and foremost the right of business owners to exclude blacks from hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, and retail establishments. Like Wallace, Goldwater had learned how to talk about blacks without ever mentioning race.
> 
> Another factor also worked against Goldwater: he was a Republican, and the South reviled the Party of Lincoln. If across the nation neither party was seen as more or less friendly toward civil rights, the South had its own views on the question. There, it was the local Democratic machine that represented white interests, while the GOP was seen as the proximate cause of the Civil War and as the party of the carpetbaggers who had peremptorily ruled the South during Reconstruction. The hostility of generations of white Southerners toward Republicans only intensified with the Republican Eisenhower’s decision to send in federal troops to enforce the Republican Warren’s ruling forbidding school segregation in Brown. Most white Southerners had never voted Republican in their lives, and had vowed—like their parents and grandparents before them— that they never would.
> 
> Ultimately, however, these handicaps barely impeded Goldwater’s performance in the South. He convinced many Southern voters to vote Republican for the first time ever, and in the Deep South, comprised of those five states with the highest black populations, Goldwater won outright. The anti-New Deal Republican carried Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, states in which whites had never voted for a Republican president in more than miniscule numbers. This was a shocking transformation, one that can only be explained by Goldwater’s ability to transmit a set of codes that white voters readily understood as a promise to protect racial segregation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dunce.
Click to expand...


Frankly- being called a dunce by you is a compliment- since by far you are vastly ignorant, hysterically partisan, and believe every kooky konspiracy theory there is.

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
_*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*

*
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Of course he a dunce. Processing facts may take awhile.
> 
> Just as answering questions... like every other leftard, he never does it, but demand answers to theirs.



LOL coming from one of USMB's chief dunces.....that is wonderfully ironic


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> 
> 5. The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second -class citizenship.


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he a dunce. Processing facts may take awhile.
> 
> Just as answering questions... like every other leftard, he never does it, but demand answers to theirs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL coming from one of USMB's chief dunces.....that is wonderfully ironic
Click to expand...


Care to answer the question I asked earlier?


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil rights have always been conservative versus liberal not Democrats versus Republicans. In the US it's mostly been the North versus the South.
> 
> Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, who just happen to be Democrats.
Click to expand...


Yep- the party of Democrats is of course still the party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.....

Of course......

Which is why of course the Democrats have been defending the flying of the Confederate Flag,and  the Confederate monuments....

Oh wait- that has been the Republicans.....


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 5. The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second -class citizenship.
Click to expand...


Goldwater's Democrats, yeah?.


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, who just happen to be Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- the party of Democrats is of course still the party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.....
> 
> Of course......
> 
> Which is why of course the Democrats have been defending the flying of the Confederate Flag,and  the Confederate monuments....
> 
> Oh wait- that has been the Republicans.....
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter what you were asked, your answer is always the same...

The question was: Why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems like quite a few more than five.  It first reared its head in '64.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Names please.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You expect me to give you millions of names?  Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world?  Take the hit.  People in the South switched parties.  It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dupe, just read the post you replied to and you'll eventually figure out what am I asking. If not, read it again, as many times is necessary until it hits you.
> 
> So, start being dupe and name, not millions, but just five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I were to do that, I would be a dupe for playing your little game.  We all know what the deal was.  Nixon even had a name for it, The Southern Strategy.  What difference does it make if I can name Billy Bob Wilson, Billy Bob Smith, Billy Bob Jones, Billy Bob Lee and Billy Bob James?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am asking again that you name five southern, white, racist, *elected officials* that switched from Democrat to Republican party. Just five...
Click to expand...


Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act

Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
_*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*

*
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 5. The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second -class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater's Democrats, yeah?.
Click to expand...


Goldwater's Republicans


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 5. The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second -class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater's Democrats, yeah?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater's Republicans
Click to expand...


Republicans were not hiding behind the hoods. Democrats were well known for that.


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Names please.
> 
> 
> 
> You expect me to give you millions of names?  Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world?  Take the hit.  People in the South switched parties.  It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dupe, just read the post you replied to and you'll eventually figure out what am I asking. If not, read it again, as many times is necessary until it hits you.
> 
> So, start being dupe and name, not millions, but just five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I were to do that, I would be a dupe for playing your little game.  We all know what the deal was.  Nixon even had a name for it, The Southern Strategy.  What difference does it make if I can name Billy Bob Wilson, Billy Bob Smith, Billy Bob Jones, Billy Bob Lee and Billy Bob James?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am asking again that you name five southern, white, racist, *elected officials* that switched from Democrat to Republican party. Just five...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
> 
> Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
> George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
Click to expand...


Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.

Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, who just happen to be Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- the party of Democrats is of course still the party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.....
> 
> Of course......
> 
> Which is why of course the Democrats have been defending the flying of the Confederate Flag,and  the Confederate monuments....
> 
> Oh wait- that has been the Republicans.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The question was: Why would party that since its inception fought for civil rights and had blacks on their side just give up on it?
Click to expand...


For political power of course. 

The Republican Party was founded on opposing slavery- not on 'civil rights'. The Republican Party didn't call for equal treatment for blacks or women or Mexicans when the party was founded. It didn't call for the vote for women. Just look at the Republican Platforms of 1856, 1860 and 1864- not one call for equal treatment of blacks or women.

So your party- to its credit- from its inception fought to end slavery. That was 150 years ago. 

And because of that stance- the Southern White Conservative Christian men voted almost exclusively Democrat from 1865 to 1960- roughly 100 years. 

And African Americans voted almost exclusively Republican until the 1930's.- roughly 70 years.

Starting in the 1930's African Americans started to move towards the Democratic Party in response to FDR's policies- both his Depression era policies, and his WW2 policies, which opened up employment in factories to African Americans. 

What sealed the deal though was the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Originally proposed by Kennedy, and then pushed through by LBJ- with the majority votes of both Republicans and Democrats- and opposed by virtually every Southern Senator and Congressman- Republican and Democrat- but most notably opposed by Barry Goldwater.

When the Republicans chose to nominate Barry Goldwater as President in 1964, they lost the remaining African American vote.  And that started the changeover of Southern white from Democrat to Republicans.

This didn't happen overnight- party registration didn't change overnight- because these people were life long Democrats, born into Democrat families. 

What Republicans are trying to sell is that the White Christian Conservative Southern Racist were Racists as long as they voted Democrat- but in 1964 they continued to be White Christian Southern Conservatives- but they became enlightened and were still everything as before- except racists- and Democrats.

While African Americans in the South- well according to the Republicans- starting in 1964, they still stayed Black Conservative Southern voters- but somehow they all became Black Conservative Southern racist voters when they started voting Democrats. 

That is the story you are trying to sell. 

And you can see by the numbers, that African Americans aren't buying it.


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 5. The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second -class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater's Democrats, yeah?.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goldwater's Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans were not hiding behind the hoods. Democrats were well known for that.
Click to expand...


Republicans for Goldwater- 1964.


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You expect me to give you millions of names?  Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world?  Take the hit.  People in the South switched parties.  It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dupe, just read the post you replied to and you'll eventually figure out what am I asking. If not, read it again, as many times is necessary until it hits you.
> 
> So, start being dupe and name, not millions, but just five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I were to do that, I would be a dupe for playing your little game.  We all know what the deal was.  Nixon even had a name for it, The Southern Strategy.  What difference does it make if I can name Billy Bob Wilson, Billy Bob Smith, Billy Bob Jones, Billy Bob Lee and Billy Bob James?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am asking again that you name five southern, white, racist, *elected officials* that switched from Democrat to Republican party. Just five...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
> 
> Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
> George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.
> 
> Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?
Click to expand...


Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
_*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*

*
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_


----------



## Penelope

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…




Always protestants and mainly radical Evans who didn't like Catholics and Jews and Women freedoms. Also white and southern.


----------



## Penelope

Ame®icano said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).
> 
> Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, the klan was started by people who happened to be Democrats along with southerners, conservative, Baptist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It just happened they were Democrats, right?
Click to expand...


They were white protestants  from both parties.  It was a radical religious nationalists org and its alive and well today with T, well it  began again  when a dark skinned half black man became POTUS.


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dupe, just read the post you replied to and you'll eventually figure out what am I asking. If not, read it again, as many times is necessary until it hits you.
> 
> So, start being dupe and name, not millions, but just five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party.
> 
> 
> 
> If I were to do that, I would be a dupe for playing your little game.  We all know what the deal was.  Nixon even had a name for it, The Southern Strategy.  What difference does it make if I can name Billy Bob Wilson, Billy Bob Smith, Billy Bob Jones, Billy Bob Lee and Billy Bob James?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am asking again that you name five southern, white, racist, *elected officials* that switched from Democrat to Republican party. Just five...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
> 
> Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
> George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.
> 
> Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
Click to expand...


Again, you're not answering the question.


----------



## Geaux4it




----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I were to do that, I would be a dupe for playing your little game.  We all know what the deal was.  Nixon even had a name for it, The Southern Strategy.  What difference does it make if I can name Billy Bob Wilson, Billy Bob Smith, Billy Bob Jones, Billy Bob Lee and Billy Bob James?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am asking again that you name five southern, white, racist, *elected officials* that switched from Democrat to Republican party. Just five...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
> 
> Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
> George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.
> 
> Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're not answering the question.
Click to expand...


I think Martin Luther King Jr. answers the question quite well on my behalf

Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words

Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
_*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*

*
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_


----------



## Syriusly

Geaux4it said:


>



What a shock- another Contard using a photo-shop lie to attack Democrats.

This however is not photoshop


----------



## Syriusly

What did these two men have in common?

Robert Byrd
Barry Goldwater

Both strongly opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

The difference is that the Democrats didn't nominate Robert Byrd to be President.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> How the GOP became the “White Man’s Party”
> 
> The 1964 presidential election marked the beginning of the realignment we live with today. Where in 1962 both parties were perceived as equally, if tepidly, supportive of civil rights, two years later 60 percent of the public identified Democrats as more likely to pursue fair treatment, versus only 7 percent who so identified the Republican Party. What happened?
> 
> Groundwork for the shift was laid in the run-up to the 1964 election by rightwing elements in the Republican Party, which gained momentum from the loss of the then-moderate Nixon to John F. Kennedy in 1960. This faction of the party had never stopped warring against the New Deal. Its standard bearer was Barry Goldwater, a senator from Arizona and heir to a department store fortune. His pampered upbringing and wealth notwithstanding, Goldwater affected a cowboy’s rough-and-tumble persona in his dress and speech, casting himself as a walking embodiment of the Marlboro Man’s disdain for the nanny state. Goldwater and the reactionary stalwarts who rallied to him saw the Democratic Party as a mortal threat to the nation: domestically, because of the corrupting influence of a powerful central government deeply involved in regulating the marketplace and using taxes to reallocate wealth downward, and abroad in its willingness to compromise with communist countries instead of going to war against them. Goldwater himself, though, was no racial throwback. For instance, in 1957 and again in 1960 he voted in favor of federal civil rights legislation. By 1961, however, Goldwater and his partisans had become convinced that the key to electoral success lay in gaining ground in the South, and that in turn required appealing to racist sentiments in white voters, even at the cost of black support. As Goldwater drawled, “We’re not going to get the Negro vote as a bloc in 1964 and 1968, so we ought to go hunting where the ducks are.”
> 
> This racial plan riled more moderate members of the Republican establishment, such as New York senator Jacob Javits, who in the fall of 1963 may have been the first to refer to a “Southern Strategy” in the context of repudiating it. By then, however, the right wing of the party had won out. As the conservative journalist Robert Novak reported after attending a meeting of the Republican National Committee in Denver during the summer of 1963: “A good many, perhaps a majority of the party’s leadership, envision substantial political gold to be mined in the racial crisis by becoming in fact, though not in name, the White Man’s Party. ‘Remember,’ one astute party worker said quietly . . . ‘this isn’t South Africa. The white man outnumbers the Negro 9 to 1 in this country.’ ” The rise of a racially-identified GOP is not a tale of latent bigotry in that party. It is instead a story centered on the strategic decision to use racism to become “the White Man’s Party.”
> 
> Yet, heralding the incipient emergence of the new politics of party alignment along racial lines, Barry Goldwater also voted against the civil rights bill. He was one of only five senators from outside the South to do so. Goldwater claimed he saw a looming Orwellian state moving to coerce private citizens to spy on each other for telltale signs of racism. “To give genuine effect to the prohibitions of this bill,” Goldwater contended from the Senate floor, “bids fair to result in the development of an ‘informer’ psychology in great areas of our national life—neighbor spying on neighbor, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessmen.” This all seemed a little hysterical. More calculatingly, it could not have escaped Goldwater’s attention that voting against a civil rights law associated with blacks, Kennedy, and Johnson would help him “go hunting where the ducks are.”
> ....
> Running for president in 1964, the Arizonan strode across the South, hawking small-government bromides and racially coded appeals. In terms of the latter, he sold his vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act as a bold stand in favor of “states’ rights” and “freedom of association.” States’ rights, Goldwater insisted, preserved state autonomy against intrusive meddling from a distant power—though obviously the burning issue of the day was the federal government’s efforts to limit state involvement in racial degradation and group oppression. Freedom of association, Goldwater explained, meant the right of individuals to be free from government coercion in choosing whom to let onto their property—but in the South this meant first and foremost the right of business owners to exclude blacks from hotels, restaurants, movie theaters, and retail establishments. Like Wallace, Goldwater had learned how to talk about blacks without ever mentioning race.
> 
> Another factor also worked against Goldwater: he was a Republican, and the South reviled the Party of Lincoln. If across the nation neither party was seen as more or less friendly toward civil rights, the South had its own views on the question. There, it was the local Democratic machine that represented white interests, while the GOP was seen as the proximate cause of the Civil War and as the party of the carpetbaggers who had peremptorily ruled the South during Reconstruction. The hostility of generations of white Southerners toward Republicans only intensified with the Republican Eisenhower’s decision to send in federal troops to enforce the Republican Warren’s ruling forbidding school segregation in Brown. Most white Southerners had never voted Republican in their lives, and had vowed—like their parents and grandparents before them— that they never would.
> 
> Ultimately, however, these handicaps barely impeded Goldwater’s performance in the South. He convinced many Southern voters to vote Republican for the first time ever, and in the Deep South, comprised of those five states with the highest black populations, Goldwater won outright. The anti-New Deal Republican carried Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, and South Carolina, states in which whites had never voted for a Republican president in more than miniscule numbers. This was a shocking transformation, one that can only be explained by Goldwater’s ability to transmit a set of codes that white voters readily understood as a promise to protect racial segregation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly- being called a dunce by you is a compliment- since by far you are vastly ignorant, hysterically partisan, and believe every kooky konspiracy theory there is.
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
Click to expand...



"Frankly- being called a dunce by you is a compliment-..."


My pleasure....you're a dunce.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> What did these two men have in common?
> 
> Robert Byrd
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> Both strongly opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> The difference is that the Democrats didn't nominate Robert Byrd to be President.




After this post, it would behoove you to change your avi to DUNCE.

"Democrats today castigate Republican Senator Barry Goldwater as anti-black.  However *a review of Senator Barry Goldwater’s record shows that he was a Libertarian, not a racist.  Goldwater was a member of the Arizona NAACP and was involved in desegregating the Arizona National Guard.*

*Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. * His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government.  Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation.  By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate.  Senator Goldwater's speech may be found also on the Internet at: Washingtonpost.com: Goldwater Speech "
http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...#Democrats_Smeared_Dr._Martin_Luther_King__Jr.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 5. The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second -class citizenship.
Click to expand...



Those are Democrats in the hoods, DUNCE.



According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.
When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
“ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.”                                                         Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Both, Northern and Southern Democrats running against Lincoln's Republican party were pro slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, who just happen to be Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- the party of Democrats is of course still the party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.....
> 
> Of course......
> 
> Which is why of course the Democrats have been defending the flying of the Confederate Flag,and  the Confederate monuments....
> 
> Oh wait- that has been the Republicans.....
Click to expand...




Wrong again, DUNCE.


a. Governor Clinton was among three state officials the NAACP sued in 1989 under the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. “Plaintiffs offered plenty of proof of monolithic voting along racial lines, intimidation of black voters and candidates and other official acts that made voting harder for blacks,” the Arkansas Gazette reported December 6, 1989.




b. Bill Clinton had a Confederate flag-like issue, every year he was governor: 1979-1992   Arkansas Code Annotated, Section 1-5-107, provides as follows:

(a) The Saturday immediately preceding Easter Sunday of each year is designated as ‘Confederate Flag Day’ in this state.

(b) No person, firm, or corporation shall display an Confederate flag or replica thereof in connection with any advertisement of any commercial enterprise, or in any manner for any purpose except to honor the Confederate States of America. [Emphasis added.]

(c) Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

Bill Clinton took no steps during his twelve years as governor to repeal this law.
Hillary Clinton's Confederacy Hypocrisy | The Gateway Pundit
Hillary Clinton's Confederacy Hypocrisy


[Let's Stop Pretending the Confederate Flag Isn't a Symbol of RacismJust to refresh everyone's memories, we're talking about the official national flag that was used to represent the Confederate States of America during the Civil War. You know, that awkward time period when the South was vehemently fighting to keep slavery around as a means of economic prosperity for white plantation owners.

I've heard arguments time and again about how the Confederate flag is no longer representative of slavery, and how it's now indicative of "Southern pride and heritage." But I'm really over the whole "respect your heritage" mantra, especially when your heritage _is_ hate.

*Let's Stop Pretending the Confederate Flag Isn't a Symbol of Racism | HuffPost]




*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Names please.
> 
> 
> 
> You expect me to give you millions of names?  Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world?  Take the hit.  People in the South switched parties.  It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dupe, just read the post you replied to and you'll eventually figure out what am I asking. If not, read it again, as many times is necessary until it hits you.
> 
> So, start being dupe and name, not millions, but just five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I were to do that, I would be a dupe for playing your little game.  We all know what the deal was.  Nixon even had a name for it, The Southern Strategy.  What difference does it make if I can name Billy Bob Wilson, Billy Bob Smith, Billy Bob Jones, Billy Bob Lee and Billy Bob James?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am asking again that you name five southern, white, racist, *elected officials* that switched from Democrat to Republican party. Just five...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
> 
> Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
> George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
Click to expand...



Begging for an education????

Here I am!



Language is important, so in any discussion of who the segregationists were, liberals switch the word “Democrats” to “southerners.” Remember, the Civil Rights Act of 1957 was supported by all the Republicans in the Senate, but only 29 of 47 Democrats…and a number of the ‘segregationist’ Democrats were northern Dems (Oregon, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming).  Not southerners: Democrats.
There were plenty of southern integrationists. They were Republicans.

1966- pro-integrationist Republican Winthrop Rockefeller won Arkansas, replacing Clinton-pal Orval Faubus.
1966 Republican Bo Calloway ran against Democrat Lester Maddox, who “gained national attention for refusing to serve blacks in his popular cafeteria near the Georgia Tech campus. Newsmen tipped off about the confrontation reported how restaurant patrons and employees wielded ax handles while Mr. Maddox waved a pistol. …” Lester Maddox Dies at 87; Segregationist Ex-Governor Leaves Complicated Legacy | HighBeam Business: Arrive Prepared
Maddox was endorsed by Democrat Jimmy Carter in the above governor’s race. When the race was too close to call, the Democrat state legislature gave it to Maddox.
Calloway appealed to the Supreme Court….but the court upheld the legislature’s decision.
On that very Supreme Court was former KKK member Justice Hugo Black.
Democrat Hugo Black was Democrat FDR’s first appointee, in 1937. This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*:  The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU
And, Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias, which showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court:

"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."

Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"


Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> konradv said:
> 
> 
> 
> You expect me to give you millions of names?  Don't people count, if they're not famous, in your world?  Take the hit.  People in the South switched parties.  It was part of Nixon's plan to get elected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dupe, just read the post you replied to and you'll eventually figure out what am I asking. If not, read it again, as many times is necessary until it hits you.
> 
> So, start being dupe and name, not millions, but just five southern, white, racist, elected officials that switched from Democrat to Republican party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I were to do that, I would be a dupe for playing your little game.  We all know what the deal was.  Nixon even had a name for it, The Southern Strategy.  What difference does it make if I can name Billy Bob Wilson, Billy Bob Smith, Billy Bob Jones, Billy Bob Lee and Billy Bob James?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am asking again that you name five southern, white, racist, *elected officials* that switched from Democrat to Republican party. Just five...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
> 
> Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
> George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Begging for an education????
Click to expand...


Nope- just sharing the thoughts of Martin Luther King Jr. on racism and the Republican Party

_*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*

*
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seawytch said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep saying Democrat like it means something. They were Southern, white Christian conservatives that started the KKK and they are still, predominantly, southern, white Christians conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, they were members of what party?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, who just happen to be Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- the party of Democrats is of course still the party of White Christian Conservative Southern men.....
> 
> Of course......
> 
> Which is why of course the Democrats have been defending the flying of the Confederate Flag,and  the Confederate monuments....
> 
> Oh wait- that has been the Republicans.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong again, DUNCE.*]*
Click to expand...


Wrong again


Inside the Republican reversal on the Confederate flag


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> 
> 5. The Democrat Party has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second -class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Those are Democrats in the hoods, DUNCE.
Click to expand...


More Republicans for Goldwater


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What did these two men have in common?
> 
> Robert Byrd
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> Both strongly opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> The difference is that the Democrats didn't nominate Robert Byrd to be President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After this post, it would behoove you to change your avi to DUNCE.
> 
> "Democrats today castigate Republican Senator Barry Goldwater as anti-black..
Click to expand...


I don't castigate Barry Goldwater as 'anti-black'

I point out that Barry Goldwater was one the only non-Southern Senators to vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And then the Republicans nominated him for President.

Just as they nominated Reagan and Bush- both who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

MLK Jr. said it best- he very carefully pointed out that Goldwater himself was not a racist- but:

*While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. *

Full quote
_*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*

*
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



That's uh ..... not a convention, Gummo.  Your first clue should be the trolley tracks.

The "Klanbake" refers not to the convention but to the gathering of Klanners across the river from the convention in New Jersey (the convention being in NYC).  They demonstrated and made a lot of noise.  In the convention itself they were opposing the candidacies of Sen. Oscar Underwood (AL) and Al Smith, Governor of New York.  Specifically Underwood and Smith were calling for a plank in the platform denouncing the Klan.  Underwood was the most vocal voice opposing the Klan at the time, declaring the KKK and the US could not coexist and "between the two I choose my country".  And Smith of course was a Catholic, one of the Klan's targets.

The Klan's Southern sympathizers were pushing for the nomination of William Gibbs McAdoo of California, who had been getting Klan support.  McAdoo didn't acknowledge it but didn't denounce it either.  By stalemating the ballots, the McAdoo faction got the voting extended, over  and over beyond a hundred ballots, still the longest political convention in history.  As the dates in your own OP illustrate ---- fifteen days.

The convention finally settled on an innocuous, unknown candidate, Governor John Davis of West Virginia, who accepted the nomination ----- and promply denounced the Klan.  

Four years later Al Smith was running again and the Klan again opposed him for being Catholic.  By then the KKK had been weakened especially by the D.C Stephenson scandal, and they failed to prevent Smith's nomination.  He was the first Catholic nominated for the office by a major political party.

Eight years after that, when FDR was at the height of his popularity and running for re-election, Roosevelt got the party nomination rules changed to a simple majority, so that the South contingent could never again hold up a convention like that.  Next time the Democratic convention ran a candidate not named Roosevelt, much of the Southern contingent walked out, unhappy with all the rhetoric about "civil rights", and ran on their own ticket with Strom Thurmond at the top.  That was 1948, which was what Trent Lott was referring to when he boasted "we (Mississippi) voted for him" and opined that if the rest of America "had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years", referring again presumably to those same "civil rights".

All you have to do is ask if you want these details.  Nobody holds a convention on trolley tracks.


----------



## Pogo

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?



The aforementioned D.C. Stephenson, for one.

​
This would be the scandal (1925) I just mentioned.  KKK took a huge hit.


----------



## Pogo

WaitingFor2020 said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google image reverse search shows you to be a liar.
> This image has been used all over the web. It's from the Birmingham Times newspaper.
> Not the Dem convention in 1924.
> *Read 'em and weep, you're just another stupid sucker for a racist blog.*
> 
> Reconstruction Era  Black Codes, Poll Taxes, Jim Crow Laws, The Ku Klux Klan, White Leagues - Lessons - Tes Teach
> 
> Ku Klux Klan march
> 
> The Most Hated Clan In The U.S.: The Klu Klux Klan
> 
> Gateway to Hamptons, Ku Klux Klan Advertises for New Members
Click to expand...


Caption from the second link:
"During the years after World War I, The Capital Times battled against the Ku Klux Klan, shown here during a 1924 march through the Greenbush neighborhood on South Park Street."

----* in Madison, Wisconsin*.  

OP busted.

So technically yeah the picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic convention --- while it was going on _a thousand miles away._


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google image reverse search shows you to be a liar.
> This image has been used all over the web. It's from the Birmingham Times newspaper.
> Not the Dem convention in 1924.
> *Read 'em and weep, you're just another stupid sucker for a racist blog.*
> 
> Reconstruction Era  Black Codes, Poll Taxes, Jim Crow Laws, The Ku Klux Klan, White Leagues - Lessons - Tes Teach
> 
> Ku Klux Klan march
> 
> The Most Hated Clan In The U.S.: The Klu Klux Klan
> 
> Gateway to Hamptons, Ku Klux Klan Advertises for New Members
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caption from the second link:
> "During the years after World War I, The Capital Times battled against the Ku Klux Klan, shown here during a 1924 march through the Greenbush neighborhood on South Park Street."
> 
> ----* in Madison, Wisconsin*.  A thousand miles away from the Democratic convention.
> 
> OP busted.
Click to expand...


The OP was a lie?

Call me shocked! Shocked I tell you!


----------



## Pogo

g5000 said:


> New York. Ohio. Maine. Missouri. Colorado. Kansas. Oklahoma.
> 
> Dominated by Klan Republicans.
> 
> The Klan dominated the Republican party across the entire nation. The Klan so infected the GOP that some Republicans wanted to start an independent party.
> 
> Kind of like those of us who are sick of Trump and his Chumps who have infected the modern GOP.
> 
> I guess I should not be surprised Trump's Chumps are so profoundly ignorant of American history. Trump depends on them forgetting shit from five minutes ago, after all. And they happily oblige.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *We're Republicans now.*



And you didn't mention Oregon, Washington, California (where Klan candies took over the city council in Anaheim) --- or Indiana, where it dominated state politics at every level right up to and including the Governor.(see video just linked).  Indiana had the densest penetration --- it's estimated that at its peak one-third of the entire adult male population of Indiana was in the Klan.

But lest we imply that "Klan = Republican" just because it backed all these guys and opposed Smith, Underwood, Walton et al and persecuted the Democratic Party constituencies of blacks, Jews, Catholics, immigrants and labor unions --- to be fair it did get a mayor elected in Detroit, one Charles Bowles (1925) as a write-in with no political party at all.

The KKK was never connected with a national political party.  It supported or opposed anybody who would serve its interests.  In the convention referenced in the OP it supported McAdoo and opposed Underwood and Smith, all of them Democrats.  In Oregon it got a mayor and a governor elected, one from each party.  It was never there to play politics --- it has always been a self-appointed social police force.


----------



## Pogo

Syriusly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google image reverse search shows you to be a liar.
> This image has been used all over the web. It's from the Birmingham Times newspaper.
> Not the Dem convention in 1924.
> *Read 'em and weep, you're just another stupid sucker for a racist blog.*
> 
> Reconstruction Era  Black Codes, Poll Taxes, Jim Crow Laws, The Ku Klux Klan, White Leagues - Lessons - Tes Teach
> 
> Ku Klux Klan march
> 
> The Most Hated Clan In The U.S.: The Klu Klux Klan
> 
> Gateway to Hamptons, Ku Klux Klan Advertises for New Members
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caption from the second link:
> "During the years after World War I, The Capital Times battled against the Ku Klux Klan, shown here during a 1924 march through the Greenbush neighborhood on South Park Street."
> 
> ----* in Madison, Wisconsin*.  A thousand miles away from the Democratic convention.
> 
> OP busted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP was a lie?
> 
> Call me shocked! Shocked I tell you!
Click to expand...


My new favorite line from the OP is ---

>>  a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama <<​
This is exactly what I described in my synopsis of post 229 ............. except that his name is actually "*Oscar Underwood*".

I actually went and looked up "Forney Johnston" wondering if I had missed something.  All I could find was a _Joseph _Forney Johnston, who was indeed a governor and Senator from Alabama  ---- and who by 1924 was dead for over a decade.

I guess when you're pulling illustrations from Madison Wisconsin and claiming they're from New York, "research" is not exactly Priority One.


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WaitingFor2020 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Google image reverse search shows you to be a liar.
> This image has been used all over the web. It's from the Birmingham Times newspaper.
> Not the Dem convention in 1924.
> *Read 'em and weep, you're just another stupid sucker for a racist blog.*
> 
> Reconstruction Era  Black Codes, Poll Taxes, Jim Crow Laws, The Ku Klux Klan, White Leagues - Lessons - Tes Teach
> 
> Ku Klux Klan march
> 
> The Most Hated Clan In The U.S.: The Klu Klux Klan
> 
> Gateway to Hamptons, Ku Klux Klan Advertises for New Members
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Caption from the second link:
> "During the years after World War I, The Capital Times battled against the Ku Klux Klan, shown here during a 1924 march through the Greenbush neighborhood on South Park Street."
> 
> ----* in Madison, Wisconsin*.  A thousand miles away from the Democratic convention.
> 
> OP busted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The OP was a lie?
> 
> Call me shocked! Shocked I tell you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My new favorite line from the OP is ---
> 
> >>  a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama <<​
> This is exactly what I described in my synopsis of post 229 ............. except that his name is actually "*Oscar Underwood*".
> 
> I actually went and looked up "Forney Johnston" wondering if I had missed something.  All I could find was a _Joseph _Forney Johnston, who was indeed a governor and Senator from Alabama  ---- and who by 1924 was dead for over a decade.
> 
> I guess when you're pulling illustrations from Madison Wisconsin and claiming they're from New York, "research" is not exactly Priority One.
Click to expand...


Yeah we know what 'Priority One' is. 

LOL

Pushing the meme that the Democratic Party is the party of racists- when 95% of voting African Americans are members of the Democratic Party.

Essentially they are saying that 95% of voting African Americans are racists. 

And they wonder why the GOP doesn't appeal to African Americans?


----------



## Pogo

Avatar4321 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson is a southern conservative?
Click to expand...


Nope.  He's dead.  
But when he was alive, absolutely.


----------



## Pogo

rightwinger said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ThunderKiss1965 said:
> 
> 
> 
> For all those people who state the KKK are Republicans now I have to ask who did the Klan thrive under ?
> 
> 
> 
> Southern conservatives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Woodrow Wilson is a southern conservative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> From 1915 to 1925 the klan thrived under southern conservatives and Midwestern factory workers afraid to lose their jobs to foreigners and negroes
Click to expand...


Exactly.  There had been during WWI, and still was after, a lot of industrialization, employment turnover and opportunities being answered by migrations of blacks from the South, and immigrants from Europe, particularly Catholic and Jewish Europe.  The Klan tailored their recruitment tactics to the concerns of that time and place.  Worried about immigrants?  They're rapists?  Never fear, the Klan is here.  Scared of blacks?  Klan is here to protect you.  Jews give you the blues?  Join the Klan -- it couldn't hurt.  Labor unions? Klan keeps 'em at bay.  In Maine they railed against French Canadians.

And besides this they were against drinking (strongly pro-Prohibition and allied with the Anti-Saloon League), gambling, adultering, any offense to Christian morality.  They pulled one (white) woman out of her house and whipped her for "not going to church".  And when her 15-year-old son came out to defend her, they whipped him too.  Thought they were a moral police force. That's why I call 'em the American Taliban.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).
> 
> Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?
Click to expand...


Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope.
  Let's just run this for the 8462nd time for those who can't be bothered to either pay attention or do their homework.

The Klan (originally) was founded by, in alphabetical order, (Maj) James Crowe, Calvin Jones, (Capt) John B. Kennedy, (Capt) John Lester, Frank O. McCord, and Richard Reed, Christmas 1865, in the law office building of Calvin Jones' father Thomas Jones, while he was housesitting for the holidays.  All six were ex-Confederate soldiers in their twenties.  None had any known political affiliations or activities, nor did they found their little club for any such purpose.  Prove me wrong.

Moreover Tennessee had no political parties in 1865 anyway.  It was not a part of the United States, and when it had been a part of the CSA, that country had no political parties.

Here's the plaque put up on that building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski, Tennessee exactly one hundred years ago, by the Daughters of the Confederacy, showing those same names:




That Klan was out of their hands within a few months and extinguished altogether within a decade.

Exactly fifty years less one month later, Thanksgiving Day 1915, one William Joseph "Colonel Joe" Simmons, a former Methodist minister, salesman, irrepressible club-joiner and con man, took several minions up Stone Mountain outside Atlanta in a rented bus, and re-founded it as the "_Knights of_ the Ku Klux Klan", complete with burning cross taken directly from the movie "Birth of a Nation" that he was emulating, and registered it with the state of Georgia.  Simmons' purpose was to exploit the notoriety of that film by providing a real-life Klan as portrayed in the movie that people could join, and thereby make money from memberships (which he did).

There was no one named "Wilson" present.  There were however ex-members of the "Knights of Mary Phagan" including Simmons himself, a lynch mob that had captured and hung Leo Frank, a Jew accused of murder on shaky evidence.

Simmons also had no known political affiliation or activity.  Prove me wrong.

His Klan however, once he too lost control of it, was dabbling in politics in the 1920s, opposing blacks, Catholics, Jews, immigrants and labor unions ----------- all of which happen to be Democratic Party constituents.  And they pushed lots of Republicans where it served their interests (Baker - Oregon; Morley and Means - Colorado; Jackson - Indiana; Brewster - Maine; and a slew of local offices) and opposed Democrats who didn't serve them, as in the aforementioned Underwood and Al Smith:

>> The Ku Klux Klan continued to be a powerful force in America, with a membership that historians now estimate as high as two to four million. When Smith's campaign train headed West, it was met by burning crosses on the hills and explosions from dynamite charges echoing across the prairies. Klansmen and other religious bigots swayed ignorant voters by telling them that the Catholic Smith, having supposedly sworn fealty to the pope, would turn the United States over to "Romanism and Ruin." *Protestant ministers told their congregations that if Smith became president, all non-Catholic marriages would be annulled and all children of these marriages declared illegitimate. *Preachers even warned their congregations that if they voted for Al Smith, they would go straight to hell. << -- _Dirty Campaigning in the Roaring Twenties_
​--- that sound like what a "Democratic" outfit would be doing?  Undermining its own candidates?

Dumbass.

Oh and btw that state charter that Simmons filed to make his Klan official?  It was revoked in the 1940s by Governor Ellis Arnall.  A Democrat.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> 1.George Wallace votes went to Democrats.
> 
> *Wallace was a Democrat, and the same people who voted for Wallace voted Democrat...*
> Slavers, segregationists, and other racists.



Oh goody.  Somebody brings up Wallace.  That leads us to two fun facts.

One, by way of correction, Wallace ran his 1968 Presidential campaign with the American Independent Party, a far-right wacko group based in California.  His goal, as was his 1948 "Dixiecrat" predecessors', was to siphon off enough electoral votes to throw the election into the House of Reps.  Both attempts failed, although not by much.

And two, four years earlier in 1964, Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to serve as his running mate, offering to switch parties and become a Republican.  Goldwater wisely declined the offer.


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, I am asking again that you name five southern, white, racist, *elected officials* that switched from Democrat to Republican party. Just five...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
> 
> Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
> George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.
> 
> Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're not answering the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Martin Luther King Jr. answers the question quite well on my behalf
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
Click to expand...


You think you're funny with repeating that quote, but you're actually stuck on stupid.

First of all, you can say there was a "party switch" without admitting that Democrats were racist to begin with.

Second, leftist get their head stuck even deeper in their asses when they try to back their "party switch" claim with the fact that those "racist states" are all red states now. That doesn't mean what you think it means, that "those states are still racist". What it does mean is that Republicans beat racism, since those states are waaaaaay less racist now that they're Republican leaning states. By the way, when they were Democrat states there was lynching, harassment, crosses burning, segregation, etc.

And last, you do know that MLK was fighting Democrats, since they were ones denying blacks right to vote. Democrats had him jailed, the same ones who demand that Rosa Parks give up the seat to white folks. He was fighting Democrats who were hosing people on the street, releasing dogs on them. MLK saw wave after wave of Democrat institutionalized racism, but because of couple of cherry picks like Goldwater or Thurmond, and a quote you keep repeating you claim that MLK rejected Republicans and side himself with Democrat party? You do know that it was a Democrat who shot MLK, do ya?

You lefties do not own MLK legacy, he criticized Republicans in one or two passages of his book,  but what you are not saying is that his whole life work was about fighting against everything that *Democrats* did to black people. Got it?


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> The KKK was never connected with a national political party.  It supported or opposed anybody who would serve its interests.  In the convention referenced in the OP it supported McAdoo and opposed Underwood and Smith, all of them Democrats.  In Oregon it got a mayor and a governor elected, one from each party.  It was never there to play politics --- it has always been a self-appointed social police force.



The Klan was always connected especially to Democrats. They were always considered the militant arm of Democrat party, similar to brown shirts of Nazi party. 

Do you know who this is?







Would it help if I say he was life long Democrat?


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> .





> On the evening of March 21, 1915, *President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION*, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon.


*
PBS*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
> 
> Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
> George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.
> 
> Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're not answering the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Martin Luther King Jr. answers the question quite well on my behalf
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think you're funny with repeating that quote, but you're actually stuck on stupid.
> 
> First of all, you can say there was a "party switch" without admitting that Democrats were racist to begin with.
> 
> Second, leftist get their head stuck even deeper in their asses when they try to back their "party switch" claim with the fact that those "racist states" are all red states now. That doesn't mean what you think it means, that "those states are still racist". What it does mean is that Republicans beat racism, since those states are waaaaaay less racist now that they're Republican leaning states. By the way, when they were Democrat states there was lynching, harassment, crosses burning, segregation, etc.
> 
> And last, you do know that MLK was fighting Democrats, since they were ones denying blacks right to vote. Democrats had him jailed, the same ones who demand that Rosa Parks give up the seat to white folks. He was fighting Democrats who were hosing people on the street, releasing dogs on them. MLK saw wave after wave of Democrat institutionalized racism, but because of couple of cherry picks like Goldwater or Thurmond, and a quote you keep repeating you claim that MLK rejected Republicans and side himself with Democrat party? You do know that it was a Democrat who shot MLK, do ya?
> 
> You lefties do not own MLK legacy, he criticized Republicans in one or two passages of his book,  but what you are not saying is that his whole life work was about fighting against everything that *Democrats* did to black people. Got it?
Click to expand...




And, of course, there never was any such 'party switch.'

Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.


I'm really pleased that the current President isn't the racist that Democrat/Liberal LBJ was, the one who continued the policies of separating Americans based on their skin color....'affirmative action.'


Kinda like that John Kerry thing.....the Democrats were for racism before they were for racism.



*"NYT: Trump administration prepares to investigate 'race-based discrimination'
Washington (CNN)The Trump administration is readying resources in the Justice Department's civil rights division for the purpose of investigating and litigating "race-based discrimination" in US higher education, potentially with the aim of protecting white applicants from discrimination through affirmative action, The New York Times reported Tuesday."
NYT: Trump administration prepares to investigate 'race-based discrimination' - CNNPolitics.com



Can I get an 'amen'!!!!!*


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK was never connected with a national political party.  It supported or opposed anybody who would serve its interests.  In the convention referenced in the OP it supported McAdoo and opposed Underwood and Smith, all of them Democrats.  In Oregon it got a mayor and a governor elected, one from each party.  It was never there to play politics --- it has always been a self-appointed social police force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan was always connected especially to Democrats. They were always considered the militant arm of Democrat party, similar to brown shirts of Nazi party.
> 
> Do you know who this is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it help if I say he was life long Democrat?
Click to expand...


That would be Hiram Wesley Evans, "Imperial Wizard" (hence the dunce cap) who took over the national leadership of the Klan when Simmons was elbowed out.

And no, it wouldn't.  It was during Evans' tenure that the Klan was stirring up politics -- although Evans didn't run for anything himself, that was the period the Klan successfully pushed Owen Brewster in Maine, Ed Jackson in Indiana, Rice Means and Clarence Morley in Colorado, George Baker in Oregon, four of the five city council seats in Anaheim, and dozens of local offices from coast to coast.  He allegedly conspired with Brewster, after getting him elected governor, to sabotage the Senate candidacy of Arthur Gould, an anti-Klan candidate.  ALL of the aforementioned were Republicans.

>>  The Klan of the 1920s 'enrolled more members in Connecticut than in Mississippi, more in Oregon than in Louisiana, and more in New Jersey than in Alabama,' wrote historian Stanley Coben. Over half a million Klansmen lived in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Klan-backed candidates, all running on platforms both dry and xenophobic, were elected governor in Oregon, Colorado, and Kansas. <<  --- _The KKK and the Anti-Saloon League_​
It might be also in instructive to note that Maine, being as solidly Republican as the "solid South" was Democratic, saw two distinct factions at the time, pro-Klan Republicans like Brewster  and aniti-Klan Republicans.  In Maine, you either ran as a Republican, or you lost.  Getting nominated by the state party was tantamount to election.

So here's a Democrat, conspiring with a Republican, to push one Republican in and push another Republican out.  While simultaneously pushing other Republicans ---  or Democrats, whatever worked in a particular setting --- for the Klan's interests, and opposing other Democrats --- or Republicans --- who stood in the Klan's way such as Oscar Underwood and Al Smith during the aforementioned 1924 Democratic convention (and again opposing Smith, unsuccessfully, in 1928).  When that election was done, Evans took credit for getting Hoover elected, citing several Southern border states that had voted for the Republican.

Evans is also the guy who made noises in 1934 about going to campaign against Huey Long in Louisiana. The ever-bombastic Long declared "that Imperial bastard will never set foot in Louisiana" and that if he did he'd be leaving "with his toes turned up".  Evans backed down.

Again, even in its peak period of activity in the 1920s the KKK was never out for a politics agenda.  It would support or oppose any politician of any party (or no party at all) depending on who it could count on for support and who it couldn't.  Its interests were social, not political.  Campaigning against specific races, religions, behaviors, and requiring its own membership to be of a specific race and religion, are not political goals.  Whipping people for not going to church, or for being drunk or gambling, are not political ideals. They're moralistic ones.

>> [Regional King Kleagle Eugene] Farnsworth reportedly spoke at length about two classes in America: Catholics and Protestants. He stated that the Catholic Church held a number of political prisoners, and he expressed concern that there were increasing numbers of Catholic teachers in public schools, working as policemen in cities, and controlling the courts. *Farnsworth acknowledged that the Klan was a militant organization, with no political affiliations to a specific party.* He made “brief reference to the Negro as another problem and briefly to the Jews as another race that cannot be assimilated,” explaining that “the Catholics, Jews, and Negroes are clannish and stick together, while the native born Americans are constantly rowing with one another.” << -- _Maine's Gone Mad: Rising of the Klan_
​If the Klan had a political party forbear it would have been the nativist "Know Nothing" party, who incited riots against immigrants, and which supported the "Father of Prohibition" Neal Dow (one of the first Republican candidates) in 1855. The Temperance Movement, was (again) a_ social _cause.  The Know Nothings preached the same "100% American" spiel that the Klan was pushing 70 years later.


----------



## Ame®icano

PoliticalChic said:


> And, of course, there never was any such 'party switch.'
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.



Hey PC, I cut the rest because I want to add few words about the "party switch".

Leftist claims about "party switch" are primarily based on two facts. The first fact they point to is that whites in the south who used to be Democrats are today voting mostly for Republicans. The second fact is that blacks who used to vote Republican are today voting almost exclusively for Democrats. Those are facts and nobody is denying it.

What lefties are dishonest about is *when* blacks switched votes from Republican to Democrat party. If is truth that blacks switched to Democrats because of CRA and Republican racism, than the switch would happen in 70s and 80s. The actual "switch" happened in 30s, when Democrats were in their racist, segregationist, lynching prime time. If blacks left one party to join another because of racism of the first, they would never join Democrats because they were always, as you said above, party of slavery, segregation and second class citizenship. Within four years of FDR's New Deal, black voting for Democrats jumped from 15% to over 70%, everywhere except in southern states, where Democrats were still suppressing black votes with poll taxes and other barriers.

I just can't imagine how desperate blacks were back in time do leave the party of emancipation and Lincoln and joining the party of the KKK and Dixiecrats who were running the south as Democrats.

The second thing that lefties are dishonest about is *when* whites started switching to Republican party. No, it didn't happen because of CRA of 1964, or because of Goldwater, but later in 80s. And here are two more facts, the first is, as racism in the south was declining, the support for Republicans was increasing. The second fact is that least racist southerners became Republicans, and the most racists never became Republican, and with minor exceptions, they almost all stayed lifelong Democrats.

In order to prove "party switch", I asked lefties several times in this thread and elsewhere to provide five names of elected white southern Christian racist Democrats who became Republicans, and never got the answer, simply because there was no such thing, at least not in the terms lefties claiming it to be.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Ame®icano said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, there never was any such 'party switch.'
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey PC, I cut the rest because I want to add few words about the "party switch".
> 
> Leftist claims about "party switch" are primarily based on two facts. The first fact they point to is that whites in the south who used to be Democrats are today voting mostly for Republicans. The second fact is that blacks who used to vote Republican are today voting almost exclusively for Democrats. Those are facts and nobody is denying it.
> 
> What lefties are dishonest about is *when* blacks switched votes from Republican to Democrat party. If is truth that blacks switched to Democrats because of CRA and Republican racism, than the switch would happen in 70s and 80s. The actual "switch" happened in 30s, when Democrats were in their racist, segregationist, lynching prime time. If blacks left one party to join another because of racism of the first, they would never join Democrats because they were always, as you said above, party of slavery, segregation and second class citizenship. Within four years of FDR's New Deal, black voting for Democrats jumped from 15% to over 70%, everywhere except in southern states, where Democrats were still suppressing black votes with poll taxes and other barriers.
> 
> I just can't imagine how desperate blacks were back in time do leave the party of emancipation and Lincoln and joining the party of the KKK and Dixiecrats who were running the south as Democrats.
> 
> The second thing that lefties are dishonest about is *when* whites started switching to Republican party. No, it didn't happen because of CRA of 1964, or because of Goldwater, but later in 80s. And here are two more facts, the first is, as racism in the south was declining, the support for Republicans was increasing. The second fact is that least racist southerners became Republicans, and the most racists never became Republican, and with minor exceptions, they almost all stayed lifelong Democrats.
> 
> In order to prove "party switch", I asked lefties several times in this thread and elsewhere to provide five names of elected white southern Christian racist Democrats who became Republicans, and never got the answer, simply because there was no such thing, at least not in the terms lefties claiming it to be.
Click to expand...




The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.

It is eminently simple to prove how absurd the 'switched' ploy is....

Ask a Leftist, Democrat supporter what the chances are that, after a lifetime of believing as he does, arguing DNC talking points,  reading the NYTimes, and watching MSNBC, being indoctrinated...er, 'taught' in government schools, and watching Comedy Central for his news.....

.....what he thinks the chances would be that he woke up tomorrow praising Donald Trump's election and presidency, and voting Republican.


And that calculation represents the same chance that Republicans and conservatives, who formed a party to fight Democrats and slavery, suddenly decided to become racists.


None of the half-heads can answer that.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the evening of March 21, 1915, *President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION*, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> PBS*
Click to expand...


Your Wilson quote has been debunked as mythology.  There's no evidence Wilson said any such thing.


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK was never connected with a national political party.  It supported or opposed anybody who would serve its interests.  In the convention referenced in the OP it supported McAdoo and opposed Underwood and Smith, all of them Democrats.  In Oregon it got a mayor and a governor elected, one from each party.  It was never there to play politics --- it has always been a self-appointed social police force.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan was always connected especially to Democrats. They were always considered the militant arm of Democrat party, similar to brown shirts of Nazi party.
> 
> Do you know who this is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it help if I say he was life long Democrat?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That would be Hiram Wesley Evans, "Imperial Wizard" (hence the dunce cap) who took over the national leadership of the Klan when Simmons was elbowed out.
> 
> And no, it wouldn't.  It was during Evans' tenure that the Klan was stirring up politics -- although Evans didn't run for anything himself, that was the period the Klan successfully pushed Owen Brewster in Maine, Ed Jackson in Indiana, Rice Means and Clarence Morley in Colorado, George Baker in Oregon, four of the five city council seats in Anaheim, and dozens of local offices from coast to coast.  He allegedly conspired with Brewster, after getting him elected governor, to sabotage the Senate candidacy of Arthur Gould, an anti-Klan candidate.  ALL of the aforementioned were Republicans.
> 
> >>  The Klan of the 1920s 'enrolled more members in Connecticut than in Mississippi, more in Oregon than in Louisiana, and more in New Jersey than in Alabama,' wrote historian Stanley Coben. Over half a million Klansmen lived in Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. Klan-backed candidates, all running on platforms both dry and xenophobic, were elected governor in Oregon, Colorado, and Kansas. <<  --- _The KKK and the Anti-Saloon League_​
> It might be also in instructive to note that Maine, being as solidly Republican as the "solid South" was Democratic, saw two distinct factions at the time, pro-Klan Republicans like Brewster  and aniti-Klan Republicans.  So here's a Democrat, conspiring with a Republican, to push one Republican in and push another Republican out.  While simultaneously pushing other Republicans ---  or Democrats, whatever worked in a particular setting --- for the Klan's interests, and opposing other Democrats --- or Republicans --- who stood in the Klan's way such as Oscar Underwood and Al Smith during the aforementioned 1924 Democratic convention (and again opposing Smith, unsuccessfully, in 1928).  When that election was done, Evans took credit for getting Hoover elected, citing several Southern border states that had voted for the Republican.
> 
> Evans is also the guy who made noises in 1934 about going to campaign against Huey Long in Louisiana. The ever-bombastic Long declared "that Imperial bastard will never set foot in Louisiana" and that if he did he'd be leaving "with his toes turned up".  Evans backed down.
> 
> Again, even in its peak period of activity in the 1920s the KKK was never out for a politics agenda.  It would support or oppose any politician of any party (or no party at all) depending on who it could count on for support and who it couldn't.
> 
> >> [Regional King Kleagle Eugene] Farnsworth reportedly spoke at length about two classes in America: Catholics and Protestants. He stated that the Catholic Church held a number of political prisoners, and he expressed concern that there were increasing numbers of Catholic teachers in public schools, working as policemen in cities, and controlling the courts. *Farnsworth acknowledged that the Klan was a militant organization, with no political affiliations to a specific party.* He made “brief reference to the Negro as another problem and briefly to the Jews as another race that cannot be assimilated,” explaining that “the Catholics, Jews, and Negroes are clannish and stick together, while the native born Americans are constantly rowing with one another.” << -- _Maine's Gone Mad: Rising of the Klan_
Click to expand...


According to you previous posts and this one, with cherry picked excerpts from various links, KKK was almost exclusively Republican. I recommend book from Columbia professor Eric Foner: A Short Hostory of Reconstruction where he backs his writing with historical documents and facts.

"In effect, the Klan was a military force serving the interests of the Democratic party, the planter class, and all those who desired the restoration of white supremacy.  It aimed to destroy the Republican party’s infrastructure, undermine the Reconstruction state, reestablish control of the black labor force, and restore racial subordination in every aspect of Southern life."

Here is a good one, from Klan's Kourier magazine, September 1928 issue, the grandson of Nathaniel Bedford Forrest: "I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat.  My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat.  My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days….  My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat….  My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party."

Yeah Pogo, I am not denying that there were no KKK influence on Republican party back then. I am just saying that influence was coming thru from Democrats.


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the evening of March 21, 1915, *President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION*, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> PBS*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Wilson quote has been debunked as mythology.  There's no evidence Wilson said any such thing.
Click to expand...


Debunked? Unlike you, I provided a link.

 I suggest that you write to those right-wingers at PBS and ask them to remove it from their website.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the evening of March 21, 1915, *President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION*, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> PBS*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Wilson quote has been debunked as mythology.  There's no evidence Wilson said any such thing.
Click to expand...




The only thing worse that being the slime that you are, is being a lying-slime.


During Woodrow Wilson’s 1912 presidential campaign, he promised African Americans advancement. He stated, “Should I become President of the United States, [Negroes] [_sic_] may count upon me for absolute fair dealing and for everything by which I could assist in advancing the interests of their race in the United States.”(1)  Believing in his promise, many African Americans broke their affiliation with the Republican Party and voted for Wilson. He did not, however, fulfill the promises he made during the campaign to the African American community during his presidency. Less than a month after his March 4, 1913 inauguration,(2) President Wilson’s Administration took the first steps towards segregating the federal service.

1) Nancy J. Weiss, “The Negro and the New Freedom: Fighting Wilsonian Segregation” _Political Science Quarterly_ 84 (1969): 63.

2) “Presidential Inaugurations”, Library of Congress,U.S. Presidential Inaugurations: Resource Guides (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress),
(August 2, 2007).


The segregation implemented in the Department of Treasury and the Post Office Department involved not only screened-off working spaces, but separate lunchrooms and toilets. Other steps were taken by the Wilson Administration to make obtaining a civil service job more difficult. Primary among these was the requirement, begun in 1914, that all candidates for civil service jobs attach a photograph to their application(12) further allowing for discrimination in the hiring process.

National Postal Museum



As Jim Crow laws mushroomed in the wake of _Plessy v. Ferguson_ , African-Americans saw hope in the presidential campaign of Governor Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey in 1912. According to Wilson biographer Arthur S. Link, African-Americans strongly supported Wilson for President in the hope that he would treat them with compassion. In supporting Wilson, African-Americans had to overlook the fears raised by his Virginia birth. They also had to overlook the fact that as president of Princeton University he had prevented African-Americans from enrolling and that as a professor, university president, and Governor of New Jersey, he had never "lifted his voice in defense of the minority race," as Link put it.

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/road/s09.cfm


Author Jerrold M. Packard provided a less measured view of Wilson. He "wasn't a particularly vicious racist, but rather an intellectually convinced white supremacist who practiced the racial mores of his upbringing." Although he had courted the African-American vote and received more than any previous Democrat, he brought with him "not racial justice but instead Southern power and with it Southern racial mores." His segregation of the Federal workforce "resulted in weakening this exceptionally hard-won black presence in government." He appointed racist southerners to his Cabinet who "zealously followed their boss's lead." The entire workplace-work stations, cafeterias, rest rooms-was segregated. [Packard, Jerrold M., _American Nightmare: The History of Jim Crow_, St. Martins Griffin, 2002, p. 124]

Of course he'd show 'Birth of a Nation," you dunce.

Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.



Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.

More correctly these are "party _shifts_", evolving over time.  Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one.  In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded.  It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.

The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.

Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation.  By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now.  These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.

World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest.  This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia  --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.

Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.  

Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).  

The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable.  As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did.  FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924).  The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates.  Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.

Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won).  Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate.  Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.

Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give.  Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general.  When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended.  The divorce was, finally, final.  He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.

That's what the "party shifts" were.  The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party.  Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the evening of March 21, 1915, *President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION*, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> PBS*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Wilson quote has been debunked as mythology.  There's no evidence Wilson said any such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only thing worse that being the slime that you are, is being a lying-slime.
> 
> 
> During Woodrow Wilson’s 1912 presidential campaign, he promised African Americans advancement. He stated, “Should I become President of the United States, [Negroes] [_sic_] may count upon me for absolute fair dealing and for everything by which I could assist in advancing the interests of their race in the United States.”(1)  Believing in his promise, many African Americans broke their affiliation with the Republican Party and voted for Wilson. He did not, however, fulfill the promises he made during the campaign to the African American community during his presidency. Less than a month after his March 4, 1913 inauguration,(2) President Wilson’s Administration took the first steps towards segregating the federal service.
> 
> 1) Nancy J. Weiss, “The Negro and the New Freedom: Fighting Wilsonian Segregation” _Political Science Quarterly_ 84 (1969): 63.
> 
> 2) “Presidential Inaugurations”, Library of Congress,U.S. Presidential Inaugurations: Resource Guides (Virtual Programs & Services, Library of Congress),
> (August 2, 2007).
> 
> 
> The segregation implemented in the Department of Treasury and the Post Office Department involved not only screened-off working spaces, but separate lunchrooms and toilets. Other steps were taken by the Wilson Administration to make obtaining a civil service job more difficult. Primary among these was the requirement, begun in 1914, that all candidates for civil service jobs attach a photograph to their application(12) further allowing for discrimination in the hiring process.
> 
> National Postal Museum
> 
> 
> 
> As Jim Crow laws mushroomed in the wake of _Plessy v. Ferguson_ , African-Americans saw hope in the presidential campaign of Governor Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey in 1912. According to Wilson biographer Arthur S. Link, African-Americans strongly supported Wilson for President in the hope that he would treat them with compassion. In supporting Wilson, African-Americans had to overlook the fears raised by his Virginia birth. They also had to overlook the fact that as president of Princeton University he had prevented African-Americans from enrolling and that as a professor, university president, and Governor of New Jersey, he had never "lifted his voice in defense of the minority race," as Link put it.
> 
> https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/highwayhistory/road/s09.cfm
> 
> 
> Author Jerrold M. Packard provided a less measured view of Wilson. He "wasn't a particularly vicious racist, but rather an intellectually convinced white supremacist who practiced the racial mores of his upbringing." Although he had courted the African-American vote and received more than any previous Democrat, he brought with him "not racial justice but instead Southern power and with it Southern racial mores." His segregation of the Federal workforce "resulted in weakening this exceptionally hard-won black presence in government." He appointed racist southerners to his Cabinet who "zealously followed their boss's lead." The entire workplace-work stations, cafeterias, rest rooms-was segregated. [Packard, Jerrold M., _American Nightmare: The History of Jim Crow_, St. Martins Griffin, 2002, p. 124]
> 
> Of course he'd show 'Birth of a Nation," you dunce.
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Click to expand...


Wilson was a racist asshole.  I've said that the entire time I've been here.  He was a Southerner who spent his boyhood around Augusta Georgia and was a toddler during the Civil War.

The movie was screened for Wilson, that's true.  But there's no evidence he made the statement in the link.  That is a myth.  And he certainly did not charge up Stone Mountain with "Colonel" Joe Simmons in 1915 to restart the Klan, as the previous poster ridiculously claimed.

Wilson in fact got into office with something like 42% of the popular vote.  That's because the Republican Party snubbed the bombastic guy from New York who actually won most of the primaries, and went with the more conservative corporatist guy from Ohio.  That split the vote three ways, and the Republican candy came in third.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.
> 
> More correctly these are "party _shifts_", evolving over time.  Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one.  In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded.  It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.
> 
> The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.
> 
> Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation.  By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now.  These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.
> 
> World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest.  This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia  --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.
> 
> Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.
> 
> Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).
> 
> The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable.  As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did.  FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924).  The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates.  Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.
> 
> Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won).  Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate.  Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.
> 
> Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give.  Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general.  When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended.  The divorce was, finally, final.  He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.
> 
> That's what the "party shifts" were.  The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party.  Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.
Click to expand...



Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.


The simplest proof is that the first or second most popular Democrat elected official, Bill Clinton.....personification of the Democrat Party.....has always ......always....

...been a life-long racist.





Fits that party perfectly.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.



Slavery doesn't have a "party".  It's a _social_ construct.  It has existed as a general practice throughout the world on every continent, and as our own racism-based transatlantic version since the 1500s. long long LONG before there was a country here or any political parties.  If you insist on playing stupid with your juvenile Composition Fallacies, you'll find that the political parties of Presidents who owned slaves included Democratic, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican (unrelated to either) and No Party At All (George Washington).

But you might be interested to know that the guy who organized the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren ---- was himself an Abolitionist.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't have a "party".  It's a _social_ construct.  It has existed as a general practice throughout the world on every continent, and as our own racism-based transatlantic version since the 1500s. long long LONG before there was a country here or any political parties.  If you insist on playing stupid with your juvenile Composition Fallacies, you'll find that the political parties of Presidents who owned slaves included Democratic, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican (unrelated to either) and No Party At All (George Washington).
> 
> But you might be interested to know that the guy who organized the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren ---- was himself an Abolitionist.
Click to expand...



By now, everyone knows you to be a liar and an apologist for this:
Democrats ... the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the evening of March 21, 1915, *President Woodrow Wilson attended a special screening at the White House of THE BIRTH OF A NATION*, a film directed by D.W. Griffith and based on THE CLANSMAN, a novel written by Wilson's good friend Thomas Dixon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> PBS*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your Wilson quote has been debunked as mythology.  There's no evidence Wilson said any such thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Debunked? Unlike you, I provided a link.
> 
> I suggest that you write to those right-wingers at PBS and ask them to remove it from their website.
Click to expand...


I can't control sloppy research on PBS or any other outside site.  But I can do so here.

>> Dixon [who had written The Clansman, on which _Birth of a Nation_ was based] conceived a bold scheme -- to arrange a private showing of the film at the White House and thereby to obtain the President's implied endorsement. [41]

Wilson fell into Dixon's trap, as indeed, did also members of the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress. Then, when the N.A.A.C.P. sought to prevent the showing of "The Birth of a Nation" in New York, Boston, and other cities, Dixon’s lawyers countered successfully by declaring that Chief Justice had seen the movie and liked it immensely. [42]

The Chief Justice, a Confederate veteran from Louisiana, put an end to the use of his name by threatening to denounce "The Birth of a Nation" publicly if Dixon did not stop saying that he had endorsed it. [43] Perceiving the political dangers in the situation, Tumulty suggested that Wilson write "some sort of a letter showing that he did not approve of the 'Birth of a Nation.'" [44] "I would like to do this," the President replied, "if there were some way in which I could do it without seeming to be trying to meet the agitation . . . stirred up by that unspeakable fellow Tucker [Trotter]." [45] He did, however, let Tumulty say that he had at no time approved the film; and three years later, when the nation was at war, he strongly disapproved the showing of this “unfortunate production." [46]

[41] Dixon tells the story in "Southern Horizons: An Autobiography," unpublished MS. in the possession of Mrs. Thomas Dixon, Raleigh, North Carolina, pp. 423-424.
[42] For accounts of the hearings in New York and Boston, see Mrs. Walter Damrosch to J.P. Tumulty, March 27, 1915, Wilson Papers; Mrs. Harriet Beale to J.P. Tumulty, March 29, 1915, _ibid._; Representative Thomas C. Thacher of Massachusetts to J.P. Tumulty, April 17, 1915, ibid. enclosing letters and documents relating to the hearing in Boston; and Thomas Dixon, "Southern Horizons," pp. 425-441.
[43] E.D. White to J.P. Tumulty, April 5, 1915, Wilson Papers.
[44] J.P. Tumulty to W.W., April 24, 1915, _ibid_.
[45] W.W. to J.P. Tumulty, c. April 25, 1915, _ibid_.
[46] J.P. Tumulty to T.C. Thacher, April 28, 1915, _ibid_.; W.W. to J.P. Tumulty, c. April 22, 1918, _ibid_.

--- _Wilson: The New Freedom_. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1956; pp. 253-254 <<
​Wiki:
>> Wilson was falsely reported to have said about the film, "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true".[37] Wilson's aide, Joseph Tumulty, denied the claims and said that "the President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."[38] *Historians believe the quote attributed to Wilson originated with Dixon, who was relentless in publicizing the film.* After controversy over the film had grown, Wilson wrote that he disapproved of the "unfortunate production".[39] <<​
Then from Lenning, ""Myth and fact: The reception of The Birth of a Nation," _Film History_ 16(2): 117-141, 2004:

>> Wilson was impressed with the work, which echoed his own views as offered in his _History of the American People_ (1902) ... and he reputedly said that it was like 'writing history with lightning ... My only regret is that it is all too true.' Although this remark has often been cited, its provenance remains hazy. It seems to have stemmed from an interview conducted with Griffith only a few days after the White House showing and printed in the _New York American_ on 28 February 1915. In it, *Griffith claimed that the film 'received very high praise from high quarters in Washington' and explained that 'I was gratified when a man we all revere, or ought to, said it teaches history by lightning'.* [57] (Notice the discrepancy between 'writing' his story and 'teaching' it. There is no mention of 'My only regret is that it is all too true'.) [p. 122]​
The quote was originally alleged to have appeared in the New York Evening Post March 4, 1915, which is commonly cited as a source.  However no such publication has ever been found.  It appears to be a piece of propaganda propagated by Dixon, by implication.

--- unless of course you can cite a properly documented source.


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't have a "party".  It's a _social_ construct.  It has existed as a general practice throughout the world on every continent, and as our own racism-based transatlantic version since the 1500s. long long LONG before there was a country here or any political parties.  If you insist on playing stupid with your juvenile Composition Fallacies, you'll find that the political parties of Presidents who owned slaves included Democratic, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican (unrelated to either) and No Party At All (George Washington).
> 
> But you might be interested to know that the guy who organized the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren ---- was himself an Abolitionist.
Click to expand...


I do Agree that America did not invented slavery and that it existed for millenniums before us. I do not agree however that slavery doesn't have a party. That would be true if what you said is true, that all parties had slave owners. But it's not truth, since no Republican ever owned a slave, meaning that, before Civil war, all 4 million slaves in America were owned exclusively by Democrats.


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> ​Wiki:
> >> Wilson was falsely reported to have said about the film, "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true".[37] Wilson's aide, Joseph Tumulty, denied the claims and said that "the President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."[38] *Historians believe the quote attributed to Wilson originated with Dixon, who was relentless in publicizing the film.* After controversy over the film had grown, Wilson wrote that he disapproved of the "unfortunate production".[39] <<



I wouldn't rely on Wiki much. It's not truth that Wilson didn't know the nature of the play. They changed the name of the movie before they showed it to him. The found that movie itself had a Wilson quote in it, and according to PBS: "After seeing the film, an enthusiastic Wilson reportedly remarked: "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."




Once again, I recommend reading Eric Forner's Short History of Reconstruction, since he spent years on researching the issue.

​


----------



## PoliticalChic

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't have a "party".  It's a _social_ construct.  It has existed as a general practice throughout the world on every continent, and as our own racism-based transatlantic version since the 1500s. long long LONG before there was a country here or any political parties.  If you insist on playing stupid with your juvenile Composition Fallacies, you'll find that the political parties of Presidents who owned slaves included Democratic, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican (unrelated to either) and No Party At All (George Washington).
> 
> But you might be interested to know that the guy who organized the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren ---- was himself an Abolitionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do Agree that America did not invented slavery and that it existed for millenniums before us. I do not agree however that slavery doesn't have a party. That would be true if what you said is true, that all parties had slave owners. But it's not truth, since no Republican ever owned a slave, meaning that, before Civil war, all 4 million slaves in America were owned exclusively by Democrats.
Click to expand...



Yup.....the Democrat Party is and has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.....


.....and of dunces.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ​Wiki:
> >> Wilson was falsely reported to have said about the film, "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true".[37] Wilson's aide, Joseph Tumulty, denied the claims and said that "the President was entirely unaware of the nature of the play before it was presented and at no time has expressed his approbation of it."[38] *Historians believe the quote attributed to Wilson originated with Dixon, who was relentless in publicizing the film.* After controversy over the film had grown, Wilson wrote that he disapproved of the "unfortunate production".[39] <<
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't rely on Wiki much. It's not truth that Wilson didn't know the nature of the play. They changed the name of the movie before they showed it to him. The found that movie itself had a Wilson quote in it, and according to PBS: "After seeing the film, an enthusiastic Wilson reportedly remarked: "It is like writing history with lightning, and my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, I recommend reading Eric Forner's Short History of Reconstruction, since he spent years on researching the issue.
Click to expand...



And once again, in case it flew by the first time ---- that quote has no reliable source.  It's one of those memes that gets repeated over and over, like Willie Sutton's "thats's where the money is" when asked why he robs banks.  There's no evidence that it actually happened.  There* is* evidence that somebody made it up, in this case Thomas Dixon to hype his own film.

I don't know if that's a real frame from the film or not but it's plausible since Wilson had written history books long before the film.  That offers no evidence of the quote that would have had to come AFTER the film, so it's irrelevant.

Again, prove us all wrong --- show the world an actual _source_.

Here's another one I neglected to post yesterday:

>> As a ploy to gain publicity and counter NAACP protests, Dixon called at the White House and disingenuously asked his old acquaintance [Wilson] to show the film there.  Dixon bragged afterward that he had hidden "the real purpose of my film," which was to spread southern white racial attitudes in the North: "What I told the President was that I would show him the birth of a new art-- the launching of the mightiest engine for moulding public opinion in the history of the world."13

Wilson fell into the trap.  On February 18, Dixon and a projection crew gave the president, his family, cabinet officers, and their wives a showing of _The Birth of a Nation_ in the East Room of the White House.  How Wilson reacted is a matter of dispute.  *Twenty-two years later*, a magazine writer alleged that he had said about the film, "It is like writing history with lightning. And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true."  It is extremely doubtful that Wilson uttered these words, and Dixon did not quote them in his later memoirs.  Sixty-two years later, the last person then living who had been at the showing recalled that the president did not seem to pay much attention to the movie and left when it was over without saying a word.  Regardless of what he did or did not say, Dixon and Griffith soon touted the event and insinuated that _The Birth of a Nation_ enjoyed a presidential seal of approval.24  << 
_--- Woodrow Wilson: A Biography (Cooper, Vintage Books 2011)_​
Visible on Google Books here

This "insinuation" would be the movie poster hype I posted yesterday that implies but does not name a "very prominent figure".  "History written with lightning" of course sounds like self-hype to push the technological advance that, for all its faults The Birth of a Nation was for its time.  Dixon's estimation of the motion picture as the mightiest engine for moulding public opinion in the history of the world" was perhaps true temporarily, as Television, which would dwarf the motion picture as a propaganda device,  lay a few decades in the future.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't have a "party".  It's a _social_ construct.  It has existed as a general practice throughout the world on every continent, and as our own racism-based transatlantic version since the 1500s. long long LONG before there was a country here or any political parties.  If you insist on playing stupid with your juvenile Composition Fallacies, you'll find that the political parties of Presidents who owned slaves included Democratic, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican (unrelated to either) and No Party At All (George Washington).
> 
> But you might be interested to know that the guy who organized the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren ---- was himself an Abolitionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do Agree that America did not invented slavery and that it existed for millenniums before us. I do not agree however that slavery doesn't have a party. That would be true if what you said is true, that all parties had slave owners. But it's not truth, since no Republican ever owned a slave, meaning that, before Civil war, all 4 million slaves in America were owned exclusively by Democrats.
Click to expand...


Nope.  Again, counting only Presidents, which is a tiny population --- George Washington owned hundreds of slaves, and had no party at all.  Jefferson, Madison, Monroe all owned slaves and they were Democratic-Republicans, unrelated to either contemporary party.  Jackson owned slaves and was elected before "Democrats" existed.  William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor owned slaves and they were Whigs.  And the last POTUS to have been a slaveowner was Republican Ulysses Grant.  Then there were other slaveholder candidates who didn't win like John Bell (Constitutional Unionist, former Whig) and Henry Clay who had been a Democratic-Republican, a Whig and a National Republican ("Know Nothing").  You can look all this up.  You can also attack the messenger and trash Wiki all you like but it's _sourced_.  Again, it's those _sources _you have to disprove.

The Whigs, which originated as "anti-Jacksonians" before they were a formal party, actually disintegrated because they couldn't come to common agreement ON slavery.  Some favored keeping it, some favored abolishing it.  Bell mentioned above was a slaveowner who opposed its expansion.  In the first four score and seven years, politically there was a whole lot of running away from the issue and hoping it would just magically go away. 

Coincidentally Bell also won (1860) the same Southern states that Klan "Imperial Wizard" Evans above took credit for swaying to Herbert Hoover in 1928.

That's just Presidential candidates, which has nothing to do with slavery ---- obviously you didn't need to hold office to hold slaves.  You didn't need to be a politician --- you didn't even need to have a political party.  Had that been the case we would have needed political parties on this continent for five hundred years.  Landowners owned slaves for labor, just as, in the thinking of that time, they owned cattle.  There's nothing "political" in that.  It's a social construct referring to how you think the economic world works.  In other eras how the world works would have involved serfs, sharecroppers, migrant field workers or third world sweatshops.  

Matter of fact this country's (failure to) address slavery is one of the origins of the Electoral College.  Southern slaveholders, who made up four of the first five Presidents all from Virginia, wanted to award themselves more power than their population warranted, so the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise allowed them Congressional representation based on counting three-fifths of their slaves for the purpose of representation demographics, while awarding those slaves zero-fifths of a vote or any Constitutional rights.  It could have been described as "representation without representation is tyranny".  The first two non-slaveowner POTUSes, who were also the first two not from the South, who were both named Adams, had a hell of a time breaking through that stacked deck.  And they each got limited to one term in contrast to two each for the Virginians, one of whom was elected unopposed.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.
> 
> More correctly these are "party _shifts_", evolving over time.  Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one.  In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded.  It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.
> 
> The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.
> 
> Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation.  By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now.  These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.
> 
> World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest.  This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia  --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.
> 
> Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.
> 
> Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).
> 
> The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable.  As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did.  FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924).  The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates.  Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.
> 
> Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won).  Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate.  Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.
> 
> Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give.  Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general.  When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended.  The divorce was, finally, final.  He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.
> 
> That's what the "party shifts" were.  The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party.  Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> The simplest proof is that the first or second most popular Democrat elected official, Bill Clinton.....personification of the Democrat Party.....has always ......always....
> 
> ...been a life-long racist.
> 
> 
> Fits that party perfectly.
Click to expand...


You genuinely have no clue what a Composition Fallacy is, do you?

That's soooo cute.   Perhaps that spandex is inhibiting cranial circulation.

Lemme give you a hint.





​From this, of course, we may conclude that all Republicans are named "David".
Just as all Democrats are named "Bill".

Of course this also means that anyone named "Bill" is a Democrat 



--- and anyone name "David" is a Republican.



​--- see how that works?

Nah, you probably don't.


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Again, prove us all wrong --- show the world an actual _source_



I'm puzzled here. You keep asking me to show source for the quote...

First, what quote you're referring to?
Second, why you keep asking me?


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't have a "party".  It's a _social_ construct.  It has existed as a general practice throughout the world on every continent, and as our own racism-based transatlantic version since the 1500s. long long LONG before there was a country here or any political parties.  If you insist on playing stupid with your juvenile Composition Fallacies, you'll find that the political parties of Presidents who owned slaves included Democratic, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican (unrelated to either) and No Party At All (George Washington).
> 
> But you might be interested to know that the guy who organized the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren ---- was himself an Abolitionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do Agree that America did not invented slavery and that it existed for millenniums before us. I do not agree however that slavery doesn't have a party. That would be true if what you said is true, that all parties had slave owners. But it's not truth, since no Republican ever owned a slave, meaning that, before Civil war, all 4 million slaves in America were owned exclusively by Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Again, counting only Presidents, which is a tiny population --- George Washington owned hundreds of slaves, and had no party at all.  Jefferson, Madison, Monroe all owned slaves and they were Democratic-Republicans, unrelated to either contemporary party.  Jackson owned slaves and was elected before "Democrats" existed.  William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor owned slaves and they were Whigs.  And the last POTUS to have been a slaveowner was Republican Ulysses Grant.  Then there were other slaveholder candidates who didn't win like John Bell (Constitutional Unionist, former Whig) and Henry Clay who had been a Democratic-Republican, a Whig and a National Republican ("Know Nothing").  You can look all this up.  You can also attack the messenger and trash Wiki all you like but it's _sourced_.  Again, it's those _sources _you have to disprove.
> 
> The Whigs, which originated as "anti-Jacksonians" before they were a formal party, actually disintegrated because they couldn't come to common agreement ON slavery.  Some favored keeping it, some favored abolishing it.  Bell mentioned above was a slaveowner who opposed its expansion.  In the first four score and seven years, politically there was a whole lot of running away from the issue and hoping it would just magically go away.
> 
> Coincidentally Bell also won (1860) the same Southern states that Klan "Imperial Wizard" Evans above took credit for swaying to Herbert Hoover in 1928.
> 
> That's just Presidential candidates, which has nothing to do with slavery ---- obviously you didn't need to hold office to hold slaves.  You didn't need to be a politician --- you didn't even need to have a political party.  Had that been the case we would have needed political parties on this continent for five hundred years.  Landowners owned slaves for labor, just as, in the thinking of that time, they owned cattle.  There's nothing "political" in that.  It's a social construct referring to how you think the economic world works.  In other eras how the world works would have involved serfs, sharecroppers, migrant field workers or third world sweatshops.
> 
> Matter of fact this country's (failure to) address slavery is one of the origins of the Electoral College.  Southern slaveholders, who made up four of the first five Presidents all from Virginia, wanted to award themselves more power than their population warranted, so the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise allowed them Congressional representation based on counting three-fifths of their slaves for the purpose of representation demographics, while awarding those slaves zero-fifths of a vote or any Constitutional rights.  It could have been described as "representation without representation is tyranny".  The first two non-slaveowner POTUSes, who were also the first two not from the South, who were both named Adams, had a hell of a time breaking through that stacked deck.  And they each got limited to one term in contrast to two each for the Virginians, one of whom was elected unopposed.
Click to expand...


Lets begin with this...

When Republican party was formed?

Once you answer that, you'll see that most of your post above is not relevant to Republican party.

Second question, why Republican party was formed?

And third, what I said above is truth, on the brink of Civil War no Republican owned a slave. It's truth that Ulysses Grant owned a slave that he inherited from his father-in-law, and he freed him. What you did not mention about Grant is, at the time he inherited that slave he was a Democrat.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.
> 
> More correctly these are "party _shifts_", evolving over time.  Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one.  In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded.  It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.
> 
> The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.
> 
> Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation.  By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now.  These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.
> 
> World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest.  This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia  --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.
> 
> Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.
> 
> Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).
> 
> The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable.  As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did.  FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924).  The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates.  Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.
> 
> Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won).  Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate.  Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.
> 
> Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give.  Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general.  When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended.  The divorce was, finally, final.  He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.
> 
> That's what the "party shifts" were.  The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party.  Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> The simplest proof is that the first or second most popular Democrat elected official, Bill Clinton.....personification of the Democrat Party.....has always ......always....
> 
> ...been a life-long racist.
> 
> 
> Fits that party perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You genuinely have no clue what a Composition Fallacy is, do you?
> 
> That's soooo cute.   Perhaps that spandex is inhibiting cranial circulation.
> 
> Lemme give you a hint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​From this, of course, we may conclude that all Republicans are named "David".
> Just as all Democrats are named "Bill".
> 
> Of course this also means that anyone named "Bill" is a Democrat
> 
> 
> 
> --- and anyone name "David" is a Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> ​--- see how that works?
> 
> Nah, you probably don't.
Click to expand...





You are currently a lying low-life, and, no need to re-monogram those towels...you'll always be a lying low-life.



David Duke....the Democrat.

State Senator, 1975 (Baton Rouge Area)[edit]
Threshold > 50%

First Ballot, November 1, 1975

Louisiana State Senate, 1975
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Kenneth Osterberger 22,287 66
Democratic David Duke 11,079 33
N/A Others 1
Total 100
State Senator, 10th District, 1979 (Suburban New Orleans)[edit]
Threshold > 50% First Ballot, October 27, 1979

Louisiana State Senate, 10th District, 1979
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Joseph Tiemann 21,329 57
Democratic David Duke 9,897 26
N/A Others 6,459 17
Total 37,685 100
Democratic Nomination for United States Presidential Candidate, 1988 (Louisiana results)[edit]
Threshold = Plurality

1988 Democratic Presidential primary in Louisiana
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Jesse Jackson 221,522 35
Democratic Al Gore 174,971 28
Democratic Michael Dukakis 95,661 15
Democratic Dick Gephardt 67,029 11
Democratic Gary Hart 26,437 4
Democratic David Duke 23,391 4
Democratic Others 16,008 3
Total 625,019 100
Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia


----------



## paperview

There's a reason the lying wench PC cuts off David Duke's electoral history at 1988.


----------



## PoliticalChic

paperview said:


> There's a reason the lying wench PC cuts off David Duke's electoral history at 1988.




What I posted was absolute fact.

I never lie.


Now, half-head....here's a question you can't answer: was I accurate and correct????


----------



## paperview

What happened after 1988, chicky?


----------



## PoliticalChic

paperview said:


> What happened after 1988, chicky?




Now, half-head....here's a question you can't answer:* was I accurate and correct????

The answer, of course, is 'yes....totally accurate and correct.'
*

As I predicted: you were far too much a low-life to answer.


You said I lied....I never lie....but we just proved that you do.



Now....do you have the class to apologize....or are you a Liberal?


----------



## PoliticalChic

paperview said:


> What happened after 1988, chicky?




Hey.....don't try to slither away, low-life.

1. I was totally accurate in showing David Duke to be, in both his formative years, when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.



2. As you have been trained to toss the word 'racist' at anyone who disagrees with Liberal propaganda, let's remember that the most frequent visitor to Obama, in the White House was racist Al Sharpton.



3. The Democrats have always been associated with racism. The Democrat icon Franklin Roosevelt, in fact, made a KKKer his very first pick for the Supreme Court:

. "... [Hugo] Black was head of new members for *the largest Klan cell in the South*. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]



And so.....once again, we find:

You: Paper-weight

Me: Pay-per-View


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't have a "party".  It's a _social_ construct.  It has existed as a general practice throughout the world on every continent, and as our own racism-based transatlantic version since the 1500s. long long LONG before there was a country here or any political parties.  If you insist on playing stupid with your juvenile Composition Fallacies, you'll find that the political parties of Presidents who owned slaves included Democratic, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican (unrelated to either) and No Party At All (George Washington).
> 
> But you might be interested to know that the guy who organized the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren ---- was himself an Abolitionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I do Agree that America did not invented slavery and that it existed for millenniums before us. I do not agree however that slavery doesn't have a party. That would be true if what you said is true, that all parties had slave owners. But it's not truth, since no Republican ever owned a slave, meaning that, before Civil war, all 4 million slaves in America were owned exclusively by Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Again, counting only Presidents, which is a tiny population --- George Washington owned hundreds of slaves, and had no party at all.  Jefferson, Madison, Monroe all owned slaves and they were Democratic-Republicans, unrelated to either contemporary party.  Jackson owned slaves and was elected before "Democrats" existed.  William Henry Harrison and Zachary Taylor owned slaves and they were Whigs.  And the last POTUS to have been a slaveowner was Republican Ulysses Grant.  Then there were other slaveholder candidates who didn't win like John Bell (Constitutional Unionist, former Whig) and Henry Clay who had been a Democratic-Republican, a Whig and a National Republican ("Know Nothing").  You can look all this up.  You can also attack the messenger and trash Wiki all you like but it's _sourced_.  Again, it's those _sources _you have to disprove.
> 
> The Whigs, which originated as "anti-Jacksonians" before they were a formal party, actually disintegrated because they couldn't come to common agreement ON slavery.  Some favored keeping it, some favored abolishing it.  Bell mentioned above was a slaveowner who opposed its expansion.  In the first four score and seven years, politically there was a whole lot of running away from the issue and hoping it would just magically go away.
> 
> Coincidentally Bell also won (1860) the same Southern states that Klan "Imperial Wizard" Evans above took credit for swaying to Herbert Hoover in 1928.
> 
> That's just Presidential candidates, which has nothing to do with slavery ---- obviously you didn't need to hold office to hold slaves.  You didn't need to be a politician --- you didn't even need to have a political party.  Had that been the case we would have needed political parties on this continent for five hundred years.  Landowners owned slaves for labor, just as, in the thinking of that time, they owned cattle.  There's nothing "political" in that.  It's a social construct referring to how you think the economic world works.  In other eras how the world works would have involved serfs, sharecroppers, migrant field workers or third world sweatshops.
> 
> Matter of fact this country's (failure to) address slavery is one of the origins of the Electoral College.  Southern slaveholders, who made up four of the first five Presidents all from Virginia, wanted to award themselves more power than their population warranted, so the infamous Three-Fifths Compromise allowed them Congressional representation based on counting three-fifths of their slaves for the purpose of representation demographics, while awarding those slaves zero-fifths of a vote or any Constitutional rights.  It could have been described as "representation without representation is tyranny".  The first two non-slaveowner POTUSes, who were also the first two not from the South, who were both named Adams, had a hell of a time breaking through that stacked deck.  And they each got limited to one term in contrast to two each for the Virginians, one of whom was elected unopposed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Lets begin with this...
> 
> When Republican party was formed?
Click to expand...


1854, Ripon Wisconsin.

We'll recall that Wisconsin is the same state where the photo in the OP was taken, claiming it to be the Democratic convention happening a thousand miles away.




Ame®icano said:


> Once you answer that, you'll see that most of your post above is not relevant to Republican party.



It's not supposed to be "relevant to Republican Party".  It's relevant to your post that was quoted.   Specifically, this part: 



> That would be true if what you said is true, that all parties had slave owners. But it's not truth, since no Republican ever owned a slave, meaning that, before Civil war, all 4 million slaves in America were owned exclusively by Democrats.



---- which is provably, bullshit.  I gave examples of multiple slaveowners who were Democratic-Republican, Whig, Know Nothing, Republican, and no party at all.  And again that was just politicians ---- nobody needed a political office, or a political party, to own a slave.

Again, slavery, the transAtlantic African version, was going on long LONG before there was even a country here, let alone political parties.  It was also going on elsewhere in the Americas, as long as five hundred years ago.  No political parties were needed to do that.  All that was needed was human traffic merchants.




Ame®icano said:


> Second question, why Republican party was formed?



At the time, to take charge of the Abolition movement.



Ame®icano said:


> And third, what I said above is truth, on the brink of Civil War no Republican owned a slave. It's truth that Ulysses Grant owned a slave that he inherited from his father-in-law, and he freed him. What you did not mention about Grant is, at the time he inherited that slave he was a Democrat.



Irrelevant.  He's the same guy.  Just as David Duke is the same guy.  Changing political parties doesn't make you a different person.  Arlen Specter was a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat again.  That doesn't make Arlen Specter _three different guys_.

Anyway, not that it matters but I don't have any evidence that Grant was ever a Democrat.  In office he was a Republican.

All of which goes to illustrate that, again, political party affiliation doesn't somehow change or determine one's personality.  Only abject morons like Stuporgirl trot out those kinds of Composition Fallacies and think anybody's going to actually take them seriously.

--- all of which returns us to the point that slavery is not a political practice.  Nor is racism.
_Abolition_ is politica, since it advocates passing laws to illegalize it.  Hence the term "abolish".  But slavery wasn't.  You don't need politics or laws to _establish _a practice that was already widespread before your country existed.


----------



## Bleipriester

Stratford57 said:


> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.


Yeah, and their hatred is now directed against the color white. I have seen leftists that refuse to wash their clothes in fear they could go white. People go mad over colors. When I was a child it was hard for me to answer the question what my favorite color is but over time I figured out color is an essential part of our life.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, prove us all wrong --- show the world an actual _source_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm puzzled here. You keep asking me to show source for the quote...
> 
> First, what quote you're referring to?
> Second, why you keep asking me?
Click to expand...


Because you brought it up.  Posts 242 and then 249.

And when you brought it up you quoted my post about the two origins of the Klan --- yet for some reason wiped out the entire content of my post.  Wonder why.  Let's revisit that post shall we?



Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson).
> 
> Third, you sure have a proof that Republicans support the klan, do ya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope.
> Let's just run this for the 8462nd time for those who can't be bothered to either pay attention or do their homework.
> 
> The Klan (originally) was founded by, in alphabetical order, (Maj) James Crowe, Calvin Jones, (Capt) John B. Kennedy, (Capt) John Lester, Frank O. McCord, and Richard Reed, Christmas 1865, in the law office building of Calvin Jones' father Thomas Jones, while he was housesitting for the holidays.  All six were ex-Confederate soldiers in their twenties.  None had any known political affiliations or activities, nor did they found their little club for any such purpose.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> Moreover Tennessee had no political parties in 1865 anyway.  It was not a part of the United States, and when it had been a part of the CSA, that country had no political parties.
> 
> Here's the plaque put up on that building at 205 West Madison Street in Pulaski, Tennessee exactly one hundred years ago, by the Daughters of the Confederacy, showing those same names:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That Klan was out of their hands within a few months and extinguished altogether within a decade.
> 
> Exactly fifty years less one month later, Thanksgiving Day 1915, one William Joseph "Colonel Joe" Simmons, a former Methodist minister, salesman, irrepressible club-joiner and con man, took several minions up Stone Mountain outside Atlanta in a rented bus, and re-founded it as the "_Knights of_ the Ku Klux Klan", complete with burning cross taken directly from the movie "Birth of a Nation" that he was emulating, and registered it with the state of Georgia.  Simmons' purpose was to exploit the notoriety of that film by providing a real-life Klan as portrayed in the movie that people could join, and thereby make money from memberships (which he did).
> 
> There was no one named "Wilson" present.  There were however ex-members of the "Knights of Mary Phagan" including Simmons himself, a lynch mob that had captured and hung Leo Frank, a Jew accused of murder on shaky evidence.
> 
> Simmons also had no known political affiliation or activity.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> His Klan however, once he too lost control of it, was dabbling in politics in the 1920s, opposing blacks, Catholics, Jews, immigrants and labor unions ----------- all of which happen to be Democratic Party constituents.  And they pushed lots of Republicans where it served their interests (Baker - Oregon; Morley and Means - Colorado; Jackson - Indiana; Brewster - Maine; and a slew of local offices) and opposed Democrats who didn't serve them, as in the aforementioned Underwood and Al Smith:
> 
> >> The Ku Klux Klan continued to be a powerful force in America, with a membership that historians now estimate as high as two to four million. When Smith's campaign train headed West, it was met by burning crosses on the hills and explosions from dynamite charges echoing across the prairies. Klansmen and other religious bigots swayed ignorant voters by telling them that the Catholic Smith, having supposedly sworn fealty to the pope, would turn the United States over to "Romanism and Ruin." *Protestant ministers told their congregations that if Smith became president, all non-Catholic marriages would be annulled and all children of these marriages declared illegitimate. *Preachers even warned their congregations that if they voted for Al Smith, they would go straight to hell. << -- _Dirty Campaigning in the Roaring Twenties_
> ​--- that sound like what a "Democratic" outfit would be doing?  Undermining its own candidates?
> 
> Dumbass.
> 
> Oh and btw that state charter that Simmons filed to make his Klan official?  It was revoked in the 1940s by Governor Ellis Arnall.  A Democrat.
Click to expand...





Ame®icano said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They became Republicans in the ballot box starting in 1964.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you sure can provide four more names of those Democrats who became Republicans in the ballot box starting in 1964. Let's see them.
Click to expand...


This wasn't posted to me but I'm afraid I already gave one away in another post -- Trent Lott.

So you want three more?

3. That Cochran
4. Jesse Helms
5. Phil Gramm

But let's go back to the Klan history.
............... what happened to your claim that Woodrow Wilson ---- who was at the time holding the office of President of the United States ---- found it necessary to charge up Stone Mountain on Thanksgiving Day 1915 to re-start the Klan?



Ame®icano said:


> First off, the klan was started by Democrats.
> 
> Second, they were *revived in early 1900s again by Democrats (Wilson)*.



Have we run away from that altogether without acknowledging anything?   Is that why you wiped out the entire content of my post spelling out that history?


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets begin with this...
> 
> When Republican party was formed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1854, Ripon Wisconsin.
> 
> We'll recall that Wisconsin is the same state where the photo in the OP was taken, claiming it to be the Democratic convention happening a thousand miles away.
Click to expand...


What photo from the OP has to do with my question "when Republican party was formed"?



Pogo said:


> It's not supposed to be "relevant to Republican Party".  It's relevant to your post that was quoted.   Specifically, this part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be true if what you said is true, that all parties had slave owners. But it's not truth, since no Republican ever owned a slave, meaning that, before Civil war, all 4 million slaves in America were owned exclusively by Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---- which is provably, bullshit.  *I gave examples of multiple slaveowners who were Democratic-Republican, Whig, Know Nothing, Republican, and no party at all.  And again that was just politicians* ---- nobody needed a political office, or a political party, to own a slave.
Click to expand...


Again, at the brink of Civil War, no Republican owned the slave. If you have any data proving otherwise, you would present it by now. Note that you calling something "bullshit" is not a proof.

Now, Democratic-Republican Party was dissolved in 1825, Whig party was dissolved in 1854, and Know Nothing party is dissolved in 1860. That leaves us with two major parties at the start of Civil War, Democrats and Republicans.  If no Republican owned a slave, who did?



Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> And third, what I said above is truth, on the brink of Civil War no Republican owned a slave. It's truth that Ulysses Grant owned a slave that he inherited from his father-in-law, and he freed him. What you did not mention about Grant is, at the time he inherited that slave he was a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  He's the same guy.  Just as David Duke is the same guy.  Changing political parties doesn't make you a different person.  Arlen Specter was a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat again.  That doesn't make Arlen Specter _three different guys_.
Click to expand...


Did you read what I said? He inherited one slave from his father in law, then he freed him. Just because you say it's irrelevant, it doesn't mean it is. Your statement would be relevant if he kept him, or sold him for profit.



Pogo said:


> Anyway, not that it matters but I don't have any evidence that Grant was ever a Democrat.  In office he was a Republican.



Yeah, you couldn't find anything so I must be lying. I was trying to have a conversation with you, but you keep acting as classic leftist asshole.

*Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity *
*Ulysses S. Grant: His Life and Character*

And here, from *Wikipedia*:

"*In the 1856 election, Grant cast his first presidential vote for Democrat James Buchanan*, later saying he was really voting against Republican John C. Frémont over concern that his anti-slavery position would lead to southern secession and war.[88] Many considered Grant to be allied politically to his father-in-law, Frederick Dent, a prominent Missouri Democrat. Although Grant was not an abolitionist, neither was he considered a "slavery man", and could not bring himself to force slaves to do work. In 1859, Grant's suspected Democratic leanings cost him an appointment to become county engineer. *By the 1860 election, Grant was openly Democratic*, favoring Democrat Stephen A. Douglas over Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln over the Southern Democrat, John C. Breckinridge. Lacking the residency requirements in Illinois at the time, he could not vote. After Lincoln was elected, Southern states seceded from the Union forming a Confederacy, seizing federal forts and institutions."


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, prove us all wrong --- show the world an actual _source_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm puzzled here. You keep asking me to show source for the quote...
> 
> First, what quote you're referring to?
> Second, why you keep asking me?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because you brought it up.  Posts 242 and then 249.
Click to expand...


I provided the source that Wilson attended a screening at the White House of The Birth Of a Nation and you rejected it as "debunked". Saying "Debunked" without providing any source or analysis means nothing and I told you that in Post 249.

Now, take time and think before you answer the question: Screening movies in the White House is done for whom? Best guess, perhaps?


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lets begin with this...
> 
> When Republican party was formed?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1854, Ripon Wisconsin.
> 
> We'll recall that Wisconsin is the same state where the photo in the OP was taken, claiming it to be the Democratic convention happening a thousand miles away.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What photo from the OP has to do with my question "when Republican party was formed"?
Click to expand...


Nothing to do with "when", but rather "where".
The OP ----- who has since run away ---- claimed his photo was of the 1924 Democratic convention, which took place in New York.  His photo is actually from Wisconsin.

That's just extra info.  Whether it puts a hair up your ass or not, you don't get to edit my posts.  That's just the way it is. Like it or lump it.

"When" was already answered.  "Where" was answered even though it was not asked.
 Neither is incorrect, yet here you are whining about a correct answer.




Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not supposed to be "relevant to Republican Party".  It's relevant to your post that was quoted.   Specifically, this part:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That would be true if what you said is true, that all parties had slave owners. But it's not truth, since no Republican ever owned a slave, meaning that, before Civil war, all 4 million slaves in America were owned exclusively by Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---- which is provably, bullshit.  *I gave examples of multiple slaveowners who were Democratic-Republican, Whig, Know Nothing, Republican, and no party at all.  And again that was just politicians* ---- nobody needed a political office, or a political party, to own a slave.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, at the brink of Civil War, no Republican owned the slave. If you have any data proving otherwise, you would present it by now. Note that you calling something "bullshit" is not a proof.
Click to expand...



Note that your moving your own goalposts is more bullshit.  You posted "before the Civil war", not "at the brink of".  And it still wouldn't work anyway since Whigs, Constitutional Unionists, Know Nothings and people with no party at all ALL owned slaves.  Once again, maybe I forgot to mention, _no political party registration was ever required to own a slave_.

Next?



Ame®icano said:


> Now, Democratic-Republican Party was dissolved in 1825, Whig party was dissolved in 1854, and Know Nothing party is dissolved in 1860. That leaves us with two major parties at the start of Civil War, Democrats and Republicans.  If no Republican owned a slave, who did?



More bullshit.  None of those parties were "dissolved".  They disintegrated.  Gradually.

In 1860 there was _one_ "major" party, the Democratic.  The Republican Party was six years old and hadn't established itself nationally.  It didn't even run a POTUS candidate in the South until after the War (Grant, 1868).  Lincoln's name didn't even appear on a ballot in Kentucky --- his home state --- until 1864, and never appeared in the South at all.  The Constitutional Union Party as already mentioned won three states in that election (including Kentucky), easily surpassing Douglas who came in fourth.  That Constitutional Union Party's candidate John Bell as also already mentioned was a slaveowner who nonetheless opposed expansion of slavery. For one.

Shall we call the Constitutional Union Party a "major" party?  It did run nationally, but it didn't last long.  I wouldn't consider that a "major" party but if we do count it that makes TWO "major" parties in 1860, the Democrats and the Constitutional Unionists.  Republicans were regional and did not run nationally, and Breckinridge ran without a party.  But the CU never won much and didn't hang on.  So my answer is still "one".

And once again ------ as pointed out about 78 times by now ------ *nobody needed a fucking political party to own a slave *_anyway_*.*

Sooner or later you'll need to grow up and leave this childish dichotomy where the entire world is made up of either "Democrats" or "Republicans".  Life just isn't that simplistic.




Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> And third, what I said above is truth, on the brink of Civil War no Republican owned a slave. It's truth that Ulysses Grant owned a slave that he inherited from his father-in-law, and he freed him. What you did not mention about Grant is, at the time he inherited that slave he was a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irrelevant.  He's the same guy.  Just as David Duke is the same guy.  Changing political parties doesn't make you a different person.  Arlen Specter was a Democrat, then a Republican, then a Democrat again.  That doesn't make Arlen Specter _three different guys_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you read what I said? He inherited one slave from his father in law, then he freed him. Just because you say it's irrelevant, it doesn't mean it is. Your statement would be relevant if he kept him, or sold him for profit.
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, not that it matters but I don't have any evidence that Grant was ever a Democrat.  In office he was a Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, you couldn't find anything so I must be lying. I was trying to have a conversation with you, but you keep acting as classic leftist asshole.
> 
> *Ulysses S. Grant: Triumph Over Adversity *
> *Ulysses S. Grant: His Life and Character*
> 
> And here, from *Wikipedia*:
> 
> "*In the 1856 election, Grant cast his first presidential vote for Democrat James Buchanan*, later saying he was really voting against Republican John C. Frémont over concern that his anti-slavery position would lead to southern secession and war.[88] Many considered Grant to be allied politically to his father-in-law, Frederick Dent, a prominent Missouri Democrat. Although Grant was not an abolitionist, neither was he considered a "slavery man", and could not bring himself to force slaves to do work. In 1859, Grant's suspected Democratic leanings cost him an appointment to become county engineer. *By the 1860 election, Grant was openly Democratic*, favoring Democrat Stephen A. Douglas over Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln over the Southern Democrat, John C. Breckinridge. Lacking the residency requirements in Illinois at the time, he could not vote. After Lincoln was elected, Southern states seceded from the Union forming a Confederacy, seizing federal forts and institutions."
Click to expand...


That's the same link I looked up.  Nowhere does it say he was a Democrat.  In fact what it DOES say is he *could not vote*. Assessing "who he favored in a particular election" that he couldn't even vote in anyway isn't the same thing as "being a Democrat".

NOR does it matter.  Because again, 79th time now --- _nobody needed a political party to own a slave_.

"Lying" is your own assessment, and "assholes" don't enter into it.  It simply IS NOT IN THERE.  And there's nothing you can do about that, whine and stomp your feet all you like.

Just as that cockamamie bullshit story you tried to sell about Woodrow Wilson trotting up Stone Mountain to revive the Klan isn't in the history books either.  Nor is any record of Crowe, Jones, Kennedy, Lester, McCord or Reed having a political party or political activities.  Funny how you want to walk away and pretend you never floated those turds once you got corrected.


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> What photo from the OP has to do with my question "when Republican party was formed"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with "when", but rather "where".
> The OP ----- who has since run away ---- claimed his photo was of the 1924 Democratic convention, which took place in New York.  His photo is actually from Wisconsin.
> 
> "When" was already answered. "Where" was answered even though it was not asked.
> Neither is incorrect, yet here you are whining about a correct answer.
Click to expand...


Photo in the OP has nothing to do with my questions and everything to do with your claims that Republicans were slave owners and as much racist as Democrats. They were not, they were completely against slavery and they formed the party to fight racist pro slavery Democrats on north and south.

Once that gets thru your think head, you'll realize that Republicans cannot be put in the same contest with slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, lynching laws and KKK which are exclusively Democrat thing.



Pogo said:


> Note that your moving your own goalposts is more bullshit.  You posted "before the Civil war", not "at the brink of".  And it still wouldn't work anyway since Whigs, Constitutional Unionists, Know Nothings and people with no party at all ALL owned slaves.  Once again, maybe I forgot to mention, _no political party registration was ever required to own a slave_.



From the 1854 when Republican party was formed to the start of Civil War was seven years.

"Before the Civil War" and "at the brink of the Civil War" is pretty much the same thing written in different form. It still covers the same period from the formation of Republican party to the start of the Civil War. Got it yet?



Pogo said:


> That's the same link I looked up.  Nowhere does it say he was a Democrat.  In fact what it DOES say is he *could not vote*. Assessing "who he favored in a particular election" that he couldn't even vote in anyway isn't the same thing as "being a Democrat".



Beside of Wikipedia link I provided links to two books, that are among the others sources that say Grant was a Democrat. Still not sure are you plain idiot or just acting, but here is again the same quote with the same bold text that you ignored first time:

""*In the 1856 election, Grant cast his first presidential vote for Democrat James Buchanan*, later saying he was really voting against Republican John C. Frémont over concern that his anti-slavery position would lead to southern secession and war.[88] Many considered Grant to be allied politically to his father-in-law, Frederick Dent, a prominent Missouri Democrat. Although Grant was not an abolitionist, neither was he considered a "slavery man", and could not bring himself to force slaves to do work. In 1859, Grant's suspected Democratic leanings cost him an appointment to become county engineer. *By the 1860 election, Grant was openly Democratic*, favoring Democrat Stephen A. Douglas over Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln over the Southern Democrat, John C. Breckinridge. Lacking the residency requirements in Illinois at the time, he could not vote. After Lincoln was elected, Southern states seceded from the Union forming a Confederacy, seizing federal forts and institutions."

You were trying to prove that Republican Grant owned the slave. My reply to you was, he did not willingly own the slave, he inherited a slave from his father in law, and then he freed him. By the way, even if he was the slave owner for short period of time, that happened when he was Democrat. Got it? Yet?



Pogo said:


> NOR does it matter.  Because again, 79th time now --- _nobody needed a political party to own a slave_.



I agree, nobody needed political party to own the slave. Without providing data, your guess is as good as mine. If you owned the slave, first you couldn't be Republican, and second, you would't relate or vote for someone who wants to abolish slavery. I suspect it's real challenge for you, but I'll ask anyways, if you were slave owner, who would you relate to?

One more thing... I never edited or changed your posts. Every time I quoted parts of your posts that are relevant to my replies I provided links to your originals. It's obvious, so stop bitching.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> What photo from the OP has to do with my question "when Republican party was formed"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing to do with "when", but rather "where".
> The OP ----- who has since run away ---- claimed his photo was of the 1924 Democratic convention, which took place in New York.  His photo is actually from Wisconsin.
> 
> "When" was already answered. "Where" was answered even though it was not asked.
> Neither is incorrect, yet here you are whining about a correct answer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Photo in the OP has nothing to do with my questions and everything to do with your claims that Republicans were slave owners and as much racist as Democrats. They were not, they were completely against slavery and they formed the party to fight racist pro slavery Democrats on north and south.
> 
> Once that gets thru your think head, you'll realize that Republicans cannot be put in the same contest with slavery, Jim Crow laws, segregation, lynching laws and KKK which are exclusively Democrat thing.
Click to expand...


Nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope.  Those are _cultural _things.
And I've already schooled you twice on the Klan history, giving you specific names, dates and places, challenging you to find any evidence that those founders and re-founders had any political affiliations or political purposes.  You failed.  And you failed because it doesn't exist.  It's a myth you hold onto even after being proven wrong.  I don't have the psychiatric training to explain why that is.

Hell you even posted, right in this thread, that a sitting President of the United States found his postilion so powerless that he found it necessary to charge up Stone Mountain and rekindle the Klan, and organization he had never been part of.  You've failed to explain that one too ----- or acknowledge you made it up.

Again, I don't have the psychiatric background to explain that either so let's leave it at 

Let's move on to the last line -- "racist pro-slavery Democrats North and South".

Firstly, again the Republicans* didn't *"fight racist pro-slavery Democrats in the South" --- they did not run a candidate there before the Civil War.  Not in 1860, not in 1856, and not in 1864.  Lincoln's name was never on a ballot in the South, nor was Frémont's.  The Republican Party was strictly regional at that point, having concentrated itself in the North, Midwest and West.  That's why it doesn't count as a "major political party" in 1860, yet another point you tried to make until I corrected it.  The country was severely divided by region, which is obvious since it was about to erupt into civil war.

As a result, Lincoln pulled of course zero Southern votes in the Electoral College.  The Democrat Stephen Douglas, whose name *was *on the Southern ballots, pulled exactly the same number ---- zero. Those racist pro-slavery Democrats had already kicked the party out in Charleston at a convention which had to be suspended upon the disruption.  Why did they do that?  Because the Democratic Party wasn't 'pro-slavery" enough for them.  Much the same reason the same thing happened in 1948.  And as also mentioned already, those racist pro-slavery Whigs also voted for John Bell, the Constitutional Unionist Party, an offshoot of the Whigs.  Bell won three states, including Kentucky the home state of both Breckinridge and Lincoln.

Once that election was decided, Democrat Douglas (who came in _fourth _having carried one state, Missouri) toured on President-Elect Lincoln's behalf making the case for compromise and keeping the Union intact.  And when that failed advised Lincoln on how to attack the South.  So I'm afraid this isn't the simplistic black-and-white dichotomy you seem to want to pretend.




Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Note that your moving your own goalposts is more bullshit.  You posted "before the Civil war", not "at the brink of".  And it still wouldn't work anyway since Whigs, Constitutional Unionists, Know Nothings and people with no party at all ALL owned slaves.  Once again, maybe I forgot to mention, _no political party registration was ever required to own a slave_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the 1854 when Republican party was formed to the start of Civil War was seven years.
> 
> "Before the Civil War" and "at the brink of the Civil War" is pretty much the same thing written in different form. It still covers the same period from the formation of Republican party to the start of the Civil War. Got it yet?
Click to expand...


Nnnnnnnnope.  This country existed for four score less two years before the Republican Party was formed.  In the interim by the way forming a slew of other parties, some of which also stood for Abolition.




Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's the same link I looked up.  Nowhere does it say he was a Democrat.  In fact what it DOES say is he *could not vote*. Assessing "who he favored in a particular election" that he couldn't even vote in anyway isn't the same thing as "being a Democrat".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Beside of Wikipedia link I provided links to two books, that are among the others sources that say Grant was a Democrat. Still not sure are you plain idiot or just acting, but here is again the same quote with the same bold text that you ignored first time:
Click to expand...


You posted titles of two books, which link to an Amazon purchase page and a front title photo.  No citation therein at all --- such as I did with specific pages numbers to my quoted content.  Without such a citation, for all I know these claims are pulled from the same ass that has a President charging up a hill with a flaming cross to re-found the Klan.

Again, the point is moot anyway. I'm not the one claiming that being or not being a slaveowner is a direct result of being a "Republican" or "Democrat" --- *YOU* are. In a gaffe that rivals your image of Wilson charging up Stone Mountain, you actually posted that slaveowning was "exclusively Democrat".  Matter of fact you did the same thing again right in this post.  Apparently expecting different results.

Moreover, the first time you posted these titles there were no links.  Just *red boldface*.

I've already called out that Composition Fallacy for what it is, citing several examples of Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists, Democratic-Republicans and masses of slaveowners with no party at all, back to and including George Washington.  Again I proved your specious claim to be bullshit and there's nothing you can do about it, except acknowledge you were wrong, which you apparently can't do.



Ame®icano said:


> ""*In the 1856 election, Grant cast his first presidential vote for Democrat James Buchanan*, later saying he was really voting against Republican John C. Frémont over concern that his anti-slavery position would lead to southern secession and war.[88] Many considered Grant to be allied politically to his father-in-law, Frederick Dent, a prominent Missouri Democrat. Although Grant was not an abolitionist, neither was he considered a "slavery man", and could not bring himself to force slaves to do work. In 1859, Grant's suspected Democratic leanings cost him an appointment to become county engineer. *By the 1860 election, Grant was openly Democratic*, favoring Democrat Stephen A. Douglas over Abraham Lincoln, and Lincoln over the Southern Democrat, John C. Breckinridge. Lacking the residency requirements in Illinois at the time, he could not vote. After Lincoln was elected, Southern states seceded from the Union forming a Confederacy, seizing federal forts and institutions."
> 
> You were trying to prove that Republican Grant owned the slave. My reply to you was, he did not willingly own the slave, he inherited a slave from his father in law, and then he freed him. By the way, even if he was the slave owner for short period of time, that happened when he was Democrat. Got it? Yet?



  Again --- see above.




Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOR does it matter.  Because again, 79th time now --- _nobody needed a political party to own a slave_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree, nobody needed political party to own the slave. Without providing data, your guess is as good as mine. If you owned the slave, first you couldn't be Republican, and second, you would't relate or vote for someone who wants to abolish slavery. I suspect it's real challenge for you, but I'll ask anyways, if you were slave owner, who would you relate to?
Click to expand...


Probably my crops and how much money they would make me that year.

Think I already mentioned this but you have to grow out of this childish binary mentality where the entire world is comprised of "Republicans" or "Democrats".  This planet simply does not work that way.  Never did.  Perhaps that should be your starting point.  Once you get past it you'll see the folly of these ridiculous posts about Grant and Composition/Generalization fallacies.



Ame®icano said:


> One more thing... I never edited or changed your posts. Every time I quoted parts of your posts that are relevant to my replies I provided links to your originals. It's obvious, so stop bitching.



Nor have I edited your posts.  Perhaps Woody Wilson did it while taking a break charging up Stone Mountain.


----------



## Pogo

Who Am I?

(note -- this is a history quiz, not a real quote)

I was the first President of the 20th century to prosecute the Ku Klux Klan.  When I was a young boy the Klan had threatened my father after he condemned the Klan publicly from his position in the state legislature. Upon receiving the threat he defiantly challenged the Klan to come to the house and carry out their threat to shoot him.  I hid in a basement while my father, uncles and older cousins stayed up with shotguns all night.  The cowards never showed up.  After that my father always carried a gun, even to the state house.  Decades later when I was in Congress the Klan burned a cross on my family property.  I fought them all my life.​


Spoiler: Who am I?



Lyndon Johnson


----------



## American_Jihad

...


----------



## American_Jihad

*CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN'*
*DEMOCRATS HATE BLACKS AND HISPANICS*
*Exclusive: Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has mic cut after calling out lawmaker over bill*
Published: 07/16/2017




JESSE LEE PETERSON

_Not all, not all, not all, but most_ Democrats today do not respect black people, or anyone else. Rather, they use blacks to push their own agenda.

We all know that black “leaders” exploit the people – I’ve talked about Maxine Waters (“Auntie Maxine“), John Lewis, Barack Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP (no different from the KKK), Black Lives Matter (_worse_ than the KKK), Louis Farrakhan (modern-day Hitler) and false preachers, including T.D. Jakes and Michael Eric Dyson (not called by God but by their _mama_).

But let’s not forget about “white” politicians and others who also take advantage of foolish black and “minority” people who don’t know better.

Because blacks are brainwashed to believe in “racism” (which doesn’t even exist, and never has), they support phony “anti-racist” efforts. They blindly support Democrats who never had their best interests at heart. Around 95 percent of blacks supported Barack Obama, the worst president in American history; the same supported the second-most corrupt president, Bill Clinton, impeached for lies and obstruction of justice.

Democrats hurt blacks more _today_ than during slavery – supporting abortion, destruction of the family, LGBT madness, removing God from public life, creating ghettos and favoring _criminals_ over the innocent.

...

Read more at Democrats hate blacks and Hispanics


----------



## Pogo

American_Jihad said:


> *CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN'*
> *DEMOCRATS HATE BLACKS AND HISPANICS*
> *Exclusive: Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has mic cut after calling out lawmaker over bill*
> Published: 07/16/2017
> 
> 
> 
> JESSE LEE PETERSON
> 
> _Not all, not all, not all, but most_ Democrats today do not respect black people, or anyone else. Rather, they use blacks to push their own agenda.
> 
> We all know that black “leaders” exploit the people – I’ve talked about Maxine Waters (“Auntie Maxine“), John Lewis, Barack Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP (no different from the KKK), Black Lives Matter (_worse_ than the KKK), Louis Farrakhan (modern-day Hitler) and false preachers, including T.D. Jakes and Michael Eric Dyson (not called by God but by their _mama_).
> 
> But let’s not forget about “white” politicians and others who also take advantage of foolish black and “minority” people who don’t know better.
> 
> Because blacks are brainwashed to believe in “racism” (which doesn’t even exist, and never has), they support phony “anti-racist” efforts. They blindly support Democrats who never had their best interests at heart. Around 95 percent of blacks supported Barack Obama, the worst president in American history; the same supported the second-most corrupt president, Bill Clinton, impeached for lies and obstruction of justice.
> 
> Democrats hurt blacks more _today_ than during slavery – supporting abortion, destruction of the family, LGBT madness, removing God from public life, creating ghettos and favoring _criminals_ over the innocent.
> 
> ...
> 
> Read more at Democrats hate blacks and Hispanics



  --- Source: Whirled Nuts Daily.  Home of Birferism.

What ever happened to Birferism?  Did Soy turn it gay?


----------



## American_Jihad

Pogo said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN'*
> *DEMOCRATS HATE BLACKS AND HISPANICS*
> *Exclusive: Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has mic cut after calling out lawmaker over bill*
> Published: 07/16/2017
> 
> 
> 
> JESSE LEE PETERSON
> 
> _Not all, not all, not all, but most_ Democrats today do not respect black people, or anyone else. Rather, they use blacks to push their own agenda.
> 
> We all know that black “leaders” exploit the people – I’ve talked about Maxine Waters (“Auntie Maxine“), John Lewis, Barack Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP (no different from the KKK), Black Lives Matter (_worse_ than the KKK), Louis Farrakhan (modern-day Hitler) and false preachers, including T.D. Jakes and Michael Eric Dyson (not called by God but by their _mama_).
> 
> But let’s not forget about “white” politicians and others who also take advantage of foolish black and “minority” people who don’t know better.
> 
> Because blacks are brainwashed to believe in “racism” (which doesn’t even exist, and never has), they support phony “anti-racist” efforts. They blindly support Democrats who never had their best interests at heart. Around 95 percent of blacks supported Barack Obama, the worst president in American history; the same supported the second-most corrupt president, Bill Clinton, impeached for lies and obstruction of justice.
> 
> Democrats hurt blacks more _today_ than during slavery – supporting abortion, destruction of the family, LGBT madness, removing God from public life, creating ghettos and favoring _criminals_ over the innocent.
> 
> ...
> 
> Read more at Democrats hate blacks and Hispanics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Source: Whirled Nuts Daily.  Home of Birferism.
> 
> What ever happened to Birferism?  Did Soy turn it gay?
Click to expand...

Poo is the left's perfect example what to do when your rabid and got nothing...


----------



## Pogo

American_Jihad said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN'*
> *DEMOCRATS HATE BLACKS AND HISPANICS*
> *Exclusive: Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has mic cut after calling out lawmaker over bill*
> Published: 07/16/2017
> 
> 
> 
> JESSE LEE PETERSON
> 
> _Not all, not all, not all, but most_ Democrats today do not respect black people, or anyone else. Rather, they use blacks to push their own agenda.
> 
> We all know that black “leaders” exploit the people – I’ve talked about Maxine Waters (“Auntie Maxine“), John Lewis, Barack Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP (no different from the KKK), Black Lives Matter (_worse_ than the KKK), Louis Farrakhan (modern-day Hitler) and false preachers, including T.D. Jakes and Michael Eric Dyson (not called by God but by their _mama_).
> 
> But let’s not forget about “white” politicians and others who also take advantage of foolish black and “minority” people who don’t know better.
> 
> Because blacks are brainwashed to believe in “racism” (which doesn’t even exist, and never has), they support phony “anti-racist” efforts. They blindly support Democrats who never had their best interests at heart. Around 95 percent of blacks supported Barack Obama, the worst president in American history; the same supported the second-most corrupt president, Bill Clinton, impeached for lies and obstruction of justice.
> 
> Democrats hurt blacks more _today_ than during slavery – supporting abortion, destruction of the family, LGBT madness, removing God from public life, creating ghettos and favoring _criminals_ over the innocent.
> 
> ...
> 
> Read more at Democrats hate blacks and Hispanics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Source: Whirled Nuts Daily.  Home of Birferism.
> 
> What ever happened to Birferism?  Did Soy turn it gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poo is the left's perfect example what to do when your rabid and got nothing...
Click to expand...


Uh nnnnno Jizzhat.  That would be running photoshops and fake Googly Image memes.

Like you did here ---



American_Jihad said:


> ...


----------



## American_Jihad

Pogo said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> *CALIFORNIA SCHEMIN'*
> *DEMOCRATS HATE BLACKS AND HISPANICS*
> *Exclusive: Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson has mic cut after calling out lawmaker over bill*
> Published: 07/16/2017
> 
> 
> 
> JESSE LEE PETERSON
> 
> _Not all, not all, not all, but most_ Democrats today do not respect black people, or anyone else. Rather, they use blacks to push their own agenda.
> 
> We all know that black “leaders” exploit the people – I’ve talked about Maxine Waters (“Auntie Maxine“), John Lewis, Barack Obama, the Congressional Black Caucus, NAACP (no different from the KKK), Black Lives Matter (_worse_ than the KKK), Louis Farrakhan (modern-day Hitler) and false preachers, including T.D. Jakes and Michael Eric Dyson (not called by God but by their _mama_).
> 
> But let’s not forget about “white” politicians and others who also take advantage of foolish black and “minority” people who don’t know better.
> 
> Because blacks are brainwashed to believe in “racism” (which doesn’t even exist, and never has), they support phony “anti-racist” efforts. They blindly support Democrats who never had their best interests at heart. Around 95 percent of blacks supported Barack Obama, the worst president in American history; the same supported the second-most corrupt president, Bill Clinton, impeached for lies and obstruction of justice.
> 
> Democrats hurt blacks more _today_ than during slavery – supporting abortion, destruction of the family, LGBT madness, removing God from public life, creating ghettos and favoring _criminals_ over the innocent.
> 
> ...
> 
> Read more at Democrats hate blacks and Hispanics
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- Source: Whirled Nuts Daily.  Home of Birferism.
> 
> What ever happened to Birferism?  Did Soy turn it gay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Poo is the left's perfect example what to do when your rabid and got nothing...
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh nnnnno Jizzhat.  That would be running photoshops and fake Googly Image memes.
> 
> Like you did here ---
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Saving time - repeat post 283...


----------



## Conservative65

deanrd said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
Click to expand...


Unless you have their names and the dates each one changed, all we know for a fact is they are Democrats.


----------



## Pogo

Conservative65 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you have their names and the dates each one changed, all we know for a fact is they are Democrats.
Click to expand...


Nope, we know nothing of the sort.

Way back in the thread this OP was busted --- the photo is actually from Wisconsin, nowhere near anybody's convention.  Conventions are not held on the fucking street anyway.

Now being in Wisconsin, by the law of averages they're likely more Republicans than anything else, but this too is irrelevant.  Being a Klanner is not voting, and you don't need a political party registration to be in it.  All you had to be was white, Christian, Protestant and moralistically full of yourself.

Specifically the Klan at this time required:

Being "native born"
Christian
Protects "pure American womanhood"
Prevents "unwarranted strikes by foreign labor agitators"
(believes in) the Sovereignty of States' Rights
Promotes "pure Americanism"
(_Fiery Cross_, p. 151)

But speaking of Wisconsin, the National Security League (NSL) was a forerunner and ideological parent of that Klan:

>>  Initially, the NSL worked to indoctrinate school children and the public. Under the guise of encouraging the teaching of American history, the league worked to eliminate the teaching of foreign languages (especially German, and later Russian). It encouraged physical education in the schools as a means of "strengthening American manhood" for war.[6] By advocating civil defense, the League proselytized for more defense spending and a stronger national military.[1][6] "*Americanism*" and universal conscription were not meant to merely strengthen the military but also to weed out "religious or political dissenters, sexual 'deviants,' those who frequented prostitutes, and people convicted of crimes who had completed their punishment..."[8] The goal was _to create an elite meritocratic class which would take decision-making away from the electorate._[1][6]

The NSL reached its highest point of influence (in terms of its popular support and the adoption of its policies) during World War I. It whipped up anti-German hysteria through its Committee on Patriotism Through Education (directed by Princeton University professor Robert McNutt McElroy), and strongly supported the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. With United States Department of Justice support, the NSL began to question the patriotism and loyalty of thousands of Americans suspected of either pro-German or (later) pro-communist beliefs. League supporters published newspaper stories or wrote letters to the editor alleging that labor unions, universities, some churches (particularly those with large German congregations), the League of Women Voters, and a host of other organizations were under communist control.[1][6] <<  _*including.... the entire population of Wisconsin *_ ---- Wiki​The Klan adopted and carried that moralistic torch about prostitution, adultery, gambling, going to church in general and of course, drinking, and the parallel with "100% Americanism" carried forth to the NSL from the daze of the nativist Know Nothing Party, as well as the hyperpatriotist/militarist bent, the anti-immigrant sentiment and the resistance to labor unions and socialism.


Oh by the way the OP who was busted, whose name is Geaux4it  -- has not been back since the picture's actual derivation was exposed.   He ran away.


----------



## Conservative65

Pogo said:


> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you have their names and the dates each one changed, all we know for a fact is they are Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, we know nothing of the sort.
> 
> Way back in the thread this OP was busted --- the photo is actually from Wisconsin, nowhere near anybody's convention.  Conventions are not held on the fucking street anyway.
> 
> Now being in Wisconsin, by the law of averages they're likely more Republicans than anything else, but this too is irrelevant.  Being a Klanner is not voting, and you don't need a political party registration to be in it.  All you had to be was white, Christian, Protestant and moralistically full of yourself.
> 
> Specifically the Klan at this time required:
> 
> Being "native born"
> Christian
> Protects "pure American womanhood"
> Prevents "unwarranted strikes by foreign labor agitators"
> (believes in) the Sovereignty of States' Rights
> Promotes "pure Americanism"
> (_Fiery Cross_, p. 151)
> 
> But speaking of Wisconsin, the National Security League (NSL) was a forerunner and ideological parent of that Klan:
> 
> >>  Initially, the NSL worked to indoctrinate school children and the public. Under the guise of encouraging the teaching of American history, the league worked to eliminate the teaching of foreign languages (especially German, and later Russian). It encouraged physical education in the schools as a means of "strengthening American manhood" for war.[6] By advocating civil defense, the League proselytized for more defense spending and a stronger national military.[1][6] "*Americanism*" and universal conscription were not meant to merely strengthen the military but also to weed out "religious or political dissenters, sexual 'deviants,' those who frequented prostitutes, and people convicted of crimes who had completed their punishment..."[8] The goal was _to create an elite meritocratic class which would take decision-making away from the electorate._[1][6]
> 
> The NSL reached its highest point of influence (in terms of its popular support and the adoption of its policies) during World War I. It whipped up anti-German hysteria through its Committee on Patriotism Through Education (directed by Princeton University professor Robert McNutt McElroy), and strongly supported the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. With United States Department of Justice support, the NSL began to question the patriotism and loyalty of thousands of Americans suspected of either pro-German or (later) pro-communist beliefs. League supporters published newspaper stories or wrote letters to the editor alleging that labor unions, universities, some churches (particularly those with large German congregations), the League of Women Voters, and a host of other organizations were under communist control.[1][6] ---- _*including.... the entire population of Wisconsin *_<< Wiki​The Klan adopted and carried that moralistic torch about prostitution, adultery, gambling, going to church in general and of course, drinking, and the parallel with "100% Americanism" carried forth to the NSL from the daze of the nativist Know Nothing Party, as well as the hyperpatriotist/militarist bent, the anti-immigrant sentiment and the resistance to labor unions and socialism.
Click to expand...


So much for the claim.


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
> 
> Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
> George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.
> 
> Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're not answering the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Martin Luther King Jr. answers the question quite well on my behalf
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think you're funny with repeating that quote, but you're actually stuck on stupid.
> 
> First of all, you can say there was a "party switch" without admitting that Democrats were racist to begin with.
Click to expand...


Well I have no problem with admitting that Democrats were racists. 

And so were Republicans.

Abraham Lincoln- a President I greatly admire- was a racist. Read his comments on 'negroes' and it is clear he didn't consider them the equal to the white man. That doesn't change what great things Abraham Lincoln did for African Americans- nor of his good will in general towards African Americans.

In 1865 virtually everyone was a racist. Hell even African Americans tended to think of themselves as inferior to white Americans- such was the prevelant propaganda at the time.

But the South was the base of the particular institution of slavery, and was arguably more racist than any other part of the country(arguably because it could be regional- California and the West Coast was horribly racist towards Chinese, and very little towards African Americans). The South was also staunchly Protestant and Conservative. 

For the next 100 years- the white conservative Christians of the South institutionalized their racism- and voted Democrat- because the GOP was the party of Lincoln. African Americans- when they could vote, voted Republican. 

You of course know all of this, but prefer to lie rather than admit this. 

Starting in the '30's with the New Deal, African Americans started to vote more Democrat, and even more so during the War because of FDR's programs to integrate African Americans into the war industry- and of course Eleanor's championing of minority rights. 

Most people in the United States, by my standards, would still be considered racists- but this was heightened in the South.

LBJ by our standards would easily be called a racist. Just like Lincoln. LBJ was certainly a political opportunist- but he was also a man with a very deep compassion for poor people- including poor people of color. As a politician in the South, he could not succeed by promoting civil rights for minorities(African Americans but also Mexican Americans)- until the time was ripe when he could do so.

LBJ did nothing for Civil Rights for minorities- until he was actually able to do something. And then he did. 

Now lets go to 1965. 

Were the Southern white Conservative Christians racists?

Yep.

Were they mostly Democrats? Yep.

Were there Republicans too? Yep- a few- and they voted just like the Democrats.

Meanwhile, the Northern Democrats- were by the standards of the day- not racists. They voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- along with the Northern Republican.

What you want to try to argue though is somehow- starting in 1965- the Southern Conservative Christians racists- started to become less racist- and that is why they started voting Republican.

While Southern Christian African Americans- who transitioned to voting to Democrats- became racists. 

How did those Southern Conservative racist Christian- whose families had often voted for generations Democrats- suddenly become 'not racists'?


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again I will point out that starting in 1964- the Republican Party chose to nominate men who had opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act
> 
> Barry Goldwater- who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> Ronald Reagan- famously running for governor telling California voters: "If an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house," he said, "he has a right to do so."
> George Bush- ran for office in Texas on the issue of opposing the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Which of course just demonstrates what MLK Jr. said in 1964
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.
> 
> Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're not answering the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Martin Luther King Jr. answers the question quite well on my behalf
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't mean what you think it means, that "those states are still racist". What it does mean is that Republicans beat racism, since those states are waaaaaay less racist now that they're Republican leaning states. .
Click to expand...


Where did I say that those states are still racists? 

How did Republicans 'beat racism'? 

Do you think that States switch from racist to non-racists when Republicans gain control and amazingly switch back when they lose control? 

How did all of those white conservative Christian racist who voted Democrat- become white conservative conservative Christians non-racists who vote Republican?


----------



## Pogo

Conservative65 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Conservative65 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unless you have their names and the dates each one changed, all we know for a fact is they are Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, we know nothing of the sort.
> 
> Way back in the thread this OP was busted --- the photo is actually from Wisconsin, nowhere near anybody's convention.  Conventions are not held on the fucking street anyway.
> 
> Now being in Wisconsin, by the law of averages they're likely more Republicans than anything else, but this too is irrelevant.  Being a Klanner is not voting, and you don't need a political party registration to be in it.  All you had to be was white, Christian, Protestant and moralistically full of yourself.
> 
> Specifically the Klan at this time required:
> 
> Being "native born"
> Christian
> Protects "pure American womanhood"
> Prevents "unwarranted strikes by foreign labor agitators"
> (believes in) the Sovereignty of States' Rights
> Promotes "pure Americanism"
> (_Fiery Cross_, p. 151)
> 
> But speaking of Wisconsin, the National Security League (NSL) was a forerunner and ideological parent of that Klan:
> 
> >>  Initially, the NSL worked to indoctrinate school children and the public. Under the guise of encouraging the teaching of American history, the league worked to eliminate the teaching of foreign languages (especially German, and later Russian). It encouraged physical education in the schools as a means of "strengthening American manhood" for war.[6] By advocating civil defense, the League proselytized for more defense spending and a stronger national military.[1][6] "*Americanism*" and universal conscription were not meant to merely strengthen the military but also to weed out "religious or political dissenters, sexual 'deviants,' those who frequented prostitutes, and people convicted of crimes who had completed their punishment..."[8] The goal was _to create an elite meritocratic class which would take decision-making away from the electorate._[1][6]
> 
> The NSL reached its highest point of influence (in terms of its popular support and the adoption of its policies) during World War I. It whipped up anti-German hysteria through its Committee on Patriotism Through Education (directed by Princeton University professor Robert McNutt McElroy), and strongly supported the Espionage Act of 1917 and the Sedition Act of 1918. With United States Department of Justice support, the NSL began to question the patriotism and loyalty of thousands of Americans suspected of either pro-German or (later) pro-communist beliefs. League supporters published newspaper stories or wrote letters to the editor alleging that labor unions, universities, some churches (particularly those with large German congregations), the League of Women Voters, and a host of other organizations were under communist control.[1][6] ---- _*including.... the entire population of Wisconsin *_<< Wiki​The Klan adopted and carried that moralistic torch about prostitution, adultery, gambling, going to church in general and of course, drinking, and the parallel with "100% Americanism" carried forth to the NSL from the daze of the nativist Know Nothing Party, as well as the hyperpatriotist/militarist bent, the anti-immigrant sentiment and the resistance to labor unions and socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So much for the claim.
Click to expand...


Indeed, so much for the thread.  Kind of the point I made when his OP was raked over the coals.

There's more besides the Wisconsin picture.  See the part where he claims that at that Democratic convention a thousand miles away, "a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform"?  That's basically accurate, although "Forney Johnston" is actually spelled "Oscar Underwood".  Forney Johnston was dead for 11 years by then.  Plus, his first name was "Joseph".  

Nothing like due diligence in one's research.  Right Geaux4it ?


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> [
> And last, you do know that MLK was fighting Democrats, since they were ones denying blacks right to vote. Democrats had him jailed, the same ones who demand that Rosa Parks give up the seat to white folks. He was fighting Democrats who were hosing people on the street, releasing dogs on them. MLK saw wave after wave of Democrat institutionalized racism, but because of couple of cherry picks like Goldwater or Thurmond, and a quote you keep repeating you claim that MLK rejected Republicans and side himself with Democrat party? You do know that it was a Democrat who shot MLK, do ya?



Martin Luther King Jr. was fighting institutionalized racism- he wasn't fighting the Democratic Party. 

MLK Jr. was fighting the white Conservative Christian men who were denying blacks the right to vote. The White conservative Christian men who had him jailed, who wrote the Jim Crow laws. The Southern white Christian conservative men who were hosing people on the street, releasing dogs on them.

MLK saw wave after wave of white conservative Christian institutionaized racism- but unlike you- he understood racism- and he understood the politics of racism.  MLK Jr. stands out because of his stand for Civil Rights regardless of political party. 

So when LBJ signed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill- MLK Jr. wasn't there to complain about the Southern White Conservative Christians men who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill- he was there to applaud the efforts by Democrats- and Republicans- from outside the South- who passed the bill. 






What MLK Jr. did recognize though was that the GOP made a pivot in 1964- when they nominated Barry Goldwater Jr. for President - one of only 4 non-Southern Senators to vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Bill.

And then they nominated Ronald Reagan for President- who also opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill

And then they nominated George Bush for President- who also opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Bill.

George Bush is an interesting example- since he was getting his political start at that time- and as a Republican was able to get white votes running as a Republican opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

I didn't cherry pick anything from Martin Luther King Jr.  I quoted his calling out of the Republican Party in 1964- very eloquently- and very specifically:

_*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*

*
....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_


What GOP apologists and attack dogs want Americans to believe is that they should believe the GOP revisionist lies- instead of Martin Luther King Jr.

But there is a reason why African Americans vote Democrat- not Republican- and Martin Luther King Jr. sentiment is part of the reason.


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> [
> You lefties do not own MLK legacy, he criticized Republicans in one or two passages of his book,  but what you are not saying is that his whole life work was about fighting against everything that *Democrats* did to black people. Got it?



I just quote Martin Luther King Jr.. 

Feel free to quote Martin Luther King Jr. and all of the bad things he said about the Democratic Party- certainly he complained that the Democrats didn't do enough fast enough to combat the Dixiecrats or the institutionalized racism of the Southern white Conservative Christians. 

MLK Jr. was about fighting against everything that White Conservative Christians did that harmed black people. 

And that includes Barry Goldwater.


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> [
> Oh by the way the OP who was busted, whose name is Geaux4it  -- has not been back since the picture's actual derivation was exposed.   He ran away.



What a shock that is.......LOL...run away...run away.....GOP lies exposed!


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> [
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> *!*



Gotta love PC and his claims that African Americans are the party of slavery, segregation and second class citizenship......


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And, of course, there never was any such 'party switch.'
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What lefties are dishonest about is *when* blacks switched votes from Republican to Democrat party.
Click to expand...


Speaking of 'dishonest'- I have repeatedly discussed African Americans starting to switch parties in the 1930's- during the Depression under FDR. 

And of course- the trend completed in the 1960's- specifically in 1964. As African Americans, seeing what was happening just like MLK Jr.- finished the switch to the Democratic Party. 

So why exactly do you feel a need to make that lie to try to bolster your lies about Democrats?


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> [
> I just can't imagine how desperate blacks were back in time do leave the party of emancipation and Lincoln and joining the party of the KKK and Dixiecrats who were running the south as Democrats.
> .



If your entire point wasn't just to attack the Democratic Party- I bet you could imagine- or perhaps even read something. 

The Republicans in the 1930's were doing nothing for African Americans. They believed FDR was doing something for them- and generally continued in that trend as FDR integrated the war industry, and Truman ordered the integration of the Armed Forces. 

Because African Americans could distinguish between the liberal Democrats of the North- and the Conservative Democrats of the South.

Something you refuse to do.


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.
> 
> More correctly these are "party _shifts_", evolving over time.  Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one.  In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded.  It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.
> 
> The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.
> 
> Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation.  By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now.  These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.
> 
> World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest.  This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia  --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.
> 
> Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.
> 
> Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).
> 
> The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable.  As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did.  FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924).  The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates.  Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.
> 
> Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won).  Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate.  Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.
> 
> Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give.  Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general.  When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended.  The divorce was, finally, final.  He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.
> 
> That's what the "party shifts" were.  The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party.  Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.
Click to expand...


Thank you- very well put.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slavery doesn't have a "party".  It's a _social_ construct.  It has existed as a general practice throughout the world on every continent, and as our own racism-based transatlantic version since the 1500s. long long LONG before there was a country here or any political parties.  If you insist on playing stupid with your juvenile Composition Fallacies, you'll find that the political parties of Presidents who owned slaves included Democratic, Republican, Whig, Democratic-Republican (unrelated to either) and No Party At All (George Washington).
> 
> But you might be interested to know that the guy who organized the Democratic Party, Martin van Buren ---- was himself an Abolitionist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By now, everyone knows you to be a liar and an apologist for this:
> Democrats ... the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
Click to expand...


And by 'everyone' PC means all of the voices in his head agree with him.....LOL


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.
> 
> More correctly these are "party _shifts_", evolving over time.  Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one.  In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded.  It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.
> 
> The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.
> 
> Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation.  By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now.  These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.
> 
> World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest.  This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia  --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.
> 
> Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.
> 
> Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).
> 
> The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable.  As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did.  FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924).  The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates.  Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.
> 
> Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won).  Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate.  Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.
> 
> Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give.  Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general.  When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended.  The divorce was, finally, final.  He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.
> 
> That's what the "party shifts" were.  The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party.  Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> The simplest proof is that the first or second most popular Democrat elected official, Bill Clinton.....personification of the Democrat Party.....has always ......always....
> 
> ...been a life-long racist.
> 
> 
> Fits that party perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You genuinely have no clue what a Composition Fallacy is, do you?
> 
> That's soooo cute.   Perhaps that spandex is inhibiting cranial circulation.
> 
> Lemme give you a hint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​From this, of course, we may conclude that all Republicans are named "David".
> Just as all Democrats are named "Bill".
> 
> Of course this also means that anyone named "Bill" is a Democrat
> 
> 
> 
> --- and anyone name "David" is a Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> ​--- see how that works?
> 
> Nah, you probably don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are currently a lying low-life, and, no need to re-monogram those towels...you'll always be a lying low-life.a
Click to expand...


I love watching PC just melt down like this on USMB


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's a reason the lying wench PC cuts off David Duke's electoral history at 1988.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie.
Click to expand...


You ALWAYS lie.


----------



## Faun

Stratford57 said:


> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.


That's not all that's changed.

In 1924, the Klan endorsed the Democrat nominee.

In 2016, the Klan endorsed the Republican nominee.


----------



## Faun

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.
> 
> More correctly these are "party _shifts_", evolving over time.  Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one.  In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded.  It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.
> 
> The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.
> 
> Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation.  By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now.  These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.
> 
> World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest.  This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia  --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.
> 
> Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.
> 
> Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).
> 
> The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable.  As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did.  FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924).  The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates.  Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.
> 
> Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won).  Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate.  Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.
> 
> Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give.  Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general.  When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended.  The divorce was, finally, final.  He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.
> 
> That's what the "party shifts" were.  The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party.  Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> The simplest proof is that the first or second most popular Democrat elected official, Bill Clinton.....personification of the Democrat Party.....has always ......always....
> 
> ...been a life-long racist.
> 
> 
> Fits that party perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You genuinely have no clue what a Composition Fallacy is, do you?
> 
> That's soooo cute.   Perhaps that spandex is inhibiting cranial circulation.
> 
> Lemme give you a hint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​From this, of course, we may conclude that all Republicans are named "David".
> Just as all Democrats are named "Bill".
> 
> Of course this also means that anyone named "Bill" is a Democrat
> 
> 
> 
> --- and anyone name "David" is a Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> ​--- see how that works?
> 
> Nah, you probably don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are currently a lying low-life, and, no need to re-monogram those towels...you'll always be a lying low-life.a
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love watching PC just melt down like this on USMB
Click to expand...

It happens regularly.


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> . If you owned the slave, first you couldn't be Republican, and second, you would't relate or vote for someone who wants to abolish slavery..



What rule prevented a slave owner from being a Republican?


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> Once that election was decided, Democrat Douglas (who came in _fourth _having carried one state, Missouri) toured on President-Elect Lincoln's behalf making the case for compromise and keeping the Union intact.  And when that failed advised Lincoln on how to attack the South.  So I'm afraid this isn't the simplistic black-and-white dichotomy you seem to want to pretend..



Yep.

Once again the facts ruin the 'hate the Democrats' propaganda.


----------



## Syriusly

American_Jihad said:


> ...


Another Conservative liar who loves photoshop....


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 'parties switched' is only advanced by the most feeble minded of the drones.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Agreed, "party switch" is an inaccurate term. It implies an instant stroke, like a politician changing his party registration, which takes about a minute.
> 
> More correctly these are "party _shifts_", evolving over time.  Significantly at the turn of the (19th>20th) century, which was the big one.  In the mid-19th century the Democratic Party had been the carrier of "states rights", decentralized government, and had reach nationwide before the Republicans were founded.  It also danced around the issue of slavery, as did several other parties who ceased to exist including the Whigs, trying to have it both ways.
> 
> The Republican Party upon its founding in 1854 to its credit took a decisive stand to push Abolition when Democrats, Whigs, Know Nothings, Constitutional Unionists and other dying parties were basically either trying to placate individual states or ignore altogether an issue that was not going to be ignored and which was already being addressed in Europe and its remaining colonies.
> 
> Like any political party, once that ideal was realized the next goal of the party became self-perpetuation.  By the end of the 1800s the Republicans were taking on the interests of the wealthy and the corporations, while the Democrats were absorbing the Populist Party and movement, which put working-class and eventually minorities and immigrants into its camp, producing the party class divisions that still resonate now.  These were represented respectively by the two Williams, McKinley and Bryan.
> 
> World war brought rapid industrialization, a lot of immigrants, and a lot of black migration to the North and Midwest.  This of course fed the bigotry of the time --- it's no accident that the Klan was re-formed exactly in this period to capitalize on that paranoia  --- and the Klan as already documented tried for a time to influence politics in both parties.
> 
> Once the Great Depression hit and FDR launched the New Deal the black vote went to Democrats, joining the Catholic, Jewish, immigrant and labor union constituencies, in the 1930s and has remained there ever since.
> 
> Meanwhile the same Democratic Party was playing a bipolar game with these minorities on one hand coexisting in the same party with staunch white conservatism in the South that opposed those same constituencies (as did the Klan itself), railing against "Northern Liberals" and "civil rights" and leading to several schisms (Thurmond 1948; Wallace 1964/68/72).
> 
> The Democrats were, again, spinelessly trying to have it both ways, Liberal here, Conservative there, knowing the white South in its hyperconservatism considered association with the Republican Party unthinkable.  As long as those hyperconservatives were in the same party they were in a position to block progress, which they did.  FDR chipped away at it in 1936 when at the height of his power he got the party convention nomination rules changed to a simple majority (it had been 2/3) so that the Southern bloc could not block Liberals it didn't like (as it had in 1924).  The 1948 convention chipped away at it again when the South heard too much talk about "civil rights" from Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey, and walked out to run their own candidates.  Even got Truman's name wiped off the ballot in Alabama.
> 
> Thurmond then endorsed Eisenhower in the next election, and in retaliation was kicked off the Democratic ballot and ran as a write-in (which he won).  Twelve years later George Wallace tendered an offer to Barry Goldwater to switch parties and run with Goldwater as his running mate.  Goldwater declined and Wallace didn't make the switch but clearly the idea of "Republican" was becoming thinkable.
> 
> Clearly there were opposing dynamics and something had to give.  Enter the Civil Rights Act of 1964, drafted by Kennedy five months before his death, pushed by LBJ, shepherded through Congress by Democrats Humphrey and majority leader Mike Mansfield and opposed by Democrats Thurmond, Byrd, Eastland (MS), Russell (GA) and the South in general.  When that Southern contingent lost that battle, Thurmond finally acknowledged that it was after all "thinkable" to join the party that more represented his conservatism and switched to Republican, becoming the first prominent white Southern politician to do that, ninety-nine years after the Civil War ended.  The divorce was, finally, final.  He would be followed by other traditional Democrats including the Senator who lauded him at his 100th birthday, Trent Lott.
> 
> That's what the "party shifts" were.  The former (around 1900) was a shift in the two parties' constituency; the latter (1964- ) was a shift OF a constituency to the other party.  Bottom line--- both voters, and politicians, join (or switch) political parties for many more reasons than that they agree with its presumed ideology, two of which are practicality and simple tradition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats are and have always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> The simplest proof is that the first or second most popular Democrat elected official, Bill Clinton.....personification of the Democrat Party.....has always ......always....
> 
> ...been a life-long racist.
> 
> 
> Fits that party perfectly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You genuinely have no clue what a Composition Fallacy is, do you?
> 
> That's soooo cute.   Perhaps that spandex is inhibiting cranial circulation.
> 
> Lemme give you a hint.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​From this, of course, we may conclude that all Republicans are named "David".
> Just as all Democrats are named "Bill".
> 
> Of course this also means that anyone named "Bill" is a Democrat
> 
> 
> 
> --- and anyone name "David" is a Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> ​--- see how that works?
> 
> Nah, you probably don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are currently a lying low-life, and, no need to re-monogram those towels...you'll always be a lying low-life.
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke....the Democrat.
> 
> State Senator, 1975 (Baton Rouge Area)[edit]
> Threshold > 50%
> 
> First Ballot, November 1, 1975
> 
> Louisiana State Senate, 1975
> Party Candidate Votes %
> Democratic Kenneth Osterberger 22,287 66
> Democratic David Duke 11,079 33
> N/A Others 1
> Total 100
> State Senator, 10th District, 1979 (Suburban New Orleans)[edit]
> Threshold > 50% First Ballot, October 27, 1979
> 
> Louisiana State Senate, 10th District, 1979
> Party Candidate Votes %
> Democratic Joseph Tiemann 21,329 57
> Democratic David Duke 9,897 26
> N/A Others 6,459 17
> Total 37,685 100
> Democratic Nomination for United States Presidential Candidate, 1988 (Louisiana results)[edit]
> Threshold = Plurality
> 
> 1988 Democratic Presidential primary in Louisiana
> Party Candidate Votes %
> Democratic Jesse Jackson 221,522 35
> Democratic Al Gore 174,971 28
> Democratic Michael Dukakis 95,661 15
> Democratic Dick Gephardt 67,029 11
> Democratic Gary Hart 26,437 4
> Democratic David Duke 23,391 4
> Democratic Others 16,008 3
> Total 625,019 100
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
Click to expand...

What PoliticalHack won't tell you is that while Duke did run as a Democrat - *he couldn't win an election because Democrats rejected him and his platform.* David Duke couldn't win as a Democrat so he switched parties. He finally won one because racist Republicans embraced him.


----------



## Faun

Geaux4it said:


>


What would you do without photoshop?


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not all that's changed.
> 
> In 1924, the Klan endorsed the Democrat nominee.
Click to expand...


Actually no.  In 1924 the Klan supported Coolidge.  The Democratic nominee, when he was finally nominated after over 100 ballots that the Klan sycophants kept holding up because Underwood and Al Smith were insisting on a plank denouncing the Klan, was settled on dark horse Davis, the Governor of West Virginia --- who accepted and promptly denounced the Klan.  

Four years later the Klan Imperial Jizzhat took credit for getting Hoover elected as the Republican won some Southern states.


----------



## Pogo

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Despite its 100 years of civil rights history prior to Goldwater and Goldwater’s own support for civil rights, you lefties calling him a racist or racially insensitive because a man stood on principle.
> 
> Do you have any idea why Goldwater voted against the CRA of 1964?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, you're not answering the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Martin Luther King Jr. answers the question quite well on my behalf
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think you're funny with repeating that quote, but you're actually stuck on stupid.
> 
> First of all, you can say there was a "party switch" without admitting that Democrats were racist to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I have no problem with admitting that Democrats were racists.
> 
> And so were Republicans.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln- a President I greatly admire- was a racist. Read his comments on 'negroes' and it is clear he didn't consider them the equal to the white man. That doesn't change what great things Abraham Lincoln did for African Americans- nor of his good will in general towards African Americans.
> 
> In 1865 virtually everyone was a racist. Hell even African Americans tended to think of themselves as inferior to white Americans- such was the prevelant propaganda at the time.
> 
> But the South was the base of the particular institution of slavery, and was arguably more racist than any other part of the country(arguably because it could be regional- California and the West Coast was horribly racist towards Chinese, and very little towards African Americans). The South was also staunchly Protestant and Conservative.
> 
> For the next 100 years- the white conservative Christians of the South institutionalized their racism- and voted Democrat- because the GOP was the party of Lincoln. African Americans- when they could vote, voted Republican.
> 
> You of course know all of this, but prefer to lie rather than admit this.
> 
> Starting in the '30's with the New Deal, African Americans started to vote more Democrat, and even more so during the War because of FDR's programs to integrate African Americans into the war industry- and of course Eleanor's championing of minority rights.
> 
> Most people in the United States, by my standards, would still be considered racists- but this was heightened in the South.
> 
> LBJ by our standards would easily be called a racist. Just like Lincoln. LBJ was certainly a political opportunist- but he was also a man with a very deep compassion for poor people- including poor people of color. As a politician in the South, he could not succeed by promoting civil rights for minorities(African Americans but also Mexican Americans)- until the time was ripe when he could do so.
> 
> LBJ did nothing for Civil Rights for minorities- until he was actually able to do something. And then he did.
> 
> Now lets go to 1965.
> 
> Were the Southern white Conservative Christians racists?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Were they mostly Democrats? Yep.
> 
> Were there Republicans too? Yep- a few- and they voted just like the Democrats.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Northern Democrats- were by the standards of the day- not racists. They voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- along with the Northern Republican.
> 
> What you want to try to argue though is somehow- starting in 1965- the Southern Conservative Christians racists- started to become less racist- and that is why they started voting Republican.
> 
> While Southern Christian African Americans- who transitioned to voting to Democrats- became racists.
> 
> How did those Southern Conservative racist Christian- whose families had often voted for generations Democrats- suddenly become 'not racists'?
Click to expand...


Message board wags love to massage these numbers to make CRA '64 look like a "Republican über Democrat" thing.  As if the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" mean the same thing to anyone who wears either one (which of course completely fails to explain those who switch parties.....)

But the reality is the world doesn't work that way and never has.  They pull this list:




​--- and giggle and point to the numbers.  Here's the context they painstakingly leave out:

>> 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.

Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.

Put another way, party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?

You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the Confederacy and those that were not.




​You can see that *geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation*. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that *they weren't from the South*. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.

But what happens when we _control for both party affiliation and region_? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".




In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.

Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.

The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.

That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message.

.... Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it, and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republicans. <<  --- _The Guardian
_​The contrast has always been about cultural geography, not what name of a political party follows a legislator's name.


----------



## Pogo

Pogo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not all that's changed.
> 
> In 1924, the Klan endorsed the Democrat nominee.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually no.  In 1924 the Klan supported Coolidge.  The Democratic nominee, when he was finally nominated after over 100 ballots that the Klan sycophants kept holding up because Underwood and Al Smith were insisting on a plank denouncing the Klan, was settled on dark horse Davis, the Governor of West Virginia --- who accepted and promptly denounced the Klan.
> 
> Four years later the Klan Imperial Jizzhat took credit for getting Hoover elected as the Republican won some Southern states.
Click to expand...


Haiku-boi gives me a "funny" for this post.  Let's see how "funny" it is.

>> In 1924, the group convinced Republican Party leaders to avoid criticizing them, prompting _Time_ to put [Klan Imperial Wizard] Evans on its cover.[94] T*hat year, the Klan supported Calvin Coolidge in his successful candidacy for president of the U.S.*[95] Although Coolidge opposed many key Klan platforms, with the exception of immigration restrictions and prohibition, he was the only major-party candidate who did not condemn them.[96] Nonetheless, Evans declared Coolidge's victory a great success for the Klan.[96]

.... In 1928, Evans opposed the candidacy of the New York Democratic governor Al Smith for president, emphasizing the threat of Smith's Catholic faith. *After the Republican Herbert Hoover won the election, Evans boldly claimed responsibility for Smith's loss*; but most of the solidly Democratic South had rejected Hoover and voted for Smith against the Klan's advice.[104]  << --- Wiki​Of course I went into more detail on the Klan's anti-Smith campaign complete with its terroristic threats in 1928, earlier in the thread.

Hm.  I'm not finding the "funny".  

But I do notice that Hiram Evans, the head of the Klan, got put on the cover of Time Magazine, and didn't need to fake a cover.


----------



## American_Jihad

deanrd said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
Click to expand...

Wow, look at all those white dumbocrats. Glad they stayed dumbocrats...
Here let the negroid put a spell on you





lol, stupid libtart...


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, you're not answering the question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think Martin Luther King Jr. answers the question quite well on my behalf
> 
> Not me- Martin Luther King Jr. said these words
> 
> Meanwhile I will leave you with the words from Martin Luther King Jr.From 1964 (not 1924)
> _*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.*
> 
> *
> ....... On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You think you're funny with repeating that quote, but you're actually stuck on stupid.
> 
> First of all, you can say there was a "party switch" without admitting that Democrats were racist to begin with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I have no problem with admitting that Democrats were racists.
> 
> And so were Republicans.
> 
> Abraham Lincoln- a President I greatly admire- was a racist. Read his comments on 'negroes' and it is clear he didn't consider them the equal to the white man. That doesn't change what great things Abraham Lincoln did for African Americans- nor of his good will in general towards African Americans.
> 
> In 1865 virtually everyone was a racist. Hell even African Americans tended to think of themselves as inferior to white Americans- such was the prevelant propaganda at the time.
> 
> But the South was the base of the particular institution of slavery, and was arguably more racist than any other part of the country(arguably because it could be regional- California and the West Coast was horribly racist towards Chinese, and very little towards African Americans). The South was also staunchly Protestant and Conservative.
> 
> For the next 100 years- the white conservative Christians of the South institutionalized their racism- and voted Democrat- because the GOP was the party of Lincoln. African Americans- when they could vote, voted Republican.
> 
> You of course know all of this, but prefer to lie rather than admit this.
> 
> Starting in the '30's with the New Deal, African Americans started to vote more Democrat, and even more so during the War because of FDR's programs to integrate African Americans into the war industry- and of course Eleanor's championing of minority rights.
> 
> Most people in the United States, by my standards, would still be considered racists- but this was heightened in the South.
> 
> LBJ by our standards would easily be called a racist. Just like Lincoln. LBJ was certainly a political opportunist- but he was also a man with a very deep compassion for poor people- including poor people of color. As a politician in the South, he could not succeed by promoting civil rights for minorities(African Americans but also Mexican Americans)- until the time was ripe when he could do so.
> 
> LBJ did nothing for Civil Rights for minorities- until he was actually able to do something. And then he did.
> 
> Now lets go to 1965.
> 
> Were the Southern white Conservative Christians racists?
> 
> Yep.
> 
> Were they mostly Democrats? Yep.
> 
> Were there Republicans too? Yep- a few- and they voted just like the Democrats.
> 
> Meanwhile, the Northern Democrats- were by the standards of the day- not racists. They voted for the 1964 Civil Rights Act- along with the Northern Republican.
> 
> What you want to try to argue though is somehow- starting in 1965- the Southern Conservative Christians racists- started to become less racist- and that is why they started voting Republican.
> 
> While Southern Christian African Americans- who transitioned to voting to Democrats- became racists.
> 
> How did those Southern Conservative racist Christian- whose families had often voted for generations Democrats- suddenly become 'not racists'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Message board wags love to massage these numbers to make CRA '64 look like a "Republican über Democrat" thing.  As if the terms "Republican" and "Democrat" mean the same thing to anyone who wears either one (which of course completely fails to explain those who switch parties.....)
> 
> But the reality is the world doesn't work that way and never has.  They pull this list:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​--- and giggle and point to the numbers.  Here's the context they painstakingly leave out:
> 
> >> 80% of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the bill. Less than 70% of Democrats did. Indeed, Minority Leader Republican Everett Dirksen led the fight to end the filibuster. Meanwhile, Democrats such as Richard Russell of Georgia and Strom Thurmond of South Carolina tried as hard as they could to sustain a filibuster.
> 
> Of course, it was also Democrats who helped usher the bill through the House, Senate, and ultimately a Democratic president who signed it into law. The bill wouldn't have passed without the support of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield of Montana, a Democrat. Majority Whip Hubert Humphrey, who basically split the Democratic party in two with his 1948 Democratic National Convention speech calling for equal rights for all, kept tabs on individual members to ensure the bill had the numbers to overcome the filibuster.
> 
> Put another way, party affiliation seems to be somewhat predictive, but something seems to be missing. So, what factor did best predicting voting?
> 
> You don't need to know too much history to understand that the South from the civil war to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 tended to be opposed to minority rights. This factor was separate from party identification or ideology. We can easily control for this variable by breaking up the voting by those states that were part of the Confederacy and those that were not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​You can see that *geography was far more predictive of voting coalitions on the Civil Rights than party affiliation*. What linked Dirksen and Mansfield was the fact that *they weren't from the South*. In fact, 90% of members of Congress from states (or territories) that were part of the Union voted in favor of the act, while less than 10% of members of Congress from the old Confederate states voted for it. This 80pt difference between regions is far greater than the 15pt difference between parties.
> 
> But what happens when we _control for both party affiliation and region_? As Sean Trende noted earlier this year, "sometimes relationships become apparent only after you control for other factors".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In this case, it becomes clear that Democrats in the north and the south were more likely to vote for the bill than Republicans in the north and south respectively. This difference in both houses is statistically significant with over 95% confidence. It just so happened southerners made up a larger percentage of the Democratic than Republican caucus, which created the initial impression than Republicans were more in favor of the act.
> 
> Nearly 100% of Union state Democrats supported the 1964 Civil Rights Act compared to 85% of Republicans. None of the southern Republicans voted for the bill, while a small percentage of southern Democrats did.
> 
> The same pattern holds true when looking at ideology instead of party affiliation. The folks over at Voteview.com, who created DW-nominate scores to measure the ideology of congressmen and senators, found that the more liberal a congressman or senator was the more likely he would vote for the Civil Rights Act of 1964, once one controlled for a factor closely linked to geography.
> 
> That's why Strom Thurmond left the Democratic party soon after the Civil Right Act passed. He recognized that of the two parties, it was the Republican party that was more hospitable to his message.
> 
> .... Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it, and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republicans. <<  --- _The Guardian
> _​The contrast has always been about cultural geography, not what name of a political party follows a legislator's name.
Click to expand...


Thank you- great post- and I love this quote which i had not seen before

. Thus, it seems to me that minorities have a pretty good idea of what they are doing when joining the Democratic party. They recognize that the Democratic party of today looks and sounds a lot more like the Democratic party of the North that with near unity passed the Civil Rights Bill of 1964 than the southern Democrats of the era who blocked it, and today would, like Strom Thurmond, likely be Republicans. << --- _The Guardian
_
Which rather reflects Martin Luther King Jr.'s observation from 1964


----------



## Syriusly

American_Jihad said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here let the negroid put a spell on you.
Click to expand...


Wow- is that you at the head of the march? With your use of the word 'negroid'- you probably fit right in with your local chapter.

Now- do you vote Democrat or Republican? That is a rhetorical question....


----------



## American_Jihad

Syriusly said:


> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here let the negroid put a spell on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- is that you at the head of the march? With your use of the word 'negroid'- you probably fit right in with your local chapter.
> 
> Now- do you vote Democrat or Republican? That is a rhetorical question....
Click to expand...

Imbecile, negroid is the politically correct word for the "N" word or ******, just trying to accommodate you libtarts with PC ...
P.S. see what I mean they ****** the N/word they don't with negroid yet, now stfu...lol


----------



## Syriusly

American_Jihad said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> American_Jihad said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here let the negroid put a spell on you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wow- is that you at the head of the march? With your use of the word 'negroid'- you probably fit right in with your local chapter.
> 
> Now- do you vote Democrat or Republican? That is a rhetorical question....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile, negroid is the politically correct word for the "N" word
Click to expand...


And by 'politically' correct you mean USMB won't allow you to use N*gger spelled out. 

I will put you down as a Trump voter.


----------



## bripat9643

Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


----------



## eightyeight

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family.  No liberal believes in such things.  And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead.  Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.

And neither of those rallies was at a Democratic convention.  That's an old internet lie you are too stupid to catch on to.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

eightyeight said:


> The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family. No liberal believes in such things. And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead. Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.




You MUST be a troll.


----------



## depotoo

You are a really lousy left wing puppet.





eightyeight said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family.  No liberal believes in such things.  And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead.  Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.
Click to expand...


----------



## BlackFlag

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


Yet you endorse that becoming the face of the modern GOP.  Hmm.


----------



## eightyeight

depotoo said:


> You are a really lousy left wing puppet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family.  No liberal believes in such things.  And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead.  Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Liberals are *xxxxxx *lovers.  Now, does the KKK love *xxxxxxx*?


eightyeight *NO RACIST COMMENTS*


----------



## Reasonable

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


What this fraud won't tell you is all Klan members were CONSERVATIVES. Liberals fought for civil rights. Conservatives fought against it. True dat!


----------



## bripat9643

BlackFlag said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet you endorse that becoming the face of the modern GOP.  Hmm.
Click to expand...

When did I do that?


You know that the colors black, green and red are the colors of the Pan African flag.  They are communists.  That pretty much says all we need to know about anything you post.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

BlackFlag said:


> Yet you endorse that becoming the face of the modern GOP. Hmm.




All this "I'm-rubber-you're-glue" melting is highly entertaining.


----------



## Reasonable

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


source: I have the truth .com. Lol. Your sources get more off the wall all the time. Be honest for once in your life. You don't read IHAVETHE TRUTH.COM. Tell what site you really found this at.
I can only imagine


----------



## eightyeight

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.

DESCRIPTION
Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
RECORD DETAILS
*Image ID:* 1902
*Creation Date:* 1924-12-05  
*Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
*City:* Madison
*County:* Dane
*State:* Wisconsin
*Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
*Genre:* Photograph
*Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
*Original Format Number:* CF 67957
*Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches 

Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society

What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

eightyeight said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a really lousy left wing puppet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family.  No liberal believes in such things.  And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead.  Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals are n*gger lovers.  Now, does the KKK love n*ggers?
Click to expand...

You're a Christian, right?

Wasn't Jesus half jew and half god?  

Isn't it possible that Jesus was black?  I mean, unless you have personally seen God (please say you have ) how do you know that God isn't black?  and therefore...

JESUS WAS BLACK!!!

YES!!!

Jesus was everything you hate.  Half jew, half black.

He was a funky, bad-ass jew!!!

He was LENNY FUCKING KRAVITZ!!!






Let us praise Jesus!!!

Who is with me?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

eightyeight said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

_I was born long ago
I am the chosen I'm the one
I have come to save the day
And I won't leave until I'm done

So that's why you've got to try
You got to breath and have some fun
Though I'm not paid I play this game
And I won't stop until I'm done

But what I really want to know is
Are you gonna go my way?
And I got to got to know

I don't know why we always cry
This we must leave and get undone
We must engage and rearrange
And turn this planet back to one

So tell me why we got to die
And kill each other one by one
We've got to love and rub-a-dub
We've got to dance and be in love

But what I really want to know is
Are you gonna go my way?
And I got to got to know

Are you gonna go my way?
'Cause baby I got to know
Yeah_
_~Lenny Kravitz - A.K.A Jesus_


 Behold, the Son of God:
_



_


----------



## BlueGin

eightyeight said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family.  No liberal believes in such things.  And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead.  Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.
> 
> And neither of those rallies was at a Democratic convention.  That's an old internet lie you are too stupid to catch on to.
Click to expand...

^^
So who's sock are you? Ravi...Mani or a Mod?


----------



## depotoo

This needs to be seen by those with an open mind


----------



## ABikerSailor

Hmmm...............I was thinking that it may have been from the 1927 KKK rally in NYC that Frank Trump (The Donald's father) was arrested at.

*On Memorial Day 1927, brawls erupted in New York led by sympathisers of the Italian fascist movement and the Ku Klux Klan. In the fascist brawl, which took place in the Bronx, two Italian men were killed by anti-fascists. In Queens, 1,000 white-robed Klansmen marched through the Jamaica neighbourhood, eventually spurring an all-out brawl in which seven men were arrested.

One of those arrested was Fred Trump of 175-24 Devonshire Road in Jamaica.

This is Donald Trump's father. Trump had a brother named Fred, but he wasn't born until more than a decade later. The Fred Trump at Devonshire Road was the Fred C. Trump who lived there with his mother, according to the 1930 Census.*

In 1927, Donald Trump’s father was arrested after a Ku Klux Klan riot in New York


----------



## Borillar

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


Welcome to the last 50 years.


----------



## Reasonable

BlueGin said:


> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family.  No liberal believes in such things.  And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead.  Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.
> 
> And neither of those rallies was at a Democratic convention.  That's an old internet lie you are too stupid to catch on to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^
> So who's sock are you? Ravi...Mani or a Mod?
Click to expand...

You mean there's more klansmen running amok here?


----------



## Norman

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…



They have always stood for coercion as their means to secure their livelihood, whether it be slavery or taxation.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Reasonable said:


> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family.  No liberal believes in such things.  And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead.  Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.
> 
> And neither of those rallies was at a Democratic convention.  That's an old internet lie you are too stupid to catch on to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^
> So who's sock are you? Ravi...Mani or a Mod?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean there's more klansmen running amok here?
Click to expand...

Apparently so.     dudes are talking about "racial purity" and shit.    Isn't incest the highest form of preserving racial purity?   (dueling banjos playing in the background)


----------



## Billy000

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


Actually, liberals don't give a shit because democrats weren't liberal back then you dumbass. Any historian knows this. This picture does nothing to shed light on any sort of revelation. 

God you're dumb.


----------



## depotoo

And this-


----------



## depotoo

This again?  He attended the Memorial Day Parade, in which some kkk attended.  He was picked up and released without charges as he was not participating with the kkk.  Love how the jerk that posted it, started the rumor by saying it was a kkk rally, yet in his book he did state it was at a Memorial Day Parade.   Assholes, one and all.










ABikerSailor said:


> Hmmm...............I was thinking that it may have been from the 1927 KKK rally in NYC that Frank Trump (The Donald's father) was arrested at.
> 
> *On Memorial Day 1927, brawls erupted in New York led by sympathisers of the Italian fascist movement and the Ku Klux Klan. In the fascist brawl, which took place in the Bronx, two Italian men were killed by anti-fascists. In Queens, 1,000 white-robed Klansmen marched through the Jamaica neighbourhood, eventually spurring an all-out brawl in which seven men were arrested.
> 
> One of those arrested was Fred Trump of 175-24 Devonshire Road in Jamaica.
> 
> This is Donald Trump's father. Trump had a brother named Fred, but he wasn't born until more than a decade later. The Fred Trump at Devonshire Road was the Fred C. Trump who lived there with his mother, according to the 1930 Census.*
> 
> In 1927, Donald Trump’s father was arrested after a Ku Klux Klan riot in New York


----------



## depotoo

The dnc convention that year was known as the klanbake.  Anyone can easily find that info, even wiki.





eightyeight said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...


----------



## L.K.Eder

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


this weak shit again? are you tards running out of new feces to hurl?


----------



## Issa

From my experience as a minority I find "conservatives and "republicans" the only racists I came across.


----------



## Reasonable

Issa said:


> From my experience as a minority I find "conservatives and "republicans" the only racists I came across.


A personal account. The DEPLORABLES will never believe it. 

Please post here more often


----------



## Issa

This is where it gets interesting....before I moved to the US, I was warned to stay away from the red states.
I have been living in one of the most liberal cities in California....had 0 encounters with racism being a Muslim and brown. 

The so called conservatives accuse us for hating the Jews, and I'm sitting right here surrounded by Jewish friends and my best man who happens to be Jewish. But here are these same conservatives that are ok with the Nazis and the KKK running free in the streets, of the same country that lost thousands to defeat the Nazis.

I just think that people fear the unknown and buy into the propaganda.


----------



## Ted Frazier

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


Democrats were not liberal in 1924. 
Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

eightyeight said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

_So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Issa said:


> From my experience as a minority I find "conservatives and "republicans" the only racists I came across.


_"Anyone I disagree with is a racist."-Every Democrat ever_

_Even if that were true, it's what is called "Anecdotal evidence", called such because it's not evidence._


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Ted Frazier said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
Click to expand...

_Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _

_There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
_In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _


----------



## Issa

It's a life experience and I'm not a Democrat nor a liberal.


Pumpkin Row said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my experience as a minority I find "conservatives and "republicans" the only racists I came across.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Anyone I disagree with is a racist."-Every Democrat ever_
> 
> _Even if that were true, it's what is called "Anecdotal evidence", called such because it's not evidence._
Click to expand...


----------



## Ted Frazier

Pumpkin Row said:


> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
Click to expand...

False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
 (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).




I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).


----------



## Crixus

eightyeight said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family.  No liberal believes in such things.  And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead.  Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.
> 
> And neither of those rallies was at a Democratic convention.  That's an old internet lie you are too stupid to catch on to.
Click to expand...



Mods, I accept and understand my bancation.

The Klan's beliefs are the same as that of the taliban. Membership is about the same to. It was so bad, that plank owners bailed on it after it started. The Klan is not but a bunch of whipped white dudes who are to fucking lazy to clean them selves up and find a job. You Klan types are no better then the hood rats and illegals. Y'all sit there snorting your meth and fucking yo


eightyeight said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family.  No liberal believes in such things.  And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead.  Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.
> 
> And neither of those rallies was at a Democratic convention.  That's an old internet lie you are too stupid to catch on to.
Click to expand...





Racial purity? As in line breeding ? Faith ? Which one? Surly not the one invented by Jews. And family. Yup. Y'all really set them young ones up to win eh? You stand for nothing. Yalls place is on Jerry springer doing paternity tests with female family members. Your ideas are dead. Do your self a favor, clean up, get off the meth and go work. Then you will begin to see value in your self and can stop blaming Jews, Catholics and blacks.


----------



## Papageorgio

Reasonable said:


> View attachment 144166
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this fraud won't tell you is all Klan members were CONSERVATIVES. Liberals fought for civil rights. Conservatives fought against it. True dat!
Click to expand...


Wasn't Woodrow Wilson a Progressive? He was a racist through and through. 

The lefty and righty nutters can claim all the BS they want. Who and who wasn't racist crossed all boundaries and barriers and it still holds true to day. I know Democrats and Republicans that are racist, today. 

Even on this board there are racist Democrats and racist Republicans. Early on Matthew, a Democrat spouted lots of racial BS. He backed off awhile back but he is still a racist today. Democrats tend to overlook racism by fellow Democrats.


----------



## eightyeight

Pumpkin Row said:


> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
Click to expand...

So what?  The KKK hasn't voted for Democrats since Nixon.  Try staying within 40 years of current.


----------



## bodecea

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


Isn't it odd that we don't see any Republicans protesting them?


----------



## eightyeight

Papageorgio said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 144166
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this fraud won't tell you is all Klan members were CONSERVATIVES. Liberals fought for civil rights. Conservatives fought against it. True dat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't Woodrow Wilson a Progressive? He was a racist through and through.
> 
> The lefty and righty nutters can claim all the BS they want. Who and who wasn't racist crossed all boundaries and barriers and it still holds true to day. I know Democrats and Republicans that are racist, today.
> 
> Even on this board there are racist Democrats and racist Republicans. Early on Matthew, a Democrat spouted lots of racial BS. He backed off awhile back but he is still a racist today. Democrats tend to overlook racism by fellow Democrats.
Click to expand...

Democrats are racist but only against white working class men and women.  It's why we like Trump.  He's not against us.


----------



## deanrd

eightyeight said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 144166
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this fraud won't tell you is all Klan members were CONSERVATIVES. Liberals fought for civil rights. Conservatives fought against it. True dat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't Woodrow Wilson a Progressive? He was a racist through and through.
> 
> The lefty and righty nutters can claim all the BS they want. Who and who wasn't racist crossed all boundaries and barriers and it still holds true to day. I know Democrats and Republicans that are racist, today.
> 
> Even on this board there are racist Democrats and racist Republicans. Early on Matthew, a Democrat spouted lots of racial BS. He backed off awhile back but he is still a racist today. Democrats tend to overlook racism by fellow Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats are racist but only against white working class men and women.  It's why we like Trump.  He's not against us.
Click to expand...

USA TODAY exclusive: Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn’t pay his bills

Trump’s DC Hotel Tagged With $5 Million in Unpaid Worker Liens

The small business owners Trump never fully paid - CNNPolitics

Donald Trump Doesn't Pay All of His Campaign Staffers

Looks Like Ivanka Trump Doesn't Pay Her Interns | HuffPost

Trump likes suckers and you're "sweet".


----------



## deanrd

Ted Frazier said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
Click to expand...

Wow, look at that.  All those Blue States now filled with Republicans.  How did that happen?  Did all the Republicans move south?  Revisionists Right Wing Historians must have an explanation that's not laughable. Wonder what it is?


----------



## danielpalos

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


That was Before Hitler, not after Hitler, like the right wing.


----------



## NYcarbineer

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…



As opposed to conservatives who love that photo?  What?


----------



## NYcarbineer

eightyeight said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 144166
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this fraud won't tell you is all Klan members were CONSERVATIVES. Liberals fought for civil rights. Conservatives fought against it. True dat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't Woodrow Wilson a Progressive? He was a racist through and through.
> 
> The lefty and righty nutters can claim all the BS they want. Who and who wasn't racist crossed all boundaries and barriers and it still holds true to day. I know Democrats and Republicans that are racist, today.
> 
> Even on this board there are racist Democrats and racist Republicans. Early on Matthew, a Democrat spouted lots of racial BS. He backed off awhile back but he is still a racist today. Democrats tend to overlook racism by fellow Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats are racist but only against white working class men and women.  It's why we like Trump.  He's not against us.
Click to expand...


Your username is delightfully revealing.


----------



## Papageorgio

eightyeight said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 144166
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this fraud won't tell you is all Klan members were CONSERVATIVES. Liberals fought for civil rights. Conservatives fought against it. True dat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't Woodrow Wilson a Progressive? He was a racist through and through.
> 
> The lefty and righty nutters can claim all the BS they want. Who and who wasn't racist crossed all boundaries and barriers and it still holds true to day. I know Democrats and Republicans that are racist, today.
> 
> Even on this board there are racist Democrats and racist Republicans. Early on Matthew, a Democrat spouted lots of racial BS. He backed off awhile back but he is still a racist today. Democrats tend to overlook racism by fellow Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats are racist but only against white working class men and women.  It's why we like Trump.  He's not against us.
Click to expand...


Do you believe your own BS? Matthew is a pure racist and his posts proved he was. I don't care for Trump, I didn't vote for Trump.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


You moron.   Neither of those photos were from the 1924 Democratic National Convention. They're not even from New York, where the DNC was held that year.

Why do you keep showing the forum how you have shit for brains?


----------



## bodecea

eightyeight said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 144166
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this fraud won't tell you is all Klan members were CONSERVATIVES. Liberals fought for civil rights. Conservatives fought against it. True dat!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wasn't Woodrow Wilson a Progressive? He was a racist through and through.
> 
> The lefty and righty nutters can claim all the BS they want. Who and who wasn't racist crossed all boundaries and barriers and it still holds true to day. I know Democrats and Republicans that are racist, today.
> 
> Even on this board there are racist Democrats and racist Republicans. Early on Matthew, a Democrat spouted lots of racial BS. He backed off awhile back but he is still a racist today. Democrats tend to overlook racism by fellow Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats are racist but only against white working class men and women.  It's why we like Trump.  He's not against us.
Click to expand...

Eightyeight, huh?   Joined yesterday, huh?   Feeling welcome here, are you?    Fellow travelers here for you?


----------



## Faun

Pumpkin Row said:


> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
Click to expand...

The switch never happened...??

On which side of the aisle is the alt-right?

Which candidate did the KKK endorse last year?


----------



## Care4all

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


there is another thread on this...just an fyi

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…


----------



## bripat9643

danielpalos said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was Before Hitler, not after Hitler, like the right wing.
Click to expand...

General Lee was also well before Hitler, dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You moron.   Neither of those photos were from the 1924 Democratic National Convention. They're not even from New York, where the DNC was held that year.
> 
> Why do you keep showing the forum how you have shit for brains?
Click to expand...

Prove it.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You moron.   Neither of those photos were from the 1924 Democratic National Convention. They're not even from New York, where the DNC was held that year.
> 
> Why do you keep showing the forum how you have shit for brains?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...

Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society


----------



## eightyeight

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You moron.   Neither of those photos were from the 1924 Democratic National Convention. They're not even from New York, where the DNC was held that year.
> 
> Why do you keep showing the forum how you have shit for brains?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove it.
Click to expand...


I already did on the top photo.  It's from a cop funeral in Madison, Wisconsin.  What a dummy tool you are.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Issa said:


> It's a life experience and I'm not a Democrat nor a liberal.
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my experience as a minority I find "conservatives and "republicans" the only racists I came across.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Anyone I disagree with is a racist."-Every Democrat ever_
> 
> _Even if that were true, it's what is called "Anecdotal evidence", called such because it's not evidence._
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

_Actually, now that I think about your anecdotal evidence... how the hell would you even know the political alignment of random people you consider racists?_


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Ted Frazier said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
Click to expand...

Faun
deanrd

_Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._

_The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _

_I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _

_Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._

_The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _

_



_
_The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _


_



_
_Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._


_



_
_Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._


_



_

_Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._


_



_
_Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._


_



_
_In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._


_



_
_Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._


_



_
_Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._


_



_
_2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._


----------



## Pumpkin Row

eightyeight said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So what?  The KKK hasn't voted for Democrats since Nixon.  Try staying within 40 years of current.
Click to expand...

_Source?_


----------



## The Original Tree

*You can just post their logo.  It represents Genocide, Bigotry, Slavery and Hatred.
It is arguably the most racist symbol ever adopted by a political party and is on par with The Nazi Swastika.*




*That's as racist as it gets.  A Racist Symbol created by the most Racist Democrat who ever held office.  Andrew Jackson*


----------



## Issa

Because I know them well enough and they are known to be republicans. Why would i just come here and lie?
Facts are that most minorities although they are conservatives they overwhelmingly vote against the GOP....thr latter became more and more a white party....and it's even worse now with Trump.



Pumpkin Row said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a life experience and I'm not a Democrat nor a liberal.
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my experience as a minority I find "conservatives and "republicans" the only racists I came across.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Anyone I disagree with is a racist."-Every Democrat ever_
> 
> _Even if that were true, it's what is called "Anecdotal evidence", called such because it's not evidence._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, now that I think about your anecdotal evidence... how the hell would you even know the political alignment of random people you consider racists?_
Click to expand...


----------



## g5000

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…


Didn't you already start this topic once before and had your ass handed to you?  Or was that a different tard?


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Issa said:


> Because I know them well enough and they are known to be republicans. Why would i just come here and lie?
> Facts are that most minorities although they are conservatives they overwhelmingly vote against the GOP....thr latter became more and more a white party....and it's even worse now with Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a life experience and I'm not a Democrat nor a liberal.
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my experience as a minority I find "conservatives and "republicans" the only racists I came across.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Anyone I disagree with is a racist."-Every Democrat ever_
> 
> _Even if that were true, it's what is called "Anecdotal evidence", called such because it's not evidence._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, now that I think about your anecdotal evidence... how the hell would you even know the political alignment of random people you consider racists?_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

_Because that's what the left is best at, of course._

_If you're going to claim that minorities "overwhelmingly" vote against the GOP, you definitely have a source, right?_


----------



## g5000

Oh, it was a different tard.

Notice the similar topic titles:  Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…


You idiots are all fed from the same Nazi propagandist's hand.


----------



## g5000

bripat9643 said:


>



Nice photo of Christian terrorists!


----------



## g5000

*With the Klan operating primarily within the Republican party...*




Hooded Americanism


----------



## g5000

*We're Republicans now.*


----------



## g5000




----------



## g5000




----------



## g5000




----------



## g5000




----------



## g5000

New York. Ohio. Maine. Missouri. Colorado. Kansas. Oklahoma.

Dominated by Klan Republicans.

The Klan dominated the Republican party across the entire nation. The Klan so infected the GOP that some Republicans wanted to start an independent party.

Kind of like those of us who are sick of Trump and his Chumps who have infected the modern GOP.

I guess I should not be surprised Trump's Chumps are so profoundly ignorant of American history. Trump depends on them forgetting shit from five minutes ago, after all. And they happily oblige.





*We're Republicans now.*


----------



## g5000

Liberals Don't Like This Newly Discovered KKK Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?





bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why





Geaux4it said:


>





depotoo said:


>




The Tard national bird:


----------



## bripat9643

g5000 said:


> *With the Klan operating primarily within the Republican party...*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hooded Americanism


David Mark Chalmerss - the guy's a notorious leftist.  You're posting propaganda.


----------



## bripat9643

g5000 said:


>


Leftwing propaganda.


----------



## g5000

To the parroting tards, facts are "left wing propaganda".


----------



## bripat9643

g5000 said:


> To the parroting tards, facts are "left wing propaganda".


Prove they are facts.  I read the history of Standard Oil, and it's 100% pure unadulterated horseshit.


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> Leftwing propaganda.




Maybe it is.   But the Klan has always attached itself to the most socially conservative political groups.   When the Republicans had a more progressive political ideology the Klan was with the Democrats and then Dixiecrats.  As Republicans have been more socially conservative the Klan put their backing behind the Republican party.


----------



## Issa

Reuters) - Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.

Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.

Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions


I dont know why would you even ask for a proof, it's a known fact. The GOP is an anti minorities party and most bigots and racists call themselves conservatives and vote for the GOP.




Pumpkin Row said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I know them well enough and they are known to be republicans. Why would i just come here and lie?
> Facts are that most minorities although they are conservatives they overwhelmingly vote against the GOP....thr latter became more and more a white party....and it's even worse now with Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a life experience and I'm not a Democrat nor a liberal.
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> From my experience as a minority I find "conservatives and "republicans" the only racists I came across.
> 
> 
> 
> _"Anyone I disagree with is a racist."-Every Democrat ever_
> 
> _Even if that were true, it's what is called "Anecdotal evidence", called such because it's not evidence._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, now that I think about your anecdotal evidence... how the hell would you even know the political alignment of random people you consider racists?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Because that's what the left is best at, of course._
> 
> _If you're going to claim that minorities "overwhelmingly" vote against the GOP, you definitely have a source, right?_
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice photo of Christian terrorists!
Click to expand...

Now they're known as *Republiklans*


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftwing propaganda.
Click to expand...

Spits the forum's flaming retard who posted a photo from *Madison*, Wisconsin and promoted it as though it was from the DNC at *Madison* Square Garden.

Imbecile.


----------



## Shrimpbox

Issa said:


> Reuters) - Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.
> 
> Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.
> 
> Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions
> 
> 
> I dont know why would you even ask for a proof, it's a known fact. The GOP is an anti minorities party and most bigots and racists call themselves conservatives and vote for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I know them well enough and they are known to be republicans. Why would i just come here and lie?
> Facts are that most minorities although they are conservatives they overwhelmingly vote against the GOP....thr latter became more and more a white party....and it's even worse now with Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a life experience and I'm not a Democrat nor a liberal.
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Anyone I disagree with is a racist."-Every Democrat ever_
> 
> _Even if that were true, it's what is called "Anecdotal evidence", called such because it's not evidence._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, now that I think about your anecdotal evidence... how the hell would you even know the political alignment of random people you consider racists?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Because that's what the left is best at, of course._
> 
> _If you're going to claim that minorities "overwhelmingly" vote against the GOP, you definitely have a source, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

This is typical fake news spin. Trump won a larger percentage of the black, Hispanic, Vote and only marginally less asians. And one has to factor in the incessant media bias as affecting the result. Did he not get many minority votes, yes, but he got more than his predecessors.

Trump got more votes from people of color than Romney did. Here’s the data.


----------



## Faun

Shrimpbox said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reuters) - Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.
> 
> Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.
> 
> Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions
> 
> 
> I dont know why would you even ask for a proof, it's a known fact. The GOP is an anti minorities party and most bigots and racists call themselves conservatives and vote for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I know them well enough and they are known to be republicans. Why would i just come here and lie?
> Facts are that most minorities although they are conservatives they overwhelmingly vote against the GOP....thr latter became more and more a white party....and it's even worse now with Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a life experience and I'm not a Democrat nor a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> _Actually, now that I think about your anecdotal evidence... how the hell would you even know the political alignment of random people you consider racists?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Because that's what the left is best at, of course._
> 
> _If you're going to claim that minorities "overwhelmingly" vote against the GOP, you definitely have a source, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This is typical fake news spin. Trump won a larger percentage of the black, Hispanic, Vote and only marginally less asians. And one has to factor in the incessant media bias as affecting the result. Did he not get many minority votes, yes, but he got more than his predecessors.
> 
> Trump got more votes from people of color than Romney did. Here’s the data.
Click to expand...

Moron.... Romney lost his election. Were you home schooled?


----------



## Shrimpbox

false argument faun. A republican is not going to get more votes from the democratic base than a democrat. But trump did get more than previous republicans which you all thought was impossible. i am noticing that you liberals are really heavy on the personal attacks lately. Let's see moron, dumb fuck, fucking retard, fuck head,et al I have been called recently. Oh yeah and racist.i thought the mods didn't allow some of this language but I guess without the ad hominem you guys would have nothing to say.


----------



## Faun

Shrimpbox said:


> false argument faun. A republican is not going to get more votes from the democratic base than a democrat. But trump did get more than previous republicans which you all thought was impossible. i am noticing that you liberals are really heavy on the personal attacks lately. Let's see moron, dumb fuck, fucking retard, fuck head,et al I have been called recently. Oh yeah and racist.i thought the mods didn't allow some of this language but I guess without the ad hominem you guys would have nothing to say.


Imbecile... someone posted how Trump *won* the election while garnering the smallest percentage of minority voters.

You called that "fake news spin" and moronically compared the minority vote Trump received with what Romney received. Only Romney *lost* his election which means the point about Trump winning with the smallest share of minority votes is accurate.

And Republicans and conservatives can shut me up real easily. All y'all have to do is start posting truth and facts.


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> Reuters) - Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.
> 
> Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.
> 
> Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions
> 
> 
> I dont know why would you even ask for a proof, it's a known fact. The GOP is an anti minorities party and most bigots and racists call themselves conservatives and vote for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I know them well enough and they are known to be republicans. Why would i just come here and lie?
> Facts are that most minorities although they are conservatives they overwhelmingly vote against the GOP....thr latter became more and more a white party....and it's even worse now with Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a life experience and I'm not a Democrat nor a liberal.
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Anyone I disagree with is a racist."-Every Democrat ever_
> 
> _Even if that were true, it's what is called "Anecdotal evidence", called such because it's not evidence._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, now that I think about your anecdotal evidence... how the hell would you even know the political alignment of random people you consider racists?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Because that's what the left is best at, of course._
> 
> _If you're going to claim that minorities "overwhelmingly" vote against the GOP, you definitely have a source, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Among Blacks and Hispanics, Trump did better than Romney. Blacks polled 8% for Trump, 6% for Romney. Hispanics, Trump 29% to Romney 27%.

Trump did better with Blacks and Hispanics than Romney in 2012


----------



## AsianTrumpSupporter

Race and Party Politics, Part II – Senator Fullbright and Justice Black | The Other Half of History
_
*J. William Fulbright: Enemy of Joseph McCarthy and Equal Rights*

Fulbright was certainly no “ally” of black Americans. Bitterly racist, he fought to protect the Jim Crow laws that denied black citizens their constitutional rights. In 1956 Fulbright was one of ninety-nine congressional Democrats to sign the Southern Manifesto, which declared that the Southern states had a right to keep their populations segregated by race. (It should be mentioned in passing that only two Republicans signed the document.)

In 1964 Fulbright was one of a group of tenacious Democrats who filibustered for fifty-seven days in an attempt to block the Civil Rights Act that outlawed segregation in public accommodations.

Contrary to the stereotypes that Dr. Foner and other liberals try so hard to promote, Fulbright was also a very liberal Democrat. He was a staunch supporter of labor unions. He always lobbied for appeasement of the Soviet Union; and opposed American aid to Israel, which was, at that time, the only Middle-Eastern nation aligned with the United States against the Soviet Union.

He also did all he could to impair America’s fight against Communism in Vietnam, writing two books on the subject, and using his position as Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to undermine the war effort.

 Fulbright’s office provided assistance to young men who wanted to avoid the draft, including a young future President of the United States named Bill Clinton, whom Fulbright hired as a clerk just two years after filibustering to block the 1964 Civil Rights Act.5

As for “McCarthyism,” Senator Fulbright hated it just about as much as Professor Foner does.._.

Fulbright was Bill Clinton's idol and mentor.


----------



## Marion Morrison

Reasonable said:


> View attachment 144166
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What this fraud won't tell you is all Klan members were CONSERVATIVES. Liberals fought for civil rights. Conservatives fought against it. True dat!
Click to expand...



There's a big difference between liberals, and Communist, seditious, America-hating fucks that have taken over the Democrat party.

Let them do 1-2 more things, it'll be the last things they do. I know how Americans roll.

The Democrat party is already over.

They keep going and blood will be running. Theirs.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Issa said:


> Reuters) - Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.
> 
> Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.
> 
> Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions
> 
> 
> I dont know why would you even ask for a proof, it's a known fact. The GOP is an anti minorities party and most bigots and racists call themselves conservatives and vote for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I know them well enough and they are known to be republicans. Why would i just come here and lie?
> Facts are that most minorities although they are conservatives they overwhelmingly vote against the GOP....thr latter became more and more a white party....and it's even worse now with Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a life experience and I'm not a Democrat nor a liberal.
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"Anyone I disagree with is a racist."-Every Democrat ever_
> 
> _Even if that were true, it's what is called "Anecdotal evidence", called such because it's not evidence._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Actually, now that I think about your anecdotal evidence... how the hell would you even know the political alignment of random people you consider racists?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Because that's what the left is best at, of course._
> 
> _If you're going to claim that minorities "overwhelmingly" vote against the GOP, you definitely have a source, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

_I ask for proof, and you give me one election. Though, to be completely honest, I only asked for evidence to get on your nerves, it's pretty obvious that regardless of how much or how little of the "minority" vote a party gets, it wouldn't prove racism is inherent to a single party._


----------



## Ted Frazier

Pumpkin Row said:


> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
Click to expand...

What you didn't say about 1992 and 1996 is that the Northeast (Yankee states in the civil war) voted overwhelmingly more Democratic than Republican in both years. Cherrypicker.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Ted Frazier said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you didn't say about 1992 and 1996 is that the Northeast (Yankee states in the civil war) voted overwhelmingly more Democratic than Republican in both years. Cherrypicker.
Click to expand...

_The United States was almost evenly split, and as I stated above, Goldwater kicked the bucket long before those elections, dispelling the theory that racism turned the south red. Naturally, you'd miss the point, since you're the one pushing the Goldwater theory without having looked into it yourself._


----------



## Ted Frazier

Pumpkin Row said:


> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you didn't say about 1992 and 1996 is that the Northeast (Yankee states in the civil war) voted overwhelmingly more Democratic than Republican in both years. Cherrypicker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The United States was almost evenly split, and as I stated above, Goldwater kicked the bucket long before those elections, dispelling the theory that racism turned the south red. Naturally, you'd miss the point, since you're the one pushing the Goldwater theory without having looked into it yourself._
Click to expand...

Where was Goldwater more popular, in the North or in the South?


----------



## Issa

As a minority that knows and talk to other minorities, yes the GOP is the party of racists and bigots. Even in this board, most of the bigots and racists if not all, identify themselves as conservatives. 



Pumpkin Row said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reuters) - Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.
> 
> Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.
> 
> Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions
> 
> 
> I dont know why would you even ask for a proof, it's a known fact. The GOP is an anti minorities party and most bigots and racists call themselves conservatives and vote for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I know them well enough and they are known to be republicans. Why would i just come here and lie?
> Facts are that most minorities although they are conservatives they overwhelmingly vote against the GOP....thr latter became more and more a white party....and it's even worse now with Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a life experience and I'm not a Democrat nor a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> _Actually, now that I think about your anecdotal evidence... how the hell would you even know the political alignment of random people you consider racists?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Because that's what the left is best at, of course._
> 
> _If you're going to claim that minorities "overwhelmingly" vote against the GOP, you definitely have a source, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I ask for proof, and you give me one election. Though, to be completely honest, I only asked for evidence to get on your nerves, it's pretty obvious that regardless of how much or how little of the "minority" vote a party gets, it wouldn't prove racism is inherent to a single party._
Click to expand...


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Ted Frazier said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> 
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What you didn't say about 1992 and 1996 is that the Northeast (Yankee states in the civil war) voted overwhelmingly more Democratic than Republican in both years. Cherrypicker.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _The United States was almost evenly split, and as I stated above, Goldwater kicked the bucket long before those elections, dispelling the theory that racism turned the south red. Naturally, you'd miss the point, since you're the one pushing the Goldwater theory without having looked into it yourself._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where was Goldwater more popular, in the North or in the South?
Click to expand...

_Did you not read my post? One may wonder why an individual is on a forum if they can't read. _

_As I said in the above post that you didn't bother to read, it wasn't until 1996 that voting red became a trend, and it wasn't until 2000 that all of the "Goldwater" states were red at the same time, and stayed that way for future elections. That's 32 years after Goldwater ran, and lost horribly. Not only that, but not even the whole confederacy voted for Goldwater. Tennessee, Louisiana, South Carolina, and Texas all voted for someone else, and hell, Texas kept voting Democrat. Naturally, I'm only pointing out mostly the same thing since all you're doing is repeating the same myth I already thoroughly busted. The actions of someone with nothing of substance left to say._


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Issa said:


> As a minority that knows and talk to other minorities, yes the GOP is the party of racists and bigots. Even in this board, most of the bigots and racists if not all, identify themselves as conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reuters) - Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.
> 
> Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.
> 
> Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions
> 
> 
> I dont know why would you even ask for a proof, it's a known fact. The GOP is an anti minorities party and most bigots and racists call themselves conservatives and vote for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I know them well enough and they are known to be republicans. Why would i just come here and lie?
> Facts are that most minorities although they are conservatives they overwhelmingly vote against the GOP....thr latter became more and more a white party....and it's even worse now with Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Actually, now that I think about your anecdotal evidence... how the hell would you even know the political alignment of random people you consider racists?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Because that's what the left is best at, of course._
> 
> _If you're going to claim that minorities "overwhelmingly" vote against the GOP, you definitely have a source, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I ask for proof, and you give me one election. Though, to be completely honest, I only asked for evidence to get on your nerves, it's pretty obvious that regardless of how much or how little of the "minority" vote a party gets, it wouldn't prove racism is inherent to a single party._
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

_"People I disagree with are bigots!"_

_I like how much evidence you cited. That's right, none whatsoever. Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or are you just going to keep calling people racist without bothering to back it up?_


----------



## Issa

Is not about disagreeing most of the racism and bigotry comes from the conservatives, that's we minorities don't vote for them.
I joined this forum, and as a Muslim who was never called names in 20 years living in an ultra blue city,  I was called terrorists and all sort of names by the so called conservatives here. How much fact do you need?
Even the KIK and the neo-Nazis back your party and president for a reason.




Pumpkin Row said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a minority that knows and talk to other minorities, yes the GOP is the party of racists and bigots. Even in this board, most of the bigots and racists if not all, identify themselves as conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reuters) - Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.
> 
> Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.
> 
> Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions
> 
> 
> I dont know why would you even ask for a proof, it's a known fact. The GOP is an anti minorities party and most bigots and racists call themselves conservatives and vote for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I know them well enough and they are known to be republicans. Why would i just come here and lie?
> Facts are that most minorities although they are conservatives they overwhelmingly vote against the GOP....thr latter became more and more a white party....and it's even worse now with Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> _Because that's what the left is best at, of course._
> 
> _If you're going to claim that minorities "overwhelmingly" vote against the GOP, you definitely have a source, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I ask for proof, and you give me one election. Though, to be completely honest, I only asked for evidence to get on your nerves, it's pretty obvious that regardless of how much or how little of the "minority" vote a party gets, it wouldn't prove racism is inherent to a single party._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"People I disagree with are bigots!"_
> 
> _I like how much evidence you cited. That's right, none whatsoever. Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or are you just going to keep calling people racist without bothering to back it up?_
Click to expand...


----------



## Papageorgio

You are a left leaning person, and you gloss over left wing racists. This board has several left wing racist, you don't choose to see them. Pretty simple stuff, even for you.



Pumpkin Row said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a minority that knows and talk to other minorities, yes the GOP is the party of racists and bigots. Even in this board, most of the bigots and racists if not all, identify themselves as conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reuters) - Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.
> 
> Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.
> 
> Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions
> 
> 
> I dont know why would you even ask for a proof, it's a known fact. The GOP is an anti minorities party and most bigots and racists call themselves conservatives and vote for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because I know them well enough and they are known to be republicans. Why would i just come here and lie?
> Facts are that most minorities although they are conservatives they overwhelmingly vote against the GOP....thr latter became more and more a white party....and it's even worse now with Trump.
> 
> 
> 
> _Because that's what the left is best at, of course._
> 
> _If you're going to claim that minorities "overwhelmingly" vote against the GOP, you definitely have a source, right?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I ask for proof, and you give me one election. Though, to be completely honest, I only asked for evidence to get on your nerves, it's pretty obvious that regardless of how much or how little of the "minority" vote a party gets, it wouldn't prove racism is inherent to a single party._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"People I disagree with are bigots!"_
> 
> _I like how much evidence you cited. That's right, none whatsoever. Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or are you just going to keep calling people racist without bothering to back it up?_
Click to expand...


----------



## Issa

As a minority and 100% of the minorities I know agree that the right is more racist....same everywhere else, like Europe for example. 20 year in a blue city, nothing but respect...contrary to friends and people I know who live in conservative areas.



Papageorgio said:


> You are a left leaning person, and you gloss over left wing racists. This board has several left wing racist, you don't choose to see them. Pretty simple stuff, even for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a minority that knows and talk to other minorities, yes the GOP is the party of racists and bigots. Even in this board, most of the bigots and racists if not all, identify themselves as conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reuters) - Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.
> 
> Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.
> 
> Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions
> 
> 
> I dont know why would you even ask for a proof, it's a known fact. The GOP is an anti minorities party and most bigots and racists call themselves conservatives and vote for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Because that's what the left is best at, of course._
> 
> _If you're going to claim that minorities "overwhelmingly" vote against the GOP, you definitely have a source, right?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I ask for proof, and you give me one election. Though, to be completely honest, I only asked for evidence to get on your nerves, it's pretty obvious that regardless of how much or how little of the "minority" vote a party gets, it wouldn't prove racism is inherent to a single party._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"People I disagree with are bigots!"_
> 
> _I like how much evidence you cited. That's right, none whatsoever. Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or are you just going to keep calling people racist without bothering to back it up?_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Issa

And speaking of this board ive been attacked by the "conservatives" and called names when I revealed my religion. Don't lie to yourself, the right is more racist and bigoted.


----------



## Papageorgio

Nothing you said was about what I posted. Do you have a link proving your assertions, you seem to make crap up as you go. I care nothing about where you live or lived. 

I said you are biased and choose not to see racism on the left. 

Your changing the subject is just another left wing diversion. Thanks, nutter.



Issa said:


> As a minority and 100% of the minorities I know agree that the right is more racist....same everywhere else, like Europe for example. 20 year in a blue city, nothing but respect...contrary to friends and people I know who live in conservative areas.
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are a left leaning person, and you gloss over left wing racists. This board has several left wing racist, you don't choose to see them. Pretty simple stuff, even for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a minority that knows and talk to other minorities, yes the GOP is the party of racists and bigots. Even in this board, most of the bigots and racists if not all, identify themselves as conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reuters) - Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.
> 
> Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.
> 
> Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions
> 
> 
> I dont know why would you even ask for a proof, it's a known fact. The GOP is an anti minorities party and most bigots and racists call themselves conservatives and vote for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> _I ask for proof, and you give me one election. Though, to be completely honest, I only asked for evidence to get on your nerves, it's pretty obvious that regardless of how much or how little of the "minority" vote a party gets, it wouldn't prove racism is inherent to a single party._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"People I disagree with are bigots!"_
> 
> _I like how much evidence you cited. That's right, none whatsoever. Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or are you just going to keep calling people racist without bothering to back it up?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Papageorgio

Issa said:


> And speaking of this board ive been attacked by the "conservatives" and called names when I revealed my religion. Don't lie to yourself, the right is more racist and bigoted.



Poor baby, you wanna cookie? I don't care what your religion is, you are a left wing nut job.

I have been called names by lefties when they find out my religion. So by that measure, the left are a bunch of bigots. However I ignore their insults, who cares what anonymous left wing idiots on a message board think? They are only here for my entertainment.


----------



## Issa

Keep your crap cookie to yourself. I told you millions of times I'm not a lefty...but in majority they are more decent than the conservatives.

Not all conservatives are racists but all racists are conservatives .


Papageorgio said:


> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And speaking of this board ive been attacked by the "conservatives" and called names when I revealed my religion. Don't lie to yourself, the right is more racist and bigoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor baby, you wanna cookie? I don't care what your religion is, you are a left wing nut job.
> 
> I have been called names by lefties when they find out my religion. So by that measure, the left are a bunch of bigots. However I ignore their insults, who cares what anonymous left wing idiots on a message board think? They are only here for my entertainment.
Click to expand...


----------



## Papageorgio

Again, how do you explain the lefty Matthew on this board? He is a racist, pure and simple. Not that difficult, except for you left wing nuts. 

So your last sentence is a flat out lie, so you need to prove it. You keep making stupid statements and don't think you should have to prove your lies. Just like your stupid statement about 100% of minorities, BS. 

Can you even tell the truth?  



Issa said:


> Keep your crap cookie to yourself. I told you millions of times I'm not a lefty...but in majority they are more decent than the conservatives.
> 
> Not all conservatives are racists but all racists are conservatives .
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> And speaking of this board ive been attacked by the "conservatives" and called names when I revealed my religion. Don't lie to yourself, the right is more racist and bigoted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Poor baby, you wanna cookie? I don't care what your religion is, you are a left wing nut job.
> 
> I have been called names by lefties when they find out my religion. So by that measure, the left are a bunch of bigots. However I ignore their insults, who cares what anonymous left wing idiots on a message board think? They are only here for my entertainment.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Issa said:


> Is not about disagreeing most of the racism and bigotry comes from the conservatives, that's we minorities don't vote for them.
> I joined this forum, and as a Muslim who was never called names in 20 years living in an ultra blue city,  I was called terrorists and all sort of names by the so called conservatives here. How much fact do you need?
> Even the KIK and the neo-Nazis back your party and president for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a minority that knows and talk to other minorities, yes the GOP is the party of racists and bigots. Even in this board, most of the bigots and racists if not all, identify themselves as conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Issa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Reuters) - Donald Trump won the U.S. presidency with less support from black and Hispanic voters than any president in at least 40 years, a Reuters review of polling data shows, highlighting deep national divisions that have fueled incidents of racial and political confrontation.
> 
> Trump was elected with 8 percent of the black vote, 28 percent of the Hispanic vote and 27 percent of the Asian-American vote, according to the Reuters/Ipsos Election Day poll.
> 
> Trump won with lowest minority vote in decades, fueling divisions
> 
> 
> I dont know why would you even ask for a proof, it's a known fact. The GOP is an anti minorities party and most bigots and racists call themselves conservatives and vote for the GOP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Because that's what the left is best at, of course._
> 
> _If you're going to claim that minorities "overwhelmingly" vote against the GOP, you definitely have a source, right?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I ask for proof, and you give me one election. Though, to be completely honest, I only asked for evidence to get on your nerves, it's pretty obvious that regardless of how much or how little of the "minority" vote a party gets, it wouldn't prove racism is inherent to a single party._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"People I disagree with are bigots!"_
> 
> _I like how much evidence you cited. That's right, none whatsoever. Do you have anything of substance to add to the discussion, or are you just going to keep calling people racist without bothering to back it up?_
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

_You weren't called names by Conservatives, you are simply calling the people who called you names conservatives, and as stated before, your anecdotal "evidence" is not evidence. _
_What you call facts is simply name calling, as you've been ordered by your establishment overlords._

_You mean KKK, not KLK. So, which part of Donald Trump's platform is racist? For you to blame him for which people offer him support, you must be able to pick which part of his platform is racist._


----------



## NYcarbineer

Pumpkin Row said:


> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
Click to expand...


Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

NYcarbineer said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.
Click to expand...

_I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way._

_Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much._


----------



## ColonelAngus

David Duke ran as a Democrat in 1988.

That is a straight up fact.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Pumpkin Row said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way._
> 
> _Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much._
Click to expand...


Republicans won the former Confederate states of the South in how many elections from 1964 on?

Hint:  12 out of 14, and only lost them to Wallace in 1968 because he was more segregationist than Nixon.

Compare that to the 16 elections prior to 1964.


----------



## hjmick

Whether the photos are real or not, the 1924 Democrat convention is often referred to as the Klanbake...

Whether the photos are real or not, 1924 was 93 years ago. Irrelevant today.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

NYcarbineer said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> 
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way._
> 
> _Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans won the former Confederate states of the South in how many elections from 1964 on?
> 
> Hint:  12 out of 14, and only lost them to Wallace in 1968 because he was more segregationist than Nixon.
> 
> Compare that to the 16 elections prior to 1964.
Click to expand...

_As I explained in the above post you didn't bother to read because it didn't serve your false narrative, the vast majority of the times the states turned red were sweeping victories that nearly covered the entire US. The entire south wasn't red outside of sweeping victories until 2000. May hurt your head, but actually reading is beneficial._


----------



## monkeytrots

Pumpkin Row said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way._
> 
> _Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much._
Click to expand...


Oh, Pumpkin - you have hit 'em with overload.   Excellent review of non-leftist-revisionism REAL History

And let's not forget the1964 election ... WHO WAS THE RACIST IN THAT ELECTION - hint: one of the most racist presidents in history - next to Woodrow Wilson, and FDR - both of whom were extreme racists.

Why, in 1964 the RACIST Candidate was ... nope, not Goldwater ... t'was the other guy.   And then note EXACTLY how the so-called racist 'south' voted in that election:


----------



## monkeytrots

Pumpkin Row said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> 
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way._
> 
> _Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans won the former Confederate states of the South in how many elections from 1964 on?
> 
> Hint:  12 out of 14, and only lost them to Wallace in 1968 because he was more segregationist than Nixon.
> 
> Compare that to the 16 elections prior to 1964.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I explained in the above post you didn't bother to read because it didn't serve your false narrative, the vast majority of the times the states turned red were sweeping victories that nearly covered the entire US. The entire south wasn't red outside of sweeping victories until 2000. May hurt your head, but actually reading is beneficial._
Click to expand...


And yes... "Who is John Galt ?" hehehe

It is interesting going through this entire thread that the preponderence of ad hominen (name calling for the illiterate) and revisionist history arises NOT from the 'conservative side' - but from the leftist trolls entrenched here.

CONSERVATIVES are CLASSICAL LIBERALS - always have been, always will be.  Belief in inalienable rights and the equality of ALL men - rights from their CREATOR, not rights granted by some state.

Another 'history lesson' on RACISM - look at the race riots of the 70's over 'school bussing' - hint:  They weren't in the South or Red States - they were in DEEP BLUE STATES-  New York, Baltimore, Denver, Chicago  - real bastions of 'conservatism', eh ?  Yes, I am old enough to remember all of that.


----------



## NYcarbineer

monkeytrots said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> 
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way._
> 
> _Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Pumpkin - you have hit 'em with overload.   Excellent review of non-leftist-revisionism REAL History
> 
> And let's not forget the1964 election ... WHO WAS THE RACIST IN THAT ELECTION - hint: one of the most racist presidents in history - next to Woodrow Wilson, and FDR - both of whom were extreme racists.
> 
> Why, in 1964 the RACIST Candidate was ... nope, not Goldwater ... t'was the other guy.   And then note EXACTLY how the so-called racist 'south' voted in that election:
Click to expand...


LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.  Goldwater voted against it.


----------



## NYcarbineer

Pumpkin Row said:


> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> 
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way._
> 
> _Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans won the former Confederate states of the South in how many elections from 1964 on?
> 
> Hint:  12 out of 14, and only lost them to Wallace in 1968 because he was more segregationist than Nixon.
> 
> Compare that to the 16 elections prior to 1964.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I explained in the above post you didn't bother to read because it didn't serve your false narrative, the vast majority of the times the states turned red were sweeping victories that nearly covered the entire US. The entire south wasn't red outside of sweeping victories until 2000. May hurt your head, but actually reading is beneficial._
Click to expand...


You are just wrong and ineducable.


----------



## Pop23

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…



I think the third from the left is Robert Byrd, Democratic Senator, a KKK leader and someone Hillary Clinton called a Hero and her greatest mentor. 

Things really never change.


----------



## Pop23

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Reasonable said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlueGin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK believes is racial purity, faith, and family.  No liberal believes in such things.  And the KKK used to made of up of Democrats until the Yankees did them wrong and they wised up and joined the GOP instead.  Now we have Trump and we are once again blessed by God.
> 
> And neither of those rallies was at a Democratic convention.  That's an old internet lie you are too stupid to catch on to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^
> So who's sock are you? Ravi...Mani or a Mod?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean there's more klansmen running amok here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently so.     dudes are talking about "racial purity" and shit.    Isn't incest the highest form of preserving racial purity?   (dueling banjos playing in the background)
Click to expand...


You do realize your reference to dueling banjos is kind nuts, right?

Gays don't procreate.


----------



## xyz




----------



## monkeytrots

NYcarbineer said:


> monkeytrots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> 
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way._
> 
> _Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, Pumpkin - you have hit 'em with overload.   Excellent review of non-leftist-revisionism REAL History
> 
> And let's not forget the1964 election ... WHO WAS THE RACIST IN THAT ELECTION - hint: one of the most racist presidents in history - next to Woodrow Wilson, and FDR - both of whom were extreme racists.
> 
> Why, in 1964 the RACIST Candidate was ... nope, not Goldwater ... t'was the other guy.   And then note EXACTLY how the so-called racist 'south' voted in that election:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.  Goldwater voted against it.
Click to expand...

You strike out again.

Let me give you a little schoolyard lesson in History: (one that does NOT attempt to bias and revise history the way you do.)


*Ryskind recalled that Goldwater had led the successful effort to integrate the Arizona Air National Guard. In addition, as biographer Edwards wrote, Goldwater had years earlier changed his opposition to the Supreme Court's power to enforce school integration (his longtime friend, attorney Denison Kitchel, persuaded him) and told Southern delegates to the 1964 convention that segregation was "wrong, morally, and in some instances constitutionally." *

"I never met anyone who said they supported Goldwater because he would be somehow harder on blacks," Ryskind told Newsmax. "Conservatives thought — and I still believe — that every state in the South was promoting more progressive policies towards blacks and that some states were moving more rapidly in that direction than others."

As for the Republican nominee's position on the Civil Rights Act, Goldwater had said he would vote for passage if Section II on public accommodations and Section VII on equal employment opportunity were removed. With his view reinforced by a detailed memorandum from Phoenix lawyer and future Chief Justice William Rehnquist, *Goldwater felt these sections were unconstitutional, were unenforceable without a federal police force, and would lead to the creation of racial quotas and affirmative action. *

*"He was absolutely right about [the two sections of the Civil Rights Act] and they did lead to precisely what Goldwater and most conservatives were afraid of," *said Tom Winter, then executive editor of Human Events, who would join Ryskind as its co-owner a year later. As for the "extremism in the defense of liberty" speech, Winter recalled watching it from a San Francisco restaurant "and cheering it because it was clearly about freedom and fighting communism. I certainly didn't think it had anything to do with race."

NPR Wrong on Goldwater '64, Civil Rights, Say 4 Who Were There

Now - there is some ACCURATE HISTORY.  Chew on that for a while.


----------



## Pogo

ColonelAngus said:


> David Duke ran as a Democrat in 1988.
> 
> That is a straight up fact.



Of course.  Because he wanted to win.  Ray Nagin ran as a Democrat for the same reason.  In New Orleans, that's what works.

That was in the transitional period y'all are talking about when the "Solid South" was solidifying in the other direction.  Within a year he switched to Republican and that's how he won the one office he had.  And he's been Republican ever since, because in Louisiana outside New Orleans --- that's what works.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftwing propaganda.
Click to expand...


Nope.  Recorded history.

Maine was a big state for the Klan, and in that state Republicans owned politics in the same way the Democrats owned Louisiana.  Owen Brewster was a strongly-Klan-backed candidate who won offices of Governor, Congressman and Senator, and a close ally of Joe McCarthy.

What that meant was that the Klan political faction in Maine was Republican, and the anti-Klan political faction in Maine was also Republican.  The Democrats of course seized on the Klan connections but their state infrastructure was weak.  Same sort of intra-party division was going on around the same time in Kansas, where Ben Paulen took the Republican governor nomination (and the office) over other Republican elements that wanted to condemn the Klan.

Paulen's predecessor Henry Allen had been trying to oust the Klan out of Kansas a few years prior, the same time as Gov. Jack Walton of neighboring Oklahoma was trying to oust them out of that state.  Allen was a Republican, Walton a Democrat.

The Klan, in that period of political activity, split political parties that way --- which was actually what this thread could have been about if it hadn't started with a picture from Madison Wisconsin claiming it was the Democratic convention in New York City.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

NYcarbineer said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYcarbineer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> Faun
> deanrd
> 
> _Ahahaha. Cute, okay, I'll play your game. I've been waiting to give leftists a beating, anyway, and you look like volunteers._
> 
> _The theory you're trying to appeal to, while in the least informed way possible, is the "Goldwater" theory, which you apparently are trying to make appear even more sudden than it was claimed to be originally, by making the 'change' way earlier. _
> 
> _I suppose I'll refer to Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina as "The South", since that seems to be what most people are referring to in those cases. _
> 
> _Firstly, the southern states didn't simply "Stop voting democrat", it only became less frequent in 1964, and it would be more accurate to say that "They stopped voting reliably for Democrats". Although, only the majority of these states voted Republican, from 1968-1992, and it was only in 5/7 of said elections. Although that's a change, Maine and California voted Republican in six of those elections._
> 
> _The way the theory goes, it was in 1968 that the strategy starts. _
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _The very next election, Nixon wins practically none of the south. Of the states that voted for Goldwater, only one voted for Nixon. _
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Sure, the next election he wins the south. On the other hand, he only missed DC and Maine, so practically every state was won by the Republican._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Next election, the entire south voted for Jimmy Carter. Clearly they've all gone Republican because of Racism, thanks to Goldwater... oh wait. Although, I do find it interesting that it's nearly an even split between east and west._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> 
> _Oh look, the next time they go red... practically every state did as well... again. Ronald Reagan curbstomped one of the worst presidents in history. We're so surprised. Well, except Georgia._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Oh, the next election, Reagan sweeps the map again. Sure, the south voted red again, but so did nearly the entire rest of the United states._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _In 1988, the south is more red than the rest of the nation, but it only lasts for THIS election._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Because Arkansas, Georgia, and Louisiana all go Democrat, making the south a nearly even split, much like the rest of the US._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _Now, the south is more red than the rest of the Nation, and only now does it become a trend, in 1996, LONG after Goldwater ran, lost, later kicked the bucket. Though, Louisiana is still blue._
> 
> 
> _
> 
> 
> 
> _
> _2000 is the first non-landslide victory in which all states that voted for Goldwater voted for the Republican candidate, and continued voting Republican from that point onward. Your theory holds no water._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your maps clearly show the shift of the South from Democrat to Republican, and you don't even know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I know reading hurts your brain, and I can understand that, you're not used to actually using it for things, but if you bother to read my text, you can clearly see the south inconsistently voting for either party until 2000, at which point they turned red and stayed that way._
> 
> _Make sure you take a break after reading this post, don't want you to hurt yourself too much._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Republicans won the former Confederate states of the South in how many elections from 1964 on?
> 
> Hint:  12 out of 14, and only lost them to Wallace in 1968 because he was more segregationist than Nixon.
> 
> Compare that to the 16 elections prior to 1964.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _As I explained in the above post you didn't bother to read because it didn't serve your false narrative, the vast majority of the times the states turned red were sweeping victories that nearly covered the entire US. The entire south wasn't red outside of sweeping victories until 2000. May hurt your head, but actually reading is beneficial._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are just wrong and ineducable.
Click to expand...

_If I were wrong, you'd have told me why instead of creating post with no substance to it. Sounds like you've discovered your defeat and don't want to admit it. How mature of you~_


----------



## Pogo

Pumpkin Row said:


> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
Click to expand...


Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.

"Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.

Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.

The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.

The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.

--- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.


----------



## Pogo

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
Click to expand...


The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.  

The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).


----------



## Pogo

Pumpkin Row said:


> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened._
Click to expand...



Oh it happened, but it started well before FDR.  Turn of the 19th-20th century.  What did start with FDR was the black vote shifting to Democrat.


Pumpkin Row said:


> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _



That's not even remotely close.   The winner of the last election for the most recent example, pulled 46% of the vote while the turnout was 55%.  That works out to 25% of the electorate, juuuuuuuuuust a bit shy of "practically the entire US".


----------



## Pogo

Ted Frazier said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
Click to expand...


Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations.  They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
Click to expand...

_You never mentioned this to me, though that also doesn't disprove anything I said. _


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Pogo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
Click to expand...

_What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it happened, but it started well before FDR.  Turn of the 19th-20th century.  What did start with FDR was the black vote shifting to Democrat.
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not even remotely close.   The winner of the last election for the most recent example, pulled 46% of the vote while the turnout was 55%.  That works out to 25% of the electorate, juuuuuuuuuust a bit shy of "practically the entire US".
Click to expand...

_I already debunked the Goldwater theory in another post. I even broke it down. Did all of your responses have to be separate posts?_


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Pogo said:


> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations.  They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.
Click to expand...

_No doubt insisted that while murdering Republicans._


----------



## Pogo

Pumpkin Row said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it happened, but it started well before FDR.  Turn of the 19th-20th century.  What did start with FDR was the black vote shifting to Democrat.
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not even remotely close.   The winner of the last election for the most recent example, pulled 46% of the vote while the turnout was 55%.  That works out to 25% of the electorate, juuuuuuuuuust a bit shy of "practically the entire US".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I already debunked the Goldwater theory in another post. I even broke it down. Did all of your responses have to be separate posts?_
Click to expand...


I posted nothing there about any "Goldwater".  Try reading it again.
Nor do I have any idea what a "Goldwater theory" is


----------



## Pogo

Pumpkin Row said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations.  They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No doubt insisted that while murdering Republicans._
Click to expand...


Nope.  Actually the original founders were out for nothing more than a joke.  All that violence stuff came on after it was taken over from them.  And at the time there were literally dozens of such groups.

And the second one that went much bigger and coast-to-coast, was a con artist out to milk membership money from the gullible, because he saw what a sensation "Birth of a Nation" was.  Wouldn't have made sense to be murdering Republicans at the same time they were endorsing them.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh it happened, but it started well before FDR.  Turn of the 19th-20th century.  What did start with FDR was the black vote shifting to Democrat.
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not even remotely close.   The winner of the last election for the most recent example, pulled 46% of the vote while the turnout was 55%.  That works out to 25% of the electorate, juuuuuuuuuust a bit shy of "practically the entire US".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I already debunked the Goldwater theory in another post. I even broke it down. Did all of your responses have to be separate posts?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I posted nothing there about any "Goldwater".  Try reading it again.
> Nor do I have any idea what a "Goldwater theory" is
Click to expand...

_You'll find it, keep looking<3_


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were not liberal in 1924.
> Democrats are liberal in 2017. Ideologies switched after FDR. That's why now southern states (conservative in ideology) cute Republican now, no longer Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations.  They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No doubt insisted that while murdering Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Actually the original founders were out for nothing more than a joke.  All that violence stuff came on after it was taken over from them.  And at the time there were literally dozens of such groups.
> 
> And the second one that went much bigger and coast-to-coast, was a con artist out to milk membership money from the gullible, because he saw what a sensation "Birth of a Nation" was.  Wouldn't have made sense to be murdering Republicans at the same time they were endorsing them.
Click to expand...

_You must be thinking of a different KKK, entirely, then, because the KKK I'm thinking of, the anti-black group, murdered blacks and Republicans._


----------



## Pogo

Pumpkin Row said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You never mentioned this to me, though that also doesn't disprove anything I said. _
Click to expand...


We did this here at least a week ago, maybe two, whenever this bogus thread went up.  Same story, hasn't changed.  And it doesn't 'disprove' so much as "unslant".

That "Forney Johnston" thing though, still cracks me up.  I can't even figure out how a cheap-blog writer can be off that far to bring in a dead guy whose name looks nothing like "Oscar Underwood".  Or why somebody picking up a cheap-blog page like that and never bother to check its facts.


----------



## Pogo

Pumpkin Row said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
Click to expand...


Racism mostly.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You never mentioned this to me, though that also doesn't disprove anything I said. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did this here at least a week ago, maybe two, whenever this bogus thread went up.  Same story, hasn't changed.  And it doesn't 'disprove' so much as "unslant".
> 
> That "Forney Johnston" thing though, still cracks me up.  I can't even figure out how a cheap-blog writer can be off that far to bring in a dead guy whose name looks nothing like "Oscar Underwood".  Or why somebody picking up a cheap-blog page like that and never bother to check its facts.
Click to expand...

_No idea who Forney Johnson is or where he was mentioned. Also, apparently, this thread went up near the end of last month._


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
Click to expand...

_Oh, so it's a way for the left to blame everyone but themselves, got it. And what exactly makes racism "Conservative"?_


----------



## Pogo

Pumpkin Row said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> 
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations.  They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No doubt insisted that while murdering Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Actually the original founders were out for nothing more than a joke.  All that violence stuff came on after it was taken over from them.  And at the time there were literally dozens of such groups.
> 
> And the second one that went much bigger and coast-to-coast, was a con artist out to milk membership money from the gullible, because he saw what a sensation "Birth of a Nation" was.  Wouldn't have made sense to be murdering Republicans at the same time they were endorsing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You must be thinking of a different KKK, entirely, then, because the KKK I'm thinking of, the anti-black group, murdered blacks and Republicans._
Click to expand...


Reading comprehension slips again.

The post I answered claimed, and I quote, "KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats)"

Whelp --- no it wasn't.  I corrected that.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



Is this the "The KKK were Democrats before there was a shift, therefore modern day Democrats must somehow try and explain this when everybody and their dog know why it happened"?


----------



## Pogo

Pumpkin Row said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You never mentioned this to me, though that also doesn't disprove anything I said. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did this here at least a week ago, maybe two, whenever this bogus thread went up.  Same story, hasn't changed.  And it doesn't 'disprove' so much as "unslant".
> 
> That "Forney Johnston" thing though, still cracks me up.  I can't even figure out how a cheap-blog writer can be off that far to bring in a dead guy whose name looks nothing like "Oscar Underwood".  Or why somebody picking up a cheap-blog page like that and never bother to check its facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No idea who Forney Johnson is or where he was mentioned. Also, apparently, this thread went up near the end of last month._
Click to expand...


I had to look up "Forney Johnston" myself --- it was the name given in the bogus OP article as the Alabama Senator leading the denunciation of the Klan.  That was "Oscar Underwood".  Forney Johnston was long dead by then.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations.  They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No doubt insisted that while murdering Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Actually the original founders were out for nothing more than a joke.  All that violence stuff came on after it was taken over from them.  And at the time there were literally dozens of such groups.
> 
> And the second one that went much bigger and coast-to-coast, was a con artist out to milk membership money from the gullible, because he saw what a sensation "Birth of a Nation" was.  Wouldn't have made sense to be murdering Republicans at the same time they were endorsing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You must be thinking of a different KKK, entirely, then, because the KKK I'm thinking of, the anti-black group, murdered blacks and Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension slips again.
> 
> The post I answered claimed, and I quote, "KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats)"
> 
> Whelp --- no it wasn't.  I corrected that.
Click to expand...

_Completely missed that you were replying to a leftist nutjob, my bad~_


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You never mentioned this to me, though that also doesn't disprove anything I said. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did this here at least a week ago, maybe two, whenever this bogus thread went up.  Same story, hasn't changed.  And it doesn't 'disprove' so much as "unslant".
> 
> That "Forney Johnston" thing though, still cracks me up.  I can't even figure out how a cheap-blog writer can be off that far to bring in a dead guy whose name looks nothing like "Oscar Underwood".  Or why somebody picking up a cheap-blog page like that and never bother to check its facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No idea who Forney Johnson is or where he was mentioned. Also, apparently, this thread went up near the end of last month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had to look up "Forney Johnston" myself --- it was the name given in the bogus OP article as the Alabama Senator leading the denunciation of the Klan.  That was "Oscar Underwood".  Forney Johnston was long dead by then.
Click to expand...

_I apparently mistook this thread for the one started by Bripat. Wait... did they get merged?_


----------



## Pogo

Pumpkin Row said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, so it's a way for the left to blame everyone but themselves, got it. And what exactly makes racism "Conservative"?_
Click to expand...


It has nothing to do with "the left".  It has to do with that conservative wing.  You asked what made them the conservative wing.  They clearly were not the Liberal one.

Being a conservative does not in itself make one racist.  But in order to be a racist, one must be conservative.


----------



## Pogo

Pumpkin Row said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations.  They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.
> 
> 
> 
> _No doubt insisted that while murdering Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Actually the original founders were out for nothing more than a joke.  All that violence stuff came on after it was taken over from them.  And at the time there were literally dozens of such groups.
> 
> And the second one that went much bigger and coast-to-coast, was a con artist out to milk membership money from the gullible, because he saw what a sensation "Birth of a Nation" was.  Wouldn't have made sense to be murdering Republicans at the same time they were endorsing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You must be thinking of a different KKK, entirely, then, because the KKK I'm thinking of, the anti-black group, murdered blacks and Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension slips again.
> 
> The post I answered claimed, and I quote, "KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats)"
> 
> Whelp --- no it wasn't.  I corrected that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Completely missed that you were replying to a leftist nutjob, my bad~_
Click to expand...


Actually I was replying to a phrase.  I don't do labels.  I didn't even look to see who wrote it.
Interesting hangup but --- no thanks, I gotta drive.


----------



## Pogo

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You never mentioned this to me, though that also doesn't disprove anything I said. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did this here at least a week ago, maybe two, whenever this bogus thread went up.  Same story, hasn't changed.  And it doesn't 'disprove' so much as "unslant".
> 
> That "Forney Johnston" thing though, still cracks me up.  I can't even figure out how a cheap-blog writer can be off that far to bring in a dead guy whose name looks nothing like "Oscar Underwood".  Or why somebody picking up a cheap-blog page like that and never bother to check its facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No idea who Forney Johnson is or where he was mentioned. Also, apparently, this thread went up near the end of last month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had to look up "Forney Johnston" myself --- it was the name given in the bogus OP article as the Alabama Senator leading the denunciation of the Klan.  That was "Oscar Underwood".  Forney Johnston was long dead by then.
Click to expand...


He won't be back.  He ran away when his OP pic got busted as being from Madison Wisconsin.


----------



## Pogo

Pumpkin Row said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> 
> 
> _You never mentioned this to me, though that also doesn't disprove anything I said. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did this here at least a week ago, maybe two, whenever this bogus thread went up.  Same story, hasn't changed.  And it doesn't 'disprove' so much as "unslant".
> 
> That "Forney Johnston" thing though, still cracks me up.  I can't even figure out how a cheap-blog writer can be off that far to bring in a dead guy whose name looks nothing like "Oscar Underwood".  Or why somebody picking up a cheap-blog page like that and never bother to check its facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No idea who Forney Johnson is or where he was mentioned. Also, apparently, this thread went up near the end of last month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had to look up "Forney Johnston" myself --- it was the name given in the bogus OP article as the Alabama Senator leading the denunciation of the Klan.  That was "Oscar Underwood".  Forney Johnston was long dead by then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _I apparently mistook this thread for the one started by Bripat. Wait... did they get merged?_
Click to expand...


No idea, haven't been here in a while.  I did see a lot of new baggage.
Mostly of hot air.

The thread I jumped in was by Geaux4it.  Finger-boy's on my Ig list.


----------



## Pumpkin Row

Pogo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> 
> 
> _You never mentioned this to me, though that also doesn't disprove anything I said. _
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We did this here at least a week ago, maybe two, whenever this bogus thread went up.  Same story, hasn't changed.  And it doesn't 'disprove' so much as "unslant".
> 
> That "Forney Johnston" thing though, still cracks me up.  I can't even figure out how a cheap-blog writer can be off that far to bring in a dead guy whose name looks nothing like "Oscar Underwood".  Or why somebody picking up a cheap-blog page like that and never bother to check its facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No idea who Forney Johnson is or where he was mentioned. Also, apparently, this thread went up near the end of last month._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I had to look up "Forney Johnston" myself --- it was the name given in the bogus OP article as the Alabama Senator leading the denunciation of the Klan.  That was "Oscar Underwood".  Forney Johnston was long dead by then.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He won't be back.  He ran away when his OP pic got busted as being from Madison Wisconsin.
Click to expand...

_Yeah, the thread got merged. It's like Mods do that just to mess with people._


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftwing propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Recorded history.
> 
> Maine was a big state for the Klan, and in that state Republicans owned politics in the same way the Democrats owned Louisiana.  Owen Brewster was a strongly-Klan-backed candidate who won offices of Governor, Congressman and Senator, and a close ally of Joe McCarthy.
> 
> What that meant was that the Klan political faction in Maine was Republican, and the anti-Klan political faction in Maine was also Republican.  The Democrats of course seized on the Klan connections but their state infrastructure was weak.  Same sort of intra-party division was going on around the same time in Kansas, where Ben Paulen took the Republican governor nomination (and the office) over other Republican elements that wanted to condemn the Klan.
> 
> Paulen's predecessor Henry Allen had been trying to oust the Klan out of Kansas a few years prior, the same time as Gov. Jack Walton of neighboring Oklahoma was trying to oust them out of that state.  Allen was a Republican, Walton a Democrat.
> 
> The Klan, in that period of political activity, split political parties that way --- which was actually what this thread could have been about if it hadn't started with a picture from Madison Wisconsin claiming it was the Democratic convention in New York City.
Click to expand...


Acording to who, this Chalmer's guy?  I read his book about Standard Oil, and it's total communist bullshit.  You'll have to find a credible source if you want anyone to believe what you post about the KKK.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
Click to expand...


There's nothing conservative about racism, shit stain.  That claim is nothing more than leftwing bigotry.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, so it's a way for the left to blame everyone but themselves, got it. And what exactly makes racism "Conservative"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "the left".  It has to do with that conservative wing.  You asked what made them the conservative wing.  They clearly were not the Liberal one.
> 
> Being a conservative does not in itself make one racist.  But in order to be a racist, one must be conservative.
Click to expand...

Utter horseshit.


----------



## Stratford57

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, so it's a way for the left to blame everyone but themselves, got it. And what exactly makes racism "Conservative"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "the left".  It has to do with that conservative wing.  You asked what made them the conservative wing.  They clearly were not the Liberal one.
> 
> Being a conservative does not in itself make one racist.  But in order to be a racist, one must be conservative.
Click to expand...


Conservatives are not racists, 





So many posts, Pogo, and all of them are mainly BS. Too much of liberal Media, Pogo. Your brains are slipping away from you. Go, go, go, gone....

Suggestion: stop listening to liberal Media and start reading the Bible.


----------



## RodISHI

Stratford57 said:


> So many posts, Pogo, and all of them are mainly BS. Too much of liberal Media, Pogo. Your brains are slipping away from you. Go, go, go, gone....
> 
> Suggestion: *stop listening to liberal Media and start reading the Bible*.


Excellent advice but pogi is an anti so perhaps a wasted effort.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing conservative about racism, shit stain.  That claim is nothing more than leftwing bigotry.
Click to expand...

Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing conservative about racism, shit stain.  That claim is nothing more than leftwing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
Click to expand...

That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> 
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing conservative about racism, shit stain.  That claim is nothing more than leftwing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
Click to expand...

I already gave you a link which showed the origins of that photo.

Meanwhile, you have zero evidence that photo was from the 1924 DNC. You're just fucking crazy. 

Here's a second link to demonstrate what a retard you are...

Dry times were not good times

... want more...?


----------



## monkeytrots

Pumpkin Row said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> 
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations.  They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No doubt insisted that while murdering Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Actually the original founders were out for nothing more than a joke.  All that violence stuff came on after it was taken over from them.  And at the time there were literally dozens of such groups.
> 
> And the second one that went much bigger and coast-to-coast, was a con artist out to milk membership money from the gullible, because he saw what a sensation "Birth of a Nation" was.  Wouldn't have made sense to be murdering Republicans at the same time they were endorsing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You must be thinking of a different KKK, entirely, then, because the KKK I'm thinking of, the anti-black group, murdered blacks and Republicans._
Click to expand...


Pumpkin, You are correct.  Pogo  is a very accomplished disinformation  person.  Most of  his so-called clan history appears to be from internet sites from a 'kkk history' post.  A lot of it appears to be from this site (note sites often plagiarize each other, using unattributed sources, unchecked facts and so on - so this might not be the exact site from which he posts such a distorted and UNTRUTHFUL history of the clan.)

Note - this is BULLCRAP : The Ku Klux Klan, 1868

I wil quote just a bit so you can see the similarity to pogo's first 'post' on the issue (no, I won't even bother rating his post as funny, or replying to him - consider him nothing but a leftist troll - a very skilled one - but a troll none-the-less - just like nycarbineer.  extreme high number of posts- just means they've hung around for a long time- ratings - well- always take them with a huge dosing of  NaCl.)

*The FOLLOWING IS COMPLETE HORSE HOCKEY:*
_Its very name struck terror in the hearts of its victims. However, the beginning of the Ku Klux Klan was innocent enough. In December 1865, eight months after the South’s surrender, a group of six young men living in the village of Pulaski near Nashville, Tennessee decided to relieve their boredom by organizing a social club. All were veterans of the Confederate Army and some had attended college where fraternities with three-letter, Greek-based names were popular. In mock-imitation, they came up with the alliterative title Ku Klux Klan for their group. Their meetings would be secret and devoted to elaborate ceremonies. Members would disguise themselves with a costume made up of a sheet to cover their bodies, fanciful masks to hide their faces and pointed headgear that heightened their stature. Their leader would be known as the Grand Cyclops._

_Although their motives may have been innocent, the appearance of these white-sheeted, horse-mounted apparitions on the town’s darkened streets triggered a panic-driven flight for safety by the community’s recently freed slaves. Soon, terrorizing Blacks became a prime sport and the transition of the KKK from an innocuous social club to a ruthless vigilance committee began.

Transmitted by word-of-mouth and newspaper articles; knowledge of the Klan rapidly spread through the South. Post-war conditions in the former Confederacy were chaotic. The rapid expansion of the Klan was fueled by a wide-spread fear among many Southern Whites of an insurrection by former slaves and seething resentment against Northern “carpet-baggers” who had invaded the South since the end of the war. Local organizations mimicking the original group’s secrecy and costumes sprang up in various communities._

---- End of Bovine Excrement ....

My radar on this guy went off immediately with p's first post - it reeked of bs. 

I had studied the origins of the Clan more than 40 years ago, written a paper on it, and NOTHING in that origination story by p's was in accord with my recollection.   Oh, and let me beat p' to the punch - before the inevitable "Well you've been a clan sympathizer and interested in them since being very young" ... kinda like what the Internet Mob has already done to that kid in Charlottesville over his studying of 'nazis'.   During the time I researched the Clan - It was during the civil rights days of MLK and all that was going on here in the United States.  The kkk was  in the news daily.  I was not living in the US, but with my military family - stationed in Japan.  Discrimination and racism were something totally alien to me - it flat did not occur in the military at that time.  It was severely punished when found - the officer's and NCO's would not allow it.   Keeping up with the 'states' required us to READ, a lot, to understand what was going on.  Who the hell were the 'kkk' ?  Well, I read- BOOKS - to find out.  Not the freaking internet.

But, bein' an old fart, held my fire, checked my memory, and found some GOOD sources that can't be denied by intelligent researchers.

Will post that in next reply - will be to your same message Pumpkin.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing conservative about racism, shit stain.  That claim is nothing more than leftwing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you a link which showed the origins of that photo.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have zero evidence that photo was from the 1924 DNC. You're just fucking crazy.
> 
> Here's a second link to demonstrate what a retard you are...
> 
> Dry times were not good times
> 
> ... want more...?
Click to expand...

How does any of that prove racism is conservative, dumbass?

One thing is clear: you lack the ability to commit logic.  You haven't got the slightest idea whether any given argument is true or false.  That's why you're a snowflake.   Anyone who can reason is conservative.  Leftwingers are all witless baboons.


----------



## monkeytrots

Pumpkin Row said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _Oh, a believer of the "Party Switch" that never happened. _
> 
> _There's no consistency to the election trends in the first place: Historical U.S. Presidential Elections 1789-2016_
> _In fact, when someone wins, most of the time, it's practically the entire US that voted for them. _
> 
> 
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations.  They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No doubt insisted that while murdering Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Actually the original founders were out for nothing more than a joke.  All that violence stuff came on after it was taken over from them.  And at the time there were literally dozens of such groups.
> 
> And the second one that went much bigger and coast-to-coast, was a con artist out to milk membership money from the gullible, because he saw what a sensation "Birth of a Nation" was.  Wouldn't have made sense to be murdering Republicans at the same time they were endorsing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You must be thinking of a different KKK, entirely, then, because the KKK I'm thinking of, the anti-black group, murdered blacks and Republicans._
Click to expand...


Continued from previous reply... Well, my recollection on the origins of the kkk were that it sprang out of vigilante groups in the post-Civil War years. Civil Authority and local governments and all infrastructure had been devastated by the war.  Sherman's March of genocide, pillaging, raping, looting, and burning had left a huge swath of destruction and lawlessness in it's wake. The vigilante groups were a necessity for ANY form of law and order.  But, as with any group that does not answer to 'We the People', they got ugly in a hurry.

Interlude:  Pumpkin - *your post is correct - they did concentrate on killing blacks and REPUBLICANS* - the original clan was DEFINITELY political, and most solidly DEMOCRAT.   The carpet baggers from the North were overwhelmingly REPUBLICAN - a despicable subset of thieves and jackals- which exist in BOTH parties today.

Here is a resource, used by librarians, that lists several books on the history of the kkk.  Books are far preferrable- they can be fact checked, and books printed on paper can't disappear, be changed, and require the outlay of considerable money for publishing - thus they tend to be quite a bit better at being fact checked than flimsy internet articles (and I include wikipedia on ALL social/history/political issues in the category of next to worthless anymore.)

List of books and articles about Ku Klux Klan | Online Research Library: Questia

That page starts with a summary from: 
_The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th ed. Copyright© 2017, The Columbia University Press.
_
I used to prefer Collier's - good, solid, well researched and written encyclopedia - but Columbia will do.  Check their list of resources listed at the bottom of the article they wrote on the origin's of the Clan.

Anyways a brief excerpt of the encyclopedic research:

*The First Ku Klux Klan*

_The original Ku Klux Klan was organized by ex-Confederate elements to oppose the Reconstruction policies of the radical Republican Congress and to maintain "white supremacy." After the Civil War, when local government in the South was weak or nonexistent and there were fears of black outrages and even of an insurrection, informal vigilante organizations or armed patrols were formed in almost all communities. These were linked together in societies, such as the Men of Justice, the Pale Faces, the Constitutional Union Guards, the White Brotherhood, and the Order of the White Rose. The Ku Klux Klan was the best known of these, and in time it absorbed many of the smaller organizations.

It was organized at Pulaski, Tenn., in May, 1866. Its strange disguises, its silent parades, its midnight rides, its mysterious language and commands, were found to be most effective in playing upon fears and superstitions. The riders muffled their horses' feet and covered the horses with white robes. They themselves, dressed in flowing white sheets, their faces covered with white masks, and with skulls at their saddle horns, posed as spirits of the Confederate dead returned from the battlefields. Although the Klan was often able to achieve its aims by terror alone, whippings and lynchings were also used, not only against blacks but also against the so-called carpetbaggers and scalawags._

end excerpt - recommend reading the entire entry - and maybe search for a gutenberg.org e-book or two (the older the better, less chance of current revisionist history books.

Anywhooze... The above is ACCURATE HISTORY unlike the bizarre crap that Pogo was posting about it having arisen from some Frat Boy prank.

Ciao: Pumpkin - good posts.  Appreciated them.  Might check in - but this thread is pretty well exhausted - many TRUTHS have been exposed in this thread - but the longer it goes on, the more deeply they become buried.  Which is precisely the objective of the Saul Alinsky-ites that have been posting so much garbage here.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eightyeight said:
> 
> 
> 
> The top picture is from Madison, Wisconsin. The Democratic convention was in New York City.
> 
> DESCRIPTION
> Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.
> RECORD DETAILS
> *Image ID:* 1902
> *Creation Date:* 1924-12-05
> *Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
> *City:* Madison
> *County:* Dane
> *State:* Wisconsin
> *Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
> *Genre:* Photograph
> *Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
> *Original Format Number:* CF 67957
> *Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society
> 
> What a moron!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
Click to expand...





You can prove your allegations or is this just a pathetic attempt to win the discussion by throwing out the race card?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing conservative about racism, shit stain.  That claim is nothing more than leftwing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you a link which showed the origins of that photo.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have zero evidence that photo was from the 1924 DNC. You're just fucking crazy.
> 
> Here's a second link to demonstrate what a retard you are...
> 
> Dry times were not good times
> 
> ... want more...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does any of that prove racism is conservative, dumbass?
> 
> One thing is clear: you lack the ability to commit logic.  You haven't got the slightest idea whether any given argument is true or false.  That's why you're a snowflake.   Anyone who can reason is conservative.  Leftwingers are all witless baboons.
Click to expand...

Moron, need I remind you, you idiotically posted a photo from *Madison*, Wisconsin and falsely claimed it was from thd 1924 DNC in New York, held at *Madison* Square Garden?

You really are retarded enough to confuse *Madison*, Wisconsin with *Madison* Square Garden.


----------



## Pogo

Stratford57 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> 
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, so it's a way for the left to blame everyone but themselves, got it. And what exactly makes racism "Conservative"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "the left".  It has to do with that conservative wing.  You asked what made them the conservative wing.  They clearly were not the Liberal one.
> 
> Being a conservative does not in itself make one racist.  But in order to be a racist, one must be conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Conservatives are not racists,
Click to expand...


Correct. Conservatism has nothing to do directly with racism.  But to _be_ a racist you first have to believe in striated social classes.  That's why Liberalism can't dabble in racism.  They oppose each other.



Stratford57 said:


> Suggestion: stop listening to liberal Media and start reading the Bible.



Already did. it's amusing, if you like violence and smiting and rape and slavery. 
I like to think we've moved on though.  And I really don't see a point in horror movies or fearmongering.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations.  They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No doubt insisted that while murdering Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Actually the original founders were out for nothing more than a joke.  All that violence stuff came on after it was taken over from them.  And at the time there were literally dozens of such groups.
> 
> And the second one that went much bigger and coast-to-coast, was a con artist out to milk membership money from the gullible, because he saw what a sensation "Birth of a Nation" was.  Wouldn't have made sense to be murdering Republicans at the same time they were endorsing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You must be thinking of a different KKK, entirely, then, because the KKK I'm thinking of, the anti-black group, murdered blacks and Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reading comprehension slips again.
> 
> The post I answered claimed, and I quote, "KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats)"
> 
> Whelp --- no it wasn't.  I corrected that.
Click to expand...






Prove those southern Democrats were conservative.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Geaux4it

The Democrats have evolved into modern day slavery of blacks by keeping them held down in the projects.

-Geaux
--------

Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? Watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party.


The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing conservative about racism, shit stain.  That claim is nothing more than leftwing bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you a link which showed the origins of that photo.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have zero evidence that photo was from the 1924 DNC. You're just fucking crazy.
> 
> Here's a second link to demonstrate what a retard you are...
> 
> Dry times were not good times
> 
> ... want more...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does any of that prove racism is conservative, dumbass?
> 
> One thing is clear: you lack the ability to commit logic.  You haven't got the slightest idea whether any given argument is true or false.  That's why you're a snowflake.   Anyone who can reason is conservative.  Leftwingers are all witless baboons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron, need I remind you, you idiotically posted a photo from *Madison*, Wisconsin and falsely claimed it was from thd 1924 DNC in New York, held at *Madison* Square Garden?
> 
> You really are retarded enough to confuse Moron, need I remind you, you idiotically posted a photo from *Madison*, Wisconsin with *Madison* Square Garden.
Click to expand...


  I didn't even get the "Madison" connection until you pointed that out.  Hey, it's only off by a thousand miles.
But the fact that the page tried to sell a political convention taking place on trolley tracks on a street, and two posters bought it without a second thought, as well as Oscar Underwood's name somehow morphing into a zombie of "Forney Johnston", is still inexplicable.  It's like people will buy anything and never read the ingredient label as long as it tastes good.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Pogo said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, so it's a way for the left to blame everyone but themselves, got it. And what exactly makes racism "Conservative"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "the left".  It has to do with that conservative wing.  You asked what made them the conservative wing.  They clearly were not the Liberal one.
> 
> Being a conservative does not in itself make one racist.  But in order to be a racist, one must be conservative.
Click to expand...






Yeah... That's why they created the Sedition Acts aimed at stripping the cultural heritage of German-Americans from those who lived in the United States. Even though those German_Americans were US citizens for two or more generations with many that filled United States uniforms in both those wars. No bigotry among those Democrats here best move on.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> The Democrats have evolved into modern day slavery of blacks by keeping them held down in the projects.
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? Watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party.
> 
> 
> The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party



Oh look --- it's the original bridge-buyer, here to explain how the Democratic Party held an annual convention on trolley tracks in Madison Wisconsin.  Maybe he can explain "Forney Johnston" as well.  He's only had a week and a half to work on it.

Whatcha come up with?

And look --- he's trotting in more myths, including my favorite, "founded the KKK".  Nope, they did not.

1865:

(Maj) James Crowe
Calvin Jones
(Capt) John Lester
(Capt) John B Kenedy
Frank O. McCord
Richard Reed

1915 re-founding:

William Joseph Simmons

--- find me any political affiliation for any of those people.

Maybe look under the trolley tracks in Madison Wisconsin 

Or maybe "Forney Johnston" knows.  

You can also check post 64 here, where another kkklown history revisionist tried to slap this same myth against the wall hoping it would stick despite known history.  Which is linked an imaged there.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing conservative about racism, shit stain.  That claim is nothing more than leftwing bigotry.
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you a link which showed the origins of that photo.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have zero evidence that photo was from the 1924 DNC. You're just fucking crazy.
> 
> Here's a second link to demonstrate what a retard you are...
> 
> Dry times were not good times
> 
> ... want more...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does any of that prove racism is conservative, dumbass?
> 
> One thing is clear: you lack the ability to commit logic.  You haven't got the slightest idea whether any given argument is true or false.  That's why you're a snowflake.   Anyone who can reason is conservative.  Leftwingers are all witless baboons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron, need I remind you, you idiotically posted a photo from *Madison*, Wisconsin and falsely claimed it was from thd 1924 DNC in New York, held at *Madison* Square Garden?
> 
> You really are retarded enough to confuse *Madison*, Wisconsin with *Madison* Square Garden.
Click to expand...


That's old news, asshole.  The subject we're discussing now is your claim that racism is conservative.  Whenever you're asked to provide some tangible support for your idiocy, you circle back to a previous point where you think you scored a point.

Now answer the question:  what is the evidence that racism is "conservative?"


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Pogo said:


> Correct. Conservatism has nothing to do directly with racism.  But to _be_ a racist you first have to believe in striated social classes.  That's why Liberalism can't dabble in racism.  They oppose each other.



You mean liberalism is like supporting Lenin and Chairman Mao because they didn't believe in striated social classes and would never attempt to silence those they feel inferior?

How'd Bernie do towards being the presidential runner in the 2016 campaign?

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE******

No stratified society there. Hillary must win!



Pogo said:


> Already did. it's amusing, if you like violence and smiting and rape and slavery.
> I like to think we've moved on though.  And I really don't see a point in horror movies or fearmongering.



The last time I checked most of those things were being committed by Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, Occupy America, and other organizations, that the liberals and Democratic party proudly support as their base.






*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you a link which showed the origins of that photo.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have zero evidence that photo was from the 1924 DNC. You're just fucking crazy.
> 
> Here's a second link to demonstrate what a retard you are...
> 
> Dry times were not good times
> 
> ... want more...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How does any of that prove racism is conservative, dumbass?
> 
> One thing is clear: you lack the ability to commit logic.  You haven't got the slightest idea whether any given argument is true or false.  That's why you're a snowflake.   Anyone who can reason is conservative.  Leftwingers are all witless baboons.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron, need I remind you, you idiotically posted a photo from *Madison*, Wisconsin and falsely claimed it was from thd 1924 DNC in New York, held at *Madison* Square Garden?
> 
> You really are retarded enough to confuse *Madison*, Wisconsin with *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's old news, asshole.  The subject we're discussing now is your claim that racism is conservative.  Whenever you're asked to provide some tangible support for your idiocy, you circle back to a previous point where you think you scored a point.
Click to expand...

And by "old news," you mean a topic *you yourself started* only 3 days ago that you ran away from as fast as your walker would allow.

Moron -- that photo *IS* this thread's topic.



bripat9643 said:


> Now answer the question:  what is the evidence that racism is "conservative?"


The evidence is the region where racism flourished ... where hundreds of thousands of Americans gave their lives fighting to keep slavery -- and that region is the conservative south. It was controlled by Democrats then and by Republiklans now. It was conservative then and it's still conservative now.


----------



## monkeytrots

Damaged Eagle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _So the top photograph was mis-sourced, that doesn't change the fact that there's historical records, showing that a large amount of Klan members were at the 1924 convention. It was called the Klanbake for a reason. A little more than half of the convention attendees were KKK and/or KKK supporters, as in that convention, they voted on whether or not to condemn the KKK; 542.85 in favor, 546.15 against. After which, the KKK celebrated by burning crosses and such._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 144951
> 
> You can prove your allegations or is this just a pathetic attempt to win the discussion by throwing out the race card?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
Click to expand...


It is funny to see these  racist apologists at work.  It has been known for DECADES that the  kkk walked hand in hand with Democrat Party.  Over 50% of the Party at the 1924 DNC refused to include a condemnation of the KKK in their Party Platform.  One of the TWO leading candidates was the son-in-law of Woodrow Wilson - a racist of the most vile sorts -and a DEMOCRAT.  That son-in-law was the KKK backed candidate.  FDR was a vile racist - and the leftist spin that 'well blacks started moving to the Democrat party' after FDR holds no water.   Blacks continually re-elected Wallace to be governor.  Getting votes from the blacks in no way proves that the person is not an avowed racist.

Those of us that LIVED through the MLK days are very well aware of the strong NATIONAL TIES of the DEMOCRATS to overt racism and the kkk.

The revisionists at the NYT and WaPo are very active (including pogo and his ilk) at rewriting that history, attempting to call it 'inaccurate' and 'untrue'.

For those that LIVED the history, we know the TRUTH.

It was Dwight David Eisenhower who FORCIBLY REMOVED racist segregation from the public school systems - after a Supreme Court decision overturned a decades old DEMOCRAT SUPREME COURT decision that held that 'segregation was Constitutional'.  It was not. Never was.

It was Dwight David Eisenhower and other REPUBLICANS that started the end of segregation, fought it at every turn, weeded it out at every turn in the United States Military.

The revisionists love to state 'It was LBJ that signed the Civil Rights Act'.  LBJ FOUGHT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT TOOTH AND NAIL - we students of the past know EXACTLY why LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.

IT WAS REPUBLICANS - BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - that originated,fought for, and passed the Civil Right Act - in both the House and Senate.

IT WAS DEMOCRATS - BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - that fought against,attempted to fillibuster, to undermine, to KILL the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

The  Goldwater vote against the Civil Rights Act was due to CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS of two sections that instituted even MORE RACISM into our society - problems that exist to this day.

Goldwater was no racist - *LBJ WAS ONE OF THE MOST RACIST PRESIDENTS THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN*.  Those of us who were there, especially those of that lived, grew up, and worked in TEXAS know the REAL truth about that piece of scum.  Just mention DCRC or simply DUVAL COUNTY to those that were there, and we can tell you precisely what that POS did.

So, my advise, Damaged Eagle - don't reply to pogo - he is a disruptor, revisionist, and a liar.  Already demonstrated aptly through many previous posts.  Reply's only feed his ego, disrupt, and give him a further platform.

BTW:  As predicted, the disruptor quickly stooped to ad hominen and labeled me as being a "kkklown".  So damned predictable - he is nothing but a Saul Alinsky disciple - well skilled in the art of the schmear.

My posts prove otherwise - quite clearly.

*The ability of scum to generate to lies, half-truths, and attacks far exceed the ability of any to rebut*.  That is also in the "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky - phrased differently, but lying to them is an acceptable and useful tactic.  They employ it fully and non-stop.

So don't even attempt to rebut - simply post the TRUTH, as you have been doing.

One final note:  Ask Jesse Owens about FDR and HITLER.  That shows the REAL TRUTH.


----------



## Damaged Eagle

monkeytrots said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh ----nnnnnnnnnnnno.  And we already did this about a week ago or whenever it was I discovered this bogus-OP thread.
> 
> "Klanbake" was the Klan gathering, without Dodge Challengers oddly enough, in New Jersey across the river from the Democratic convention at Madison Square Garden in New York City.  Inside that convention there was much debate about that denounce-the-Klan platform, with Sen. Oscar Underwood and Gov. Al Smith leading the charge.  Underwood was the time's loudest voice denouncing the KKK declaring that it and the US could not co-exist.  And Smith was a Catholic, one of the Klan's target groups.
> 
> Klan influence was backing William Gibbs McAdoo of California who had not sought, but also did not reject, their support.  By locking up nomination votes over and over that convention became the longest one ever in history, a record that still stands, necessitating over 100 votes.  Finally the lock was broken with a dark horse candidate that was seen as not offensive to either side, Gov. John Davis of West Virginia.  Davis accepted the nomination ---- and promptly denounced the Klan anyway.
> 
> The KKK ended up endorsing Calvin Coolidge that fall, the only major candidate that did not publicly denounce the KKK, and Herbert Hoover four years later, running smear campaigns against Al Smith which I have detailed elsewhere, because Smith was still Catholic.
> 
> The abject carelessness of the sourced article running an image from Madison Wisconsin and claiming it's a New York political convention taking place on trolley tracks is also undermined by its spelling Oscar Underwood's name as "Forney Johnston".  That was a real person but in 1924 he was neither in New York nor in Wisconsin, mainly owing to the fact that he had been dead for a decade.
> 
> --- which just underscores that morons like Finger-Boi will run with any fake news they think says what they like, without ever vetting it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 144951
> 
> You can prove your allegations or is this just a pathetic attempt to win the discussion by throwing out the race card?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is funny to see these  racist apologists at work.  It has been known for DECADES that the  kkk walked hand in hand with Democrat Party.  Over 50% of the Party at the 1924 DNC refused to include a condemnation of the KKK in their Party Platform.  One of the TWO leading candidates was the son-in-law of Woodrow Wilson - a racist of the most vile sorts -and a DEMOCRAT.  That son-in-law was the KKK backed candidate.  FDR was a vile racist - and the leftist spin that 'well blacks started moving to the Democrat party' after FDR holds no water.   Blacks continually re-elected Wallace to be governor.  Getting votes from the blacks in no way proves that the person is not an avowed racist.
> 
> Those of us that LIVED through the MLK days are very well aware of the strong NATIONAL TIES of the DEMOCRATS to overt racism and the kkk.
> 
> The revisionists at the NYT and WaPo are very active (including pogo and his ilk) at rewriting that history, attempting to call it 'inaccurate' and 'untrue'.
> 
> For those that LIVED the history, we know the TRUTH.
> 
> It was Dwight David Eisenhower who FORCIBLY REMOVED racist segregation from the public school systems - after a Supreme Court decision overturned a decades old DEMOCRAT SUPREME COURT decision that held that 'segregation was Constitutional'.  It was not. Never was.
> 
> It was Dwight David Eisenhower and other REPUBLICANS that started the end of segregation, fought it at every turn, weeded it out at every turn in the United States Military.
> 
> The revisionists love to state 'It was LBJ that signed the Civil Rights Act'.  LBJ FOUGHT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT TOOTH AND NAIL - we students of the past know EXACTLY why LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> IT WAS REPUBLICANS - BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - that originated,fought for, and passed the Civil Right Act - in both the House and Senate.
> 
> IT WAS DEMOCRATS - BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - that fought against,attempted to fillibuster, to undermine, to KILL the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
> 
> The  Goldwater vote against the Civil Rights Act was due to CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS of two sections that instituted even MORE RACISM into our society - problems that exist to this day.
> 
> Goldwater was no racist - *LBJ WAS ONE OF THE MOST RACIST PRESIDENTS THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN*.  Those of us who were there, especially those of that lived, grew up, and worked in TEXAS know the REAL truth about that piece of scum.  Just mention DCRC or simply DUVAL COUNTY to those that were there, and we can tell you precisely what that POS did.
> 
> So, my advise, Damaged Eagle - don't reply to pogo - he is a disruptor, revisionist, and a liar.  Already demonstrated aptly through many previous posts.  Reply's only feed his ego, disrupt, and give him a further platform.
> 
> BTW:  As predicted, the disruptor quickly stooped to ad hominen and labeled me as being a "kkklown".  So damned predictable - he is nothing but a Saul Alinsky disciple - well skilled in the art of the schmear.
> 
> My posts prove otherwise - quite clearly.
> 
> *The ability of scum to generate to lies, half-truths, and attacks far exceed the ability of any to rebut*.  That is also in the "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky - phrased differently, but lying to them is an acceptable and useful tactic.  They employ it fully and non-stop.
> 
> So don't even attempt to rebut - simply post the TRUTH, as you have been doing.
Click to expand...







Pogo is easy to handle.

*****CHUCKLE*****


----------



## monkeytrots

Damaged Eagle said:


> monkeytrots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> 
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 144951
> 
> You can prove your allegations or is this just a pathetic attempt to win the discussion by throwing out the race card?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is funny to see these  racist apologists at work.  It has been known for DECADES that the  kkk walked hand in hand with Democrat Party.  Over 50% of the Party at the 1924 DNC refused to include a condemnation of the KKK in their Party Platform.  One of the TWO leading candidates was the son-in-law of Woodrow Wilson - a racist of the most vile sorts -and a DEMOCRAT.  That son-in-law was the KKK backed candidate.  FDR was a vile racist - and the leftist spin that 'well blacks started moving to the Democrat party' after FDR holds no water.   Blacks continually re-elected Wallace to be governor.  Getting votes from the blacks in no way proves that the person is not an avowed racist.
> 
> Those of us that LIVED through the MLK days are very well aware of the strong NATIONAL TIES of the DEMOCRATS to overt racism and the kkk.
> 
> The revisionists at the NYT and WaPo are very active (including pogo and his ilk) at rewriting that history, attempting to call it 'inaccurate' and 'untrue'.
> 
> For those that LIVED the history, we know the TRUTH.
> 
> It was Dwight David Eisenhower who FORCIBLY REMOVED racist segregation from the public school systems - after a Supreme Court decision overturned a decades old DEMOCRAT SUPREME COURT decision that held that 'segregation was Constitutional'.  It was not. Never was.
> 
> It was Dwight David Eisenhower and other REPUBLICANS that started the end of segregation, fought it at every turn, weeded it out at every turn in the United States Military.
> 
> The revisionists love to state 'It was LBJ that signed the Civil Rights Act'.  LBJ FOUGHT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT TOOTH AND NAIL - we students of the past know EXACTLY why LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> IT WAS REPUBLICANS - BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - that originated,fought for, and passed the Civil Right Act - in both the House and Senate.
> 
> IT WAS DEMOCRATS - BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - that fought against,attempted to fillibuster, to undermine, to KILL the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
> 
> The  Goldwater vote against the Civil Rights Act was due to CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS of two sections that instituted even MORE RACISM into our society - problems that exist to this day.
> 
> Goldwater was no racist - *LBJ WAS ONE OF THE MOST RACIST PRESIDENTS THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN*.  Those of us who were there, especially those of that lived, grew up, and worked in TEXAS know the REAL truth about that piece of scum.  Just mention DCRC or simply DUVAL COUNTY to those that were there, and we can tell you precisely what that POS did.
> 
> So, my advise, Damaged Eagle - don't reply to pogo - he is a disruptor, revisionist, and a liar.  Already demonstrated aptly through many previous posts.  Reply's only feed his ego, disrupt, and give him a further platform.
> 
> BTW:  As predicted, the disruptor quickly stooped to ad hominen and labeled me as being a "kkklown".  So damned predictable - he is nothing but a Saul Alinsky disciple - well skilled in the art of the schmear.
> 
> My posts prove otherwise - quite clearly.
> 
> *The ability of scum to generate to lies, half-truths, and attacks far exceed the ability of any to rebut*.  That is also in the "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky - phrased differently, but lying to them is an acceptable and useful tactic.  They employ it fully and non-stop.
> 
> So don't even attempt to rebut - simply post the TRUTH, as you have been doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 145000
> 
> Pogo is easy to handle.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


Yes, he is.  I managed to pull his chain from square one - and you are doing it routinely.  You are better equipped than I in dealing with such as him.   My tolerance threshold for propagandists and liars is extremely low.

Just looked up two documents that speak to the heart of what has gone on with the democrats, one from Jackie Robinson to DDE and the other gracious reply from DDE.

That shows the good and true heart of real 'conservativism'.

https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov...ts_little_rock/1958_05_13_Robinson_to_DDE.pdf

and
https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov...ts_little_rock/1958_05_13_Robinson_to_DDE.pdf

Eloquence from both men. Jackie's letter so poignantly exposing the very real pain of life for 17 million Negroes - and DDE's reply to Jackie.   It may not have helped Jackie much, but I would hope that he may have seen some rays of hope in it.  MLK picked up the ball, the call to action of Jackie and DDE and succeeded.


----------



## paperview

*"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*


----------



## Damaged Eagle

paperview said:


> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*







Yes there's so many blacks and other minorities that have been put in positions of power by the Democratic party since 1964 that that must hold true today.

Maybe people like Condolleezza Rice, Bobby Jindal, and a few others, are mistakenly taken for Republicans.

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****


----------



## Faun

Damaged Eagle said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 145008
> 
> Yes there's so many blacks and other minorities that have been put in positions of power by the Democratic party since 1964 that that must hold true today.
> 
> Maybe people like Condolleezza Rice, Bobby Jindal, and a few others, are mistakenly taken for Republicans.
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...

Seriously, you wanna go there...?

Currently, there's a record 52 blacks serving in Congress... 94% of them are Democrats...

http://www.louisianaweekly.com/record-number-of-african-americans-will-now-serve-in-congress/


----------



## monkeytrots

Damaged Eagle said:


> monkeytrots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> 
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 144951
> 
> You can prove your allegations or is this just a pathetic attempt to win the discussion by throwing out the race card?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is funny to see these  racist apologists at work.  It has been known for DECADES that the  kkk walked hand in hand with Democrat Party.  Over 50% of the Party at the 1924 DNC refused to include a condemnation of the KKK in their Party Platform.  One of the TWO leading candidates was the son-in-law of Woodrow Wilson - a racist of the most vile sorts -and a DEMOCRAT.  That son-in-law was the KKK backed candidate.  FDR was a vile racist - and the leftist spin that 'well blacks started moving to the Democrat party' after FDR holds no water.   Blacks continually re-elected Wallace to be governor.  Getting votes from the blacks in no way proves that the person is not an avowed racist.
> 
> Those of us that LIVED through the MLK days are very well aware of the strong NATIONAL TIES of the DEMOCRATS to overt racism and the kkk.
> 
> The revisionists at the NYT and WaPo are very active (including pogo and his ilk) at rewriting that history, attempting to call it 'inaccurate' and 'untrue'.
> 
> For those that LIVED the history, we know the TRUTH.
> 
> It was Dwight David Eisenhower who FORCIBLY REMOVED racist segregation from the public school systems - after a Supreme Court decision overturned a decades old DEMOCRAT SUPREME COURT decision that held that 'segregation was Constitutional'.  It was not. Never was.
> 
> It was Dwight David Eisenhower and other REPUBLICANS that started the end of segregation, fought it at every turn, weeded it out at every turn in the United States Military.
> 
> The revisionists love to state 'It was LBJ that signed the Civil Rights Act'.  LBJ FOUGHT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT TOOTH AND NAIL - we students of the past know EXACTLY why LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> IT WAS REPUBLICANS - BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - that originated,fought for, and passed the Civil Right Act - in both the House and Senate.
> 
> IT WAS DEMOCRATS - BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - that fought against,attempted to fillibuster, to undermine, to KILL the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
> 
> The  Goldwater vote against the Civil Rights Act was due to CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS of two sections that instituted even MORE RACISM into our society - problems that exist to this day.
> 
> Goldwater was no racist - *LBJ WAS ONE OF THE MOST RACIST PRESIDENTS THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN*.  Those of us who were there, especially those of that lived, grew up, and worked in TEXAS know the REAL truth about that piece of scum.  Just mention DCRC or simply DUVAL COUNTY to those that were there, and we can tell you precisely what that POS did.
> 
> So, my advise, Damaged Eagle - don't reply to pogo - he is a disruptor, revisionist, and a liar.  Already demonstrated aptly through many previous posts.  Reply's only feed his ego, disrupt, and give him a further platform.
> 
> BTW:  As predicted, the disruptor quickly stooped to ad hominen and labeled me as being a "kkklown".  So damned predictable - he is nothing but a Saul Alinsky disciple - well skilled in the art of the schmear.
> 
> My posts prove otherwise - quite clearly.
> 
> *The ability of scum to generate to lies, half-truths, and attacks far exceed the ability of any to rebut*.  That is also in the "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky - phrased differently, but lying to them is an acceptable and useful tactic.  They employ it fully and non-stop.
> 
> So don't even attempt to rebut - simply post the TRUTH, as you have been doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 145000
> 
> Pogo is easy to handle.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


>> Pogo is easy to handle.

... and the latest half-truther .... paperview .... post #448

*Was Martin Luther King, Jr. A Republican?*
Many have testified that Martin Luther King, Jr. made a point to hold no concrete political affiliation. In a 1958 interview, King said “I don’t think the Republican party is a party full of the almighty God nor is the Democratic party. They both have weaknesses…And I’m not inextricably bound to either party.”

*Arguments For King As A Republican*
First and foremost, the word of King’s family states that he was, indeed, a Republican. In_ A Covenant With Life: Reclaiming MLK’s Legacy_, Dr. Alveda C. King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., states, “My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., or ‘Daddy King’, was a Republican and father of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican.” During King’s time, most African Americans were, indeed, Republicans. This is because the Republican Party was the party fighting against racism, while the Democratic Party contained groups such as the KKK, trying to undermine civil rights movements in any way possible. For this reason, it is highly probable that King was more supportive of the Republican Party than the Democratic Party.

The fact that the political ideals of the Republican Party were more closely aligned with King’s than those of the Democrats is supported by the politicians of Georgia during King’s time. Fletcher Thompson, who represented the Atlanta area in Congress from 1966-72, explained, “Most of the blacks in the late 1950s and at least up to 1960 were Republican. Our party was sympathetic to them and the Democrats were the ones enforcing ‘Jim Crow’ laws and segregation.” Others have noted that King seemed to support the creation of new voters for the Republican Party. New York Times political reporter Tom Wicker noted that, as the 1960 election approached, “the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. had volunteered to lead a voter registration drive among blacks, which King thought would produce many new Republican voters.” Much of the media at the time speculated on this issue as well, with The Reporter Magazine stating “It is open secret among many Negroes that the Rev. Martin Luther King, if he were to speak out on the subject, would probably indicate a preference for [Republican Richard] Nixon over [Democratic nominee John] Kennedy,” in October 1960. However, this claim would later be challenged by the author of King’s biography.

*Arguments For King As A Democrat*
While the political platforms of the time suggest that King could have been a Republican, there is evidence to the contrary as well. Democrats have family testimony to back their story as well. King’s son, Martin Luther King III, has stated, “It is disingenuous to imply that my father was a Republican. He never endorsed any presidential candidate, and there is certainly no evidence that he ever even voted for a Republican.” Many who have researched King extensively agree with this statement. David Garrow, who wrote a Pulitzer Prize winning biography of King, stated “It’s simply incorrect to call Dr. King a Republican.” Garrow stated that King absolutely held some Republicans, including Richard Nixon and Nelson Rockefeller, in high regard, and was incredibly critical of Lyndon Johnson. However, Garrow also stated that he has little doubt that King voted for Kennedy in 1960 and Johnson in 1964.

In his autobiography, King speaks out against the 1964 Republican National Convention. He states, “The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.”

While this does suggest that King was dismayed at the direction of the Republican Party, his statements seem shocked and dismayed. Therefore, it is possible that King was a believer in Republican ideals up until this point, where the ‘64 convention and Senator Goldwater showed him a new, extreme, and different side to the Republican Party.

end excerpt;

Now, THAT is called a balanced presentation of history. Excerpted from: 
Martin Luther King, Jr. And The Republican Party | Republican Views

 Unlike the half-truth and out of context misology of paperview.   As stated previously:
*
Ability to lie, twist, defame, and half-truth it outweighs time in the universe for rebuttal. *s**

Others view Goldwater quite differently - what is important to note is any analysis of King's views of LBJ - whom (as briefly stated) King opposed.
It is interesting to review Jackie Robinson's interactions with the Republican party during this time- several site's have very good coverage and discussion of that - a black conservative site I found was particularly good at covering that.  Can't remember the site name - it's been a few weeks or so.

And in conclusion, a telegram to DDE after Arkansas ....

https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov...l_rights_little_rock/Little_Rock_Telegram.pdf


----------



## Stratford57

Damaged Eagle said:


> The last time I checked most of those things were being committed by Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, Occupy America, and other organizations, that the liberals and Democratic party proudly support as their base.



And it must be just a coincidence that all above have been sponsored by the same person: Soros.

Also Soros has been sponsoring basically all the presidential candidates but Trump, hoping that whoever would have won the Presidency remained his pocket person.

Records: Soros Fund Execs Funded Paul Ryan, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, John McCain, John Kasich, Lindsey Graham in 2016 - Breitbart

The billionaire has already spent or pledged $13 million to help Hillary Clinton and other Democrats this year.
http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...s-alarmed-by-trump-pours-money-into-2016-race

I hesitate to say the same about Sanders, but when I remember how Soros paid his supporters to go and attack Trump supporters during his rallies, I start wondering...
------
Unexpectedly for Soros Trump won and noway wanted to be Soros controlled president as Obama has been. That's why Soros has declared an all-out war on Trump because he understands: if he doesn't remove Trump from the office, Trump will destroy him and his dirty plans about controlling USA and the whole world.


----------



## paperview

Faun said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 145008
> 
> Yes there's so many blacks and other minorities that have been put in positions of power by the Democratic party since 1964 that that must hold true today.
> 
> Maybe people like Condolleezza Rice, Bobby Jindal, and a few others, are mistakenly taken for Republicans.
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, you wanna go there...?
> 
> Currently, there's a record 52 blacks serving in Congress... 94% of them are Democrats...
> 
> http://www.louisianaweekly.com/record-number-of-african-americans-will-now-serve-in-congress/
Click to expand...

Yes, and historically...

*Electing them to power.  Where it's at.*

*There were seven African Americans in Congress 1900* -*1965*
  Oscar Stanton De Priest Republican Illinois 1929-1935
Arthur W. Mitchell Democrat Illinois 1935-1943
William L. Dawson Democrat Illinois 1943-1970
Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. Democrat New York 1945-1967, 1967-1971
Charles Diggs Democrat Michigan 1955-1980
Robert N.C. Nix, Sr. Democrat Pennsylvania 1958-1979
John Conyers Democrat Michigan  1965-present

All but one: *Democrat.*  The Republican party as a whole _used_ to be more liberal (take a look at party platforms before 1965)

We know since the about the mid sixties, the ideology shifted more and more Conservative - as a whole.

So how has that shaken out when it comes to which party elects blacks to positions of Power?

*1965, to the present:
*
Edward Brooke Republican -Mass. 1967-1979
Bill Clay Democrat  Missouri 1969-2001
Louis Stokes Democrat  Ohio 1969-1999
Shirley Chisholm Democrat  New York 1969-1983
George W. Collins Democrat  Illinois 1970-1972
Ron Dellums Democrat  California 1971-1998
Ralph Metcalfe Democrat  Illinois 1971-1978
Parren Mitchell Democrat  Maryland 1971-1987
Charles B. Rangel Democrat  New York 1971-present
Yvonne Brathwaite Burke Democrat  California 1973-1979
Cardiss Collins Democrat  Illinois 1973-1997
Barbara Jordan Democrat  Texas 1973-1979
Andrew Young Democrat  Georgia 1973-1977
Harold Ford, Sr. Democrat  Tennessee 1975-1997
Julian C. Dixon Democrat  California 1979-2000
William H. Gray, III Democrat  Pennsylvania 1979-1991
Mickey Leland Democrat  Texas 1979-1989
Bennett M. Stewart Democrat  Illinois 1979-1981
George W. Crockett, Jr. Democrat  Michigan 1980-1991
Mervyn M. Dymally Democrat  California 1981-1993
Gus Savage Democrat  Illinois 1981-1993
Harold Washington Democrat  Illinois 1981-1983
Katie Hall Democrat  Indiana 1982-1985
Major Owens Democrat  New York 1983-2007
Ed Towns Democrat  New York 1983-present
Alan Wheat Democrat  Missouri 1983-1995
Charles Hayes Democrat  Illinois 1983-1993
Alton R. Waldon, Jr. Democrat  New York 1986-1987
Mike Espy Democrat  Mississippi 1987-1993
Floyd H. Flake Democrat  New York 1987-1998
John Lewis Democrat  Georgia 1987-present
Kweisi Mfume Democrat  Maryland 1987-1996
Donald M. Payne Democrat  New Jersey 1989-present
Craig Anthony Washington Democrat  Texas 1989-1995
Barbara-Rose Collins Democrat  Michigan 1991-1997
Gary Franks Republican Connecticut 1991-1997
William J. Jefferson Democrat  Louisiana 1991-2009
Maxine Waters Democrat  California 1991-present
Lucien E. Blackwell Democrat  Pennsylvania 1991-1995
Eva M. Clayton Democrat  North Carolina 1992-2003
Sanford Bishop Democrat  Georgia 1993-presen
Carol Mosely Braun Democrat  Illinois 1993-1999
Corrine Brown Democrat  Florida 1993-present
Jim Clyburn Democrat  South Carolina 1993-present
Cleo Fields Democrat  Louisiana 1993-1997
Alcee Hastings Democrat  Florida 1993-present
Earl Hilliard Democrat  Alabama 1993-2003
Eddie Bernice Johnson Democrat  Texas 1993-present
Cynthia McKinney Democrat  Georgia 1993-2003, 2005-2007
Carrie P. Meek Democrat  Florida 1993-2003
Mel Reynolds Democrat  Illinois 1993-1995
Bobby Rush Democrat  Illinois 1993-present
Robert C. Scott Democrat  Virginia 1993-present
Walter Tucker Democrat  California 1993-1995
Mel Watt Democrat  North Carolina 1993-present
Albert Wynn Democrat  Maryland 1993-2008
Bennie Thompson Democrat  Mississippi 1993-present
Chaka Fattah Democrat  Pennsylvania 1995-present
Sheila Jackson-Lee Democrat  Texas 1995-present
J. C. Watts Republican Oklahoma 1995-2003
Jesse Jackson, Jr. Democrat  Illinois 1995-present
Juanita Millender-McDonald Democrat  California 1996-2007
Elijah Cummings Democrat  Maryland 1996-present
Julia Carson Democrat  Indiana 1997-2007
Danny K. Davis Democrat  Illinois 1997-present
Harold Ford, Jr. Democrat  Tennessee 1997-2007
Carolyn Cheeks Kilpatrick Democrat  Michigan 1997-present
Gregory W. Meeks Democrat  New York 1998-present
Barbara Lee Democrat  California 1998-present
Stephanie Tubbs Jones Democrat  Ohio 1999-2008
William Lacy Clay, Jr. Democrat  Missouri 2001-present
Diane Watson Democrat  California 2001-present
Frank Ballance Democrat  North Carolina 2003-2004
Artur Davis Democrat  Alabama 2003-present
Denise Majette Democrat  Georgia 2003-2005
Kendrick Meek Democrat  Florida 2003-present
David Scott Democrat  Georgia 2003-present
G. K. Butterfield Democrat  North Carolina 2004-present
Emanuel Cleaver Democrat  Missouri 2005-present
Al Green Democrat  Texas 2005-present
Gwen Moore Democrat  Wisconsin 2005-present
Barack Obama Democrat  -Illinois 2005-2008
Yvette D. Clarke Democrat  New York 2007-present
Keith Ellison Democrat  Minnesota 2007-present
Hank Johnson Democrat  Georgia 2007-present
Laura Richardson Democrat  California 2007-present
André Carson Democrat  Indiana 2008-present
Donna Edwards Democrat  Maryland 2008-present
Marcia Fudge Democrat  Ohio 2008-present
Roland Burris Democrat  -Illinois  2009-2010
Allen West Republican Florida 2011–2013
Hansen Clarke Democrat  Michigan 2011–2013
Tim Scott Republican South Carolina 2011–2013, 2014-present
Cedric Richmond Democrat  Louisiana 2011–present
Frederica Wilson Democrat  Florida 2011–present
Karen Bass Democrat  California 2011–present
Terri Sewell Democrat  Alabama 2011–present
Donald Payne, Jr. Democrat  New Jersey 2012–present
Hakeem Jeffries Democrat  New York 2013–present
Joyce Beatty Democrat  Ohio 2013–present
   Steven Horsford Democrat  Nevada 2013–2015
Robin Kelly Democrat   Illinois 2013–present
Alma Adams Democrat   North Carolina  2013–present
Will Hurd   Republican Texas    2015–present
Brenda Lawrence Democrat   Michigan 2015–present
Mia Love  Republican  Utah  2015–present
Bonnie Watson Coleman   Democrat   New Jersey   2015–present

By my count - *114 African Americans in Congress since 1900.

--> Eight republicans. The balance: 106 Democrats.*


----------



## paperview

monkeytrots said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> monkeytrots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> View attachment 144951
> 
> You can prove your allegations or is this just a pathetic attempt to win the discussion by throwing out the race card?
> 
> *****SMILE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is funny to see these  racist apologists at work.  It has been known for DECADES that the  kkk walked hand in hand with Democrat Party.  Over 50% of the Party at the 1924 DNC refused to include a condemnation of the KKK in their Party Platform.  One of the TWO leading candidates was the son-in-law of Woodrow Wilson - a racist of the most vile sorts -and a DEMOCRAT.  That son-in-law was the KKK backed candidate.  FDR was a vile racist - and the leftist spin that 'well blacks started moving to the Democrat party' after FDR holds no water.   Blacks continually re-elected Wallace to be governor.  Getting votes from the blacks in no way proves that the person is not an avowed racist.
> 
> Those of us that LIVED through the MLK days are very well aware of the strong NATIONAL TIES of the DEMOCRATS to overt racism and the kkk.
> 
> The revisionists at the NYT and WaPo are very active (including pogo and his ilk) at rewriting that history, attempting to call it 'inaccurate' and 'untrue'.
> 
> For those that LIVED the history, we know the TRUTH.
> 
> It was Dwight David Eisenhower who FORCIBLY REMOVED racist segregation from the public school systems - after a Supreme Court decision overturned a decades old DEMOCRAT SUPREME COURT decision that held that 'segregation was Constitutional'.  It was not. Never was.
> 
> It was Dwight David Eisenhower and other REPUBLICANS that started the end of segregation, fought it at every turn, weeded it out at every turn in the United States Military.
> 
> The revisionists love to state 'It was LBJ that signed the Civil Rights Act'.  LBJ FOUGHT THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT TOOTH AND NAIL - we students of the past know EXACTLY why LBJ signed the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> IT WAS REPUBLICANS - BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - that originated,fought for, and passed the Civil Right Act - in both the House and Senate.
> 
> IT WAS DEMOCRATS - BY AN OVERWHELMING MAJORITY - that fought against,attempted to fillibuster, to undermine, to KILL the CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.
> 
> The  Goldwater vote against the Civil Rights Act was due to CONSTITUTIONAL PROBLEMS of two sections that instituted even MORE RACISM into our society - problems that exist to this day.
> 
> Goldwater was no racist - *LBJ WAS ONE OF THE MOST RACIST PRESIDENTS THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER SEEN*.  Those of us who were there, especially those of that lived, grew up, and worked in TEXAS know the REAL truth about that piece of scum.  Just mention DCRC or simply DUVAL COUNTY to those that were there, and we can tell you precisely what that POS did.
> 
> So, my advise, Damaged Eagle - don't reply to pogo - he is a disruptor, revisionist, and a liar.  Already demonstrated aptly through many previous posts.  Reply's only feed his ego, disrupt, and give him a further platform.
> 
> BTW:  As predicted, the disruptor quickly stooped to ad hominen and labeled me as being a "kkklown".  So damned predictable - he is nothing but a Saul Alinsky disciple - well skilled in the art of the schmear.
> 
> My posts prove otherwise - quite clearly.
> 
> *The ability of scum to generate to lies, half-truths, and attacks far exceed the ability of any to rebut*.  That is also in the "Rules for Radicals" by Saul Alinsky - phrased differently, but lying to them is an acceptable and useful tactic.  They employ it fully and non-stop.
> 
> So don't even attempt to rebut - simply post the TRUTH, as you have been doing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 145000
> 
> Pogo is easy to handle.
> 
> *****CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> >> Pogo is easy to handle.
> 
> ... and the latest half-truther .... paperview .... post #448
> 
> *Was Martin Luther King, Jr. A Republican?*
> ...
Click to expand...


Give it up, knucklefuck.

MLK, Jr. was not a republican and even his hairbrained niece has ceded the point he wasn't.

Live with it.  

*"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*


----------



## Damaged Eagle

Faun said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 145008
> 
> Yes there's so many blacks and other minorities that have been put in positions of power by the Democratic party since 1964 that that must hold true today.
> 
> Maybe people like Condolleezza Rice, Bobby Jindal, and a few others, are mistakenly taken for Republicans.
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, you wanna go there...?
> 
> Currently, there's a record 52 blacks serving in Congress... 94% of them are Democrats...
> 
> http://www.louisianaweekly.com/record-number-of-african-americans-will-now-serve-in-congress/
Click to expand...






And a fine job those Democrats are doing supporting every group that wants to riot, burn down cities, dishonor all veterans, shoot law enforcement officials, and all sorts of other mayhem.

Without them to lead a us to a civilized society what would we do?

*****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****


----------



## paperview

What's your screen name at Stormfront?


----------



## jillian

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



those are your voters now,.

there is no one who "doesn't like it".

we know we dumped them and you love you some kkk now. they've been yours since the passage of the civil rights act.

loon


----------



## jillian

Damaged Eagle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 145008
> 
> Yes there's so many blacks and other minorities that have been put in positions of power by the Democratic party since 1964 that that must hold true today.
> 
> Maybe people like Condolleezza Rice, Bobby Jindal, and a few others, are mistakenly taken for Republicans.
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, you wanna go there...?
> 
> Currently, there's a record 52 blacks serving in Congress... 94% of them are Democrats...
> 
> http://www.louisianaweekly.com/record-number-of-african-americans-will-now-serve-in-congress/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 145020
> 
> And a fine job those Democrats are doing supporting every group that wants to riot, burn down cities, dishonor all veterans, shoot law enforcement officials, and all sorts of other mayhem.
> 
> Without them to lead a us to a civilized society what would we do?
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


so funny from nazi supporters.


----------



## Geaux4it

jillian said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> those are your voters now,.
> 
> there is no one who "doesn't like it".
> 
> we know we dumped them and you love you some kkk now. they've been yours since the passage of the civil rights act.
> 
> loon
Click to expand...


Did you know back in the 50's and 60's the KKK also roughed up white folk?

-Geaux


----------



## Damaged Eagle

jillian said:


> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 145008
> 
> Yes there's so many blacks and other minorities that have been put in positions of power by the Democratic party since 1964 that that must hold true today.
> 
> Maybe people like Condolleezza Rice, Bobby Jindal, and a few others, are mistakenly taken for Republicans.
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, you wanna go there...?
> 
> Currently, there's a record 52 blacks serving in Congress... 94% of them are Democrats...
> 
> http://www.louisianaweekly.com/record-number-of-african-americans-will-now-serve-in-congress/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 145020
> 
> And a fine job those Democrats are doing supporting every group that wants to riot, burn down cities, dishonor all veterans, shoot law enforcement officials, and all sorts of other mayhem.
> 
> Without them to lead a us to a civilized society what would we do?
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so funny from nazi supporters.
Click to expand...







I find the Nazi tactics employed by the progressives anything but funny.

*****SMILE*****


----------



## Faun

monkeytrots said:


> *Arguments For King As A Republican*
> First and foremost, the word of King’s family states that he was, indeed, a Republican. In_ A Covenant With Life: Reclaiming MLK’s Legacy_, Dr. Alveda C. King, niece of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., states, “My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr., or ‘Daddy King’, was a Republican and father of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. who was a Republican.”


Well there goes that argument. So much for the nonsense that MLK Jr. was a Republican.

_"I have few regrets in my life. At the top of the list is the demise of two children in my womb, and one miscarriage. *Next to that, I regret having said to a group of peers that my Uncle M. L. (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.) was a Republican. I said that without having all the facts.* My grandfather, Dr. Martin Luther King, Sr. was a registered Republican. *Uncle M. L. was an independent, who in his own words tended to vote Democrat.* I assumed that since granddaddy was a Republican, Uncle M. L. was too. After all, before the election of President John F. Kennedy, the majority of African-American voters were Republicans.

Granddaddy convinced a large block of blacks to vote for President John Kennedy after he helped to get my uncle out of jail during those turbulent days. *Uncle M. L. tended to vote Democrat, but remained independent* because he found weaknesses in both parties." ~ *Alveda King*_​


----------



## Stratford57

Damaged Eagle said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Damaged Eagle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 145008
> 
> Yes there's so many blacks and other minorities that have been put in positions of power by the Democratic party since 1964 that that must hold true today.
> 
> Maybe people like Condolleezza Rice, Bobby Jindal, and a few others, are mistakenly taken for Republicans.
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, you wanna go there...?
> 
> Currently, there's a record 52 blacks serving in Congress... 94% of them are Democrats...
> 
> http://www.louisianaweekly.com/record-number-of-african-americans-will-now-serve-in-congress/
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> View attachment 145020
> 
> And a fine job those Democrats are doing supporting every group that wants to riot, burn down cities, dishonor all veterans, shoot law enforcement officials, and all sorts of other mayhem.
> 
> Without them to lead a us to a civilized society what would we do?
> 
> *****SARCASTIC CHUCKLE*****
Click to expand...


*Democrats are doing supporting every group that wants to riot, burn down cities, dishonor all veterans, shoot law enforcement officials, and all sorts of other mayhem.*

That is absolutely correct and not only inside the USA but in the foreign countries as well. Looks like somebody needs chaos just about everywhere because Caesar's  "Divide and Rule!" remains the best guidance for those who are thirsty for the world wide power.


----------



## g5000

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftwing propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Recorded history.
> 
> Maine was a big state for the Klan, and in that state Republicans owned politics in the same way the Democrats owned Louisiana.  Owen Brewster was a strongly-Klan-backed candidate who won offices of Governor, Congressman and Senator, and a close ally of Joe McCarthy.
> 
> What that meant was that the Klan political faction in Maine was Republican, and the anti-Klan political faction in Maine was also Republican.  The Democrats of course seized on the Klan connections but their state infrastructure was weak.  Same sort of intra-party division was going on around the same time in Kansas, where Ben Paulen took the Republican governor nomination (and the office) over other Republican elements that wanted to condemn the Klan.
> 
> Paulen's predecessor Henry Allen had been trying to oust the Klan out of Kansas a few years prior, the same time as Gov. Jack Walton of neighboring Oklahoma was trying to oust them out of that state.  Allen was a Republican, Walton a Democrat.
> 
> The Klan, in that period of political activity, split political parties that way --- which was actually what this thread could have been about if it hadn't started with a picture from Madison Wisconsin claiming it was the Democratic convention in New York City.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acording to who, this Chalmer's guy?  I read his book about Standard Oil, and it's total communist bullshit.  You'll have to find a credible source if you want anyone to believe what you post about the KKK.
Click to expand...

Anyone who knows American history knows the Republican Party was just as infected with Klansmen as the Democrats.

But of course you don't know fuck-all about American history.


----------



## Pogo

Pogo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have evolved into modern day slavery of blacks by keeping them held down in the projects.
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history? Watch as Carol Swain, professor of political science at Vanderbilt University, shares the inconvenient history of the Democratic Party.
> 
> 
> The Inconvenient Truth About the Democratic Party
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look --- it's the original bridge-buyer, here to explain how the Democratic Party held an annual convention on trolley tracks in Madison Wisconsin.  Maybe he can explain "Forney Johnston" as well.  He's only had a week and a half to work on it.
> 
> Whatcha come up with?
> 
> And look --- he's trotting in more myths, including my favorite, "founded the KKK".  Nope, they did not.
> 
> 1865:
> 
> (Maj) James Crowe
> Calvin Jones
> (Capt) John Lester
> (Capt) John B Kenedy
> Frank O. McCord
> Richard Reed
> 
> 1915 re-founding:
> 
> William Joseph Simmons
> 
> --- find me any political affiliation for any of those people.
> 
> Maybe look under the trolley tracks in Madison Wisconsin
> 
> Or maybe "Forney Johnston" knows.
> 
> You can also check post 64 here, where another kkklown history revisionist tried to slap this same myth against the wall hoping it would stick despite known history.  Which is linked an imaged there.
Click to expand...


Here's some followup --- not the recent post I remember but this site doesn't make search easy.  One could go find the links all over again but then the bogus Wilson quote wasn't my claim and there are plenty more myths to squash...

== (old post, repasted) ==

There is evidence of the "writing history with lightning" phrase, but it's referring to the medium of the motion picture ---- in which "Birth of a Nation" was, sadly, technically innovative, completely aside from its plot. It made the splash it did for _*both *_of those reasons --- not just the storyline.

The bit about "my only regret is that it's all so terribly true" might have been advertising copy that D.W. Griffith used to sell the film, attributing it to a "very eminent man" but not naming the source*. In effect, Griffith (or Dixon, the novelist) seems to have made it up --- or somebody did at some later time.

From a 1915 advertising poster in Atlanta:
.
“History written with lightning” is the description applied to “The Birth of a Nation,” now in its second week at the Atlanta theater, by a very eminent man for whom a private exhibition was given in Washington some months ago.​
--- so this seems to have been congealed into a fake quote many years later (it doesn't appear in print anywhere until 1937, and even then it's unattributed)


From the biography _Wilson: The New Freedom_ (1956) by Arthur S. Link:

>> Dixon conceived a bold scheme -- to arrange a private showing of the film at the White House and thereby to obtain the President’s implied endorsement. [41]

Dixon bragged afterward that he had hidden "the real purpose of my film," which was to spread southern white racial attitudes in the North: "What I told the President was that I would show him the birth of a new art -- the launching of the mightiest engine for moulding public opinion in the history of the world."23

Wilson fell into Dixon’s trap, as indeed, did also members of the Supreme Court and both houses of Congress. Then, when the N.A.A.C.P. sought to prevent the showing of “The Birth of a Nation” in New York, Boston, and other cities, Dixon’s lawyers countered successfully by declaring that Chief Justice had seen the movie and liked it immensely. [42]

The Chief Justice, a Confederate veteran from Louisiana, put an end to the use of his name by threatening to denounce “The Birth of a Nation” publicly if Dixon did not stop saying that he had endorsed it. [43] Perceiving the political dangers in the situation, Tumulty suggested that Wilson write “some sort of a letter showing that he did not approve of the ‘Birth of a Nation.’” [44] “I would like to do this,” the President replied, “if there were some way in which I could do it without seeming to be trying to meet the agitation . . . stirred up by that unspeakable fellow Tucker [Trotter].” [45] He did, however, let Tumulty say that he had at no time approved the film; and three years later, when the nation was at war, he strongly disapproved the showing of this “unfortunate production.” [46]

... How Wilson reacted is a matter of dispute.  *Twenty-two years later*, a magazine writer alleged that he had said about the film, "It is like writing history with lightning.  And my only regret is that it is all so terribly true".  It is extremely doubtful that Wilson uttered these words, and Dixon did not quote them in his memoirs. Sixty-two years later, the last person then living who had been at the showing recalled that the president did not seem to pay much attention to the movie and left when it was over without saying a word.

[41] Dixon tells the story in “Southern Horizons: An Autobiography,” unpublished MS. in the possession of Mrs. Thomas Dixon, Raleigh, North Carolina, pp. 423-424.
[42] For accounts of the hearings in New York and Boston, see Mrs. Walter Damrosch to J.P. Tumulty, March 27, 1915, Wilson Papers; Mrs. Harriet Beale to J.P. Tumulty, March 29, 1915, _ibid._; Representative Thomas C. Thacher of Massachusetts to J.P. Tumulty, April 17, 1915, _ibid._ enclosing letters and documents relating to the hearing in Boston; and Thomas Dixon, “Southern Horizons,” pp. 425-441.
[43] E.D. White to J.P. Tumulty, April 5, 1915, Wilson Papers.
[44] J.P. Tumulty to W.W., April 24, 1915, _ibid_.
[45] W.W. to J.P. Tumulty, c. April 25, 1915, _ibid_.
[46] J.P. Tumulty to T.C. Thacher, April 28, 1915, _ibid._; W.W. to J.P. Tumulty, c. April 22, 1918, _ibid_.<<

(from page 272 here)​So the quote does not even appear until 1937, long after Wilson's death, and appears to be amalgamated from D. W Griffith's advertising propaganda claiming "But 'The Birth of a Nation' received very high praise from high quarters in Washington. ... Yes, I was gratified when a man we all revere, or ought to, said it teaches history by lightning."  (that's on page 21 here).

Notice he doesn't attribute a _name_ to this "man we all revere".  The 1915 version of "some people say....".

Again, other than cleaning up bogus quotes I'm still unaware what this has to do with the topic or the Klan. First, the quote has no corroborated source and doesn't appear _anywhere_ until 1937.  Second, what the quote would mean if it were real is open to debate anyway. "History written with lightning" is Dixon's filmmaker term describing the medium, and in the phrase "it is all so terribly true", what "it" refers to isn't even specified.  "It's true what the Klan's motive was"?  Or "it's terrible that it's true that all this went down?"  It isn't specified.

So what's the point here with this Wilson myth?

Hell I still haven't figured out what this thread has to do with the 1924 Democratic convention, since it's using a picture from Wisconsin, what it's got to do with Forney Johnston, who was already dead by then, why "Liberals are not liking it" since it's got nothing to do with Liberalism, or in what way a widely-distributed photo from 1924 is somehow "newly discovered".  

What is however interesting and relative to contemporary events is that The Birth of a Nation" is part and parcel, as was the Dixon novel _The Clansman_ on which it was based, of the same "*Lost Cause*" movement that had been striving to rewrite the history of the Confederacy, a time of the peak of bigotry, Jim Crow laws, segregation, race riots and rampant lynchings, part of which movement was the erection of hundreds of statues and monuments dedicated to whitewashing that history, primarily by the United Daughters of the Confederacy (UDC), including most if not all of the statues and monuments currently under attack and in some cases already removed, from public spaces.  And they were installed _in_ those public spaces specifically to led their historical revisionism an air of "legitimacy", just as "a man we all revere or ought to" was intended to lend THAT historical revisionism (the film) an air of legitimacy.  All part of the same pattern from the same element driven for the same reason -- trying to whitewash the nefarious splotch of white supremacy.


----------



## paperview

g5000 said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftwing propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Recorded history.
> 
> Maine was a big state for the Klan, and in that state Republicans owned politics in the same way the Democrats owned Louisiana.  Owen Brewster was a strongly-Klan-backed candidate who won offices of Governor, Congressman and Senator, and a close ally of Joe McCarthy.
> 
> What that meant was that the Klan political faction in Maine was Republican, and the anti-Klan political faction in Maine was also Republican.  The Democrats of course seized on the Klan connections but their state infrastructure was weak.  Same sort of intra-party division was going on around the same time in Kansas, where Ben Paulen took the Republican governor nomination (and the office) over other Republican elements that wanted to condemn the Klan.
> 
> Paulen's predecessor Henry Allen had been trying to oust the Klan out of Kansas a few years prior, the same time as Gov. Jack Walton of neighboring Oklahoma was trying to oust them out of that state.  Allen was a Republican, Walton a Democrat.
> 
> The Klan, in that period of political activity, split political parties that way --- which was actually what this thread could have been about if it hadn't started with a picture from Madison Wisconsin claiming it was the Democratic convention in New York City.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acording to who, this Chalmer's guy?  I read his book about Standard Oil, and it's total communist bullshit.  You'll have to find a credible source if you want anyone to believe what you post about the KKK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who knows American history knows the Republican Party was just as infected with Klansmen as the Democrats.
> 
> But of course you don't know fuck-all about American history.
Click to expand...

Hell, practically the entire GOP Indiana legislature were Klansmen -- including the Governor.  So too Colorado.


----------



## Pogo

monkeytrots said:


> Pogo is a very accomplished disinformation person. Most of his so-called clan history appears to be from internet sites from a 'kkk history' post.  A lot of it appears to be from this site (note sites often plagiarize each other, using unattributed sources, unchecked facts and so on - so this might not be the exact site from which he posts such a distorted and UNTRUTHFUL history of the clan.)



I see that you're new here Sparkles but most of what I do here has to do with correcting disinformation with facts --- that and pointing out why an argument is fallacious.  I've often referred back to my own earlier posts for this reason ---- those referenced posts HAD ALREADY quoted and linked multiple sources (I've got at least 25-30 all told), which are still clickable in those original posts and all of which document what I post.

You see Gooey, I've been at this a LONG time.  I know this stuff backward and forward, I no longer need the links or references but they do refute the mythology.  And they make for far too long a post, so I limit it to about ten per post, and I no longer elongate a thread by quoting them all over again.  So lately I simply refer back to where it's already compiled.  The fact that you're scared shitless to actually read them for fear of your own mythology vanishing, that ain't my problem.  I can't control your self-delusion; all I can do is lead you to the water.  You want to not only refuse to think but deny that that water exists, hey that's on you.  But it changes nothing of the content.





monkeytrots said:


> I had studied the origins of the Clan more than 40 years ago, written a paper on it, and NOTHING in that origination story by p's was in accord with my recollection.



Then it's funny you can't even spell "Klan", an alliteration which was present in it from literally the first day, which was, specifically, Christmas of 1865 (various reports alternate between Christmas Eve and Christmas Day but we needn't quibble about 24 hours).




monkeytrots said:


> Oh, and let me beat p' to the punch - before the inevitable "Well you've been a clan sympathizer and interested in them since being very young"



Again that's your ass-----umption, not mine.  There are all sorts of reasons for interest in some topic.  My interest in this one came from the work of an older relative, a writer and historian, whose resources I inherited on his death.  Probably I got interested because what I was learning contradicted the very myths your ilk has been spewing forth here ignorantly for decades.  I like to find out the real origins of things.

In other words I'm your worst enemy --- I already know better, and I won't hesitate to put it out.


----------



## Pogo

paperview said:


> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftwing propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Recorded history.
> 
> Maine was a big state for the Klan, and in that state Republicans owned politics in the same way the Democrats owned Louisiana.  Owen Brewster was a strongly-Klan-backed candidate who won offices of Governor, Congressman and Senator, and a close ally of Joe McCarthy.
> 
> What that meant was that the Klan political faction in Maine was Republican, and the anti-Klan political faction in Maine was also Republican.  The Democrats of course seized on the Klan connections but their state infrastructure was weak.  Same sort of intra-party division was going on around the same time in Kansas, where Ben Paulen took the Republican governor nomination (and the office) over other Republican elements that wanted to condemn the Klan.
> 
> Paulen's predecessor Henry Allen had been trying to oust the Klan out of Kansas a few years prior, the same time as Gov. Jack Walton of neighboring Oklahoma was trying to oust them out of that state.  Allen was a Republican, Walton a Democrat.
> 
> The Klan, in that period of political activity, split political parties that way --- which was actually what this thread could have been about if it hadn't started with a picture from Madison Wisconsin claiming it was the Democratic convention in New York City.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acording to who, this Chalmer's guy?  I read his book about Standard Oil, and it's total communist bullshit.  You'll have to find a credible source if you want anyone to believe what you post about the KKK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone who knows American history knows the Republican Party was just as infected with Klansmen as the Democrats.
> 
> But of course you don't know fuck-all about American history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, practically the entire GOP Indiana legislature were Klansmen -- including the Governor.  So too Colorado.
Click to expand...


Succinctly summed up here, posted for about the 1300th time...

​


----------



## Pogo

monkeytrots said:


> It was organized at Pulaski, Tenn., in May, 1866.



Bullshit.

It was Pulaski (205 West Madison Street, the law office of Thomas Jones, father of founder Calvin Jones) but it was Christmas of 1865.  By May, Crowe, Jones, Lester, Kennedy, McCord and Reed were no longer in control, nor was it limited to them, nor is there any record of not only political affiliations but of any terrorist activity by any of those founders.  It was out of their hands.

The sort of slipshod fake-research I expect from a wannabe who can't even spell "Klan".

I understand dessert is ready.  Moving on.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> g5000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leftwing propaganda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Recorded history.
> 
> Maine was a big state for the Klan, and in that state Republicans owned politics in the same way the Democrats owned Louisiana.  Owen Brewster was a strongly-Klan-backed candidate who won offices of Governor, Congressman and Senator, and a close ally of Joe McCarthy.
> 
> What that meant was that the Klan political faction in Maine was Republican, and the anti-Klan political faction in Maine was also Republican.  The Democrats of course seized on the Klan connections but their state infrastructure was weak.  Same sort of intra-party division was going on around the same time in Kansas, where Ben Paulen took the Republican governor nomination (and the office) over other Republican elements that wanted to condemn the Klan.
> 
> Paulen's predecessor Henry Allen had been trying to oust the Klan out of Kansas a few years prior, the same time as Gov. Jack Walton of neighboring Oklahoma was trying to oust them out of that state.  Allen was a Republican, Walton a Democrat.
> 
> The Klan, in that period of political activity, split political parties that way --- which was actually what this thread could have been about if it hadn't started with a picture from Madison Wisconsin claiming it was the Democratic convention in New York City.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acording to who, this Chalmer's guy?  I read his book about Standard Oil, and it's total communist bullshit.  You'll have to find a credible source if you want anyone to believe what you post about the KKK.
Click to expand...


I've posted legitimate sources, literally dozens of them, over and over and over and over and over and over and over on this site alone Finger-Boi, and you damn well know it because you've been here long enough.  

Your endless yapping "post 'em again because I was going  is unimpressive.

Furthermore I've posted nothing about a "Chalmer's [sic] guy", nor is that even a valid English construction.  Go lern hau to reed.


----------



## Pogo

RodISHI said:


> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many posts, Pogo, and all of them are mainly BS. Too much of liberal Media, Pogo. Your brains are slipping away from you. Go, go, go, gone....
> 
> Suggestion: *stop listening to liberal Media and start reading the Bible*.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent advice but pogi is an anti so perhaps a wasted effort.
Click to expand...


An "anti"?  Don't even know what that is.  I am an uncle though.  Wanna see my grandniece?


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The epilogue to that never-ending convention deadlock drama --- the conservative wing was able to deadlock all those 100+ ballots because the party at the time required a 2/3 majority for nomination.  So all you needed to block was 33% plus one.  Franklin Roosevelt put an end to that 12 years later when, at the height of his power while running for re-election in 1936, he got the rules changed to a simple majority (50% plus one).  That ensured there would be no more 1924s and the next time the South wanted to block the flow, in 1948 the first election after World War Two, they were unable to do so under the new rules, walked out, and ran their own campaign.  That was the "Dixiecrats", Strom Thurmond and Fielding Wright.
> 
> The next time Thurmond came up for Senate re-election he found himself kicked off the ballot and had to run as a write-in (which he won).
> 
> 
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _Oh, so it's a way for the left to blame everyone but themselves, got it. And what exactly makes racism "Conservative"?_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has nothing to do with "the left".  It has to do with that conservative wing.  You asked what made them the conservative wing.  They clearly were not the Liberal one.
> 
> Being a conservative does not in itself make one racist.  But in order to be a racist, one must be conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter horseshit.
Click to expand...


Yep, that is indeed what you just did.  Probably the longest word you know too.


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _What exactly makes them "The Conservative Wing"?_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism mostly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's nothing conservative about racism, shit stain.  That claim is nothing more than leftwing bigotry.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already gave you a link which showed the origins of that photo.
> 
> Meanwhile, you have zero evidence that photo was from the 1924 DNC. You're just fucking crazy.
> 
> Here's a second link to demonstrate what a retard you are...
> 
> Dry times were not good times
> 
> ... want more...?
Click to expand...


The Klan was strongly pro-Prohibition (drunks and drinkers in general were some of their targets along with "loose women" and "fornicators" and "people who didn't go to church") and they had common roots with the Temperance Movement.

>> The organization most responsible for Prohibition (the "drys" as opposed to the "wets") was the church-based Anti-Saloon League (*ASL*) and its legendary activist Wayne Wheeler.  Wheeler was brilliant, indefatigable, and during his heyday, the most powerful man in American politics.  Part of his effectiveness was his willingness to ally the ASL with any group that was willing to support Prohibition.  For example, the ASL cooperated with the women's suffrage movement because Wheeler knew women would vote for "dry" candidates.  The ASL supported those in favor of the income tax, because Prohibition would have been impossible except for the introduction of an income tax – prior to Prohibition there was no income tax, and taxes on alcohol represented as much as 30 to 40% of national income.

Most insidious, though, was the tacit alliance of the ASL with the Ku Klux Klan. Drinking was something that was most closely associated with blacks and immigrants such as the Irish and Italians (both largely Catholic). These were the very groups targeted by the Klan, and so the Klan was strongly pro-Prohibition. << -- _Political Alliances: the Klan and the ASL 
_​Yet another contextual root.


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Did you know that the Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, founded the KKK, and fought against every major civil rights act in U.S. history?



So I admit I salivated on fake Klan history but to be fair it's certainly not the only myth in the list.  Let's do another one.  "Did you know the Democratic Party ... started the Civil War".

Nope, didn't know that and curiously enough neither do the history books.

Let's see, Civil War, April 1861, following the secession of several states forming the Confederacy starting with South Carolina (everything starts in South Carolina) in April 1861....

.... the lead-in to that was the election of Abraham Lincoln in November 1860.

In that election, Lincoln, the second candidate of the then-new (six years old) Republican Party, ran for President but only in the North, Midwest and West.  His name appeared on no ballots in the South (at that time you did not go to the polling place and get a master list of all candidates --- you picked up a ballot printed by that political party).  The party's first POTUS candidate John C. Frémont (1856) also did not run in the South.  The new party concentrated its resources where it thought (correctly) its support would be in the North, Midwest and West.,

Consequently the number of the South's considerable share of the Electoral College vote (88 at the time) that Lincoln won was, predictably, zero.  So how many EVs do you think the Democratic Party's candidate Stephen Douglas, pull from those 88 available votes from the South?

The answer is also --------- zero.  Not a one.  

What your mythmakers "forget" to tell you is that that vote was split between not two, not three, but _four_ major candidates, and Lincoln took a majority of EVs with the lowest share of the popular vote in history.  Second was John Breckinridge, who the Southern ex-Democrats ran after they expelled the Democratic convention from the South, and third was John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party (offshoot of the Whigs) who won his native Tennessee as well as Virginia and Kentucky (home state of both Lincoln and Breckinridge).  Democrat Douglas came in dead last, having won a total of one state (Missouri, a 'border' state) and a split EV from New Jersey.  It's also worth noting that Bell's CU campaign was against secession and though Bell had been a slave owner himself he opposed its expansion.

After that election result was in Douglas attempted to negotiate with Southern concerns to talk them out of secession, and when those efforts failed he advised Lincoln on how to approach the South in the event of war, suggesting more force than Lincoln had been advocating.

Oh and one more thing, when the Confederacy formed, it shunned the idea of having political parties and deliberately had none.

So go ahead and make your case for "the Democrats started the Civil War".  This oughta be as fun to watch as the decomposed corpse of Forney Johnston careening down Wisconsin trolley tracks.


----------



## Rambunctious

democrats still run the plantations today...just look in the inner city of any large metropolis.


----------



## deanrd

Still determined to make liberals into confederates?

Hilarious.

So was Lincoln a confederate?

Because after the South went from Democrat to Republican, the tards become confused.


----------



## Pogo

monkeytrots said:


> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ted Frazier said:
> 
> 
> 
> False. In 1924, the year referenced in the OP, the states that supported the confederacy during the civil war (the conservative states that voted for Trump in '16) voted Democratic.
> The states that opposed slavery voted for the Republican.
> (most of these same liberal states voted for Hillary).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just gave you a history lesson. This thread bike up on the conservatives' faces.
> KKK was founded by conservatives (southern democrats) and continues to be loved by conservatives (today's Republicans).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations.  They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _No doubt insisted that while murdering Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Actually the original founders were out for nothing more than a joke.  All that violence stuff came on after it was taken over from them.  And at the time there were literally dozens of such groups.
> 
> And the second one that went much bigger and coast-to-coast, was a con artist out to milk membership money from the gullible, because he saw what a sensation "Birth of a Nation" was.  Wouldn't have made sense to be murdering Republicans at the same time they were endorsing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You must be thinking of a different KKK, entirely, then, because the KKK I'm thinking of, the anti-black group, murdered blacks and Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pumpkin, You are correct.  Pogo  is a very accomplished disinformation  person.  Most of  his so-called clan history appears to be from internet sites from a 'kkk history' post.  A lot of it appears to be from this site (note sites often plagiarize each other, using unattributed sources, unchecked facts and so on - so this might not be the exact site from which he posts such a distorted and UNTRUTHFUL history of the clan.)
> 
> Note - this is BULLCRAP : The Ku Klux Klan, 1868
> 
> I wil quote just a bit so you can see the similarity to pogo's first 'post' on the issue (no, I won't even bother rating his post as funny, or replying to him - consider him nothing but a leftist troll - a very skilled one - but a troll none-the-less - just like nycarbineer.  extreme high number of posts- just means they've hung around for a long time- ratings - well- always take them with a huge dosing of  NaCl.)
> 
> *The FOLLOWING IS COMPLETE HORSE HOCKEY:*
> _Its very name struck terror in the hearts of its victims. However, the beginning of the Ku Klux Klan was innocent enough. In December 1865, eight months after the South’s surrender, a group of six young men living in the village of Pulaski near Nashville, Tennessee decided to relieve their boredom by organizing a social club. All were veterans of the Confederate Army and some had attended college where fraternities with three-letter, Greek-based names were popular. In mock-imitation, they came up with the alliterative title Ku Klux Klan for their group. Their meetings would be secret and devoted to elaborate ceremonies. Members would disguise themselves with a costume made up of a sheet to cover their bodies, fanciful masks to hide their faces and pointed headgear that heightened their stature. Their leader would be known as the Grand Cyclops._
> 
> _Although their motives may have been innocent, the appearance of these white-sheeted, horse-mounted apparitions on the town’s darkened streets triggered a panic-driven flight for safety by the community’s recently freed slaves. Soon, terrorizing Blacks became a prime sport and the transition of the KKK from an innocuous social club to a ruthless vigilance committee began.
> 
> Transmitted by word-of-mouth and newspaper articles; knowledge of the Klan rapidly spread through the South. Post-war conditions in the former Confederacy were chaotic. The rapid expansion of the Klan was fueled by a wide-spread fear among many Southern Whites of an insurrection by former slaves and seething resentment against Northern “carpet-baggers” who had invaded the South since the end of the war. Local organizations mimicking the original group’s secrecy and costumes sprang up in various communities._
> 
> ---- End of Bovine Excrement ....
> 
> My radar on this guy went off immediately with p's first post - it reeked of bs.
> 
> I had studied the origins of the Clan more than 40 years ago, written a paper on it, and NOTHING in that origination story by p's was in accord with my recollection.   Oh, and let me beat p' to the punch - before the inevitable "Well you've been a clan sympathizer and interested in them since being very young" ... kinda like what the Internet Mob has already done to that kid in Charlottesville over his studying of 'nazis'.   During the time I researched the Clan - It was during the civil rights days of MLK and all that was going on here in the United States.  The kkk was  in the news daily.  I was not living in the US, but with my military family - stationed in Japan.  Discrimination and racism were something totally alien to me - it flat did not occur in the military at that time.  It was severely punished when found - the officer's and NCO's would not allow it.   Keeping up with the 'states' required us to READ, a lot, to understand what was going on.  Who the hell were the 'kkk' ?  Well, I read- BOOKS - to find out.  Not the freaking internet.
> 
> But, bein' an old fart, held my fire, checked my memory, and found some GOOD sources that can't be denied by intelligent researchers.
> 
> Will post that in next reply - will be to your same message Pumpkin.
Click to expand...


Here ^^ we have a cretin who not only can't spell "Klan" while simultaneously trying to pass himself off as a "scholar" on it ---  he actually posts a link, and quotes it, that not only has never been one of my source links, but_ completely corroborates my entire narrative_.

Dood be like....  

>> Its very name struck terror in the hearts of its victims. However, the beginning of the Ku Klux Klan was innocent enough. In December 1865, eight months after the South’s surrender, a group of six young men living in the village of Pulaski near Nashville, Tennessee decided to relieve their boredom by organizing a social club. All were veterans of the Confederate Army and some had attended college where fraternities with three-letter, Greek-based names were popular. In mock-imitation, they came up with the alliterative title Ku Klux Klan for their group. Their meetings would be secret and devoted to elaborate ceremonies. Members would disguise themselves with a costume made up of a sheet to cover their bodies, fanciful masks to hide their faces and pointed headgear that heightened their stature. Their leader would be known as the Grand Cyclops.

Although their motives may have been innocent, the appearance of these white-sheeted, horse-mounted apparitions on the town’s darkened streets triggered a panic-driven flight for safety by the community’s recently freed slaves. Soon, terrorizing Blacks became a prime sport and the transition of the KKK from an innocuous social club to a ruthless vigilance committee began.

Transmitted by word-of-mouth and newspaper articles; knowledge of the Klan rapidly spread through the South. Post-war conditions in the former Confederacy were chaotic. The rapid expansion of the Klan was fueled by a wide-spread fear among many Southern Whites of an insurrection by former slaves and seething resentment against Northern “carpet-baggers” who had invaded the South since the end of the war. Local organizations mimicking the original group’s secrecy and costumes sprang up in various communities.<<​

--- then he thinks he can turn it off like a light switch by bracketing it with the words: "*The FOLLOWING IS COMPLETE HORSE HOCKEY:*---- End of Bovine Excrement .... "

Even though it's completely aligned with my dozens of other sources, right down to the US Government publication of 1967 that was my starting point.  The six twentysomething young men are exactly the same six I've named over and over, in the building I've cited, on the date I've cited, and listed on the Daughters of the Confederacy plaque I posted.

I like it.  As a timeline of events it's spot-on.  Meshes perfectly with everything I've laid out.  And no, I did not pay this poster to link this for me.

It does contain one inaccuracy though.  And that is --- Pulaski is not "near Nashville".  It's close to the Alabama border.


----------



## g5000

Pogo said:


> RodISHI said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stratford57 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So many posts, Pogo, and all of them are mainly BS. Too much of liberal Media, Pogo. Your brains are slipping away from you. Go, go, go, gone....
> 
> Suggestion: *stop listening to liberal Media and start reading the Bible*.
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent advice but pogi is an anti so perhaps a wasted effort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An "anti"?  Don't even know what that is.  I am an uncle though.  Wanna see my grandniece?
Click to expand...

"Anti" is Stormfront White Nationalist slang for anyone opposed to Nazis.

"Cultural marxist" is another favorite.  That one has been used often by Steve Bannon.


----------



## xyz

deanrd said:


> Still determined to make liberals into confederates?
> 
> Hilarious.
> 
> So was Lincoln a confederate?
> 
> Because after the South went from Democrat to Republican, the tards become confused.


The KKK actively supported a Republican in 1928:
When a Catholic Terrified the Heartland

10% of current Democrats are racist scum:


----------



## monkeytrots

Pogo said:


> monkeytrots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually the Klan was founded originally by ex-soldiers who had no political party, and fifty years later re-founded by a con artist with also no known political affiliations.  They may have their tendencies from one time and place to another but both of them insisted they were non-political.
> 
> 
> 
> _No doubt insisted that while murdering Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Actually the original founders were out for nothing more than a joke.  All that violence stuff came on after it was taken over from them.  And at the time there were literally dozens of such groups.
> 
> And the second one that went much bigger and coast-to-coast, was a con artist out to milk membership money from the gullible, because he saw what a sensation "Birth of a Nation" was.  Wouldn't have made sense to be murdering Republicans at the same time they were endorsing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You must be thinking of a different KKK, entirely, then, because the KKK I'm thinking of, the anti-black group, murdered blacks and Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin, You are correct.  Pogo  is a very accomplished disinformation  person.  Most of  his so-called clan history appears to be from internet sites from a 'kkk history' post.  A lot of it appears to be from this site (note sites often plagiarize each other, using unattributed sources, unchecked facts and so on - so this might not be the exact site from which he posts such a distorted and UNTRUTHFUL history of the clan.)
> 
> Note - this is BULLCRAP : The Ku Klux Klan, 1868
> 
> I wil quote just a bit so you can see the similarity to pogo's first 'post' on the issue (no, I won't even bother rating his post as funny, or replying to him - consider him nothing but a leftist troll - a very skilled one - but a troll none-the-less - just like nycarbineer.  extreme high number of posts- just means they've hung around for a long time- ratings - well- always take them with a huge dosing of  NaCl.)
> 
> *The FOLLOWING IS COMPLETE HORSE HOCKEY:*
> _Its very name struck terror in the hearts of its victims. However, the beginning of the Ku Klux Klan was innocent enough. In December 1865, eight months after the South’s surrender, a group of six young men living in the village of Pulaski near Nashville, Tennessee decided to relieve their boredom by organizing a social club. All were veterans of the Confederate Army and some had attended college where fraternities with three-letter, Greek-based names were popular. In mock-imitation, they came up with the alliterative title Ku Klux Klan for their group. Their meetings would be secret and devoted to elaborate ceremonies. Members would disguise themselves with a costume made up of a sheet to cover their bodies, fanciful masks to hide their faces and pointed headgear that heightened their stature. Their leader would be known as the Grand Cyclops._
> 
> _Although their motives may have been innocent, the appearance of these white-sheeted, horse-mounted apparitions on the town’s darkened streets triggered a panic-driven flight for safety by the community’s recently freed slaves. Soon, terrorizing Blacks became a prime sport and the transition of the KKK from an innocuous social club to a ruthless vigilance committee began.
> 
> Transmitted by word-of-mouth and newspaper articles; knowledge of the Klan rapidly spread through the South. Post-war conditions in the former Confederacy were chaotic. The rapid expansion of the Klan was fueled by a wide-spread fear among many Southern Whites of an insurrection by former slaves and seething resentment against Northern “carpet-baggers” who had invaded the South since the end of the war. Local organizations mimicking the original group’s secrecy and costumes sprang up in various communities._
> 
> ---- End of Bovine Excrement ....
> 
> My radar on this guy went off immediately with p's first post - it reeked of bs.
> 
> I had studied the origins of the Clan more than 40 years ago, written a paper on it, and NOTHING in that origination story by p's was in accord with my recollection.   Oh, and let me beat p' to the punch - before the inevitable "Well you've been a clan sympathizer and interested in them since being very young" ... kinda like what the Internet Mob has already done to that kid in Charlottesville over his studying of 'nazis'.   During the time I researched the Clan - It was during the civil rights days of MLK and all that was going on here in the United States.  The kkk was  in the news daily.  I was not living in the US, but with my military family - stationed in Japan.  Discrimination and racism were something totally alien to me - it flat did not occur in the military at that time.  It was severely punished when found - the officer's and NCO's would not allow it.   Keeping up with the 'states' required us to READ, a lot, to understand what was going on.  Who the hell were the 'kkk' ?  Well, I read- BOOKS - to find out.  Not the freaking internet.
> 
> But, bein' an old fart, held my fire, checked my memory, and found some GOOD sources that can't be denied by intelligent researchers.
> 
> Will post that in next reply - will be to your same message Pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here ^^ we have a cretin who not only can't spell "Klan" while simultaneously trying to pass himself off as a "scholar" on it ---  he actually posts a link, and quotes it, that not only has never been one of my source links, but_ completely corroborates my entire narrative_.
> 
> Dood be like....
> 
> >> Its very name struck terror in the hearts of its victims. However, the beginning of the Ku Klux Klan was innocent enough. In December 1865, eight months after the South’s surrender, a group of six young men living in the village of Pulaski near Nashville, Tennessee decided to relieve their boredom by organizing a social club. All were veterans of the Confederate Army and some had attended college where fraternities with three-letter, Greek-based names were popular. In mock-imitation, they came up with the alliterative title Ku Klux Klan for their group. Their meetings would be secret and devoted to elaborate ceremonies. Members would disguise themselves with a costume made up of a sheet to cover their bodies, fanciful masks to hide their faces and pointed headgear that heightened their stature. Their leader would be known as the Grand Cyclops.
> 
> Although their motives may have been innocent, the appearance of these white-sheeted, horse-mounted apparitions on the town’s darkened streets triggered a panic-driven flight for safety by the community’s recently freed slaves. Soon, terrorizing Blacks became a prime sport and the transition of the KKK from an innocuous social club to a ruthless vigilance committee began.
> 
> Transmitted by word-of-mouth and newspaper articles; knowledge of the Klan rapidly spread through the South. Post-war conditions in the former Confederacy were chaotic. The rapid expansion of the Klan was fueled by a wide-spread fear among many Southern Whites of an insurrection by former slaves and seething resentment against Northern “carpet-baggers” who had invaded the South since the end of the war. Local organizations mimicking the original group’s secrecy and costumes sprang up in various communities.<<​
> 
> --- then he thinks he can turn it off like a light switch by bracketing it with the words: "*The FOLLOWING IS COMPLETE HORSE HOCKEY:*---- End of Bovine Excrement .... "
> 
> Even though it's completely aligned with my dozens of other sources, right down to the US Government publication of 1967 that was my starting point.  The six twentysomething young men are exactly the same six I've named over and over, in the building I've cited, on the date I've cited, and listed on the Daughters of the Confederacy plaque I posted.
> 
> I like it.  As a timeline of events it's spot-on.  Meshes perfectly with everything I've laid out.  And no, I did not pay this poster to link this for me.
> 
> It does contain one inaccuracy though.  And that is --- Pulaski is not "near Nashville".  It's close to the Alabama border.
Click to expand...


Ummm ... The liar and self-admitted cretin (admits he salivated at fake CLAN history) has a tad problem with the name I choose to use ....

Hey Dingleberry:
*Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia*
The group was known for a short time as the "Kuklux Clan". The Ku Klux Klan was one of a number of secret, oath-bound organizations using violence, ...


Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia

Chuckling at the typical AD HOMINEN of an ADMITTED CRETIN THAT SALIVATES OVER FAKE HISTORY.

As to which site you ACTUALLY got that fake history from, the one you salivated over and posted ... coulda been NPR/PBS - who ran similar such bizarro world CRAP in a pseudo-documentary.

WHO THE HELL CARES where you really got it from - so many sites copy from each other, and you just lap it up like the bottom dweller ye be.

It is refreshing to see just how predictable SAUL ALINSKY  accolytes, such as pogo, continue to be- same old immoral and ugly tactics of the SATANISTS.  And yeah- check that out 'cuz that really who ole SAUL deified.

As said previously by another SCHOLARLY poster: It's easy to handle pogo.

Glad to see my posts riled you so much that you continue to attempt to discredit them FOR DAYS.

Really got your goat, eh ?    Bwahahahahahahahahahaha -- TRUTH WINS - bullcrap walks.

Toodle loo, pogo-r-u - Chew on it, fume on it, REJOICE that you actually got a reply from me ... the Good, the Bad, the MONKEYTROTS !!!!


----------



## Pogo

monkeytrots said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> monkeytrots said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin Row said:
> 
> 
> 
> _No doubt insisted that while murdering Republicans._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope.  Actually the original founders were out for nothing more than a joke.  All that violence stuff came on after it was taken over from them.  And at the time there were literally dozens of such groups.
> 
> And the second one that went much bigger and coast-to-coast, was a con artist out to milk membership money from the gullible, because he saw what a sensation "Birth of a Nation" was.  Wouldn't have made sense to be murdering Republicans at the same time they were endorsing them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _You must be thinking of a different KKK, entirely, then, because the KKK I'm thinking of, the anti-black group, murdered blacks and Republicans._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pumpkin, You are correct.  Pogo  is a very accomplished disinformation  person.  Most of  his so-called clan history appears to be from internet sites from a 'kkk history' post.  A lot of it appears to be from this site (note sites often plagiarize each other, using unattributed sources, unchecked facts and so on - so this might not be the exact site from which he posts such a distorted and UNTRUTHFUL history of the clan.)
> 
> Note - this is BULLCRAP : The Ku Klux Klan, 1868
> 
> I wil quote just a bit so you can see the similarity to pogo's first 'post' on the issue (no, I won't even bother rating his post as funny, or replying to him - consider him nothing but a leftist troll - a very skilled one - but a troll none-the-less - just like nycarbineer.  extreme high number of posts- just means they've hung around for a long time- ratings - well- always take them with a huge dosing of  NaCl.)
> 
> *The FOLLOWING IS COMPLETE HORSE HOCKEY:*
> _Its very name struck terror in the hearts of its victims. However, the beginning of the Ku Klux Klan was innocent enough. In December 1865, eight months after the South’s surrender, a group of six young men living in the village of Pulaski near Nashville, Tennessee decided to relieve their boredom by organizing a social club. All were veterans of the Confederate Army and some had attended college where fraternities with three-letter, Greek-based names were popular. In mock-imitation, they came up with the alliterative title Ku Klux Klan for their group. Their meetings would be secret and devoted to elaborate ceremonies. Members would disguise themselves with a costume made up of a sheet to cover their bodies, fanciful masks to hide their faces and pointed headgear that heightened their stature. Their leader would be known as the Grand Cyclops._
> 
> _Although their motives may have been innocent, the appearance of these white-sheeted, horse-mounted apparitions on the town’s darkened streets triggered a panic-driven flight for safety by the community’s recently freed slaves. Soon, terrorizing Blacks became a prime sport and the transition of the KKK from an innocuous social club to a ruthless vigilance committee began.
> 
> Transmitted by word-of-mouth and newspaper articles; knowledge of the Klan rapidly spread through the South. Post-war conditions in the former Confederacy were chaotic. The rapid expansion of the Klan was fueled by a wide-spread fear among many Southern Whites of an insurrection by former slaves and seething resentment against Northern “carpet-baggers” who had invaded the South since the end of the war. Local organizations mimicking the original group’s secrecy and costumes sprang up in various communities._
> 
> ---- End of Bovine Excrement ....
> 
> My radar on this guy went off immediately with p's first post - it reeked of bs.
> 
> I had studied the origins of the Clan more than 40 years ago, written a paper on it, and NOTHING in that origination story by p's was in accord with my recollection.   Oh, and let me beat p' to the punch - before the inevitable "Well you've been a clan sympathizer and interested in them since being very young" ... kinda like what the Internet Mob has already done to that kid in Charlottesville over his studying of 'nazis'.   During the time I researched the Clan - It was during the civil rights days of MLK and all that was going on here in the United States.  The kkk was  in the news daily.  I was not living in the US, but with my military family - stationed in Japan.  Discrimination and racism were something totally alien to me - it flat did not occur in the military at that time.  It was severely punished when found - the officer's and NCO's would not allow it.   Keeping up with the 'states' required us to READ, a lot, to understand what was going on.  Who the hell were the 'kkk' ?  Well, I read- BOOKS - to find out.  Not the freaking internet.
> 
> But, bein' an old fart, held my fire, checked my memory, and found some GOOD sources that can't be denied by intelligent researchers.
> 
> Will post that in next reply - will be to your same message Pumpkin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here ^^ we have a cretin who not only can't spell "Klan" while simultaneously trying to pass himself off as a "scholar" on it ---  he actually posts a link, and quotes it, that not only has never been one of my source links, but_ completely corroborates my entire narrative_.
> 
> Dood be like....
> 
> >> Its very name struck terror in the hearts of its victims. However, the beginning of the Ku Klux Klan was innocent enough. In December 1865, eight months after the South’s surrender, a group of six young men living in the village of Pulaski near Nashville, Tennessee decided to relieve their boredom by organizing a social club. All were veterans of the Confederate Army and some had attended college where fraternities with three-letter, Greek-based names were popular. In mock-imitation, they came up with the alliterative title Ku Klux Klan for their group. Their meetings would be secret and devoted to elaborate ceremonies. Members would disguise themselves with a costume made up of a sheet to cover their bodies, fanciful masks to hide their faces and pointed headgear that heightened their stature. Their leader would be known as the Grand Cyclops.
> 
> Although their motives may have been innocent, the appearance of these white-sheeted, horse-mounted apparitions on the town’s darkened streets triggered a panic-driven flight for safety by the community’s recently freed slaves. Soon, terrorizing Blacks became a prime sport and the transition of the KKK from an innocuous social club to a ruthless vigilance committee began.
> 
> Transmitted by word-of-mouth and newspaper articles; knowledge of the Klan rapidly spread through the South. Post-war conditions in the former Confederacy were chaotic. The rapid expansion of the Klan was fueled by a wide-spread fear among many Southern Whites of an insurrection by former slaves and seething resentment against Northern “carpet-baggers” who had invaded the South since the end of the war. Local organizations mimicking the original group’s secrecy and costumes sprang up in various communities.<<​
> 
> --- then he thinks he can turn it off like a light switch by bracketing it with the words: "*The FOLLOWING IS COMPLETE HORSE HOCKEY:*---- End of Bovine Excrement .... "
> 
> Even though it's completely aligned with my dozens of other sources, right down to the US Government publication of 1967 that was my starting point.  The six twentysomething young men are exactly the same six I've named over and over, in the building I've cited, on the date I've cited, and listed on the Daughters of the Confederacy plaque I posted.
> 
> I like it.  As a timeline of events it's spot-on.  Meshes perfectly with everything I've laid out.  And no, I did not pay this poster to link this for me.
> 
> It does contain one inaccuracy though.  And that is --- Pulaski is not "near Nashville".  It's close to the Alabama border.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ummm ... The liar and self-admitted cretin (admits he salivated at fake CLAN history) has a tad problem with the name I choose to use ....
> 
> Hey Dingleberry:
> *Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia*
> The group was known for a short time as the "Kuklux Clan". The Ku Klux Klan was one of a number of secret, oath-bound organizations using violence, ...
> 
> 
> Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia
> 
> Chuckling at the typical AD HOMINEN of an ADMITTED CRETIN THAT SALIVATES OVER FAKE HISTORY.
> 
> As to which site you ACTUALLY got that fake history from, the one you salivated over and posted ... coulda been NPR/PBS - who ran similar such bizarro world CRAP in a pseudo-documentary.
> 
> WHO THE HELL CARES where you really got it from - so many sites copy from each other, and you just lap it up like the bottom dweller ye be.
> 
> It is refreshing to see just how predictable SAUL ALINSKY  accolytes, such as pogo, continue to be- same old immoral and ugly tactics of the SATANISTS.  And yeah- check that out 'cuz that really who ole SAUL deified.
> 
> As said previously by another SCHOLARLY poster: It's easy to handle pogo.
> 
> Glad to see my posts riled you so much that you continue to attempt to discredit them FOR DAYS.
> 
> Really got your goat, eh ?    Bwahahahahahahahahahaha -- TRUTH WINS - bullcrap walks.
> 
> Toodle loo, pogo-r-u - Chew on it, fume on it, REJOICE that you actually got a reply from me ... the Good, the Bad, the MONKEYTROTS !!!!
Click to expand...


You sir, are a flaming idiot.

Whoever edited that line into Wiki left it *unattributed*.  Anyone can edit Wiki and I can see that three edits were done to that page today alone.

Now let's show you what a real source looks like, Hunior.





The Fiery Cross: The Ku Klux Klan in America
by Wyn Craig Wade
page 33​
See any standard spelling of "clan" in there, Evelyn Wood?

The group was called "Klan" from the beginning. That *IS* the beginning.  You're actually sitting on this board suggesting there was a group called the *KKC*.  Think about it --- why would six well-educated klowns having fun with alliteration (Kuklux; "klaverns"; "kleagles") fail to follow the same pattern with the hard C of "clan"?  If you were not this level of Dumbass I might invite you to notice also that this particular K-allieration --- actually the entire set of K-alliterations --- was contributed by the member whose name begins with a K.

From the beginning.  Intentionally.   Oopsie.

You're exposed as a fraud.  And presumably a fraud who runs to edit Wikipedia so that you can cite yourself.  Unfortunately the record is already on the record.

I must say, for all the head-up-the-ass pretenders that have tried to sell Klan bullshit on this board, you're the first one who couldn't even _spell _it.  

But then you're also the kretin who posts an entire passage that backs up everything I said, one that I didn't even cite and had never seen, and then thinks somehow that DISproves what it plainly says.  Hard to believe.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> democrats still run the plantations today...just look in the inner city of any large metropolis.



Conservatives still thinking that blacks are slaves on a plantation......


----------



## Syriusly

Isn't it amazing how Conservatives will post lies in order to attack liberals?

This entire thread's premise is based on a lie- but the Contards applaud the lie.


----------



## Pogo

Syriusly said:


> Isn't it amazing how Conservatives will post lies in order to attack liberals?
> 
> This entire thread's premise is *based on a lie*- but the Contards applaud the lie.



I disagree -- I count *four *lies in the OP.

"Liberals aren't liking" -- which is never explained why Liberals "wouldn't like" it...
"Newly discovered" --- hasn't been 'newly discovered' since 1924...
"Democratic convention" -- on a set of trolley tracks in Wisconsin...
"Forney Johnston" -- who was not only not at that convention but was then dead for 11 years*
and by my count _Zero_ of those were ever explained.  We sit, and we wait.

*(actually the Forney Johnston action described is true, except that his name is spelled "Oscar Underwood".  Ya get the idea that this blog was researched by Whittle Bill)


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Conservatives still thinking that blacks are slaves on a plantation......


Blacks think it.....and they are right if their house mother and whip cracker are Nancy Pelosi and Schumer....


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives still thinking that blacks are slaves on a plantation......
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks think it.....and they are right if their house mother and whip cracker are Nancy Pelosi and Schumer....
Click to expand...


Really? *Because the only ones I normally hear making that claim are bitter old white dudes who can't figure out why African Americans vote Democrat by 90% or more.
*


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing how Conservatives will post lies in order to attack liberals?
> 
> This entire thread's premise is *based on a lie*- but the Contards applaud the lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree -- I count *four *lies in the OP.
> 
> "Liberals aren't liking" -- which is never explained why Liberals "wouldn't like" it...
> "Newly discovered" --- hasn't been 'newly discovered' since 1924...
> "Democratic convention" -- on a set of trolley tracks in Wisconsin...
> "Forney Johnston" -- who was not only not at that convention but was then dead for 11 years*
> and by my count _Zero_ of those were ever explained.  We sit, and we wait.
> 
> *(actually the Forney Johnston action described is true, except that his name is spelled "Oscar Underwood".  Ya get the idea that this blog was researched by Whittle Bill)
Click to expand...


Well Geaux boy has run from his own thread - which started with the unconsciously ironic:

"Wonder why?"

We do 'wonder why' Geaux felt a need to lie.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Really? *Because the only ones I normally hear making that claim are bitter old white dudes who can't figure out why African Americans vote Democrat by 90% or more.*


Then you are not listening...


----------



## Faun

Syriusly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it amazing how Conservatives will post lies in order to attack liberals?
> 
> This entire thread's premise is *based on a lie*- but the Contards applaud the lie.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree -- I count *four *lies in the OP.
> 
> "Liberals aren't liking" -- which is never explained why Liberals "wouldn't like" it...
> "Newly discovered" --- hasn't been 'newly discovered' since 1924...
> "Democratic convention" -- on a set of trolley tracks in Wisconsin...
> "Forney Johnston" -- who was not only not at that convention but was then dead for 11 years*
> and by my count _Zero_ of those were ever explained.  We sit, and we wait.
> 
> *(actually the Forney Johnston action described is true, except that his name is spelled "Oscar Underwood".  Ya get the idea that this blog was researched by Whittle Bill)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well Geaux boy has run from his own thread - which started with the unconsciously ironic:
> 
> "Wonder why?"
> 
> We do 'wonder why' Geaux felt a need to lie.
Click to expand...

Now that you mention it, Geaux4it stopped posting  here, in his own thread, nearly 3 weeks and 300 posts ago. 

What a conservative pussy.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Well Geaux boy has run from his own thread - which started with the unconsciously ironic:
> 
> "Wonder why?"


Do you miss him?


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Geaux boy has run from his own thread - which started with the unconsciously ironic:
> 
> "Wonder why?"
> 
> 
> 
> Do you miss him?
Click to expand...

I missed his apology for bullshitting the forum.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> I missed his apology for bullshitting the forum


Don't be stupid.....75% of this forum is bullshit.....40% of that from you alone lol


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> I missed his apology for bullshitting the forum
> 
> 
> 
> Don't be stupid.....75% of this forum is bullshit.....40% of that from you alone lol
Click to expand...


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? *Because the only ones I normally hear making that claim are bitter old white dudes who can't figure out why African Americans vote Democrat by 90% or more.*
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are not listening...
Click to expand...


Oh I listen.....

MLK Jr.

*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Geaux boy has run from his own thread - which started with the unconsciously ironic:
> 
> "Wonder why?"
> 
> 
> 
> Do you miss him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I missed his apology for bullshitting the forum.
Click to expand...


I missed the USMB resident psychiatrist explanation for why the ballsack-free posters of bullshit find themselves incapable of acknowledging "I was wrong" or "I fucked up".

Like Geaux4it , like bripat9643  -----------  I guess it's the type of self-delusion that thinks "if I run away and never look in here again...... then uh, it never happened.  Yeah that's it"  

I'd like to propose that the name of this thread be changed to:

History revisionists aren't liking this newly-busted photo of 
uh, some trolley tracks in Wisconsin
although Forney Johnston thinks it's hilarious​


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Geaux boy has run from his own thread - which started with the unconsciously ironic:
> 
> "Wonder why?"
> 
> 
> 
> Do you miss him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I missed his apology for bullshitting the forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I missed the USMB resident psychiatrist explanation for why the ballsack-free posters of bullshit find themselves incapable of acknowledging "I was wrong" or "I fucked up".
> 
> Like Geaux4it , like bripat9643  -----------  I guess it's the type of self-delusion that thinks "if I run away and never look in here again...... then uh, it never happened.  Yeah that's it"
> 
> I'd like to propose that the name of this thread be changed to:
> 
> History revisionists aren't liking this newly-busted photo of
> uh, some trolley tracks in Wisconsin
> although Forney Johnston thinks it's hilarious​
Click to expand...

Change the name of the thread? Why? Why is it you feel so hurt that someone may have lied to you when you let the media do that to you every day? How about if we change the thread to booger eating moron snowflake?...in honor of you...


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Oh I listen.....


There are racists of all different colors and creed. There are black racists, yellow moms and dads that forbid their offspring to marry outside of their race. There are angry blacks that hate white folks, there are Indians that hate Latins and Latins that hate gays there are gays that hate straight men and women, there are straight folks that hate gays.
Why is it that only one example of a racism and bigotry brings the blood pressure up of libs and media liars?
If MLK and RFK were alive today they would slap you silly.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Geaux boy has run from his own thread - which started with the unconsciously ironic:
> 
> "Wonder why?"
> 
> 
> 
> Do you miss him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I missed his apology for bullshitting the forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I missed the USMB resident psychiatrist explanation for why the ballsack-free posters of bullshit find themselves incapable of acknowledging "I was wrong" or "I fucked up".
> 
> Like Geaux4it , like bripat9643  -----------  I guess it's the type of self-delusion that thinks "if I run away and never look in here again...... then uh, it never happened.  Yeah that's it"
> 
> I'd like to propose that the name of this thread be changed to:
> 
> History revisionists aren't liking this newly-busted photo of
> uh, some trolley tracks in Wisconsin
> although Forney Johnston thinks it's hilarious​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Change the name of the thread? Why? Why is it you feel so hurt that someone may have lied to you when you let the media do that to you every day? How about if we change the thread to booger eating moron snowflake?...in honor of you...
Click to expand...


Dafuck does _any _of that have to do with the FACT that this bogus thread was based on a completely bogus story, and that the two bogus posters who bogusly put it up can't fess up to their own bogusity?

Deflect much?

"Hurt"?

You actually can't tell the difference between "laughing uproariously at two losers who shot themselves in the proverbial foot" and "hurt"?  

The mockable will be mocked.  DEAL with it.


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Dafuck does _any _of that have to do with the FACT that this bogus thread was based on a completely bogus story, and that the two bogus posters who bogusly put it up can't fess up to their own bogusity?
> 
> Deflect much?


Ahhh stop your whining snowflake...jeez! There is nothing un true about the thread title...


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well Geaux boy has run from his own thread - which started with the unconsciously ironic:
> 
> "Wonder why?"
> 
> 
> 
> Do you miss him?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I missed his apology for bullshitting the forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I missed the USMB resident psychiatrist explanation for why the ballsack-free posters of bullshit find themselves incapable of acknowledging "I was wrong" or "I fucked up".
> 
> Like Geaux4it , like bripat9643  -----------  I guess it's the type of self-delusion that thinks "if I run away and never look in here again...... then uh, it never happened.  Yeah that's it"
> 
> I'd like to propose that the name of this thread be changed to:
> 
> History revisionists aren't liking this newly-busted photo of
> uh, some trolley tracks in Wisconsin
> although Forney Johnston thinks it's hilarious​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Change the name of the thread? Why? Why is it you feel so hurt that someone may have lied to you when you let the media do that to you every day? How about if we change the thread to booger eating moron snowflake?...in honor of you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dafuck does _any _of that have to do with the FACT that this bogus thread was based on a completely bogus story, and that the two bogus posters who bogusly put it up can't fess up to their own bogusity?
> 
> Deflect much?
> 
> "Hurt"?
> 
> You actually can't tell the difference between "laughing uproariously at two losers who shot themselves in the proverbial foot" and "hurt"?
> 
> The mockable will be mocked.  DEAL with it.
Click to expand...

1924 Democratic National Convention - Wikipedia


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dafuck does _any _of that have to do with the FACT that this bogus thread was based on a completely bogus story, and that the two bogus posters who bogusly put it up can't fess up to their own bogusity?
> 
> Deflect much?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh stop your whining snowflake...jeez! There is nothing un true about the thread title...
Click to expand...


Uh HUH.

So a picture from 1924 is "newly discovered", is it?

And the Democratic convention of that year took place on some trolley tracks in Wisconsin, did it?

And Liberals "aren't liking it" aren't they?' Then why am I getting all this mileage out of it?  Hell if I got this kind of mileage in my car I could fill up once a year.

Have any idea who "Forney Johnston" is?

Neither did the OP.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you miss him?
> 
> 
> 
> I missed his apology for bullshitting the forum.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I missed the USMB resident psychiatrist explanation for why the ballsack-free posters of bullshit find themselves incapable of acknowledging "I was wrong" or "I fucked up".
> 
> Like Geaux4it , like bripat9643  -----------  I guess it's the type of self-delusion that thinks "if I run away and never look in here again...... then uh, it never happened.  Yeah that's it"
> 
> I'd like to propose that the name of this thread be changed to:
> 
> History revisionists aren't liking this newly-busted photo of
> uh, some trolley tracks in Wisconsin
> although Forney Johnston thinks it's hilarious​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Change the name of the thread? Why? Why is it you feel so hurt that someone may have lied to you when you let the media do that to you every day? How about if we change the thread to booger eating moron snowflake?...in honor of you...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dafuck does _any _of that have to do with the FACT that this bogus thread was based on a completely bogus story, and that the two bogus posters who bogusly put it up can't fess up to their own bogusity?
> 
> Deflect much?
> 
> "Hurt"?
> 
> You actually can't tell the difference between "laughing uproariously at two losers who shot themselves in the proverbial foot" and "hurt"?
> 
> The mockable will be mocked.  DEAL with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1924 Democratic National Convention - Wikipedia
Click to expand...


I have no need of a link to an event I already expounded on right in this thread, two weeks ago.  As soon as I saw the bogus thread title.

But it is revealing that you'll characterize those who correct the obvious blatant mythology as "booger eating moron snowflakes".  Does the revelation hurt?  Tough titty.


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Uh HUH.
> 
> So a picture from 1924 is "newly discovered", is it?
> 
> And the Democratic convention of that year took place on some trolley tracks in Wisconsin, did it?
> 
> And Liberals "aren't liking it" aren't they?' Then why am I getting all this mileage out of it? Hell if I got this kind of mileage in my car I could fill up once a year.
> 
> Have any idea who "Forney Johnston" is?
> 
> Neither did the OP.


It has a name...they called it a clanbake because of the size of the KKK attendance....true story. So calm down no one lied to you. At best an exaggeration to make a point but not a lie. The KKK was a huge block of the democrat party. I would tell you to ask one of your teachers but they would just lie to you.


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> I have no need of a link to an event I already expounded on right in this thread, two weeks ago. As soon as I saw the bogus thread title.
> 
> But it is revealing that you'll characterize those who correct the obvious blatant mythology as "booger eating moron snowflakes". Does the revelation hurt? Tough titty.


1924 democrat convention was refereed to as the Clanbake. look it up or keep your tiny brain tiny and your head in the sand. I couldn't care less.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need of a link to an event I already expounded on right in this thread, two weeks ago. As soon as I saw the bogus thread title.
> 
> But it is revealing that you'll characterize those who correct the obvious blatant mythology as "booger eating moron snowflakes". Does the revelation hurt? Tough titty.
> 
> 
> 
> 1924 democrat convention was refereed to as the Clanbake. look it up or keep your tiny brain tiny and your head in the sand. I couldn't care less.
Click to expand...


No, that's "Klanbake" with a K, and it refers to the Klan's push at that convention which was held in New York, not Wisconsin, where the Klan camped out in New Jersey.  They were pushing against the loudest voice denouncing the Klan, which was not "Forney Johnston" (who was dead over ten years by then) but Oscar Underwood, along with Al Smith, for fear of having a presidential candidate denounce them.  They succeeded in blocking Underwood and Smith, but the eventual compromise candidate John Davis --- went ahead and denounced them anyway.  After that the Klan endorsed the only major candy who didn't denounce them, Calvin Coolidge, and took credit when he won.  And then four years later they campaigned against Al Smith and took credit when Hoover won.

But of course I already went through all this two weeks ago and here you are expecting different results.

The fact remains, the Democratic convention was in New York (not Wisconsin), the photo is from 1924, not by any means "newly discovered", the Senator leading the charge against the KKK was Oscar Underwood, not "Forney Johnston", and there's no reason Liberals would somehow "not like" a photo of some Klan marchers in Wisconsin unrelated to any of that.

That's already been raked over the coals (again, 2 weeks ago) and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dafuck does _any _of that have to do with the FACT that this bogus thread was based on a completely bogus story, and that the two bogus posters who bogusly put it up can't fess up to their own bogusity?
> 
> Deflect much?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh stop your whining snowflake...jeez! There is nothing un true about the thread title...
Click to expand...

^^^ bullshit


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dafuck does _any _of that have to do with the FACT that this bogus thread was based on a completely bogus story, and that the two bogus posters who bogusly put it up can't fess up to their own bogusity?
> 
> Deflect much?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh stop your whining snowflake...jeez! There is nothing un true about the thread title...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ bullshit
Click to expand...


The poster read somewhere that said 1924 convention was "refereed" as the Klanbake, and ran with it without bothering to find out what that meant.  Didn't even notice the spelling.

Such is life for the low-informationed.  

"I love the poorly educated!"


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need of a link to an event I already expounded on right in this thread, two weeks ago. As soon as I saw the bogus thread title.
> 
> But it is revealing that you'll characterize those who correct the obvious blatant mythology as "booger eating moron snowflakes". Does the revelation hurt? Tough titty.
> 
> 
> 
> 1924 democrat convention was refereed to as the Clanbake. look it up or keep your tiny brain tiny and your head in the sand. I couldn't care less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's "Klanbake" with a K, and it refers to the Klan's push at that convention which was held in New York, not Wisconsin, where the Klan camped out in New Jersey.  They were pushing against the loudest voice denouncing the Klan, which was not "Forney Johnston" (who was dead over ten years by then) but Oscar Underwood, along with Al Smith, for fear of having a presidential candidate denounce them.  They succeeded in blocking Underwood and Smith, but the eventual compromise candidate John Davis --- went ahead and denounced them anyway.  After that the Klan endorsed the only major candy who didn't denounce them, Calvin Coolidge, and took credit when he won.  And then four years later they campaigned against Al Smith and took credit when Hoover won.
> 
> But of course I already went through all this two weeks ago and here you are expecting different results.
> 
> The fact remains, the Democratic convention was in New York (not Wisconsin), the photo is from 1924, not by any means "newly discovered", the Senator leading the charge against the KKK was Oscar Underwood, not "Forney Johnston", and there's no reason Liberals would somehow "not like" a photo of some Klan marchers in Wisconsin unrelated to any of that.
> 
> That's already been raked over the coals (again, 2 weeks ago) and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
Click to expand...

The thread title is still not a lie and that was if I remember correctly your initial gripe. I spelled Klanbake as Clanbake because in some books that is the way it was spelled...like Clambake...get it? The point of the whole thread was to display the truth of the KKK's beginnings. They were hard core democrats. You want to deflect that point but it's not working. No matter how many slave holding democrat statues you tear down you can't change the truth.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need of a link to an event I already expounded on right in this thread, two weeks ago. As soon as I saw the bogus thread title.
> 
> But it is revealing that you'll characterize those who correct the obvious blatant mythology as "booger eating moron snowflakes". Does the revelation hurt? Tough titty.
> 
> 
> 
> 1924 democrat convention was refereed to as the Clanbake. look it up or keep your tiny brain tiny and your head in the sand. I couldn't care less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's "Klanbake" with a K, and it refers to the Klan's push at that convention which was held in New York, not Wisconsin, where the Klan camped out in New Jersey.  They were pushing against the loudest voice denouncing the Klan, which was not "Forney Johnston" (who was dead over ten years by then) but Oscar Underwood, along with Al Smith, for fear of having a presidential candidate denounce them.  They succeeded in blocking Underwood and Smith, but the eventual compromise candidate John Davis --- went ahead and denounced them anyway.  After that the Klan endorsed the only major candy who didn't denounce them, Calvin Coolidge, and took credit when he won.  And then four years later they campaigned against Al Smith and took credit when Hoover won.
> 
> But of course I already went through all this two weeks ago and here you are expecting different results.
> 
> The fact remains, the Democratic convention was in New York (not Wisconsin), the photo is from 1924, not by any means "newly discovered", the Senator leading the charge against the KKK was Oscar Underwood, not "Forney Johnston", and there's no reason Liberals would somehow "not like" a photo of some Klan marchers in Wisconsin unrelated to any of that.
> 
> That's already been raked over the coals (again, 2 weeks ago) and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread title is still not a lie and that was if I remember correctly your initial gripe. I spelled Klanbake as Clanbake because in some books that is the way it was spelled...like Clambake...get it? The point of the whole thread was to display the truth of the KKK's beginnings. They were hard core democrats. You want to deflect that point but it's not working. No matter how many slave holding democrat statues you tear down you can't change the truth.
Click to expand...

Of course the thread title is a lie. It references a photo taken of KKK marchers in *Madison, Wisconsin* and *falsely* claims the photo is from the DNC in *New York.*


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Of course the thread title is a lie. It references a photo taken of KKK marchers in *Madison, Wisconsin* and *falsely* claims the photo is from the DNC in *New York.*








New York, New York!Madison Square Garden, New York City, June 24-July 9, 1924

The “Klanbake” 1924 Democratic Party National Convention

WRONG Faun  Think before you post...research before you post...


----------



## Rambunctious

The 1924 Democratic National Convention, also called the “Klanbake”, held at the Madison Square Garden in New York City from June 24 to July 9, 1924, took a record 103 ballots to nominate a presidential candidate


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Of course the thread title is a lie. It references a photo taken of KKK marchers in *Madison, Wisconsin*


Not Madison Wisconsin dummy...Madison Square Garden!


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the thread title is a lie. It references a photo taken of KKK marchers in *Madison, Wisconsin* and *falsely* claims the photo is from the DNC in *New York.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New York, New York!Madison Square Garden, New York City, June 24-July 9, 1924
> 
> The “Klanbake” 1924 Democratic Party National Convention
> 
> WRONG Faun  Think before you post...research before you post...
Click to expand...

Liar.

That photo is from *Madison*, Wisconsin, not *Madison* Square Garden.

Ku Klux Klan Parade | Photograph | Wisconsin Historical Society

madison.com


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Liar.
> 
> That photo is from *Madison*, Wisconsin, not *Madison* Square Garden.


One of the links is wrong and it's yours. You libs have screwed up deffinitions of lying.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Liar.


Hey stupid! google KKK at the Madison square garden 1924


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the thread title is a lie. It references a photo taken of KKK marchers in *Madison, Wisconsin* and *falsely* claims the photo is from the DNC in *New York.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> New York, New York!Madison Square Garden, New York City, June 24-July 9, 1924
> 
> The “Klanbake” 1924 Democratic Party National Convention
> 
> WRONG Faun  Think before you post...research before you post...
Click to expand...


What a fucking idiot.

How many political conventions take place on fucking trolley tracks?

Right here Bubbles --- Wisconsin Historical Society


DESCRIPTION
Ku Klux Klan (KKK) wearing conic masks and white robes *parading down King Street to Schroeder Funeral Home* for the funeral of Police officer Herbert Dreger. Dreger was shot to death in "Death's Corner" (South Murray Street) on December 2, 1924.

RECORD DETAILS
*Image ID:* 1902
*Creation Date:* 1924-12-05 
*Creator Name:* Vinje, Arthur M., 1888-1972
*City:* *Madison *
*County:* Dane
*State:* *Wisconsin *
*Collection Name:* Vinje, Arthur M. : Photographs and Negatives-
*Genre:* Photograph
*Original Format Type:* photographic print, b&w
*Original Format Number:* CF 67957
*Original Dimensions:* 10 x 8 inches

December 1924.

So that means .... 

(a) there's nothing "newly discovered" about this photo --- it's fricking 93 years old and sits in the archives of the Wisconsin Historical Society, who must be most amused at the level of ignorance cretins like you cling to;

(b) Madison Wisconsin still had nothing to do with any political convention -- and what's pictured is a _funeral march_;

(c) by the time this event took place for the photo TO be taken, the Democratic convention a thousand miles away was months in the past, its nominee John Davis had denounced the Klan and the only major candidate who didn't denounce the KKK, Calvin Coolidge, had won the election, for which the Klan took credit as they would again four years later;

(d) by the time this photo was taken, Rice Means, Clarence Morley, Ben Paulen, Edward Jackson and Owen Brewster, to name a few, had just been elected to high office with overt Klan support, all of them Republicans;

(e) the photo continues to have nothing to do with any political convention, or with New York, or with any "Forney Johnston", and there continues to be no reason in the world, outside of a natural distaste for the fascist Klan, that Liberals would "dislike" a 93-year-old photo of a Wisconsin funeral march in December of 19fucking24. 

And again ------------------- we already did this, weeks ago.  And here you come expecting different results.

As we said then and as is still true now --- the blog page is a train wreck of bullshit that wasn't researched at all, which is why both OPs who posted it without vetting, ran away.  They got busted.

Why don't you tell us who "Forney Johnston" is.  Oughta be amusing.


----------



## boedicca

Stratford57 said:


> Has anything changed since then? Oh, yes, they stopped wearing those white sheets.




And now they dress in ISIS style ANTIFA garb.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no need of a link to an event I already expounded on right in this thread, two weeks ago. As soon as I saw the bogus thread title.
> 
> But it is revealing that you'll characterize those who correct the obvious blatant mythology as "booger eating moron snowflakes". Does the revelation hurt? Tough titty.
> 
> 
> 
> 1924 democrat convention was refereed to as the Clanbake. look it up or keep your tiny brain tiny and your head in the sand. I couldn't care less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, that's "Klanbake" with a K, and it refers to the Klan's push at that convention which was held in New York, not Wisconsin, where the Klan camped out in New Jersey.  They were pushing against the loudest voice denouncing the Klan, which was not "Forney Johnston" (who was dead over ten years by then) but Oscar Underwood, along with Al Smith, for fear of having a presidential candidate denounce them.  They succeeded in blocking Underwood and Smith, but the eventual compromise candidate John Davis --- went ahead and denounced them anyway.  After that the Klan endorsed the only major candy who didn't denounce them, Calvin Coolidge, and took credit when he won.  And then four years later they campaigned against Al Smith and took credit when Hoover won.
> 
> But of course I already went through all this two weeks ago and here you are expecting different results.
> 
> The fact remains, the Democratic convention was in New York (not Wisconsin), the photo is from 1924, not by any means "newly discovered", the Senator leading the charge against the KKK was Oscar Underwood, not "Forney Johnston", and there's no reason Liberals would somehow "not like" a photo of some Klan marchers in Wisconsin unrelated to any of that.
> 
> That's already been raked over the coals (again, 2 weeks ago) and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The thread title is still not a lie and that was if I remember correctly your initial gripe. I spelled Klanbake as Clanbake because in some books that is the way it was spelled...like Clambake...get it? The point of the whole thread was to display the truth of the KKK's beginnings. They were hard core democrats. You want to deflect that point but it's not working. No matter how many slave holding democrat statues you tear down you can't change the truth.
Click to expand...


Number one, nobody needs the letter C to get the pun.  But it does demonstrate your ignorance.

Number two, the Klan's beginnings go back to 1865 in Tennessee, and the really big version in the picture, to 1915 in Georgia.  Neither one had anything to do with New York, or with Wisconsin, or with politics.

And again WE ALREADY DID ALL OF THIS  weeks ago.  *Go read the thread.*


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> What a fucking idiot.
> 
> How many political conventions take place on fucking trolley tracks?


Google it dummy....if it pops up than the OP was not lying. So for you to continue to say he did is a fucking lie in itself. Go ahead google 1924 democratic convention Madison square garden and stop falsely claiming someone lied. Freak! also I'm certain trolley tacks were everywhere in 1924. Dummy!


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Number one, nobody needs the letter C to get the pun


I'm a comedic word smith...it's a life long trait of mine.....


----------



## Rambunctious

KKK at madison square garden 1924 - Google Search

Now POGO admit you were wrong to call the OP a liar....

or just run away like a melting snowflake.


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Number two, the Klan's beginnings go back to 1865 in Tennessee,


Come on admit you were wrong...the OP was not lying right? So admit you were out of line.


----------



## Rambunctious

I guess POGO and FAUN FINALLY googled the link and found I was right and so was the OP boy you libs are pig headed...


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> I guess POGO and FAUN FINALLY googled the link and found I was right and so was the OP boy you libs are pig headed...



I guess you were born with your head up your ass.  Roll tape.


Pogo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's uh ..... not a convention, Gummo.  Your first clue should be the trolley tracks.
> 
> The "Klanbake" refers not to the convention but to the gathering of Klanners across the river from the convention in New Jersey (the convention being in NYC).  They demonstrated and made a lot of noise.  In the convention itself they were opposing the candidacies of Sen. Oscar Underwood (AL) and Al Smith, Governor of New York.  Specifically Underwood and Smith were calling for a plank in the platform denouncing the Klan.  Underwood was the most vocal voice opposing the Klan at the time, declaring the KKK and the US could not coexist and "between the two I choose my country".  And Smith of course was a Catholic, one of the Klan's targets.
> 
> The Klan's Southern sympathizers were pushing for the nomination of William Gibbs McAdoo of California, who had been getting Klan support.  McAdoo didn't acknowledge it but didn't denounce it either.  By stalemating the ballots, the McAdoo faction got the voting extended, over  and over beyond a hundred ballots, still the longest political convention in history.  As the dates in your own OP illustrate ---- fifteen days.
> 
> The convention finally settled on an innocuous, unknown candidate, Governor John Davis of West Virginia, who accepted the nomination ----- and promply denounced the Klan.
> 
> Four years later Al Smith was running again and the Klan again opposed him for being Catholic.  By then the KKK had been weakened especially by the D.C Stephenson scandal, and they failed to prevent Smith's nomination.  He was the first Catholic nominated for the office by a major political party.
> 
> Eight years after that, when FDR was at the height of his popularity and running for re-election, Roosevelt got the party nomination rules changed to a simple majority, so that the South contingent could never again hold up a convention like that.  Next time the Democratic convention ran a candidate not named Roosevelt, much of the Southern contingent walked out, unhappy with all the rhetoric about "civil rights", and ran on their own ticket with Strom Thurmond at the top.  That was 1948, which was what Trent Lott was referring to when he boasted "we (Mississippi) voted for him" and opined that if the rest of America "had followed our lead, we wouldn't have had all these problems over all these years", referring again presumably to those same "civil rights".
> 
> All you have to do is ask if you want these details.  Nobody holds a convention on trolley tracks.
Click to expand...


That's post 229 when I first got here.  THREE WEEKS AGO.   Dumb shit.

Go back to that point and catch the fuck up before you embarrass yourself even further, if that's even possible.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Hey stupid! google KKK at the Madison square garden 1924
Click to expand...

WTF difference does it make if I google that? That photo will still be from *Madison*, Wisconsin, not from *Madison* Square Garden. Dayam, I just gave you a link to show that the photo comes from the Wisconsin historical archives. Complete with details such as the photographer and the newspaper he worked for.

Yet here you are, clinging desperately to your delusions. _<smh>_


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> WTF difference does it make if I google that? That photo will still be from *Madison*, Wisconsin, not from *Madison* Square Garden.


It says it is from the garden, taken outside. You can say google is wrong (although you would be wrong) but you can not say the OP is lying. I've looked at links all day about that photo and they all say it was taken at the democratic convention in 1924...everyone of them. So either google is wrong or POGO and you are wrong but no one lied and you and your sweetheart Pogo won't admit it. No one lied, being mistaken or mislead by a search engine is not lying. There Rambunctious wins another one...


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF difference does it make if I google that? That photo will still be from *Madison*, Wisconsin, not from *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> 
> 
> It says it is from the garden, taken outside. You can say google is wrong (although you would be wrong) but you can not say the OP is lying. I've looked at links all day about that photo and they all say it was taken at the democratic convention in 1924...everyone of them. So either google is wrong or POGO and you are wrong but no one lied and you and your sweetheart Pogo won't admit it. No one lied, being mistaken or mislead by a search engine is not lying. There Rambunctious wins another one...
Click to expand...


Google does not make assertions.  Google _returns search result_s.  If someone wrote a blog claiming that Sarah Palin is the offspring of Elvis mated with a cyclops sea urchin from the planet Kwyspt ---- Google would show you that result.  Doesn't make it "true" or "false".  All it means is that somebody claimed it.

So if some moron pulls a 93 year old pic of a funeral march in Madison Wisconsin and claims it's a pic of the Democratic convention a thousand miles away and five months in the past ----- that result is gonna show up.  And if they go on to claim that "Forney Johnston" was there despite his status as a cadaver for 11 years --- that will show up too.  Ain't Google's job to vet these things, it's the blogger's.  And the OPs who claim it as fact because they didn't do their homework.  So we did it for them.  It took two minutes to bust this bullshit wide open.  Anyone could have done that, including the original fake-historian himself.

A few posts ago I already gave you ALL the details of that picture --- when it was taken, exactly where, exactly by whom, the fucking birth and death dates of the photographer, even the original size.  And there's nothing you can do about that.

Now Google "Forney Johnston" and let us know what you come up with other than yahoos including on this message board repeating the same bullshit that a political party convention taking place on trolley tracks a thousand miles away from its own venue, had a movement going on run by a candidate who had been dead for 11 years.

Then you can explain to the class why "Liberals are not liking it", other than its being flat-out bullshit.


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Google does not make assertions. Google _returns search result_s. If someone wrote a blog claiming that Sarah Palin is the offspring of Elvis mated with a cyclops sea urchin from the planet Kwyspt ---- Google would show you that result. Doesn't make it "true" or "false". All it means is that somebody claimed it.


That is correct so the OP didn't lie he saw the same search results we did so stop calling him a liar, that's what you do with Trump false claims of dishonesty over a different interpretation or finding. I still say that picture was in NY...every site has that photo when you enter a search for the 1924 democratic convention...every single one. So they are all wrong? I don't think so. 
And don't pick on E........


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF difference does it make if I google that? That photo will still be from *Madison*, Wisconsin, not from *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> 
> 
> It says it is from the garden, taken outside. You can say google is wrong (although you would be wrong) but you can not say the OP is lying. I've looked at links all day about that photo and they all say it was taken at the democratic convention in 1924...everyone of them. So either google is wrong or POGO and you are wrong but no one lied and you and your sweetheart Pogo won't admit it. No one lied, being mistaken or mislead by a search engine is not lying. There Rambunctious wins another one...
Click to expand...

Imbecile... "IT" refers to the DNC when it says it was from the Garden. The photo from the OP was from Madison, Wisconsin. Thoroughly proven as the photo comes from the archives of the Wisconsin Historical Society.

The only the you won was at losing.


----------



## paperview

Pogo said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> WTF difference does it make if I google that? That photo will still be from *Madison*, Wisconsin, not from *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> 
> 
> It says it is from the garden, taken outside. You can say google is wrong (although you would be wrong) but you can not say the OP is lying. I've looked at links all day about that photo and they all say it was taken at the democratic convention in 1924...everyone of them. So either google is wrong or POGO and you are wrong but no one lied and you and your sweetheart Pogo won't admit it. No one lied, being mistaken or mislead by a search engine is not lying. There Rambunctious wins another one...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Google does not make assertions.  Google _returns search result_s.  If someone wrote a blog claiming that Sarah Palin is the offspring of Elvis mated with a cyclops sea urchin from the planet Kwyspt ---- Google would show you that result.  Doesn't make it "true" or "false".  All it means is that somebody claimed it.
> 
> So if some moron pulls a 93 year old pic of a funeral march in Madison Wisconsin and claims it's a pic of the Democratic convention a thousand miles away and five months in the past ----- that result is gonna show up.  And if they go on to claim that "Forney Johnston" was there despite his status as a cadaver for 11 years --- that will show up too.  Ain't Google's job to vet these things, it's the blogger's.  And the OPs who claim it as fact because they didn't do their homework.  So we did it for them.  It took two minutes to bust this bullshit wide open.  Anyone could have done that, including the original fake-historian himself.
> 
> A few posts ago I already gave you ALL the details of that picture --- when it was taken, exactly where, exactly by whom, the fucking birth and death dates of the photographer, even the original size.  And there's nothing you can do about that.
> 
> Now Google "Forney Johnston" and let us know what you come up with other than yahoos including on this message board repeating the same bullshit that a political party convention taking place on trolley tracks a thousand miles away from its own venue, had a movement going on run by a candidate who had been dead for 11 years.
> 
> Then you can explain to the class why "Liberals are not liking it", other than it's being flat-out bullshit.
Click to expand...

Damn!


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Imbecile... "IT" refers to the DNC when it says it was from the Garden. The photo from the OP was from Madison, Wisconsin. Thoroughly proven as the photo comes from the archives of the Wisconsin Historical Society.
> 
> The only the you won was at losing


Did you try it? every site that pops up when you enter 1924 democratic convention, one of the many photos that pops up is that picture...go ahead try it. I was even surprised. But my main point once again for the 5th time is no one lied. That is what my find proves...the OP did not lie he saw the same photo we did. Get it? dummy


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Then you can explain to the class why "Liberals are not liking it", other than it's being flat-out bullshit


You still have shown no proof that you are correct, and stop it with the trolley tracks idiot. The picture was of the KKK marching towards the garden. If you look at old pictures of the garden the first street over there are tracks on it. So take that stupid logic and eat shit! You may be wrong and the OP may be 100% correct. I've shown more proof of that than you have of the opposite. dummy#2


----------



## Rambunctious

paperview said:


> Damn!


I love fucking with libtards....they are so easy.


----------



## paperview

Rambunctious said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn!
> 
> 
> 
> I love fucking with libtards....they are so easy.
Click to expand...

^ When the phrase "fucking with libtards" actually means "presenting myself again and again as the batshit crazy uncle in the attic."


----------



## Rambunctious

paperview said:


> ^ When the phrase "fucking with libtards" actually means "presenting myself again and again as the batshit crazy uncle in the attic."


It works!


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile... "IT" refers to the DNC when it says it was from the Garden. The photo from the OP was from Madison, Wisconsin. Thoroughly proven as the photo comes from the archives of the Wisconsin Historical Society.
> 
> The only the you won was at losing
> 
> 
> 
> Did you try it? every site that pops up when you enter 1924 democratic convention, one of the many photos that pops up is that picture...go ahead try it. I was even surprised. But my main point once again for the 5th time is no one lied. That is what my find proves...the OP did not lie he saw the same photo we did. Get it? dummy
Click to expand...

What I get is that you're an abject imbecile who can't comprehend that Google returns results based on that of which you search.

Meaning, if you search on kkk 1924 Democratic Convention, you'll get back links to the rightwing fake news that the OP's photo was from the DNC in NY.

Google, '1924 kkk madison wisconsin funeral march', and you'll get hits to that photo being from Wisconsin.


----------



## mudwhistle

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…


They just ditched their white sheets and replaced them with black.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you can explain to the class why "Liberals are not liking it", other than it's being flat-out bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> You still have shown no proof that you are correct, and stop it with the trolley tracks idiot. The picture was of the KKK marching towards the garden. If you look at old pictures of the garden the first street over there are tracks on it. So take that stupid logic and eat shit! You may be wrong and the OP may be 100% correct. I've shown more proof of that than you have of the opposite. dummy#2
Click to expand...

Oh look, a trolley and tracks in Madison, capital of Wisconsin.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Meaning, if you search on kkk 1924 Democratic Convention,


No No No...I said google *1924 democratic convention*. Leave off KKK and the pic still pops up...that is what I'm saying no one lied. either the whole google and internet world is wrong or you are. If the former is true it still means the OP did not lie and that is my only argument. Now go out and play you're bugging me.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning, if you search on kkk 1924 Democratic Convention,
> 
> 
> 
> No No No...I said google *1924 democratic convention*. Leave off KKK and the pic still pops up...that is what I'm saying no one lied. either the whole google and internet world is wrong or you are. If the former is true it still means the OP did not lie and that is my only argument. Now go out and play you're bugging me.
Click to expand...

You didn't understand a word in my post, did ya, Zippy? _<smh>_


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> You didn't understand a word in my post, did ya, Zippy?


I've never understood any of your posts.....


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You didn't understand a word in my post, did ya, Zippy?
> 
> 
> 
> I've never understood any of your posts.....
Click to expand...

Probably because they're in grammatically correct English.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Probably because they're in grammatically correct English


Even correctly spelled nonsense is still nonsense, but I think you should review your posts. I'm not an English teacher but you could use some tutoring.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you can explain to the class why "Liberals are not liking it", other than it's being flat-out bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> You still have shown no proof that you are correct, and stop it with the trolley tracks idiot. The picture was of the KKK marching towards the garden. If you look at old pictures of the garden the first street over there are tracks on it. So take that stupid logic and eat shit! You may be wrong and the OP may be 100% correct. I've shown more proof of that than you have of the opposite. dummy#2
Click to expand...


*BULL  SHIT.*

The photo is what its original caption says it is --- a Klan funeral march on King Street in Madison Wisconsin, enroute to the Schroeder funeral home, taken on the 5th day of December 1924 by Arthur Vinje, the first photographer employed by the Wisconsin State Journal.  Its Original Format Number is CF 67957 and its Original Dimensions are 10" x  8".  ALL of which I already posted for your self-delusional lying ass.  It is in no way "newly discovered"; it has nothing to do with any political party convention; it has nothing to do with New York, where the convention was; it has nothing to do with New Jersey, where the Klanbake was; it has nothing to do with any kind of politics at all.

Here it is in a whole different context:





​What's the caption say, moron??

And notice that this article is itself six years old.  Go ahead and explain to the class how a photo can be "newly discovered" --- when it was used six years ago for a state-level retrospective article, supplied as an already-existing artifact by the archives of the Wisconsin Historical Society...... and shot as a regular part of his job by a photographer who died in 1972 at the age of 84.

_FUCKING DUMBASS_.

Say how's that research on "Forney Johnston" going?  IDIOT.


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> BULL _SHIT._


When will you admit that the OP was not lying?


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Probably because they're in grammatically correct English
> 
> 
> 
> Even correctly spelled nonsense is still nonsense, but I think you should review your posts. I'm not an English teacher but you could use some tutoring.
Click to expand...

Still, I post a link which shows the photo is from the archives of the Wisconsin ahistorical Society. It even details the photographer, newspaper, and other details of the photo -- yet you still believe the photo is from the DNC because a search engine finds it on a rightwingnut blog.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Still, I post a link which shows the photo is from the archives of the Wisconsin ahistorical Society. It even details the photographer, newspaper, and other details of the photo -- yet you still believe the photo is from the DNC because a search engine finds it on a rightwingnut blog.


Your gripe is with Google not me or the OP


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, I post a link which shows the photo is from the archives of the Wisconsin ahistorical Society. It even details the photographer, newspaper, and other details of the photo -- yet you still believe the photo is from the DNC because a search engine finds it on a rightwingnut blog.
> 
> 
> 
> Your gripe is with Google not me or the OP
Click to expand...

Why? Is Google dumb enough to not understand how their search engine works?


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> BULL _SHIT._
> 
> 
> 
> When will you admit that the OP was not lying?
Click to expand...


In the moment that the OP ---- either of them, there were two ---- comes back here and proves us all wrong.

Actually, faced with their own careless bullshit being exposed, they did the opposite.

They ran away.

When historical fact reared its head 
they bravely turned on their tale and fled,
With their bullshit exposed and rooted out,
Gallantly they chicked out 
brave brave brave brave Sir Opie....

_EVEN THEY_ could see they got played like a two-dollar banjo, even if they couldn't find the balls to admit it.


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> When historical fact reared its head they bravely turned on their tale and fled, brave brave brave brave Sir Opie....
> 
> _EVEN THEY_ could see they got played like a two-dollar banjo, even if they couldn't find the balls to admit it.


That is your interpretation. They may be on vacation or just taking a break. 

You know what I think? 

You are purposely missing their point by pointing out a possible mistake not on their part but on the nets part. Their point is that the KKK and the DNC were glued together from it's inception. 

You don't like that truth so you find a loose string and you yank on it so hard I felt the need to defend. Give it up, their main point is totally true. 

I actually think the reason that photo pops up while searching for the Klanbake convention may be because it was a file photo that ran with the story. Just a theory.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> When historical fact reared its head they bravely turned on their tale and fled, brave brave brave brave Sir Opie....
> 
> _EVEN THEY_ could see they got played like a two-dollar banjo, even if they couldn't find the balls to admit it.
> 
> 
> 
> That is your interpretation. They may be on vacation or just taking a break.
Click to expand...

Imbecile... they've both been posting on the forum since learning the truth about that photo. They just stopped posting in this thread once the truth was exposed.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> That is your interpretation. They may be on vacation or just taking a break.



Bullshit.
They were here and active until their bullshit got exposed for what it is.  Finger Boy sat here and denied it for a while, like you're doing, and then ran away.  They've both been busy elsewhere ---- probably digging themselves into other holes.

They're hiding.  Which you can't do on this board if you're still posting other shit.  Because they're ballsack-free losers who can't admit they fucked up royally with a page that a seven-year-old could have called out.




Rambunctious said:


> You know what I think?



Obviously --- you don't.




Rambunctious said:


> You are purposely missing their point by pointing out a possible mistake not on their part but on the nets part.



"The net" didn't make up bullshit.  The writer of "Death Media" or whatever that website is is the kkklown who fucked up.  He comes right out and says "THIS PICTURE -- specifically -- was taken at the Democratic national convention"  Which it _provably _was not.  The picture is from Wisconsin; the "Klanbake" was in New Jersey.  At two different times.  The only thing he got right was the _year_.  He could have more honestly titled his laughable page "Unrelated Things that Happened in 1924".

And you'll notice the name of this hack writer --- he doesn't have one.  That way, nobody takes responsibility.  And no comment box to point out the glaring bullshit.  NO responsibility whatsoever, complete fake news.




Rambunctious said:


> heir point is that the KKK and the DNC were glued together from it's [sic] inception.



Also false, nor does the article even try to make that point.  That Klan was started by William Joseph Simmons on Thanksgiving Eve of 1915 on Stone Mountain, Georgia.  Simmons had no known political affiliation, nor did his Klan.




Rambunctious said:


> I actually think the reason that photo pops up while searching for the Klanbake convention may be because it was a file photo that ran with the story. Just a theory.



A better theory is Faun's, that the blogger-liar searched for "Klan march Madison Square Garden" and left out the "Square Garden" part because he's the same degree of idiot you are.  Indeed so deep an idiot consumed with his own history revisionism that it never even occurred to him to stop and think --- "wait a minute--- nobody holds a convention on trolley tracks" and check out his own claim.

Where the "Forney Johnston" bullshit came from I have no clue.  I know the history well and had never even heard of a Forney Johnston, had to look him up.  Turns out there was a Joseph Forney Johnston in Alabama who held an office around the turn of the century but he died in 1913 and clearly had nothing to do with leading the charge against the Klan at the convention.  That guy's name, a Senator from Alabama, was "Oscar Underwood", a name which in no way whatsoever resembles "Forney Johnston".  That remains a mystery.

Nor did the hack writer --- or anyone else here --- venture to try to explain why "Liberals would not be liking it".  Nor did that same hack writer ever explain how a photo archived and used for nearly a century can be in any way described as "newly discovered".  That's three lies right there, and four if you count Forney.

And btw there was no "Klanbake convention".  The "Klanbake" refers not to the convention itself but to the Klan shitstirrers gathering across the river in New Jersey.  _Even the OP article_ admits that.


----------



## Rambunctious




----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Imbecile... they've both been posting on the forum since learning the truth about that photo. They just stopped posting in this thread once the truth was exposed.





Pogo said:


> Bullshit.
> They were here and active until their bullshit got exposed for what it is. Finger Boy sat here and denied it for a while, like you're doing, and then ran away. They've both been busy elsewhere ---- probably digging themselves into other holes.


They probably killed themselves to get away from you two....


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I listen.....
> 
> 
> 
> There are racists of all different colors and creed. There are black racists, yellow moms and dads that forbid their offspring to marry outside of their race. There are angry blacks that hate white folks, there are Indians that hate Latins and Latins that hate gays there are gays that hate straight men and women, there are straight folks that hate gays.
Click to expand...


And? 

Yes there are racists and bigots. Nothing to be proud of, or to celebrate. Nor are the racists and bigots specific to a single party. 

But there are those like the OP who want to pretend that the Democrats are the only racists and that of course means that 95% of voting African Americans must be racists......given the racial history of America- white guys proclaiming that most of the racists are people of color is pretty ironic.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dafuck does _any _of that have to do with the FACT that this bogus thread was based on a completely bogus story, and that the two bogus posters who bogusly put it up can't fess up to their own bogusity?
> 
> Deflect much?
> 
> 
> 
> Ahhh stop your whining snowflake...jeez! There is nothing un true about the thread title...
Click to expand...


Except of course everything......lol


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh HUH.
> 
> So a picture from 1924 is "newly discovered", is it?
> 
> And the Democratic convention of that year took place on some trolley tracks in Wisconsin, did it?
> 
> And Liberals "aren't liking it" aren't they?' Then why am I getting all this mileage out of it? Hell if I got this kind of mileage in my car I could fill up once a year.
> 
> Have any idea who "Forney Johnston" is?
> 
> Neither did the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> It has a name...they called it a clanbake because of the size of the KKK attendance....true story. So calm down no one lied to you.
Click to expand...


Pogo has repeatedly laid out all the points that are lies in both the title and the OP itself.

You of course don't consider lying about what the photo's are of, and where they are from to be 'lies lies'- just contard fibs- okay as  long as they are used to slam 'liberals'

As a liberal- I don't have any problem with this photo- the one that is not 'newly discovered' or of the 1924 Democratic Convention.

I do find these photo's of the KKK rallying for the 1964 Republican Convention to be fascinating


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh HUH.
> 
> So a picture from 1924 is "newly discovered", is it?
> 
> And the Democratic convention of that year took place on some trolley tracks in Wisconsin, did it?
> 
> And Liberals "aren't liking it" aren't they?' Then why am I getting all this mileage out of it? Hell if I got this kind of mileage in my car I could fill up once a year.
> 
> Have any idea who "Forney Johnston" is?
> 
> Neither did the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> It has a name...they called it a clanbake because of the size of the KKK attendance....true story. So calm down no one lied to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo has repeatedly laid out all the points that are lies in both the title and the OP itself.
> 
> You of course don't consider lying about what the photo's are of, and where they are from to be 'lies lies'- just contard fibs- okay as  long as they are used to slam 'liberals'
> 
> As a liberal- I don't have any problem with this photo- the one that is not 'newly discovered' or of the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> I do find these photo's of the KKK rallying for the 1964 Republican Convention to be fascinating
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 145905
Click to expand...

In the beginning the KKK were southern democrats.....to deny that is certifiable.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh HUH.
> 
> So a picture from 1924 is "newly discovered", is it?
> 
> And the Democratic convention of that year took place on some trolley tracks in Wisconsin, did it?
> 
> And Liberals "aren't liking it" aren't they?' Then why am I getting all this mileage out of it? Hell if I got this kind of mileage in my car I could fill up once a year.
> 
> Have any idea who "Forney Johnston" is?
> 
> Neither did the OP.
> 
> 
> 
> It has a name...they called it a clanbake because of the size of the KKK attendance....true story. So calm down no one lied to you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo has repeatedly laid out all the points that are lies in both the title and the OP itself.
> 
> You of course don't consider lying about what the photo's are of, and where they are from to be 'lies lies'- just contard fibs- okay as  long as they are used to slam 'liberals'
> 
> As a liberal- I don't have any problem with this photo- the one that is not 'newly discovered' or of the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> I do find these photo's of the KKK rallying for the 1964 Republican Convention to be fascinating
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 145905
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In the beginning the KKK were southern democrats.....to deny that is certifiable.
Click to expand...

In the beginning the KKK were white Southern Christian Conservatives....

Now they aren't always Southern.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> In the beginning the KKK were white Southern Christian Conservatives....
> 
> Now they aren't always Southern.


They were southern democrats...remember Abe? he was a republican. Now go get your Jim and Jane book it's reading hour....


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the beginning the KKK were white Southern Christian Conservatives....
> 
> Now they aren't always Southern.
> 
> 
> 
> They were southern democrats...remember Abe? he was a republican. Now go get your Jim and Jane book it's reading hour....
Click to expand...


Actually, when the original Klan was formed in 1865 ---- political parties didn't even exist there.

I know that must be a challenging concept for a binary bot who wants to play Cowboys and Indians with everything but it's a fact. The Confederacy shunned political parties, and even by the end of 1865 Tennessee was still not part of the United States.


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



>> *Joseph Forney Johnston* (March 23, 1843 – August 8, 1913) was an American Democratic politician and businessman who was the 30th Governor of Alabama from 1896 to 1900. He later served in the U.S. Senate from August 6, 1907 to his death on August 8, 1913. During his time as a senator, he served as a chairman of the Committee to Establish a University of the United States.

After Johnston's death in 1913 little was heard of the former Governor/Senator save for occasional gurgling noises from his gravesite upon the pouring of alcoholic libations.  Yet it was these gurgles that prompted Democratic Party officials to look in his direction when its 1924 convention came up, in search of an eloquent spokesman to articulate an unequivocal denunciation of the then-powerful Ku Klux Klan.  Sen. Oscar Underwood had wanted the role but when his name was mistaken as "Undertaker" he was sent to dig up Johnston's remains..

Johnston made a powerful case against the Klan; any time some KKK delegate spoke in the Klan's sympathy, Johnston's cadaver would simply deliver an icy stare, and all would go quiet.

Finally Johnston's turn to speak came up.  He was wheeled to the podium, propped up and set in front of the microphone.  A ominous hush fell over Madison Square Garden as Johnston intoned:
*
"*

​


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile... they've both been posting on the forum since learning the truth about that photo. They just stopped posting in this thread once the truth was exposed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> They were here and active until their bullshit got exposed for what it is. Finger Boy sat here and denied it for a while, like you're doing, and then ran away. They've both been busy elsewhere ---- probably digging themselves into other holes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They probably killed themselves to get away from you two....
Click to expand...

WTF?? You think they're posting from the grave?


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the beginning the KKK were white Southern Christian Conservatives....
> 
> Now they aren't always Southern.
> 
> 
> 
> They were southern democrats...remember Abe? he was a republican. Now go get your Jim and Jane book it's reading hour....
Click to expand...

LOL

The one thing that hasn't changed is that the south was, and is, the conservative Bible Belt.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> In the beginning the KKK were white Southern Christian Conservatives....
> 
> Now they aren't always Southern.
> 
> 
> 
> They were southern democrats...remember Abe? he was a republican. Now go get your Jim and Jane book it's reading hour....
Click to expand...


They were white Southern Christian Conservatives.

Now they aren't always Southern.

Still white Christian conservatives.


----------



## Syriusly

Just to point out- I haven't seen a single 'Conservative' object to the lies in the OP.

Either they have endorsed the lies- or given tacit approval to them with their silence. 

That is the legacy of the modern Conservatives.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> They were white Southern Christian Conservatives.
> 
> Now they aren't always Southern.
> 
> Still white Christian conservatives.


They were white...and maybe christian but to say the were political conservatives is inaccurate. I bet many of you history changing libs don't even know there were Black slave owners in the south. There were black businessmen that fought with the south. You all are so cut and dry, black and white no grey. 
http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were white Southern Christian Conservatives.
> 
> Now they aren't always Southern.
> 
> Still white Christian conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> They were white...and maybe christian but to say the were political conservatives is inaccurate.
Click to expand...


Absolutely accurate

Believed in the supremacy of State's rights over the Federal government- check
Believed in a smaller Federal government- check.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were white Southern Christian Conservatives.
> 
> Now they aren't always Southern.
> 
> Still white Christian conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> I bet many of you history changing libs don't even know there were Black slave owners in the south. There were black businessmen that fought with the south. You all are so cut and dry, black and white no grey.
> http://www.theroot.com/did-black-people-own-slaves-1790895436
Click to expand...


LOL- and there were Democrats who opposed slavery. 

You are all so cut and dry, black and white, no grey.

Of course there were African American slave owners- does that somehow make slavery okay? Or have anything to do with the fact that the KKK was formed by Southern White Christian men?


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were white Southern Christian Conservatives.
> 
> Now they aren't always Southern.
> 
> Still white Christian conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> There were black businessmen that fought with the south.
Click to expand...


'black businessmen that fought with the south'......

There were blacks who fought with the Confederates- they fell into 2 groups:

Slaves who came with their masters who were officers- as servants and accompanied them onto the battlefield.
Slaves who were forced to construct fortifications for the Confederacy
There is no record of any serving officially because it was not until  March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed a law to allow black men to serve in combat roles- 3 weeks before the end of the war. 

Of course 200,000 blacks served in the Union Army- a large portion of them escaped slaves who risked summary execution if captured by Confederates.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Believed in the supremacy of State's rights over the Federal government- check
> 
> Believed in a smaller Federal government- check.


Both sides believed that back then, we had all fought for freedom of oppression and over taxation from the King. Lincoln hated what he had to do but he did it to save the nation. States rights were applauded by everyone and the federal government was not big back then so I don't know what you are talking about. Conservatives and liberals today do not link up with the conservatives and liberals of the past. Oranges and apples.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were white Southern Christian Conservatives.
> 
> Now they aren't always Southern.
> 
> Still white Christian conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> There were black businessmen that fought with the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'black businessmen that fought with the south'......
> 
> There were blacks who fought with the Confederates- they fell into 2 groups:
> 
> Slaves who came with their masters who were officers- as servants and accompanied them onto the battlefield.
> Slaves who were forced to construct fortifications for the Confederacy
> There is no record of any serving officially because it was not until  March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed a law to allow black men to serve in combat roles- 3 weeks before the end of the war.
> 
> Of course 200,000 blacks served in the Union Army- a large portion of them escaped slaves who risked summary execution if captured by Confederates.
Click to expand...

Interesting read; 

http://www.theroot.com/yes-there-were-black-confederates-here-s-why-1790858546
Freehling is right. A few thousand blacks did indeed fight for the Confederacy. Significantly, African-American scholars from Ervin Jordan and Joseph Reidy to Juliet Walker and Henry Louis Gates Jr., editor-in-chief of _*The Root, *_have stood outside this impasse, acknowledging that a few blacks, slave and free, supported the Confederacy.


How many supported it? No one knows precisely. But by drawing on these scholars and focusing on sources written or published during the war, I estimate that between 3,000 and 6,000 served as Confederate soldiers. Another 100,000 or so blacks, mostly slaves, supported the Confederacy as laborers, servants and teamsters. They built roads, batteries and fortifications; manned munitions factories—essentially did the Confederacy’s dirty work.

What were Douglass’ sources in identifying black Confederates? One came from a Virginia fugitive who escaped to Boston shortly before the Battle of First Manassas in Virginia that summer. He saw “one regiment of 700 black men from Georgia, 1000 [men] from South Carolina, and about 1000 [men with him from] Virginia, destined for Manassas when he ran away.”

For historians these are shocking figures. But another eyewitness also observed three regiments of blacks fighting for the Confederacy at Manassas. William Henry Johnson, a free black from Connecticut, ignored the Lincoln administration’s refusal to enlist black troops and fought as an independent soldier with the 8th Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. He also wrote for the Pine and Palm, a black paper, and blamed the Union loss at Manassas partly on black Confederates: “We were defeated, routed and driven from the field. … It was not alone the white man’s victory, for it was won by slaves. Yes, the Confederates had three regiments of blacks in the field, and they maneuvered like veterans, and beat the Union men back. This is not guessing, but it is a fact.”


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were white Southern Christian Conservatives.
> 
> Now they aren't always Southern.
> 
> Still white Christian conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> They were white...and maybe christian but to say the were political conservatives is inaccurate. I bet many of you history changing libs <snip>
Click to expand...


Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm......  "history changing libs"?

What "lib" put up a picture of a December 1924 funeral march on a Wisconsin street and claimed it was the New York Democratic convention?

What "lib" declared "libs aren't liking" said photo from Wisconsin?

What "lib" tried to sell a 93-year old archive photo as "newly discovered"?

What "lib" dug an 11-year-old cadaver out of his grave to augment a bullshit story?

What "lib" puts up a bloghole big enough to drive a truck through and then doesn't even sign their name?

What "lib" then posts it as a thread, and when it's shown to be bullshit, runs away and hides?


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... "history changing libs"?
> 
> What "lib" put up a picture of a December 1924 funeral march on a Wisconsin street and claimed it was the New York Democratic convention?
> 
> What "lib" declared "libs aren't liking" said photo from Wisconsin?
> 
> What "lib" tried to sell a 93-year old archive photo as "newly discovered"?
> 
> What "lib" dug an 11-year-old cadaver out of his grave to augment a bullshit story?
> 
> What "lib" puts up a bloghole big enough to drive a truck through and then doesn't even sign their name?
> 
> What "lib" then posts it as a thread, and when it's shown to be bullshit, runs away and hides?


Are you going to take that to the grave with you? Libs always change history to cover their ugly past. You keep going on about that stupid picture and you ignore the reality of the whole original point. 

You are not being honest with yourself. I know it makes democrats uncomfortable to be once so aligned with the KKK but it's a fact. All of your butt hurt shouting and complaining will never change that fact. Picture or no picture.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Believed in the supremacy of State's rights over the Federal government- check
> 
> Believed in a smaller Federal government- check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both sides believed that back then, we had all fought for freedom of oppression and over taxation from the King. Lincoln hated what he had to do but he did it to save the nation. States rights were applauded by everyone and the federal government was not big back then so I don't know what you are talking about. Conservatives and liberals today do not link up with the conservatives and liberals of the past. Oranges and apples.
Click to expand...


No- both sides didn't believe in that then. 

First of all- 'we' hadn't all fought for freedom of oppression- virtually no one was alive who fought in the in the Revolution- and a large portion of Americans opposed the Revolution.

States Rights were specifically named by the Confederacy as why the Confederate States were entitled to leave the United States- and States Rights have been one of the rallying cries of Conservatives ever since. When Goldwater went through the former Confederate states in 1964 he was extolling the Conservative platform of 'States Rights' to oppose Federally mandated integration.

But i do find it amusing that after you tried to equate today's Democrats to the founding of the KKK in 1865, that you want to instruct me that 'Conservatives and liberals' today don't equate with the Conservatives and liberals of the past.

Today's Democrats embrace Americans of all colors and faiths- and reject every tenet of the KKK. And of course the KKK would not want to be associated with an organization like the Democratic Party- which includes 95% of African American voters, and a majority of Jewish American voters.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm...... "history changing libs"?
> 
> What "lib" put up a picture of a December 1924 funeral march on a Wisconsin street and claimed it was the New York Democratic convention?
> 
> What "lib" declared "libs aren't liking" said photo from Wisconsin?
> 
> What "lib" tried to sell a 93-year old archive photo as "newly discovered"?
> 
> What "lib" dug an 11-year-old cadaver out of his grave to augment a bullshit story?
> 
> What "lib" puts up a bloghole big enough to drive a truck through and then doesn't even sign their name?
> 
> What "lib" then posts it as a thread, and when it's shown to be bullshit, runs away and hides?
> 
> 
> 
> Are you going to take that to the grave with you? Libs always change history to cover their ugly past. .
Click to expand...


What 'ugly past'?

You are the one applauding a bullshit lie.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> No- both sides didn't believe in that then.


Were you alive back then? How do you know what they believed and did not believe? There was no concept of a "big Government" back then. They had states rights issues as always but to say one side was liberal and the other was conservative is short sighted and foolish. 

That was a very different time than today. The fact remains: people that referred to themselves as southern democrats back then were supportive of the KKK.

You can post till the end of time but that will still remain the truth. You can find link after link or puke out liberal nonsense all you want but you can never change that history.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> What 'ugly past'?
> 
> You are the one applauding a bullshit lie


What lie am I applauding?


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were white Southern Christian Conservatives.
> 
> Now they aren't always Southern.
> 
> Still white Christian conservatives.
> 
> 
> 
> There were black businessmen that fought with the south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 'black businessmen that fought with the south'......
> 
> There were blacks who fought with the Confederates- they fell into 2 groups:
> 
> Slaves who came with their masters who were officers- as servants and accompanied them onto the battlefield.
> Slaves who were forced to construct fortifications for the Confederacy
> There is no record of any serving officially because it was not until  March 13, 1865, the Confederate Congress passed a law to allow black men to serve in combat roles- 3 weeks before the end of the war.
> 
> Of course 200,000 blacks served in the Union Army- a large portion of them escaped slaves who risked summary execution if captured by Confederates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interesting read;
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/yes-there-were-black-confederates-here-s-why-1790858546
> Freehling is right. A few thousand blacks did indeed fight for the Confederacy. Significantly, African-American scholars from Ervin Jordan and Joseph Reidy to Juliet Walker and Henry Louis Gates Jr., editor-in-chief of _*The Root, *_have stood outside this impasse, acknowledging that a few blacks, slave and free, supported the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> How many supported it? No one knows precisely. But by drawing on these scholars and focusing on sources written or published during the war, I estimate that between 3,000 and 6,000 served as Confederate soldiers. Another 100,000 or so blacks, mostly slaves, supported the Confederacy as laborers, servants and teamsters. They built roads, batteries and fortifications; manned munitions factories—essentially did the Confederacy’s dirty work.
> 
> What were Douglass’ sources in identifying black Confederates? One came from a Virginia fugitive who escaped to Boston shortly before the Battle of First Manassas in Virginia that summer. He saw “one regiment of 700 black men from Georgia, 1000 [men] from South Carolina, and about 1000 [men with him from] Virginia, destined for Manassas when he ran away.”
> 
> For historians these are shocking figures. But another eyewitness also observed three regiments of blacks fighting for the Confederacy at Manassas. William Henry Johnson, a free black from Connecticut, ignored the Lincoln administration’s refusal to enlist black troops and fought as an independent soldier with the 8th Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. He also wrote for the Pine and Palm, a black paper, and blamed the Union loss at Manassas partly on black Confederates: “We were defeated, routed and driven from the field. … It was not alone the white man’s victory, for it was won by slaves. Yes, the Confederates had three regiments of blacks in the field, and they maneuvered like veterans, and beat the Union men back. This is not guessing, but it is a fact.”
Click to expand...


Odd isn't it that there is no Confederate records of  these 'three regiments of blacks in the field?

Also from your article:
_Parker’s ordeal sheds light on black Confederate soldiers at Manassas. First impressed into Confederate service as a laborer, he was then ordered to man a battery and to fire on Union troops. After the battle, he resumed his status as laborer, working burial duty. Prompted by the first Confiscation Act, he found freedom behind Union lines and in New York City.
_
*His case was representative. Confederates impressed slaves as laborers and at times forced them to fight. In effect, they put guns to their heads, forcing them to fire on Yankees.*

Still not sure what this has to do with the White Conservative Christian men who formed the KKK.

Or the lies of the OP.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> What 'ugly past'?
> 
> You are the one applauding a bullshit lie
> 
> 
> 
> What lie am I applauding?
Click to expand...


The entire OP is a bullshit lie that you are applauding.


----------



## Rambunctious

Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Odd isn't it that there is no Confederate records of these 'three regiments of blacks in the field?


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> The entire OP is a bullshit lie that you are applauding.


No it is not...it may be a mistake but I showed yesterday how that mistake was made...no one lied. They were maybe mislead but no one lied that I can see.


----------



## Rambunctious

*Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!*


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> The entire OP is a bullshit lie that you are applauding


Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- both sides didn't believe in that then.
> 
> 
> 
> Were you alive back then? How do you know what they believed and did not believe? There was no concept of a "big Government" back then.
Click to expand...


LOL- the irony of you telling me I don't know how they believed and did not believe- and then proceeded to tell me what they did- or didn't believe.

I have read the platforms of the Republican Party from the era, I have read many of  Abraham Lincoln's speeches and many of the Confederate states declaration of secession.

But tell me more about how you know the KKK was formed by the Democrats- but how the KKK were not Conservatives.....because you know what they believed- but I don't.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire OP is a bullshit lie that you are applauding
> 
> 
> 
> Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
Click to expand...


And that has what to do with the lies of the OP that you applaud?

What "lib" put up a picture of a December 1924 funeral march on a Wisconsin street and claimed it was the New York Democratic convention?

What "lib" declared "libs aren't liking" said photo from Wisconsin?

What "lib" tried to sell a 93-year old archive photo as "newly discovered"?

What "lib" dug an 11-year-old cadaver out of his grave to augment a bullshit story?

What "lib" puts up a bloghole big enough to drive a truck through and then doesn't even sign their name?

What "lib" then posts it as a thread, and when it's shown to be bullshit, runs away and hides?


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> LOL- the irony of you telling me I don't know how they believed and did not believe- and then proceeded to tell me what they did- or didn't believe


I didn't tell you what they believed back then I showed it to you in historical links. It's not my fault if you can not read...


----------



## Rambunctious

Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com

I'll try it again; *Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!*


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> And that has what to do with the lies of the OP that you applaud?


What was the lie? for the third time...tell me the lie.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that has what to do with the lies of the OP that you applaud?
> 
> 
> 
> What was the lie? for the third time...tell me the lie.
Click to expand...


You have been shown the lies repeatedly.

Clearly as a contard you either have a reading comprehension problem or a problem with honesty.

Hell we all know its with honesty.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
> 
> I'll try it again; *Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!*



I will gladly talk history

Martin Luther King Jr. speaking of 1964 Republican National Convention

*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.




*


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> You have been shown the lies repeatedly.


None of you..POGO you or Faun could tell me what the lie was. You all said the picture was wrong but I showed you how the OP may have been mislead by the links. So what was the lie. There are lies and there are mistakes, they are not the same thing so either tell me the lie or I'm done with this stupid conversation.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- the irony of you telling me I don't know how they believed and did not believe- and then proceeded to tell me what they did- or didn't believe
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't tell you what they believed back then I showed it to you in historical links. It's not my fault if you can not read...
Click to expand...


LOL- the irony of you telling me I don't know how they believed and did not believe- and then proceeded to tell me what they did- or didn't believe.

The fact remains that those were members of the KKK when it was founded were white Southern Conservative Christian men. 

Now the members of the KKK are no longer confined to the South.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
> 
> I'll try it again; *Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will gladly talk history
> 
> Martin Luther King Jr. speaking of 1964 Republican National Convention
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
> 
> View attachment 146002*
Click to expand...

Okay...so what? what does that have to do with the OP?


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been shown the lies repeatedly.
> 
> 
> 
> None of you..POGO you or Faun could tell me what the lie was. You all said the picture was wrong but I showed you how the OP may have been mislead by the links. So what was the lie. There are lies and there are mistakes, they are not the same thing so either tell me the lie or I'm done with this stupid conversation.
Click to expand...


You have been lying about the OP for days now. Pogo and Faun have repeatedly shown you that the OP is a lie- and you deny it. 

Being the good little contard you are.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> You have been lying about the OP for days now. Pogo and Faun have repeatedly shown you that the OP is a lie- and you deny it.
> 
> Being the good little contard you are


The lie please dupe....and what is a contard


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
> 
> I'll try it again; *Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will gladly talk history
> 
> Martin Luther King Jr. speaking of 1964 Republican National Convention
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
> 
> View attachment 146002*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...so what? what does that have to do with the OP?
Click to expand...

That is a response to your post- which had nothing to do with the OP.

And describes the modern Republican Party

Martin Luther King Jr. speaking of 1964 Republican National Convention

*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ku Klux Klan - Facts & Summary - HISTORY.com
> 
> I'll try it again; *Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will gladly talk history
> 
> Martin Luther King Jr. speaking of 1964 Republican National Convention
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.
> 
> View attachment 146002*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Okay...so what? what does that have to do with the OP?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That is a response to your post- which had nothing to do with the OP.
> 
> And describes the modern Republican Party
> 
> Martin Luther King Jr. speaking of 1964 Republican National Convention
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
Click to expand...

And the lie was what?


----------



## Rambunctious

Waiting to see the lie.....


----------



## Rambunctious

still no lie produced you libs must be lying...


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Waiting to see the lie.....



Liberals can lead a jackass to water, but we can't make you drink the truth.

As you have repeatedly shown


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Liberals can lead a jackass to water, but we can't make you drink the truth.
> 
> As you have repeatedly shown


You could win this debate all you need to do is tell me what the lie was...


----------



## Rambunctious

My main argument was the OP did not lie. So prove me wrong it should be easy.


----------



## Rambunctious

time waits for no one and no one waits for time


----------



## Slash

Rambunctious said:


> Interesting read;
> 
> http://www.theroot.com/yes-there-were-black-confederates-here-s-why-1790858546
> Freehling is right. A few thousand blacks did indeed fight for the Confederacy. Significantly, African-American scholars from Ervin Jordan and Joseph Reidy to Juliet Walker and Henry Louis Gates Jr., editor-in-chief of _*The Root, *_have stood outside this impasse, acknowledging that a few blacks, slave and free, supported the Confederacy.
> 
> 
> How many supported it? No one knows precisely. But by drawing on these scholars and focusing on sources written or published during the war, I estimate that between 3,000 and 6,000 served as Confederate soldiers. Another 100,000 or so blacks, mostly slaves, supported the Confederacy as laborers, servants and teamsters. They built roads, batteries and fortifications; manned munitions factories—essentially did the Confederacy’s dirty work.
> 
> What were Douglass’ sources in identifying black Confederates? One came from a Virginia fugitive who escaped to Boston shortly before the Battle of First Manassas in Virginia that summer. He saw “one regiment of 700 black men from Georgia, 1000 [men] from South Carolina, and about 1000 [men with him from] Virginia, destined for Manassas when he ran away.”
> 
> For historians these are shocking figures. But another eyewitness also observed three regiments of blacks fighting for the Confederacy at Manassas. William Henry Johnson, a free black from Connecticut, ignored the Lincoln administration’s refusal to enlist black troops and fought as an independent soldier with the 8th Connecticut Volunteer Infantry. He also wrote for the Pine and Palm, a black paper, and blamed the Union loss at Manassas partly on black Confederates: “We were defeated, routed and driven from the field. … It was not alone the white man’s victory, for it was won by slaves. Yes, the Confederates had three regiments of blacks in the field, and they maneuvered like veterans, and beat the Union men back. This is not guessing, but it is a fact.”



Interesting.   Some nazi sympathizers try to say that since Jews fought for Germany in Hitler's army, he really wasn't an anti-semite.   I disagree. 

You would think with THOUSANDS of black combatants for the Confederacy, we would have been able to find 1 combat veteran?  1.  But nope, of those thousands NOT ONE was found.   Instead the entirety of this is based on a 3rd off quote "I heard someone say someone say" and 1 eyewitness vs. the 70,000 who didn't mention it.  

That black Regiment from Manassas, doesn't exist in any record by the Confederacy, no pay, no veterans, no records of a single soldier.    Almost every historian thinks WIlliam Henry Johnson either mistook a union black brigade or created this as a little story to push for civil rights he wanted since there was zero corraboration from either side or proof of the illegal black army.   Since of the other 70,000 participants, nobody could attest to the thousands of black Confederate soldiers, no graves were ever mentioned being dug for them, not a single black veteran of that fight was ever found on the Confederate side (outside of slaves working for their generals in other roles).   He's literally the only person to have seen that in a battle of 70,000 people. 

And it's also odd that Virginia had black slaves fighting in the early days of the war when the Confederate Secretary of state once said "In my opinion the worst calamity that could befall us would be to gain our independence by valor of slaves instead of our own...  the day that the army of Virginia allows a Negro regiment to enter their lines as soldiers, they will be degraded, ruined and disgraced".   Granted of course by that time they'd had blacks in their military for 4 years you are saying????   Maybe they were just secret regiments that nobody knew about? 

What's even more interesting is how the Confederacy got so desperate they passed legislation to arm slaves at the end.  At the very end of the war in March of 1865 (General Lee surrendered 3 weeks later) a law was passed that blacks could enlist.  Other than a small number that briefly trained in Richmond, Virginia and saw no action, no black men served openly and there is no evidence that the Richmond recruits saw the battlefield in the final weeks of the war.   Of course that legislation also said “that nothing in this act shall be construed to authorize a change in the relation which the said slaves shall bear toward their owners,”  aka, they were slave soldiers.

An interesting thing about that hotly contested legislation.  Not one argument ever was made in the entirety of the debates that black soldiers had already been fighting.   Not once.  All the proof isn't in the documents DURING the civil war, or even from the mouths of those who fought in it, but rather a new creation of information in the past 30 years.  If Blacks were fighting in the war, they were quite sneaky about it because they did it without Robert E. Lee, Jefferson Davis, the members of the Confederate congress or any of the white soldiers of the Confederacy or anyone from the Union knowing about it.

Tens of thousands of slaves were impressed by the government, often against the will of their owners, to help with the construction of earthworks around the cities of Richmond, Petersburg, and Atlanta. Slaves were also assigned to the construction and repair of rail lines and as workers in iron foundries and other factories producing war materiel. In the armies, they worked as teamsters, cooks, and musicians.

What can we find as actual evidence to change this over from the longheld belief to our new revised belief that blacks did fight throughout the war?  

Not one grave has been discovered to have been dug for a black confederate soldier in a battle.  Not one. 

And the 215,000 soldiers captured by union forces?   0 blacks found there.

Not one union Soldier ever made mention of fighting black soldiers. 

There were no black Confederate combat units in service during the war, meaning if they did fight, it was an intermixed race battallion... yeah.

Not one photograph of a black fighting regiment (though with photoshop and cutting out their union officers, some pictures have been made to look as such).  

 No documentation whatsoever exists for any black man being paid or pensioned as a Confederate soldier.

No Confederate ever references having black soldiers under his command or in his unit, although references to black laborers are common...

Even beyond the Official Records, there is no known letter, diary entry, or any other primary source in which a Confederate mentions serving with black soldiers.

In 1863 a POW swap was put on hold because the Confederacy didn't recognize black union soldiers as POW's.    But 2 years earlier they were using their own blacks as soldiers?   How can you do that?


----------



## Slash

Rambunctious said:


> Were you alive back then? How do you know what they believed and did not believe? There was no concept of a "big Government" back then. They had states rights issues as always but to say one side was liberal and the other was conservative is short sighted and foolish.



It's pretty easy to see what they believed because we have a thing called written history.  

I guess the simplest way would be to look at the presidential platforms.  Those have been kept since 1840.  Political Party Platforms



You can find past presidents that were Republicans that I would say had a liberal platform at the start.   Lincoln was one.  Strong federal gov't.  Social change.  Large public works.   

That 1824 picture.  The democratic presidential stance was lower taxes, help the farmers, enforce prohibition and fight the drug problem,  oppose the extension of bureaucracy, the creation of unnecessary bureaus and federal agencies and the multiplication of offices and office-holders, condemn the efforts of the republican party to nationalize the functions and duties of the states (states rights), revive the "spirit of self government", be tough on immigration, fight for personal freedoms, Increase veterans benefits, support coal and mining, end nuisance taxes...   

For a while it was back and forth a bit.   KKK would support conservative republicans at times, but most of the socially conservative beliefs were with the Democrats.  

Look at Eisenhower.  He was definitely left of Center.  Major parts of his platform was:

Equal pay regardless of sex.
Protect social security
Asylum for refugees
Increase minimum wage
Federal assistance for low income families
Improve unemployment benefits to cover more people
Strengthen labor laws to make it easier to join unions.  

He nominated Earl Warren (struck down porn laws, ended state laws that banned contraceptives), who was as liberal of a Supreme Court Judge as you can find.   

Honestly this having to be all left or all right is kinda new.  There've been times Republicans would take stances on both sides, same with Democrats and disagree with others in their own party.


----------



## Rambunctious

Slash said:


> It's pretty easy to see what they believed because we have a thing called written history


In any conflict the victor writes the history.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals can lead a jackass to water, but we can't make you drink the truth.
> 
> As you have repeatedly shown
> 
> 
> 
> You could win this debate all you need to do is tell me what the lie was...
Click to expand...


Sorry- Pogo already won the debate earlier when he pointed out the lies- repeatedly.

Since you refuse to acknowledge the facts, now you are just trolling.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's pretty easy to see what they believed because we have a thing called written history
> 
> 
> 
> In any conflict the victor writes the history.
Click to expand...


Nothing prevented any Confederate from writing any history he chose to. The Confederates were a literate bunch.


----------



## Slash

Rambunctious said:


> In any conflict the victor writes the history.



Actually no, because we actually saved all that history from both sides.  You can read the articles of secession.  You can read the writings of the leaders of the Confederacy.  You can read the minutes of the state congresses of southern states when they met on secession.  You can read their laws, their legislation.   

Saying that it isn't there is a false narrative making up some story that it was all erased somehow with magic.  Nope, it's right there.   Which is why I'd really encourage people to learn history from the source rather than take the lazy way.


----------



## Slash

Syriusly said:


> Nothing prevented any Confederate from writing any history he chose to. The Confederates were a literate bunch.



And actually the wrote a LOT.   It's just lazy to say "we don't know since only the winners write history", as you can easily see thousands of documents from the losers as well.  For the most part that's what I use when writing here.   THe losing sides' information.  

It's that kind of laziness today that I'm worried will have people in 100 years buying into the story that the South only seceded to try and end Lincoln's secret nuclear weapons programs.


----------



## Rambunctious

Slash said:


> *Which is why I'd really encourage people to learn history from the source rather than take the lazy way*.


I can't disagree with that...


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Nothing prevented any Confederate from writing any history he chose to. The Confederates were a literate bunch


Good point but do these writings get the same weight in the scholastic world? The victor does write the history that gets presented as fact for the classroom.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Sorry- Pogo already won the debate earlier when he pointed out the lies- repeatedly.
> 
> Since you refuse to acknowledge the facts, now you are just trolling.


POGO couldn't tell me the lie either. You obviously can't as well.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!


Yes, the Christian Bible Belt was, and is, very racist. That's never changed.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry- Pogo already won the debate earlier when he pointed out the lies- repeatedly.
> 
> Since you refuse to acknowledge the facts, now you are just trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> POGO couldn't tell me the lie either. You obviously can't as well.
Click to expand...

Now you're lying again. Pogo highlighted several lies. Such as a dispute being led by Forney Johnston, which is a complete and utter fabrication.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry- Pogo already won the debate earlier when he pointed out the lies- repeatedly.
> 
> Since you refuse to acknowledge the facts, now you are just trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> POGO couldn't tell me the lie either. You obviously can't as well.
Click to expand...


How's that search for "Forney Johnston" coming along?

Member when I sent you out to fetch that?

Any photos of an 11-year-dead cadaver at the Democratic convention?
Or perhaps in Wisconsin?


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> My main argument was the OP did not lie. So prove me wrong it should be easy.



Yeah it was.

THREE WEEKS AGO.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing prevented any Confederate from writing any history he chose to. The Confederates were a literate bunch
> 
> 
> 
> Good point but do these writings get the same weight in the scholastic world? The victor does write the history that gets presented as fact for the classroom.
Click to expand...


Really? In the South? 

Feel free to show to me that schools in Georgia have always just taught the Civil War fro the prospective of the victor.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry- Pogo already won the debate earlier when he pointed out the lies- repeatedly.
> 
> Since you refuse to acknowledge the facts, now you are just trolling.
> 
> 
> 
> POGO couldn't tell me the lie either. You obviously can't as well.
Click to expand...


Pogo repeatedly told you the lies- your contard inability to acknowledge the truth is not the fault of any liberal.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have been lying about the OP for days now. Pogo and Faun have repeatedly shown you that the OP is a lie- and you deny it.
> 
> Being the good little contard you are
> 
> 
> 
> The lie please dupe....and what is a contard
Click to expand...


It's that white stuff left behind by a jet plane.


----------



## Syriusly

Faun said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Christian Bible Belt was, and is, very racist. That's never changed.
Click to expand...



Well to be fair- in 1860 virtually everyone was a racist. And even in 1960, much of the United States is what we would consider to be racist.

The modern South according to the Contards is composed entirely of the non-racist whites- all Republicans- and the white and black Democrats- all racists.

But in reality the modern South is far less racist than it was even 20 years ago, let alone how it was in 1960- just like the entire U.S. is- the whining of the snowflake contards to the contrary. 

I just get tired of the South being misrepresented by both sides. 

Meanwhile- the KKK was founded by Southern White Christian Conservatives.

The only thing that has changed is that its no longer exclusively Southern.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!



Actually that already IS a change.  The correction is that it was founded in 1865, and while it did eventually become a vehicle for white Southern resistance to occupying Union armies, carpetbaggers and scalawags, and a terror force against freed ex-slaves, it was originally founded as a simply silly social club.  The forces that took it over (in 1866) were longstanding elements including displaced and disenfranchised residents, ex-Confederate soldiers, criminals and "slave patrols" or "Regulators" that had been running since at least the 18th century to put down slave revolts.  And those elements formed dozens of other similar groups with similar purposes including the Caucasian Club(s) (Louisiana 1869), Constitutional Union Guard (North Carolina 1868-70), Heggie's Scouts (Mississippi), Heroes of America (South Carolina), Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi), Knights of the Rising Sun (Texas 1868), Knights of the White Camellia (Louisiana 1867-69), Knights of the White Carnation (Alabama), Men of Justice, Native Sons of the South (Mississippi), Order of Pale Faces (Tennessee 1869 or 1867), Order of the White Rose, Red Caps (Tennessee), Red Jackets (Tennessee), Red Strings (South Carolina), Robertson Family (Mississippi), Society of the White Rose (Mississippi), Seymour Knights (Louisiana), Southern Cross, White League (Louisiana 1874), White Brotherhood (North Carolina 1868-70) and the Yellow Jackets (Tennessee). 

The White League above on that list was the group commemorated on the first monument taken down by the City of New Orleans a few months ago, the "Liberty Place Monument".

I know, I know --- this is more than you wanted to know.  That's how context works isn't it.


----------



## Pogo

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing prevented any Confederate from writing any history he chose to. The Confederates were a literate bunch
> 
> 
> 
> Good point but do these writings get the same weight in the scholastic world? The victor does write the history that gets presented as fact for the classroom.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? In the South?
> 
> Feel free to show to me that schools in Georgia have always just taught the Civil War fro the prospective of the victor.
Click to expand...


Actually the whole Lost Cause revisionism movement that put up the various statues and monument being removed from their public propaganda perches, was named after the book that started it, called "The Lost Cause: A New Southern History of the War of the Confederates", by a writer named Edward A. Pollard; it was, as the title says, a "new history" for the purpose of sugarcoating a tarnished image.  And he published that in 1866.

And the tenets of that repainted history absolutely did get weight in the classroom.  That's part of the function of public propaganda pieces such as statues and monuments; such as novels like "The Clansman" and novels/films like "Birth of a Nation" and "Gone With the Wind", like minstrel show caricatures and songs, and "****** jokes" and even Disney cartoons, and a million stereotypes on everything from buildings to postcards.  They all serve the same purpose of Mass Cultural Revamp.


----------



## PoliticalChic

paperview said:


> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*




1. Hillary's campaign began the 'Birther' rumor.

2. There is no Radical Right.

3. The KKK has always been a creation of and associated with, the Democrat Party.

a. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425

b. FDR's first pick for the Supreme Court was a KKK official

c. "*Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President"*
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president

"Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.

“We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show."
The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton



Just between the two of us....are you really this stupid, or simply a brain-dead Liberal acolyte trained to parrot whatever they tell you to?

C'mon....fess up.


----------



## paperview

Just when you think PC couldn't get anymore retarded.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Yes, the Christian Bible Belt was, and is, very racist. That's never changed


There is racism and hatred everywhere it's not specific to any region or people.


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> How's that search for "Forney Johnston" coming along?
> 
> Member when I sent you out to fetch that?
> 
> Any photos of an 11-year-dead cadaver at the Democratic convention?
> Or perhaps in Wisconsin?


Show me the lie...


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Meanwhile- the KKK was founded by Southern White Christian Conservatives


southern *democrats*....


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> I know, I know --- this is more than you wanted to know. That's how context works isn't it.


I already knew most of it but thanks for the refresher...I'm still waiting to hear the OP's lie...


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Really? In the South?
> 
> Feel free to show to me that schools in Georgia have always just taught the Civil War fro the prospective of the victor


That would be impossible, and you wouldn't be convinced if I were to do so.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? In the South?
> 
> Feel free to show to me that schools in Georgia have always just taught the Civil War fro the prospective of the victor
> 
> 
> 
> That would be impossible, and you wouldn't be convinced if I were to do so.
Click to expand...


You know, I was stationed in Memphis TN, and Jacksonville FL, and had kids that went to school.  Guess what?  The schools in those places actually did teach about both sides of the war.  My ex wife who went to school in Murfreesboro TN said the same thing.


----------



## Faun

Syriusly said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Christian Bible Belt was, and is, very racist. That's never changed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Well to be fair- in 1860 virtually everyone was a racist. And even in 1960, much of the United States is what we would consider to be racist.
> 
> The modern South according to the Contards is composed entirely of the non-racist whites- all Republicans- and the white and black Democrats- all racists.
> 
> But in reality the modern South is far less racist than it was even 20 years ago, let alone how it was in 1960- just like the entire U.S. is- the whining of the snowflake contards to the contrary.
> 
> I just get tired of the South being misrepresented by both sides.
> 
> Meanwhile- the KKK was founded by Southern White Christian Conservatives.
> 
> The only thing that has changed is that its no longer exclusively Southern.
Click to expand...

Some areas of the country were more racist than others, even back then. The south has almost always been more racist.


----------



## Rambunctious

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, I was stationed in Memphis TN, and Jacksonville FL, and had kids that went to school. Guess what? The schools in those places actually did teach about both sides of the war. My ex wife who went to school in Murfreesboro TN said the same thing.


Not in California...they barely touched on the whole subject...


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Hillary's campaign began the 'Birther' rumor.
> 
> 2. There is no Radical Right.
> 
> 3. The KKK has always been a creation of and associated with, the Democrat Party.
> 
> a. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
> 
> b. FDR's first pick for the Supreme Court was a KKK official
> 
> c. "*Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President"*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> "Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show."
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> 
> 
> Just between the two of us....are you really this stupid, or simply a brain-dead Liberal acolyte trained to parrot whatever they tell you to?
> 
> C'mon....fess up.
Click to expand...

1. Lie

2. Lie

3. Lie

That was easy.


----------



## Faun

paperview said:


> Just when you think PC couldn't get anymore retarded.


You underestimate her.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? In the South?
> 
> Feel free to show to me that schools in Georgia have always just taught the Civil War fro the prospective of the victor
> 
> 
> 
> That would be impossible, and you wouldn't be convinced if I were to do so.
Click to expand...


Actually- if you provided proof- something you aren't real familiar with- I would be happy to accept it. 

Frankly since I have family in the South, and have spent extended periods of time there, pretty much everyone I know who has gone through the school system in the South gets a pretty 'pro-Confederate' slanted education.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Some areas of the country were more racist than others, even back then. The south has almost always been more racist.


That's ridiculous....I've been in neighborhoods in south central LA where I couldn't even get a soda in a market because I'm white. I went to school in majority black and Hispanic schools...I've seen racism from the down side many times in my so called white privileged life.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Christian Bible Belt was, and is, very racist. That's never changed
> 
> 
> 
> There is racism and hatred everywhere it's not specific to any region or people.
Click to expand...

The south, particularly across the Bible Belt, was, and is, more racist than other regions.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Actually- if you provided proof- something you aren't real familiar with- I would be happy to accept it.
> 
> Frankly since I have family in the South, and have spent extended periods of time there, pretty much everyone I know who has gone through the school system in the South gets a pretty 'pro-Confederate' slanted education


That is actually good to learn...I grew up in La La Land.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Hillary's campaign began the 'Birther' rumor.
> .
Click to expand...


No- but thank you for once again reminding us that you believe that Donald Trump was just a gullible patsy of Hillary Clinton- when Donald Trump went full Birther for 5 years.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Rambunctious said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I was stationed in Memphis TN, and Jacksonville FL, and had kids that went to school. Guess what? The schools in those places actually did teach about both sides of the war. My ex wife who went to school in Murfreesboro TN said the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in California...they barely touched on the whole subject...
Click to expand...


Well, it kinda depends on where you went to school at.  My room mate went to school in Texas, and one of the REQUIRED courses in their high school is Texas history.  When I went to school, I was in Montana, and while we didn't spend much time on the Civil war, there was a whole bunch of time spent on the settlement of the West, as well as a bunch of history about Montana and it's history with the Gold Rush and the Native Americans. 

Guess some of the courses that they teach in school are region specific.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is no Radical Right.
Click to expand...


Take that up with Martin Luther King Jr. 

Then again you white Conservatives have always despised MLK Jr.

He was very prescient when it came to identifying the modern GOP


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Hillary's campaign began the 'Birther' rumor.
> 
> 2. There is no Radical Right.
> 
> 3. The KKK has always been a creation of and associated with, the Democrat Party.
> 
> a. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
> 
> b. FDR's first pick for the Supreme Court was a KKK official
> 
> c. "*Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President"*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> "Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show."
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> 
> 
> Just between the two of us....are you really this stupid, or simply a brain-dead Liberal acolyte trained to parrot whatever they tell you to?
> 
> C'mon....fess up.
Click to expand...







Oopsie.







Oopsier






Oopser still





Seriously oopsieish






Still yet oopsier



Doesn't get any oopsier


>> In 1924, the group convinced Republican Party leaders to avoid criticizing them, prompting _Time_ to put Evans on its cover.[94]  That year, the Klan supported Calvin Coolidge in his successful candidacy for president of the U.S.[95]  Although Coolidge opposed many key Klan platforms, with the exception of immigration restrictions and prohibition, he was the only major-party candidate who did not condemn them.[96]  Nonetheless, Evans declared Coolidge's victory a great success for the Klan.[96]  Although Republican leaders refrained from attacking the Klan, they were hesitant to support candidates promoted by the group*.[97] Significant discussion of the Klan also took place at the Democratic Party's convention;[98] senator and Democratic presidential primary nominee Oscar Underwood decried them as "a national menace".[94] <<
* (except of course for the motley crew pictured above....which include a mayor, a Senator, a state party boss, and four governors one of whom went on to be another Senator, a Congressman and a lifelong ally of Joe McCarthy....)
Oopsles.

We should however take a moment to note that in the OP article (which is totally not lying at all because the Democratic Party really did hold its convention on a set of wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin a month after the election), the name "Oscar Underwood" is misspelled as "Forney Johnston".  A simple typo.  Anyone could have done it, if they're typing with their ass.


----------



## paperview

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Hillary's campaign began the 'Birther' rumor.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- but thank you for once again reminding us that you believe that Donald Trump was just a gullible patsy of Hillary Clinton- when Donald Trump went full Birther for 5 years.
Click to expand...

While trying to argue with a MLK, Jr. quote.

That part made it especially gemtastic.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3. The KKK has always been a creation of and associated with, the Democrat Party.
Click to expand...


Nope. 

Which is why the KKK at the Republican National Convention supported Goldwater in 1964


----------



## Rambunctious

ABikerSailor said:


> Guess some of the courses that they teach in school are region specific


I guess so...there are good schools in CA but the subject matter is sometimes suspect. As you grow and learn you can find your own truth but it's hard.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's that search for "Forney Johnston" coming along?
> 
> Member when I sent you out to fetch that?
> 
> Any photos of an 11-year-dead cadaver at the Democratic convention?
> Or perhaps in Wisconsin?
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the lie...
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck... 

What is the claim? Forney Johnston led a dispute.

Where did this supposedly occur? New York.

What year was the supposed dispute? *1924*.

In which year did Forney Johnston die? *1913*.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Take that up with Martin Luther King Jr.
> 
> Then again you white Conservatives have always despised MLK Jr.
> 
> He was very prescient when it came to identifying the modern GOP


You should speak to his daughter....


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Dumbfuck...
> 
> What is the claim? Forney Johnston led a dispute.
> 
> Where did this supposedly occur? New York.
> 
> What year was the supposed dispute? *1924*.
> 
> In which year did Forney Johnston die? *1913*


If he found that info on a site that was wrong then he was wrong but he didn't necessarily lie? Call me dumbfuck again and I get you banned...


----------



## ABikerSailor

You know, the reason that Blacks supported the Republican party all the way back when is because Lincoln freed the slaves and they got the right to vote. 

However....in the ensuing years, Republicans tried to limit their right to vote, especially in the Southern states. 

The reasons that Blacks support the Democrat party now is because of LBJ and his going after the African American vote and his support for Civil Rights and MLK.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> b. FDR's first pick for the Supreme Court was a KKK official=.
Click to expand...


Nope- another lie- Hugo Black was a former KKK member- who quit in 1925.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> c. "*Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President"*.



KKK’s official newspaper supports Donald Trump for president

*KKK’s official newspaper supports Donald Trump for president*


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's that search for "Forney Johnston" coming along?
> 
> Member when I sent you out to fetch that?
> 
> Any photos of an 11-year-dead cadaver at the Democratic convention?
> Or perhaps in Wisconsin?
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the lie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck...
> 
> What is the claim? Forney Johnston led a dispute.
> 
> Where did this supposedly occur? New York.
> 
> What year was the supposed dispute? *1924*.
> 
> In which year did Forney Johnston die? *1913*.
Click to expand...


That is one hell of a speaker, who can be that persuasive eleven years after he's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisibule.

Apparently he was cleverly disguised as "Oscar Underwood".  Those zombies are so smart.


----------



## Syriusly

paperview said:


> Just when you think PC couldn't get anymore retarded.



From experience i never underestimate how retarded PC can get.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, the Christian Bible Belt was, and is, very racist. That's never changed
> 
> 
> 
> There is racism and hatred everywhere it's not specific to any region or people.
Click to expand...


Actually lots of racism is very specific. 

Racism towards African Americans was historically more focused and intense in the South- while racism towards Chinese and Japanese was more focused and intense on the West Coast, racism towards Mexican Americans along the Southern border, etc.

And yeah- it tends to be fairly specific among people too. White Americans are not racists towards other white Americans- if they are racists, they are racists towards other races.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- the KKK was founded by Southern White Christian Conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> southern *democrats*....
Click to expand...


LOL

Founded by  Southern White Christian Conservatives

Continued by White Christian Conservatives.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Actually lots of racism is very specific.
> 
> Racism towards African Americans was historically more focused and intense in the South- while racism towards Chinese and Japanese was more focused and intense on the West Coast, racism towards Mexican Americans along the Southern border, etc.
> 
> And yeah- it tends to be fairly specific among people too. White Americans are not racists towards other white Americans- if they are racists, they are racists towards other races.


Do you always twist yourself into knots? Why not just say it the way I did?


----------



## Pogo

ABikerSailor said:


> You know, the reason that Blacks supported the Republican party all the way back when is because Lincoln freed the slaves and they got the right to vote.
> 
> However....in the ensuing years, Republicans tried to limit their right to vote, especially in the Southern states.
> 
> The reasons that Blacks support the Democrat party now is because of LBJ and his going after the African American vote and his support for Civil Rights and MLK.



Actually the black vote had already shifted to the Democrats in the 1930s.  But no question LBJ cleared the bases and intensified it.

That would be the same LBJ who minced no words condemning the Klan, by name, without ever resorting to a phrase like "on many sides", thus becoming the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> LOL
> 
> Founded by Southern White Christian Conservatives
> 
> Continued by White Christian Conservatives



White Christian Conservative DEMOCRATS!


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, I was stationed in Memphis TN, and Jacksonville FL, and had kids that went to school. Guess what? The schools in those places actually did teach about both sides of the war. My ex wife who went to school in Murfreesboro TN said the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Not in California...they barely touched on the whole subject...
Click to expand...


Since my child just graduated from public high school in California, frankly, you are just wrong.

They are taught about it in both middle school and high school. 

But yes- I will admit- they are taught from the perspective that 
a) The Confederacy was established to protect slavery and that
b) That slavery is wrong.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- the KKK was founded by Southern White Christian Conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> southern *democrats*....
Click to expand...


Again ---- there's no evidence any of the founders had a political party ---- which did not exist in that time and place anyway.  Prove me wrong.

That is, we assume you mean the political party, which as a proper name gets a capital letter, and not "people who believe in democracy" --- which is what you actually wrote.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually- if you provided proof- something you aren't real familiar with- I would be happy to accept it.
> 
> Frankly since I have family in the South, and have spent extended periods of time there, pretty much everyone I know who has gone through the school system in the South gets a pretty 'pro-Confederate' slanted education
> 
> 
> 
> That is actually good to learn...I grew up in La La Land.
Click to expand...


Good to learn that the South teaches a pro-Confederacy curriculum?


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Since my child just graduated from public high school in California, frankly, you are just wrong.


I went to school in CA way before your daughter did and I'm not wrong.


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How's that search for "Forney Johnston" coming along?
> 
> Member when I sent you out to fetch that?
> 
> Any photos of an 11-year-dead cadaver at the Democratic convention?
> Or perhaps in Wisconsin?
> 
> 
> 
> Show me the lie...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dumbfuck...
> 
> What is the claim? Forney Johnston led a dispute.
> 
> Where did this supposedly occur? New York.
> 
> What year was the supposed dispute? *1924*.
> 
> In which year did Forney Johnston die? *1913*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is one hell of a speaker, who can be that persuasive eleven years after he's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisibule.
> 
> Apparently he was cleverly disguised as "Oscar Underwood".  Those zombies are so smart.
Click to expand...


Good thing you didn't call him 'dumbfuck'- that would have hurt his little snowflake feelings......


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Again ---- there's no evidence any of the founders had a political party


POGO you are wise and learned but that is hogwash...even hogwash won't clean the dems past...so don't even try.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since my child just graduated from public high school in California, frankly, you are just wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> I went to school in CA way before your daughter did and I'm not wrong.
Click to expand...


Hell I went to school in CA way before you did. 

And we spent plenty of time on the Civil War.

But- your school could have been particularly deficient- or you could be as careless with the truth and the facts are you are with the rest of this thread.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Founded by Southern White Christian Conservatives
> 
> Continued by White Christian Conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White Christian Conservative DEMOCRATS!
Click to expand...


Now you've got an acronym.  That's wrong too.

Here are (yet again) the founders' names:

(Maj) James R. Crowe
Calvin Jones
(Capt) John B. Kennedy
(Capt) John Lester
Frank O. McCord
Richard Reed
Go find us any history of them having a political affiliation in 1865 Tennessee.
Any one at all.

Be the first.

Check with your "Forney Johnston" source, since that seems to be working out so well....


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again ---- there's no evidence any of the founders had a political party
> 
> 
> 
> POGO you are wise and learned but that is hogwash...even hogwash won't clean the dems past...so don't even try.
Click to expand...


And that is Rambun's response when he can't contradict a post.

Denial
Obfuscation
wash repeat.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Good thing you didn't call him 'dumbfuck'- that would have hurt his little snowflake feelings......


Only the weak minded pulls the dumbfuck card


----------



## paperview

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take that up with Martin Luther King Jr.
> 
> Then again you white Conservatives have always despised MLK Jr.
> 
> He was very prescient when it came to identifying the modern GOP
> 
> 
> 
> You should speak to his daughter....
Click to expand...

And what did MLK, Jr's daughter say?


----------



## paperview

Pogo said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> Founded by Southern White Christian Conservatives
> 
> Continued by White Christian Conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> 
> White Christian Conservative DEMOCRATS!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Now you've got an acronym.  That's wrong too.
> 
> Here are (yet again) the founders' names:
> 
> (Maj) James R. Crowe
> Calvin Jones
> (Capt) John B. Kennedy
> (Capt) John Lester
> Frank O. McCord
> Richard Reed
> Go find us any history of them having a political affiliation in 1865 Tennessee.
> Any one at all.
> 
> Be the first.
> 
> Check with your "Forney Johnston" source, since that seems to be working out so well....
Click to expand...

You and Syriusly --> Keep up the good fight!  You folks kick some serious ass here.


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that already IS a change.  The correction is that it was founded in 1865, and while it did eventually become a vehicle for white Southern resistance to occupying Union armies, carpetbaggers and scalawags, and a terror force against freed ex-slaves, it was originally founded as a simply silly social club.  The forces that took it over (in 1866) were longstanding elements including displaced and disenfranchised residents, ex-Confederate soldiers, criminals and "slave patrols" or "Regulators" that had been running since at least the 18th century to put down slave revolts.  And those elements formed dozens of other similar groups with similar purposes including the Caucasian Club(s) (Louisiana 1869), Constitutional Union Guard (North Carolina 1868-70), Heggie's Scouts (Mississippi), Heroes of America (South Carolina), Knights of the Black Cross (Mississippi), Knights of the Rising Sun (Texas 1868), Knights of the White Camellia (Louisiana 1867-69), Knights of the White Carnation (Alabama), Men of Justice, Native Sons of the South (Mississippi), Order of Pale Faces (Tennessee 1869 or 1867), Order of the White Rose, Red Caps (Tennessee), Red Jackets (Tennessee), Red Strings (South Carolina), Robertson Family (Mississippi), Society of the White Rose (Mississippi), Seymour Knights (Louisiana), Southern Cross, White League (Louisiana 1874), White Brotherhood (North Carolina 1868-70) and the Yellow Jackets (Tennessee).
> 
> The White League above on that list was the group commemorated on the first monument taken down by the City of New Orleans a few months ago, the "Liberty Place Monument".
> 
> I know, I know --- this is more than you wanted to know.  That's how context works isn't it.
Click to expand...


The contards will continue to ignore the facts- just as they support the lie of the OP>


----------



## Rambunctious




----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


>



The inconvenient truth about the Republican Party


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually lots of racism is very specific.
> 
> Racism towards African Americans was historically more focused and intense in the South- while racism towards Chinese and Japanese was more focused and intense on the West Coast, racism towards Mexican Americans along the Southern border, etc.
> 
> And yeah- it tends to be fairly specific among people too. White Americans are not racists towards other white Americans- if they are racists, they are racists towards other races.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you always twist yourself into knots? Why not just say it the way I did?
Click to expand...


Because what I said was not what you said?

If you were actually educated in California you should know this stuff.

Actually lots of racism is very specific.

Racism towards African Americans was historically more focused and intense in the South- while racism towards Chinese and Japanese was more focused and intense on the West Coast, racism towards Mexican Americans along the Southern border, etc.

And yeah- it tends to be fairly specific among people too. White Americans are not racists towards other white Americans- if they are racists, they are racists towards other races.


----------



## Rambunctious

Go ahead and laugh...she is 100% correct.


----------



## Pogo

I'm afraid YouTube is not exactly a "source".  I could turn on a camera, claim to be the queen of Belgium and upload it, and it wouldn't give me a realm in the fields of Flanders.  Except to the dumbfuck Gullibles like you.

Forrest DID NOT found the Klan, although he did disband it and order its regalia destroyed.  He was drafted, in absentia, to be the figurehead for a Klan that already existed, in 1867 --- which ALREADY CONTRADICTS your own previous claim of its being founded in 1866 (which is also wrong).

That arrangement lasted less than two years before Forrest ordered the Klan dissolved forever in January of 1869, an order that was largely ignored by a group that had already existed before him and didn't need him to exist. Its activity lasted another three or four years.

Forrest later volunteered his services to the governor to pursue and deal harshly with vigilantes who had massacred black victims, and was invited as a guest speaker to a black group's barbecue event where he gave a unifying speech.

All that uh, doesn't seem to be mentioned in your hastily-made YouTube video which is about as well researched as Forney Johnston on a set of Wisconsin trolley tracks.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Go ahead and laugh...she is 100% correct.



Go ahead and laugh- Martin Luther King Jr. is 100% correct.


----------



## Rambunctious

Read up on the sons of Malta and Nathan Bedford Forrest...


----------



## Rambunctious

Denial will get you no where....


----------



## Rambunctious

Dems have a filthy dirty past and a crooked dirty present and a nothing plan for the future. Can't get away from it no matter how hard you try. The truth is the truth. The dems were and in many ways still are filthy racist bigots. IMO


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take that up with Martin Luther King Jr.
> 
> Then again you white Conservatives have always despised MLK Jr.
> 
> He was very prescient when it came to identifying the modern GOP
> 
> 
> 
> You should speak to his daughter....
Click to expand...


Well Yolanda King is dead....easier just to go with what her father said.
Yolanda King - Wikipedia
And if you know how to reach Bernice King- well feel free to reach out to her
Bernice King - Wikipedia

But Martin Luther King Jr.'s words pretty much nail the modern GOP on its Trumpian head. 


*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. 

*While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand.*


In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Dems have a filthy dirty past and a crooked dirty present and a nothing plan for the future. Can't get away from it no matter how hard you try. The truth is the truth. The dems were and in many ways still are filthy racist bigots. IMO


Republicans have a filthy dirty past and a crooked dirty present President- and a nothing plan for the future. 

Can't get away from it- the truth is the truth. The GOP were- and in many ways still are filthy racist bigots. 

Which is why of course American of color treat the Republican Party like lepers. 

And Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out:

*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Denial will get you no where....



LOL- that is all you have is denial.

I have other things to do- I will look forward to reading your tomes of denial in the future.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The entire OP is a bullshit lie that you are applauding.
> 
> 
> 
> No it is not...it may be a mistake but I showed yesterday how that mistake was made...no one lied. They were maybe mislead but no one lied that I can see.
Click to expand...

^^^ rightard defense = they're stupid, not liars.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> *Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!*


And now they are Republicans.


----------



## PoliticalChic

paperview said:


> Just when you think PC couldn't get anymore retarded.





Instead of the usual hot air you author, as in this post....try to refute any of the three things I've just battered you with...and watch me rip one who is one a new one.


Unless, of course, you'd just admit that I am never wrong.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- the KKK was founded by Southern White Christian Conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> southern *democrats*....
Click to expand...



The very same Democrats who are personified by Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


This was his conclusion/description of Barack Obama, in '08:

*"Bill Clinton on Obama: 'A Few Years Ago, This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags'"*
*Bill Clinton on Obama: 'A Few Years Ago, This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags'*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!*
> 
> 
> 
> And now they are Republicans.
Click to expand...




False, you dope.



Every segregationist who ever served in the Senate was a Democrat and remained a Democrat except one. Even Strom Thurmond, the only one who later became a Republican, remained a Democrat for eighteen years after running for president as a Dixiecrat. There’s a reason they were not called the “Dixiecans.”
After the Civil War, it was Republicans who passed the Thirteenth Amendment, granting slaves their freedom; the Fourteenth Amendment, granting them citizenship; and Fifteenth Amendment, giving them the right to vote. It was Republicans who sent federal troops to the Democratic South to enforce the hard-won rights of the freed slaves.
In fact, it was Eisenhower who broke the Democrats’ hold on the South in 1952, and if anyone was appealing to bigots that year, it wasn’t Eisenhower. Democrat Adlai Stevenson, known to experience “personal discomfort in the presence of Negroes,”12 chose as his running mate John Sparkman of Alabama, a Democrat segregationist.
And yet the Old South, which according to mainstream media accounts voted Republican solely out of racial resentment, suddenly started voting Republican in 1952. Ike carried Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida outright, and nearly stole Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia from Stevenson. (Eisenhower lost Kentucky by a microscopic .07 percent and lost West Virginia and South Carolina by fewer than 4 percentage points.)                                                    From "Mugged," by Coulter, chapter 10


“The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms. Democrats never denied a segregationist a committee chairmanship or a leadership position because of his noxious views on race. No Democrat has ever been punished for making a racist remark….More than 80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965….[The] record on race,  of Thurmond the Republican is pretty good. He was among the first of Southern senators to hire blacks for his staff. He supported blacks for judgeships. He voted for extension of the Voting Rights Act.” Jack Kelly

Quite a bit of education for you there, huh?

See if you can find anything not correct.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Hillary's campaign began the 'Birther' rumor.
> 
> 2. There is no Radical Right.
> 
> 3. The KKK has always been a creation of and associated with, the Democrat Party.
> 
> a. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
> 
> b. FDR's first pick for the Supreme Court was a KKK official
> 
> c. "*Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President"*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> "Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show."
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> 
> 
> Just between the two of us....are you really this stupid, or simply a brain-dead Liberal acolyte trained to parrot whatever they tell you to?
> 
> C'mon....fess up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Lie
> 
> 2. Lie
> 
> 3. Lie
> 
> That was easy.
Click to expand...


"That was easy."
I know that you'd like to be 'easy'.....but you're so ugly, even the tide won't take you out.



You claimed my facts were lies???
As I provided the links to same, your post just became a boomerang.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Hillary's campaign began the 'Birther' rumor.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- but thank you for once again reminding us that you believe that Donald Trump was just a gullible patsy of Hillary Clinton- when Donald Trump went full Birther for 5 years.
Click to expand...



Actually...it's "yes."

*"Fact checking the media — yes, the Clinton machine did start the birther movement*
The birther movement does indeed have Democratic roots, long before Mr. Trump ever brought it up and made it an issue.
“The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election — and to Democrats,” Bloomberg News reported. “Long before Trump started in, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it.

“In a March 2007 memo to Clinton (that later found its way to me), Penn wrote: ‘All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting it in a new light,’ he wrote. ‘Save it for 2050. It also exposes a very strong weakness for him — his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values,’ ” Bloomberg reported."
*Fact checking the media — yes, the Clinton machine did start the birther movement*

**


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is no Radical Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that up with Martin Luther King Jr.
> 
> Then again you white Conservatives have always despised MLK Jr.
> 
> He was very prescient when it came to identifying the modern GOP
> 
> View attachment 146053
Click to expand...



How about I take that up with you.....using the English language and logic...

Whlle there certainly is a Far Left, and it is in control of the Democrat Party, *there is no Far Right, no Alt Right, no radical Right.*

*The positions of the Right, the conservatives, are consistent with those in our Declaration of Independence, and Constitution.*

Hence, they represent both the Founders, and the political center.



The Declaration and the Constitution clearly define the center.

The *traditions, values, and views *of the writers of those documents inform the center.

*1. For example*, *traditional marriage*, that involves one man and one woman is one of those positions.
2. As well as " a family group that consists only of *father, mother,* and children."
3. Let's take another* example*,..... 'prayer' in the public arena, Judeo-Christian beliefs are of that 'center.'
4. The first amendment outlines the center:
_Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances._
_5. Equal rights.....not separation of people into classes based on skin color, e.g., 'affirmative action,' is not of the center.
6. Restricting the authority of the federal government to the enumerated powers is centrist.
7.A free market economy is a centrist position._

_8. While* the radicals known as 'the Left' *demand worship of the state, and the collective, the center is described by Thoreau:_

In Thoreau’s _On the duty of Civil Disobedience,_ he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”_
9. The center, the design of America is: individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government._

_10. *Are we clear?*

*To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
American traditions, values, and history represent that center.*_*


The premise *here is that I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of *American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."



"Radical" is important to the discussion. It means *"especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)
_
 S*ee if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.*_


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> b. FDR's first pick for the Supreme Court was a KKK official=.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope- another lie- Hugo Black was a former KKK member- who quit in 1925.
Click to expand...


"... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is no Radical Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that up with Martin Luther King Jr.
> 
> Then again you white Conservatives have always despised MLK Jr.
> 
> He was very prescient when it came to identifying the modern GOP
> 
> View attachment 146053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about I take that up with you.....using the English language and logic...
> 
> Whlle there certainly is a Far Left, and it is in control of the Democrat Party, *there is no Far Right, no Alt Right, no radical Right.*
> 
> *The positions of the Right, the conservatives, are consistent with those in our Declaration of Independence, and Constitution.*
> 
> Hence, they represent both the Founders, and the political center.
> 
> 
> 
> The Declaration and the Constitution clearly define the center.
> 
> The *traditions, values, and views *of the writers of those documents inform the center.
> 
> *1. For example*, *traditional marriage*, that involves one man and one woman is one of those positions.
> 2. As well as " a family group that consists only of *father, mother,* and children."
> 3. Let's take another* example*,..... 'prayer' in the public arena, Judeo-Christian beliefs are of that 'center.'
> 4. The first amendment outlines the center:
> _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
> 5. Equal rights.....not separation of people into classes based on skin color, e.g., 'affirmative action,' is not of the center.
> 6. Restricting the authority of the federal government to the enumerated powers is centrist.
> 7.A free market economy is a centrist position._
> 
> _8. While* the radicals known as 'the Left' *demand worship of the state, and the collective, the center is described by Thoreau:_
> 
> In Thoreau’s _On the duty of Civil Disobedience,_ he states: “ There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all of its own power and authority are derived.”
> _9. The center, the design of America is: individualism, free markets, and limited constitutional government._
> 
> _10. *Are we clear?*
> 
> *To be "far," one's positions must be radical relative to that center.
> American traditions, values, and history represent that center.*_
> *
> 
> The premise *here is that I can show that the values called 'Far Right' are actually at the center of *American traditions, values, and history represent that center, well then, they cannot be correctly awarded the modifier "Far."
> 
> 
> 
> "Radical" is important to the discussion. It means *"especially of change or action relating to or affecting the fundamental nature of something; far-reaching or thorough" (see Google.)
> _
> S*ee if you can come up with any radical positions by conservatives, the right wing.*_
Click to expand...

Except the Founders were considered radicals by the British..


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Founded in 1866, the Ku Klux Klan were into almost every southern state by 1870 and became a vehicle for white southern resistance to the Republican Party. There is no changing that snowflakes! sorry!*
> 
> 
> 
> And now they are Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> False, you dope.
> 
> 
> 
> Every segregationist who ever served in the Senate was a Democrat and remained a Democrat except one. Even Strom Thurmond, the only one who later became a Republican, remained a Democrat for eighteen years after running for president as a Dixiecrat. There’s a reason they were not called the “Dixiecans.”
> After the Civil War, it was Republicans who passed the Thirteenth Amendment, granting slaves their freedom; the Fourteenth Amendment, granting them citizenship; and Fifteenth Amendment, giving them the right to vote. It was Republicans who sent federal troops to the Democratic South to enforce the hard-won rights of the freed slaves.
> In fact, it was Eisenhower who broke the Democrats’ hold on the South in 1952, and if anyone was appealing to bigots that year, it wasn’t Eisenhower. Democrat Adlai Stevenson, known to experience “personal discomfort in the presence of Negroes,”12 chose as his running mate John Sparkman of Alabama, a Democrat segregationist.
> And yet the Old South, which according to mainstream media accounts voted Republican solely out of racial resentment, suddenly started voting Republican in 1952. Ike carried Tennessee, Virginia, and Florida outright, and nearly stole Kentucky, North Carolina, and West Virginia from Stevenson. (Eisenhower lost Kentucky by a microscopic .07 percent and lost West Virginia and South Carolina by fewer than 4 percentage points.)                                                    From "Mugged," by Coulter, chapter 10
> 
> 
> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms. Democrats never denied a segregationist a committee chairmanship or a leadership position because of his noxious views on race. No Democrat has ever been punished for making a racist remark….More than 80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965….[The] record on race,  of Thurmond the Republican is pretty good. He was among the first of Southern senators to hire blacks for his staff. He supported blacks for judgeships. He voted for extension of the Voting Rights Act.” Jack Kelly
> 
> Quite a bit of education for you there, huh?
> 
> See if you can find anything not correct.
Click to expand...

Moron... compare election maps from back then and now. The Bible Belt was heavily Democrat. Now it's heavily Republican. They may have switched parties but they're still conservatives. That's why the alt-right aligns itself with Republican candidates.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Hillary's campaign began the 'Birther' rumor.
> 
> 2. There is no Radical Right.
> 
> 3. The KKK has always been a creation of and associated with, the Democrat Party.
> 
> a. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425
> 
> b. FDR's first pick for the Supreme Court was a KKK official
> 
> c. "*Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President"*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> "Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show."
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> 
> 
> Just between the two of us....are you really this stupid, or simply a brain-dead Liberal acolyte trained to parrot whatever they tell you to?
> 
> C'mon....fess up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 1. Lie
> 
> 2. Lie
> 
> 3. Lie
> 
> That was easy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "That was easy."
> I know that you'd like to be 'easy'.....but you're so ugly, even the tide won't take you out.
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed my facts were lies???
> As I provided the links to same, your post just became a boomerang.
Click to expand...

LOL

You're so deranged. 

Like your claim that Hillary started the birther movement.

Nope, it started on s Republican website....

freerepublic.com

_I was told today that Obama swore in on a Koran for his Senate seat. I do not believe he did. Can someone clarify this for me? I am under the impression only a Congressman has so far sworn in on a Koran.

*Also that Obama’s mother gave birth to him overseas and then immediately flew into Hawaii and registered his birth as having taken place in Hawaii.

Again, any clarifications on this? Defintely disqualifies him for Prez. There must be some trace of an airticket. While small babies are not charged air fare they do have a ticket issued for them.*

Long time ago but there may be some residual information somewhere. Good ammo (if available and true) BEST USED AFTER he becomes PREZ (if that occurs) and it’s too late for Dems - except accept the VP.


391 posted on *3/1/2008, 459 AM* by FARS_​


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Hillary's campaign began the 'Birther' rumor.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- but thank you for once again reminding us that you believe that Donald Trump was just a gullible patsy of Hillary Clinton- when Donald Trump went full Birther for 5 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually...it's "yes."
> 
> *"Fact checking the media — yes, the Clinton machine did start the birther movement*
> The birther movement does indeed have Democratic roots, long before Mr. Trump ever brought it up and made it an issue.
> “The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election — and to Democrats,” Bloomberg News reported. “Long before Trump started in, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it.
> 
> “In a March 2007 memo to Clinton (that later found its way to me), Penn wrote: ‘All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting it in a new light,’ he wrote. ‘Save it for 2050. It also exposes a very strong weakness for him — his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values,’ ” Bloomberg reported."
> *Fact checking the media — yes, the Clinton machine did start the birther movement*
> 
> **
Click to expand...

Moron.... Penn's memo was not about Obama being born outside the U.S.


----------



## Geaux4it

Obama's mom was a whore. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume she wanted something better for her child. Thus, moved to the States.

-Geaux


----------



## Faun

Geaux4it said:


> Obama's mom was a whore. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume she wanted something better for her child. Thus, moved to the States.
> 
> -Geaux


You poor thing, bless your heart.


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Obama's mom was a whore. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume she wanted something better for her child. Thus, moved to the States.
> 
> -Geaux



Yeah umm.... did Forney Johnston tell you that?  


This guy is a hoot.  Not only does he have a dead man leading a cause at a political convention, not only does he have that convention taking place a thousand miles away from itself on some wet trolley tracks a month after the election, now he's got a woman from *Kansas *"moving to the States".

Must be that Sleaziana education.  Apparently they "don't have maps".  Like such as.

​It would appear Geaux4it is paying as much attention to his own words as Miss South Carolina....


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> And now they are Republicans





Faun said:


> Moron... compare election maps from back then and now. The Bible Belt was heavily Democrat. Now it's heavily Republican. They may have switched parties but they're still conservatives. That's why the alt-right aligns itself with Republican candidates.


You are out of your mind with anger. I'm watching you faun keep up the name calling and find yourself out. And no they are not republicans now they are still dems.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Dumbfuck.
> 
> The OP's lied. This lie was exposed weeks ago


That's it...


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now they are Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron... compare election maps from back then and now. The Bible Belt was heavily Democrat. Now it's heavily Republican. They may have switched parties but they're still conservatives. That's why the alt-right aligns itself with Republican candidates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are out of your mind with anger. I'm watching you faun keep up the name calling and find yourself out. And no they are not republicans now they are still dems.
Click to expand...








Can someone get this snowflake some glue so he can reattach his balls?

Moron... the photo in the OP is from *Madison*, Wisconsin, not *Madison* Square Garden ... It's not from the DNC ... And Forney Johnston is still dead.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And now they are Republicans
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron... compare election maps from back then and now. The Bible Belt was heavily Democrat. Now it's heavily Republican. They may have switched parties but they're still conservatives. That's why the alt-right aligns itself with Republican candidates.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are out of your mind with anger. I'm watching you faun keep up the name calling and find yourself out. And no they are not republicans now they are still dems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get this snowflake some glue so he can reattach his balls?
> 
> Moron... the photo in the OP is from *Madison*, Wisconsin, not *Madison* Square Garden ... It's not from the DNC ... And Forney Johnston is still dead.
Click to expand...

You're gone pal...you don't know it yet but you are gone.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Can someone get this snowflake some glue so he can reattach his balls?


I'm tracking your posts and reporting each and every time you name call.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get this snowflake some glue so he can reattach his balls?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tracking your posts and reporting each and every time you name call.
Click to expand...

Track this...


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get this snowflake some glue so he can reattach his balls?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tracking your posts and reporting each and every time you name call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Track this...
Click to expand...

just a matter of time


----------



## Pogo

Just came across this on a random scan:



PoliticalChic said:


> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms.



Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks. 

This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....

Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice. 

That's half the list already.

Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.

Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.

Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get this snowflake some glue so he can reattach his balls?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tracking your posts and reporting each and every time you name call.
Click to expand...


If you're gonna be a thin skinned whiny bitch, then maybe you don't have the temperament to be here.  Me?  I've been called everything but a child of God here, and have yet to report anyone for anything.  Been here several years btw.


----------



## Rambunctious

ABikerSailor said:


> If you're gonna be a thin skinned whiny bitch, then maybe you don't have the temperament to be here. Me? I've been called everything but a child of God here, and have yet to report anyone for anything. Been here several years btw


There comes a point when a poster is nothing more than a troll. No points made just name calling.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna be a thin skinned whiny bitch, then maybe you don't have the temperament to be here. Me? I've been called everything but a child of God here, and have yet to report anyone for anything. Been here several years btw
> 
> 
> 
> There comes a point when a poster is nothing more than a troll. No points made just name calling.
Click to expand...

Bullshit. I've been making points against your whining all along. 

Most notably .... the photo from the OP is not from the DNC, as the OP falsely claimed. It wasn't from *Madison* Square Garden, as the OP falsely claimed. It didn't involve Forney Johnston, as the OP falsely claimed. And you're just a crybaby loser.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Bullshit. I've been making points against your whining all along.
> 
> Most notably .... the photo from the OP is not from the DNC, as the OP falsely claimed. It wasn't from *Madison* Square Garden, as the OP falsely claimed. It didn't involve Forney Johnston, as the OP falsely claimed. And you're just a crybaby loser.


Bullshit anyone can copy and paste other people words...


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> And you're just a crybaby loser.


And I didn't lose you still have not proven the OP lied...still waiting for that one.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
Click to expand...


*Democrats opposed:*

1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*

2.              *The  13th Amendment*

3.              *The  14th Amendment*

4.              *The  15th Amendment*

5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*

6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*

7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*

8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*

9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*

10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*

11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*

12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*

13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*

14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community


The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're just a crybaby loser.
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't lose you still have not proven the OP lied...still waiting for that one.
Click to expand...

Of course he did. He kept denying the truth even after it was shown to him. Then he ran away.


bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
Click to expand...

When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're gonna be a thin skinned whiny bitch, then maybe you don't have the temperament to be here. Me? I've been called everything but a child of God here, and have yet to report anyone for anything. Been here several years btw
> 
> 
> 
> There comes a point when a poster is nothing more than a troll. No points made just name calling.
Click to expand...


And yet we still humor you.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're just a crybaby loser.
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't lose you still have not proven the OP lied...still waiting for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course he did. He kept denying the truth even after it was shown to him. Then he ran away.
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Please quote where I denied the truth.

I don't waste my time flogging a dead horse.  I know that's your favorite hobby.  You get your pants pulled down around your ankles so often that whenever you win on some small point you beat it to death.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
Click to expand...

Yes, now it's Republican.  Have you heard of any burning crosses in the last 40 years?  Any lynchings?


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> And yet we still humor you


yes indeed


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Of course he did. He kept denying the truth even after it was shown to him. Then he ran away


Big question is why do you care so much? He may have made a mistake and didn't realize it right away..like I said you libs have weird ideas of what is and is not a lie. So quick to call someone a liar...just like you all do to Trump.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
Click to expand...



The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.


Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
*
"The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.

....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly



Now....let's see if that has changed: the very personification of the current Democrat Party is a man who was elected by the party, twice, and saved from impeachment by the same party.....and has been a racist his entire life:

That's Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.


The Democrats....from alpha to omega...*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.



Democrats have been racists even longer than you've been ugly.*


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're just a crybaby loser.
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't lose you still have not proven the OP lied...still waiting for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course he did. He kept denying the truth even after it was shown to him. Then he ran away.
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I denied the truth.
> 
> I don't waste my time flogging a dead horse.  I know that's your favorite hobby.  You get your pants pulled down around your ankles so often that whenever you win on some small point you beat it to death.
Click to expand...

Where I quoted you.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, now it's Republican.  Have you heard of any burning crosses in the last 40 years?  Any lynchings?
Click to expand...

Not by Democrats either. Now the right just bitches and moans.


You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
Click to expand...


Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.  

Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.

These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.

Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, now it's Republican.  Have you heard of any burning crosses in the last 40 years?  Any lynchings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by Democrats either. Now the right just bitches and moans.
> 
> 
> You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?
Click to expand...


The right complains about taxes and regulations.  The left complains about white people.

So who are the racists?


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?


Coming from an anti American nut I'll take that as us fuckers are such faithful American patriots...thanks Go Trump!!!!!!


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> Now....let's see if that has changed: the very personification of the current Democrat Party is a man who was elected by the party, twice, and saved from impeachment by the same party.....and has been a racist his entire life:
> 
> That's Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
> 
> 
> The Democrats....from alpha to omega...*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have been racists even longer than you've been ugly.*
Click to expand...

Idiot.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Idiot


Oh look more kindergarten copy and pasting from Faun


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> Now....let's see if that has changed: the very personification of the current Democrat Party is a man who was elected by the party, twice, and saved from impeachment by the same party.....and has been a racist his entire life:
> 
> That's Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
> 
> 
> The Democrats....from alpha to omega...*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have been racists even longer than you've been ugly.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.
Click to expand...


It appears Trump won a lot of the same states that Linconln won.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> Coming from an anti American nut I'll take that as us fuckers are such faithful American patriots...thanks Go Trump!!!!!!
Click to expand...

^^^ dumbfuck supporting nazi's calling others "anti American."


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look more kindergarten copy and pasting from Faun
Click to expand...

Aww, did I hurt your widdle feewings, snowflake?


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> ^^^ dumbfuck supporting nazi's calling others "anti American."


Only the stupid have to resort to anger....has anyone ever jailed your ass for your temper boy?


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Aww, did I hurt your widdle feewings, snowflake?


Hell no I beginning to enjoy you making an ass out of your self....boy


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> Now....let's see if that has changed: the very personification of the current Democrat Party is a man who was elected by the party, twice, and saved from impeachment by the same party.....and has been a racist his entire life:
> 
> That's Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
> 
> 
> The Democrats....from alpha to omega...*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have been racists even longer than you've been ugly.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears Trump won a lot of the same states that Linconln won.
Click to expand...

Not so much in the south, west, or northeast.

But in particular -- the racist south.  Was a bunch of racist Democrats -- now it's a bunch of racist Republicans. What hasn't changed along the Bible Belt is that it's always been conservative. That's why it's the rightwing clinging desperately to their confederate legacy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
Click to expand...




Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?


Answer, you dunce.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aww, did I hurt your widdle feewings, snowflake?
> 
> 
> 
> Hell no I beginning to enjoy you making an ass out of your self....boy
Click to expand...

Whines the baby who cries to mommy.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> “The Dixiecrats were welcomed back into the Democratic fold with open arms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
Click to expand...




Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?

Answer, you dunce.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Whines the baby who cries to mommy


Yeah it's getting better by the minuet......


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, now it's Republican.  Have you heard of any burning crosses in the last 40 years?  Any lynchings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by Democrats either. Now the right just bitches and moans.
> 
> 
> You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right complains about taxes and regulations.  The left complains about white people.
> 
> So who are the racists?
Click to expand...

Idiot.... I'm on the left and I don't complain about anyone because they're white.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> the racist south. Was a bunch of racist Democrats


The brain dead snowflake can learn halaluya


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
Click to expand...

Rapist?

LOLOL

Who has he raped?


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Idiot.... I'm on the left and I don't complain about anyone because they're white


BULLSHIT!


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> the racist south. Was a bunch of racist Democrats
> 
> 
> 
> The brain dead snowflake can learn halaluya
Click to expand...

Oh, look .... I've gotten under your skin.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, now it's Republican.  Have you heard of any burning crosses in the last 40 years?  Any lynchings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by Democrats either. Now the right just bitches and moans.
> 
> 
> You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right complains about taxes and regulations.  The left complains about white people.
> 
> So who are the racists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.... I'm on the left and I don't complain about anyone because they're white.
Click to expand...




You're a nobody and a nothing ....and an ugly fool, to boot.


But the Democrat Party made clear their position on skin color:

*1. "The Future of the Obama Coalition*
By THOMAS B. EDSALL NOVEMBER 27, 2011 11:34 PM November 27, 2011 11:34 pm
For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But* preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class."*
The Future of the Obama Coalition


And...

2. "But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that *the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.*

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic."
The Future of the Obama Coalition


Oh....and I left out the obvious.....you're a liar.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Oh, look .... I've gotten under your skin.


Dream on salad tosser...I'm kicking back with a cold beer and a football game about to start and steaks on the grill....watching you make a fool out of your self.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Only the stupid have to resort to anger....





Rambunctious said:


> BULLSHIT!



LOLOLOL


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, look .... I've gotten under your skin.
> 
> 
> 
> Dream on salad tosser...I'm kicking back with a cold beer and a football game about to start and steaks on the grill....watching you make a fool out of your self.
Click to expand...

LOL

Your posts belie your fantasies.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
Click to expand...



*Clinton Misogyny - Sex*
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape 
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation 
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault 
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault 
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations 
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault 
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault 
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault 
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
CLINTON'S ROGUES GALLERY:


And...just recently: "Leslie Millwee says that on two of the alleged occasions, Clinton groped her while he rubbed himself against her and reached climax."  EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW: New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Goes Public for the First Time - Breitbart


----------



## Rambunctious




----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, look .... I've gotten under your skin.
> 
> 
> 
> Dream on salad tosser...I'm kicking back with a cold beer and a football game about to start and steaks on the grill....watching you make a fool out of your self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your posts belie your fantasies.
Click to expand...




And.....guess who else has the same position as the Democrats vis-a-vis skin color?



*"ZIMBABWE PRESIDENT ROBERT MUGABE: 'WE WILL NOT PROSECUTE KILLERS OF WHITE FARMERS'"
Robert Mugabe says that the killers of Zimbabwe's white farmers will not be prosecuted


An extension of the Democrat/Liberal assault on white males?




The Democrats: they were against melanin before they were for it.*


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> Now....let's see if that has changed: the very personification of the current Democrat Party is a man who was elected by the party, twice, and saved from impeachment by the same party.....and has been a racist his entire life:
> 
> That's Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
> 
> 
> The Democrats....from alpha to omega...*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have been racists even longer than you've been ugly.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears Trump won a lot of the same states that Linconln won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so much in the south, west, or northeast.
> 
> But in particular -- the racist south.  Was a bunch of racist Democrats -- now it's a bunch of racist Republicans. What hasn't changed along the Bible Belt is that it's always been conservative. That's why it's the rightwing clinging desperately to their confederate legacy.
Click to expand...

Virginia voted for Hillary.  That means she's a racist, right?


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, now it's Republican.  Have you heard of any burning crosses in the last 40 years?  Any lynchings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by Democrats either. Now the right just bitches and moans.
> 
> 
> You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right complains about taxes and regulations.  The left complains about white people.
> 
> So who are the racists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.... I'm on the left and I don't complain about anyone because they're white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nobody and a nothing ....and an ugly fool, to boot.
> 
> 
> But the Democrat Party made clear their position on skin color:
> 
> *1. "The Future of the Obama Coalition*
> By THOMAS B. EDSALL NOVEMBER 27, 2011 11:34 PM November 27, 2011 11:34 pm
> For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But* preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class."*
> The Future of the Obama Coalition
> 
> 
> And...
> 
> 2. "But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that *the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.*
> 
> All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic."
> The Future of the Obama Coalition
> 
> 
> Oh....and I left out the obvious.....you're a liar.
Click to expand...

Oh, nooos .... being called a liar by a liar.

Idiot.... he said the left complains about whites. I'm on the left and I don't.

And the opinion piece you posted didn't complain about them either. You're just not smart enough to understand what you posted.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Rambunctious said:


>





Hard to believe how terminally stupid Democrat voters are.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> LOL
> 
> Your posts belie your fantasies


And how is mommy's basement today warn or damp maybe a little cold?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, now it's Republican.  Have you heard of any burning crosses in the last 40 years?  Any lynchings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by Democrats either. Now the right just bitches and moans.
> 
> 
> You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right complains about taxes and regulations.  The left complains about white people.
> 
> So who are the racists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.... I'm on the left and I don't complain about anyone because they're white.
Click to expand...


Plenty of douche bag Democrats do.  They've said white people should be purged from the leadership of the Democrat party.  They've said white people should give their houses to black people.   They've said all white people are all racists.  Yada, yada, yada.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> Now....let's see if that has changed: the very personification of the current Democrat Party is a man who was elected by the party, twice, and saved from impeachment by the same party.....and has been a racist his entire life:
> 
> That's Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
> 
> 
> The Democrats....from alpha to omega...*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have been racists even longer than you've been ugly.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears Trump won a lot of the same states that Linconln won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so much in the south, west, or northeast.
> 
> But in particular -- the racist south.  Was a bunch of racist Democrats -- now it's a bunch of racist Republicans. What hasn't changed along the Bible Belt is that it's always been conservative. That's why it's the rightwing clinging desperately to their confederate legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia voted for Hillary.  That means she's a racist, right?
Click to expand...

Why would that mean she's a racist??


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, now it's Republican.  Have you heard of any burning crosses in the last 40 years?  Any lynchings?
> 
> 
> 
> Not by Democrats either. Now the right just bitches and moans.
> 
> 
> You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right complains about taxes and regulations.  The left complains about white people.
> 
> So who are the racists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.... I'm on the left and I don't complain about anyone because they're white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nobody and a nothing ....and an ugly fool, to boot.
> 
> 
> But the Democrat Party made clear their position on skin color:
> 
> *1. "The Future of the Obama Coalition*
> By THOMAS B. EDSALL NOVEMBER 27, 2011 11:34 PM November 27, 2011 11:34 pm
> For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But* preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class."*
> The Future of the Obama Coalition
> 
> 
> And...
> 
> 2. "But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that *the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.*
> 
> All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic."
> The Future of the Obama Coalition
> 
> 
> Oh....and I left out the obvious.....you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, nooos .... being called a liar by a liar.
> 
> Idiot.... he said the left complains about whites. I'm on the left and I don't.
> 
> And the opinion piece you posted didn't complain about them either. You're just not smart enough to understand what you posted.
Click to expand...




You're claiming some view of yours represents the Democrat and Liberal elites????


OMG!!!


You're the effluvia on the political landscape....akin to something one would scrape off their shoe.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when you think PC couldn't get anymore retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless, of course, you'd just admit that I am never wrong.
Click to expand...


You are always hilariously wrong. 

And blindingly oblivious to your bullshit.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Why would that mean she's a racist??


You are the skin color freak


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> You are always hilariously wrong.
> 
> And blindingly oblivious to your bullshit


Oh look another troll comes out of the closet...


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, now it's Republican.  Have you heard of any burning crosses in the last 40 years?  Any lynchings?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not by Democrats either. Now the right just bitches and moans.
> 
> 
> You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right complains about taxes and regulations.  The left complains about white people.
> 
> So who are the racists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.... I'm on the left and I don't complain about anyone because they're white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of douche bag Democrats do.  They've said white people should be purged from the leadership of the Democrat party.  They've said white people should give their houses to black people.   They've said all white people are all racists.  Yada, yada, yada.
Click to expand...

Oh, look, already shifting your position. Need I remind you, you started with, _"the left complains about white people."_


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are always hilariously wrong.
> 
> And blindingly oblivious to your bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look another troll comes out of the closet...
Click to expand...

Does this mean you're gonna run to mommy again.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Does this mean you're gonna run to mommy again.


Have I ran away yet butt licker?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when you think PC couldn't get anymore retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless, of course, you'd just admit that I am never wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are always hilariously wrong.
> 
> And blindingly oblivious to your bullshit.
Click to expand...



Perhaps you'd care to provide the entire post of mine, and try to show where I'm incorrect?

No?

We both know why, don't we.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> Now....let's see if that has changed: the very personification of the current Democrat Party is a man who was elected by the party, twice, and saved from impeachment by the same party.....and has been a racist his entire life:
> 
> That's Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
> 
> 
> The Democrats....from alpha to omega...*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have been racists even longer than you've been ugly.*
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears Trump won a lot of the same states that Linconln won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so much in the south, west, or northeast.
> 
> But in particular -- the racist south.  Was a bunch of racist Democrats -- now it's a bunch of racist Republicans. What hasn't changed along the Bible Belt is that it's always been conservative. That's why it's the rightwing clinging desperately to their confederate legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia voted for Hillary.  That means she's a racist, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would that mean she's a racist??
Click to expand...

Apparently your theory is that if a former confederate state votes for you then you are a racist.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, now it's Republican.  Have you heard of any burning crosses in the last 40 years?  Any lynchings?
> 
> 
> 
> Not by Democrats either. Now the right just bitches and moans.
> 
> 
> You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The right complains about taxes and regulations.  The left complains about white people.
> 
> So who are the racists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.... I'm on the left and I don't complain about anyone because they're white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of douche bag Democrats do.  They've said white people should be purged from the leadership of the Democrat party.  They've said white people should give their houses to black people.   They've said all white people are all racists.  Yada, yada, yada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, look, already shifting your position. Need I remind you, you started with, _"the left complains about white people."_
Click to expand...

Spare me, douche bag.  I'm not shifting a thing.  You said something stupid.  Now you're trying to weasel out of it.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not by Democrats either. Now the right just bitches and moans.
> 
> 
> You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right complains about taxes and regulations.  The left complains about white people.
> 
> So who are the racists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.... I'm on the left and I don't complain about anyone because they're white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a nobody and a nothing ....and an ugly fool, to boot.
> 
> 
> But the Democrat Party made clear their position on skin color:
> 
> *1. "The Future of the Obama Coalition*
> By THOMAS B. EDSALL NOVEMBER 27, 2011 11:34 PM November 27, 2011 11:34 pm
> For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But* preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class."*
> The Future of the Obama Coalition
> 
> 
> And...
> 
> 2. "But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that *the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.*
> 
> All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic."
> The Future of the Obama Coalition
> 
> 
> Oh....and I left out the obvious.....you're a liar.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, nooos .... being called a liar by a liar.
> 
> Idiot.... he said the left complains about whites. I'm on the left and I don't.
> 
> And the opinion piece you posted didn't complain about them either. You're just not smart enough to understand what you posted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're claiming some view of yours represents the Democrat and Liberal elites????
> 
> 
> OMG!!!
> 
> 
> You're the effluvia on the political landscape....akin to something one would scrape off their shoe.
Click to expand...

Spits the hag who just idiotically posted the opinion of someone who *didn't* say the left complains about whites in a failed attempt to show how the left complains about whites.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- the KKK was founded by Southern White Christian Conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> southern *democrats*....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The very same Democrats who are personified by Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
> *'*
Click to expand...


The very same Republicans who are personified by Donald 'the rapist' Trump

“And isn’t it funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” O’Donnell recalled Trump saying. “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”

“I think the guy is lazy,” Trump said of a black employee, according to O’Donnell. “And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”
Trump Condemned Racism As 'Evil.' Here Are 16 Times He Embraced It. | HuffPost


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not by Democrats either. Now the right just bitches and moans.
> 
> 
> You fuckers make such faithful nazi's, huh?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The right complains about taxes and regulations.  The left complains about white people.
> 
> So who are the racists?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.... I'm on the left and I don't complain about anyone because they're white.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Plenty of douche bag Democrats do.  They've said white people should be purged from the leadership of the Democrat party.  They've said white people should give their houses to black people.   They've said all white people are all racists.  Yada, yada, yada.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Oh, look, already shifting your position. Need I remind you, you started with, _"the left complains about white people."_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spare me, douche bag.  I'm not shifting a thing.  You said something stupid.  Now you're trying to weasel out of it.
Click to expand...

Imbecile, you said, _"the left complains about white people."_

Now you been forced to rephrase that as some Democrats do. Well shit, some conservatives call for the death of Jews.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> Now....let's see if that has changed: the very personification of the current Democrat Party is a man who was elected by the party, twice, and saved from impeachment by the same party.....and has been a racist his entire life:
> 
> That's Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
> 
> 
> The Democrats....from alpha to omega...*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats have been racists even longer than you've been ugly.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It appears Trump won a lot of the same states that Linconln won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so much in the south, west, or northeast.
> 
> But in particular -- the racist south.  Was a bunch of racist Democrats -- now it's a bunch of racist Republicans. What hasn't changed along the Bible Belt is that it's always been conservative. That's why it's the rightwing clinging desperately to their confederate legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia voted for Hillary.  That means she's a racist, right?
Click to expand...


Virginia who?


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does this mean you're gonna run to mommy again.
> 
> 
> 
> Have I ran away yet butt licker?
Click to expand...

Dumbfuck .... I didn't say you "ran away." 

Is English your second language?


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Idiot.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears Trump won a lot of the same states that Linconln won.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not so much in the south, west, or northeast.
> 
> But in particular -- the racist south.  Was a bunch of racist Democrats -- now it's a bunch of racist Republicans. What hasn't changed along the Bible Belt is that it's always been conservative. That's why it's the rightwing clinging desperately to their confederate legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia voted for Hillary.  That means she's a racist, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would that mean she's a racist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently your theory is that if a former confederate state votes for you then you are a racist.
Click to expand...

Nah, apparently, you're an imbecile as I never said that.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are always hilariously wrong.
> 
> And blindingly oblivious to your bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> Oh look another troll comes out of the closet...
Click to expand...


Again --- it's not necessary to announce you're here.  You just post something, and it shows up with your name on it.

Still digging.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Dumbfuck .... I didn't say you "ran away."
> 
> Is English your second language?


Good I'm glad to see you back down like the coward you are because I didn't run away boot licker...


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Again --- it's not necessary to announce you're here. You just post something, and it shows up with your name on it.
> 
> Still digging.


Oh look and the other troll is back on shift too! gee what a fun night this will be.


----------



## Rambunctious

All three paid trolls here just for me?


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> [.More than 80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965….[The] record on race,  of Thurmond the Republican is pretty good. He was among the first of Southern senators to hire blacks for his staff. He supported blacks for judgeships. He voted for extension of the Voting Rights Act.” Jack Kelly.



Both Republicans and Democrats in 1964 and 1965 voted almost entirely along the lines of the Confederacy- every single Southern Republican voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. 

Of course the big change in GOP direction came in 1964 when the Republicans nominated for President one of only 6 non-Southern Senators to vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

And then nominated two more candidates who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act- 
Ronald Reagan
George Bush.

Which is why of course Martin Luther King Jr. in 1964 correctly condemned the GOP

Looking at today's GOP- and substituting Trump for Goldwater- and it still fits perfectly. 

MLK Jr.:
*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> [.More than 80 percent of Republicans in the House and Senate voted for the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965….[The] record on race,  of Thurmond the Republican is pretty good. He was among the first of Southern senators to hire blacks for his staff. He supported blacks for judgeships. He voted for extension of the Voting Rights Act.” Jack Kelly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Both Republicans and Democrats in 1964 and 1965 voted almost entirely along the lines of the Confederacy- every single Southern Republican voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> Of course the big change in GOP direction came in 1964 when the Republicans nominated for President one of only 6 non-Southern Senators to vote against the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
> 
> And then nominated two more candidates who opposed the 1964 Civil Rights Act-
> Ronald Reagan
> George Bush.
> 
> Which is why of course Martin Luther King Jr. in 1964 correctly condemned the GOP
> 
> Looking at today's GOP- and substituting Trump for Goldwater- and it still fits perfectly.
> 
> MLK Jr.:
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
Click to expand...

Sorry troll won't sell here


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It appears Trump won a lot of the same states that Linconln won.
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much in the south, west, or northeast.
> 
> But in particular -- the racist south.  Was a bunch of racist Democrats -- now it's a bunch of racist Republicans. What hasn't changed along the Bible Belt is that it's always been conservative. That's why it's the rightwing clinging desperately to their confederate legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Virginia voted for Hillary.  That means she's a racist, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would that mean she's a racist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently your theory is that if a former confederate state votes for you then you are a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, apparently, you're an imbecile as I never said that.
Click to expand...

Sure you did.  You said Trump was a racist because former Confederate states voted for him.  Since one voted for Hillary, according to your logic she must also be a racist.  Of course, no one is surprised that now you are trying to weasel out of the implications of your moron theory.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just came across this on a random scan:
> 
> Amazing how Spandex Creatures think they can slip entire fictions through the cracks.
> 
> This one won't take but a moment.  The fact is the population of Dixiecrats was TWO -- let's count them together....
> 
> Strom Thurmond, Gov, SC
> Fielding Wright, Gov, MS
> ..... Wright, the VP candidate, served out the rest of his term and left politics, returning to law practice.
> 
> That's half the list already.
> 
> Thurmond did not leave politics.  He ran for Senator in 1954 and had to do so as a write-in candidate.
> Why?  Because the SC Democratic Party had kicked him off the ballot.
> 
> Apparently "open arms" can be purty slippery.  Like Spandex.
> 
> Hey, there's no rule that says the OP has to have a monopoly on lying but this is pretty tame compared to a political convention moved a thousand miles away featuring a dead man.  As far as lying games go, Stuporgurl, you gotta --- up yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
Click to expand...


Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries.  Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.

Novels, however, are what we call "fiction".  Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".

You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dumbfuck .... I didn't say you "ran away."
> 
> Is English your second language?
> 
> 
> 
> Good I'm glad to see you back down like the coward you are because I didn't run away boot licker...
Click to expand...

LOLOL

You're doubling down on stupid? I never said you "ran away." I said you ran to mommy. Can't you comprehend the difference?


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Hillary's campaign began the 'Birther' rumor.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- but thank you for once again reminding us that you believe that Donald Trump was just a gullible patsy of Hillary Clinton- when Donald Trump went full Birther for 5 years.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually...it's "yes."
> 
> *"Fact checking the media — yes, the Clinton machine did start the birther movement*
> The birther movement does indeed have Democratic roots, long before Mr. Trump ever brought it up and made it an issue.
> “The idea of going after Obama’s otherness dates back to the last presidential election — and to Democrats,” Bloomberg News reported. “Long before Trump started in, Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist, Mark Penn, recognized this potential vulnerability in Obama and sought to exploit it.
> 
> “In a March 2007 memo to Clinton (that later found its way to me), Penn wrote: ‘All of these articles about his boyhood in Indonesia and his life in Hawaii are geared toward showing his background is diverse, multicultural and putting it in a new light,’ he wrote. ‘Save it for 2050. It also exposes a very strong weakness for him — his roots to basic American values and culture are at best limited. I cannot imagine America electing a president during a time of war who is not at his center fundamentally American in his thinking and his values,’ ” Bloomberg reported."
> *Fact checking the media — yes, the Clinton machine did start the birther movement**]*
Click to expand...

I do find it amusing that you want to believe that Donald Trump was just a gullible dupe of Hillary Clinton with his 5 years stint as King of the Birthers. 

But no- Clinton didn't start the Birther movement. And didn't embrace it. 

Trump embraced and led the Birther for 5 years.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much in the south, west, or northeast.
> 
> But in particular -- the racist south.  Was a bunch of racist Democrats -- now it's a bunch of racist Republicans. What hasn't changed along the Bible Belt is that it's always been conservative. That's why it's the rightwing clinging desperately to their confederate legacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia voted for Hillary.  That means she's a racist, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would that mean she's a racist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently your theory is that if a former confederate state votes for you then you are a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, apparently, you're an imbecile as I never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you did.  You said Trump was a racist because former Confederate states voted for him.  Since one vote for Hillary, according to your logic she must also be a racist.  Of course, no one is surprised that now you are trying to weasel out of the implications of your moron theory.
Click to expand...

Yyyyyyyeeeaahhh ummmmmmmm Fingerboy ----- you just plugged that in as a strawman, prefaced with the word "apparently".


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> LOLOL
> 
> You're doubling down on stupid? I never said you "ran away." I said you ran to mommy. Can't you comprehend the difference?


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is no Radical Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that up with Martin Luther King Jr.
> 
> Then again you white Conservatives have always despised MLK Jr.
> 
> He was very prescient when it came to identifying the modern GOP
> 
> View attachment 146053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about I take that up with you.....using the English language and logic...
> _*.*_
Click to expand...


Since i am quoting Martin Luther King Jr. - you can spew any nonsense you want- but it doesn't change his words- or the accuracy of them.

He identified you and your fellow travellers quite accurately here. 

*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> Yyyyyyyeeeaahhh ummmmmmmm Fingerboy ----- you just plugged that in as a strawman, prefaced with the word "apparently"


Troll said what?


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. There is no Radical Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Take that up with Martin Luther King Jr.
> 
> Then again you white Conservatives have always despised MLK Jr.
> 
> He was very prescient when it came to identifying the modern GOP
> 
> View attachment 146053
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How about I take that up with you.....using the English language and logic...
> _*.*_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since i am quoting Martin Luther King Jr. - you can spew any nonsense you want- but it doesn't change his words- or the accuracy of them.
> 
> He identified you and your fellow travellers quite accurately here.
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
Click to expand...

The copy and paste troll is back on his shift...


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
> The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries.  Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.
> 
> Novels, however, are what we call "fiction".  Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".
> 
> You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.
Click to expand...


Why would anyone even care what happened during the Civil War?  That was over 150 years ago.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much in the south, west, or northeast.
> 
> But in particular -- the racist south.  Was a bunch of racist Democrats -- now it's a bunch of racist Republicans. What hasn't changed along the Bible Belt is that it's always been conservative. That's why it's the rightwing clinging desperately to their confederate legacy.
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia voted for Hillary.  That means she's a racist, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why would that mean she's a racist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently your theory is that if a former confederate state votes for you then you are a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, apparently, you're an imbecile as I never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you did.  You said Trump was a racist because former Confederate states voted for him.  Since one vote for Hillary, according to your logic she must also be a racist.  Of course, no one is surprised that now you are trying to weasel out of the implications of your moron theory.
Click to expand...

Dayam, you're more retarded than I gave you credit for.

Quote me saying Trump is racist because former confederate states voted for him or you show the forum once again just how nuts you are, Zippy.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism.
> All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right." - Martin Luther King, Jr.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> b. FDR's first pick for the Supreme Court was a KKK official=.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope- another lie- Hugo Black was a former KKK member- who quit in 1925.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "... Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
> Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"
Click to expand...


And again- just pointing out that you were lying when you said that FDR's first pick for the Supreme Court was a KKK official.
A US Supreme Court justice was in the Ku Klux Klan—and he remained on the bench for 34 years

Black would leave the hate group in 1925, the year before his Senate run


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia voted for Hillary.  That means she's a racist, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that mean she's a racist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently your theory is that if a former confederate state votes for you then you are a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, apparently, you're an imbecile as I never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you did.  You said Trump was a racist because former Confederate states voted for him.  Since one vote for Hillary, according to your logic she must also be a racist.  Of course, no one is surprised that now you are trying to weasel out of the implications of your moron theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dayam, you're more retarded than I gave you credit for.
> 
> Quote me saying Trump is racist because former confederate states voted for him or you show the forum once again just how nuts you are, Zippy.
Click to expand...

I understand you lack the capacity to commit logic, so I won't press you further.  It's like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
> The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries.  Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.
> 
> Novels, however, are what we call "fiction".  Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".
> 
> You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone even care what happened during the Civil War?  That was over 150 years ago.
Click to expand...

Spits the retard who posts how Democrats started the KKK some 150 years ago.


----------



## Syriusly

Geaux4it said:


> Obama's mom was a whore. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume she wanted something better for her child. Thus, moved to the States.
> 
> -Geaux



Another Trump voter and coward who attacks a President's dead mother. 

Looking forward to seeing all the other contards chime in in agreement.


----------



## Rambunctious




----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that mean she's a racist??
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently your theory is that if a former confederate state votes for you then you are a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, apparently, you're an imbecile as I never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you did.  You said Trump was a racist because former Confederate states voted for him.  Since one vote for Hillary, according to your logic she must also be a racist.  Of course, no one is surprised that now you are trying to weasel out of the implications of your moron theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dayam, you're more retarded than I gave you credit for.
> 
> Quote me saying Trump is racist because former confederate states voted for him or you show the forum once again just how nuts you are, Zippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you lack the capacity to commit logic, so I won't press you further.  It's like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.
Click to expand...

Translation: you can't quote me since I never said what you falsely attributed to me, so you'll demonstrate for the forum that I was right in that you're an abject retard.

But you got a reach-around from Rambunctious, so it wasn't a total loss for ya.

Thanks for playin', Zippy.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get this snowflake some glue so he can reattach his balls?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tracking your posts and reporting each and every time you name call.
Click to expand...


You do realize that this is USMB- right? 

Where people call each other names- such as snowflake- about as commonly as they use a comma. 

Report away- one of the lovely things about USMB is we can call an asshole an asshole here except in specific protected subforums.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
> The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries.  Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.
> 
> Novels, however, are what we call "fiction".  Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".
> 
> You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone even care what happened during the Civil War?  That was over 150 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the retard who posts how Democrats started the KKK some 150 years ago.
Click to expand...


I don't recall mentioning it.  You appear to be swirling down a vortex of your own stupidity.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently your theory is that if a former confederate state votes for you then you are a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, apparently, you're an imbecile as I never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you did.  You said Trump was a racist because former Confederate states voted for him.  Since one vote for Hillary, according to your logic she must also be a racist.  Of course, no one is surprised that now you are trying to weasel out of the implications of your moron theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dayam, you're more retarded than I gave you credit for.
> 
> Quote me saying Trump is racist because former confederate states voted for him or you show the forum once again just how nuts you are, Zippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you lack the capacity to commit logic, so I won't press you further.  It's like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: you can't quote me since I never said what you falsely attributed to me, so you'll demonstrate for the forum that I was right in that you're an abject retard.
> 
> But you got a reach-around from Rambunctious, so it wasn't a total loss for ya.
> 
> Thanks for playin', Zippy.
Click to expand...


What part of "according to your logic" didn't you understand, cockroach?


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> ou do realize that this is USMB- right?
> 
> Where people call each other names- such as snowflake- about as commonly as they use a comma.
> 
> Report away- one of the lovely things about USMB is we can call an asshole an asshole here except in specific protected subforums.


Oh Okay troll...got it thanks!


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're just a crybaby loser.
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't lose you still have not proven the OP lied...still waiting for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course he did. He kept denying the truth even after it was shown to him. Then he ran away.
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I denied the truth.
> 
> I don't waste my time flogging a dead horse.  I know that's your favorite hobby.  You get your pants pulled down around your ankles so often that whenever you win on some small point you beat it to death.
Click to expand...


DOOD.

You posted a thread here claiming that (a) a picture of a Klan funeral march in December of 1924 in Wisconsin was the "Democratic convention" in New York; (b) declaring that "Liberals aren't liking it" and that (c) a 93-year old archived photo is somehow "newly discovered", (d) further declaring that this funeral march in Wisconsin was somehow the reason behind your own strawman that "Liberals are always calling Republicans racist", (e) your link declared that this political convention taking place a month after the election was over on a set of wet trolley tracks a thousand miles away from its own venue featured an anti-Klan push led by a man who had been dead for eleven years AND (f) you posted all this AFTER the same bullshit had already been posted, and completely discredited, by another poster who also ran away in shame.  And here you came flinging the same bullshit expecting different results.

One thing about the Klan -- they hide behind hoods so that if they can't be recognized they can't be held responsible for what they do.  Much like starting a bullshit thread full of bogus lies and then running away when it's busted.  No responsibility in either case.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get this snowflake some glue so he can reattach his balls?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tracking your posts and reporting each and every time you name call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this is USMB- right?
> 
> Where people call each other names- such as snowflake- about as commonly as they use a comma.
> 
> Report away- one of the lovely things about USMB is we can call an asshole an asshole here except in specific protected subforums.
Click to expand...

I certainly never spare the insults.  Snowflakes deserve it.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Spits the retard who posts how Democrathttps://youtu.be/g_a7dQXilCos started the KKK some 150 years ago.


Havin' a little trouble there posting, Spunky? Spazzing out again?

LOL


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> All three paid trolls here just for me?



Wait are you calling people trolls?

Thats name calling- I am going to report you!

LOL- little snowflake.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Translation: you can't quote me since I never said what you falsely attributed to me, so you'll demonstrate for the forum that I was right in that you're an abject retard.
> 
> But you got a reach-around from Rambunctious, so it wasn't a total loss for ya.
> 
> Thanks for playin', Zippy.


troll says what?


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get this snowflake some glue so he can reattach his balls?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tracking your posts and reporting each and every time you name call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this is USMB- right?
> 
> Where people call each other names- such as snowflake- about as commonly as they use a comma.
> 
> Report away- one of the lovely things about USMB is we can call an asshole an asshole here except in specific protected subforums.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I certainly never spare the insults.  Snowflakes deserve it.
Click to expand...


One of the few honest things you have ever posted- since you are generally a dishonest little snowflake.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Wait are you calling people trolls?
> 
> Thats name calling- I am going to report you!
> 
> LOL- little snowflake


Yep troll snowfalkes.......you got it.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
> The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries.  Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.
> 
> Novels, however, are what we call "fiction".  Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".
> 
> You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone even care what happened during the Civil War?  That was over 150 years ago.
Click to expand...


Interesting question- since we still have books being written on the Civil War, movies being made about the Civil War and little snowflakes upset about monuments to the rebels being removed.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Havin' a little trouble there posting, Spunky? Spazzing out again?
> 
> LOL


Steaks were done shit for brains


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait are you calling people trolls?
> 
> Thats name calling- I am going to report you!
> 
> LOL- little snowflake
> 
> 
> 
> Yep troll snowfalkes.......you got it.
Click to expand...


Hey I am reporting you again for being a big meanie!

LOL- what a snowflake!


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Hey I am reporting you again for being a big meanie!
> 
> LOL- what a snowflake!


Bite me shit for brains...


----------



## Faun

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can someone get this snowflake some glue so he can reattach his balls?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm tracking your posts and reporting each and every time you name call.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You do realize that this is USMB- right?
> 
> Where people call each other names- such as snowflake- about as commonly as they use a comma.
> 
> Report away- one of the lovely things about USMB is we can call an asshole an asshole here except in specific protected subforums.
Click to expand...

The moron whines about name calling while he joins the fray.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Clinton Misogyny - Sex*t
Click to expand...


Bill Clinton has been convicted of rape as many times as Donald Trump has been convicted of rape.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> The moron whines about name calling while he joins the fray.


Your butt buddy paid troll friend invited me to do so shit for brains.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


>


An inconvenient Truth for the Republican Party

Martin Luther King Jr. 
*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An inconvenient Truth for the Republican Party
> 
> Martin Luther King Jr.
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
Click to expand...

You don't like that video do ya paid troll?


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, look .... I've gotten under your skin.
> 
> 
> 
> Dream on salad tosser...I'm kicking back with a cold beer and a football game about to start and steaks on the grill....watching you make a fool out of your self.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> Your posts belie your fantasies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *An extension of the Democrat/Liberal assault on white males?*
Click to expand...


Tell us again how you have been assaulted because you are a  white male?

Let us understand the pain of your oppression?

Because as a white male myself, I just haven't experienced it- it seems like a snowflake thing experienced only by Trump voters.


----------



## Rambunctious




----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An inconvenient Truth for the Republican Party
> 
> Martin Luther King Jr.
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't like that video do ya paid troll?
Click to expand...


You don't like what Martin Luther King Jr. said about the Republican Party- do you paid troll?


*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when you think PC couldn't get anymore retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless, of course, you'd just admit that I am never wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are always hilariously wrong.
> 
> And blindingly oblivious to your bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'd care to provide the entire post of mine, and try to show where I'm incorrect?.
Click to expand...


I have pointed out where you are wrong enough times to know that you will ignore the facts. 

Just as you ignore anything other than your own personal obsessions.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
> The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries.  Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.
> 
> Novels, however, are what we call "fiction".  Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".
> 
> You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why would anyone even care what happened during the Civil War?  That was over 150 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the retard who posts how Democrats started the KKK some 150 years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't recall mentioning it.  You appear to be swirling down a vortex of your own stupidity.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on showing the forum that you're a fucking retard; time and time again??


bripat9643 said:


> You are woefully ignorant about the KKK.  It started as a Democrat organization, and it's still a Democrat organization.


Do ya see what just happened there?

You claimed I said something and I challenged you to quote me saying what you attributed to me or you prove you're a retard.

Given that choice, you proved you're a retard.

Then I claimed you said something and you pulled a Reganesque, I don't recall.

I had the same choice you had, only I used it to my advantage to show once again just how retarded you are.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


>



*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nah, apparently, you're an imbecile as I never said that.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did.  You said Trump was a racist because former Confederate states voted for him.  Since one vote for Hillary, according to your logic she must also be a racist.  Of course, no one is surprised that now you are trying to weasel out of the implications of your moron theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dayam, you're more retarded than I gave you credit for.
> 
> Quote me saying Trump is racist because former confederate states voted for him or you show the forum once again just how nuts you are, Zippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you lack the capacity to commit logic, so I won't press you further.  It's like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: you can't quote me since I never said what you falsely attributed to me, so you'll demonstrate for the forum that I was right in that you're an abject retard.
> 
> But you got a reach-around from Rambunctious, so it wasn't a total loss for ya.
> 
> Thanks for playin', Zippy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "according to your logic" didn't you understand, cockroach?
Click to expand...

The part where you _think_ your dementia speaks for me.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're just a crybaby loser.
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't lose you still have not proven the OP lied...still waiting for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course he did. He kept denying the truth even after it was shown to him. Then he ran away.
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the moron who actually posted a photo from a KKK march in Wisconsin and tried to fool the forum into believing it was from the 1924 DNC in New York.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I denied the truth.
> 
> I don't waste my time flogging a dead horse.  I know that's your favorite hobby.  You get your pants pulled down around your ankles so often that whenever you win on some small point you beat it to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DOOD.
> 
> You posted a thread here claiming that (a) a picture of a Klan funeral march in December of 1924 in Wisconsin was the "Democratic convention" in New York; declaring that "Liberals aren't liking it", further declaring that this funeral march in Wisconsin was somehow the reason behind your own strawman that "Liberals are always calling Republicans racist", your link declared that this political convention taking place a month after the election was over on a set of wet trolley tracks a thousand miles away from its own venue featured an anti-Klan push led by a man who had been dead for eleven years AND you posted all this AFTER the same bullshit had already been posted, and completely busted, by another poster who also ran away in shame.  And here you came flinging the same bullshit expecting different results.
> 
> One thing about the Klan -- they hide behind hoods so that if they can't be recognized they can't be held responsible for what they do.  Much like starting a bullshit thread full of bogus lies and then running away when it's busted.  No responsibility in either case.
Click to expand...


I already admitted that was factually incorrect.  You're attempt to label me as a racist is oh so pathetic and oh so predictable.

Here's a fact which you just demonstrated:  you're a douche bag.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> You don't like what Martin Luther King Jr. said about the Republican Party- do you paid troll?


He would be singing a different tune today...today he would slap the likes of you bald headed paid troll...


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
Click to expand...

Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> The part where you _think_ your dementia speaks for me.


More genius from the lowest paid troll...


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure you did.  You said Trump was a racist because former Confederate states voted for him.  Since one vote for Hillary, according to your logic she must also be a racist.  Of course, no one is surprised that now you are trying to weasel out of the implications of your moron theory.
> 
> 
> 
> Dayam, you're more retarded than I gave you credit for.
> 
> Quote me saying Trump is racist because former confederate states voted for him or you show the forum once again just how nuts you are, Zippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand you lack the capacity to commit logic, so I won't press you further.  It's like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Translation: you can't quote me since I never said what you falsely attributed to me, so you'll demonstrate for the forum that I was right in that you're an abject retard.
> 
> But you got a reach-around from Rambunctious, so it wasn't a total loss for ya.
> 
> Thanks for playin', Zippy.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "according to your logic" didn't you understand, cockroach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The part where you _think_ your dementia speaks for me.
Click to expand...


Whatever, cockroach.  I'm done with the algebra lesson.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Havin' a little trouble there posting, Spunky? Spazzing out again?
> 
> LOL
> 
> 
> 
> Steaks were done shit for brains
Click to expand...

Steaks caused you to post, _"Spits the retard who posts how Democrathttps://youtu.be/g_a7dQXilCos started the KKK some 150 years ago"??_

You don't take personal responsibility very well, do ya, Spunky?


----------



## Rambunctious

See ya paid trolls on your next shift! Got a game to watch suckers...thanks for all the fun!


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> You don't take personal responsibility very well, do ya, Spunky?


Had a flame up ass...Oh that's right ToFu doesn't flame up BUUUUAAAAHAHAHAHAHA!


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're just a crybaby loser.
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't lose you still have not proven the OP lied...still waiting for that one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course he did. He kept denying the truth even after it was shown to him. Then he ran away.
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't prove your claim, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I denied the truth.
> 
> I don't waste my time flogging a dead horse.  I know that's your favorite hobby.  You get your pants pulled down around your ankles so often that whenever you win on some small point you beat it to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DOOD.
> 
> You posted a thread here claiming that (a) a picture of a Klan funeral march in December of 1924 in Wisconsin was the "Democratic convention" in New York; declaring that "Liberals aren't liking it", further declaring that this funeral march in Wisconsin was somehow the reason behind your own strawman that "Liberals are always calling Republicans racist", your link declared that this political convention taking place a month after the election was over on a set of wet trolley tracks a thousand miles away from its own venue featured an anti-Klan push led by a man who had been dead for eleven years AND you posted all this AFTER the same bullshit had already been posted, and completely busted, by another poster who also ran away in shame.  And here you came flinging the same bullshit expecting different results.
> 
> One thing about the Klan -- they hide behind hoods so that if they can't be recognized they can't be held responsible for what they do.  Much like starting a bullshit thread full of bogus lies and then running away when it's busted.  No responsibility in either case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already admitted that was factually incorrect.  You're attempt to label me as a racist is oh so pathetic and oh so predictable.
> 
> Here's a fact which you just demonstrated:  you're a douche bag.
Click to expand...

Liar. You never admitted it was factually incorrect.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
Click to expand...

Imbecile...


----------



## Syriusly

Never Goldwater: How the Fight to Defeat the Arizona Senator Gave Birth to the Modern GOP

The Republican Party of 1964 had clear left and right wings in a form that would be unrecognizable today. Previous nominees had quickly worked to sew up the divisions and preached unity. In 1960, Goldwater himself had been a part of that unity effort, telling his allies on the right to “grow up” and work for the nominee, Nixon.v “If we want to take this party back—and I think we can someday—let’s go to work,” he said. In 1964 though, Goldwater was sounding a call to arms. It was fine with him if the moderates jumped in a lake.

For conservatives, Eisenhower’s victories had come at the cost of principle. The National Review, the organ of the movement, opposed Eisenhower and his move toward centrism. Its publisher, William Rusher, said that “modern American conservatism largely organized itself during, and in opposition to, the Eisenhower Administration.” Goldwater called the Eisenhower administration a “dime-store New Deal.”

As if to punctuate the point, when Eisenhower stopped in Amarillo, Texas, on the way to the ’64 convention, two young men hurled a Goldwater sign in a fit of enthusiasm. They were not aiming at the ex-president but hit him nevertheless, causing him to double over.vi

Moderate Republicans like Rockefeller supported the national consensus toward advancing civil rights by promoting national legislation to protect the vote, employment, housing, and other elements of the American promise denied to blacks. They sought to contain communism, not eradicate it, and they had faith that the government could be a force for good if it were circumscribed and run efficiently. They believed in experts and belittled the Goldwater approach, which held that complex problems could be solved merely by the application of common sense. It was not a plus to the Rockefeller camp that Goldwater had publicly admitted, “You know, I haven’t got a really first-class brain.”vii Politically, moderates believed that these positions would preserve the Republican Party in a changing America.

Conservatives wanted to restrict government from meddling in private enterprise and the free exercise of liberty. They thought bipartisanship and compromise were leading to collectivism and fiscal irresponsibility. On national security, Goldwater and his allies felt Eisenhower had been barely fighting the communists, and that the Soviets were gobbling up territory across the globe. At one point, Goldwater appeared to muse about dropping a low-yield nuclear bomb on the Chinese supply lines in Vietnam, though it may have been more a press misunderstanding than his actual view.viii


The likely nominee disagreed most violently with moderates over the issue of federal protections for the rights of black Americans. In June, a month before the convention, the Senate had voted on the Civil Rights Act. Twenty-seven of 33 Republicans voted for the legislation. Goldwater was one of the six who did not, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. “The structure of the federal system, with its 50 separate state units, has long permitted this nation to nourish local differences, even local cultures,” wrote Goldwater in _Where I Stand_.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I didn't lose you still have not proven the OP lied...still waiting for that one.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he did. He kept denying the truth even after it was shown to him. Then he ran away.
> ​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please quote where I denied the truth.
> 
> I don't waste my time flogging a dead horse.  I know that's your favorite hobby.  You get your pants pulled down around your ankles so often that whenever you win on some small point you beat it to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DOOD.
> 
> You posted a thread here claiming that (a) a picture of a Klan funeral march in December of 1924 in Wisconsin was the "Democratic convention" in New York; declaring that "Liberals aren't liking it", further declaring that this funeral march in Wisconsin was somehow the reason behind your own strawman that "Liberals are always calling Republicans racist", your link declared that this political convention taking place a month after the election was over on a set of wet trolley tracks a thousand miles away from its own venue featured an anti-Klan push led by a man who had been dead for eleven years AND you posted all this AFTER the same bullshit had already been posted, and completely busted, by another poster who also ran away in shame.  And here you came flinging the same bullshit expecting different results.
> 
> One thing about the Klan -- they hide behind hoods so that if they can't be recognized they can't be held responsible for what they do.  Much like starting a bullshit thread full of bogus lies and then running away when it's busted.  No responsibility in either case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already admitted that was factually incorrect.  You're attempt to label me as a racist is oh so pathetic and oh so predictable.
> 
> Here's a fact which you just demonstrated:  you're a douche bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. You never admitted it was factually incorrect.
Click to expand...

Wrong, cockroach. It was even in a reply to one of your posts.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> See ya paid trolls on your next shift! Got a game to watch suckers...thanks for all the fun!



We will see you back for your next paid shift. 

Run off little paid snowflake....run off....


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course he did. He kept denying the truth even after it was shown to him. Then he ran away.
> ​
> 
> 
> 
> Please quote where I denied the truth.
> 
> I don't waste my time flogging a dead horse.  I know that's your favorite hobby.  You get your pants pulled down around your ankles so often that whenever you win on some small point you beat it to death.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> DOOD.
> 
> You posted a thread here claiming that (a) a picture of a Klan funeral march in December of 1924 in Wisconsin was the "Democratic convention" in New York; declaring that "Liberals aren't liking it", further declaring that this funeral march in Wisconsin was somehow the reason behind your own strawman that "Liberals are always calling Republicans racist", your link declared that this political convention taking place a month after the election was over on a set of wet trolley tracks a thousand miles away from its own venue featured an anti-Klan push led by a man who had been dead for eleven years AND you posted all this AFTER the same bullshit had already been posted, and completely busted, by another poster who also ran away in shame.  And here you came flinging the same bullshit expecting different results.
> 
> One thing about the Klan -- they hide behind hoods so that if they can't be recognized they can't be held responsible for what they do.  Much like starting a bullshit thread full of bogus lies and then running away when it's busted.  No responsibility in either case.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I already admitted that was factually incorrect.  You're attempt to label me as a racist is oh so pathetic and oh so predictable.
> 
> Here's a fact which you just demonstrated:  you're a douche bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar. You never admitted it was factually incorrect.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong, cockroach. It was even in a reply to one of your posts.
Click to expand...

You're still lying. You ever said it was factually incorrect.


----------



## Rambunctious

Syriusly said:


> We will see you back for your next paid shift.
> 
> Run off little paid snowflake....run off....


what a fool you are


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> You're still lying. You ever said it was factually incorrect


Faun


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the KKK came to my town- you would be marching with them.
> 
> Like attracts like.
Click to expand...

That's a baseless smear, of course. 

All you proved is that you're an utterly shameless douche bag.


----------



## Faun

Oh, look. I've gotten so far under Spunky's skin, he's still boosting my ratings while he's watching his game.

Why can't you quit me, Spunky?


----------



## Syriusly

Rustic said:


> Racism will always be a part of progressivism… Fact



Racism will always be part of Conservatism.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If the KKK came to my town- you would be marching with them.
> 
> Like attracts like.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you proved is that you're an utterly shameless douche bag.
Click to expand...


Now that is a baseless smear......


----------



## Syriusly

CrusaderFrank said:


> Who said it?
> 
> "I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years"
> 
> A. A Republican
> B. A Democrat President famed for his "Civil Rights" Bill




Who said it?


*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*


A) A GOP presidential candidate who voted against the 1964 civil rights Act?
B) An icon of the Civil Rights Movement?


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be a part of progressivism… Fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be part of Conservatism.
Click to expand...

It never has been, and it never will be.  Your claim is commie propaganda, and nothing more.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it?
> 
> "I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years"
> 
> A. A Republican
> B. A Democrat President famed for his "Civil Rights" Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it?
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> 
> A) A GOP presidential candidate who voted against the 1964 civil rights Act?
> B) An icon of the Civil Rights Movement?
Click to expand...


That's commie propaganda.  There isn't a single fact in your post.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it?
> 
> "I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years"
> 
> A. A Republican
> B. A Democrat President famed for his "Civil Rights" Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it?
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> 
> A) A GOP presidential candidate who voted against the 1964 civil rights Act?
> B) An icon of the Civil Rights Movement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's commie propaganda.  There isn't a single fact in your post.
Click to expand...


You are calling Martin Luther King a communist? Well that is typical of Conservatives and the Republican Party....

Once again- Martin Luther King Jr. commenting on the 1964 Republican Convention


*The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be a part of progressivism… Fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be part of Conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It never has been, and it never will be.  Your claim is commie propaganda, and nothing more.
Click to expand...

It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it?
> 
> "I'll have them ******* voting Democrat for the next 200 years"
> 
> A. A Republican
> B. A Democrat President famed for his "Civil Rights" Bill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said it?
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> 
> A) A GOP presidential candidate who voted against the 1964 civil rights Act?
> B) An icon of the Civil Rights Movement?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's commie propaganda.  There isn't a single fact in your post.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are calling Martin Luther King a communist? Well that is typical of Conservatives and the Republican Party....
> 
> Once again- Martin Luther King Jr. commenting on the 1964 Republican Convention
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
Click to expand...


J. Edgar Hoover sure thought he was a communist.  I trust his judgement on that issue.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be a part of progressivism… Fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be part of Conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It never has been, and it never will be.  Your claim is commie propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.
Click to expand...

The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860.  Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.


----------



## flacaltenn

*Trying to decide here. 3 or more are already qualified for Warnings based on the personal exchanges here. Even tho it's in Zone3. It reads more like a Flame Zone thread. So the options are Warning/Cleaning or Thread-banning a bunch of folks. 

This will remain closed for 20 minutes or so to cool things down and for folks to get to this message. After that time, ANY personal exchanges will be warned and thread banned.. 

Do not reply to this message in thread. PM a Mod or two.. *


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be a part of progressivism… Fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be part of Conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It never has been, and it never will be.  Your claim is commie propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860.  Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
Click to expand...

Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.


----------



## flacaltenn

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be a part of progressivism… Fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be part of Conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It never has been, and it never will be.  Your claim is commie propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860.  Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.
Click to expand...


You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative"..  That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights".  Christianity? IN 1860s???  Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing. 

Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share.  THERE'S --- your divide.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
Click to expand...


You sold it?
D'ja get a receipt?

Actually nobody owns the KKK since it officially does not exist.  Hasn't existed since 1944 when FDR's IRS slapped it with a two-thirds of a million dollar back tax bill at the same time the Governor of Georgia (that would be Ellis Arnall, and I can't remember what his political party was but it started with a D) was revoking its charter.

They didn't do that because the Klan was backing Coolidge and Hoover; they didn't do it because the Klan was smearing Al Smith; they didn't do it because the Klan was targeting Democratic Party voting blocs like blacks and Jews and Catholics and immigrants and labor unions; they didn't do that because it was getting Republican Klanners like Ed Jackson and Rice Means and Owen Brewster and George Baker and Ben Paulen and Clarence Morley into high office.  They did it because the Klan was a fucked-up terrorist group that had to go.

Of course, that didn't stop fucked-up racists from continuing to play dress-up without a formal organization -- all you had to do was sew yourself a robe and dunce cap and then declare yourself Grand Imperial Wanker of the local klavern.  Like David Duke did.


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be part of Conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> It never has been, and it never will be.  Your claim is commie propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860.  Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative"..  That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights".  Christianity? IN 1860s???  Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
> 
> Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share.  THERE'S --- your divide.
Click to expand...


Actually in the mid-19th century the party of doing big things with government was the Whigs.  When that party disintegrated over its failure to agree on a coherent position on what its attitude to slavery would be, the contingent of it that wanted Abolition became the new Republicans.  One was named Abe Lincoln.  The Democrats were by default the party of decentralized power ("states rights").


----------



## Faun

flacaltenn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be part of Conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> It never has been, and it never will be.  Your claim is commie propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860.  Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative"..  That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights".  Christianity? IN 1860s???  Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
> 
> Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share.  THERE'S --- your divide.
Click to expand...

One of the reasons the south offered for seceding was states' rights. I don't care what they were called, they were the converatives of the country. They were more racist than the north then and they still are today.


----------



## flacaltenn

Faun said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It never has been, and it never will be.  Your claim is commie propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> 
> 
> It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860.  Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative"..  That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights".  Christianity? IN 1860s???  Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
> 
> Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share.  THERE'S --- your divide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reasons the south offered for seceding was states' rights. I don't care what they were called, they were the converatives of the country. They were more racist than the north then and they still are today.
Click to expand...


State's rights were a raging argument since the FOUNDING. You can find remnants of it in almost every STATE Constitution as they entered the Union. 

Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue.* Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations".*  You are deficient in whoever educated you didn't explain "the way things were" at that time.. Or about the major differences in culture and life between the North and South..


----------



## flacaltenn

AFTER the war -- and emancipation, race relations BECAME a national issue as Blacks migrated to the North. *And YOUR COUNTRY and its Federal Govt did some VERY UGLY THINGS for ANOTHER 100 FUCKING YEARS to Black Americans. THAT 100 years of oppression, segregation, and DESIGN of racial divides is equally on North and South. NO ONE's hands are clean from that period. *


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue.* Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations".*



Oh no I don't think that's true.  Without looking up the numbers I know there were loads of free people of color in at least the northern cities.  Crispus Attucks comes to mind immediately....

Matter of fact in the 1860 election one of the downballot questions in one of the states was whether black people should be granted the right to vote (that vote came back strongly as "no").  And that state was --- New York.


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> AFTER the war -- and emancipation, race relations BECAME a national issue as Blacks migrated to the North. *And YOUR COUNTRY and its Federal Govt did some VERY UGLY THINGS for ANOTHER 100 FUCKING YEARS to Black Americans. THAT 100 years of oppression, segregation, and DESIGN of racial divides is equally on North and South. NO ONE's hands are clean from that period. *



The country (read: government) as well as the country (read: culture).  Lynchings for instance were going on in the South but were also going on in Illinois and Nebraska and even, famously Duluth Minnesota, about as far away from the South as you can get and still be in the United States.  Race riots in not just Atlanta but East St. Louis and Chicago and Washington.  Segregation and discrimination in northern and midwestern factories booming out of the Great War that brought the Great Migration.  The Klan's rapid spread in Indiana and Maine and Oregon.  Even the effective banning of blacks in baseball between Moses Walker and Jackie Robinson.

These are aftereffects of the Lost Cause movement.


----------



## flacaltenn

Pogo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue.* Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations".*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh no I don't think that's true.  Without looking up the numbers I know there were loads of free people of color in at least the northern cities.  Crispus Attucks comes to mind immediately....
> 
> Matter of fact in the 1860 election one of the downballot questions in one of the states was whether black people should be granted the right to vote (that vote came back strongly as "no").  And that state was --- New York.
Click to expand...


The upper South had more than THREE TIMES the percentage of free Blacks than the Northern regions did in 1860.  In fact 3% of that upper South total population were FREE BLACKS. And the lower South had similar numbers of FREE BLACKS that equaled most Northern regions. 

Folks who went to the school in the South KNOW the set-up for the Civil War.

Untitled Document


----------



## flacaltenn

Pogo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFTER the war -- and emancipation, race relations BECAME a national issue as Blacks migrated to the North. *And YOUR COUNTRY and its Federal Govt did some VERY UGLY THINGS for ANOTHER 100 FUCKING YEARS to Black Americans. THAT 100 years of oppression, segregation, and DESIGN of racial divides is equally on North and South. NO ONE's hands are clean from that period. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The country (read: government) as well as the country (read: culture).  Lynchings for instance were going on in the South but were also going on in Illinois and Nebraska and even, famously Duluth Minnesota, about as far away from the South as you can get and still be in the United States.  Race riots in not just Atlanta but East St. Louis and Chicago and Washington.  Segregation and discrimination in northern and midwestern factories booming out of the Great War that brought the Great Migration.
> 
> These are aftereffects of the Lost Cause movement.
Click to expand...


That's 100 years of JOINT shame. The Fed Govt had its paws in DESIGNING racially segregated cities and housing for most of that time. 

And REAL race relations problems in the North only appeared when they had actual BLACK people living there. That's entirely logical. Blacks in the North pre-Civil war were generally less than 1% of population.. THAT'S why only the South had racism problems.


----------



## flacaltenn

A Big shocker for the folks who only know  the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters  is Table 3 in the link I gave above.. 

In the Lower South --- the free Blacks  had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.

*Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860*


            White     Free black    Difference
North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%


----------



## Pogo

flacaltenn said:


> A Big shocker for the folks who only know  the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters  is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
> 
> In the Lower South --- the free Blacks  had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
> 
> *Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860*
> 
> 
> White     Free black    Difference
> North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
> Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
> Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%



There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes.  A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show.  "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.

Well yeah.  That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate.  Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts.  That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them.  Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.

Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes.  Wars just ain't that simple.


----------



## Faun

flacaltenn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.
> 
> 
> 
> The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860.  Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative"..  That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights".  Christianity? IN 1860s???  Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
> 
> Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share.  THERE'S --- your divide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reasons the south offered for seceding was states' rights. I don't care what they were called, they were the converatives of the country. They were more racist than the north then and they still are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State's rights were a raging argument since the FOUNDING. You can find remnants of it in almost every STATE Constitution as they entered the Union.
> 
> Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue.* Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations".*  You are deficient in whoever educated you didn't explain "the way things were" at that time.. Or about the major differences in culture and life between the North and South..
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. Much of the north sought to end slavery. That's not to say there weren't racists in the north, but the south was willing to fight the north to keep their slaves. The north didn't need slaves and didn't want slavery to continue.

Fast forward to the mid-60's and it was still north versus south where almost everyone in Congress in the north, regardless of political party, voted for civil rights, as opposed to the south, where virtually everyone in Congress voted against it, regardless of political party.


----------



## flacaltenn

Pogo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Big shocker for the folks who only know  the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters  is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
> 
> In the Lower South --- the free Blacks  had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
> 
> *Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860*
> 
> 
> White     Free black    Difference
> North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
> Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
> Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes.  A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show.  "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
> 
> Well yeah.  That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate.  Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts.  That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them.  Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
> 
> Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes.  Wars just ain't that simple.
Click to expand...



AND YET -- folks want to purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history and the story. Over my dead moon-shine stinking body.. More dead Americans from that war than the total in the 20th Century. AND the history needs to be covered in black tarps.


----------



## flacaltenn

Faun said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860.  Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
> 
> 
> 
> Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative"..  That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights".  Christianity? IN 1860s???  Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
> 
> Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share.  THERE'S --- your divide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reasons the south offered for seceding was states' rights. I don't care what they were called, they were the converatives of the country. They were more racist than the north then and they still are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State's rights were a raging argument since the FOUNDING. You can find remnants of it in almost every STATE Constitution as they entered the Union.
> 
> Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue.* Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations".*  You are deficient in whoever educated you didn't explain "the way things were" at that time.. Or about the major differences in culture and life between the North and South..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. Much of the north sought to end slavery. That's not to say there weren't racists in the north, but the south was willing to fight the north to keep their slaves. The north didn't need slaves and didn't want slavery to continue.
> 
> Fast forward to the mid-60's and it was still north versus south where almost everyone in Congress in the north, regardless of political party, voted for civil rights, as opposed to the south, where virtually everyone in Congress voted against it, regardless of political party.
Click to expand...


Those figures about how MANY FREE Blacks were in the North as opposed to the FREE Blacks in the South -- went into your ears and stopped at the concrete barrier that exists there. Didn't even PAUSE to change your perception of HOW MANY actual Black people there WERE in the North in order to CREATE any racial friction. 

If I have time during the rest of my life -- I'll paint you a picture or rap it to you. Don't think you're interested in actually LEARNING anything about history here. Just spewing the recent modern political tribal venom.


----------



## flacaltenn

Pogo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Big shocker for the folks who only know  the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters  is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
> 
> In the Lower South --- the free Blacks  had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
> 
> *Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860*
> 
> 
> White     Free black    Difference
> North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
> Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
> Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes.  A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show.  "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
> 
> Well yeah.  That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate.  Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts.  That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them.  Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
> 
> Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes.  Wars just ain't that simple.
Click to expand...


Tennessee flag STILL projects that division. Has 3 stars on it for West/Middle/East. Fortunately -- all that "dithering" ended the war for Tennessee in a way that SAVED a lot of historical property down here. And I'm very glad it did. Because it's fascinating to visit these places and hear the stories..


----------



## Syriusly

flacaltenn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be part of Conservatism.
> 
> 
> 
> It never has been, and it never will be.  Your claim is commie propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860.  Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative"..  That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights".  Christianity? IN 1860s???  Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
> 
> Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share.  THERE'S --- your divide.
Click to expand...


The defining issue of North/South in 1860 primarily revolved around slavery. 

But much of the 'defining characteristics' of the white South was 'Conservative' then- and is "Conservative" now.


----------



## Syriusly

flacaltenn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.
> 
> 
> 
> The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860.  Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative"..  That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights".  Christianity? IN 1860s???  Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
> 
> Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share.  THERE'S --- your divide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reasons the south offered for seceding was states' rights. I don't care what they were called, they were the converatives of the country. They were more racist than the north then and they still are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State's rights were a raging argument since the FOUNDING. You can find remnants of it in almost every STATE Constitution as they entered the Union.
> 
> Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue.* Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations".*  You are deficient in whoever educated you didn't explain "the way things were" at that time.. Or about the major differences in culture and life between the North and South..
Click to expand...


The Northern states had had slavery- and had abolished it by 1860- other than I believe Delaware. It wasn't a foreign issue to the North- it was a source of embaressment and conflict- Southerners demanded that escaped slaves be returned- and Northern states tried to prevent that from happening. 

But explaining why the Confederate slave states were more racist still doesn't change that they were more racist- though frankly by our standards virtually everyone in 1860 would be considered a racist.

Which is why this thread is somewhat ironic- the attempt to paint the Democrats as the party of racism- when both parties were quite racist in 1860. 

I am a bit confused about your posts though- you said the thread was getting heated up- and put a hold on the thread- because it was getting too  personal- and yet here you are insulting the poster's education.


----------



## Syriusly

flacaltenn said:


> AFTER the war -- and emancipation, race relations BECAME a national issue as Blacks migrated to the North. *And YOUR COUNTRY and its Federal Govt did some VERY UGLY THINGS for ANOTHER 100 FUCKING YEARS to Black Americans. THAT 100 years of oppression, segregation, and DESIGN of racial divides is equally on North and South. NO ONE's hands are clean from that period. *



I can't agree more.


----------



## Syriusly

flacaltenn said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative"..  That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights".  Christianity? IN 1860s???  Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
> 
> Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share.  THERE'S --- your divide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reasons the south offered for seceding was states' rights. I don't care what they were called, they were the converatives of the country. They were more racist than the north then and they still are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State's rights were a raging argument since the FOUNDING. You can find remnants of it in almost every STATE Constitution as they entered the Union.
> 
> Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue.* Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations".*  You are deficient in whoever educated you didn't explain "the way things were" at that time.. Or about the major differences in culture and life between the North and South..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. Much of the north sought to end slavery. That's not to say there weren't racists in the north, but the south was willing to fight the north to keep their slaves. The north didn't need slaves and didn't want slavery to continue.
> 
> Fast forward to the mid-60's and it was still north versus south where almost everyone in Congress in the north, regardless of political party, voted for civil rights, as opposed to the south, where virtually everyone in Congress voted against it, regardless of political party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those figures about how MANY FREE Blacks were in the North as opposed to the FREE Blacks in the South -- went into your ears and stopped at the concrete barrier that exists there. Didn't even PAUSE to change your perception of HOW MANY actual Black people there WERE in the North in order to CREATE any racial friction.
> 
> If I have time during the rest of my life -- I'll paint you a picture or rap it to you. Don't think you're interested in actually LEARNING anything about history here. Just spewing the recent modern political tribal venom.
Click to expand...


Again I don't get the point of you (correctly) trying to put a reduce the personal conflict in this thread- when you proceed to make personal attacks on posters you disagree with.

You completely ignored his point regarding the voting pattern of 1964 and 1965 when it came to civil rights- which he correctly pointed out was almost exclusively voted on along Confederate states/non-Confederate state lines.


----------



## Pogo

Syriusly said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860.  Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
> 
> 
> 
> Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are so un-schooled if you believe THOSE were the defining separations of N/S in 1860s. Every ANTI-Federalist in History then was "conservative"..  That term wasn't even coined for over 150 years after the debate began on "state's rights".  Christianity? IN 1860s???  Ha !!! Wasn't a Southern thing.
> 
> Smaller govt WAS. Since the North had big infrastructure plans that would not benefit the mostly agricultural South. And yet wanted the South to pay the SAME share.  THERE'S --- your divide.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One of the reasons the south offered for seceding was states' rights. I don't care what they were called, they were the converatives of the country. They were more racist than the north then and they still are today.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> State's rights were a raging argument since the FOUNDING. You can find remnants of it in almost every STATE Constitution as they entered the Union.
> 
> Only reason they were more racist than the North in the 1860s was that MOST EVERY Northern state looked more lily-white than Vermont is today. North treated slavery like it was a foreign issue.* Didn't have to address it at that time in any REAL sense of "race relations".*  You are deficient in whoever educated you didn't explain "the way things were" at that time.. Or about the major differences in culture and life between the North and South..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Northern states had had slavery- and had abolished it by 1860- other than I believe Delaware. It wasn't a foreign issue to the North- it was a source of embaressment and conflict- Southerners demanded that escaped slaves be returned- and Northern states tried to prevent that from happening.
> 
> But explaining why the Confederate slave states were more racist still doesn't change that they were more racist- though frankly by our standards virtually everyone in 1860 would be considered a racist.
> 
> Which is why this thread is somewhat ironic- the attempt to paint the Democrats as the party of racism- when both parties were quite racist in 1860.
> 
> I am a bit confused about your posts though- you said the thread was getting heated up- and put a hold on the thread- because it was getting too  personal- and yet here you are insulting the poster's education.
Click to expand...


I noticed that too -- dood seems to be spoiling for a fight, yet over exactly what point, I dunno  

He should take a hint from Forney Johnston.  I hear tell *nobody *argued with him at the '24 convention.


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Big shocker for the folks who only know  the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters  is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
> 
> In the Lower South --- the free Blacks  had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
> 
> *Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860*
> 
> 
> White     Free black    Difference
> North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
> Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
> Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes.  A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show.  "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
> 
> Well yeah.  That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate.  Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts.  That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them.  Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
> 
> Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes.  Wars just ain't that simple.
Click to expand...


Yet of course that is exactly the purpose of this thread.

To create a binary revisionist history that the Democratic Party was the only racist institution in America- and that the Democratic Party of today is the same party as it was in 1858- or 1920- and that the Republican Party of today is the same party as it was in 1860.


----------



## Syriusly

flacaltenn said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Big shocker for the folks who only know  the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters  is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
> 
> In the Lower South --- the free Blacks  had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
> 
> *Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860*
> 
> 
> White     Free black    Difference
> North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
> Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
> Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes.  A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show.  "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
> 
> Well yeah.  That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate.  Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts.  That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them.  Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
> 
> Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes.  Wars just ain't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AND YET -- folks want to purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history and the story. Over my dead moon-shine stinking body.. More dead Americans from that war than the total in the 20th Century. AND the history needs to be covered in black tarps.
Click to expand...


Who is trying to 'purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history?

Who is trying to purge your recollections of the actual history?

Removing monuments that honor Confederate 'heroes' is not purging history- any more than putting up monuments is creating history.


----------



## Pogo

Syriusly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Big shocker for the folks who only know  the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters  is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
> 
> In the Lower South --- the free Blacks  had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
> 
> *Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860*
> 
> 
> White     Free black    Difference
> North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
> Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
> Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes.  A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show.  "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
> 
> Well yeah.  That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate.  Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts.  That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them.  Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
> 
> Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes.  Wars just ain't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yet of course that is exactly the purpose of this thread.
> 
> To create a binary revisionist history that the Democratic Party was the only racist institution in America- and that the Democratic Party of today is the same party as it was in 1858- or 1920- and that the Republican Party of today is the same party as it was in 1860.
Click to expand...


Indeed, that's the big binary boner that gets pulled here every day.  I keep telling these dipweeds that racism isn't a political construct but a _social _one.  But these binary-bots aren't interested in historical reality; they're only interested in scoring internet "points" via historical revisionism, as the Lost Cause was.

Speaking of lost causes, Forney Johnston is still valiantly holding on in his heroic struggle to remain dead.


----------



## Pogo

Syriusly said:


> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Big shocker for the folks who only know  the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters  is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
> 
> In the Lower South --- the free Blacks  had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
> 
> *Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860*
> 
> 
> White     Free black    Difference
> North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
> Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
> Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes.  A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show.  "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
> 
> Well yeah.  That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate.  Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts.  That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them.  Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
> 
> Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes.  Wars just ain't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AND YET -- folks want to purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history and the story. Over my dead moon-shine stinking body.. More dead Americans from that war than the total in the 20th Century. AND the history needs to be covered in black tarps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is trying to 'purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history?
> 
> Who is trying to purge your recollections of the actual history?
> 
> Removing monuments that honor Confederate 'heroes' is not purging history- any more than putting up monuments is creating history.
Click to expand...


As I've been relentlessly pointing out from the beginning on this issue, monument removal not only in no way "removes" history, nor is the history of the Civil War some obscure arcane event that nobody knows --- it's actually _energizing _knowledge of history by drawing attention to the Lost Cause and its UDC that put all these propaganda pieces up for the purpose of _revising_ that history.  And that _*is*_ more of an obscurity that needs to be known.  So ironically the attention to various cities removing said propaganda pieces in fact does the opposite of what the "removing history" parrots squawk about; it opens a door, and a vital one.

These monuments all went up about 40-50 years after the War was over.  Are we to believe that in those intervening years, there was no history until monuments and statues created it?  Hardly; the history was all too known and all too real.  That's why it had to be revised.  You don't run around putting up hundreds of statues and monuments and plaques to impart stories that everybody already believes.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be a part of progressivism… Fact
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Racism will always be part of Conservatism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It never has been, and it never will be.  Your claim is commie propaganda, and nothing more.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It has always been part of Conservatism- just look at the Conservative south.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The term "conservative" was meaningless in 1860.  Aside from the issue of slavery and tariffs, the North and the South believed the same things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Lower taxes, states' rights, smaller government, Christianity, all issues held dearly by the south. The south was, and is, conservative.
Click to expand...

The same values held by many Northern states just 4 years earlier.


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Big shocker for the folks who only know  the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters  is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
> 
> In the Lower South --- the free Blacks  had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
> 
> *Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860*
> 
> 
> White     Free black    Difference
> North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
> Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
> Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes.  A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show.  "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
> 
> Well yeah.  That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate.  Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts.  That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them.  Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
> 
> Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes.  Wars just ain't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AND YET -- folks want to purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history and the story. Over my dead moon-shine stinking body.. More dead Americans from that war than the total in the 20th Century. AND the history needs to be covered in black tarps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is trying to 'purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history?
> 
> Who is trying to purge your recollections of the actual history?
> 
> Removing monuments that honor Confederate 'heroes' is not purging history- any more than putting up monuments is creating history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I've been relentlessly pointing out from the beginning on this issue, monument removal not only in no way "removes" history, nor is the history of the Civil War some obscure arcane event that nobody knows --- it's actually _energizing _knowledge of history by drawing attention to the Lost Cause and its UDC that put all these propaganda pieces up for the purpose of _revising_ that history.  And that _*is*_ more of an obscurity that needs to be known.  So ironically the attention to various cities removing said propaganda pieces in fact does the opposite of what the "removing history" parrots squawk about; it opens a door, and a vital one.
> 
> These monuments all went up about 40-50 years after the War was over.  Are we to believe that in those intervening years, there was no history until monuments and statues created it?  Hardly; the history was all too known and all too real.  That's why it had to be revised.  You don't run around putting up hundreds of statues and monuments and plaques to impart stories that everybody already believes.
Click to expand...


And books about the Civil War continue to get published, and making the best sellers lists. 

Odd isn't it- that there are all these people who complain about 'revisionist history' when it comes to removal of statues honoring those who fought against the United States- but none of them seem to be interested when you point out that the KKK was not founded by the Democratic Party?


----------



## Pogo

Syriusly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> flacaltenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A Big shocker for the folks who only know  the south thru the eyes of their modern political masters  is Table 3 in the link I gave above..
> 
> In the Lower South --- the free Blacks  had closer Property OWNERSHIP parity with whites than in the North.. Southern whites were largely merchant class and tenant farmers. OR WORSE -- indentured in some way.
> 
> *Table 3: Percent of Free Population Claiming to Hold Some Property, 1860*
> 
> 
> White     Free black    Difference
> North 18.1% 11.7% -6.4%
> Upper South 19.4% 9.8% 9.5%
> Lower South 18.8% 17.9% -0.9%
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are a ton of monolithic and binary stereotypes.  A while back I heard some clown on a radio talk show whining that there were no black people on the Andy Griffith show.  "No black people, and you're in the South"? he whined.
> 
> Well yeah.  That area (Mt. Airy NC, not far from here) never did have a history of the two main factors that bring a significant black population, slaveowning or industrialization, so the population represented on the TV show was actually accurate.  Similarly here as well as over that mountain (pointing out the door to the west) where Tennessee starts.  That area, I often point out here, was not at all into secession, voted against it, and even tried to secede from the rest of Tennessee over it just as the northwestern counties of Virginia did to create West Virginia -- they were forced to acquiesce at gunpoint by the Confederales west of them.  Then there were the Home Guards who basically wanted no part of war at all and would defend against, or attack, either side's army that came through to use their town as a pawn ... and add to that that these armies depending on circumstances might be moving disguised as the opposite side.
> 
> Neither The South, nor the Civil War itself, can be painted in binary black-white absolutes.  Wars just ain't that simple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> AND YET -- folks want to purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history and the story. Over my dead moon-shine stinking body.. More dead Americans from that war than the total in the 20th Century. AND the history needs to be covered in black tarps.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who is trying to 'purge our recollections of the ACTUAL history?
> 
> Who is trying to purge your recollections of the actual history?
> 
> Removing monuments that honor Confederate 'heroes' is not purging history- any more than putting up monuments is creating history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I've been relentlessly pointing out from the beginning on this issue, monument removal not only in no way "removes" history, nor is the history of the Civil War some obscure arcane event that nobody knows --- it's actually _energizing _knowledge of history by drawing attention to the Lost Cause and its UDC that put all these propaganda pieces up for the purpose of _revising_ that history.  And that _*is*_ more of an obscurity that needs to be known.  So ironically the attention to various cities removing said propaganda pieces in fact does the opposite of what the "removing history" parrots squawk about; it opens a door, and a vital one.
> 
> These monuments all went up about 40-50 years after the War was over.  Are we to believe that in those intervening years, there was no history until monuments and statues created it?  Hardly; the history was all too known and all too real.  That's why it had to be revised.  You don't run around putting up hundreds of statues and monuments and plaques to impart stories that everybody already believes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And books about the Civil War continue to get published, and making the best sellers lists.
> 
> Odd isn't it- that there are all these people who complain about 'revisionist history' when it comes to removal of statues honoring those who fought against the United States- but none of them seem to be interested when you point out that the KKK was not founded by the Democratic Party?
Click to expand...


That one guy kept posting that same erroneous YouTube video over and over, after it was thoroughly debunked.

As noted elsewhere these wags engage in what I call fast food posting --- they're not interested in the ingredients, they just want what feels (tastes) good. 

Show them the actual ingredients and they go


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Meanwhile- the KKK was founded by Southern White Christian Conservatives
> 
> 
> 
> southern *democrats*....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The very same Democrats who are personified by Bill 'the rapist' Clinton.
> *'*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very same Republicans who are personified by Donald 'the rapist' Trump
> 
> “And isn’t it funny. I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it,” O’Donnell recalled Trump saying. “The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.”
> 
> “I think the guy is lazy,” Trump said of a black employee, according to O’Donnell. “And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.”
> Trump Condemned Racism As 'Evil.' Here Are 16 Times He Embraced It. | HuffPost
Click to expand...




Perhaps you'd care to provide the entire post of mine, and try to show where I'm incorrect?

No?

We both know why, don't we.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
> The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries.  Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.
> 
> Novels, however, are what we call "fiction".  Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".
> 
> You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.
Click to expand...



"The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.

....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?


Answer, you dunce.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Virginia voted for Hillary.  That means she's a racist, right?
> 
> 
> 
> Why would that mean she's a racist??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apparently your theory is that if a former confederate state votes for you then you are a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nah, apparently, you're an imbecile as I never said that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure you did.  You said Trump was a racist because former Confederate states voted for him.  Since one vote for Hillary, according to your logic she must also be a racist.  Of course, no one is surprised that now you are trying to weasel out of the implications of your moron theory.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yyyyyyyeeeaahhh ummmmmmmm Fingerboy ----- you just plugged that in as a strawman, prefaced with the word "apparently".
Click to expand...




Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now, and for his entire life.....a racist who has always considered blacks less as a race than whites?

Answer, you dunce.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Clinton Misogyny - Sex*t
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bill Clinton has been convicted of rape as many times as Donald Trump has been convicted of rape.
Click to expand...



Now....about you denying the nature and character of the rapists/racist Bill Clinton:



1. When any Liberal/Progressive/Democrat bootlicker is presented with the list of Bill Clintons rape and sexual misbehaviors, the knee-jerk response of the jerk is the expected: "But...but (sputter- sputter) he was never convicted in any court of law!!



2. This, of course, is a prime example of sophistry, the use of fallacious arguments, with the intention of deceiving. (i.e., the jerk is a liar.)

This is not a court of law, and the argument does not end with a jail sentence....sadly.


It is the court of real world experience, and is based on one's judgment based on their experience and knowledge,  and, especially, the past behavior of the individual in question.



3. The type of verdict demanded does not require that of a court, it is the court of public opinion.





a. Based on Clinton's history, is the charge that he refused to acknowledge his prey's refusal for sexual intercourse...possible or impossible?


.......probable or improbable?


.....exceptional or expected?



b . Has he been shown to be a liar? Yes, in fact in a court of law.



The answer is clear.


*"Bill 'the rapist' Clinton" is an accurate description.*




4. The same procedure should be used to examine as to whether charges would even be brought against one of his lofty political stature...and political party.


That question requires even less effort to answer.....as it has been answered previously, in an even more serious matter: responsibility in the death of a young woman.

I refer to "The Liberal Lion," Ted Kennedy.




5. An auxiliary question might be 'what type of individual would support rapists and murderers as mentioned above?


This, too, is an easy question to answer.




6. Oh.....need I bring up the rapist's many trips to Epstein's 'Sex Slave island'?
"Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender's jet much more than previously known"
Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender's jet much more than previously known


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just when you think PC couldn't get anymore retarded.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unless, of course, you'd just admit that I am never wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are always hilariously wrong.
> 
> And blindingly oblivious to your bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Perhaps you'd care to provide the entire post of mine, and try to show where I'm incorrect?.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have pointed out where you are wrong enough times to know that you will ignore the facts.
> 
> Just as you ignore anything other than your own personal obsessions.
Click to expand...



There were three items in my post that you fear posting.

Why is that?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
Click to expand...




There is no 'Radical Right.'

If you imagine there is....present  any conservative/GOP desires, aims, programs that are at odds with the views, attitudes, or traditions of the Founders.


Radical is a term to be reserved for the socialists, communists, Liberals, Nazis of the Left.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile...
Click to expand...




*Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president



Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.

“We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.

The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> Never Goldwater: How the Fight to Defeat the Arizona Senator Gave Birth to the Modern GOP
> 
> The Republican Party of 1964 had clear left and right wings in a form that would be unrecognizable today. Previous nominees had quickly worked to sew up the divisions and preached unity. In 1960, Goldwater himself had been a part of that unity effort, telling his allies on the right to “grow up” and work for the nominee, Nixon.v “If we want to take this party back—and I think we can someday—let’s go to work,” he said. In 1964 though, Goldwater was sounding a call to arms. It was fine with him if the moderates jumped in a lake.
> 
> For conservatives, Eisenhower’s victories had come at the cost of principle. The National Review, the organ of the movement, opposed Eisenhower and his move toward centrism. Its publisher, William Rusher, said that “modern American conservatism largely organized itself during, and in opposition to, the Eisenhower Administration.” Goldwater called the Eisenhower administration a “dime-store New Deal.”
> 
> As if to punctuate the point, when Eisenhower stopped in Amarillo, Texas, on the way to the ’64 convention, two young men hurled a Goldwater sign in a fit of enthusiasm. They were not aiming at the ex-president but hit him nevertheless, causing him to double over.vi
> 
> Moderate Republicans like Rockefeller supported the national consensus toward advancing civil rights by promoting national legislation to protect the vote, employment, housing, and other elements of the American promise denied to blacks. They sought to contain communism, not eradicate it, and they had faith that the government could be a force for good if it were circumscribed and run efficiently. They believed in experts and belittled the Goldwater approach, which held that complex problems could be solved merely by the application of common sense. It was not a plus to the Rockefeller camp that Goldwater had publicly admitted, “You know, I haven’t got a really first-class brain.”vii Politically, moderates believed that these positions would preserve the Republican Party in a changing America.
> 
> Conservatives wanted to restrict government from meddling in private enterprise and the free exercise of liberty. They thought bipartisanship and compromise were leading to collectivism and fiscal irresponsibility. On national security, Goldwater and his allies felt Eisenhower had been barely fighting the communists, and that the Soviets were gobbling up territory across the globe. At one point, Goldwater appeared to muse about dropping a low-yield nuclear bomb on the Chinese supply lines in Vietnam, though it may have been more a press misunderstanding than his actual view.viii
> 
> 
> The likely nominee disagreed most violently with moderates over the issue of federal protections for the rights of black Americans. In June, a month before the convention, the Senate had voted on the Civil Rights Act. Twenty-seven of 33 Republicans voted for the legislation. Goldwater was one of the six who did not, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. “The structure of the federal system, with its 50 separate state units, has long permitted this nation to nourish local differences, even local cultures,” wrote Goldwater in _Where I Stand_.







According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.
When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
“ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89
Who founded the Arizona chapter of the NAACP?
Once the Democrats got involved, civil rights became just another racket with another mob. Unlike previous civil rights laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included provisions aimed at purely private actors, raising the hackles of some constitutional purists, notably Barry Goldwater, the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nominee. Goldwater, like the rest of his party, had supported every single civil rights bill until the 1964 act. But he broke with the vast majority of his fellow Republicans to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
> The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries.  Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.
> 
> Novels, however, are what we call "fiction".  Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".
> 
> You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
Click to expand...


Again neither OP is responding so again I'm here to help, first of all with English:

nov·el1
ˈnävəl/
_noun_
noun: *novel*; plural noun: *novels*

a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.
"the novels of Jane Austen"
synonyms: book, paperback, hardcover; More
story, tale, narrative, romance, roman à clef;
piece of fiction;
bestseller, blockbuster;
potboiler, pulp (fiction)
"curl up with a good novel"
the literary genre represented or exemplified by novels.
noun: *the novel*
"the novel is the most adaptable of all literary forms"

Perhaps you can find the word "fiction" in there.  In two forms.  Perhaps not, but in any event that's what a novel is.  Perhaps you've noticed a standard disclaimer on films noting that that work is fiction and 'any resemblance to persons or events is coincidental and unintentional'.  Again, perhaps not.

Whatever events this John Connolly may have written in this NOVEL, and I obviously don't have a copy here nor have you posted it, would be the product of his own what we call "_imagination_".  As such it cannot, by definition, be "correct" or "incorrect".  It would be "incorrect" in the sense that the events described never actually happened, but it would also be incorrect to label it "incorrect" since a novel by definition does not _purport _to be an accurate accounting of events.

As far as employing a "degree of realism" per the definition above, the selected excerpt quoted does indeed cite a realistic character dynamic based on real history; in small words it _could have_ happened.  After maybe sixteen cups of strong coffee it might even dawn on you that I've already not only volunteered that analysis but also gone into detail about exactly what these "night riders" were, where they came from and what their purpose was.  Forty or fifty additional cups of caffeine might even enable you to see that that analysis is still sitting directly above in the quote nest.

Once you've discovered all this perhaps we might move on to highly complex mysteries such as "find your foot".


----------



## Rambunctious

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
> The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries.  Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.
> 
> Novels, however, are what we call "fiction".  Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".
> 
> You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again neither OP is responding so again I'm here to help, first of all with English:
> 
> nov·el1
> ˈnävəl/
> _noun_
> noun: *novel*; plural noun: *novels*
> 
> a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.
> "the novels of Jane Austen"
> synonyms: book, paperback, hardcover; More
> story, tale, narrative, romance, roman à clef;
> piece of fiction;
> bestseller, blockbuster;
> potboiler, pulp (fiction)
> "curl up with a good novel"
> the literary genre represented or exemplified by novels.
> noun: *the novel*
> "the novel is the most adaptable of all literary forms"
> 
> Perhaps you can find the word "fiction" in there.  In two forms.  Perhaps not, but in any event that's what a novel is.  Perhaps you've noticed a standard disclaimer on films noting that that work is fiction and 'any resemblance to persons or events is coincidental and unintentional'.  Again, perhaps not.
> 
> Whatever events this John Connolly may have written in this NOVEL, and I obviously don't have a copy here nor have you posted it, would be the product of his own what we call "_imagination_".  As such it cannot, by definition, be "correct" or "incorrect".  It would be "incorrect" in the sense that the events described never actually happened, but it would also be incorrect to label it "incorrect" since a novel by definition does not _purport _to be an accurate accounting of events.
> 
> As far as employing a "degree of realism" per the definition above, the selected excerpt quoted does indeed cite a realistic character dynamic based on real history; in small words it _could have_ happened.  After maybe sixteen cups of strong coffee it might even dawn on you that I've already not only volunteered that analysis but also gone into detail about exactly what these "night riders" were, where they came from and what their purpose was.  Forty or fifty additional cups of caffeine might even enable you to see that that analysis is still sitting directly above in the quote nest.
> 
> Once you've discovered all this perhaps we might move on to highly complex mysteries such as "find your foot".
Click to expand...

More copy and paste history revision....such a sad person you are.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *Clinton Misogyny - Sex*
> Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
> Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
> Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
> Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
> Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
> Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
> 22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
> Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
> Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
> Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
> Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
> 1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
> 1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
> Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
> Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
> Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
> Sally Perdue - post incident threats
> Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
> Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
> CLINTON'S ROGUES GALLERY:
> 
> 
> And...just recently: "Leslie Millwee says that on two of the alleged occasions, Clinton groped her while he rubbed himself against her and reached climax."  EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW: New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Goes Public for the First Time - Breitbart
Click to expand...

So no rapes then. Wellstone was consensual and Broaddrick swore under oath he didn't really rape her and none of the other allegations involved rape.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Like always, you crack me up ...

Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....






The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Never Goldwater: How the Fight to Defeat the Arizona Senator Gave Birth to the Modern GOP
> 
> The Republican Party of 1964 had clear left and right wings in a form that would be unrecognizable today. Previous nominees had quickly worked to sew up the divisions and preached unity. In 1960, Goldwater himself had been a part of that unity effort, telling his allies on the right to “grow up” and work for the nominee, Nixon.v “If we want to take this party back—and I think we can someday—let’s go to work,” he said. In 1964 though, Goldwater was sounding a call to arms. It was fine with him if the moderates jumped in a lake.
> 
> For conservatives, Eisenhower’s victories had come at the cost of principle. The National Review, the organ of the movement, opposed Eisenhower and his move toward centrism. Its publisher, William Rusher, said that “modern American conservatism largely organized itself during, and in opposition to, the Eisenhower Administration.” Goldwater called the Eisenhower administration a “dime-store New Deal.”
> 
> As if to punctuate the point, when Eisenhower stopped in Amarillo, Texas, on the way to the ’64 convention, two young men hurled a Goldwater sign in a fit of enthusiasm. They were not aiming at the ex-president but hit him nevertheless, causing him to double over.vi
> 
> Moderate Republicans like Rockefeller supported the national consensus toward advancing civil rights by promoting national legislation to protect the vote, employment, housing, and other elements of the American promise denied to blacks. They sought to contain communism, not eradicate it, and they had faith that the government could be a force for good if it were circumscribed and run efficiently. They believed in experts and belittled the Goldwater approach, which held that complex problems could be solved merely by the application of common sense. It was not a plus to the Rockefeller camp that Goldwater had publicly admitted, “You know, I haven’t got a really first-class brain.”vii Politically, moderates believed that these positions would preserve the Republican Party in a changing America.
> 
> Conservatives wanted to restrict government from meddling in private enterprise and the free exercise of liberty. They thought bipartisanship and compromise were leading to collectivism and fiscal irresponsibility. On national security, Goldwater and his allies felt Eisenhower had been barely fighting the communists, and that the Soviets were gobbling up territory across the globe. At one point, Goldwater appeared to muse about dropping a low-yield nuclear bomb on the Chinese supply lines in Vietnam, though it may have been more a press misunderstanding than his actual view.viii
> 
> 
> The likely nominee disagreed most violently with moderates over the issue of federal protections for the rights of black Americans. In June, a month before the convention, the Senate had voted on the Civil Rights Act. Twenty-seven of 33 Republicans voted for the legislation. Goldwater was one of the six who did not, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. “The structure of the federal system, with its 50 separate state units, has long permitted this nation to nourish local differences, even local cultures,” wrote Goldwater in _Where I Stand_.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.
> When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
> “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89
> Who founded the Arizona chapter of the NAACP?
> Once the Democrats got involved, civil rights became just another racket with another mob. Unlike previous civil rights laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included provisions aimed at purely private actors, raising the hackles of some constitutional purists, notably Barry Goldwater, the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nominee. Goldwater, like the rest of his party, had supported every single civil rights bill until the 1964 act. But he broke with the vast majority of his fellow Republicans to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Click to expand...

_"*It is both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party has nominated senator Barry Goldwater as its candidate for the presidency of the United States.* In foreign policy, Mr. Goldwater advocates a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Godlwater represents an unrealistic conservatism that is totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty throughout this land compels the attention of all citizens of our country. It is our conviction that senator Goldwater has neither the concern nor the comprehensive necessary to grapple with this problem in the fashion that the historical moments dictates. *On the urgent issue of civil rights, senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and politically and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives aid and comfort to the racists.* His candidacy and philosophy will serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes will stand. In the light of these facts and *because of my love for America, I have no alternative but to urge every negro and every white person of good will to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that does not publicly disassociate himself from senator Godlwater and his philosophy.* While I have followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I feel that the prospect of senator Goldwater being president of the United States so threatens the health, morality and survival of our nation that *I can not in good conscious fail to take a stand against what he represents.*" ~ Martin Luther King Jr._

If MLK Jr. were alive today, he would equate Trump with Barry Goldwater in terms of civil rights.


----------



## paperview

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
Click to expand...

Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.


Make sure and keep repeating that right up to election day...it's a winner for our team.


----------



## Hugo Furst

'klanbake' didn't happen at the 1924 democratic convention?

Digital History

"The two leading candidates symbolized a deep cultural divide. Al Smith, New York's governor, was a Catholic and an opponent of prohibition and was bitterly opposed by Democrats in the South and West. Former Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo, a Protestant, defended prohibition and refused to repudiate the Ku Klux Klan, making himself unacceptable to Catholics and Jews in the Northeast.
Newspapers called the convention a "Klanbake," as pro-Klan and anti-Klan delegates wrangled bitterly over the party platform. The convention opened on a Monday and by Thursday night, after 61 ballots, the convention was deadlocked. The next day, July 4, some 20,000 Klan supporters wearing white hoods and robes held a picnic in New Jersey. One speaker denounced the "clownvention in Jew York." They threw baseballs at an effigy of Al Smith. A cross-burning culminated the event. "


----------



## Faun

WillHaftawaite said:


> 'klanbake' didn't happen at the 1924 democratic convention?
> 
> Digital History
> 
> "The two leading candidates symbolized a deep cultural divide. Al Smith, New York's governor, was a Catholic and an opponent of prohibition and was bitterly opposed by Democrats in the South and West. Former Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo, a Protestant, defended prohibition and refused to repudiate the Ku Klux Klan, making himself unacceptable to Catholics and Jews in the Northeast.
> Newspapers called the convention a "Klanbake," as pro-Klan and anti-Klan delegates wrangled bitterly over the party platform. The convention opened on a Monday and by Thursday night, after 61 ballots, the convention was deadlocked. The next day, July 4, some 20,000 Klan supporters wearing white hoods and robes held a picnic in New Jersey. One speaker denounced the "clownvention in Jew York." They threw baseballs at an effigy of Al Smith. A cross-burning culminated the event. "


Who said the 1924 DNC wasn't referred to as a "klanbake?"


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Who said the 1924 DNC wasn't referred to as a "klanbake?"


That's good to see that you are coming around to the main point...thumbs up!


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said the 1924 DNC wasn't referred to as a "klanbake?"
> 
> 
> 
> That's good to see that you are coming around to the main point...thumbs up!
Click to expand...

LOLOL

The "main point" was about a photograph. One purported to be of the Klan marching at *Madison* Square Garden; when in fact, the photo is actually from a Klan march in *Madison*, Wisconsin.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
> The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries.  Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.
> 
> Novels, however, are what we call "fiction".  Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".
> 
> You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again neither OP is responding so again I'm here to help, first of all with English:
> 
> nov·el1
> ˈnävəl/
> _noun_
> noun: *novel*; plural noun: *novels*
> 
> a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.
> "the novels of Jane Austen"
> synonyms: book, paperback, hardcover; More
> story, tale, narrative, romance, roman à clef;
> piece of fiction;
> bestseller, blockbuster;
> potboiler, pulp (fiction)
> "curl up with a good novel"
> the literary genre represented or exemplified by novels.
> noun: *the novel*
> "the novel is the most adaptable of all literary forms"
> 
> Perhaps you can find the word "fiction" in there.  In two forms.  Perhaps not, but in any event that's what a novel is.  Perhaps you've noticed a standard disclaimer on films noting that that work is fiction and 'any resemblance to persons or events is coincidental and unintentional'.  Again, perhaps not.
> 
> Whatever events this John Connolly may have written in this NOVEL, and I obviously don't have a copy here nor have you posted it, would be the product of his own what we call "_imagination_".  As such it cannot, by definition, be "correct" or "incorrect".  It would be "incorrect" in the sense that the events described never actually happened, but it would also be incorrect to label it "incorrect" since a novel by definition does not _purport _to be an accurate accounting of events.
> 
> As far as employing a "degree of realism" per the definition above, the selected excerpt quoted does indeed cite a realistic character dynamic based on real history; in small words it _could have_ happened.  After maybe sixteen cups of strong coffee it might even dawn on you that I've already not only volunteered that analysis but also gone into detail about exactly what these "night riders" were, where they came from and what their purpose was.  Forty or fifty additional cups of caffeine might even enable you to see that that analysis is still sitting directly above in the quote nest.
> 
> Once you've discovered all this perhaps we might move on to highly complex mysteries such as "find your foot".
Click to expand...





"The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.

....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?


Answer, you dunce.


----------



## John Baron

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



Is anyone who attended still alive? 

Was that when Donald Trump' father was arrested with KKK?


----------



## PoliticalChic

paperview said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
Click to expand...



Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?


----------



## John Baron

PoliticalChic said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
Click to expand...

David Duke?


----------



## Hugo Furst

John Baron said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone who attended still alive?
> 
> Was that when Donald Trump' father was arrested with KKK?
Click to expand...


No, Al Gore Sr passed on a long time ago


----------



## John Baron

PoliticalChic said:


> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?


David Duke praised Trump: “Thank you President Trump

Can you name any Democrats the KKK are thanking?


----------



## John Baron

WillHaftawaite said:


> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone who attended still alive?
> 
> Was that when Donald Trump' father was arrested with KKK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Al Gore Sr passed on a long time ago
Click to expand...

So you can't?


----------



## Hugo Furst

John Baron said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Duke?
Click to expand...


Duke is what ever will get him notice.

He's been a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent....

But, mostly an asshole


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
Click to expand...

_"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._


----------



## Hugo Furst

John Baron said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is anyone who attended still alive?
> 
> Was that when Donald Trump' father was arrested with KKK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, Al Gore Sr passed on a long time ago
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you can't?
Click to expand...

I don't have access to the KKK member files.

Why don't you check after the next meeting?


----------



## Faun

WillHaftawaite said:


> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Duke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duke is what ever will get him notice.
> 
> He's been a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent....
> 
> But, mostly an asshole
Click to expand...

True, but he was rejected by Democrats when he ran as one and won his only election when elected by Republicans.


----------



## John Baron

WillHaftawaite said:


> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duke is what ever will get him notice.
> 
> He's been a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent....
> 
> But, mostly an asshole
Click to expand...


Like Trump?


----------



## bripat9643

paperview said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
Click to expand...

You take the word of CNN which has been caught lying about 150 times since the election.  it tells big fat whoppers almost daily.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Duke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duke is what ever will get him notice.
> 
> He's been a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent....
> 
> But, mostly an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but he was rejected by Democrats when he ran as one and won his only election when elected by Republicans.
Click to expand...


On the other hand, KKK Byrd was reelected time after time after time, to the US Senate, no less.


----------



## John Baron

bripat9643 said:


> On the other hand, KKK Byrd was reelected time after time after time, to the US Senate, no less.


Where was Byrd from and who was selecting him?

What did black leaders say about Byrd?


----------



## John Baron

bripat9643 said:


> You take the word of CNN which has been caught lying about 150 times since the election.  it tells big fat whoppers almost daily.


How many times have news sources you use been caught lying? Is making mistakes equal to lying? HAs anyone lied as much as our current president?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
Click to expand...


You didn't name any.


----------



## bripat9643

John Baron said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, KKK Byrd was reelected time after time after time, to the US Senate, no less.
> 
> 
> 
> Where was Byrd from and who was selecting him?
> 
> What did black leaders say about Byrd?
Click to expand...


Byrd was in the KKK and Hillary admitted that she admired him and even kissed him.

That's the bottom line.


----------



## bripat9643

John Baron said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You take the word of CNN which has been caught lying about 150 times since the election.  it tells big fat whoppers almost daily.
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have news sources you use been caught lying? Is making mistakes equal to lying? HAs anyone lied as much as our current president?
Click to expand...

Making a mistake isn't what CNN did, unless you call getting caught at lying a "mistake."  CNN lied deliberately.


----------



## PoliticalChic

John Baron said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke praised Trump: “Thank you President Trump
> 
> Can you name any Democrats the KKK are thanking?
Click to expand...




Sure can.

David Duke.

David Duke....the Democrat

State Senator, 1975 (Baton Rouge Area)[edit]
Threshold > 50%

First Ballot, November 1, 1975

Louisiana State Senate, 1975
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Kenneth Osterberger 22,287 66
Democratic David Duke 11,079 33
N/A Others 1
Total 100
State Senator, 10th District, 1979 (Suburban New Orleans)[edit]
Threshold > 50% First Ballot, October 27, 1979

Louisiana State Senate, 10th District, 1979
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Joseph Tiemann 21,329 57
Democratic David Duke 9,897 26
N/A Others 6,459 17
Total 37,685 100
Democratic Nomination for United States Presidential Candidate, 1988 (Louisiana results)[edit]
Threshold = Plurality

1988 Democratic Presidential primary in Louisiana
Party Candidate Votes %
Democratic Jesse Jackson 221,522 35
Democratic Al Gore 174,971 28
Democratic Michael Dukakis 95,661 15
Democratic Dick Gephardt 67,029 11
Democratic Gary Hart 26,437 4
Democratic David Duke 23,391 4
Democratic Others 16,008 3
Total 625,019 100
Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia



Duke left the KKK long before he became a Republicans....


"In 1979, after his first, abortive run for president (as a Democrat) and a series of highly publicized violent Klan incidents, Duke quietly incorporated the nonprofit National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) in an attempt to leave the baggage of the Klan behind."
David Duke - Wikipedia





1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*



2. The Democrats have always been associated with racism. The Democrat icon Franklin Roosevelt, in fact, made a KKKer his very first pick for the Supreme Court:

. "... [Hugo] Black was head of new members for *the largest Klan cell in the South*. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]



The Democrat Party is and has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.



See what you've learned today?


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
Click to expand...


I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).

Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.

​
If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
Click to expand...




Nobody ever heard of him......but:

Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
The Democrats have.

Have the Republicans placed anyone who opposes free speech on the Supreme Court?
The Democrats have.


Did the Republicans block every anti-lynching bill to come to the Senate?
The Democrats did.

Is this the record of the Republicans?
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Duke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duke is what ever will get him notice.
> 
> He's been a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent....
> 
> But, mostly an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but he was rejected by Democrats when he ran as one and won his only election when elected by Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, KKK Byrd was reelected time after time after time, to the US Senate, no less.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately for you Fingerboy, Byrd had already quit the Klan before he ever ran for office.

Morley in my last post ----- eeehh not so much.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
Click to expand...




Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now, and for his entire life.....a racist who has always considered blacks less as a race than whites?


Answer, you dunce.




"The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.

....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?


Answer, you dunce.


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said the 1924 DNC wasn't referred to as a "klanbake?"
> 
> 
> 
> That's good to see that you are coming around to the main point...thumbs up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The "main point" was about a photograph. One purported to be of the Klan marching at *Madison* Square Garden; when in fact, the photo is actually from a Klan march in *Madison*, Wisconsin.
Click to expand...


Frankly I think you're giving Fingerboy too much margin for error there.  He still can't explain the cadaver of a dead man pulled out of nowhere leading a contingent at a political convention.  Or how anybody holds a convention on trolley tracks.  I'm not sure "Madison" isn't just a freakish coincidence.

But I'm sure Fingerboy can tell us how he came up with this shit.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duke is what ever will get him notice.
> 
> He's been a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent....
> 
> But, mostly an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but he was rejected by Democrats when he ran as one and won his only election when elected by Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, KKK Byrd was reelected time after time after time, to the US Senate, no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately for you Fingerboy, Byrd had already quit the Klan before he ever ran for office.
> 
> Morley in my last post ----- eeehh not so much.
Click to expand...


– 1964: Attempts to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It wasn’t out of principled libertarian support for property rights. Cites a racist study claiming that black people’s brains are statistically smaller than white people’s.

– 1967: Votes against Thurgood Marshall’s Supreme Court nomination. Went to J. Edgar Hoover to see if Marshall had any Communist ties that could ruin his nomination.

– 1968: Tells the FBI that it’s time that Martin Luther King, Jr., “met his Waterloo.” FBI ignores him.

– 1991: Votes Against Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination. Becomes the only senator in the body to have voted against both black Supreme Court nominees.

– 2001: Refers to what he called “white *******” on national television. Try to imagine, say, Haley Barbour being given a pass after calling someone a “white ******.”


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said the 1924 DNC wasn't referred to as a "klanbake?"
> 
> 
> 
> That's good to see that you are coming around to the main point...thumbs up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The "main point" was about a photograph. One purported to be of the Klan marching at *Madison* Square Garden; when in fact, the photo is actually from a Klan march in *Madison*, Wisconsin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly I think you're giving Fingerboy too much margin for error there.  He still can't explain the cadaver of a dead man pulled out of nowhere leading a contingent at a political convention.  Or how anybody holds a convention on trolley tracks.  I'm not sure "Madison" isn't just a freakish coincidence.
> 
> But I'm sure Fingerboy can tell us how he came up with this shit.
Click to expand...


Apparently you believe there's something incriminating in that mess.


----------



## Pogo

paperview said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
Click to expand...


As already noted earlier, since officially the Klan doesn't even exist and hasn't existed since it dissolved in 1944, anybody who wants to play dress-up can simply poke arm holes through a bedsheet and make a dunce cap, and declare himself Grand Imperial Wanker of the lokal Klavern of Kenner.  Like David Duke did.

I see people at baseball games wearing a jersey with the name "Utley" too.  I doubt that make them _actually Chase Utley._


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. *The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.
> 
> Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, *I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sold it?
> D'ja get a receipt?
> 
> Actually nobody owns the KKK since it officially does not exist.  Hasn't existed since 1944 when FDR's IRS slapped it with a two-thirds of a million dollar back tax bill at the same time the Governor of Georgia (that would be Ellis Arnall, and I can't remember what his political party was but it started with a D) was revoking its charter.
> 
> They didn't do that because the Klan was backing Coolidge and Hoover; they didn't do it because the Klan was smearing Al Smith; they didn't do it because the Klan was targeting Democratic Party voting blocs like blacks and Jews and Catholics and immigrants and labor unions; they didn't do that because it was getting Republican Klanners like Ed Jackson and Rice Means and Owen Brewster and George Baker and Ben Paulen and Clarence Morley into high office.  They did it because the Klan was a fucked-up terrorist group that had to go.
> 
> Of course, that didn't stop fucked-up racists from continuing to play dress-up without a formal organization -- all you had to do was sew yourself a robe and dunce cap and then declare yourself Grand Imperial Wanker of the local klavern.  Like David Duke did.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


April 23, 1944 to be exact, and I rounded off the money figure.

>> In April 1944, the IRS filed a lien for $685,305 in unpaid taxes, penalties and interest from 1920s against the Klan. The special Klonvocation convened by Colescott decided to dissolve the organization.[9][10] Before formally stepping down on April 23, 1944,[3] he founded a provisional governing committee consisted of five members.[4][11] On April 23, the final Klonvocation gathering was held in Atlanta. Its decisions disbanded the central Klan organization, "repealed all degrees, vacated all offices, voided all charters, and relieved every Klansman of any obligation whatever". <<  _Wiki: James Colescott_​
I don't post anything I can't back up.  Learn that.

At the same time this was going on, Ellis Arnall, the Governor of Georgia, was revoking its state charter.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Duke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duke is what ever will get him notice.
> 
> He's been a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent....
> 
> But, mostly an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but he was rejected by Democrats when he ran as one and won his only election when elected by Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, KKK Byrd was reelected time after time after time, to the US Senate, no less.
Click to expand...

So? Quote Byrd promoting white nationalism after becoming a Senator....

Byrd abandoned the Klan and and all white supremacist groups behind him. Whereas  Duke left the Klan only to form his own white nationalist group, the NAAWP.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said the 1924 DNC wasn't referred to as a "klanbake?"
> 
> 
> 
> That's good to see that you are coming around to the main point...thumbs up!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> The "main point" was about a photograph. One purported to be of the Klan marching at *Madison* Square Garden; when in fact, the photo is actually from a Klan march in *Madison*, Wisconsin.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Frankly I think you're giving Fingerboy too much margin for error there.  He still can't explain the cadaver of a dead man pulled out of nowhere leading a contingent at a political convention.  Or how anybody holds a convention on trolley tracks.  I'm not sure "Madison" isn't just a freakish coincidence.
> 
> But I'm sure Fingerboy can tell us how he came up with this shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you believe there's something incriminating in that mess.
Click to expand...


There is when you point to a set of wet trolley tracks on a December day in Wisconsin, claim it's a summer political convention in New York, and that at that convention there was a dead guy running around lobbying for a platform plank.  Way to vet an obvious bogus blog, Sherlock.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said the 1924 DNC wasn't referred to as a "klanbake?"
> 
> 
> 
> That's good to see that you are coming around to the main point...thumbs up!
Click to expand...


.It wasn't.  "Klanbake" refers to the gathering of Klanners in New Jersey across the river from Wisconsin New York City.   EVEN THE BOGUS BLOG IN THE OP ADMITS THAT.  And then goes on to not-explain what the connection is supposed to be.


----------



## Pogo

Rambunctious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
> The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries.  Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.
> 
> Novels, however, are what we call "fiction".  Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".
> 
> You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again neither OP is responding so again I'm here to help, first of all with English:
> 
> nov·el1
> ˈnävəl/
> _noun_
> noun: *novel*; plural noun: *novels*
> 
> a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.
> "the novels of Jane Austen"
> synonyms: book, paperback, hardcover; More
> story, tale, narrative, romance, roman à clef;
> piece of fiction;
> bestseller, blockbuster;
> potboiler, pulp (fiction)
> "curl up with a good novel"
> the literary genre represented or exemplified by novels.
> noun: *the novel*
> "the novel is the most adaptable of all literary forms"
> 
> Perhaps you can find the word "fiction" in there.  In two forms.  Perhaps not, but in any event that's what a novel is.  Perhaps you've noticed a standard disclaimer on films noting that that work is fiction and 'any resemblance to persons or events is coincidental and unintentional'.  Again, perhaps not.
> 
> Whatever events this John Connolly may have written in this NOVEL, and I obviously don't have a copy here nor have you posted it, would be the product of his own what we call "_imagination_".  As such it cannot, by definition, be "correct" or "incorrect".  It would be "incorrect" in the sense that the events described never actually happened, but it would also be incorrect to label it "incorrect" since a novel by definition does not _purport _to be an accurate accounting of events.
> 
> As far as employing a "degree of realism" per the definition above, the selected excerpt quoted does indeed cite a realistic character dynamic based on real history; in small words it _could have_ happened.  After maybe sixteen cups of strong coffee it might even dawn on you that I've already not only volunteered that analysis but also gone into detail about exactly what these "night riders" were, where they came from and what their purpose was.  Forty or fifty additional cups of caffeine might even enable you to see that that analysis is still sitting directly above in the quote nest.
> 
> Once you've discovered all this perhaps we might move on to highly complex mysteries such as "find your foot".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More copy and paste history revision....such a sad person you are.
Click to expand...


Where do you see any "revision"?

This oughta be good.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke praised Trump: “Thank you President Trump
> 
> Can you name any Democrats the KKK are thanking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure can.
> 
> David Duke.
> 
> David Duke....the Democrat
> 
> State Senator, 1975 (Baton Rouge Area)[edit]
> Threshold > 50%
> 
> First Ballot, November 1, 1975
> 
> Louisiana State Senate, 1975
> Party Candidate Votes %
> Democratic Kenneth Osterberger 22,287 66
> Democratic David Duke 11,079 33
> N/A Others 1
> Total 100
> State Senator, 10th District, 1979 (Suburban New Orleans)[edit]
> Threshold > 50% First Ballot, October 27, 1979
> 
> Louisiana State Senate, 10th District, 1979
> Party Candidate Votes %
> Democratic Joseph Tiemann 21,329 57
> Democratic David Duke 9,897 26
> N/A Others 6,459 17
> Total 37,685 100
> Democratic Nomination for United States Presidential Candidate, 1988 (Louisiana results)[edit]
> Threshold = Plurality
> 
> 1988 Democratic Presidential primary in Louisiana
> Party Candidate Votes %
> Democratic Jesse Jackson 221,522 35
> Democratic Al Gore 174,971 28
> Democratic Michael Dukakis 95,661 15
> Democratic Dick Gephardt 67,029 11
> Democratic Gary Hart 26,437 4
> Democratic David Duke 23,391 4
> Democratic Others 16,008 3
> Total 625,019 100
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Duke left the KKK long before he became a Republicans....
> 
> 
> "In 1979, after his first, abortive run for president (as a Democrat) and a series of highly publicized violent Klan incidents, Duke quietly incorporated the nonprofit National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) in an attempt to leave the baggage of the Klan behind."
> David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Democrats have always been associated with racism. The Democrat icon Franklin Roosevelt, in fact, made a KKKer his very first pick for the Supreme Court:
> 
> . "... [Hugo] Black was head of new members for *the largest Klan cell in the South*. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
> http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party is and has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> See what you've learned today?
Click to expand...

You forgot to mention -- Democrats rejected David Duke at the polls every single time he ran as a Democrat. He didn't get elected into office until he ran as a Republican.

A simple oversight on your part, no doubt.


----------



## Pogo

WillHaftawaite said:


> 'klanbake' didn't happen at the 1924 democratic convention?
> 
> Digital History
> 
> "The two leading candidates symbolized a deep cultural divide. Al Smith, New York's governor, was a Catholic and an opponent of prohibition and was bitterly opposed by Democrats in the South and West. Former Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo, a Protestant, defended prohibition and refused to repudiate the Ku Klux Klan, making himself unacceptable to Catholics and Jews in the Northeast.
> Newspapers called the convention a "Klanbake," as pro-Klan and anti-Klan delegates wrangled bitterly over the party platform. The convention opened on a Monday and by Thursday night, after 61 ballots, the convention was deadlocked. The next day, July 4, some 20,000 Klan supporters wearing white hoods and robes held a picnic in New Jersey. One speaker denounced the "clownvention in Jew York." They threw baseballs at an effigy of Al Smith. A cross-burning culminated the event. "



Nope.  Happened across the river in New Jersey.  Check post 229 where I laid all this out.  Check Wikipedia.  Hell, even check the bogus blog that started this wacko thread.  Twenty thousand Klan gathered in a field in New Jersey July 3 and 4.  They were burning a cross and an effigy of Al Smith.

Again, Klanners were there to stop the rhetoric of Oscar Underwood (or as Fingerboy and Geaux spell it, "Forney Johnston"  ) and his very loud Klan denunciations, as well as Al Smith who not only was lobbying for the same thing but committed the vile crime of being Catholic.  After those two sides kept deadlocking the vote until it required over a hundred ballots making it the longest political convention (still) in history, not counting the suspended and moved 1860 one, that convention finally settled on a dark horse, Ambassador John Davis ---- who promptly accepted the nomination and denounced the Klan.

The KKK then went on to endorse Coolidge, the only major candidate who did not publicly denounce the Klan, and the Klan took credit for Coolidge's win.

You could look it up.  I mean, you could look it up honestly without scouring the internets to find an entry that's badly worded.  As you did here.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody ever heard of him......but:
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> Have the Republicans placed anyone who opposes free speech on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> 
> Did the Republicans block every anti-lynching bill to come to the Senate?
> The Democrats did.
> 
> Is this the record of the Republicans?
> Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
> Tavis Smiley: 'Black People Will Have Lost Ground in Every Single Economic Indicator' Under Obama
Click to expand...

He's heard of now since making such an outrageous comment.


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke praised Trump: “Thank you President Trump
> 
> Can you name any Democrats the KKK are thanking?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure can.
> 
> David Duke.
> 
> David Duke....the Democrat
> 
> State Senator, 1975 (Baton Rouge Area)[edit]
> Threshold > 50%
> 
> First Ballot, November 1, 1975
> 
> Louisiana State Senate, 1975
> Party Candidate Votes %
> Democratic Kenneth Osterberger 22,287 66
> Democratic David Duke 11,079 33
> N/A Others 1
> Total 100
> State Senator, 10th District, 1979 (Suburban New Orleans)[edit]
> Threshold > 50% First Ballot, October 27, 1979
> 
> Louisiana State Senate, 10th District, 1979
> Party Candidate Votes %
> Democratic Joseph Tiemann 21,329 57
> Democratic David Duke 9,897 26
> N/A Others 6,459 17
> Total 37,685 100
> Democratic Nomination for United States Presidential Candidate, 1988 (Louisiana results)[edit]
> Threshold = Plurality
> 
> 1988 Democratic Presidential primary in Louisiana
> Party Candidate Votes %
> Democratic Jesse Jackson 221,522 35
> Democratic Al Gore 174,971 28
> Democratic Michael Dukakis 95,661 15
> Democratic Dick Gephardt 67,029 11
> Democratic Gary Hart 26,437 4
> Democratic David Duke 23,391 4
> Democratic Others 16,008 3
> Total 625,019 100
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> Duke left the KKK long before he became a Republicans....
> 
> 
> "In 1979, after his first, abortive run for president (as a Democrat) and a series of highly publicized violent Klan incidents, Duke quietly incorporated the nonprofit National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP) in an attempt to leave the baggage of the Klan behind."
> David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The Democrats have always been associated with racism. The Democrat icon Franklin Roosevelt, in fact, made a KKKer his very first pick for the Supreme Court:
> 
> . "... [Hugo] Black was head of new members for *the largest Klan cell in the South*. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."
> http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party is and has always been the party of slavery, segregation, and second class citizenship.
> 
> 
> 
> See what you've learned today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You forgot to mention -- Democrats rejected David Duke at the polls every single time he ran as a Democrat. He didn't get elected into office until he ran as a Republican.
> 
> A simple oversight on your part, no doubt.
Click to expand...


Spandex gurl will have no clue what this means --- they were all over Louisiana when I lived there ---




​"The crook" was Edwin Edwards, a corrupt and scandal-ridden former governor and a man of whom it was said, "the only way Edwin Edwards could win again would be to run against Adolf Hitler".

---- et voilà, enter David Duke, who had beaten out another former governor and fellow Republican enroute to a runoff.  That's why it was important .... better to have a crook than a Klan.  Another version was "vote for the lizard, not the wizard".

Edwards cleaned Duke's cross in the election.  That was 1991.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Duke is what ever will get him notice.
> 
> He's been a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent....
> 
> But, mostly an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but he was rejected by Democrats when he ran as one and won his only election when elected by Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, KKK Byrd was reelected time after time after time, to the US Senate, no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Quote Byrd promoting white nationalism after becoming a Senator....
> 
> Byrd abandoned the Klan and and all white supremacist groups behind him. Whereas  Duke left the Klan only to form his own white nationalist group, the NAAWP.
Click to expand...


– 1964: Attempts to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It wasn’t out of principled libertarian support for property rights. Cites a racist study claiming that black people’s brains are statistically smaller than white people’s.

– 1967: Votes against Thurgood Marshall’s Supreme Court nomination. Went to J. Edgar Hoover to see if Marshall had any Communist ties that could ruin his nomination.

– 1968: Tells the FBI that it’s time that Martin Luther King, Jr., “met his Waterloo.” FBI ignores him.

– 1991: Votes Against Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination. Becomes the only senator in the body to have voted against both black Supreme Court nominees.

– 2001: Refers to what he called “white *******” on national television. Try to imagine, say, Haley Barbour being given a pass after calling someone a “white ******.”


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*



Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.

And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump

Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.

Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia

Most recently in 2016. 

And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words

*"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*

*“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*

*Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*

*NAAWP
In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]
*


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duke is what ever will get him notice.
> 
> He's been a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent....
> 
> But, mostly an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but he was rejected by Democrats when he ran as one and won his only election when elected by Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, KKK Byrd was reelected time after time after time, to the US Senate, no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Quote Byrd promoting white nationalism after becoming a Senator....
> 
> Byrd abandoned the Klan and and all white supremacist groups behind him. Whereas  Duke left the Klan only to form his own white nationalist group, the NAAWP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> – 1964: Attempts to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It wasn’t out of principled libertarian support for property rights. Cites a racist study claiming that black people’s brains are statistically smaller than white people’s.
> 
> – 1967: Votes against Thurgood Marshall’s Supreme Court nomination. Went to J. Edgar Hoover to see if Marshall had any Communist ties that could ruin his nomination.
> 
> – 1968: Tells the FBI that it’s time that Martin Luther King, Jr., “met his Waterloo.” FBI ignores him.
> 
> – 1991: Votes Against Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination. Becomes the only senator in the body to have voted against both black Supreme Court nominees.
> 
> – 2001: Refers to what he called “white *******” on national television. Try to imagine, say, Haley Barbour being given a pass after calling someone a “white ******.”
Click to expand...


Isn't it fascinating that there are bitter old white Conservatives who want to label dead Robert Byrd a racist and KKK member to the end of his day.

But the NAACP honored him- along with dozens of Republicans including Mitch McConnel?

Its almost like they all know more about Robert Byrd than the bitter old white dudes who pretty much think all blacks are racists.

NAACP Mourns the Passing of U.S. Senator Robert Byrd | Press Room

Of course the  GOP showed how much they honored the 1964 Civil Rights Bill- when they nominated one of the only non-Southern Senators who voted against the bill- to be President.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John Baron said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duke is what ever will get him notice.
> 
> He's been a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent....
> 
> But, mostly an asshole
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> True, but he was rejected by Democrats when he ran as one and won his only election when elected by Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, KKK Byrd was reelected time after time after time, to the US Senate, no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Quote Byrd promoting white nationalism after becoming a Senator....
> 
> Byrd abandoned the Klan and and all white supremacist groups behind him. Whereas  Duke left the Klan only to form his own white nationalist group, the NAAWP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> – 1964: Attempts to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It wasn’t out of principled libertarian support for property rights. Cites a racist study claiming that black people’s brains are statistically smaller than white people’s.
> 
> – 1967: Votes against Thurgood Marshall’s Supreme Court nomination. Went to J. Edgar Hoover to see if Marshall had any Communist ties that could ruin his nomination.
> 
> – 1968: Tells the FBI that it’s time that Martin Luther King, Jr., “met his Waterloo.” FBI ignores him.
> 
> – 1991: Votes Against Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination. Becomes the only senator in the body to have voted against both black Supreme Court nominees.
> 
> – 2001: Refers to what he called “white *******” on national television. Try to imagine, say, Haley Barbour being given a pass after calling someone a “white ******.”
Click to expand...


So you can't provide a single quote of Robert Byrd promoting white nationalism after he became a Senator. 

Thanks


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.
> 
> And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump
> 
> Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.
> 
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> Most recently in 2016.
> 
> And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words
> 
> *"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*
> 
> *“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*
> 
> *Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*
> 
> *NAAWP*
> *In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]*
Click to expand...

Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WillHaftawaite said:
> 
> 
> 
> Duke is what ever will get him notice.
> 
> He's been a Democrat, a Republican, and Independent....
> 
> But, mostly an asshole
> 
> 
> 
> True, but he was rejected by Democrats when he ran as one and won his only election when elected by Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> On the other hand, KKK Byrd was reelected time after time after time, to the US Senate, no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Quote Byrd promoting white nationalism after becoming a Senator....
> 
> Byrd abandoned the Klan and and all white supremacist groups behind him. Whereas  Duke left the Klan only to form his own white nationalist group, the NAAWP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> – 1964: Attempts to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It wasn’t out of principled libertarian support for property rights. Cites a racist study claiming that black people’s brains are statistically smaller than white people’s.
> 
> – 1967: Votes against Thurgood Marshall’s Supreme Court nomination. Went to J. Edgar Hoover to see if Marshall had any Communist ties that could ruin his nomination.
> 
> – 1968: Tells the FBI that it’s time that Martin Luther King, Jr., “met his Waterloo.” FBI ignores him.
> 
> – 1991: Votes Against Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination. Becomes the only senator in the body to have voted against both black Supreme Court nominees.
> 
> – 2001: Refers to what he called “white *******” on national television. Try to imagine, say, Haley Barbour being given a pass after calling someone a “white ******.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't provide a single quote of Robert Byrd promoting white nationalism after he became a Senator.
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...

All those quotes promote white nationalism.  If a Republican said them, you would be calling for his head on a platter.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
Click to expand...


Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
Click to expand...

A douche bag who voted for Clinton is accusing Trump of rape?

Now there's irony for you.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.
> 
> And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump
> 
> Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.
> 
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> Most recently in 2016.
> 
> And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words
> 
> *"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*
> 
> *“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*
> 
> *Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*
> 
> *NAAWP*
> *In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:
Click to expand...


LOL- now you are desperate enough to start pulling out anyone associated with the Democratic party who committed murders?

Sure- lets play that game.

Dennis Hastert- Republican Head of the House- admitted to sexually molesting at least 4 boys- convicted of other charges because of the statute of limitations. 

Here he is with Nancy Reagan.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A douche bag who voted for Clinton is accusing Trump of rape?
> 
> Now there's irony for you.
Click to expand...


A douche bag who voted for Trump is accusing Clinton of rape.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> True, but he was rejected by Democrats when he ran as one and won his only election when elected by Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand, KKK Byrd was reelected time after time after time, to the US Senate, no less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So? Quote Byrd promoting white nationalism after becoming a Senator....
> 
> Byrd abandoned the Klan and and all white supremacist groups behind him. Whereas  Duke left the Klan only to form his own white nationalist group, the NAAWP.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> – 1964: Attempts to filibuster the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It wasn’t out of principled libertarian support for property rights. Cites a racist study claiming that black people’s brains are statistically smaller than white people’s.
> 
> – 1967: Votes against Thurgood Marshall’s Supreme Court nomination. Went to J. Edgar Hoover to see if Marshall had any Communist ties that could ruin his nomination.
> 
> – 1968: Tells the FBI that it’s time that Martin Luther King, Jr., “met his Waterloo.” FBI ignores him.
> 
> – 1991: Votes Against Clarence Thomas’ Supreme Court nomination. Becomes the only senator in the body to have voted against both black Supreme Court nominees.
> 
> – 2001: Refers to what he called “white *******” on national television. Try to imagine, say, Haley Barbour being given a pass after calling someone a “white ******.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't provide a single quote of Robert Byrd promoting white nationalism after he became a Senator.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All those quotes promote white nationalism.  If a Republican said them, you would be calling for his head on a platter.
Click to expand...


Not a one promotes white nationalism. If a Republican had said them- you would be applauding him.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
Click to expand...


The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.

You are lying again.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure and keep repeating that right up to election day...it's a winner for our team.
Click to expand...


White Supremacism is certainly a winner for your team.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.
> 
> And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump
> 
> Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.
> 
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> Most recently in 2016.
> 
> And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words
> 
> *"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*
> 
> *“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*
> 
> *Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*
> 
> *NAAWP*
> *In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- now you are desperate enough to start pulling out anyone associated with the Democratic party who committed murders?
> 
> Sure- lets play that game.
> 
> Dennis Hastert- Republican Head of the House- admitted to sexually molesting at least 4 boys- convicted of other charges because of the statute of limitations.
> 
> Here he is with Nancy Reagan.
> 
> View attachment 146330
Click to expand...


REP. JOHN YOUNG (D-Tex.):
Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, w More..as reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.

REP. ALLAN HOWE (D-Utah):
Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.

Democratic State Senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau, South Dakota accused of fondling a male page. S.D. Senator Denies Groping Accusation

Carl Stanley McGee, 38, prominent gay activist, assistant secretary for policy and planning and top aid to democrat governor Deval Patrick of Massachuttsettes, accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in a steam room at a Florida resort. Local Coverage | Boston Herald

Bernard Vincent Ward, former chief legislative aide to Senator Barbara Boxer, self proclaimed "Lion of the Left" on bay area radio, admitted transgressions too numerous to mention. Website Disabled

Davidson County Democratic Party Chairman Rodney Mullins resigned Thursday morning amid child pornography allegations, according to press secretary Jean Carter Wilson of the Davidson County Democratic Party. http://nashvillefiles.com/blog/archives/000808.html

Former Democrat Boston city councilor David Scondras is facing charges for attempting to lure a teenage boy over the Internet. Investigators said Scondras had several sexually explicit email exchanges with someone he thought was a 15-year-old boy. http://wbztv.com/topstories/Former.Boston.City.2.582093.html

Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, is a former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU from 2002 to 2005. On February 23, 2007, Rust-Tierney was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. He pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography on June 1, 2007.[1] Charles Rust-Tierney - Wikipedia

Andrew Douglas Reed, 53, a North Carolina Democrat activist plead guilty to a page-long list of counts of 2nd-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. Court records in the Asheville, N.C., case said he admitted that he would "record, develop and duplicate material containing a visual representation of a minor engaging in sexual activity." http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53070 Scott W. Ballo, a long-time spokesman for various Democratic political campaigns and a former communications director for the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, was arraigned today in Marion County Circuit Court on two charges of encouraging child sex abuse (both misdemeanors) and one charge of official misconduct (also a misdemeanor), according to the court clerk's office. The charges relate to pornography allegedly found on Ballo's work computer when he was employed by the economic and community development department, according to a person familiar with the case. http://www.wweek.com/wwire/?p=9905

Mel Reynolds, House of Representatives (D-Il) convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography resulting from a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer.

Gary Studds Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors — in Studds' case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure and keep repeating that right up to election day...it's a winner for our team.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> White Supremacism is certainly a winner for your team.
Click to expand...

Calling half the electorate "racists" is sure to be a winner for your party.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK.  That stain will never wash off.
> 
> 
> 
> Imbecile...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President*
> https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president
> 
> 
> 
> Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.
> 
> “We want *Hillary Clinton* to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.
> 
> The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You take the word of CNN which has been caught lying about 150 times since the election.  it tells big fat whoppers almost daily.
Click to expand...


Hell you take the word of Donald Trump- he tweets big fat whoppers almost daily.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
Click to expand...


_Hugo Black - Wikipedia

Shortly after Black's appointment to the Supreme Court, Ray Sprigle of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a series of articles revealing Black's involvement in the Klan, for which he won a Pulitzer Prize.[107] The first article in the series was published on Sept 13, 1937, barely a month after Black's appointment and shortly after his confirmation. Titled "Justice Black Revealed as Ku Klux Klansman,"[108] the article described how Black's resignation from the Klan "was the first move of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for United States Senator from Alabama."


At a press conference on Sept 14 1937, Roosevelt was asked about whether he had knowledge of Black's involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. He responded in part, “I know only what I have read in the newspapers…Mr. Justice Black is abroad. Until such time as he returns there is no further comment to be made.”[109] On Sept 21 1937, FDR was again asked during a press conference about whether or not he had communications with Hugo Black regarding his involvement in the Ku Klux Klan. Again, FDR denied speaking with Hugo Black, and when asked about whether the Department of Justice should be "charged automatically" with investigating Supreme Court appointments, FDR said in part, "No, certainly not...a man's private life is supposed to be his private life..."


On Sept 21, 1937, Hugo Black was “besieged” by reporters. He said, “If I make any statement it will be in a way the people can hear me and understand what I have to say, and not have to depend on some parts of the press which might fail to report all I have to say.”[110]


On October 1, 1937, Hugo Black made a statement over the radio.[111] Black said in part, "I number among my friends many members of the colored race. Certainly, they are entitled to the full measure of protection accorded by our Constitution and our laws..."[112] Black also said, "I did join the Klan. I later resigned. I never rejoined.... Before becoming a Senator I dropped the Klan. I have had nothing to do with it since that time. I abandoned it. I completely discontinued any association with the organization. I have never resumed it and never expect to do so."[113] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that “fifty million listeners heard the unprecedented speech.”


Near the end of his life, Black would claim that joining the Klan was a mistake, and went on to say "I would have joined any group if it helped get me votes."[32]


Biographers in the 1990s examined Black's views of religious denominations. Ball found regarding the Klan that Black "sympathized with the group's economic, nativist, and anti-Catholic beliefs."[114] Newman said Black "disliked the Catholic Church as an institution" and gave numerous anti-Catholic speeches in his 1926 election campaign to Ku Klux Klan meetings across Alabama.[115] However, in 1937 The Harvard Crimson reported on Black's appointment of a Jewish law clerk, noting that he "earlier had appointed Miss Annie Butt, a Catholic, as a secretary, and the Supreme Court had designated Leon Smallwood, a Negro and a Catholic as his messenger."[116]_​


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A douche bag who voted for Clinton is accusing Trump of rape?
> 
> Now there's irony for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A douche bag who voted for Trump is accusing Clinton of rape.
Click to expand...


The douche bags all voted from crooked Hillary.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.
> 
> And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump
> 
> Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.
> 
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> Most recently in 2016.
> 
> And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words
> 
> *"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*
> 
> *“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*
> 
> *Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*
> 
> *NAAWP*
> *In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- now you are desperate enough to start pulling out anyone associated with the Democratic party who committed murders?
> 
> Sure- lets play that game.
> 
> Dennis Hastert- Republican Head of the House- admitted to sexually molesting at least 4 boys- convicted of other charges because of the statute of limitations.
> 
> Here he is with Nancy Reagan.
> 
> View attachment 146330
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REP. JOHN YOUNG (D-Tex.):.
Click to expand...


Not sure the point of this- I just posted that the Republican Speaker of the House- you know- #3 in succession to the President was a child molester.

but hell I can use google just as easily as you can

John Hinson, a former Mississippi congressman, was arrested in 1981 for oral sodomy. He was discovered in a Capitol Hill building bathroom with a Library of Congress male employee, _The New York Times_ reported. Even though the incident forced his resignation, Hinson used the moment to reassess his life, come out as gay, and begin advocating for gay rights.

In 2007, Idaho politician Larry Craig was arrested as part of a sex-sting in the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. To make matters worse, he allegedly used campaign funds to pay for his legal defense when he decided to switch his plea from guilty to disorderly conduct. A federal judge later ordered Craig to reimburse the U.S. Treasury for those funds to the tune of $242,000, according to the _Washington Post._ Craig defended his spending, stating that Senate rules allowed him to use funds for costs incurred during travel.

Lastly, former Florida state representative Bob Allen was arrested in 2007 after he allegedly agreed to pay an undercover male police officer for oral sex in a park bathroom. He was later found guilty of the crime, according to _Orlando Sentinel_.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> Shortly after Black's appointment to the Supreme Court, Ray Sprigle of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a series of articles revealing Black's involvement in the Klan, for which he won a Pulitzer Prize.[107] The first article in the series was published on Sept 13, 1937, barely a month after Black's appointment and shortly after his confirmation. Titled "Justice Black Revealed as Ku Klux Klansman,"[108] the article described how Black's resignation from the Klan "was the first move of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for United States Senator from Alabama."
> 
> 
> At a press conference on Sept 14 1937, Roosevelt was asked about whether he had knowledge of Black's involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. He responded in part, “I know only what I have read in the newspapers…Mr. Justice Black is abroad. Until such time as he returns there is no further comment to be made.”[109] On Sept 21 1937, FDR was again asked during a press conference about whether or not he had communications with Hugo Black regarding his involvement in the Ku Klux Klan. Again, FDR denied speaking with Hugo Black, and when asked about whether the Department of Justice should be "charged automatically" with investigating Supreme Court appointments, FDR said in part, "No, certainly not...a man's private life is supposed to be his private life..."
> 
> 
> On Sept 21, 1937, Hugo Black was “besieged” by reporters. He said, “If I make any statement it will be in a way the people can hear me and understand what I have to say, and not have to depend on some parts of the press which might fail to report all I have to say.”[110]
> 
> 
> On October 1, 1937, Hugo Black made a statement over the radio.[111] Black said in part, "I number among my friends many members of the colored race. Certainly, they are entitled to the full measure of protection accorded by our Constitution and our laws..."[112] Black also said, "I did join the Klan. I later resigned. I never rejoined.... Before becoming a Senator I dropped the Klan. I have had nothing to do with it since that time. I abandoned it. I completely discontinued any association with the organization. I have never resumed it and never expect to do so."[113] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that “fifty million listeners heard the unprecedented speech.”
> 
> 
> Near the end of his life, Black would claim that joining the Klan was a mistake, and went on to say "I would have joined any group if it helped get me votes."[32]
> 
> 
> Biographers in the 1990s examined Black's views of religious denominations. Ball found regarding the Klan that Black "sympathized with the group's economic, nativist, and anti-Catholic beliefs."[114] Newman said Black "disliked the Catholic Church as an institution" and gave numerous anti-Catholic speeches in his 1926 election campaign to Ku Klux Klan meetings across Alabama.[115] However, in 1937 The Harvard Crimson reported on Black's appointment of a Jewish law clerk, noting that he "earlier had appointed Miss Annie Butt, a Catholic, as a secretary, and the Supreme Court had designated Leon Smallwood, a Negro and a Catholic as his messenger."[116]_​
Click to expand...


Thanks for posting that- demonstrating that Hugo Black was not a member of the KKK while he was a Supreme Court justice.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A douche bag who voted for Clinton is accusing Trump of rape?
> 
> Now there's irony for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A douche bag who voted for Trump is accusing Clinton of rape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The douche bags all voted from crooked Hillary.
Click to expand...


The douche bags like you - and David Duke are all going to Charlottesville- to promote white nationalism.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.
> 
> And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump
> 
> Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.
> 
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> Most recently in 2016.
> 
> And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words
> 
> *"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*
> 
> *“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*
> 
> *Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*
> 
> *NAAWP*
> *In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- now you are desperate enough to start pulling out anyone associated with the Democratic party who committed murders?
> 
> Sure- lets play that game.
> 
> Dennis Hastert- Republican Head of the House- admitted to sexually molesting at least 4 boys- convicted of other charges because of the statute of limitations.
> 
> Here he is with Nancy Reagan.
> 
> View attachment 146330
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REP. JOHN YOUNG (D-Tex.):
> Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, w More..as reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.
> 
> REP. ALLAN HOWE (D-Utah):
> Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.
> 
> Democratic State Senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau, South Dakota accused of fondling a male page. S.D. Senator Denies Groping Accusation
> 
> Carl Stanley McGee, 38, prominent gay activist, assistant secretary for policy and planning and top aid to democrat governor Deval Patrick of Massachuttsettes, accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in a steam room at a Florida resort. Local Coverage | Boston Herald
> 
> Bernard Vincent Ward, former chief legislative aide to Senator Barbara Boxer, self proclaimed "Lion of the Left" on bay area radio, admitted transgressions too numerous to mention. Website Disabled
> 
> Davidson County Democratic Party Chairman Rodney Mullins resigned Thursday morning amid child pornography allegations, according to press secretary Jean Carter Wilson of the Davidson County Democratic Party. http://nashvillefiles.com/blog/archives/000808.html
> 
> Former Democrat Boston city councilor David Scondras is facing charges for attempting to lure a teenage boy over the Internet. Investigators said Scondras had several sexually explicit email exchanges with someone he thought was a 15-year-old boy. http://wbztv.com/topstories/Former.Boston.City.2.582093.html
> 
> Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, is a former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU from 2002 to 2005. On February 23, 2007, Rust-Tierney was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. He pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography on June 1, 2007.[1] Charles Rust-Tierney - Wikipedia
> 
> Andrew Douglas Reed, 53, a North Carolina Democrat activist plead guilty to a page-long list of counts of 2nd-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. Court records in the Asheville, N.C., case said he admitted that he would "record, develop and duplicate material containing a visual representation of a minor engaging in sexual activity." Court shocker: 10 months  for kiddie porn producer Scott W. Ballo, a long-time spokesman for various Democratic political campaigns and a former communications director for the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, was arraigned today in Marion County Circuit Court on two charges of encouraging child sex abuse (both misdemeanors) and one charge of official misconduct (also a misdemeanor), according to the court clerk's office. The charges relate to pornography allegedly found on Ballo's work computer when he was employed by the economic and community development department, according to a person familiar with the case. http://www.wweek.com/wwire/?p=9905
> 
> Mel Reynolds, House of Representatives (D-Il) convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography resulting from a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer.
> 
> Gary Studds Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors — in Studds' case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.
Click to expand...


Aw, that's so cute.  Finger Boy, determined to outdo his own boner of posting a December Wisconsin street march as a July New York political convention (complete with cadaver participant) wants to show us he can dig even deeper.  Apparently he can't even figure out the difference between "politics" and "sex".

No wonder they keep tossing him out of the voting booth when he goes in there and yells "HEY!  THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!"


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.
> 
> And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump
> 
> Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.
> 
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> Most recently in 2016.
> 
> And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words
> 
> *"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*
> 
> *“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*
> 
> *Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*
> 
> *NAAWP*
> *In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- now you are desperate enough to start pulling out anyone associated with the Democratic party who committed murders?
> 
> Sure- lets play that game.
> 
> Dennis Hastert- Republican Head of the House- admitted to sexually molesting at least 4 boys- convicted of other charges because of the statute of limitations.
> 
> Here he is with Nancy Reagan.
> 
> View attachment 146330
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REP. JOHN YOUNG (D-Tex.):
> Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, w More..as reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.
> 
> REP. ALLAN HOWE (D-Utah):
> Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.
> 
> Democratic State Senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau, South Dakota accused of fondling a male page. S.D. Senator Denies Groping Accusation
> 
> Carl Stanley McGee, 38, prominent gay activist, assistant secretary for policy and planning and top aid to democrat governor Deval Patrick of Massachuttsettes, accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in a steam room at a Florida resort. Local Coverage | Boston Herald
> 
> Bernard Vincent Ward, former chief legislative aide to Senator Barbara Boxer, self proclaimed "Lion of the Left" on bay area radio, admitted transgressions too numerous to mention. Website Disabled
> 
> Davidson County Democratic Party Chairman Rodney Mullins resigned Thursday morning amid child pornography allegations, according to press secretary Jean Carter Wilson of the Davidson County Democratic Party. http://nashvillefiles.com/blog/archives/000808.html
> 
> Former Democrat Boston city councilor David Scondras is facing charges for attempting to lure a teenage boy over the Internet. Investigators said Scondras had several sexually explicit email exchanges with someone he thought was a 15-year-old boy. http://wbztv.com/topstories/Former.Boston.City.2.582093.html
> 
> Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, is a former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU from 2002 to 2005. On February 23, 2007, Rust-Tierney was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. He pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography on June 1, 2007.[1] Charles Rust-Tierney - Wikipedia
> 
> Andrew Douglas Reed, 53, a North Carolina Democrat activist plead guilty to a page-long list of counts of 2nd-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. Court records in the Asheville, N.C., case said he admitted that he would "record, develop and duplicate material containing a visual representation of a minor engaging in sexual activity." Court shocker: 10 months  for kiddie porn producer Scott W. Ballo, a long-time spokesman for various Democratic political campaigns and a former communications director for the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, was arraigned today in Marion County Circuit Court on two charges of encouraging child sex abuse (both misdemeanors) and one charge of official misconduct (also a misdemeanor), according to the court clerk's office. The charges relate to pornography allegedly found on Ballo's work computer when he was employed by the economic and community development department, according to a person familiar with the case. http://www.wweek.com/wwire/?p=9905
> 
> Mel Reynolds, House of Representatives (D-Il) convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography resulting from a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer.
> 
> Gary Studds Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors — in Studds' case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, that's so cute.  Finger Boy, determined to outdo his own boner of posting a December Wisconsin street march as a July New York political convention (complete with cadaver participant) wants to show us he can dig even deeper.  Apparently he can't even figure out the difference between "politics" and "sex".
> 
> No wonder they keep tossing him out of the voting booth when he goes in there and yells "HEY!  THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!"
Click to expand...

You're still harping on this bullshit?  The times you can point out something your critics have posted that isn't correct are so rare that you will harp on it for weeks because you are getting lambasted constantly.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.
> 
> And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump
> 
> Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.
> 
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> Most recently in 2016.
> 
> And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words
> 
> *"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*
> 
> *“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*
> 
> *Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*
> 
> *NAAWP*
> *In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]*
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- now you are desperate enough to start pulling out anyone associated with the Democratic party who committed murders?
> 
> Sure- lets play that game.
> 
> Dennis Hastert- Republican Head of the House- admitted to sexually molesting at least 4 boys- convicted of other charges because of the statute of limitations.
> 
> Here he is with Nancy Reagan.
> 
> View attachment 146330
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REP. JOHN YOUNG (D-Tex.):
> Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, w More..as reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.
> 
> REP. ALLAN HOWE (D-Utah):
> Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.
> 
> Democratic State Senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau, South Dakota accused of fondling a male page. S.D. Senator Denies Groping Accusation
> 
> Carl Stanley McGee, 38, prominent gay activist, assistant secretary for policy and planning and top aid to democrat governor Deval Patrick of Massachuttsettes, accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in a steam room at a Florida resort. Local Coverage | Boston Herald
> 
> Bernard Vincent Ward, former chief legislative aide to Senator Barbara Boxer, self proclaimed "Lion of the Left" on bay area radio, admitted transgressions too numerous to mention. Website Disabled
> 
> Davidson County Democratic Party Chairman Rodney Mullins resigned Thursday morning amid child pornography allegations, according to press secretary Jean Carter Wilson of the Davidson County Democratic Party. http://nashvillefiles.com/blog/archives/000808.html
> 
> Former Democrat Boston city councilor David Scondras is facing charges for attempting to lure a teenage boy over the Internet. Investigators said Scondras had several sexually explicit email exchanges with someone he thought was a 15-year-old boy. http://wbztv.com/topstories/Former.Boston.City.2.582093.html
> 
> Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, is a former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU from 2002 to 2005. On February 23, 2007, Rust-Tierney was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. He pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography on June 1, 2007.[1] Charles Rust-Tierney - Wikipedia
> 
> Andrew Douglas Reed, 53, a North Carolina Democrat activist plead guilty to a page-long list of counts of 2nd-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. Court records in the Asheville, N.C., case said he admitted that he would "record, develop and duplicate material containing a visual representation of a minor engaging in sexual activity." Court shocker: 10 months  for kiddie porn producer Scott W. Ballo, a long-time spokesman for various Democratic political campaigns and a former communications director for the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, was arraigned today in Marion County Circuit Court on two charges of encouraging child sex abuse (both misdemeanors) and one charge of official misconduct (also a misdemeanor), according to the court clerk's office. The charges relate to pornography allegedly found on Ballo's work computer when he was employed by the economic and community development department, according to a person familiar with the case. http://www.wweek.com/wwire/?p=9905
> 
> Mel Reynolds, House of Representatives (D-Il) convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography resulting from a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer.
> 
> Gary Studds Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors — in Studds' case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, that's so cute.  Finger Boy, determined to outdo his own boner of posting a December Wisconsin street march as a July New York political convention (complete with cadaver participant) wants to show us he can dig even deeper.  Apparently he can't even figure out the difference between "politics" and "sex".
> 
> No wonder they keep tossing him out of the voting booth when he goes in there and yells "HEY!  THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still harping on this bullshit?  The times you can point out something your critics have posted that isn't correct are so rare that you will harp on it for weeks because you are getting lambasted constantly.
Click to expand...


No idea what that babble means but I ain't the one who can't figure out the difference between politics and sex, now am I?


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- now you are desperate enough to start pulling out anyone associated with the Democratic party who committed murders?
> 
> Sure- lets play that game.
> 
> Dennis Hastert- Republican Head of the House- admitted to sexually molesting at least 4 boys- convicted of other charges because of the statute of limitations.
> 
> Here he is with Nancy Reagan.
> 
> View attachment 146330
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REP. JOHN YOUNG (D-Tex.):
> Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, w More..as reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.
> 
> REP. ALLAN HOWE (D-Utah):
> Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.
> 
> Democratic State Senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau, South Dakota accused of fondling a male page. S.D. Senator Denies Groping Accusation
> 
> Carl Stanley McGee, 38, prominent gay activist, assistant secretary for policy and planning and top aid to democrat governor Deval Patrick of Massachuttsettes, accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in a steam room at a Florida resort. Local Coverage | Boston Herald
> 
> Bernard Vincent Ward, former chief legislative aide to Senator Barbara Boxer, self proclaimed "Lion of the Left" on bay area radio, admitted transgressions too numerous to mention. Website Disabled
> 
> Davidson County Democratic Party Chairman Rodney Mullins resigned Thursday morning amid child pornography allegations, according to press secretary Jean Carter Wilson of the Davidson County Democratic Party. http://nashvillefiles.com/blog/archives/000808.html
> 
> Former Democrat Boston city councilor David Scondras is facing charges for attempting to lure a teenage boy over the Internet. Investigators said Scondras had several sexually explicit email exchanges with someone he thought was a 15-year-old boy. http://wbztv.com/topstories/Former.Boston.City.2.582093.html
> 
> Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, is a former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU from 2002 to 2005. On February 23, 2007, Rust-Tierney was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. He pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography on June 1, 2007.[1] Charles Rust-Tierney - Wikipedia
> 
> Andrew Douglas Reed, 53, a North Carolina Democrat activist plead guilty to a page-long list of counts of 2nd-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. Court records in the Asheville, N.C., case said he admitted that he would "record, develop and duplicate material containing a visual representation of a minor engaging in sexual activity." Court shocker: 10 months  for kiddie porn producer Scott W. Ballo, a long-time spokesman for various Democratic political campaigns and a former communications director for the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, was arraigned today in Marion County Circuit Court on two charges of encouraging child sex abuse (both misdemeanors) and one charge of official misconduct (also a misdemeanor), according to the court clerk's office. The charges relate to pornography allegedly found on Ballo's work computer when he was employed by the economic and community development department, according to a person familiar with the case. http://www.wweek.com/wwire/?p=9905
> 
> Mel Reynolds, House of Representatives (D-Il) convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography resulting from a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer.
> 
> Gary Studds Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors — in Studds' case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, that's so cute.  Finger Boy, determined to outdo his own boner of posting a December Wisconsin street march as a July New York political convention (complete with cadaver participant) wants to show us he can dig even deeper.  Apparently he can't even figure out the difference between "politics" and "sex".
> 
> No wonder they keep tossing him out of the voting booth when he goes in there and yells "HEY!  THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still harping on this bullshit?  The times you can point out something your critics have posted that isn't correct are so rare that you will harp on it for weeks because you are getting lambasted constantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No idea what that babble means but I ain't the one who can't figure out the difference between politics and sex, now am I?
Click to expand...

Pretending to be stupid is the leftwing fallback position whenever they haven't got a case and they know it.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- now you are desperate enough to start pulling out anyone associated with the Democratic party who committed murders?
> 
> Sure- lets play that game.
> 
> Dennis Hastert- Republican Head of the House- admitted to sexually molesting at least 4 boys- convicted of other charges because of the statute of limitations.
> 
> Here he is with Nancy Reagan.
> 
> View attachment 146330
> 
> 
> 
> 
> REP. JOHN YOUNG (D-Tex.):
> Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, w More..as reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.
> 
> REP. ALLAN HOWE (D-Utah):
> Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.
> 
> Democratic State Senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau, South Dakota accused of fondling a male page. S.D. Senator Denies Groping Accusation
> 
> Carl Stanley McGee, 38, prominent gay activist, assistant secretary for policy and planning and top aid to democrat governor Deval Patrick of Massachuttsettes, accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in a steam room at a Florida resort. Local Coverage | Boston Herald
> 
> Bernard Vincent Ward, former chief legislative aide to Senator Barbara Boxer, self proclaimed "Lion of the Left" on bay area radio, admitted transgressions too numerous to mention. Website Disabled
> 
> Davidson County Democratic Party Chairman Rodney Mullins resigned Thursday morning amid child pornography allegations, according to press secretary Jean Carter Wilson of the Davidson County Democratic Party. http://nashvillefiles.com/blog/archives/000808.html
> 
> Former Democrat Boston city councilor David Scondras is facing charges for attempting to lure a teenage boy over the Internet. Investigators said Scondras had several sexually explicit email exchanges with someone he thought was a 15-year-old boy. http://wbztv.com/topstories/Former.Boston.City.2.582093.html
> 
> Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, is a former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU from 2002 to 2005. On February 23, 2007, Rust-Tierney was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. He pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography on June 1, 2007.[1] Charles Rust-Tierney - Wikipedia
> 
> Andrew Douglas Reed, 53, a North Carolina Democrat activist plead guilty to a page-long list of counts of 2nd-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. Court records in the Asheville, N.C., case said he admitted that he would "record, develop and duplicate material containing a visual representation of a minor engaging in sexual activity." Court shocker: 10 months  for kiddie porn producer Scott W. Ballo, a long-time spokesman for various Democratic political campaigns and a former communications director for the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, was arraigned today in Marion County Circuit Court on two charges of encouraging child sex abuse (both misdemeanors) and one charge of official misconduct (also a misdemeanor), according to the court clerk's office. The charges relate to pornography allegedly found on Ballo's work computer when he was employed by the economic and community development department, according to a person familiar with the case. http://www.wweek.com/wwire/?p=9905
> 
> Mel Reynolds, House of Representatives (D-Il) convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography resulting from a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer.
> 
> Gary Studds Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors — in Studds' case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, that's so cute.  Finger Boy, determined to outdo his own boner of posting a December Wisconsin street march as a July New York political convention (complete with cadaver participant) wants to show us he can dig even deeper.  Apparently he can't even figure out the difference between "politics" and "sex".
> 
> No wonder they keep tossing him out of the voting booth when he goes in there and yells "HEY!  THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still harping on this bullshit?  The times you can point out something your critics have posted that isn't correct are so rare that you will harp on it for weeks because you are getting lambasted constantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No idea what that babble means but I ain't the one who can't figure out the difference between politics and sex, now am I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretending to be stupid is the leftwing fallback position whenever they haven't got a case and they know it.
Click to expand...


Good luck in the job interview then.

Meanwhile a thousand posts later we're still waiting for the OP --- either one --- to essplain to the class why Liberals would "not be liking" a 93-year-old photo of dunces in sheets marching down Wisconsin trolley tracks toward a funeral home while a man dead for 11 years continues to decompose.

I mean, talk about "random"............


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> REP. JOHN YOUNG (D-Tex.):
> Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, w More..as reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.
> 
> REP. ALLAN HOWE (D-Utah):
> Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.
> 
> Democratic State Senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau, South Dakota accused of fondling a male page. S.D. Senator Denies Groping Accusation
> 
> Carl Stanley McGee, 38, prominent gay activist, assistant secretary for policy and planning and top aid to democrat governor Deval Patrick of Massachuttsettes, accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in a steam room at a Florida resort. Local Coverage | Boston Herald
> 
> Bernard Vincent Ward, former chief legislative aide to Senator Barbara Boxer, self proclaimed "Lion of the Left" on bay area radio, admitted transgressions too numerous to mention. Website Disabled
> 
> Davidson County Democratic Party Chairman Rodney Mullins resigned Thursday morning amid child pornography allegations, according to press secretary Jean Carter Wilson of the Davidson County Democratic Party. http://nashvillefiles.com/blog/archives/000808.html
> 
> Former Democrat Boston city councilor David Scondras is facing charges for attempting to lure a teenage boy over the Internet. Investigators said Scondras had several sexually explicit email exchanges with someone he thought was a 15-year-old boy. http://wbztv.com/topstories/Former.Boston.City.2.582093.html
> 
> Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, is a former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU from 2002 to 2005. On February 23, 2007, Rust-Tierney was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. He pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography on June 1, 2007.[1] Charles Rust-Tierney - Wikipedia
> 
> Andrew Douglas Reed, 53, a North Carolina Democrat activist plead guilty to a page-long list of counts of 2nd-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. Court records in the Asheville, N.C., case said he admitted that he would "record, develop and duplicate material containing a visual representation of a minor engaging in sexual activity." Court shocker: 10 months  for kiddie porn producer Scott W. Ballo, a long-time spokesman for various Democratic political campaigns and a former communications director for the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, was arraigned today in Marion County Circuit Court on two charges of encouraging child sex abuse (both misdemeanors) and one charge of official misconduct (also a misdemeanor), according to the court clerk's office. The charges relate to pornography allegedly found on Ballo's work computer when he was employed by the economic and community development department, according to a person familiar with the case. http://www.wweek.com/wwire/?p=9905
> 
> Mel Reynolds, House of Representatives (D-Il) convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography resulting from a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer.
> 
> Gary Studds Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors — in Studds' case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, that's so cute.  Finger Boy, determined to outdo his own boner of posting a December Wisconsin street march as a July New York political convention (complete with cadaver participant) wants to show us he can dig even deeper.  Apparently he can't even figure out the difference between "politics" and "sex".
> 
> No wonder they keep tossing him out of the voting booth when he goes in there and yells "HEY!  THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still harping on this bullshit?  The times you can point out something your critics have posted that isn't correct are so rare that you will harp on it for weeks because you are getting lambasted constantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No idea what that babble means but I ain't the one who can't figure out the difference between politics and sex, now am I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretending to be stupid is the leftwing fallback position whenever they haven't got a case and they know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck in the job interview then.
> 
> Meanwhile a thousand posts later we're still waiting for the OP --- either one --- to essplain to the class why Liberals would "not be liking" a 93-year-old photo of dunces in sheets marching down Wisconsin trolley tracks toward a funeral home while a man dead for 11 years continues to decompose.
> 
> I mean, talk about "random"............
Click to expand...

I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> Shortly after Black's appointment to the Supreme Court, Ray Sprigle of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a series of articles revealing Black's involvement in the Klan, for which he won a Pulitzer Prize.[107] The first article in the series was published on Sept 13, 1937, barely a month after Black's appointment and shortly after his confirmation. Titled "Justice Black Revealed as Ku Klux Klansman,"[108] the article described how Black's resignation from the Klan "was the first move of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for United States Senator from Alabama."
> 
> 
> At a press conference on Sept 14 1937, Roosevelt was asked about whether he had knowledge of Black's involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. He responded in part, “I know only what I have read in the newspapers…Mr. Justice Black is abroad. Until such time as he returns there is no further comment to be made.”[109] On Sept 21 1937, FDR was again asked during a press conference about whether or not he had communications with Hugo Black regarding his involvement in the Ku Klux Klan. Again, FDR denied speaking with Hugo Black, and when asked about whether the Department of Justice should be "charged automatically" with investigating Supreme Court appointments, FDR said in part, "No, certainly not...a man's private life is supposed to be his private life..."
> 
> 
> On Sept 21, 1937, Hugo Black was “besieged” by reporters. He said, “If I make any statement it will be in a way the people can hear me and understand what I have to say, and not have to depend on some parts of the press which might fail to report all I have to say.”[110]
> 
> 
> On October 1, 1937, Hugo Black made a statement over the radio.[111] Black said in part, "I number among my friends many members of the colored race. Certainly, they are entitled to the full measure of protection accorded by our Constitution and our laws..."[112] Black also said, "I did join the Klan. I later resigned. I never rejoined.... Before becoming a Senator I dropped the Klan. I have had nothing to do with it since that time. I abandoned it. I completely discontinued any association with the organization. I have never resumed it and never expect to do so."[113] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that “fifty million listeners heard the unprecedented speech.”
> 
> 
> Near the end of his life, Black would claim that joining the Klan was a mistake, and went on to say "I would have joined any group if it helped get me votes."[32]
> 
> 
> Biographers in the 1990s examined Black's views of religious denominations. Ball found regarding the Klan that Black "sympathized with the group's economic, nativist, and anti-Catholic beliefs."[114] Newman said Black "disliked the Catholic Church as an institution" and gave numerous anti-Catholic speeches in his 1926 election campaign to Ku Klux Klan meetings across Alabama.[115] However, in 1937 The Harvard Crimson reported on Black's appointment of a Jewish law clerk, noting that he "earlier had appointed Miss Annie Butt, a Catholic, as a secretary, and the Supreme Court had designated Leon Smallwood, a Negro and a Catholic as his messenger."[116]_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting that- demonstrating that Hugo Black was not a member of the KKK while he was a Supreme Court justice.
Click to expand...


He was still once a member of the KKK, and a Democrat appointed him.


----------



## Rambunctious

bripat9643 said:


> Calling half the electorate "racists" is sure to be a winner for your party.


You know? Good point bripat.... I'm going to rethink the smarts of trying to wake them up. Let them go into the 2018 and the 2020 calling half the nation racist...

We have gone from a Russian under every rock to now the KKK around every corner...in less than one month

Proceed morons


----------



## mamooth

So why did the OP fake his OP, and why are Bri and Rambuctuous now tearfully running cover for such lying and race-baiting?

Race-baiting is the conservative loser way of life. If they couldn't constantly play their race cards, they'd have nothing to talk about.


----------



## paperview

Is this thread closed?

ETA:  OK - I guess not.  A few minutes ago it appeared to be...


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.
> 
> And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump
> 
> Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.
> 
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> Most recently in 2016.
> 
> And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words
> 
> *"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*
> 
> *“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*
> 
> *Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*
> 
> *NAAWP*
> *In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:
Click to expand...

Hell, I'll see your 34 and raise ya 134 with registered Republican, Timothy McVeigh.


----------



## Syriusly

Rambunctious said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling half the electorate "racists" is sure to be a winner for your party.
> 
> 
> 
> You know? Good point bripat.... I'm going to rethink the smarts of trying to wake them up. Let them go into the 2018 and the 2020 calling half the nation racist...
> 
> We have gone from a Russian under every rock to now the KKK around every corner...in less than one month
> 
> Proceed morons
Click to expand...


We all watch the Trumpster morons proceed........


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.
> 
> And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump
> 
> Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.
> 
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> Most recently in 2016.
> 
> And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words
> 
> *"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*
> 
> *“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*
> 
> *Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*
> 
> *NAAWP*
> *In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]*
> 
> 
> 
> Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- now you are desperate enough to start pulling out anyone associated with the Democratic party who committed murders?
> 
> Sure- lets play that game.
> 
> Dennis Hastert- Republican Head of the House- admitted to sexually molesting at least 4 boys- convicted of other charges because of the statute of limitations.
> 
> Here he is with Nancy Reagan.
> 
> View attachment 146330
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> REP. JOHN YOUNG (D-Tex.):
> Colleen Gardner, a former staff secretary to Young, told the New York Times that Young increased her salary after she gave in to his sexual advances. In November, Young, who had run unopposed in the safe Democratic district five consecutive times, w More..as reelected with just 61 percent of the vote. The scandal wouldn't go away, and in 1978 Young was defeated in a Democratic primary runoff.
> 
> REP. ALLAN HOWE (D-Utah):
> Howe was arrested in Salt Lake City on charges of soliciting two policewomen posing as prostitutes. Howe insisted he was set up and refused to resign. But the Democratic Party distanced itself from his candidacy and he was trounced by his Republican opponent in the November election.
> 
> Democratic State Senator Dan Sutton of Flandreau, South Dakota accused of fondling a male page. S.D. Senator Denies Groping Accusation
> 
> Carl Stanley McGee, 38, prominent gay activist, assistant secretary for policy and planning and top aid to democrat governor Deval Patrick of Massachuttsettes, accused of sexually assaulting a 15 year old boy in a steam room at a Florida resort. Local Coverage | Boston Herald
> 
> Bernard Vincent Ward, former chief legislative aide to Senator Barbara Boxer, self proclaimed "Lion of the Left" on bay area radio, admitted transgressions too numerous to mention. Website Disabled
> 
> Davidson County Democratic Party Chairman Rodney Mullins resigned Thursday morning amid child pornography allegations, according to press secretary Jean Carter Wilson of the Davidson County Democratic Party. http://nashvillefiles.com/blog/archives/000808.html
> 
> Former Democrat Boston city councilor David Scondras is facing charges for attempting to lure a teenage boy over the Internet. Investigators said Scondras had several sexually explicit email exchanges with someone he thought was a 15-year-old boy. http://wbztv.com/topstories/Former.Boston.City.2.582093.html
> 
> Charles Rust-Tierney, 51, is a former president of the Virginia chapter of the ACLU from 2002 to 2005. On February 23, 2007, Rust-Tierney was arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. He pleaded guilty to one count of receipt of child pornography on June 1, 2007.[1] Charles Rust-Tierney - Wikipedia
> 
> Andrew Douglas Reed, 53, a North Carolina Democrat activist plead guilty to a page-long list of counts of 2nd-degree sexual exploitation of a minor. Court records in the Asheville, N.C., case said he admitted that he would "record, develop and duplicate material containing a visual representation of a minor engaging in sexual activity." Court shocker: 10 months  for kiddie porn producer Scott W. Ballo, a long-time spokesman for various Democratic political campaigns and a former communications director for the Oregon Economic and Community Development Department, was arraigned today in Marion County Circuit Court on two charges of encouraging child sex abuse (both misdemeanors) and one charge of official misconduct (also a misdemeanor), according to the court clerk's office. The charges relate to pornography allegedly found on Ballo's work computer when he was employed by the economic and community development department, according to a person familiar with the case. http://www.wweek.com/wwire/?p=9905
> 
> Mel Reynolds, House of Representatives (D-Il) convicted on 12 counts of sexual assault, obstruction of justice and solicitation of child pornography resulting from a sexual relationship with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer.
> 
> Gary Studds Studds was a central figure in the 1983 Congressional page sex scandal, when he and Representative Dan Crane were censured by the House of Representatives for separate sexual relationships with minors — in Studds' case, a 1973 sexual relationship with a 17-year-old male congressional page.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Aw, that's so cute.  Finger Boy, determined to outdo his own boner of posting a December Wisconsin street march as a July New York political convention (complete with cadaver participant) wants to show us he can dig even deeper.  Apparently he can't even figure out the difference between "politics" and "sex".
> 
> No wonder they keep tossing him out of the voting booth when he goes in there and yells "HEY!  THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're still harping on this bullshit?  The times you can point out something your critics have posted that isn't correct are so rare that you will harp on it for weeks because you are getting lambasted constantly.
Click to expand...

typical Contard.

pissed off because the Contard lies have been exposed.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> Shortly after Black's appointment to the Supreme Court, Ray Sprigle of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a series of articles revealing Black's involvement in the Klan, for which he won a Pulitzer Prize.[107] The first article in the series was published on Sept 13, 1937, barely a month after Black's appointment and shortly after his confirmation. Titled "Justice Black Revealed as Ku Klux Klansman,"[108] the article described how Black's resignation from the Klan "was the first move of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for United States Senator from Alabama."
> 
> 
> At a press conference on Sept 14 1937, Roosevelt was asked about whether he had knowledge of Black's involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. He responded in part, “I know only what I have read in the newspapers…Mr. Justice Black is abroad. Until such time as he returns there is no further comment to be made.”[109] On Sept 21 1937, FDR was again asked during a press conference about whether or not he had communications with Hugo Black regarding his involvement in the Ku Klux Klan. Again, FDR denied speaking with Hugo Black, and when asked about whether the Department of Justice should be "charged automatically" with investigating Supreme Court appointments, FDR said in part, "No, certainly not...a man's private life is supposed to be his private life..."
> 
> 
> On Sept 21, 1937, Hugo Black was “besieged” by reporters. He said, “If I make any statement it will be in a way the people can hear me and understand what I have to say, and not have to depend on some parts of the press which might fail to report all I have to say.”[110]
> 
> 
> On October 1, 1937, Hugo Black made a statement over the radio.[111] Black said in part, "I number among my friends many members of the colored race. Certainly, they are entitled to the full measure of protection accorded by our Constitution and our laws..."[112] Black also said, "I did join the Klan. I later resigned. I never rejoined.... Before becoming a Senator I dropped the Klan. I have had nothing to do with it since that time. I abandoned it. I completely discontinued any association with the organization. I have never resumed it and never expect to do so."[113] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that “fifty million listeners heard the unprecedented speech.”
> 
> 
> Near the end of his life, Black would claim that joining the Klan was a mistake, and went on to say "I would have joined any group if it helped get me votes."[32]
> 
> 
> Biographers in the 1990s examined Black's views of religious denominations. Ball found regarding the Klan that Black "sympathized with the group's economic, nativist, and anti-Catholic beliefs."[114] Newman said Black "disliked the Catholic Church as an institution" and gave numerous anti-Catholic speeches in his 1926 election campaign to Ku Klux Klan meetings across Alabama.[115] However, in 1937 The Harvard Crimson reported on Black's appointment of a Jewish law clerk, noting that he "earlier had appointed Miss Annie Butt, a Catholic, as a secretary, and the Supreme Court had designated Leon Smallwood, a Negro and a Catholic as his messenger."[116]_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting that- demonstrating that Hugo Black was not a member of the KKK while he was a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was still once a member of the KKK, and a Democrat appointed him.
Click to expand...


And yes still your fellow Contard lied about Democrats appointing a KKK member to the Supreme Court.

Must make you feel proud to endorse a fellow contard's lies.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aw, that's so cute.  Finger Boy, determined to outdo his own boner of posting a December Wisconsin street march as a July New York political convention (complete with cadaver participant) wants to show us he can dig even deeper.  Apparently he can't even figure out the difference between "politics" and "sex".
> 
> No wonder they keep tossing him out of the voting booth when he goes in there and yells "HEY!  THERE'S NO TOILET PAPER IN HERE!"
> 
> 
> 
> You're still harping on this bullshit?  The times you can point out something your critics have posted that isn't correct are so rare that you will harp on it for weeks because you are getting lambasted constantly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No idea what that babble means but I ain't the one who can't figure out the difference between politics and sex, now am I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretending to be stupid is the leftwing fallback position whenever they haven't got a case and they know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck in the job interview then.
> 
> Meanwhile a thousand posts later we're still waiting for the OP --- either one --- to essplain to the class why Liberals would "not be liking" a 93-year-old photo of dunces in sheets marching down Wisconsin trolley tracks toward a funeral home while a man dead for 11 years continues to decompose.
> 
> I mean, talk about "random"............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.
Click to expand...


If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.

Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.
> 
> And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump
> 
> Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.
> 
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> Most recently in 2016.
> 
> And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words
> 
> *"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*
> 
> *“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*
> 
> *Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*
> 
> *NAAWP*
> *In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, I'll see your 34 and raise ya 134 with registered Republican, Timothy McVeigh.
Click to expand...

I raise you 3000 for 9/11.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're still harping on this bullshit?  The times you can point out something your critics have posted that isn't correct are so rare that you will harp on it for weeks because you are getting lambasted constantly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what that babble means but I ain't the one who can't figure out the difference between politics and sex, now am I?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pretending to be stupid is the leftwing fallback position whenever they haven't got a case and they know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck in the job interview then.
> 
> Meanwhile a thousand posts later we're still waiting for the OP --- either one --- to essplain to the class why Liberals would "not be liking" a 93-year-old photo of dunces in sheets marching down Wisconsin trolley tracks toward a funeral home while a man dead for 11 years continues to decompose.
> 
> I mean, talk about "random"............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
Click to expand...

I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling half the electorate "racists" is sure to be a winner for your party.
> 
> 
> 
> You know? Good point bripat.... I'm going to rethink the smarts of trying to wake them up. Let them go into the 2018 and the 2020 calling half the nation racist...
> 
> We have gone from a Russian under every rock to now the KKK around every corner...in less than one month
> 
> Proceed morons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all watch the Trumpster morons proceed........
Click to expand...

They are telling the truth.  Douche bags like you even gloat about your belief that the white man will become extinct.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.
> 
> And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump
> 
> Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.
> 
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> Most recently in 2016.
> 
> And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words
> 
> *"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*
> 
> *“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*
> 
> *Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*
> 
> *NAAWP*
> *In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, I'll see your 34 and raise ya 134 with registered Republican, Timothy McVeigh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I raise you 3000 for 9/11.
Click to expand...

You have to be batshit insane to think the hijackers were Democrats


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what that babble means but I ain't the one who can't figure out the difference between politics and sex, now am I?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretending to be stupid is the leftwing fallback position whenever they haven't got a case and they know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck in the job interview then.
> 
> Meanwhile a thousand posts later we're still waiting for the OP --- either one --- to essplain to the class why Liberals would "not be liking" a 93-year-old photo of dunces in sheets marching down Wisconsin trolley tracks toward a funeral home while a man dead for 11 years continues to decompose.
> 
> I mean, talk about "random"............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
Click to expand...

WTF?? You started a thread based on those lies. What exactly do you think you're being "dragged into" that you yourself didn't cause?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
Click to expand...




Here's actual Democrat discrimination:

While talking a great game, it is well known by all except liberals in general, and the Black community specifically, that the Democrat Party claims to be concerned with support of blacks, their record with respect to black politicians tells a different story…



1.     In 2005, the Democrats did not name Donna Brazile to head the Democratic National Committee. They chose Howard Dean.


2.     “Gov. David A. Paterson defiantly vowed to run for election next year despite the White House‘s urging that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race.”  Obama Asks Paterson to Quit New York Governor’s Race

3. President Barack Obama has kept mum on the fate of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) for days -- but he tells CBS News that it's time for the embattled 80-year-old former Ways and Means Chairman to end his career "with dignity."

"I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served-- his constituents very well. But these-- allegations are very troubling," Obama told Harry Smith in an interview to be aired on the "Early Show." and first broadcast on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric.     Obama: Time for Rangel to end career "with dignity" 

4      Harold Ford told not to run for Senator from New York:

“From the start, Mr. Ford’s potential candidacy angered national Democratic Party leaders by disrupting plans for what was planned as a seamless Gillibrand nomination. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, called Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to discourage him from supporting Mr. Ford, and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York met personally with Mr. Ford to argue against his candidacy.”                 Harold Ford Jr. Says He Won’t Challenge Senator Gillibrand - NYTimes.com


5. “As state comptroller, [Carl] McCall earned the distinction of being the first African American ever elected to a statewide office in New York. Four years later voters overwhelmingly supported McCall over Republican Bruce Blakeman 64.75 to 32.1%. McCall's reelection in 1998 may have given him the confidence he needed in order to pursue the governor's mansion….The McCall campaign had the support of the Democratic Party; whether or not McCall had the party's full support has been the subject of much debate….Still one wonders just how committed the party was to McCall's campaign….shunned by some of the state's most respected Democrats…McCall blamed his money woes on the national Democratic Party, claiming that the party had abandoned his campaign….”  H. Carl McCall for Governor: a lesson to all black high-profile statewide office seekers. - Free Online Library


6. And, most telling, Bill Clinton’s remarks about the black candidate for the presidency:

“[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, *A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”*

Teddy's anger


7. Three staffers working for embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) were asked by security officers to leave an event in downtown Washington on Thursday after they tried to display large campaign signs just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was about to speak. ..  Waters told The Hill afterward that the staffers had been displaying the signs at the annual legislative conference for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which was held at the Washington convention center a few blocks away. “It ain’t about Nancy. It’s about black people,” Waters said.             http://thehill.com/homenews/house/119331-aides-working-for-maxine-waters-asked-to-leave-pelosi-event


8. And what Governor of Arkansas made the Saturday before Easter "Confederate Flag Day"?
The Arkansas Code, Section 1-5-107. Confederate Flag Day.
(a) The Saturday immediately preceding Easter Sunday of each year is designated as "Confederate Flag Day" in this state.
No person, firm, or corporation shall display any Confederate flag or replica thereof in connection with any advertisement of any commercial enterprise, or in any manner for any purpose except to honor the Confederate States of America.
Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

"In April 1985, Governor Bill Clinton signed Act 985 into law...'
Mark R. Levin on Trent Lott & Moral Outrage on National Review Online


9. Do Democrats in Congress support blacks by practicing affirmative action in their hiring…and of course this would be our of moral convictions, as they are legally exempt from affirmative action requirements.  More than passing interesting, the ‘National Journal,’ a survey of congressional staffers revealed that Democrats hired black employees at the same rate as Republicans: 2 percent.  “The Racial Breakdown of Congressional Staffs,” National Journal, June 21, 2005

           a. Schweitzer, “Do As I Say,” p. 9


10.   Clinton pushed black candidate to drop out of Florida race:

“Bill Clinton sought to persuade Rep. Kendrick Meek to drop out of the race for Senate during a trip to Florida last week — and nearly succeeded…Clinton did not dangle a job in front of Meek, who gave up a safe House seat to run for the Senate, but instead made the case that the move would advance the congressman’s future prospects, said a third Democrat familiar with the conversations.  Clinton campaigned with Meek in Florida on Oct. 19 and 20, and thought he had won Meek over. But as the week wore on, Meek lost his enthusiasm for the arrangement, spurred in part, a third Democratic source said, by his wife’s belief that he could still win the race. Clinton spoke with Meek again at week’s end, three Democrats said, and again Meek said he would drop out.”

Read more: Clinton pushed Meek to quit Fla. race


By some strange coincidence, the Democrats, again, force a black to the back:

11.  “Under an arrangement reached two days ago, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the current majority leader, would get the No. 2 job of minority whip come January. Clyburn, now majority whip, would hold the post of assistant leader, newly created for the purpose of heading off a contest for the whip position.”         http://www.businessweek.com/news/20...dership-as-clyburn-settles-for-no-3-post.html


12. For a peek into the unspoken view that Democrats have of blacks, look at how Biden finds Obama as different from all the rest of blacks:

Feb 9, 2007 - Biden called Obama first "clean" African-American candidate • Biden ... "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean ... He's smart.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Like always, you crack me up ...
> 
> Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
Click to expand...




Really?....... the very first selection for Supreme Court Justice, by Roosevelt, was Hugo Black. Using his first opportunity to select the best candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States, *Roosevelt's carefully selected choice was a racist, segregationist, anti-Catholic named Hugo Black.*

And spit in the face of black Americans.



a. "... [Hugo] Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]

Let's remind all, again, that the KKK was an arm of the Democrat Party post-Civil War...and, clearly, continued to be so through Roosevelt's time.


b. Hugo Black was his first selection, in 1937. Black was a multi-faceted hater....This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU

c. And, Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court: He falsely claimed that Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he used the phrase 'wall of separation [between church and state]' was a cornerstone of anti-religious sentiment among the Founders. Nothing could be further from the truth.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> Shortly after Black's appointment to the Supreme Court, Ray Sprigle of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a series of articles revealing Black's involvement in the Klan, for which he won a Pulitzer Prize.[107] The first article in the series was published on Sept 13, 1937, barely a month after Black's appointment and shortly after his confirmation. Titled "Justice Black Revealed as Ku Klux Klansman,"[108] the article described how Black's resignation from the Klan "was the first move of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for United States Senator from Alabama."
> 
> 
> At a press conference on Sept 14 1937, Roosevelt was asked about whether he had knowledge of Black's involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. He responded in part, “I know only what I have read in the newspapers…Mr. Justice Black is abroad. Until such time as he returns there is no further comment to be made.”[109] On Sept 21 1937, FDR was again asked during a press conference about whether or not he had communications with Hugo Black regarding his involvement in the Ku Klux Klan. Again, FDR denied speaking with Hugo Black, and when asked about whether the Department of Justice should be "charged automatically" with investigating Supreme Court appointments, FDR said in part, "No, certainly not...a man's private life is supposed to be his private life..."
> 
> 
> On Sept 21, 1937, Hugo Black was “besieged” by reporters. He said, “If I make any statement it will be in a way the people can hear me and understand what I have to say, and not have to depend on some parts of the press which might fail to report all I have to say.”[110]
> 
> 
> On October 1, 1937, Hugo Black made a statement over the radio.[111] Black said in part, "I number among my friends many members of the colored race. Certainly, they are entitled to the full measure of protection accorded by our Constitution and our laws..."[112] Black also said, "I did join the Klan. I later resigned. I never rejoined.... Before becoming a Senator I dropped the Klan. I have had nothing to do with it since that time. I abandoned it. I completely discontinued any association with the organization. I have never resumed it and never expect to do so."[113] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that “fifty million listeners heard the unprecedented speech.”
> 
> 
> Near the end of his life, Black would claim that joining the Klan was a mistake, and went on to say "I would have joined any group if it helped get me votes."[32]
> 
> 
> Biographers in the 1990s examined Black's views of religious denominations. Ball found regarding the Klan that Black "sympathized with the group's economic, nativist, and anti-Catholic beliefs."[114] Newman said Black "disliked the Catholic Church as an institution" and gave numerous anti-Catholic speeches in his 1926 election campaign to Ku Klux Klan meetings across Alabama.[115] However, in 1937 The Harvard Crimson reported on Black's appointment of a Jewish law clerk, noting that he "earlier had appointed Miss Annie Butt, a Catholic, as a secretary, and the Supreme Court had designated Leon Smallwood, a Negro and a Catholic as his messenger."[116]_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting that- demonstrating that Hugo Black was not a member of the KKK while he was a Supreme Court justice.
Click to expand...




Stop tap-dancing....he revealed you as he lying low-life that you are.


----------



## Moonglow

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?....... the very first selection for Supreme Court Justice, by Roosevelt, was Hugo Black. Using his first opportunity to select the best candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States, *Roosevelt's carefully selected choice was a racist, segregationist, anti-Catholic named Hugo Black.*
> 
> And spit in the face of black Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> a. "... [Hugo] Black was head of new members for the largest Klan cell in the South. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."Egnorance: Hugo Black and the real history of "the wall of separation between church and state"]
> 
> Let's remind all, again, that the KKK was an arm of the Democrat Party post-Civil War...and, clearly, continued to be so through Roosevelt's time.
> 
> 
> b. Hugo Black was his first selection, in 1937. Black was a multi-faceted hater....This KKK Senator from Alabama wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said ‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU
> 
> c. And, Hugo Black's anti-Catholic bias showed up in his actions on the Supreme Court: He falsely claimed that Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists, in which he used the phrase 'wall of separation [between church and state]' was a cornerstone of anti-religious sentiment among the Founders. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Click to expand...

At that time in history, the blacks didn't matter much in regards to federal govt. operation and the states also...They were considered on the same level as a Jew...And it just wasn't mean old nasty FDR doing it, it was the majority of republicans also...No surprise really considering the opinion of the majority also hated Asians worse than blacks.....


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretending to be stupid is the leftwing fallback position whenever they haven't got a case and they know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck in the job interview then.
> 
> Meanwhile a thousand posts later we're still waiting for the OP --- either one --- to essplain to the class why Liberals would "not be liking" a 93-year-old photo of dunces in sheets marching down Wisconsin trolley tracks toward a funeral home while a man dead for 11 years continues to decompose.
> 
> I mean, talk about "random"............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> WTF?? You started a thread based on those lies. What exactly do you think you're being "dragged into" that you yourself didn't cause?
Click to expand...


A thoroughly debunked bogus article that he still can't admit was bogus, a month later.

I love the way Fingerboy tries to weasel out of it claiming "I already acknowledged that" yet can't quote it.  Pathetic case of delusion.

But I mean how dim do you have to be to buy a blog that puts up some wet *trolley tracks* on a street and claims it's a political convention in New York, and not be immediately skeptical.  

In the actual event the "Klanbake" gathered in a New Jersey field, not on trolley tracks -- and that's even described in the bogus blog _itself_.  Before you even leave the article it already shoots itself in the foot.

I'm the cadaver of Forney Johnston and I approved this message.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No idea what that babble means but I ain't the one who can't figure out the difference between politics and sex, now am I?
> 
> 
> 
> Pretending to be stupid is the leftwing fallback position whenever they haven't got a case and they know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Good luck in the job interview then.
> 
> Meanwhile a thousand posts later we're still waiting for the OP --- either one --- to essplain to the class why Liberals would "not be liking" a 93-year-old photo of dunces in sheets marching down Wisconsin trolley tracks toward a funeral home while a man dead for 11 years continues to decompose.
> 
> I mean, talk about "random"............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
Click to expand...


LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling half the electorate "racists" is sure to be a winner for your party.
> 
> 
> 
> You know? Good point bripat.... I'm going to rethink the smarts of trying to wake them up. Let them go into the 2018 and the 2020 calling half the nation racist...
> 
> We have gone from a Russian under every rock to now the KKK around every corner...in less than one month
> 
> Proceed morons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all watch the Trumpster morons proceed........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are telling the truth.
Click to expand...


Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?

And another typical Trumpster.


----------



## Syriusly

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1. 'Democrat' is by far the most accurate way to portray David Duke, in both his formative years,* when he learned to be a racist, and in his political career....A DEMOCRAT.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Republican is by far the accurate way to portray David Duke.
> 
> And of course you know that- since he endorsed your Dear Leader- Donald Trump
> 
> Since David Duke has been running for office as a Republican since 1989.
> 
> Electoral history of David Duke - Wikipedia
> 
> Most recently in 2016.
> 
> And of course there are David Duke's- the Republican- own words
> 
> *"Why we voted for Donald Trump": David Duke explains the white supremacist Charlottesville protests*
> 
> *“We are determined to take our country back,” Duke said from the rally, calling it a “turning point.” “We are going to fulfill the promises of Donald Trump. That’s what we believed in. That’s why we voted for Donald Trump, because he said he’s going to take our country back.”*
> 
> *Duke is no longer a member of the KKK- just a member of the white supremacist groups that the Conservatives adore.*
> 
> *NAAWP*
> *In 1980, Duke left the Klan and formed the National Association for the Advancement of White People (NAAWP), a white nationalist organization.[92]*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wayne Gacy, who killed 34 young boys, was a Democrat precinct captain:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Hell, I'll see your 34 and raise ya 134 with registered Republican, Timothy McVeigh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I raise you 3000 for 9/11.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to be batshit insane to think the hijackers were Democrats
Click to expand...


Yep- and that is Brip- batshit insane. 

And all huggy with the White Nationalists.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's actual Democrat discrimination:.
Click to expand...


Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.






And people like you whigged out.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who  has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?....... the very first selection for Supreme Court Justice, by Roosevelt, was Hugo Black. .
Click to expand...


Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.

I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.

You were just lying again.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling half the electorate "racists" is sure to be a winner for your party.
> 
> 
> 
> You know? Good point bripat.... I'm going to rethink the smarts of trying to wake them up. Let them go into the 2018 and the 2020 calling half the nation racist...
> 
> We have gone from a Russian under every rock to now the KKK around every corner...in less than one month
> 
> Proceed morons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all watch the Trumpster morons proceed........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are telling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
Click to expand...


So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"

Sleazy smears like that are why you are correctly labeled a douche bag.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> Shortly after Black's appointment to the Supreme Court, Ray Sprigle of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette wrote a series of articles revealing Black's involvement in the Klan, for which he won a Pulitzer Prize.[107] The first article in the series was published on Sept 13, 1937, barely a month after Black's appointment and shortly after his confirmation. Titled "Justice Black Revealed as Ku Klux Klansman,"[108] the article described how Black's resignation from the Klan "was the first move of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for United States Senator from Alabama."
> 
> 
> At a press conference on Sept 14 1937, Roosevelt was asked about whether he had knowledge of Black's involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. He responded in part, “I know only what I have read in the newspapers…Mr. Justice Black is abroad. Until such time as he returns there is no further comment to be made.”[109] On Sept 21 1937, FDR was again asked during a press conference about whether or not he had communications with Hugo Black regarding his involvement in the Ku Klux Klan. Again, FDR denied speaking with Hugo Black, and when asked about whether the Department of Justice should be "charged automatically" with investigating Supreme Court appointments, FDR said in part, "No, certainly not...a man's private life is supposed to be his private life..."
> 
> 
> On Sept 21, 1937, Hugo Black was “besieged” by reporters. He said, “If I make any statement it will be in a way the people can hear me and understand what I have to say, and not have to depend on some parts of the press which might fail to report all I have to say.”[110]
> 
> 
> On October 1, 1937, Hugo Black made a statement over the radio.[111] Black said in part, "I number among my friends many members of the colored race. Certainly, they are entitled to the full measure of protection accorded by our Constitution and our laws..."[112] Black also said, "I did join the Klan. I later resigned. I never rejoined.... Before becoming a Senator I dropped the Klan. I have had nothing to do with it since that time. I abandoned it. I completely discontinued any association with the organization. I have never resumed it and never expect to do so."[113] The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that “fifty million listeners heard the unprecedented speech.”
> 
> 
> Near the end of his life, Black would claim that joining the Klan was a mistake, and went on to say "I would have joined any group if it helped get me votes."[32]
> 
> 
> Biographers in the 1990s examined Black's views of religious denominations. Ball found regarding the Klan that Black "sympathized with the group's economic, nativist, and anti-Catholic beliefs."[114] Newman said Black "disliked the Catholic Church as an institution" and gave numerous anti-Catholic speeches in his 1926 election campaign to Ku Klux Klan meetings across Alabama.[115] However, in 1937 The Harvard Crimson reported on Black's appointment of a Jewish law clerk, noting that he "earlier had appointed Miss Annie Butt, a Catholic, as a secretary, and the Supreme Court had designated Leon Smallwood, a Negro and a Catholic as his messenger."[116]_​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting that- demonstrating that Hugo Black was not a member of the KKK while he was a Supreme Court justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stop tap-dancing....he revealed you as he lying low-life that you are.
Click to expand...


Feel free anytime to point out a lie of mine.

Just as I feel fine with pointing out all of your lies- like your lie about Democrats appointing a KKK member to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling half the electorate "racists" is sure to be a winner for your party.
> 
> 
> 
> You know? Good point bripat.... I'm going to rethink the smarts of trying to wake them up. Let them go into the 2018 and the 2020 calling half the nation racist...
> 
> We have gone from a Russian under every rock to now the KKK around every corner...in less than one month
> 
> Proceed morons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all watch the Trumpster morons proceed........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are telling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> .
Click to expand...


When I post a photo of white supremacists and you say they are right- yeah- you are supporting White Supremacist- like the good little Trumpster you are.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretending to be stupid is the leftwing fallback position whenever they haven't got a case and they know it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck in the job interview then.
> 
> Meanwhile a thousand posts later we're still waiting for the OP --- either one --- to essplain to the class why Liberals would "not be liking" a 93-year-old photo of dunces in sheets marching down Wisconsin trolley tracks toward a funeral home while a man dead for 11 years continues to decompose.
> 
> I mean, talk about "random"............
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.
Click to expand...

I know you would like to keep ruminating over your pathetic little victory for the next 12 months, but some of us are done discussing it.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know? Good point bripat.... I'm going to rethink the smarts of trying to wake them up. Let them go into the 2018 and the 2020 calling half the nation racist...
> 
> We have gone from a Russian under every rock to now the KKK around every corner...in less than one month
> 
> Proceed morons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all watch the Trumpster morons proceed........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are telling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I post a photo of white supremacists and you say they are right- yeah- you are supporting White Supremacist- like the good little Trumpster you are.
Click to expand...

No I'm not, you witless cockroach.  They are right that "diversity" = white genocide.  Your ilk has admitted it many times.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all watch the Trumpster morons proceed........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are telling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I post a photo of white supremacists and you say they are right- yeah- you are supporting White Supremacist- like the good little Trumpster you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I'm not, you witless cockroach.  They are right that "diversity" = white genocide.  .
Click to expand...


You keep repeating the mantra of White Nationalists and then whine when I identify you as supporting White Nationalists.

Trumpsters.....lol


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck in the job interview then.
> 
> Meanwhile a thousand posts later we're still waiting for the OP --- either one --- to essplain to the class why Liberals would "not be liking" a 93-year-old photo of dunces in sheets marching down Wisconsin trolley tracks toward a funeral home while a man dead for 11 years continues to decompose.
> 
> I mean, talk about "random"............
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would like to keep ruminating over your pathetic little victory for the next 12 months, but some of us are done discussing it.
Click to expand...


And by 'done discussing it' you mean- you keep posting.......

You can't even be honest about that.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are telling the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I post a photo of white supremacists and you say they are right- yeah- you are supporting White Supremacist- like the good little Trumpster you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I'm not, you witless cockroach.  They are right that "diversity" = white genocide.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep repeating the mantra of White Nationalists and then whine when I identify you as supporting White Nationalists.
> 
> Trumpsters.....lol
Click to expand...


The statement is the simple truth.  You haven't even tried to dispute it.  Your claim that it's the "mantra of White Nationalists" is purely a smear.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would like to keep ruminating over your pathetic little victory for the next 12 months, but some of us are done discussing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'done discussing it' you mean- you keep posting.......
> 
> You can't even be honest about that.
Click to expand...

You and your cronies keep harassing me about it, moron.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would like to keep ruminating over your pathetic little victory for the next 12 months, but some of us are done discussing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And by 'done discussing it' you mean- you keep posting.......
> 
> You can't even be honest about that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You and your cronies keep harassing me about it, moron.
Click to expand...


And by 'harrassing' you - you mean replying to your posts.

Or are people I don't know about following you around forcing you to post?


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling half the electorate "racists" is sure to be a winner for your party.
> 
> 
> 
> You know? Good point bripat.... I'm going to rethink the smarts of trying to wake them up. Let them go into the 2018 and the 2020 calling half the nation racist...
> 
> We have gone from a Russian under every rock to now the KKK around every corner...in less than one month
> 
> Proceed morons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all watch the Trumpster morons proceed........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are telling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> 
> Sleazy smears like that are why you are correctly labeled a douche bag.
Click to expand...

Only they're not saying the sky is blue -- they're saying they want to kill Jews.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When I post a photo of white supremacists and you say they are right- yeah- you are supporting White Supremacist- like the good little Trumpster you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No I'm not, you witless cockroach.  They are right that "diversity" = white genocide.  .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep repeating the mantra of White Nationalists and then whine when I identify you as supporting White Nationalists.
> 
> Trumpsters.....lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The statement is the simple truth.  You haven't even tried to dispute it.  Your claim that it's the "mantra of White Nationalists" is purely a smear.
Click to expand...


White genocide conspiracy theory - Wikipedia

Who are white nationalists and what do they want? - CNN
A popular white supremacist slogan is, "Diversity is a code word for white genocide."


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good luck in the job interview then.
> 
> Meanwhile a thousand posts later we're still waiting for the OP --- either one --- to essplain to the class why Liberals would "not be liking" a 93-year-old photo of dunces in sheets marching down Wisconsin trolley tracks toward a funeral home while a man dead for 11 years continues to decompose.
> 
> I mean, talk about "random"............
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would like to keep ruminating over your pathetic little victory for the next 12 months, but some of us are done discussing it.
Click to expand...

Well fine, then own up to it. Admit that it's bullshit and that you're an imbecile for falling for it without bothering to research if it was even true or not.

And by the way, Forney Johnston is still dead.


----------



## Syriusly

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would like to keep ruminating over your pathetic little victory for the next 12 months, but some of us are done discussing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well fine, then own up to it. Admit that it's bullshit and that you're an imbecile for falling for it without bothering to research if it was even true or not.
> 
> And by the way, Forney Johnston is still dead.
Click to expand...


Faun- stop forcing Brip to post!


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know? Good point bripat.... I'm going to rethink the smarts of trying to wake them up. Let them go into the 2018 and the 2020 calling half the nation racist...
> 
> We have gone from a Russian under every rock to now the KKK around every corner...in less than one month
> 
> Proceed morons
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all watch the Trumpster morons proceed........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are telling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> 
> Sleazy smears like that are why you are correctly labeled a douche bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only they're not saying the sky is blue -- they're saying they want to kill Jews.
Click to expand...


As I said previously, using logic on you is like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.  You just proved you are too stupid to understand an analogy.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would like to keep ruminating over your pathetic little victory for the next 12 months, but some of us are done discussing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well fine, then own up to it. Admit that it's bullshit and that you're an imbecile for falling for it without bothering to research if it was even true or not.
> 
> And by the way, Forney Johnston is still dead.
Click to expand...

I will after you admit that cockroaches are smarter than you.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would like to keep ruminating over your pathetic little victory for the next 12 months, but some of us are done discussing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well fine, then own up to it. Admit that it's bullshit and that you're an imbecile for falling for it without bothering to research if it was even true or not.
> 
> And by the way, Forney Johnston is still dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will after you admit that cockroaches are smarter than you.
Click to expand...


Apparently the cockroaches are now the ones forcing Brip to post....


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> We all watch the Trumpster morons proceed........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are telling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> 
> Sleazy smears like that are why you are correctly labeled a douche bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only they're not saying the sky is blue -- they're saying they want to kill Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said previously, using logic on you is like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.  You just proved you are too stupid to understand an analogy.
Click to expand...

And why bother with analogies when we have the alt-right saying diversity equals white genocide and they want to kill Jews -- and you agree with them.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would like to keep ruminating over your pathetic little victory for the next 12 months, but some of us are done discussing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well fine, then own up to it. Admit that it's bullshit and that you're an imbecile for falling for it without bothering to research if it was even true or not.
> 
> And by the way, Forney Johnston is still dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will after you admit that cockroaches are smarter than you.
Click to expand...

Except cockroaches aren't smarter than me whereas you did falsely claim that photo was from the 1924 DNC when it's not and you flat out refuse to admit it's bullshit and that you didn't even bother to check it out before posting said bullshit.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are telling the truth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> 
> Sleazy smears like that are why you are correctly labeled a douche bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only they're not saying the sky is blue -- they're saying they want to kill Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said previously, using logic on you is like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.  You just proved you are too stupid to understand an analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And why bother with analogies when we have the alt-right saying diversity equals white genocide and they want to kill Jews -- and you agree with them.
Click to expand...


Analogies are required to show you cockroaches how stupid you are.  Unfortunately, it takes a certain minimal intelligence to understand the analogy.  Snowflakes obviously can't even pass that bar.

There's nothing about killing Jews in the photo, douche bag.  Just admit you're a shameless liar and a POS.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would like to keep ruminating over your pathetic little victory for the next 12 months, but some of us are done discussing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well fine, then own up to it. Admit that it's bullshit and that you're an imbecile for falling for it without bothering to research if it was even true or not.
> 
> And by the way, Forney Johnston is still dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will after you admit that cockroaches are smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except cockroaches aren't smarter than me whereas you did falsely claim that photo was from the 1924 DNC when it's not and you flat out refuse to admit it's bullshit and that you didn't even bother to check it out before posting said bullshit.
Click to expand...

Yes, cockroaches are smarter than you.  You proved that when you failed to comprehend the simplest of analogies.  The rest of your dreck is equally wrong and dishonest.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> 
> Sleazy smears like that are why you are correctly labeled a douche bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only they're not saying the sky is blue -- they're saying they want to kill Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said previously, using logic on you is like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.  You just proved you are too stupid to understand an analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And why bother with analogies when we have the alt-right saying diversity equals white genocide and they want to kill Jews -- and you agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Analogies are required to show you cockroaches how stupid you are.  Unfortunately, it takes a certain minimal intelligence to understand the analogy.  Snowflakes obviously can't even pass that bar.
> 
> There's nothing about killing Jews in the photo, douche bag.  Just admit you're a shameless liar and a POS.
Click to expand...


Who forced Brip to post this time?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's actual Democrat discrimination:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people like you whigged out.
Click to expand...




The Democrat Party: they were against melanin before they were for it.


And now they have dunces like you for whom skin color is the most important qualification for leadership.
How did you get to be so stupid???

Memo to dolts: Hussein Obama- a dirt-eating low-life crypto-Islamist back-stabbing infanticide-supporting incompetent snake with an unbroken record of failure, both as a President and as a human being.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> 
> Sleazy smears like that are why you are correctly labeled a douche bag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only they're not saying the sky is blue -- they're saying they want to kill Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said previously, using logic on you is like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.  You just proved you are too stupid to understand an analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And why bother with analogies when we have the alt-right saying diversity equals white genocide and they want to kill Jews -- and you agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Analogies are required to show you cockroaches how stupid you are.  Unfortunately, it takes a certain minimal intelligence to understand the analogy.  Snowflakes obviously can't even pass that bar.
> 
> There's nothing about killing Jews in the photo, douche bag.  Just admit you're a shameless liar and a POS.
Click to expand...

Of course there is something in there about killing Jews. What do you _think_ the alt-right's solution is to prevent white genocide?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?....... the very first selection for Supreme Court Justice, by Roosevelt, was Hugo Black. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
Click to expand...



I never lie.

1. Yet, the very first selection for Supreme Court Justice, by Roosevelt, was Hugo Black. Using his first opportunity to select the best candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States, *Roosevelt's carefully selected choice was a racist, segregationist, anti-Catholic named Hugo Black.*

"Through the appointment, FDR pleased the South and the *liberals *simultaneously..."Hugo Black and the KKK

*And spit in the face of black Americans.*



a. "... [Hugo] Black was head of new members for *the largest Klan cell in the South*. New members of the KKK had to pledge their allegiance to the “eternal separation of Church and State.”... Separation was a crucial part of the KKK’s jurisprudential agenda. It was included in the Klansman’s Creed..."http://egnorance.blogspot.com/2011/10/hugo-black-and-real-history-of-wall-of.html]

Let's remind all, again, that *the KKK was an arm of the Democrat Party* post-Civil War...and, clearly, continued to be so through Roosevelt's time.


b. Hugo Black was his first selection, in 1937. Black was a multi-faceted hater....*This KKK Senator from Alabama* wrote the majority decision on Korematsu v. US; in 1967, he said *‘They all look alike to a person not a Jap.” *Engage: Conversations in Philosophy: "They all look alike to a person not a Jap"*: The Legacy of Korematsu at OSU 




2. Shortly after Black's appointment to the Supreme Court, Ray Sprigle of the _Pittsburgh Post-Gazette_ wrote a series of articles revealing Black's involvement in the Klan, for which he won a Pulitzer Prize.[107] The first article in the series was published on Sept 13, 1937, barely a month after Black's appointment and shortly after his confirmation. Titled "Justice Black Revealed as Ku Klux Klansman,"[108] the article described how Black's resignation from the Klan "was the first move of his campaign for the Democratic nomination for United States Senator from Alabama."

At a press conference on Sept 14 1937, Roosevelt was asked about whether he had knowledge of Black's involvement with the Ku Klux Klan. He responded in part, “I know only what I have read in the newspapers…Mr. Justice Black is abroad. Until such time as he returns there is no further comment to be made.”[109] On Sept 21 1937, FDR was again asked during a press conference about whether or not he had communications with Hugo Black regarding his involvement in the Ku Klux Klan. Again, FDR denied speaking with Hugo Black, and when asked about whether the Department of Justice should be "charged automatically" with investigating Supreme Court appointments, FDR said in part, "No, certainly not...a man's private life is supposed to be his private life..."

On Sept 21, 1937, Hugo Black was “besieged” by reporters. He said, “If I make any statement it will be in a way the people can hear me and understand what I have to say, and not have to depend on some parts of the press which might fail to report all I have to say.”
Hugo Black - Wikipedia



Franklin Roosevelt not only placed a KKKer on the Supreme Court, but he has a well documented history of antipathy to blacks, Jews and Asian.

Franklin Roosevelt....Democrat demigod.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you name any KKKers who are Republicans?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's actual Democrat discrimination:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people like you whigged out.
Click to expand...




BTW.....there is no such word as 'whigged.'

But there is of 'imbecile.'

I looked it up....your picture was the definition.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.
> 
> 
> 
> I know you would like to keep ruminating over your pathetic little victory for the next 12 months, but some of us are done discussing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well fine, then own up to it. Admit that it's bullshit and that you're an imbecile for falling for it without bothering to research if it was even true or not.
> 
> And by the way, Forney Johnston is still dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will after you admit that cockroaches are smarter than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Except cockroaches aren't smarter than me whereas you did falsely claim that photo was from the 1924 DNC when it's not and you flat out refuse to admit it's bullshit and that you didn't even bother to check it out before posting said bullshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, cockroaches are smarter than you.  You proved that when you failed to comprehend the simplest of analogies.  The rest of your dreck is equally wrong and dishonest.
Click to expand...

Drools the poster who actually claimed a photo of marching KKKers from *Madison*, Wisconsin were really marching at the DNC at *Madison* Square Garden in New York.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's actual Democrat discrimination:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people like you whigged out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW.....there is no such word as 'whigged.'
> 
> But there is of 'imbecile.'
> 
> I looked it up....your picture was the definition.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

PoliticalHack stretches her _mighty wit_ to its absolute limit and comes up with that second grade insult.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> 
> Sleazy smears like that are why you are correctly labeled a douche bag.
> 
> 
> 
> Only they're not saying the sky is blue -- they're saying they want to kill Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As I said previously, using logic on you is like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.  You just proved you are too stupid to understand an analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And why bother with analogies when we have the alt-right saying diversity equals white genocide and they want to kill Jews -- and you agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Analogies are required to show you cockroaches how stupid you are.  Unfortunately, it takes a certain minimal intelligence to understand the analogy.  Snowflakes obviously can't even pass that bar.
> 
> There's nothing about killing Jews in the photo, douche bag.  Just admit you're a shameless liar and a POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is something in there about killing Jews. What do you _think_ the alt-right's solution is to prevent white genocide?
Click to expand...


Everyone can read what the sign says, cockroach.  There's nothing on it about killing Jews.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's actual Democrat discrimination:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people like you whigged out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: they were against melanin before they were for it.
> .
Click to expand...


The Democratic Party- we elect people of all colors to be President.

The GOP- we elect people who tacitly endorse white supremacists to be President


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> _"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?....... the very first selection for Supreme Court Justice, by Roosevelt, was Hugo Black. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
Click to expand...


All you do is lie.

Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.

I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.

You were just lying again


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see Dukey's already mentioned but I already gave you a page full of photos.  I just didn't identify them.  If I recall they were D.C. Stephenson (rapist and cannibal), Edward Jackson (Gov, IN), Rice Means (Sen., CO), George Luis Baker (Mayor, Portland OR), Ben Paulen (Gov, KS), Owen Brewster (Gov/Sen/Rep/McCarthyite, ME) and Clarence Morley (Gov, CO).
> 
> Not all of them were literally Klan, many just complicit.  But Stephenson and Morley were.
> 
> If you have a good time plugging them in to your childish Composition Fallacies I can give you more.  The first seven are free.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's actual Democrat discrimination:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people like you whigged out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW.....there is no such word as 'whigged.'
> 
> But there is of 'imbecile.'
> 
> I looked it up....your picture was the definition.
Click to expand...


LOL how cute- PC boy tried to insult me? 

Meanwhile- you must be soooo happy to have a white President back in the White House.....


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only they're not saying the sky is blue -- they're saying they want to kill Jews.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said previously, using logic on you is like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.  You just proved you are too stupid to understand an analogy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And why bother with analogies when we have the alt-right saying diversity equals white genocide and they want to kill Jews -- and you agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Analogies are required to show you cockroaches how stupid you are.  Unfortunately, it takes a certain minimal intelligence to understand the analogy.  Snowflakes obviously can't even pass that bar.
> 
> There's nothing about killing Jews in the photo, douche bag.  Just admit you're a shameless liar and a POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is something in there about killing Jews. What do you _think_ the alt-right's solution is to prevent white genocide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone can read what the sign says, cockroach.  There's nothing on it about killing Jews.
Click to expand...

Why is it anyone else's fault but your own that you don't know the alt-right's solution to avoiding white genocide?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As I said previously, using logic on you is like trying to teach algebra to a cockroach.  You just proved you are too stupid to understand an analogy.
> 
> 
> 
> And why bother with analogies when we have the alt-right saying diversity equals white genocide and they want to kill Jews -- and you agree with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Analogies are required to show you cockroaches how stupid you are.  Unfortunately, it takes a certain minimal intelligence to understand the analogy.  Snowflakes obviously can't even pass that bar.
> 
> There's nothing about killing Jews in the photo, douche bag.  Just admit you're a shameless liar and a POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is something in there about killing Jews. What do you _think_ the alt-right's solution is to prevent white genocide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone can read what the sign says, cockroach.  There's nothing on it about killing Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it anyone else's fault but your own that you don't know the alt-right's solution to avoiding white genocide?
Click to expand...

The discussion is about what's actually on the sign, cockroach, not what you imagine is the agenda of the alt-right.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Only they're not saying the sky is blue -- they're saying they want to kill Jews.


----------



## Rambunctious

Faun said:


> Why is it anyone else's fault but your own that you don't know the alt-right's solution to avoiding white genocide?


Altright is that like the Altleft?


----------



## ABikerSailor

Actually, during the tiki torch march the night before, and a couple of times the next day, the white supremacists were saying that "Jews will not replace us".


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?....... the very first selection for Supreme Court Justice, by Roosevelt, was Hugo Black. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
Click to expand...


_"All you do is lie."_

Irony


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's actual Democrat discrimination:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people like you whigged out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: they were against melanin before they were for it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party- we elect people of all colors to be President.
> 
> The GOP- we elect people who tacitly endorse white supremacists to be President
Click to expand...



Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have the Republicans placed any KKKers on the Supreme Court?
> The Democrats have.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?....... the very first selection for Supreme Court Justice, by Roosevelt, was Hugo Black. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
Click to expand...



*SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
*"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*

Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter



Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's actual Democrat discrimination:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people like you whigged out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW.....there is no such word as 'whigged.'
> 
> But there is of 'imbecile.'
> 
> I looked it up....your picture was the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL how cute- PC boy tried to insult me?
> 
> Meanwhile- you must be soooo happy to have a white President back in the White House.....
Click to expand...




Only half-heads judge folks by the color of their skin.

Raise your paw.


----------



## PoliticalChic

ABikerSailor said:


> Actually, during the tiki torch march the night before, and a couple of times the next day, the white supremacists were saying that "Jews will not replace us".




FDR made clear he didn't like Jews.

So....he was a white supremacist?


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why bother with analogies when we have the alt-right saying diversity equals white genocide and they want to kill Jews -- and you agree with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Analogies are required to show you cockroaches how stupid you are.  Unfortunately, it takes a certain minimal intelligence to understand the analogy.  Snowflakes obviously can't even pass that bar.
> 
> There's nothing about killing Jews in the photo, douche bag.  Just admit you're a shameless liar and a POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is something in there about killing Jews. What do you _think_ the alt-right's solution is to prevent white genocide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone can read what the sign says, cockroach.  There's nothing on it about killing Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it anyone else's fault but your own that you don't know the alt-right's solution to avoiding white genocide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The discussion is about what's actually on the sign, cockroach, not what you imagine is the agenda of the alt-right.
Click to expand...

I know what their solution is. Are you saying you don't?


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only they're not saying the sky is blue -- they're saying they want to kill Jews.
Click to expand...

And yet, I heard that said.


----------



## Faun

Rambunctious said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it anyone else's fault but your own that you don't know the alt-right's solution to avoiding white genocide?
> 
> 
> 
> Altright is that like the Altleft?
Click to expand...

No, not at all.


----------



## ABikerSailor

Think I'm gonna unsubscribe.  This has gotten down to the level of a couple of 3 year olds fighting in a sandbox.


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll bet you will still be harping on this 2 weeks from now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you contards are still lying about it- we will still be pointing out the lies.
> 
> Will you still be lying about it 2 weeks from now?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I haven't even been discussing it, but several cockroaches on your side keep trying to drag me back into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- typical Trumpster- can't even take personal responsibility for your own posts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know you would like to keep ruminating over your pathetic little victory for the next 12 months, but some of us are done discussing it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well fine, then own up to it. Admit that it's bullshit and that you're an imbecile for falling for it without bothering to research if it was even true or not.
> 
> And by the way, Forney Johnston is still dead.
Click to expand...


Not only is Forney still valiantly hanging on in his heroic struggle to remain dead -- he's been waging that struggle since his own funeral in 1913, even maintaining his deadness crusade when Oscar Underwood tried to masquerade as a dead man during a political convention held on some wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin a month after the election was already over.

Doesn't sound like a plan that had much of a chance.  

"Own up to it" indeed. This is Fingerboy, who posted to me when I first got here, "I re-read your post and revised my response, not that I give a flying fuck".  That's about as close as it gets for this loser.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rambunctious said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling half the electorate "racists" is sure to be a winner for your party.
> 
> 
> 
> You know? Good point bripat.... I'm going to rethink the smarts of trying to wake them up. Let them go into the 2018 and the 2020 calling half the nation racist...
> 
> We have gone from a Russian under every rock to now the KKK around every corner...in less than one month
> 
> Proceed morons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all watch the Trumpster morons proceed........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are telling the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that you support the White Supremacists?
> 
> And another typical Trumpster.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a white supremacist said "the sky is blue," and I agreed that it is, I would be "supporting the White Supremacists?"
> 
> Sleazy smears like that are why you are correctly labeled a douche bag.
Click to expand...


So if some bullshit blogger posted a picture of a Klan march in Wisconsin in December of 1924 and claimed it was a picture of a political convention that had run its course six months earlier a thousand miles away, and you agreed that it was and even started a thread to that effect, that would make you --- what?


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?....... the very first selection for Supreme Court Justice, by Roosevelt, was Hugo Black. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...




PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats haven't put any KKK members on the Supreme Court.
> 
> You are lying again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?....... the very first selection for Supreme Court Justice, by Roosevelt, was Hugo Black. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...


Quoting your article:

Reporter Ray Sprigle’s investigation of Black’s links to the Klan revealed that he _joined the organization in September 1923 and resigned almost two years later, in July 1925.
_
'resigned...in July 1925'

This Supreme Court Justice had at one time been a KKK member- as usual you are lying- FDR never appointed a KKK member to the Supreme Court.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> And why bother with analogies when we have the alt-right saying diversity equals white genocide and they want to kill Jews -- and you agree with them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Analogies are required to show you cockroaches how stupid you are.  Unfortunately, it takes a certain minimal intelligence to understand the analogy.  Snowflakes obviously can't even pass that bar.
> 
> There's nothing about killing Jews in the photo, douche bag.  Just admit you're a shameless liar and a POS.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course there is something in there about killing Jews. What do you _think_ the alt-right's solution is to prevent white genocide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everyone can read what the sign says, cockroach.  There's nothing on it about killing Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why is it anyone else's fault but your own that you don't know the alt-right's solution to avoiding white genocide?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The discussion is about what's actually on the sign, cockroach, not what you imagine is the agenda of the alt-right.
Click to expand...


Yep- what is on the sign is the rallying cry of the White Supremacists- which you applaud.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's actual Democrat discrimination:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people like you whigged out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: they were against melanin before they were for it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party- we elect people of all colors to be President.
> 
> The GOP- we elect people who tacitly endorse white supremacists to be President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
Click to expand...


LOL- still promoting that lie? 

Still pissed off that America elected a Democrat- and an African American- to be President?


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hey you Republicans elected Donald 'the rapist' Trump- the only President elected who has a history of discriminating against Blacks and Puerto Ricans in his rental properties.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's actual Democrat discrimination:.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people like you whigged out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW.....there is no such word as 'whigged.'
> 
> But there is of 'imbecile.'
> 
> I looked it up....your picture was the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL how cute- PC boy tried to insult me?
> 
> Meanwhile- you must be soooo happy to have a white President back in the White House.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only half-heads judge folks by the color of their skin.
> 
> Raise your paw.
Click to expand...


Democrats elect persons to be President regardless of whether they are white or black. 

Republicans....well.........


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, during the tiki torch march the night before, and a couple of times the next day, the white supremacists were saying that "Jews will not replace us".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR made clear he didn't like Jews.
> 
> So....he was a white supremacist?
Click to expand...


Yeah FDR dislike Jews so much he appointed a Jew to be a Supreme Court justice.....

Felix Frankfurter

_Henry Morgenthau was hardly FDR’s only Jewish friend and close associate. He relied on the advice and support of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter,Samuel Rosenman, David Lilienthal, Barnard Baruch, Nathan Straus, Herbert Lehman, Benjamin Cohen and David Dubinsky;the list could go on. 

As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, during the tiki torch march the night before, and a couple of times the next day, the white supremacists were saying that "Jews will not replace us".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR made clear he didn't like Jews.
> 
> So....he was a white supremacist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah FDR dislike Jews so much he appointed a Jew to be a Supreme Court justice.....
> 
> Felix Frankfurter
> 
> _Henry Morgenthau was hardly FDR’s only Jewish friend and close associate. He relied on the advice and support of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter,Samuel Rosenman, David Lilienthal, Barnard Baruch, Nathan Straus, Herbert Lehman, Benjamin Cohen and David Dubinsky;the list could go on.
> 
> As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
Click to expand...

in the 1920s and 1930w, every antisemite in New York had a Jewish lawyer.


----------



## Slash

When did we start this revision to history.  FDR won over 80% of the Jewish vote in his run for the presidency.   All 4 times.  Hitler tried to denounce him by portraying FDR as Jewish (much like Southern leaders tried portraying Lincoln as black).  

After Pearl Harbor he doesn't bee line it for Japan but jumps to Europe to stop Hitler from overrunning Britian and Palestine, two heavily Jewish populated area's first.   He put thousands of Jewish leaders in government.  Helped NY's first Jewish governor win.  NY's first jewish senator win.  Illinois first Jewish Governor Win...

People try this revisionist history BS that he didn't let Jews in the country.  Nearly a quarter of all German Jews found refuge in the US under FDR (more than any other country).


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> When did we start this revision to history.  FDR won over 80% of the Jewish vote in his run for the presidency.   All 4 times.  Hitler tried to denounce him by portraying FDR as Jewish (much like Southern leaders tried portraying Lincoln as black).
> 
> After Pearl Harbor he doesn't bee line it for Japan but jumps to Europe to stop Hitler from overrunning Britian and Palestine, two heavily Jewish populated area's first.   He put thousands of Jewish leaders in government.  Helped NY's first Jewish governor win.  NY's first jewish senator win.  Illinois first Jewish Governor Win...
> 
> People try this revisionist history BS that he didn't let Jews in the country.  Nearly a quarter of all German Jews found refuge in the US under FDR (more than any other country).



FDR's troubling view of Jews

_*What FDR said about Jews in private*_
_*His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America's tepid response to the Holocaust.*_

_President Franklin Roosevelt sits at the steering wheel of his automobile… (Associated Press )

In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."

Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."

Roosevelt's "best way" remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR's support for "spreading the Jews thin" may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.






Here's the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.

Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.

Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.

In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."

.  .  .  .  .  .
_​


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> FDR's troubling view of Jews
> 
> _*What FDR said about Jews in private*_
> _*His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America's tepid response to the Holocaust.*_
> 
> _President Franklin Roosevelt sits at the steering wheel of his automobile… (Associated Press )
> 
> In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."
> 
> Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."
> 
> Roosevelt's "best way" remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR's support for "spreading the Jews thin" may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
> 
> Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
> 
> Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
> 
> In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .
> _​



Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.  

Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?  

By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.     

In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings. 

You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?  


WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, during the tiki torch march the night before, and a couple of times the next day, the white supremacists were saying that "Jews will not replace us".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR made clear he didn't like Jews.
> 
> So....he was a white supremacist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah FDR dislike Jews so much he appointed a Jew to be a Supreme Court justice.....
> 
> Felix Frankfurter
> 
> _Henry Morgenthau was hardly FDR’s only Jewish friend and close associate. He relied on the advice and support of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter,Samuel Rosenman, David Lilienthal, Barnard Baruch, Nathan Straus, Herbert Lehman, Benjamin Cohen and David Dubinsky;the list could go on.
> 
> As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in the 1920s and 1930w, every antisemite in New York had a Jewish lawyer.
Click to expand...


By "New York" you mean "Wisconsin" right?

Say, did any of them retain Forney Johnston?  I hear that guy could make a killer argument even after he was dead.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, during the tiki torch march the night before, and a couple of times the next day, the white supremacists were saying that "Jews will not replace us".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR made clear he didn't like Jews.
> 
> So....he was a white supremacist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah FDR dislike Jews so much he appointed a Jew to be a Supreme Court justice.....
> 
> Felix Frankfurter
> 
> _Henry Morgenthau was hardly FDR’s only Jewish friend and close associate. He relied on the advice and support of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter,Samuel Rosenman, David Lilienthal, Barnard Baruch, Nathan Straus, Herbert Lehman, Benjamin Cohen and David Dubinsky;the list could go on.
> 
> As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in the 1920s and 1930w, every antisemite in New York had a Jewish lawyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "New York" you mean "Wisconsin" right?
> 
> Say, did any of them retain Forney Johnston?  I hear that guy could make a killer argument even after he was dead.
Click to expand...


You're just another leftwing cockroach who is incapable of committing logic.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, during the tiki torch march the night before, and a couple of times the next day, the white supremacists were saying that "Jews will not replace us".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR made clear he didn't like Jews.
> 
> So....he was a white supremacist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah FDR dislike Jews so much he appointed a Jew to be a Supreme Court justice.....
> 
> Felix Frankfurter
> 
> _Henry Morgenthau was hardly FDR’s only Jewish friend and close associate. He relied on the advice and support of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter,Samuel Rosenman, David Lilienthal, Barnard Baruch, Nathan Straus, Herbert Lehman, Benjamin Cohen and David Dubinsky;the list could go on.
> 
> As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in the 1920s and 1930w, every antisemite in New York had a Jewish lawyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "New York" you mean "Wisconsin" right?
> 
> Say, did any of them retain Forney Johnston?  I hear that guy could make a killer argument even after he was dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just another leftwing cockroach who is incapable of committing logic.
Click to expand...


And yet I can tell at first glance that a political convention isn't held on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.
Go figure.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR made clear he didn't like Jews.
> 
> So....he was a white supremacist?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah FDR dislike Jews so much he appointed a Jew to be a Supreme Court justice.....
> 
> Felix Frankfurter
> 
> _Henry Morgenthau was hardly FDR’s only Jewish friend and close associate. He relied on the advice and support of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter,Samuel Rosenman, David Lilienthal, Barnard Baruch, Nathan Straus, Herbert Lehman, Benjamin Cohen and David Dubinsky;the list could go on.
> 
> As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in the 1920s and 1930w, every antisemite in New York had a Jewish lawyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "New York" you mean "Wisconsin" right?
> 
> Say, did any of them retain Forney Johnston?  I hear that guy could make a killer argument even after he was dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just another leftwing cockroach who is incapable of committing logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet I can tell at first glance that a political convention isn't held on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.
> Go figure.
Click to expand...

You'll keep harping on that until you find another post you can debunk successfully.  That should be in a couple of years.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?....... the very first selection for Supreme Court Justice, by Roosevelt, was Hugo Black. .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?....... the very first selection for Supreme Court Justice, by Roosevelt, was Hugo Black. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting your article:
> 
> Reporter Ray Sprigle’s investigation of Black’s links to the Klan revealed that he _joined the organization in September 1923 and resigned almost two years later, in July 1925.
> _
> 'resigned...in July 1925'
> 
> This Supreme Court Justice had at one time been a KKK member- as usual you are lying- FDR never appointed a KKK member to the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...










Ready to admit you lied when you pretended that FDR didn't put a KKKer on the Supreme Court?


Confess.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's actual Democrat discrimination:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people like you whigged out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: they were against melanin before they were for it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party- we elect people of all colors to be President.
> 
> The GOP- we elect people who tacitly endorse white supremacists to be President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- still promoting that lie?
> 
> Still pissed off that America elected a Democrat- and an African American- to be President?
Click to expand...



I'm still upset that this was put in the Oval Office:
Hussein Obama..... a dirt-eating low-life crypto-Islamist back-stabbing infanticide-supporting incompetent snake with an unbroken record of failure, both as a President and as a human being.


Anything in that description that you'd care to dispute???


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's actual Democrat discrimination:.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people like you whigged out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BTW.....there is no such word as 'whigged.'
> 
> But there is of 'imbecile.'
> 
> I looked it up....your picture was the definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL how cute- PC boy tried to insult me?
> 
> Meanwhile- you must be soooo happy to have a white President back in the White House.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only half-heads judge folks by the color of their skin.
> 
> Raise your paw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrats elect persons to be President regardless of whether they are white or black.
> 
> Republicans....well.........
Click to expand...




Actually, fools elect a man based on the melanin content of his skin.

Hussein Obama had zero accomplishments, and his utter failure in the office proves it.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, during the tiki torch march the night before, and a couple of times the next day, the white supremacists were saying that "Jews will not replace us".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR made clear he didn't like Jews.
> 
> So....he was a white supremacist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah FDR dislike Jews so much he appointed a Jew to be a Supreme Court justice.....
> 
> Felix Frankfurter
> 
> _Henry Morgenthau was hardly FDR’s only Jewish friend and close associate. He relied on the advice and support of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter,Samuel Rosenman, David Lilienthal, Barnard Baruch, Nathan Straus, Herbert Lehman, Benjamin Cohen and David Dubinsky;the list could go on.
> 
> As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
Click to expand...



Now....watch me blow your skirt up:

1. "...*Roosevelt’s most despicable statements about Jews,* extensively documented in a series of on-line commentaries by Rafael Medoff, ...did the depths of Roosevelt’s *loathing for Jews*, and refusal to lift a finger ... to rescue them, fully penetrate.


As far back as 1920, when FDR was the Democratic party candidate for vice president, he had proposed that “the greater part of the foreign population of the City of New York” should be “distributed to different localities upstate” so as to feel pressure to “conform to the manners and customs and requirements of their new home.”As a member of the Harvard board of directors *he supported a Jewish admissions quota.*


2. In 1941 *he told his Cabinet that too many Jews were federal employees* in Oregon.

One of his grandsons recalled that *the protagonists in FDR’s jokes* “were always Lower East Side Jews with heavy accents.”


3. At a wartime White House luncheon with Prime Minister Churchill, he suggested “the best way to settle *the Jewish question*”was “to spread the Jews thin all over the world.”

4. At the 1945 Yalta conference, FDR indicated to Stalin that as a concession to the king of Saudi Arabia he would “give him the six million Jews in the United States.”Betrayal: FDR and the Jews


Kinda got Jewish Liberals prepared to support a President who is all about throwing Israel under the bus.....
...but, heck......

....as long as he is a Democrat.



5. "... *Roosevelt’s embedded anti-Semitism* was not confined to jokes. It was displayed in the *refusal of the American government in 1939 to admit the desperate refugees on board theS.S. St. Louis*_,_who were returned to Germany [to their deaths] – or to even fill the quotas that authorized the limited admission of Germans.

It was revealed in American government suppression of information about the mass murder of European Jews.


6. The White House [read 'Roosevelt'] *opposed a resolution to create the War Refugee Board* and delayed its establishment for fourteen months. 

*7. Orders to bomb railroad tracks leading to the extermination camps were never given, *although Nazi facilities merely five miles away were destroyed. And special American missions were launched to *rescue art treasures – and performing Lipizzaner horses."
[But not Jews.]*
Betrayal: FDR and the Jews



a."However, it can be argued that because of his very outspoken and domineering mother who clearly possessed a strong streak of anti-Semitism, FDR couldn't help his underlying prejudice regarding Jews.  As described in an entry of January 27, 1942, Henry Morganthau Diaries, "Roosevelt proclaimed to a shocked Crowley (Catholic Economist and wartime Alien Property Custodian): Leo*, you know this is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and the Jews are here on sufferance. * This comment exemplifies FDR's upbringing among America's Protestant elite and how it most likely perpetuated a belief system that explains his aloofness from the crimes that were committed against Jews during the Holocaust."                                  Roosevelt

8 ." Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone *could have saved 190,000 lives. *It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president."FDR's troubling view of Jews

9. [The Spirit of St. Louis was built in San Diego by Ryan Airlines, and while the name "Lindbergh Field" isn't official, it has stuck as a colloquial moniker. There have been some attempts to disassociate that name from the airport on the grounds that Lindbergh's antisemitism made him a terrible choice for the hero worship that naming the airport after him implies, especially because Lindbergh himself was the target of a virtual boycott after he opposed entering World War II and made disparaging remarks about Jews (even President Franklin Roosevelt claimed he could tell Lindbergh was a Nazi). Which of the following men does NOT have a chemical element named after him?]





10. Interesting questions that an inquiring mind would have no trouble answering when considering Roosevelt's attitude toward other minorities....


"This attitude dovetails with what is known about *FDR's views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular..*.. He recommended that *future immigration should be limited to those who had "blood of the right sort." " *
Op. Cit.



Bet government school doesn't teach these facts, does it.


----------



## Slash

PoliticalChic said:


> Ready to admit you lied when you pretended that FDR didn't put a KKKer on the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> Confess.



It would probably help your cause that he was a KKK member when he was put on the Supreme Court if you didn't post an old news article with his letter resigning from the KKK dated 12 years before his appointment.   I mean if you want to prove he wasn't a KKK member when FDR put him on the supreme court, you just did that really really well. 

I mean Justice Black probably did more with his anti-segregation stand in Brown vs. the board of Education than nearly any other American in the fight against Civil Rights.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Slash said:


> When did we start this revision to history.  FDR won over 80% of the Jewish vote in his run for the presidency.   All 4 times.  Hitler tried to denounce him by portraying FDR as Jewish (much like Southern leaders tried portraying Lincoln as black).
> 
> After Pearl Harbor he doesn't bee line it for Japan but jumps to Europe to stop Hitler from overrunning Britian and Palestine, two heavily Jewish populated area's first.   He put thousands of Jewish leaders in government.  Helped NY's first Jewish governor win.  NY's first jewish senator win.  Illinois first Jewish Governor Win...
> 
> People try this revisionist history BS that he didn't let Jews in the country.  Nearly a quarter of all German Jews found refuge in the US under FDR (more than any other country).




And what does this have to do with the facts provided in post #1091???


You wouldn't be fool enough to dispute that FDR, Democrat demigod, was a bigot and had hostility toward every immigrant group.....would you?


"This attitude dovetails with what is known about *FDR's views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular..*.. He recommended that *future immigration should be limited to those who had "blood of the right sort." " *
FDR's troubling view of Jews



You might want to check on Teddy Roosevelt's views as well, before making a fool of yourself again.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Slash said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied when you pretended that FDR didn't put a KKKer on the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> Confess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would probably help your cause that he was a KKK member when he was put on the Supreme Court if you didn't post an old news article with his letter resigning from the KKK dated 12 years before his appointment.   I mean if you want to prove he wasn't a KKK member when FDR put him on the supreme court, you just did that really really well.
> 
> I mean Justice Black probably did more with his anti-segregation stand in Brown vs. the board of Education than nearly any other American in the fight against Civil Rights.
Click to expand...




Soooo.....you'd provide the same defense if a Republican came out of the same milieu.....racist, anti-Catholic bigotry?

And....I have no 'case'....I'm never wrong.



FDR made a KKKer his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
That's a fact.


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied when you pretended that FDR didn't put a KKKer on the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> Confess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would probably help your cause that he was a KKK member when he was put on the Supreme Court if you didn't post an old news article with his letter resigning from the KKK dated 12 years before his appointment.   I mean if you want to prove he wasn't a KKK member when FDR put him on the supreme court, you just did that really really well.
> 
> I mean Justice Black probably did more with his anti-segregation stand in Brown vs. the board of Education than nearly any other American in the fight against Civil Rights.
Click to expand...

The fact that he resigned from the KKK doesn't help your cause one bit.  The fake news will dig into the past of republicans to find something they did when they were teenagers to incriminate them.  Why should anyone let these hypocrites off the hook?


----------



## Slash

PoliticalChic said:


> One of his grandsons recalled that *the protagonists in FDR’s jokes* “were always Lower East Side Jews with heavy accents.”
> 
> 
> 
> Bet government school doesn't teach these facts, does it.




That's the problem with the PC police like you.  Roosevelt literally was the guy who allowed the greatest refugee entrance in US History... which was solely for the jewish refugees, but he made jokes in a jewish accent in private, so therefore he's an anti-semite.   

It's bad when what someone DOES becomes irrelevant because of something they supposedly said in private.  I mean using this same burden of proof, Trump is a child rapist right?  

And I love the terms like "quietly tell his state department".  Which is code for "there is zero proof of this, but if I can slip this little lie on through, it makes it seem so much worse doesn't it?"

I mean you sit there and say he wanted to "spread them thin all over the world"  And instead he fully takes in over 1/4 of the German Jewish refugees here to America and lets them build their own communities.   But I guess that doesn't mean squat what someone does if you can find someone's diary saying they said something else.  

Next thing you'll be saying that since someone wrote in their diary Hitler said he liked the Jews, that he wasn't anti-semitic.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Slash said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of his grandsons recalled that *the protagonists in FDR’s jokes* “were always Lower East Side Jews with heavy accents.”
> 
> 
> 
> Bet government school doesn't teach these facts, does it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's the problem with the PC police like you.  Roosevelt literally was the guy who allowed the greatest refugee entrance in US History... which was solely for the jewish refugees, but he made jokes in a jewish accent in private, so therefore he's an anti-semite.
> 
> It's bad when what someone DOES becomes irrelevant because of something they supposedly said in private.  I mean using this same burden of proof, Trump is a child rapist right?
> 
> And I love the terms like "quietly tell his state department".  Which is code for "there is zero proof of this, but if I can slip this little lie on through, it makes it seem so much worse doesn't it?"
> 
> I mean you sit there and say he wanted to "spread them thin all over the world"  And instead he fully takes in over 1/4 of the German Jewish refugees here to America and lets them build their own communities.   But I guess that doesn't mean squat what someone does if you can find someone's diary saying they said something else.
> 
> Next thing you'll be saying that since someone wrote in their diary Hitler said he liked the Jews, that he wasn't anti-semitic.
Click to expand...




"That's the problem with the PC police like you. Roosevelt literally was the guy who allowed the greatest refugee entrance in US History... which was solely for the jewish refugees, but he made jokes in a jewish accent in private, so therefore he's an anti-semite."

Gads, you're a moron.

You  went to government school, huh?



. "... *Roosevelt’s embedded anti-Semitism* was not confined to jokes. It was displayed in the *refusal of the American government in 1939 to admit the desperate refugees on board theS.S. St. Louis*_,_who were returned to Germany [to their deaths] – or to even fill the quotas that authorized the limited admission of Germans.

It was revealed in American government suppression of information about the mass murder of European Jews.


The White House [read 'Roosevelt'] *opposed a resolution to create the War Refugee Board* and delayed its establishment for fourteen months.

*Orders to bomb railroad tracks leading to the extermination camps were never given, *although Nazi facilities merely five miles away were destroyed. And special American missions were launched to *rescue art treasures – and performing Lipizzaner horses."
[But not Jews.]*
Betrayal: FDR and the Jews



a."However, it can be argued that because of his very outspoken and domineering mother who clearly possessed a strong streak of anti-Semitism, FDR couldn't help his underlying prejudice regarding Jews.  As described in an entry of January 27, 1942, Henry Morganthau Diaries, "Roosevelt proclaimed to a shocked Crowley (Catholic Economist and wartime Alien Property Custodian): Leo*, you know this is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and the Jews are here on sufferance. * This comment exemplifies FDR's upbringing among America's Protestant elite and how it most likely perpetuated a belief system that explains his aloofness from the crimes that were committed against Jews during the Holocaust."                                  Roosevelt

." Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone *could have saved 190,000 lives. *It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president."FDR's troubling view of Jews

[The Spirit of St. Louis was built in San Diego by Ryan Airlines, and while the name "Lindbergh Field" isn't official, it has stuck as a colloquial moniker. There have been some attempts to disassociate that name from the airport on the grounds that Lindbergh's antisemitism made him a terrible choice for the hero worship that naming the airport after him implies, especially because Lindbergh himself was the target of a virtual boycott after he opposed entering World War II and made disparaging remarks about Jews (even President Franklin Roosevelt claimed he could tell Lindbergh was a Nazi). Which of the following men does NOT have a chemical element named after him?]



*.....rescuing  Lipizzaner horses....
[But not Jews.]*

Roosevelt's orders.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah FDR dislike Jews so much he appointed a Jew to be a Supreme Court justice.....
> 
> Felix Frankfurter
> 
> _Henry Morgenthau was hardly FDR’s only Jewish friend and close associate. He relied on the advice and support of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter,Samuel Rosenman, David Lilienthal, Barnard Baruch, Nathan Straus, Herbert Lehman, Benjamin Cohen and David Dubinsky;the list could go on.
> 
> As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> 
> 
> in the 1920s and 1930w, every antisemite in New York had a Jewish lawyer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> By "New York" you mean "Wisconsin" right?
> 
> Say, did any of them retain Forney Johnston?  I hear that guy could make a killer argument even after he was dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're just another leftwing cockroach who is incapable of committing logic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet I can tell at first glance that a political convention isn't held on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin.
> Go figure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You'll keep harping on that until you find another post you can debunk successfully.  That should be in a couple of years.
Click to expand...


Are you implying --- but bending over backward not to say ---- that I debunked this thread?

Because that's not accurate --- the original thread posted by Geaux4it was already debunked before I got here.  And then your OP, posting the same thing expecting different results, was already debunked before it was merged.

All I did was (a) (re-)supply the easily-available data for the real derivation of the photo; (b) flesh out the historical context for what actually did happen at the 1924 political convention; (c) point out what "Klanbake" refers to, needing no further source than the OP link itself; (d) question how it is that "Liberals aren't liking" a photo with a fake description (which has still never been answered); (e) question how a photo that's been around and archived for 93 years can possibly be characterized as "newly discovered" (also never answered) and (f-g) laugh uproariously at you and Geaux who bought an obviously fake-news blog hook line and sinker and STILL a month later can't summon up the cojones to admit it. 

Geaux at least had the self-awareness to run away and hide.  You're still here, digging yourself deeper with every post.

I did however supply the actual exposé of the Forney Johnston content.  I believe I scooped that particular boner.  But then again everybody was laughing so hard at the original trolley-tracks-in-Wisconsin boner they were distracted.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, during the tiki torch march the night before, and a couple of times the next day, the white supremacists were saying that "Jews will not replace us".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR made clear he didn't like Jews.
> 
> So....he was a white supremacist?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah FDR dislike Jews so much he appointed a Jew to be a Supreme Court justice.....
> 
> Felix Frankfurter
> 
> _Henry Morgenthau was hardly FDR’s only Jewish friend and close associate. He relied on the advice and support of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter,Samuel Rosenman, David Lilienthal, Barnard Baruch, Nathan Straus, Herbert Lehman, Benjamin Cohen and David Dubinsky;the list could go on.
> 
> As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> in the 1920s and 1930w, every antisemite in New York had a Jewish lawyer.
Click to expand...


Thanks for providing this insight of you antisemites.


----------



## Slash

You are listing that the US didn't accept a ship of refugees while trying to remain Neutral (neither did any other country in the America's).   Where are you getting the anti-semitism of that?  I mean we turn away refugees of every race and creed all the time.   What makes that one anti-semitic, especially since it was done by the president who accepted more jewish refugees than any world leader ever recorded?  

Fully 25% of German Jewish refugees ended up in the US.   Currently we won't take more than .5% of Syrian refugees.   Come on.  If that's not enough, give me an example of what is in real life.  If your goal is to say "FDR did more for Jewish Refugees than ANY world leader at the time, and more for refugees than ANY US president EVER has", you've made it.   If that's not enough for you, then why do you feel more?  

The War Refugee Board was something Roosevelt started.  It was HIS executive order.  He didn't oppose it.  He created the thing!


On bombing the Concentration Camp rail lines, John J McCloy, the US assistant Secretary of War said that Roosevelts military leadership never even brought up the idea of that to him.   Historians have said that bombing probably would have been repaired within days and caused no difference, and would have ended the food supply to concentration camps, causing mass starvation anyways.  Not even Jews brought up bombing the camps until well into 1944.   Are Jews anti-semitic as well?   The US military leaders chose instead to end the war by focusing on military installations that would allow them to permanently shut down the concentration camps rather than reduce that effort to focus on the camps which could cause more harm than good and probably not have any lasting effect.


----------



## Syriusly

Slash said:


> When did we start this revision to history.  FDR won over 80% of the Jewish vote in his run for the presidency.   All 4 times.  Hitler tried to denounce him by portraying FDR as Jewish (much like Southern leaders tried portraying Lincoln as black).
> 
> After Pearl Harbor he doesn't bee line it for Japan but jumps to Europe to stop Hitler from overrunning Britian and Palestine, two heavily Jewish populated area's first.   He put thousands of Jewish leaders in government.  Helped NY's first Jewish governor win.  NY's first jewish senator win.  Illinois first Jewish Governor Win...
> 
> People try this revisionist history BS that he didn't let Jews in the country.  Nearly a quarter of all German Jews found refuge in the US under FDR (more than any other country).



And appointed the second Jewish man to be Supreme Court Justice. 

Felix Frankfurter

_Henry Morgenthau was hardly FDR’s only Jewish friend and close associate. He relied on the advice and support of Louis Brandeis, Felix Frankfurter,Samuel Rosenman, David Lilienthal, Barnard Baruch, Nathan Straus, Herbert Lehman, Benjamin Cohen and David Dubinsky;the list could go on. 

As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> The fact that he resigned from the KKK doesn't help your cause one bit.  The fake news will dig into the past of republicans to find something they did when they were teenagers to incriminate them.  Why should anyone let these hypocrites off the hook?



All I am debunking is basic logic.   Trump WAS a democrat.   Now if I said "Republicans are so dumb they elected a Democrat for president", would you believe that logic?  Or would you say "he's no longer a Democrat and his beliefs have changed and here's proof of that change...".   Because Black voted for what was arguably the defining ruling for Civil Rights.  That's NOT what the KKK does. 

It's just basic logic, you can't be a member of something you resigned from.


----------



## Syriusly

Slash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's troubling view of Jews
> 
> _*What FDR said about Jews in private*_
> _*His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America's tepid response to the Holocaust.*_
> 
> _President Franklin Roosevelt sits at the steering wheel of his automobile… (Associated Press )
> 
> In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."
> 
> Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."
> 
> Roosevelt's "best way" remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR's support for "spreading the Jews thin" may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
> 
> Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
> 
> Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
> 
> In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.
> 
> Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?
> 
> By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.
> 
> In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings.
> 
> You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
Click to expand...


Yeah- it is pretty odd.

In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.

But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.

Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Slash said:


> You are listing that the US didn't accept a ship of refugees while trying to remain Neutral (neither did any other country in the America's).   Where are you getting the anti-semitism of that?  I mean we turn away refugees of every race and creed all the time.   What makes that one anti-semitic, especially since it was done by the president who accepted more jewish refugees than any world leader ever recorded?
> 
> Fully 25% of German Jewish refugees ended up in the US.   Currently we won't take more than .5% of Syrian refugees.   Come on.  If that's not enough, give me an example of what is in real life.  If your goal is to say "FDR did more for Jewish Refugees than ANY world leader at the time, and more for refugees than ANY US president EVER has", you've made it.   If that's not enough for you, then why do you feel more?
> 
> The War Refugee Board was something Roosevelt started.  It was HIS executive order.  He didn't oppose it.  He created the thing!
> 
> 
> On bombing the Concentration Camp rail lines, John J McCloy, the US assistant Secretary of War said that Roosevelts military leadership never even brought up the idea of that to him.   Historians have said that bombing probably would have been repaired within days and caused no difference, and would have ended the food supply to concentration camps, causing mass starvation anyways.  Not even Jews brought up bombing the camps until well into 1944.   Are Jews anti-semitic as well?   The US military leaders chose instead to end the war by focusing on military installations that would allow them to permanently shut down the concentration camps rather than reduce that effort to focus on the camps which could cause more harm than good and probably not have any lasting effect.





Really????

You're claiming that was the only thing I posted???

Lie much?


. "... *Roosevelt’s embedded anti-Semitism* was not confined to jokes. It was displayed in the *refusal of the American government in 1939 to admit the desperate refugees on board theS.S. St. Louis*_,_who were returned to Germany [to their deaths] – or to even fill the quotas that authorized the limited admission of Germans.

It was revealed in American government suppression of information about the mass murder of European Jews.


The White House [read 'Roosevelt'] *opposed a resolution to create the War Refugee Board*and delayed its establishment for fourteen months.

*Orders to bomb railroad tracks leading to the extermination camps were never given, *although Nazi facilities merely five miles away were destroyed. And special American missions were launched to *rescue art treasures – and performing Lipizzaner horses."
[But not Jews.]*
Betrayal: FDR and the Jews



a."However, it can be argued that because of his very outspoken and domineering mother who clearly possessed a strong streak of anti-Semitism, FDR couldn't help his underlying prejudice regarding Jews. As described in an entry of January 27, 1942, Henry Morganthau Diaries, "Roosevelt proclaimed to a shocked Crowley (Catholic Economist and wartime Alien Property Custodian): Leo*, you know this is a Protestant country, and the Catholics and the Jews are here on sufferance. *This comment exemplifies FDR's upbringing among America's Protestant elite and how it most likely perpetuated a belief system that explains his aloofness from the crimes that were committed against Jews during the Holocaust." Roosevelt

." Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone *could have saved 190,000 lives. *It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president."FDR's troubling view of Jews

[The Spirit of St. Louis was built in San Diego by Ryan Airlines, and while the name "Lindbergh Field" isn't official, it has stuck as a colloquial moniker. There have been some attempts to disassociate that name from the airport on the grounds that Lindbergh's antisemitism made him a terrible choice for the hero worship that naming the airport after him implies, especially because Lindbergh himself was the target of a virtual boycott after he opposed entering World War II and made disparaging remarks about Jews (even President Franklin Roosevelt claimed he could tell Lindbergh was a Nazi). Which of the following men does NOT have a chemical element named after him?]



*.....rescuing Lipizzaner horses....
[But not Jews.]*

Roosevelt's orders.



Soooo.....you see your role in life defending the indefensible???

Fits you.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting your article:
> 
> Reporter Ray Sprigle’s investigation of Black’s links to the Klan revealed that he _joined the organization in September 1923 and resigned almost two years later, in July 1925.
> _
> 'resigned...in July 1925'
> 
> This Supreme Court Justice had at one time been a KKK member- as usual you are lying- FDR never appointed a KKK member to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied when you pretended that FDR didn't put a KKKer on the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> Confess.
Click to expand...


I confess- you are a gullible idiot. 

Justice Black was not a KKK member when he was appointed to the Supreme Court.

You know this- but you keep lying that he was.

Just more of your typical lies.


----------



## Slash

Syriusly said:


> _As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._




Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yep- Democrats nominated and elected the first- and only African American President.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And people like you whigged out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: they were against melanin before they were for it.
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party- we elect people of all colors to be President.
> 
> The GOP- we elect people who tacitly endorse white supremacists to be President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- still promoting that lie?
> 
> Still pissed off that America elected a Democrat- and an African American- to be President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still upset that this was put in the Oval Office:
> Hussein Obama..... a dirt-eating low-life crypto-Islamist back-stabbing infanticide-supporting incompetent snake with an unbroken record of failure, both as a President and as a human being.
Click to expand...


LOL- poor little white supremacist- still pissed off that Americans elected a black man to be President.

'dirt eating'- prove it.
'crypto-Isamist'- prove it.
'infanticide- supporting'- prove it- (by the way- infanticide is a crime- abortion is not- if you claim abortion- well once again you will be lying)
'incompetant snake'
'failure as a human being'

Prove any of it.

I want to be amused at your lies.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's troubling view of Jews
> 
> _*What FDR said about Jews in private*_
> _*His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America's tepid response to the Holocaust.*_
> 
> _President Franklin Roosevelt sits at the steering wheel of his automobile… (Associated Press )
> 
> In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."
> 
> Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."
> 
> Roosevelt's "best way" remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR's support for "spreading the Jews thin" may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
> 
> Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
> 
> Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
> 
> In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.
> 
> Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?
> 
> By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.
> 
> In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings.
> 
> You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
Click to expand...


"....of blocking Muslim refugees...."


I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....

...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'


----------



## Syriusly

Slash said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
Click to expand...


Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt. 

She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting your article:
> 
> Reporter Ray Sprigle’s investigation of Black’s links to the Klan revealed that he _joined the organization in September 1923 and resigned almost two years later, in July 1925.
> _
> 'resigned...in July 1925'
> 
> This Supreme Court Justice had at one time been a KKK member- as usual you are lying- FDR never appointed a KKK member to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied when you pretended that FDR didn't put a KKKer on the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> Confess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I confess- you are a gullible idiot.
> 
> Justice Black was not a KKK member when he was appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You know this- but you keep lying that he was.
> 
> Just more of your typical lies.
Click to expand...



From the Smithsonian:

*"SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
*This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member"*

Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter



That's right, you low-life lying gutter snipe....

FDR made a KKKer his first nominee to the Supreme Court.

That's a  fact.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's troubling view of Jews
> 
> _*What FDR said about Jews in private*_
> _*His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America's tepid response to the Holocaust.*_
> 
> _President Franklin Roosevelt sits at the steering wheel of his automobile… (Associated Press )
> 
> In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."
> 
> Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."
> 
> Roosevelt's "best way" remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR's support for "spreading the Jews thin" may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
> 
> Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
> 
> Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
> 
> In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.
> 
> Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?
> 
> By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.
> 
> In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings.
> 
> You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....'
Click to expand...


Point out the '7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human beings in this photo:


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting your article:
> 
> Reporter Ray Sprigle’s investigation of Black’s links to the Klan revealed that he _joined the organization in September 1923 and resigned almost two years later, in July 1925.
> _
> 'resigned...in July 1925'
> 
> This Supreme Court Justice had at one time been a KKK member- as usual you are lying- FDR never appointed a KKK member to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied when you pretended that FDR didn't put a KKKer on the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> Confess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I confess- you are a gullible idiot.
> 
> Justice Black was not a KKK member when he was appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You know this- but you keep lying that he was.
> 
> Just more of your typical lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From the Smithsonian:
> 
> *"SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member"*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you low-life lying gutter snipe....
> 
> FDR made a KKKer his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> 
> That's a  fact.
Click to expand...


Nope- just you lying again.
Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.

I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.

You were just lying again.

But FDR did appoint the second Jewish Supreme Court Justice- and yes- he was actually Jewish when he was appointed.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Slash said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
Click to expand...




FDR and Hitler, two socialists, were on excellent terms, you dope.

It was not until FDR to choose between Hitler and Stalin that he ended his relationship with the former, and latched on to his first love.


* " Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union." 
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48



Have you ever picked up a book that didn't require Crayons?????*


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The fact that he resigned from the KKK doesn't help your cause one bit.  The fake news will dig into the past of republicans to find something they did when they were teenagers to incriminate them.  Why should anyone let these hypocrites off the hook?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All I am debunking is basic logic.   Trump WAS a democrat.   Now if I said "Republicans are so dumb they elected a Democrat for president", would you believe that logic?  Or would you say "he's no longer a Democrat and his beliefs have changed and here's proof of that change...".   Because Black voted for what was arguably the defining ruling for Civil Rights.  That's NOT what the KKK does.
> 
> It's just basic logic, you can't be a member of something you resigned from.
Click to expand...

If Trump was formerly a member of the Nazi party would you be saying the same thing?

We all know you wouldn't, which is why your posts simply aren't credible.


----------



## Slash

PoliticalChic said:


> From the Smithsonian:
> 
> *"SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member"*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you low-life lying gutter snipe....
> 
> FDR made a KKKer his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> 
> That's a  fact.




Was being the operative word there.  NO ONE is arguing with you that he used to be in the KKK, and that was found out and made public after he was appointed.  

Just like "Donald Trump was a Democrat".


----------



## PoliticalChic

Slash said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
Click to expand...



"As a member of the Harvard board of directors *he supported a Jewish admissions quota."

Soooooo.....Franklin Roosevelt felt it was necessary to keep Jewish folk out of the Ivy Leagues because he love them??????*


If we put a lens in each of your ears we'd have a telescope.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's troubling view of Jews
> 
> _*What FDR said about Jews in private*_
> _*His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America's tepid response to the Holocaust.*_
> 
> _President Franklin Roosevelt sits at the steering wheel of his automobile… (Associated Press )
> 
> In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."
> 
> Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."
> 
> Roosevelt's "best way" remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR's support for "spreading the Jews thin" may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
> 
> Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
> 
> Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
> 
> In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.
> 
> Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?
> 
> By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.
> 
> In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings.
> 
> You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
Click to expand...


Muslims are vicious uncivilized bloodthirsty savages.  Discriminating against them is common sense, just as discriminating against the importation of poisonous snakes is common sense.


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> If Trump was formerly a member of the Nazi party would you be saying the same thing?
> 
> We all know you wouldn't, which is why your posts simply aren't credible.



Yes I would actually.  If someone came up with a piece of paper of him being a former member of the Nazi Party.   He WAS a former member and no I wouldn't say that 50% of America voted in a Nazi.  Especially when that information came out AFTER the voting took place.

This has nothing to do with politics.  Everything to do with basic understanding of the English Language.  

I'd be PISSED that I voted for him.  But that doesn't mean I am a nazi lover.


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Trump was formerly a member of the Nazi party would you be saying the same thing?
> 
> We all know you wouldn't, which is why your posts simply aren't credible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I would actually.  If someone came up with a piece of paper of him being a former member of the Nazi Party.   He WAS a former member and no I wouldn't say that 50% of America voted in a Nazi.  Especially when that information came out AFTER the voting took place.
> 
> This has nothing to do with politics.  Everything to do with basic understanding of the English Language.
> 
> I'd be PISSED that I voted for him.  But that doesn't mean I am a nazi lover.
Click to expand...

Liar.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt.
> 
> She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.
Click to expand...



"...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."

1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.

2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's troubling view of Jews
> 
> _*What FDR said about Jews in private*_
> _*His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America's tepid response to the Holocaust.*_
> 
> _President Franklin Roosevelt sits at the steering wheel of his automobile… (Associated Press )
> 
> In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."
> 
> Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."
> 
> Roosevelt's "best way" remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR's support for "spreading the Jews thin" may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
> 
> Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
> 
> Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
> 
> In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.
> 
> Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?
> 
> By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.
> 
> In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings.
> 
> You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Point out the '7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human beings in this photo:
> 
> View attachment 146629
Click to expand...


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: they were against melanin before they were for it.
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democratic Party- we elect people of all colors to be President.
> 
> The GOP- we elect people who tacitly endorse white supremacists to be President
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- still promoting that lie?
> 
> Still pissed off that America elected a Democrat- and an African American- to be President?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still upset that this was put in the Oval Office:
> Hussein Obama..... a dirt-eating low-life crypto-Islamist back-stabbing infanticide-supporting incompetent snake with an unbroken record of failure, both as a President and as a human being.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- poor little white supremacist- still pissed off that Americans elected a black man to be President.
> 
> 'dirt eating'- prove it.
> 'crypto-Isamist'- prove it.
> 'infanticide- supporting'- prove it- (by the way- infanticide is a crime- abortion is not- if you claim abortion- well once again you will be lying)
> 'incompetant snake'
> 'failure as a human being'
> 
> Prove any of it.
> 
> I want to be amused at your lies.
Click to expand...




I'm not white, you imbecile.


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> Muslims are vicious uncivilized bloodthirsty savages.  Discriminating against them is common sense, just as discriminating against the importation of poisonous snakes is common sense.




And there it comes out.   Sounds like Hitler talking about the Jews.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting your article:
> 
> Reporter Ray Sprigle’s investigation of Black’s links to the Klan revealed that he _joined the organization in September 1923 and resigned almost two years later, in July 1925.
> _
> 'resigned...in July 1925'
> 
> This Supreme Court Justice had at one time been a KKK member- as usual you are lying- FDR never appointed a KKK member to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied when you pretended that FDR didn't put a KKKer on the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> Confess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I confess- you are a gullible idiot.
> 
> Justice Black was not a KKK member when he was appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You know this- but you keep lying that he was.
> 
> Just more of your typical lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From the Smithsonian:
> 
> *"SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member"*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you low-life lying gutter snipe....
> 
> FDR made a KKKer his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> 
> That's a  fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope- just you lying again.
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> But FDR did appoint the second Jewish Supreme Court Justice- and yes- he was actually Jewish when he was appointed.
Click to expand...




*"What U.S. President appointed members of the KKK to the U.S. Supreme Court?*
7 Answers





Jerry Mc Kenna, Avid birder and amateur astronomer

Answered 11d ago

FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia

He was actively anti-Catholic.

_"Hugo Black, a KKK member and US senator, gave fiery anti-Catholic speeches before going on to become a defender of civil liberties on the supreme court bench."_ (America's dark and not-very-distant history of hating Catholics)

Anti-Catholic bigotry was fashionable among what we would call liberals today."

https://www.quora.com/What-U-S-President-appointed-members-of-the-KKK-to-the-U-S-Supreme-Court



FDR appointed a KKKer as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
And,...you're an imbecile.

Both of those are facts.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt.
> 
> She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
Click to expand...


I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.

I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.



(/completely offtopic)

--- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Slash said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the Smithsonian:
> 
> *"SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member"*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you low-life lying gutter snipe....
> 
> FDR made a KKKer his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> 
> That's a  fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was being the operative word there.  NO ONE is arguing with you that he used to be in the KKK, and that was found out and made public after he was appointed.
> 
> Just like "Donald Trump was a Democrat".
Click to expand...




FDR appointed a KKKer as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
And,...you're an imbecile.

Both of those are facts.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Slash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are vicious uncivilized bloodthirsty savages.  Discriminating against them is common sense, just as discriminating against the importation of poisonous snakes is common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it comes out.   Sounds like Hitler talking about the Jews.
Click to expand...



Yes, you're an imbecile.


40% of Indonesians approve of violence in defense of Islam.
http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailweekly.asp?fileid=20060728.@03 Violence in Defense of Islam – Statistics


Pew Global: 68% of Palestinian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
43% of Nigerian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
38% of Lebanese Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
15% of Egyptian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
13% of Indonesian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
12% of Jordanian Muslims say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
7% of Muslim Israelis say suicide attacks against civilians in defense of Islam are justified.
Muslim Opinion Polls


*much more here:

Muslim Opinion Polls


"Islam is a peaceful religion because most Muslims live peacefully and that only a "tiny minority of extremists" practice violence?  That's like saying that White supremacy must be perfectly fine since only a tiny minority of racists ever hurt anyone.  Neither does it explain why religious violence is largely endemic to Islam, despite the tremendous persecution of religious minorities in Muslim countries.

In truth, *even a tiny minority of "1%" of Muslims worldwide translates to 15 million believers - which is hardly an insignificant number.  *However, the "minority" of Muslims who approve of terrorists, their goals, or their means of achieving them is much greater than this.  In fact, it isn't even a true minority in some cases, depending on how goals and targets are defined."
Muslim Opinion Polls


----------



## Slash

PoliticalChic said:


> FDR and Hitler, two socialists, were on excellent terms, you dope.
> 
> It was not until FDR to choose between Hitler and Stalin that he ended his relationship with the former, and latched on to his first love.
> 
> 
> * " Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever picked up a book that didn't require Crayons?????*



FDR was an isolationist.   Hitler called him a Jew Lover.  And FDR wrote letters to Hitler denouncing him in 1938.  That same year in an address to Congress he outright condemned fascism.   Sure whatever guy you quoted would like to burn those records, but they still exist.  

"The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."   FDR 1938.  


Whoops.  Kinda need to get out that old sharpie and start crossing out some stuff if you want to revise history there bud.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt.
> 
> She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
Click to expand...



Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now, and for his entire life.....a racist who has always considered blacks less as a race than whites?


Answer, you dunce.




"The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.

....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?


Answer, you dunce.


----------



## Slash

PoliticalChic said:


> \
> 
> 
> 
> FDR appointed a KKKer as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> And,...you're an imbecile.
> 
> Both of those are facts.



English isn't your friend is it?   You need to call that back just a little bit.  You are pulling off retard pretty well but now you are heading for full retard. Never go full retard.   It doesn't suit you.   

Again, are you saying Trump is a Democrat.   SAME LOGIC you are using here.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Slash said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR and Hitler, two socialists, were on excellent terms, you dope.
> 
> It was not until FDR to choose between Hitler and Stalin that he ended his relationship with the former, and latched on to his first love.
> 
> 
> * " Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever picked up a book that didn't require Crayons?????*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an isolationist.   Hitler called him a Jew Lover.  And FDR wrote letters to Hitler denouncing him in 1938.  That same year in an address to Congress he outright condemned fascism.   Sure whatever guy you quoted would like to burn those records, but they still exist.
> 
> "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."   FDR 1938.
> 
> 
> Whoops.  Kinda need to get out that old sharpie and start crossing out some stuff if you want to revise history there bud.
Click to expand...



You know less than nothing.


In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe’s largest industrialized nation.
At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” Freedomsite.net

*The National Socialists [Nazis]* hailed FDR's ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:
May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies”* comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’*
And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. *Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”*
The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”

In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: *“Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States…. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany…” *                                                           cited in “Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs,” vol.2, p. 27.

*" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union." 
Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48

*

Amazing how little you know and how much you simply make up.....how do you find your way back to that refrigerator box you call home?????


----------



## bripat9643

Slash said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are vicious uncivilized bloodthirsty savages.  Discriminating against them is common sense, just as discriminating against the importation of poisonous snakes is common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it comes out.   Sounds like Hitler talking about the Jews.
Click to expand...

The difference is that it's true.  Furthermore, Muslim isn't a race.  It's a belief system that is no better than what Nazis believed.


----------



## Slash

PoliticalChic said:


> Yes, you're an imbecile.
> 
> 
> 40% of Indonesians approve of violence in defense of Islam.
> http://www.thejakartapost.com/detailweekly.asp?fileid=20060728.@03 Violence in Defense of Islam – Statistics


Yes and 24% of Jews believe Halaka should take precedence over democratic principles, and 40% say Israel shouldn't make peace efforts with Palestinians.   And Hitler could have put spies with the Jews.   


But why are you arguing that FDR was the president who oversaw the largest intake of refugees in US history, and that refugee group was Jewish.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Slash said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR and Hitler, two socialists, were on excellent terms, you dope.
> 
> It was not until FDR to choose between Hitler and Stalin that he ended his relationship with the former, and latched on to his first love.
> 
> 
> * " Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever picked up a book that didn't require Crayons?????*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an isolationist.   Hitler called him a Jew Lover.  And FDR wrote letters to Hitler denouncing him in 1938.  That same year in an address to Congress he outright condemned fascism.   Sure whatever guy you quoted would like to burn those records, but they still exist.
> 
> "The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is Fascism—ownership of Government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power."   FDR 1938.
> 
> 
> Whoops.  Kinda need to get out that old sharpie and start crossing out some stuff if you want to revise history there bud.
Click to expand...



I don't 'revise' anything.

'Everything I post is correct, accurate and accompanied by links, sources and documentation.


Or....obvious and irrefutable....such as 'you're an imbecile.'


I'm certain your posts will be different when you finally complete junior high school.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt.
> 
> She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
Click to expand...

The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.


----------



## Slash

PoliticalChic said:


> You know less than nothing.
> 
> 
> In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe’s largest industrialized nation.
> At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” Freedomsite.net
> 
> *The National Socialists [Nazis]* hailed FDR's ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:
> May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
> And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies”* comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’*
> And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. *Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”*
> The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”
> 
> In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: *“Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States…. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany…” *                                                           cited in “Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs,” vol.2, p. 27.
> 
> *" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48
> 
> *
> 
> Amazing how little you know and how much you simply make up.....how do you find your way back to that refrigerator box you call home?????



Oh buttercup... you do realize those are the people leading that fascism that FDR killed and ruined right?  The same exact fascism he spoke out AGAINST.   Not really his friends as much as they tried to be.  lol   


BUT... You quote his enemies as proof... THE SAME ONES THAT SAID HE LOVED THE JEWS.   

Thank you for that.  In your belief of their truths, you've admitted FDR loved the Jews.  FDR not an anti-semite.   

That's all we needed.  

Your own logic not mine.


----------



## PoliticalChic

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt.
> 
> She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...



The two blood-brothers were allies until June 21, 1941.
Stalin taught Hitler how to construct concentration camps, and provided the resources for the 'Blitzkrieg.'

And Roosevelt was a pal of both......but had a crush on Stalin.


----------



## Slash

PoliticalChic said:


> I don't 'revise' anything.
> 
> 'Everything I post is correct, accurate and accompanied by links, sources and documentation.
> 
> 
> Or....obvious and irrefutable....such as 'you're an imbecile.'
> 
> 
> I'm certain your posts will be different when you finally complete junior high school.



Actually you did revise.  You are using new quotes on past situations and throwing out old quotes.   It doesn't matter since you are quoting Hitler who said FDR loved the Jews.   So that ends the debate.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt.
> 
> She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
Click to expand...


"hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.

No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Slash said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know less than nothing.
> 
> 
> In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe’s largest industrialized nation.
> At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” Freedomsite.net
> 
> *The National Socialists [Nazis]* hailed FDR's ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:
> May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
> And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies”* comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’*
> And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. *Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”*
> The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”
> 
> In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: *“Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States…. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany…” *                                                           cited in “Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs,” vol.2, p. 27.
> 
> *" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48
> 
> *
> 
> Amazing how little you know and how much you simply make up.....how do you find your way back to that refrigerator box you call home?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh buttercup... you do realize those are the people leading that fascism that FDR killed and ruined right?  The same exact fascism he spoke out AGAINST.   Not really his friends as much as they tried to be.  lol
> 
> 
> BUT... You quote his enemies as proof... THE SAME ONES THAT SAID HE LOVED THE JEWS.
> 
> Thank you for that.  In your belief of their truths, you've admitted FDR loved the Jews.  FDR not an anti-semite.
> 
> That's all we needed.
> 
> Your own logic not mine.
Click to expand...



"....you've admitted FDR loved the Jews."

Sooo...you're an imbecile, AND a liar.



Fascism, Nazism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and Progrssivism.


Six peas in the same pod.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt.
> 
> She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The two blood-brothers were allies until June 21, 1941.
> Stalin taught Hitler how to construct concentration camps, and provided the resources for the 'Blitzkrieg.'
> 
> And Roosevelt was a pal of both......but had a crush on Stalin.
Click to expand...


Poor PC

Still pissed off that the United States was victorious in World War 2- and that FDR led America to victory.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know less than nothing.
> 
> 
> In 1933, Fascism was celebrating its eleventh year in power, in Italy, and the election of the National Socialists in Germany represented an unmitigated defeat for liberal democracy in Europe’s largest industrialized nation.
> At the beginning of the same month, FDR was inaugurated as President. And before Congress went into recess it granted powers to Roosevelt unprecedented in peacetime. From Congressional hearings, 1973: “Since March 9, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency.” Freedomsite.net
> 
> *The National Socialists [Nazis]* hailed FDR's ‘relief measures’ in ways you will recognize:
> May 11, 1933, the Nazi newspaper Volkischer Beobachter, (People’s Observer): “Roosevelt’s Dictatorial Recovery Measures.”
> And on January 17, 1934, “We, too, as German National Socialists are looking toward America…” and “Roosevelt’s adoption of National Socialist strains of thought in his economic and social policies”* comparable to Hitler’s own dictatorial ‘Fuhrerprinzip.’*
> And “[Roosevelt], too demands that collective good be put before individual self-interest. *Many passages in his book ‘Looking Forward’ could have been written by a National Socialist….one can assume that he feels considerable affinity with the National Socialist philosophy.”*
> The paper also refers to “…the fictional appearance of democracy.”
> 
> In 1938, American ambassador Hugh R. Wilson reported to FDR his conversations with Hitler: *“Hitler then said that he had watched with interest the methods which you, Mr. President, have been attempting to adopt for the United States…. I added that you were very much interested in certain phases of the sociological effort, notably for the youth and workmen, which is being made in Germany…” *                                                           cited in “Franklin D. Roosevelt and Foreign Affairs,” vol.2, p. 27.
> 
> *" Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48
> 
> *
> 
> Amazing how little you know and how much you simply make up.....how do you find your way back to that refrigerator box you call home?????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh buttercup... you do realize those are the people leading that fascism that FDR killed and ruined right?  The same exact fascism he spoke out AGAINST.   Not really his friends as much as they tried to be.  lol
> 
> 
> BUT... You quote his enemies as proof... THE SAME ONES THAT SAID HE LOVED THE JEWS.
> 
> Thank you for that.  In your belief of their truths, you've admitted FDR loved the Jews.  FDR not an anti-semite.
> 
> That's all we needed.
> 
> Your own logic not mine.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "....you've admitted FDR loved the Jews."
> 
> Sooo...you're an imbecile, AND a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism, Nazism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and Progrssivism.
> 
> 
> Six peas in the same pod.
Click to expand...


PC- six peas in his brain instead of a brain.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Slash said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't 'revise' anything.
> 
> 'Everything I post is correct, accurate and accompanied by links, sources and documentation.
> 
> 
> Or....obvious and irrefutable....such as 'you're an imbecile.'
> 
> 
> I'm certain your posts will be different when you finally complete junior high school.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually you did revise.  You are using new quotes on past situations and throwing out old quotes.   It doesn't matter since you are quoting Hitler who said FDR loved the Jews.   So that ends the debate.
Click to expand...




Everything I post is documented, linked and sourced.

You, on the other hand, are one of our best sources of greenhouse gases.


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> "....you've admitted FDR loved the Jews."
> 
> Sooo...you're an imbecile, AND a liar.
> 
> 
> 
> Fascism, Nazism, Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and Progrssivism.
> 
> 
> Six peas in the same pod.




Nope, everything I've posted is based in historical fact rather than you bringing up revisionist ideas to why things occurred.  I never disagreed with your actual facts, just your belief that it was for the reasonings you made up devoid of fact, context, and actual actions.  

But we agree.  FDR was not an anti-semite.  

That really was the only thing I've been arguing, just had to get you to force yourself to stick to your logic and admit it, or admit you are lying with your proofs.  

Thanks, and have a great evening hon.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Muslims are vicious uncivilized bloodthirsty savages.  Discriminating against them is common sense, just as discriminating against the importation of poisonous snakes is common sense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And there it comes out.   Sounds like Hitler talking about the Jews.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The difference is that it's true.  Furthermore, Muslim isn't a race.  It's a belief system that is no better than what Nazis believed.
Click to expand...


Neither Muslim or Jewish is a race- both are belief systems.

Jewish refugees fled the violence in Europe.
Muslim refugees fled the violence in Syria.

FDR let in more Jewish refugees than any Western leader- so you call him an anti-semite.

Trump wants to stop Muslim refugees fleeing violence- for that you call him a hero.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting your article:
> 
> Reporter Ray Sprigle’s investigation of Black’s links to the Klan revealed that he _joined the organization in September 1923 and resigned almost two years later, in July 1925.
> _
> 'resigned...in July 1925'
> 
> This Supreme Court Justice had at one time been a KKK member- as usual you are lying- FDR never appointed a KKK member to the Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied when you pretended that FDR didn't put a KKKer on the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> Confess.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I confess- you are a gullible idiot.
> 
> Justice Black was not a KKK member when he was appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You know this- but you keep lying that he was.
> 
> Just more of your typical lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From the Smithsonian:
> 
> *"SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member"*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you low-life lying gutter snipe....
> 
> FDR made a KKKer his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> 
> That's a  fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope- just you lying again.
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> But FDR did appoint the second Jewish Supreme Court Justice- and yes- he was actually Jewish when he was appointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"What U.S. President appointed members of the KKK to the U.S. Supreme Court?*
> 7 Answers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry Mc Kenna, Avid birder and amateur astronomer
> 
> Answered 11d ago
> 
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> He was actively anti-Catholic.
> 
> _"Hugo Black, a KKK member and US senator, gave fiery anti-Catholic speeches before going on to become a defender of civil liberties on the supreme court bench."_ (America's dark and not-very-distant history of hating Catholics)
> 
> Anti-Catholic bigotry was fashionable among what we would call liberals today."
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-U-S-President-appointed-members-of-the-KKK-to-the-U-S-Supreme-Court
> 
> 
> 
> FDR appointed a KKKer as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> And,...you're an imbecile.
> 
> Both of those are facts.
Click to expand...


Quoting you:
FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia

'former KKK member'

Again- you are just lying. 

As you always do.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> _As Howard Sachar writes in “A History of the Jews in America,” “Four or five thousand Jews operated at various echelons of government during the 1930s,” a complete change from the past. Roosevelt encouraged the recruitment of Jewish talent, and he was often vilified for it. I remember his being called “Roosenfelt” by the true anti-Semites of his time. No wonder Jews supported him overwhelmingly at the polls._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt.
> 
> She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now,.
Click to expand...


Is the personification of the Republican Party, Donald 'the rapist' Trump now- who was sued by the Justice Department for his racist policies of not renting to African Americans and Puerto Ricans?


----------



## Syriusly

Slash said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR and Hitler, two socialists, were on excellent terms, you dope.
> 
> It was not until FDR to choose between Hitler and Stalin that he ended his relationship with the former, and latched on to his first love.
> 
> 
> * " Fascism did not acquire an evil name in Washington until Hitler became a menace to·the Soviet Union."
> Manly, "The Twenty Year Revolution," p. 48
> 
> 
> 
> Have you ever picked up a book that didn't require Crayons?????*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FDR was an isolationist.   Hitler called him a Jew Lover.  And FDR wrote letters to Hitler denouncing him in 1938.  That same year in an address to Congress he outright condemned fascism.   Sure whatever guy you quoted would like to burn those records, but they still exist.
Click to expand...


PC only listens to the voices in her/ his/its head.

He/she/it is just pissed of that the United States was victorious in WW2- and that FDR was the man who led us to victory.


----------



## Faun

Slash said:


> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?


Slash, meet bripat9643. bripat9643, Slash.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I never lie..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you do is lie.
> 
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *"This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied about FDR nominating a KKKer to the Supreme Court?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting your article:
> 
> Reporter Ray Sprigle’s investigation of Black’s links to the Klan revealed that he _joined the organization in September 1923 and resigned almost two years later, in July 1925.
> _
> 'resigned...in July 1925'
> 
> This Supreme Court Justice had at one time been a KKK member- as usual you are lying- FDR never appointed a KKK member to the Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied when you pretended that FDR didn't put a KKKer on the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> Confess.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Your own article says he left the klan in *1925*, long before being appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by FDR.






When he was appointed, he was no longer a member of the KKK. So why did you lie [again] and falsely claim FDR appointed a member of the KKK?


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt.
> 
> She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
Click to expand...


Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.

We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's troubling view of Jews
> 
> _*What FDR said about Jews in private*_
> _*His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America's tepid response to the Holocaust.*_
> 
> _President Franklin Roosevelt sits at the steering wheel of his automobile… (Associated Press )
> 
> In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."
> 
> Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."
> 
> Roosevelt's "best way" remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR's support for "spreading the Jews thin" may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
> 
> Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
> 
> Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
> 
> In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.
> 
> Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?
> 
> By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.
> 
> In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings.
> 
> You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
Click to expand...

LOLOL

WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??

Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?

What a disgusting pig you are.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ready to admit you lied when you pretended that FDR didn't put a KKKer on the Supreme Court?
> 
> 
> Confess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I confess- you are a gullible idiot.
> 
> Justice Black was not a KKK member when he was appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You know this- but you keep lying that he was.
> 
> Just more of your typical lies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> From the Smithsonian:
> 
> *"SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member"*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you low-life lying gutter snipe....
> 
> FDR made a KKKer his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> 
> That's a  fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope- just you lying again.
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> But FDR did appoint the second Jewish Supreme Court Justice- and yes- he was actually Jewish when he was appointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"What U.S. President appointed members of the KKK to the U.S. Supreme Court?*
> 7 Answers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry Mc Kenna, Avid birder and amateur astronomer
> 
> Answered 11d ago
> 
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> He was actively anti-Catholic.
> 
> _"Hugo Black, a KKK member and US senator, gave fiery anti-Catholic speeches before going on to become a defender of civil liberties on the supreme court bench."_ (America's dark and not-very-distant history of hating Catholics)
> 
> Anti-Catholic bigotry was fashionable among what we would call liberals today."
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-U-S-President-appointed-members-of-the-KKK-to-the-U-S-Supreme-Court
> 
> 
> 
> FDR appointed a KKKer as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> And,...you're an imbecile.
> 
> Both of those are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting you:
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> 'former KKK member'
> 
> Again- you are just lying.
> 
> As you always do.
Click to expand...

Once a KKK member, always a KKK member.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt.
> 
> She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
Click to expand...

You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?

Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I confess- you are a gullible idiot.
> 
> Justice Black was not a KKK member when he was appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You know this- but you keep lying that he was.
> 
> Just more of your typical lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the Smithsonian:
> 
> *"SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member"*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you low-life lying gutter snipe....
> 
> FDR made a KKKer his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> 
> That's a  fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope- just you lying again.
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> But FDR did appoint the second Jewish Supreme Court Justice- and yes- he was actually Jewish when he was appointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"What U.S. President appointed members of the KKK to the U.S. Supreme Court?*
> 7 Answers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry Mc Kenna, Avid birder and amateur astronomer
> 
> Answered 11d ago
> 
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> He was actively anti-Catholic.
> 
> _"Hugo Black, a KKK member and US senator, gave fiery anti-Catholic speeches before going on to become a defender of civil liberties on the supreme court bench."_ (America's dark and not-very-distant history of hating Catholics)
> 
> Anti-Catholic bigotry was fashionable among what we would call liberals today."
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-U-S-President-appointed-members-of-the-KKK-to-the-U-S-Supreme-Court
> 
> 
> 
> FDR appointed a KKKer as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> And,...you're an imbecile.
> 
> Both of those are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting you:
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> 'former KKK member'
> 
> Again- you are just lying.
> 
> As you always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a KKK member, always a KKK member.
Click to expand...


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's troubling view of Jews
> 
> _*What FDR said about Jews in private*_
> _*His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America's tepid response to the Holocaust.*_
> 
> _President Franklin Roosevelt sits at the steering wheel of his automobile… (Associated Press )
> 
> In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."
> 
> Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."
> 
> Roosevelt's "best way" remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR's support for "spreading the Jews thin" may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
> 
> Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
> 
> Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
> 
> In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.
> 
> Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?
> 
> By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.
> 
> In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings.
> 
> You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
Click to expand...


They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?
> 
> Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.
Click to expand...


They didn't attack us, numskull.  FDR had been making war on them for over 2 years before they declared war on us.

How ironic thata  snowflake with the reasoning capacity of a cockroach is calling me stupid.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's troubling view of Jews
> 
> _*What FDR said about Jews in private*_
> _*His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America's tepid response to the Holocaust.*_
> 
> _President Franklin Roosevelt sits at the steering wheel of his automobile… (Associated Press )
> 
> In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."
> 
> Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."
> 
> Roosevelt's "best way" remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR's support for "spreading the Jews thin" may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
> 
> Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
> 
> Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
> 
> In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.
> 
> Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?
> 
> By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.
> 
> In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings.
> 
> You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
Click to expand...

^^^ another disgusting pig.

Notice how almost all of the bigots on this site are on the right?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.
> 
> Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?
> 
> By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.
> 
> In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings.
> 
> You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.
> 
> Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?
> 
> By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.
> 
> In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings.
> 
> You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ another disgusting pig.
> 
> Notice how almost all of the bigots on this site are on the right?
Click to expand...


Wrong. According to your own criteria, you are a bigot.  You have expressed your contempt for Christians and Southerners numerous times.  Snowflakes have no problem flinging all manner of insult at Christian, but say one negative thing about Muslims and you bring the snowflake Jihad down on your head.


----------



## bripat9643

PoliticalChic said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.  So anti-semites called him a Jew Lover.  Hitler called him a Jew Lover.   But instead lets revise history, burn all that history and create this new history of him being a Jew Hater.   Because what someone claims he said in a diary is more important than actual history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt.
> 
> She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The two blood-brothers were allies until June 21, 1941.
> Stalin taught Hitler how to construct concentration camps, and provided the resources for the 'Blitzkrieg.'
> 
> And Roosevelt was a pal of both......but had a crush on Stalin.
Click to expand...

Stalin also allowed Hitler to develop and test his panzers in the USSR.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
> 
> 
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?
> 
> Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull.  FDR had been making war on them for over 2 years before they declared war on us.
> 
> How ironic thata  snowflake with the reasoning capacity of a cockroach is calling me stupid.
Click to expand...

Numbnuts... they aligned with the country which had just attacked us and they declared war against us. Just how fucking rightarded are you??


----------



## Slash

bripat9643 said:


> They didn't attack us, numskull.  FDR had been making war on them for over 2 years before they declared war on us.
> 
> How ironic thata  snowflake with the reasoning capacity of a cockroach is calling me stupid.



Sounds like you and politicalchic "And Roosevelt was a pal of both" need to get your stories aligned here.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ another disgusting pig.
> 
> Notice how almost all of the bigots on this site are on the right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. According to your own criteria, you are a bigot.  You have expressed your contempt for Christians and Southerners numerous times.  Snowflakes have no problem flinging all manner of insult at Christian, but say one negative thing about Muslims and you bring the snowflake Jihad down on your head.
Click to expand...

And now, one of the forum's leading imbeciles retorts with, _I know you are but what am I?_



Even worse for you -- my wife, the love of my life, is Christian. You know, what you call, "contempt." Are ya feeling stupid yet?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?
> 
> Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull.  FDR had been making war on them for over 2 years before they declared war on us.
> 
> How ironic thata  snowflake with the reasoning capacity of a cockroach is calling me stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Numbnuts... they aligned with the country which had just attacked us and they declared war against us. Just how fucking rightarded are you??
Click to expand...

Roosevelt was trying to instigate war with Germany ever since it invaded Poland.  American destroyers were using depth charges on German submarines the whole time. He also deliberately pushed Japan into attacking us.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ another disgusting pig.
> 
> Notice how almost all of the bigots on this site are on the right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. According to your own criteria, you are a bigot.  You have expressed your contempt for Christians and Southerners numerous times.  Snowflakes have no problem flinging all manner of insult at Christian, but say one negative thing about Muslims and you bring the snowflake Jihad down on your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now, one of the forum's leading imbeciles retorts with, _I know you are but what am I?_
> 
> 
> 
> Even worse for you -- my wife, the love of my life, is Christian. You know, what you call, "contempt." Are ya feeling stupid yet?
Click to expand...


Leftwing douche bags like you never fail to bash Southern Christians.  

Who do you think you're fooling?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ another disgusting pig.
> 
> Notice how almost all of the bigots on this site are on the right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. According to your own criteria, you are a bigot.  You have expressed your contempt for Christians and Southerners numerous times.  Snowflakes have no problem flinging all manner of insult at Christian, but say one negative thing about Muslims and you bring the snowflake Jihad down on your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now, one of the forum's leading imbeciles retorts with, _I know you are but what am I?_
> 
> 
> 
> Even worse for you -- my wife, the love of my life, is Christian. You know, what you call, "contempt." Are ya feeling stupid yet?
Click to expand...

You're new nickname is really getting under your skin, isn't it, cockroach?


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?
> 
> Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull.  FDR had been making war on them for over 2 years before they declared war on us.
> 
> How ironic thata  snowflake with the reasoning capacity of a cockroach is calling me stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Numbnuts... they aligned with the country which had just attacked us and they declared war against us. Just how fucking rightarded are you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to instigate war with Germany ever since it invaded Poland.  American destroyers were using depth charges on German submarines the whole time. He also deliberately pushed Japan into attacking us.
Click to expand...


Well they did after all bomb that political convention on the Wisconsin trolley tracks.....


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?
> 
> Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull.  FDR had been making war on them for over 2 years before they declared war on us.
> 
> How ironic thata  snowflake with the reasoning capacity of a cockroach is calling me stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Numbnuts... they aligned with the country which had just attacked us and they declared war against us. Just how fucking rightarded are you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to instigate war with Germany ever since it invaded Poland.  American destroyers were using depth charges on German submarines the whole time. He also deliberately pushed Japan into attacking us.
Click to expand...

Why do you insist on proving to the forum you're batshit insane? Everything you post, from that photo you idiotically claim was from the 1924 DNC, to this, is nothing but craziness from you.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ another disgusting pig.
> 
> Notice how almost all of the bigots on this site are on the right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. According to your own criteria, you are a bigot.  You have expressed your contempt for Christians and Southerners numerous times.  Snowflakes have no problem flinging all manner of insult at Christian, but say one negative thing about Muslims and you bring the snowflake Jihad down on your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now, one of the forum's leading imbeciles retorts with, _I know you are but what am I?_
> 
> 
> 
> Even worse for you -- my wife, the love of my life, is Christian. You know, what you call, "contempt." Are ya feeling stupid yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leftwing douche bags like you never fail to bash Southern Christians.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
Click to expand...

Great, then quote me bashing Christians or once again expose yourself as the floundering imbecile the forum knows you to be...


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ another disgusting pig.
> 
> Notice how almost all of the bigots on this site are on the right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. According to your own criteria, you are a bigot.  You have expressed your contempt for Christians and Southerners numerous times.  Snowflakes have no problem flinging all manner of insult at Christian, but say one negative thing about Muslims and you bring the snowflake Jihad down on your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now, one of the forum's leading imbeciles retorts with, _I know you are but what am I?_
> 
> 
> 
> Even worse for you -- my wife, the love of my life, is Christian. You know, what you call, "contempt." Are ya feeling stupid yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're new nickname is really getting under your skin, isn't it, cockroach?
Click to expand...

LOL

What nickname is that?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
> 
> 
> 
> You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?
> 
> Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull.  FDR had been making war on them for over 2 years before they declared war on us.
> 
> How ironic thata  snowflake with the reasoning capacity of a cockroach is calling me stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Numbnuts... they aligned with the country which had just attacked us and they declared war against us. Just how fucking rightarded are you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to instigate war with Germany ever since it invaded Poland.  American destroyers were using depth charges on German submarines the whole time. He also deliberately pushed Japan into attacking us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you insist on proving to the forum you're batshit insane? Everything you post, from that photo you idiotically claim was from the 1924 DNC, to this, is nothing but craziness from you.
Click to expand...

The stuff I posted about FDR and Germany is simply a fact.  Anyone who has read much about the war knows it.FDR was a demagogue who ran against American involvement into the war and then immediately started trying to sucker the voters into the war the minute he was elected.  He's the lowest kind of douche bag politician, which is the reason leftwing cockroaches like you love him.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ another disgusting pig.
> 
> Notice how almost all of the bigots on this site are on the right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. According to your own criteria, you are a bigot.  You have expressed your contempt for Christians and Southerners numerous times.  Snowflakes have no problem flinging all manner of insult at Christian, but say one negative thing about Muslims and you bring the snowflake Jihad down on your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now, one of the forum's leading imbeciles retorts with, _I know you are but what am I?_
> 
> 
> 
> Even worse for you -- my wife, the love of my life, is Christian. You know, what you call, "contempt." Are ya feeling stupid yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're new nickname is really getting under your skin, isn't it, cockroach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What nickname is that?
Click to expand...

cockroach.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?
> 
> Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull.  FDR had been making war on them for over 2 years before they declared war on us.
> 
> How ironic thata  snowflake with the reasoning capacity of a cockroach is calling me stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Numbnuts... they aligned with the country which had just attacked us and they declared war against us. Just how fucking rightarded are you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to instigate war with Germany ever since it invaded Poland.  American destroyers were using depth charges on German submarines the whole time. He also deliberately pushed Japan into attacking us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you insist on proving to the forum you're batshit insane? Everything you post, from that photo you idiotically claim was from the 1924 DNC, to this, is nothing but craziness from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stuff I posted about FDR and Germany is simply a fact.  Anyone who has read much about the war knows it.FDR was a demagogue who ran against American involvement into the war and then immediately started trying to sucker the voters into the war the minute he was elected.  He's the lowest kind of douche bag politician, which is the reason leftwing cockroaches like you love him.
Click to expand...

You remain an imbecile.  I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^ another disgusting pig.
> 
> Notice how almost all of the bigots on this site are on the right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong. According to your own criteria, you are a bigot.  You have expressed your contempt for Christians and Southerners numerous times.  Snowflakes have no problem flinging all manner of insult at Christian, but say one negative thing about Muslims and you bring the snowflake Jihad down on your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And now, one of the forum's leading imbeciles retorts with, _I know you are but what am I?_
> 
> 
> 
> Even worse for you -- my wife, the love of my life, is Christian. You know, what you call, "contempt." Are ya feeling stupid yet?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're new nickname is really getting under your skin, isn't it, cockroach?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> What nickname is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> cockroach.
Click to expand...

LOL


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull.  FDR had been making war on them for over 2 years before they declared war on us.
> 
> How ironic thata  snowflake with the reasoning capacity of a cockroach is calling me stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Numbnuts... they aligned with the country which had just attacked us and they declared war against us. Just how fucking rightarded are you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to instigate war with Germany ever since it invaded Poland.  American destroyers were using depth charges on German submarines the whole time. He also deliberately pushed Japan into attacking us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you insist on proving to the forum you're batshit insane? Everything you post, from that photo you idiotically claim was from the 1924 DNC, to this, is nothing but craziness from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stuff I posted about FDR and Germany is simply a fact.  Anyone who has read much about the war knows it.FDR was a demagogue who ran against American involvement into the war and then immediately started trying to sucker the voters into the war the minute he was elected.  He's the lowest kind of douche bag politician, which is the reason leftwing cockroaches like you love him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You remain an imbecile.  I feel sorry for you.
Click to expand...

Once again you're showing that a cockroach has more capacity to reason than you.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Numbnuts... they aligned with the country which had just attacked us and they declared war against us. Just how fucking rightarded are you??
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to instigate war with Germany ever since it invaded Poland.  American destroyers were using depth charges on German submarines the whole time. He also deliberately pushed Japan into attacking us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you insist on proving to the forum you're batshit insane? Everything you post, from that photo you idiotically claim was from the 1924 DNC, to this, is nothing but craziness from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stuff I posted about FDR and Germany is simply a fact.  Anyone who has read much about the war knows it.FDR was a demagogue who ran against American involvement into the war and then immediately started trying to sucker the voters into the war the minute he was elected.  He's the lowest kind of douche bag politician, which is the reason leftwing cockroaches like you love him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You remain an imbecile.  I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you're showing that a cockroach has more capacity to reason than you.
Click to expand...

Spits the abject imbecile who doesn't know the difference between *Madison*, Wisconsin and *Madison* Square Garden.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to instigate war with Germany ever since it invaded Poland.  American destroyers were using depth charges on German submarines the whole time. He also deliberately pushed Japan into attacking us.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on proving to the forum you're batshit insane? Everything you post, from that photo you idiotically claim was from the 1924 DNC, to this, is nothing but craziness from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stuff I posted about FDR and Germany is simply a fact.  Anyone who has read much about the war knows it.FDR was a demagogue who ran against American involvement into the war and then immediately started trying to sucker the voters into the war the minute he was elected.  He's the lowest kind of douche bag politician, which is the reason leftwing cockroaches like you love him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You remain an imbecile.  I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you're showing that a cockroach has more capacity to reason than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the abject imbecile who doesn't know the difference between *Madison*, Wisconsin and *Madison* Square Garden.
Click to expand...


The cockroach tells another lie.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you insist on proving to the forum you're batshit insane? Everything you post, from that photo you idiotically claim was from the 1924 DNC, to this, is nothing but craziness from you.
> 
> 
> 
> The stuff I posted about FDR and Germany is simply a fact.  Anyone who has read much about the war knows it.FDR was a demagogue who ran against American involvement into the war and then immediately started trying to sucker the voters into the war the minute he was elected.  He's the lowest kind of douche bag politician, which is the reason leftwing cockroaches like you love him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You remain an imbecile.  I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you're showing that a cockroach has more capacity to reason than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the abject imbecile who doesn't know the difference between *Madison*, Wisconsin and *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cockroach tells another lie.
Click to expand...

Nope, You really did post a photo of a KKK march in *Madison*, Wisconsin, believing they were marching at *Madison* Square Garden.

You really are as rightarded as you appear.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stuff I posted about FDR and Germany is simply a fact.  Anyone who has read much about the war knows it.FDR was a demagogue who ran against American involvement into the war and then immediately started trying to sucker the voters into the war the minute he was elected.  He's the lowest kind of douche bag politician, which is the reason leftwing cockroaches like you love him.
> 
> 
> 
> You remain an imbecile.  I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you're showing that a cockroach has more capacity to reason than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the abject imbecile who doesn't know the difference between *Madison*, Wisconsin and *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cockroach tells another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, You really did post a photo of a KKK march in *Madison*, Wisconsin, believing they were marching at *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> You really are as rightarded as you appear.
Click to expand...


I'm not discussing this anymore, cockroach.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You remain an imbecile.  I feel sorry for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you're showing that a cockroach has more capacity to reason than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the abject imbecile who doesn't know the difference between *Madison*, Wisconsin and *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cockroach tells another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, You really did post a photo of a KKK march in *Madison*, Wisconsin, believing they were marching at *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> You really are as rightarded as you appear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not discussing this anymore, cockroach.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

Who cares? I am. At the very least, have you learned that Forney Johnston is still dead?


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The stuff I posted about FDR and Germany is simply a fact.  Anyone who has read much about the war knows it.FDR was a demagogue who ran against American involvement into the war and then immediately started trying to sucker the voters into the war the minute he was elected.  He's the lowest kind of douche bag politician, which is the reason leftwing cockroaches like you love him.
> 
> 
> 
> You remain an imbecile.  I feel sorry for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once again you're showing that a cockroach has more capacity to reason than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the abject imbecile who doesn't know the difference between *Madison*, Wisconsin and *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cockroach tells another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, You really did post a photo of a KKK march in *Madison*, Wisconsin, believing they were marching at *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> You really are as rightarded as you appear.
Click to expand...


I recall from childhood listening to basketball games from Madison Square Garden.  Yet somehow I can't recall the ones that got interrupted because some player tripped over the trolley tracks....


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well you have to understand- PC has a big hard on about Roosevelt and starts at least a thread a week on the same inane crap about Roosevelt.
> 
> She just can't stand that Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2, and was not only one of our most popular Presidents- elected 4 times- each time with a majority of Jewish votes- but is considered by historians to be one of our greatest Presidents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
Click to expand...


Why am I not surprised that Brip is so ignorant?


The USS _Reuben James_ was sunk by _U-552_ on 31 October 1941
Nazi Germany declared war on the United States- after its ally- Japan- attacked the United States. 
The Nazi's concentrated attacks on American shipping immediately:_The first U-boats reached U.S. waters on January 13, 1942. By the time they withdrew on February 6, they had sunk 156,939 tonnes of shipping without loss._
We were allies with the USSR because the Nazi's had invaded the USSR- and the USSR and England were the only remaining combatants fighting the Nazi's.

You being such a staunch 'anti-commie'- we can be certain you would have preferred the Nazi's to have won, rather than the United States being allied with the USSR and England.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> I confess- you are a gullible idiot.
> 
> Justice Black was not a KKK member when he was appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You know this- but you keep lying that he was.
> 
> Just more of your typical lies.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the Smithsonian:
> 
> *"SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member"*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you low-life lying gutter snipe....
> 
> FDR made a KKKer his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> 
> That's a  fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope- just you lying again.
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> But FDR did appoint the second Jewish Supreme Court Justice- and yes- he was actually Jewish when he was appointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"What U.S. President appointed members of the KKK to the U.S. Supreme Court?*
> 7 Answers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry Mc Kenna, Avid birder and amateur astronomer
> 
> Answered 11d ago
> 
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> He was actively anti-Catholic.
> 
> _"Hugo Black, a KKK member and US senator, gave fiery anti-Catholic speeches before going on to become a defender of civil liberties on the supreme court bench."_ (America's dark and not-very-distant history of hating Catholics)
> 
> Anti-Catholic bigotry was fashionable among what we would call liberals today."
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-U-S-President-appointed-members-of-the-KKK-to-the-U-S-Supreme-Court
> 
> 
> 
> FDR appointed a KKKer as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> And,...you're an imbecile.
> 
> Both of those are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting you:
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> 'former KKK member'
> 
> Again- you are just lying.
> 
> As you always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a KKK member, always a KKK member.
Click to expand...

Once a racist, always a racist....
Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it


Politics
*Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it*


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR's troubling view of Jews
> 
> _*What FDR said about Jews in private*_
> _*His personal sentiments about Jews may help explain America's tepid response to the Holocaust.*_
> 
> _President Franklin Roosevelt sits at the steering wheel of his automobile… (Associated Press )
> 
> In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."
> 
> Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."
> 
> Roosevelt's "best way" remark is condescending and distasteful, and coming from anyone else it would probably be regarded as anti-Semitism. But more than that, FDR's support for "spreading the Jews thin" may hold the key to understanding a subject that has been at the center of controversy for decades: the American government's tepid response to the Holocaust.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the paradox. The U.S. immigration system severely limited the number of German Jews admitted during the Nazi years to about 26,000 annually — but even that quota was less than 25% filled during most of the Hitler era, because the Roosevelt administration piled on so many extra requirements for would-be immigrants. For example, starting in 1941, merely leaving behind a close relative in Europe would be enough to disqualify an applicant — on the absurd assumption that the Nazis could threaten the relative and thereby force the immigrant into spying for Hitler.
> 
> Why did the administration actively seek to discourage and disqualify Jewish refugees from coming to the United States? Why didn't the president quietly tell his State Department (which administered the immigration system) to fill the quotas for Germany and Axis-occupied countries to the legal limit? That alone could have saved 190,000 lives. It would not have required a fight with Congress or the anti-immigration forces; it would have involved minimal political risk to the president.
> 
> Every president's policy decisions are shaped by a variety of factors, some political, some personal. In Roosevelt's case, a pattern of private remarks about Jews, some of which I recently discovered at the Central Zionist Archives in Jerusalem and from other sources, may be significant.
> 
> In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."
> 
> .  .  .  .  .  .
> _​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.
> 
> Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?
> 
> By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.
> 
> In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings.
> 
> You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages. .
Click to expand...

Anyone other than myself find Brip claims about the Muslims eerily similar to what the Nazi's said about the Jews?


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
> 
> 
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?
> 
> Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull. .
Click to expand...


What the Nazi Fan Boys call "they didn't attack us"

_The first U-boats reached U.S. waters on January 13, 1942. By the time they withdrew on February 6, they had sunk 156,939 tonnes of shipping without loss._


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages.  The only reason they don't slaughter anyone is the fact that they are vastly outnumbered.  Once the achieve a certain strength in numbers, the slaughter begins.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ^^^ another disgusting pig.
> 
> Notice how almost all of the bigots on this site are on the right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong. According to your own criteria, you are a bigot.  You have expressed your contempt for Christians and Southerners numerous times.  Snowflakes have no problem flinging all manner of insult at Christian, but say one negative thing about Muslims and you bring the snowflake Jihad down on your head.
Click to expand...


Hmmm how is pointing out that the KKK was founded by Southern white Christians bigoted? 

Now if I said that all Christians were members of the KKK- now that would be as much of a lie as your lie that all Muslims are 7th century savages.

Frankly your claims about Muslims sound waaaaay too much like what the Nazi's said about Jews


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?
> 
> Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull.  FDR had been making war on them for over 2 years before they declared war on us.
> 
> How ironic thata  snowflake with the reasoning capacity of a cockroach is calling me stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Numbnuts... they aligned with the country which had just attacked us and they declared war against us. Just how fucking rightarded are you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to instigate war with Germany ever since it invaded Poland.  American destroyers were using depth charges on German submarines the whole time. He also deliberately pushed Japan into attacking us.
Click to expand...


Someone is still upset that the United States helped defeat Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan.......


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?
> 
> Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull.  FDR had been making war on them for over 2 years before they declared war on us.
> 
> How ironic thata  snowflake with the reasoning capacity of a cockroach is calling me stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Numbnuts... they aligned with the country which had just attacked us and they declared war against us. Just how fucking rightarded are you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to instigate war with Germany ever since it invaded Poland.  American destroyers were using depth charges on German submarines the whole time. He also deliberately pushed Japan into attacking us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you insist on proving to the forum you're batshit insane? Everything you post, from that photo you idiotically claim was from the 1924 DNC, to this, is nothing but craziness from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stuff I posted about FDR and Germany is simply a fact.  Anyone who has read much about the war knows it.FDR was a demagogue who ran against American involvement into the war and then immediately started trying to sucker the voters into the war the minute he was elected.  He's the lowest kind of douche bag politician, which is the reason leftwing cockroaches like you love him.
Click to expand...


FDR was probably our most popular President ever- and led America to victory over Imperial- Fascist- Japan- and Nazi Germany, which is the reason contard assholes like you hate him.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> You remain an imbecile.  I feel sorry for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you're showing that a cockroach has more capacity to reason than you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Spits the abject imbecile who doesn't know the difference between *Madison*, Wisconsin and *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The cockroach tells another lie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, You really did post a photo of a KKK march in *Madison*, Wisconsin, believing they were marching at *Madison* Square Garden.
> 
> You really are as rightarded as you appear.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not discussing this anymore, cockroach.
Click to expand...


Typical cowardly contard.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "...Roosevelt led America to victory in World War 2,..."
> 
> 1.  Roosevelt turned over management of Allied war efforts to Stalin.
> Stalin got to choose the attack via Normandy, rather than through Italy, so that the Red Army could occupy Eastern Europe.
> 
> 2. Because he allowed Stalin to make the military diecisions, FDR extended the war by years, and cost thousands of American lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to have to break this to your pathetically revisionist-history fixated ass but --- nobody in World War Two did more, paid more or suffered more in defeating Nazi Germany than did the USSR.  The US was in no position to "turn over management" _TO_ Stalin.  That implies FDR was in some position of managing the European war in the first place.
> 
> I mean holy SHIT this is profound ignorance.
> 
> 
> 
> (/completely offtopic)
> 
> --- But hey, perhaps you can enlighten us all on what Forney Johnston's role was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why am I not surprised that Brip is so ignorant?
> 
> 
> The USS _Reuben James_ was sunk by _U-552_ on 31 October 1941
> Nazi Germany declared war on the United States- after its ally- Japan- attacked the United States.
> The Nazi's concentrated attacks on American shipping immediately:_The first U-boats reached U.S. waters on January 13, 1942. By the time they withdrew on February 6, they had sunk 156,939 tonnes of shipping without loss._
> We were allies with the USSR because the Nazi's had invaded the USSR- and the USSR and England were the only remaining combatants fighting the Nazi's.
> 
> You being such a staunch 'anti-commie'- we can be certain you would have preferred the Nazi's to have won, rather than the United States being allied with the USSR and England.
Click to expand...


The Rueban James had been hunting German submarines for over a year.  It dropped depth charges on them.  That's an act of war.

FDR and Churchill pushed Japan into attacking by cutting off its supply of oil.  They did it deliberately to produce that result.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the Smithsonian:
> 
> *"SMARTNEWS Keeping you current*
> *This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member"*
> 
> Read more: This Supreme Court Justice Was a KKK Member      |     Smart News | Smithsonian
> Give the gift of Smithsonian magazine for only $12! Give the gift of Smithsonian
> Follow us: @SmithsonianMag on Twitter
> 
> 
> 
> That's right, you low-life lying gutter snipe....
> 
> FDR made a KKKer his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> 
> That's a  fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope- just you lying again.
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> But FDR did appoint the second Jewish Supreme Court Justice- and yes- he was actually Jewish when he was appointed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"What U.S. President appointed members of the KKK to the U.S. Supreme Court?*
> 7 Answers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry Mc Kenna, Avid birder and amateur astronomer
> 
> Answered 11d ago
> 
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> He was actively anti-Catholic.
> 
> _"Hugo Black, a KKK member and US senator, gave fiery anti-Catholic speeches before going on to become a defender of civil liberties on the supreme court bench."_ (America's dark and not-very-distant history of hating Catholics)
> 
> Anti-Catholic bigotry was fashionable among what we would call liberals today."
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-U-S-President-appointed-members-of-the-KKK-to-the-U-S-Supreme-Court
> 
> 
> 
> FDR appointed a KKKer as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> And,...you're an imbecile.
> 
> Both of those are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting you:
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> 'former KKK member'
> 
> Again- you are just lying.
> 
> As you always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a KKK member, always a KKK member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a racist, always a racist....
> Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it
> 
> 
> Politics
> *Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it*
Click to expand...



The Washington Post - fake news.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slash said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you feel the need to use debunked lies to support your argument?  I mean I used plain fact.   Basic things that are proven.   Here you have the quota (actually there was never one put on paper anywhere according to a study buy Richard Breitman and Alan J Lichtman).   So why do you feel the need to keep reusing lies that have not been found to be true.
> 
> Why do you keep saying what someone says in private is more important than their actual actions they take?   Did he follow through with the "lets spread them out" Idea?   Of course not.  Oswego and NYC became two large spots where they were allowed to choose to live together.   But hey, he said "lets spread them out" so that's what matters, right?  Not the reality of him choosing to do the opposite?
> 
> By your belief system, Bill Cosby could be a nice guy as long as at some point in his private life someone said he said he respects women.  Then all the rapes don't matter anymore because it's right there in a diary.
> 
> In what way is "severely limiting" the Jewish Refugees actually taking in a full quarter of them.  That's right, more than any other allied or neutral country by far.  But because it wasn't unlimited, lets call the LARGEST intake of refugees a severe limitation right?  The US has taken in about 19,000 syrian Refugees out of 5 million.   FDR took in over 130,000 Jewish Refugees out of just over 500,000.  I mean we've taken in less than .4% of Syrian refugees.  He took in about 25% of Jewish Refugees despite his isolationist leanings.
> 
> You are saying that's proof he was a racist.   Ok, what refugee crisis has the US answered better?  What foreign refugee crisis did a president step up and say "we'll take more than FDR took"??     Because if the LARGEST refugee adoption in US history (though not the largest worldwide refugee crisis) was FDR taking in the jews, it's not making him look anti-semitic is it?
> 
> 
> WHEN YOU HAVE TO CREATE OR RE-USE LIES TO SUPPORT YOUR ARGUMENT IT RUINS YOUR ARGUMENT.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone other than myself find Brip claims about the Muslims eerily similar to what the Nazi's said about the Jews?
Click to expand...

How many people did the Jews kill?


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The USSR partnered with Nazi Germany with carving up Poland. They also invaded Finland.  They were hardly better than Nazi Germany.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?
> 
> Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Nazi Fan Boys call "they didn't attack us"
> 
> _The first U-boats reached U.S. waters on January 13, 1942. By the time they withdrew on February 6, they had sunk 156,939 tonnes of shipping without loss._
Click to expand...


The U.S. had already declared war on Germany by that time, and U.S. were depth charging German submarines long before Dec 7, 1941.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull.  FDR had been making war on them for over 2 years before they declared war on us.
> 
> How ironic thata  snowflake with the reasoning capacity of a cockroach is calling me stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> Numbnuts... they aligned with the country which had just attacked us and they declared war against us. Just how fucking rightarded are you??
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to instigate war with Germany ever since it invaded Poland.  American destroyers were using depth charges on German submarines the whole time. He also deliberately pushed Japan into attacking us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you insist on proving to the forum you're batshit insane? Everything you post, from that photo you idiotically claim was from the 1924 DNC, to this, is nothing but craziness from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stuff I posted about FDR and Germany is simply a fact.  Anyone who has read much about the war knows it.FDR was a demagogue who ran against American involvement into the war and then immediately started trying to sucker the voters into the war the minute he was elected.  He's the lowest kind of douche bag politician, which is the reason leftwing cockroaches like you love him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was probably our most popular President ever- and led America to victory over Imperial- Fascist- Japan- and Nazi Germany, which is the reason contard assholes like you hate him.
Click to expand...


Servile morons like you love goose stepping demagogues like FDR.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone other than myself find Brip claims about the Muslims eerily similar to what the Nazi's said about the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people did the Jews kill?
Click to expand...

Now it all makes sense. You're a fucking anti-Semitic kraut-defending nazi.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone other than myself find Brip claims about the Muslims eerily similar to what the Nazi's said about the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people did the Jews kill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now it all makes sense. You're a fucking anti-Semitic kraut-defending nazi.
Click to expand...


No, I'm simply not a brainwashed cockroach like you.  I don't accept the leftwing PC version of history without question.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone other than myself find Brip claims about the Muslims eerily similar to what the Nazi's said about the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people did the Jews kill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now it all makes sense. You're a fucking anti-Semitic kraut-defending nazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm simply not a brainwashed cockroach like you.  I don't accept the leftwing PC version of history without question.
Click to expand...

You revealed your true colors when you blamed America and Jews, you POS.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages. .
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone other than myself find Brip claims about the Muslims eerily similar to what the Nazi's said about the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people did the Jews kill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now it all makes sense. You're a fucking anti-Semitic kraut-defending nazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm simply not a brainwashed cockroach like you.  I don't accept the leftwing PC version of history without question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You revealed your true colors when you blamed America and Jews, you POS.
Click to expand...

I blamed FDR, and that's all.   Of course, Americans are gullible and easily duped.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope- just you lying again.
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> But FDR did appoint the second Jewish Supreme Court Justice- and yes- he was actually Jewish when he was appointed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"What U.S. President appointed members of the KKK to the U.S. Supreme Court?*
> 7 Answers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry Mc Kenna, Avid birder and amateur astronomer
> 
> Answered 11d ago
> 
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> He was actively anti-Catholic.
> 
> _"Hugo Black, a KKK member and US senator, gave fiery anti-Catholic speeches before going on to become a defender of civil liberties on the supreme court bench."_ (America's dark and not-very-distant history of hating Catholics)
> 
> Anti-Catholic bigotry was fashionable among what we would call liberals today."
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-U-S-President-appointed-members-of-the-KKK-to-the-U-S-Supreme-Court
> 
> 
> 
> FDR appointed a KKKer as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> And,...you're an imbecile.
> 
> Both of those are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting you:
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> 'former KKK member'
> 
> Again- you are just lying.
> 
> As you always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a KKK member, always a KKK member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a racist, always a racist....
> Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it
> 
> 
> Politics
> *Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Post - fake news.
Click to expand...


Translation:​


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone other than myself find Brip claims about the Muslims eerily similar to what the Nazi's said about the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people did the Jews kill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now it all makes sense. You're a fucking anti-Semitic kraut-defending nazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm simply not a brainwashed cockroach like you.  I don't accept the leftwing PC version of history without question.
Click to expand...


Of course not- because you are a brainwashed right wing cockroach- and you only believe the 'version' of history that your Dear Leaders tell you to believe.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Numbnuts... they aligned with the country which had just attacked us and they declared war against us. Just how fucking rightarded are you??
> 
> 
> 
> Roosevelt was trying to instigate war with Germany ever since it invaded Poland.  American destroyers were using depth charges on German submarines the whole time. He also deliberately pushed Japan into attacking us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why do you insist on proving to the forum you're batshit insane? Everything you post, from that photo you idiotically claim was from the 1924 DNC, to this, is nothing but craziness from you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The stuff I posted about FDR and Germany is simply a fact.  Anyone who has read much about the war knows it.FDR was a demagogue who ran against American involvement into the war and then immediately started trying to sucker the voters into the war the minute he was elected.  He's the lowest kind of douche bag politician, which is the reason leftwing cockroaches like you love him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> FDR was probably our most popular President ever- and led America to victory over Imperial- Fascist- Japan- and Nazi Germany, which is the reason contard assholes like you hate him.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Servile morons like you love goose stepping demagogues like FDR.
Click to expand...


LOL- right wing idiots like you are so ignorant of history that you believe that Franklin Delano Roosevelt was capable of 'goose stepping'.

Of course what you really are pissed off about is that FDR led the United States to victory against your heroes the Nazis.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> "hardly better than Nazi Germany" except for a couple things:
> a) The USSR didn't attack the United States and
> b) The USSR was allies with the United States and Great Britain in defeating Nazi Germany.
> 
> No doubt Stalin was every bit as much of a murdering asshole as Hitler. But we were not at war with that murderous asshole.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nazi Germany didn't attack the United States.
> 
> We were allies with them only because the commie lover Roosevelt chose to be allies with them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know you're among the dumbest posters on this site, right?
> 
> Germany aligned themselves with Japan and declared war on us.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They didn't attack us, numskull. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What the Nazi Fan Boys call "they didn't attack us"
> 
> _The first U-boats reached U.S. waters on January 13, 1942. By the time they withdrew on February 6, they had sunk 156,939 tonnes of shipping without loss._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The U.S. had already declared war on Germany by that time, and U.S. were depth charging German submarines long before Dec 7, 1941.
Click to expand...


Remember- you Nazi Fan boys declared that the Nazi's didn't attack us. 

I was pointing out the historical fact that yes indeed- the Nazi's did attack the United States- both before- and after- Germany declared war on the United States

And you are okay with that. 

Just to help you past the Stormfront version of World War 2- the Nazi's declared war on the United States - and after they declared war on us- the United States declared war on Nazi Germany.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah- it is pretty odd.
> 
> In order to support there argument that FDR was an anti-semite- they want to portray him as blocking Jewish refugees from Europe.
> 
> But Donald Trump ran on a platform of blocking Muslim refugees from the Middle East- and they will argue on and on that that is not bigoted at all.
> 
> Donald Trump said that Mexicans are rapists. FDR never called Jews rapists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone other than myself find Brip claims about the Muslims eerily similar to what the Nazi's said about the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people did the Jews kill?
Click to expand...


According to the Nazi's they were killing children for blood rituals. 

How many people did these refugees kill?










Anti-semitic Bigots in the United States warned of the 'dangers' of allowing Jewish refugees to come to the United States- sounding eerily like you. 

What Americans thought of Jewish refugees on the eve of World War II


_John B. Trevor, a prominent Capitol Hill lobbyist, argued against  a proposal to settle Jewish refugees in Alaska, claiming they would be potential enemies — and charging that Nazi persecution of the Jews had occurred “in very many cases … because of their beliefs in the Marxian philosophy.”...


Rep. Jacob Thorkelson, a Republican from Montana, warned at the time that Jewish migrants were part of an “invisible government,” an organization he said was tied to the “communistic Jew” and to “Jewish international financiers.”...


“I have heard on good authority that an Executive order has given immigration authorities permission to let down the usual bars in favor of the so-called Jewish refugees from Germany,” declared Julia Cantacuzene, a Republican activist in New York, according to a front page New York Times article that ran on May 18, 1938. Cantacuzene, the granddaughter of President Ulysses Grant and an ardent opponent of President Franklin Roosevelt, claimed that the Soviet revolution occurred only because Communist agents had snuck into Russia to “instill their insidious poison onto the Russian people.” She claimed that the same would happen here: “Under these lax regulations, many Communists are coming to this country to join the ranks of those who hate our institutions and want to over throw them.”_


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> [
> FDR and Churchill pushed Japan into attacking by cutting off its supply of oil.  T.



Because Fascist Japan had invaded China- and had massacred Chinese citizens.

Funny you never mention stuff like that.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope- just you lying again.
> Remember- you lied and claimed that the Democrats placed a KKK member on the Supreme Court.
> 
> I pointed out your lie- by pointing out that Hugo Black was not a KKK member- and had not been a KKK member for over a decade when appointed to the Supreme Court.
> 
> You were just lying again.
> 
> But FDR did appoint the second Jewish Supreme Court Justice- and yes- he was actually Jewish when he was appointed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *"What U.S. President appointed members of the KKK to the U.S. Supreme Court?*
> 7 Answers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry Mc Kenna, Avid birder and amateur astronomer
> 
> Answered 11d ago
> 
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> He was actively anti-Catholic.
> 
> _"Hugo Black, a KKK member and US senator, gave fiery anti-Catholic speeches before going on to become a defender of civil liberties on the supreme court bench."_ (America's dark and not-very-distant history of hating Catholics)
> 
> Anti-Catholic bigotry was fashionable among what we would call liberals today."
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-U-S-President-appointed-members-of-the-KKK-to-the-U-S-Supreme-Court
> 
> 
> 
> FDR appointed a KKKer as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> And,...you're an imbecile.
> 
> Both of those are facts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quoting you:
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> 'former KKK member'
> 
> Again- you are just lying.
> 
> As you always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a KKK member, always a KKK member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a racist, always a racist....
> Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it
> 
> 
> Politics
> *Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Post - fake news.
Click to expand...


Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.

Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "....of blocking Muslim refugees...."
> 
> 
> I know you're an imbecile...but equating Jewish folk who wanted nothing more than being allowed to live with 7th century savages who dedicate their existence to the slaughter of innocent human being....
> 
> ...well...makes you the perfect 'reliable Democrat voter.'
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> WTF?? The Muslim refugees coming here are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people??
> 
> Over 18,000 from Syria alone came here while Obama was president. How many of them are 7th century savages, slaughtering innocent people...?
> 
> What a disgusting pig you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages. .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anyone other than myself find Brip claims about the Muslims eerily similar to what the Nazi's said about the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people did the Jews kill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now it all makes sense. You're a fucking anti-Semitic kraut-defending nazi.
Click to expand...


I'm anti-semitic because I point out that the Jew never killed anyone?

One again, you demonstrate that a cockroach is smarter than you.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> FDR and Churchill pushed Japan into attacking by cutting off its supply of oil.  T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Fascist Japan had invaded China- and had massacred Chinese citizens.
> 
> Funny you never mention stuff like that.
Click to expand...

You can justify it anyway you want.  That doesn't alter the fact the FDR and Churchill were deliberately pushing Japan into war.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *"What U.S. President appointed members of the KKK to the U.S. Supreme Court?*
> 7 Answers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry Mc Kenna, Avid birder and amateur astronomer
> 
> Answered 11d ago
> 
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> He was actively anti-Catholic.
> 
> _"Hugo Black, a KKK member and US senator, gave fiery anti-Catholic speeches before going on to become a defender of civil liberties on the supreme court bench."_ (America's dark and not-very-distant history of hating Catholics)
> 
> Anti-Catholic bigotry was fashionable among what we would call liberals today."
> 
> https://www.quora.com/What-U-S-President-appointed-members-of-the-KKK-to-the-U-S-Supreme-Court
> 
> 
> 
> FDR appointed a KKKer as his first nominee to the Supreme Court.
> And,...you're an imbecile.
> 
> Both of those are facts.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting you:
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> 'former KKK member'
> 
> Again- you are just lying.
> 
> As you always do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a KKK member, always a KKK member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a racist, always a racist....
> Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it
> 
> 
> Politics
> *Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Post - fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.
> 
> Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.
Click to expand...


So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment, but I definitely wouldn't take their word for it.  Trump has a long history of hiring blacks and helping blacks.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They're all 7th century savages. .
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone other than myself find Brip claims about the Muslims eerily similar to what the Nazi's said about the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How many people did the Jews kill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now it all makes sense. You're a fucking anti-Semitic kraut-defending nazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm simply not a brainwashed cockroach like you.  I don't accept the leftwing PC version of history without question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because you are a brainwashed right wing cockroach- and you only believe the 'version' of history that your Dear Leaders tell you to believe.
Click to expand...


Trump probably believes your version of history, cockroach.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone other than myself find Brip claims about the Muslims eerily similar to what the Nazi's said about the Jews?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many people did the Jews kill?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Now it all makes sense. You're a fucking anti-Semitic kraut-defending nazi.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I'm simply not a brainwashed cockroach like you.  I don't accept the leftwing PC version of history without question.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course not- because you are a brainwashed right wing cockroach- and you only believe the 'version' of history that your Dear Leaders tell you to believe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trump probably believes your version of history, cockroach.
Click to expand...


Ah little snowflake cockroach is denying his Dear Leader?


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting you:
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> 'former KKK member'
> 
> Again- you are just lying.
> 
> As you always do.
> 
> 
> 
> Once a KKK member, always a KKK member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a racist, always a racist....
> Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it
> 
> 
> Politics
> *Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Post - fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.
> 
> Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment,
Click to expand...


If only there was some magic program on the Internet that would allow you to know more.......

Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.

Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> FDR and Churchill pushed Japan into attacking by cutting off its supply of oil.  T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Fascist Japan had invaded China- and had massacred Chinese citizens.
> 
> Funny you never mention stuff like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can justify it anyway you want.  That doesn't alter the fact the FDR and Churchill were deliberately pushing Japan into war.
Click to expand...


It doesn't alter the fact that FDR and Churchill were using sanctions to try to punish Japan for its imperialistic ambitions.

Do you think that Trump is deliberately trying to push Iran and North Korea into war with the United States?


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting you:
> FDR appointed former KKK member Hugo Black in 1937. He said he left the KKK and he claims that he regretted joining. Hugo Black - Wikipedia
> 
> 'former KKK member'
> 
> Again- you are just lying.
> 
> As you always do.
> 
> 
> 
> Once a KKK member, always a KKK member.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Once a racist, always a racist....
> Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it
> 
> 
> Politics
> *Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Post - fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.
> 
> Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment, but I definitely wouldn't take their word for it.  Trump has a long history of hiring blacks and helping blacks.
Click to expand...


I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---

"Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".

He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.

You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?

You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once a KKK member, always a KKK member.
> 
> 
> 
> Once a racist, always a racist....
> Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it
> 
> 
> Politics
> *Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Post - fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.
> 
> Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment, but I definitely wouldn't take their word for it.  Trump has a long history of hiring blacks and helping blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---
> 
> "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
> 
> He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?
> 
> You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?
Click to expand...


That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> FDR and Churchill pushed Japan into attacking by cutting off its supply of oil.  T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Fascist Japan had invaded China- and had massacred Chinese citizens.
> 
> Funny you never mention stuff like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can justify it anyway you want.  That doesn't alter the fact the FDR and Churchill were deliberately pushing Japan into war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't alter the fact that FDR and Churchill were using sanctions to try to punish Japan for its imperialistic ambitions.
> 
> Do you think that Trump is deliberately trying to push Iran and North Korea into war with the United States?
Click to expand...

Like I said, you can justify it anyway you want.  The bottom line is that when FDR and Churchill cutoff its oil supply, it had no choice but to use force to get the oil it needed.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> FDR and Churchill pushed Japan into attacking by cutting off its supply of oil.  T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Fascist Japan had invaded China- and had massacred Chinese citizens.
> 
> Funny you never mention stuff like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can justify it anyway you want.  That doesn't alter the fact the FDR and Churchill were deliberately pushing Japan into war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't alter the fact that FDR and Churchill were using sanctions to try to punish Japan for its imperialistic ambitions.
> 
> Do you think that Trump is deliberately trying to push Iran and North Korea into war with the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, you can justify it anyway you want.  The bottom line is that when FDR and Churchill cutoff its oil supply, it had no choice but to use force to get the oil it needed.
Click to expand...


Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.

You know- like we imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea.- apparently leaving them 'no choice' but to go to war.....


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once a racist, always a racist....
> Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it
> 
> 
> Politics
> *Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Post - fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.
> 
> Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment, but I definitely wouldn't take their word for it.  Trump has a long history of hiring blacks and helping blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---
> 
> "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
> 
> He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?
> 
> You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.
Click to expand...


Actually Rump already confirmed it.  So oopsie.

Hey, there's no recording of Democrats holding a political convention on trolley tracks in Wisconsin either but that didn't stop you from starting a thread making that claim, did it?  

What a moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> [
> FDR and Churchill pushed Japan into attacking by cutting off its supply of oil.  T.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because Fascist Japan had invaded China- and had massacred Chinese citizens.
> 
> Funny you never mention stuff like that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can justify it anyway you want.  That doesn't alter the fact the FDR and Churchill were deliberately pushing Japan into war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't alter the fact that FDR and Churchill were using sanctions to try to punish Japan for its imperialistic ambitions.
> 
> Do you think that Trump is deliberately trying to push Iran and North Korea into war with the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, you can justify it anyway you want.  The bottom line is that when FDR and Churchill cutoff its oil supply, it had no choice but to use force to get the oil it needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> You know- like we imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea.- apparently leaving them 'no choice' but to go to war.....
Click to expand...


In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.

Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Post - fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.
> 
> Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment, but I definitely wouldn't take their word for it.  Trump has a long history of hiring blacks and helping blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---
> 
> "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
> 
> He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?
> 
> You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Rump already confirmed it.  So oopsie.
> 
> Hey, there's no recording of Democrats holding a political convention on trolley tracks in Wisconsin either but that didn't stop you from starting a thread making that claim, did it?
> 
> What a moron.
Click to expand...

Please post a link of where he confirmed it.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.
> 
> Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment, but I definitely wouldn't take their word for it.  Trump has a long history of hiring blacks and helping blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---
> 
> "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
> 
> He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?
> 
> You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Rump already confirmed it.  So oopsie.
> 
> Hey, there's no recording of Democrats holding a political convention on trolley tracks in Wisconsin either but that didn't stop you from starting a thread making that claim, did it?
> 
> What a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post a link of where he confirmed it.
Click to expand...


Not only will we do that, but first let's post the complete quote:

"I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza—black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.  Those are the kind of people I want counting my money.  Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy.  And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.  It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."

>> In an interview in 1999 with _Playboy_, Trump dismissed O’Donnell (the biographer) as a “fucking loser,” but not before conceding “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”  << --- Slate​Get that?  The writer's a "fucking loser" and at the same time what he wrote was 'probably true'.  Considering his subject in the book was Donald Rump, and by writing about Rump the author was serving Rump's interests by publicizing him, yeah perhaps "fucking loser" is accurate.  But so is the quote.

You're welcome.

Oh by the way you'll find a link to the housing discrimination suit on that same page.

>> Trump settled the case two years later without admitting guilt, but as part of the deal he was required to provide the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies for two years. <<​
You'll find that right before the paragraph about the Central Park Five, an accusation he has STILL to this day never backed down from, even after the perpetrator was caught, confessed, and the Five were cleared by DNA evidence.  You know, the same way you have STILL to this day never admitted how you got pawned by a fake blog claiming a political convention took place on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks.  In December.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because Fascist Japan had invaded China- and had massacred Chinese citizens.
> 
> Funny you never mention stuff like that.
> 
> 
> 
> You can justify it anyway you want.  That doesn't alter the fact the FDR and Churchill were deliberately pushing Japan into war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't alter the fact that FDR and Churchill were using sanctions to try to punish Japan for its imperialistic ambitions.
> 
> Do you think that Trump is deliberately trying to push Iran and North Korea into war with the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, you can justify it anyway you want.  The bottom line is that when FDR and Churchill cutoff its oil supply, it had no choice but to use force to get the oil it needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> You know- like we imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea.- apparently leaving them 'no choice' but to go to war.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
> 
> Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
Click to expand...


Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.

Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't. 

North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment, but I definitely wouldn't take their word for it.  Trump has a long history of hiring blacks and helping blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---
> 
> "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
> 
> He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?
> 
> You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Rump already confirmed it.  So oopsie.
> 
> Hey, there's no recording of Democrats holding a political convention on trolley tracks in Wisconsin either but that didn't stop you from starting a thread making that claim, did it?
> 
> What a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post a link of where he confirmed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only will we do that, but first let's post the complete quote:
> 
> "I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza—black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.  Those are the kind of people I want counting my money.  Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy.  And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.  It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."
> 
> >> In an interview in 1999 with _Playboy_, Trump dismissed O’Donnell (the biographer) as a “fucking loser,” but not before conceding “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”  << --- Slate​Get that?  The writer's a "fucking loser" and at the same time what he wrote was 'probably true'.  Considering his subject in the book was Donald Rump, and by writing about Rump the author was serving Rump's interests by publicizing him, yeah perhaps "fucking loser" is accurate.  But so is the quote.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Oh by the way you'll find a link to the housing discrimination suit on that same page.
> 
> >> Trump settled the case two years later without admitting guilt, but as part of the deal he was required to provide the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies for two years. <<​
> You'll find that right before the paragraph about the Central Park Five, an accusation he has STILL to this day never backed down from, even after the perpetrator was caught, confessed, and the Five were cleared by DNA evidence.  You know, the same way you have STILL to this day never admitted how you got pawned by a fake blog claiming a political convention took place on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks.  In December.
Click to expand...


More hearsay.  Post a quote of Trump making that statement or him saying he made it.  I'm not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims he said.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can justify it anyway you want.  That doesn't alter the fact the FDR and Churchill were deliberately pushing Japan into war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't alter the fact that FDR and Churchill were using sanctions to try to punish Japan for its imperialistic ambitions.
> 
> Do you think that Trump is deliberately trying to push Iran and North Korea into war with the United States?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, you can justify it anyway you want.  The bottom line is that when FDR and Churchill cutoff its oil supply, it had no choice but to use force to get the oil it needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> You know- like we imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea.- apparently leaving them 'no choice' but to go to war.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
> 
> Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
Click to expand...


You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't alter the fact that FDR and Churchill were using sanctions to try to punish Japan for its imperialistic ambitions.
> 
> Do you think that Trump is deliberately trying to push Iran and North Korea into war with the United States?
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you can justify it anyway you want.  The bottom line is that when FDR and Churchill cutoff its oil supply, it had no choice but to use force to get the oil it needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> You know- like we imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea.- apparently leaving them 'no choice' but to go to war.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
> 
> Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
Click to expand...


Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.

Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions. 

Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.

And then Japan decided to attack the United States.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once a racist, always a racist....
> Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it
> 
> 
> Politics
> *Inside the government’s racial bias case against Donald Trump’s company, and how he fought it*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Post - fake news.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.
> 
> Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment, but I definitely wouldn't take their word for it.  Trump has a long history of hiring blacks and helping blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---
> 
> "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
> 
> He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?
> 
> You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.
Click to expand...

You just make up any bullshit that comes to your feeble mind rather than face reality you don't like, don'tcha?


----------



## boedicca

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Post - fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.
> 
> Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment, but I definitely wouldn't take their word for it.  Trump has a long history of hiring blacks and helping blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---
> 
> "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
> 
> He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?
> 
> You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just make up any bullshit that comes to your feeble mind rather than face reality you don't like, don'tcha?
Click to expand...



^^^ Runs deep the projection in this one does....yesssssssss ^^^


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---
> 
> "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
> 
> He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?
> 
> You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Rump already confirmed it.  So oopsie.
> 
> Hey, there's no recording of Democrats holding a political convention on trolley tracks in Wisconsin either but that didn't stop you from starting a thread making that claim, did it?
> 
> What a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post a link of where he confirmed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only will we do that, but first let's post the complete quote:
> 
> "I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza—black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.  Those are the kind of people I want counting my money.  Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy.  And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.  It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."
> 
> >> In an interview in 1999 with _Playboy_, Trump dismissed O’Donnell (the biographer) as a “fucking loser,” but not before conceding “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”  << --- Slate​Get that?  The writer's a "fucking loser" and at the same time what he wrote was 'probably true'.  Considering his subject in the book was Donald Rump, and by writing about Rump the author was serving Rump's interests by publicizing him, yeah perhaps "fucking loser" is accurate.  But so is the quote.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Oh by the way you'll find a link to the housing discrimination suit on that same page.
> 
> >> Trump settled the case two years later without admitting guilt, but as part of the deal he was required to provide the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies for two years. <<​
> You'll find that right before the paragraph about the Central Park Five, an accusation he has STILL to this day never backed down from, even after the perpetrator was caught, confessed, and the Five were cleared by DNA evidence.  You know, the same way you have STILL to this day never admitted how you got pawned by a fake blog claiming a political convention took place on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks.  In December.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More hearsay.  Post a quote of Trump making that statement or him saying he made it.  I'm not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims he said.
Click to expand...


Actually I just did that.  See the reference to the Playboy interview above.

I'm not aware of this writer's political positions, or if he even has any, and I'll bet the house you aren't either.  Doesn't matter; the quote has nothing to do with politics, and Rump already confirmed it.

Funny how you're "not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims", and yet when some rightwing hack fake blogger posted a picture of wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and called it a political convention you came in your pants.

Is that what's smeared all over your face?  Picked cherries?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Washington Post - fake news.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.
> 
> Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment, but I definitely wouldn't take their word for it.  Trump has a long history of hiring blacks and helping blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---
> 
> "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
> 
> He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?
> 
> You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just make up any bullshit that comes to your feeble mind rather than face reality you don't like, don'tcha?
Click to expand...


I love the way you leftwing cockroaches believe everyone is supposed to accept your claims at face value.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you can justify it anyway you want.  The bottom line is that when FDR and Churchill cutoff its oil supply, it had no choice but to use force to get the oil it needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> You know- like we imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea.- apparently leaving them 'no choice' but to go to war.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
> 
> Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
Click to expand...


A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like your dear leader- you just ignore the facts when they aren't what you like.
> 
> Donald Trump-  refused to rent to African Americans and Puerto Ricans- sued by the Justice Department- settled with a promise to not discriminate in the future.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment, but I definitely wouldn't take their word for it.  Trump has a long history of hiring blacks and helping blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---
> 
> "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
> 
> He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?
> 
> You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just make up any bullshit that comes to your feeble mind rather than face reality you don't like, don'tcha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the way you leftwing cockroaches believe everyone is supposed to accept your claims at face value.
Click to expand...

Pisses the forum imbecile who actualled started a thread based on a photo you idiotically claimed was from a KKK march at *Madison* Square Garden when it really from *Madison*, Wisconsin.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> You know- like we imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea.- apparently leaving them 'no choice' but to go to war.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
> 
> Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
Click to expand...

So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Rump already confirmed it.  So oopsie.
> 
> Hey, there's no recording of Democrats holding a political convention on trolley tracks in Wisconsin either but that didn't stop you from starting a thread making that claim, did it?
> 
> What a moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please post a link of where he confirmed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only will we do that, but first let's post the complete quote:
> 
> "I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza—black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.  Those are the kind of people I want counting my money.  Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy.  And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.  It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."
> 
> >> In an interview in 1999 with _Playboy_, Trump dismissed O’Donnell (the biographer) as a “fucking loser,” but not before conceding “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”  << --- Slate​Get that?  The writer's a "fucking loser" and at the same time what he wrote was 'probably true'.  Considering his subject in the book was Donald Rump, and by writing about Rump the author was serving Rump's interests by publicizing him, yeah perhaps "fucking loser" is accurate.  But so is the quote.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Oh by the way you'll find a link to the housing discrimination suit on that same page.
> 
> >> Trump settled the case two years later without admitting guilt, but as part of the deal he was required to provide the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies for two years. <<​
> You'll find that right before the paragraph about the Central Park Five, an accusation he has STILL to this day never backed down from, even after the perpetrator was caught, confessed, and the Five were cleared by DNA evidence.  You know, the same way you have STILL to this day never admitted how you got pawned by a fake blog claiming a political convention took place on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks.  In December.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More hearsay.  Post a quote of Trump making that statement or him saying he made it.  I'm not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I just did that.  See the reference to the Playboy interview above.
> 
> I'm not aware of this writer's political positions, or if he even has any, and I'll bet the house you aren't either.  Doesn't matter; the quote has nothing to do with politics, and Rump already confirmed it.
> 
> Funny how you're "not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims", and yet when some rightwing hack fake blogger posted a picture of wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and called it a political convention you came in your pants.
> 
> Is that what's smeared all over your face?  Picked cherries?
Click to expand...


When you click on the link to the playboy interview you get a "404 error," so no you didn't.  Furthermore "stuff" is meaningless.  What "stuff" is he referring to?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So says the Post - a notorious fake news outlet.  I don't know enough about the details to comment, but I definitely wouldn't take their word for it.  Trump has a long history of hiring blacks and helping blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---
> 
> "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
> 
> He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?
> 
> You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just make up any bullshit that comes to your feeble mind rather than face reality you don't like, don'tcha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the way you leftwing cockroaches believe everyone is supposed to accept your claims at face value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pisses the forum imbecile who actualled started a thread based on a photo you idiotically claimed was from a KKK march at *Madison* Square Garden when it really from *Madison*, Wisconsin.
Click to expand...


Are you still trying to drag that up?  That seems to be your _modus operandi_:   beat a dead horse until it's a thin paste.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> You know- like we imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea.- apparently leaving them 'no choice' but to go to war.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
> 
> Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
Click to expand...


A bogus blogger gives you a clear choice of believing a political convention takes place on trolley tracks in Wisconsin, or vetting his bullshit.  That's the kind of "choice" your OP article handed you.  That's called "pawnage".  The fact that you don't have a problem starting a thread based on easily debunked bullshit shows that you're a moron.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
> 
> Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.
Click to expand...


You're the one who has been defending Joseph Stalin, cockroach.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
> 
> Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A bogus blogger gives you a clear choice of believing a political convention takes place on trolley tracks in Wisconsin, or vetting his bullshit.  That's the kind of "choice" your OP article handed you.  That's called "pawnage".  The fact that you don't have a problem starting a thread based on easily debunked bullshit shows that you're a moron.
Click to expand...


<YAWN!>


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Rump already confirmed it.  So oopsie.
> 
> Hey, there's no recording of Democrats holding a political convention on trolley tracks in Wisconsin either but that didn't stop you from starting a thread making that claim, did it?
> 
> What a moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Please post a link of where he confirmed it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not only will we do that, but first let's post the complete quote:
> 
> "I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza—black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.  Those are the kind of people I want counting my money.  Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy.  And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.  It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."
> 
> >> In an interview in 1999 with _Playboy_, Trump dismissed O’Donnell (the biographer) as a “fucking loser,” but not before conceding “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”  << --- Slate​Get that?  The writer's a "fucking loser" and at the same time what he wrote was 'probably true'.  Considering his subject in the book was Donald Rump, and by writing about Rump the author was serving Rump's interests by publicizing him, yeah perhaps "fucking loser" is accurate.  But so is the quote.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Oh by the way you'll find a link to the housing discrimination suit on that same page.
> 
> >> Trump settled the case two years later without admitting guilt, but as part of the deal he was required to provide the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies for two years. <<​
> You'll find that right before the paragraph about the Central Park Five, an accusation he has STILL to this day never backed down from, even after the perpetrator was caught, confessed, and the Five were cleared by DNA evidence.  You know, the same way you have STILL to this day never admitted how you got pawned by a fake blog claiming a political convention took place on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks.  In December.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More hearsay.  Post a quote of Trump making that statement or him saying he made it.  I'm not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I just did that.  See the reference to the Playboy interview above.
> 
> I'm not aware of this writer's political positions, or if he even has any, and I'll bet the house you aren't either.  Doesn't matter; the quote has nothing to do with politics, and Rump already confirmed it.
> 
> Funny how you're "not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims", and yet when some rightwing hack fake blogger posted a picture of wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and called it a political convention you came in your pants.
> 
> Is that what's smeared all over your face?  Picked cherries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you click on the link to the playboy interview you get a "404 error," so no you didn't.  Furthermore "stuff" is meaningless.  What "stuff" is he referring to?
Click to expand...


That's Slate's bad link.  If you knew how to use the internets you could have found the original, here.

Then again if you knew how to use the internets you wouldn't be in the position of trying to tell readers that the 1924 Democratic convention took place on some trolley tracks in Wisconsin a month after the election had already happened, now would you?

Say, remind us again why "Liberals aren't liking" that 93-year-old photo?   I forget.  Oh wait, you never explained it.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please post a link of where he confirmed it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not only will we do that, but first let's post the complete quote:
> 
> "I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza—black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.  Those are the kind of people I want counting my money.  Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy.  And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.  It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."
> 
> >> In an interview in 1999 with _Playboy_, Trump dismissed O’Donnell (the biographer) as a “fucking loser,” but not before conceding “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”  << --- Slate​Get that?  The writer's a "fucking loser" and at the same time what he wrote was 'probably true'.  Considering his subject in the book was Donald Rump, and by writing about Rump the author was serving Rump's interests by publicizing him, yeah perhaps "fucking loser" is accurate.  But so is the quote.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Oh by the way you'll find a link to the housing discrimination suit on that same page.
> 
> >> Trump settled the case two years later without admitting guilt, but as part of the deal he was required to provide the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies for two years. <<​
> You'll find that right before the paragraph about the Central Park Five, an accusation he has STILL to this day never backed down from, even after the perpetrator was caught, confessed, and the Five were cleared by DNA evidence.  You know, the same way you have STILL to this day never admitted how you got pawned by a fake blog claiming a political convention took place on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks.  In December.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> More hearsay.  Post a quote of Trump making that statement or him saying he made it.  I'm not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I just did that.  See the reference to the Playboy interview above.
> 
> I'm not aware of this writer's political positions, or if he even has any, and I'll bet the house you aren't either.  Doesn't matter; the quote has nothing to do with politics, and Rump already confirmed it.
> 
> Funny how you're "not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims", and yet when some rightwing hack fake blogger posted a picture of wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and called it a political convention you came in your pants.
> 
> Is that what's smeared all over your face?  Picked cherries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you click on the link to the playboy interview you get a "404 error," so no you didn't.  Furthermore "stuff" is meaningless.  What "stuff" is he referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's Slate's bad link.  If you knew how to use the internets you could have found the original, here.
> 
> Then again if you knew how to use the internets you wouldn't be in the position of trying to tell readers that the 1924 Democratic convention took place on some trolley tracks in Wisconsin a month after the election had already happened, now would you?
> 
> Say, remind us again why "Liberals aren't liking" that 93-year-old photo?   I forget.  Oh wait, you never explained it.
Click to expand...

There's still no specific reference to the statement about hating black guys counting his money.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got yer "history" right here Fingerboy ---
> 
> "Black guys counting my money --- I hate it!  The only guys I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day".
> 
> He said that watching his casino operation.  From the trolley tracks at Madison Square Garden.
> 
> You remember the casinos?  The ones that an economic expert predicted would go belly-up, and Rump got him fired for saying it, and then they went belly-up?
> 
> You think that was because black guys were counting his money?  Or just not enough yarmulkes to go around?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's hearsay by someone trying to sell a book.   There's no video or recording of him saying that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You just make up any bullshit that comes to your feeble mind rather than face reality you don't like, don'tcha?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love the way you leftwing cockroaches believe everyone is supposed to accept your claims at face value.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Pisses the forum imbecile who actualled started a thread based on a photo you idiotically claimed was from a KKK march at *Madison* Square Garden when it really from *Madison*, Wisconsin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you still trying to drag that up?  That seems to be your _modus operandi_:   beat a dead horse until it's a thin paste.
Click to expand...

What do you expect when you post such bullshit while projecting it's others who are?


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who has been defending Joseph Stalin, cockroach.
Click to expand...

Quote me defending Stalin or once again demonstrate for the forum how you just make up whatever comes to your feeble mind....


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not only will we do that, but first let's post the complete quote:
> 
> "I’ve got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza—black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day.  Those are the kind of people I want counting my money.  Nobody else. . . . Besides that, I’ve got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy.  And it’s probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks.  It really is; I believe that. It’s not anything they can control."
> 
> >> In an interview in 1999 with _Playboy_, Trump dismissed O’Donnell (the biographer) as a “fucking loser,” but not before conceding “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”  << --- Slate​Get that?  The writer's a "fucking loser" and at the same time what he wrote was 'probably true'.  Considering his subject in the book was Donald Rump, and by writing about Rump the author was serving Rump's interests by publicizing him, yeah perhaps "fucking loser" is accurate.  But so is the quote.
> 
> You're welcome.
> 
> Oh by the way you'll find a link to the housing discrimination suit on that same page.
> 
> >> Trump settled the case two years later without admitting guilt, but as part of the deal he was required to provide the New York Urban League with a weekly list of all apartment vacancies for two years. <<​
> You'll find that right before the paragraph about the Central Park Five, an accusation he has STILL to this day never backed down from, even after the perpetrator was caught, confessed, and the Five were cleared by DNA evidence.  You know, the same way you have STILL to this day never admitted how you got pawned by a fake blog claiming a political convention took place on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks.  In December.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> More hearsay.  Post a quote of Trump making that statement or him saying he made it.  I'm not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims he said.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I just did that.  See the reference to the Playboy interview above.
> 
> I'm not aware of this writer's political positions, or if he even has any, and I'll bet the house you aren't either.  Doesn't matter; the quote has nothing to do with politics, and Rump already confirmed it.
> 
> Funny how you're "not interested in anything some leftwing hack claims", and yet when some rightwing hack fake blogger posted a picture of wet Wisconsin trolley tracks and called it a political convention you came in your pants.
> 
> Is that what's smeared all over your face?  Picked cherries?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When you click on the link to the playboy interview you get a "404 error," so no you didn't.  Furthermore "stuff" is meaningless.  What "stuff" is he referring to?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's Slate's bad link.  If you knew how to use the internets you could have found the original, here.
> 
> Then again if you knew how to use the internets you wouldn't be in the position of trying to tell readers that the 1924 Democratic convention took place on some trolley tracks in Wisconsin a month after the election had already happened, now would you?
> 
> Say, remind us again why "Liberals aren't liking" that 93-year-old photo?   I forget.  Oh wait, you never explained it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There's still no specific reference to the statement about hating black guys counting his money.
Click to expand...


So you're going to sit here and deny the quote sitting right here on this page is sitting right here on this page.  Just as you posted this bullshit blog about a set of Wisconsin trolley tracks, got busted on it, and still can't man up to it.

You're a lying hack and a complete waste of time and dismissed.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> You know- like we imposed sanctions on Iran and North Korea.- apparently leaving them 'no choice' but to go to war.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
> 
> Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
Click to expand...


No- you just keep demonstrating what an Axis fan boy you are.

Using your own example

A man is raping a woman- another man sees this and pulls a gun on the rapist and says "I will shoot you if you don't stop raping that woman' - the rapist continues to rape and gets shot.

You would of course- claim that the man who shot the rapist was a murderer.

Japan of course being the rapist- the rapist of China and Vietnam- and the United States being the one trying to stop the rape.

But clearly the rape of Vietnam and China doesn't bother you- the only thing that bothers you is that the United States tried to stop the rape.


----------



## Syriusly

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
> 
> Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.
Click to expand...


Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'

No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the one who has been defending Joseph Stalin, cockroach.
Click to expand...


Prove it- show how he has once supported Stalin in any post.

Meanwhile- you have been the one claiming that Germany never attacked the United States- and that the United States 'force' Japan to attack us.

Why are you defending Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan?


----------



## Faun

Syriusly said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
> 
> No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
> View attachment 147048
Click to expand...

And their "solution" to eliminate the diversity they perceive as a threat is to rid the U.S. of all Jews, blacks, and other assorted minorities. Not too different than Nazi Germany's solution before they transitioned to their "final solution." When they hear, _"make America great again,"_ their pea brains translates that into, _"make Amerikkka White again."_ Which is why the alt-right flocks to Trump,

That's the message Nazi-boi agrees with by agreeing with that banner.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, Churchill and FDR pushed them into going to war.
> 
> Sanctions are one thing, but entirely cutting off a nations oil supply is another.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- you just keep demonstrating what an Axis fan boy you are.
> 
> Using your own example
> 
> A man is raping a woman- another man sees this and pulls a gun on the rapist and says "I will shoot you if you don't stop raping that woman' - the rapist continues to rape and gets shot.
> 
> You would of course- claim that the man who shot the rapist was a murderer.
> 
> Japan of course being the rapist- the rapist of China and Vietnam- and the United States being the one trying to stop the rape.
> 
> But clearly the rape of Vietnam and China doesn't bother you- the only thing that bothers you is that the United States tried to stop the rape.
Click to expand...

You're equating a crime with relations between countries.   Dropping depth charges on another nation's ships is an act of war.  You're desperately trying to pretend that it's not.  Germany never initiated any attack any American vessel prior to Dec 7 1941.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
> 
> No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
> View attachment 147048
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And their "solution" to eliminate the diversity they perceive as a threat is to rid the U.S. of all Jews, blacks, and other assorted minorities. Not too different than Nazi Germany's solution before they transitioned to their "final solution." When they hear, _"make America great again,"_ their pea brains translates that into, _"make Amerikkka White again."_ Which is why the alt-right flocks to Trump,
> 
> That's the message Nazi-boi agrees with by agreeing with that banner.
Click to expand...


No one is talking about ridding this country of anyone except the left, which is proposing to rid it of white people.  What they are proposing is to quit importing foreign cultures that are alien to our culture and our values.  We've had our fill of that.  The claim that somehow we benefit from "diversity" is obvious hogwash.  The example of Japan is sufficient proof of that.  

So what is your new justification for white genocide?


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
> 
> No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
> View attachment 147048
Click to expand...


The people who engineered us into a war with Germany and Japan are Stalinists.  The people who actually did the fighting were just dupes and victims.  

Even leftists agree with the banner in the photo.  The difference is that they think white genocide is a good thing, and they gloat about it.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- you just keep demonstrating what an Axis fan boy you are.
> 
> Using your own example
> 
> A man is raping a woman- another man sees this and pulls a gun on the rapist and says "I will shoot you if you don't stop raping that woman' - the rapist continues to rape and gets shot.
> 
> You would of course- claim that the man who shot the rapist was a murderer.
> 
> Japan of course being the rapist- the rapist of China and Vietnam- and the United States being the one trying to stop the rape.
> 
> But clearly the rape of Vietnam and China doesn't bother you- the only thing that bothers you is that the United States tried to stop the rape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're equating a crime with relations between countries.   Dropping depth charges on another nation's ships is an act of war.  You're desperately trying to pretend that it's not.  Germany never initiated any attack any American vessel prior to Dec 7 1941.
Click to expand...

Like I said earlier, you'll make up any shit just to support your anti-American bullshit.

Nazi traitor...


At 0840 that morning, Greer, carrying mail and passengers to Iceland, “was informed by a British plane of the presence of a submerged submarine about 10 miles [(16 km)] directly ahead. . . . Acting on the information from the British plane the Greer proceeded to search for the submarine and at 0920 she located the submarine directly ahead by her underwater sound equipment.

The Greer proceeded then to trail the submarine and broadcasted the submarine’s position. This action, taken by the Greer, was in accordance with her orders, that is, to give out information but not to attack.” The British plane continued in the vicinity of the submarine until 1032, but prior to her departure the plane dropped four depth charges in the vicinity of the submarine. The Greer maintained [its] contact until about 1248. During this period (three hours 28 minutes),the Greer maneuvered so as to keep the submarine ahead.

At 1240 the submarine changed course and closed the Greer. *At 1245 an impulse bubble (indicating the discharge of a torpedo by the submarine) was sighted close aboard the Greer. At 1249 a torpedo track was sighted crossing the wake of the ship from starboard to port, distant about 100 yards [(100 m)] astern.* At this time the Greer lost sound contact with the submarine.

At 1300 the Greer started searching for the submarine and at 1512 . . . the Greer made underwater contact with a submarine. The Greer attacked immediately with depth charges.

World War II - Today​


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
> 
> No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
> View attachment 147048
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And their "solution" to eliminate the diversity they perceive as a threat is to rid the U.S. of all Jews, blacks, and other assorted minorities. Not too different than Nazi Germany's solution before they transitioned to their "final solution." When they hear, _"make America great again,"_ their pea brains translates that into, _"make Amerikkka White again."_ Which is why the alt-right flocks to Trump,
> 
> That's the message Nazi-boi agrees with by agreeing with that banner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about ridding this country of anyone except the left, which is proposing to rid it of white people.  What they are proposing is to quit importing foreign cultures that are alien to our culture and our values.  We've had our fill of that.  The claim that somehow we benefit from "diversity" is obvious hogwash.  The example of Japan is sufficient proof of that.
> 
> So what is your new justification for white genocide?
Click to expand...

^^^ more deranged bullshit.

Meanwhile, traitor...

At the 0:57 mark in the video near the top of the article...

Washington Post

_"I'm here because our Republican values are ... number one, standing up for local white identity. Our identity's under threat. Number two, the free market. *And number three, killing Jews."* ~ Sean Patrick Nielsen, White Nationalist._


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- you just keep demonstrating what an Axis fan boy you are.
> 
> Using your own example
> 
> A man is raping a woman- another man sees this and pulls a gun on the rapist and says "I will shoot you if you don't stop raping that woman' - the rapist continues to rape and gets shot.
> 
> You would of course- claim that the man who shot the rapist was a murderer.
> 
> Japan of course being the rapist- the rapist of China and Vietnam- and the United States being the one trying to stop the rape.
> 
> But clearly the rape of Vietnam and China doesn't bother you- the only thing that bothers you is that the United States tried to stop the rape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're equating a crime with relations between countries. .
Click to expand...


Hmmmmm yeah....because that was what you did- I was using the same technique to put it in terms you seemed to be thinking in.
_
A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan._

God you are an idiot.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually Japan had a simple choice- offered to them by FDR and Churchill- stop their war in China and do not face sanctions.
> 
> Sanctions are sanctions- either they are legal or they aren't.
> 
> North Korea can end the sanctions when they stop their nuclear weapon development.
> Japan could stop the sanctions by stopping its war in China- and Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- you just keep demonstrating what an Axis fan boy you are.
> 
> Using your own example
> 
> A man is raping a woman- another man sees this and pulls a gun on the rapist and says "I will shoot you if you don't stop raping that woman' - the rapist continues to rape and gets shot.
> 
> You would of course- claim that the man who shot the rapist was a murderer.
> 
> Japan of course being the rapist- the rapist of China and Vietnam- and the United States being the one trying to stop the rape.
> 
> But clearly the rape of Vietnam and China doesn't bother you- the only thing that bothers you is that the United States tried to stop the rape.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Germany never initiated any attack any American vessel prior to Dec 7 1941.
Click to expand...


Fascinating how I point out that Japan was raping China and Vietnam- and you want to talk about the Nazi's?

Why would Germany have 'initiated' attacks on American vessels before Germany declared war on the United States? 

Remember- Germany declared war on the United States first- and then the United States declared war on Germany.

_Admiral Karl Donitz, the capable commander of Hitler’s U-boat fleet, began planning the attacks along the eastern seaboard as soon as Germany declared war on the United States in December 1941. He called it Operation Paukenschlag, or Drumbeat.


Donitz thought the U.S. military was ill-prepared and unequipped to fight the well-trained U-boat fleet. He was right._


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
> 
> No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
> View attachment 147048
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And their "solution" to eliminate the diversity they perceive as a threat is to rid the U.S. of all Jews, blacks, and other assorted minorities. Not too different than Nazi Germany's solution before they transitioned to their "final solution." When they hear, _"make America great again,"_ their pea brains translates that into, _"make Amerikkka White again."_ Which is why the alt-right flocks to Trump,
> 
> That's the message Nazi-boi agrees with by agreeing with that banner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one is talking about ridding this country of anyone except the left, which is proposing to rid it of white people.  What they are proposing is to quit importing foreign cultures that are alien to our culture and our values.  We've had our fill of that.  The claim that somehow we benefit from "diversity" is obvious hogwash.  The example of Japan is sufficient proof of that.
> 
> So what is your new justification for white genocide?
Click to expand...


What 'white genocide'?

Seriously- tell me of this mass murder of whites that is occurring in the United States....


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
> 
> No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
> View attachment 147048
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people who engineered us into a war with Germany and Japan are Stalinists..
Click to expand...


Not a shock that the white supremacist is a Axis Fanboy.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're repeating yourself, and you aren't denying what I said.  Discussion with you invariably devolve to this stage quite rapidly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay let me make this clear- I am denying what you said.
> 
> Japan had a clear choice- stop its war in China and Vietnam or face sanctions.
> 
> Japan chose not to stop its war in China and Vietnam- and because of that had sanctions put in place.
> 
> And then Japan decided to attack the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A mugger gives you a clear choice of handing over your wallet or taking a bullet in the chest.  That's the kind of "choice" FDR and Churchill imposed on Japan.  That's called "force."  The fact that you don't have a problem with it shows that you're a Stalinist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So nice to see you stick up for our enemies (at that time) over America.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly to Brip- anyone who fought against Nazi Germany or Fascist Imperial Japan is a 'Stalinist'
> 
> No shock to anyone that he agrees with the banner waved by the white supremacists- is it?
> View attachment 147048
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Even leftists agree with the banner in the photo.  .
Click to expand...


Nobody but a few of your inbred red-neck family members agree with that banner.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Democrats opposed:*
> 
> 1.                *The Emancipation  Proclamation*
> 
> 2.              *The  13th Amendment*
> 
> 3.              *The  14th Amendment*
> 
> 4.              *The  15th Amendment*
> 
> 5.              *The Reconstruction Act of  1867*
> 
> 6.              *The Civil Rights of  1866*
> 
> 7.              *The Enforcement  Act of 1870*
> 
> 8.              *The Forced Act of  1871*
> 
> 9.              *The Ku Klux Klan  Act of 1871*
> 
> 10.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1875*
> 
> 11.              *The Freeman  Bureau*
> 
> 12.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1957*
> 
> 13.            *The Civil Rights  Act of 1960*
> 
> 14.            *The  United State Civil Rights Commission
> The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.*
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
Click to expand...




NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...


"But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.

The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
Click to expand...

LOLOL

An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...

_Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...

_During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.


----------



## 2aguy

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
Click to expand...



And if only it stopped there......but when you actually look into it....twit.....you have this....

Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?

*She Changed Her Story:*


In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did _not_ assault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she _was_ raped. Eventually, Broaddrick described the rape for several major news organizations.



*Clinton Is Innocent*: Broaddrick is either a liar or has an unreliable memory.

*Clinton Is Guilty*:* Broaddrick's initial denials indicate only that she shunned publicity. That's why she never reported the rape; rebuffed advances from Clinton's political enemies who, in 1992, urged her to go public; and lied to Paula Jones' lawyers. She eventually told the FBI the truth in 1998 only because her son--a lawyer--advised her against lying to federal investigators. (At the time, it was reasonable to suspect she'd be hauled before a grand jury.)* 

She granted media interviews only after her name was released by Paula Jones' lawyers, and after tabloids printed wildly untrue stories about her. Given her aversion to politics and celebrity, Broaddrick would seem to have little or nothing to gain by falsely accusing Clinton of rape. Clinton, on the other hand, has plenty to gain from falsely denying her charges.



*She Told Friends:*

*Five people say Broaddrick told them about the rape immediately after it occurred. *A friend and co-worker named Norma Kelsey says that, 21 years ago, she found a dazed Broaddrick with bloodied lip and torn pantyhose in their shared hotel room and Broaddrick explained that Clinton had just raped her. (Clinton is supposed to have bitten her on the lip just before raping her.) Her current husband--then her lover--says Broaddrick told him about the rape within a few days of the event. Broaddrick was, at the time, married to another man, whom she didn't tell about the assault. And three of Broaddrick's friends--one of whom is Kelsey's sister--say she told them about the rape shortly after it supposedly occurred.



*Clinton Is Innocent:* The friends' testimony isn't trustworthy. Kelsey and her sister have a grudge against Clinton because, as governor, he commuted the life sentence of the man who murdered their father. Broaddrick's current husband might lie on her behalf. Moreover, even if the friends are telling the truth, Broaddrick might have been lying 21 years ago. There is limited evidence that her first husband was abusive, so maybe she cooked up the story to explain a bloody lip _he_ had given her. And if she _was_raped, why didn't she tell her own husband?

*Clinton Is Guilty:* If five friends say her story hasn't changed over 21 years, we can conclude that either that she's an unusually consistent liar or that her memory is reliable.


----------



## 2aguy

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
Click to expand...



You mean, except for these women in particular.....and who knows how many others....

Clinton s list of ignored accusers - Illinois Review



Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman,* said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969.* In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.

Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.

Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. *I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.*

Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual.* Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.*


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...?
Click to expand...


LOL- the usual GOP echo chamber chimes in.


----------



## Faun

2aguy said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> And if only it stopped there......but when you actually look into it....twit.....you have this....
> 
> Is Juanita Broaddrick Telling the Truth?
> 
> *She Changed Her Story:*
> 
> 
> In 1997, Broaddrick filed an affadavit with Paula Jones' lawyers saying Clinton did _not_ assault her. In 1998, Broaddrick told Kenneth Starr's FBI investigators that she _was_ raped. Eventually, Broaddrick described the rape for several major news organizations.
> 
> 
> 
> *Clinton Is Innocent*: Broaddrick is either a liar or has an unreliable memory.
> 
> *Clinton Is Guilty*:* Broaddrick's initial denials indicate only that she shunned publicity. That's why she never reported the rape; rebuffed advances from Clinton's political enemies who, in 1992, urged her to go public; and lied to Paula Jones' lawyers. She eventually told the FBI the truth in 1998 only because her son--a lawyer--advised her against lying to federal investigators. (At the time, it was reasonable to suspect she'd be hauled before a grand jury.)*
> 
> She granted media interviews only after her name was released by Paula Jones' lawyers, and after tabloids printed wildly untrue stories about her. Given her aversion to politics and celebrity, Broaddrick would seem to have little or nothing to gain by falsely accusing Clinton of rape. Clinton, on the other hand, has plenty to gain from falsely denying her charges.
> 
> 
> 
> *She Told Friends:*
> 
> *Five people say Broaddrick told them about the rape immediately after it occurred. *A friend and co-worker named Norma Kelsey says that, 21 years ago, she found a dazed Broaddrick with bloodied lip and torn pantyhose in their shared hotel room and Broaddrick explained that Clinton had just raped her. (Clinton is supposed to have bitten her on the lip just before raping her.) Her current husband--then her lover--says Broaddrick told him about the rape within a few days of the event. Broaddrick was, at the time, married to another man, whom she didn't tell about the assault. And three of Broaddrick's friends--one of whom is Kelsey's sister--say she told them about the rape shortly after it supposedly occurred.
> 
> 
> 
> *Clinton Is Innocent:* The friends' testimony isn't trustworthy. Kelsey and her sister have a grudge against Clinton because, as governor, he commuted the life sentence of the man who murdered their father. Broaddrick's current husband might lie on her behalf. Moreover, even if the friends are telling the truth, Broaddrick might have been lying 21 years ago. There is limited evidence that her first husband was abusive, so maybe she cooked up the story to explain a bloody lip _he_ had given her. And if she _was_raped, why didn't she tell her own husband?
> 
> *Clinton Is Guilty:* If five friends say her story hasn't changed over 21 years, we can conclude that either that she's an unusually consistent liar or that her memory is reliable.
Click to expand...

She swore under oath he didn’t. If you choose to believe someone who’s says she lied under oath but is now telling the truth, that is on you.


----------



## Faun

2aguy said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean, except for these women in particular.....and who knows how many others....
> 
> Clinton s list of ignored accusers - Illinois Review
> 
> 
> 
> Eileen Wellstone, a 19-year-old English woman,* said Clinton sexually assaulted her after she met him at a pub near the Oxford where Clinton was a student in 1969.* In fact, Clinton was expelled from Oxford and earned no degree there.
> 
> Juanita Broaddrick, a volunteer in Clinton’s gubernatorial campaign, said he raped her in 1978. Mrs. Broaddrick suffered a bruised and torn lip, which she said she suffered when Clinton bit her during the rape. Broaddrick gave a stunning interview to NBC’s Lisa Myers about the assault.
> 
> Carolyn Moffet, a legal secretary in Little Rock in 1979, said she met Gov. Clinton at a political fundraiser and was invited to his hotel room. “When I went in, he was sitting on a couch, wearing only an undershirt. He pointed at his penis and told me to suck it. *I told him I didn’t even do that for my boyfriend and he got mad, grabbed my head and shoved it into his lap. I pulled away from him and ran out of the room,” she said.*
> 
> Elizabeth Ward Gracen, the Miss Arkansas who won the Miss America crown in 1982, told friends she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him shortly after she won her state title. Gracen later told an interviewer that sex with Clinton was consensual.* Her roommate Judy Stokes has said the ex-Miss Arkansas told her she was raped after the incident.*
Click to expand...

Wellstone accused Clinton of sexual assault, not rape. And there’s no evidence Oxford expelled him over it or even expelled him at all. Even worse for your delusions, Oxford gave Clinton an honorary degree— not something they would ever do for a student they previously expelled for raping another student.

Graven never accused Clinton of rape. Others made up that claim which Gracen has always denied, claiming she had consensual sex with him.

Before flip flipping on her claim of being rape, Broaddrick denied Clinton had and dismissed such claims as “unfounded rumors.”

... and the brain-dead right hangs their collective hat on ^^^ that ^^^ as evidence that Bill Clinton is a rapist.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
Click to expand...



I quoted the house organ for Liberalism, Inc.....the NYSlimes.

Your post is simply one more example of the fact that the least intelligent are Liberal acolytes....many of whom....you.....cannot keep up with the alterations in the propaganda.


We have learned from the Times and from your post...

a. The Left now admits what we on the Right always said about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton

and

b. you are a low-life moron.


Any questions?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- the usual GOP echo chamber chimes in.
Click to expand...



The NYTimes is a GOP echo chamber???


Gads, you're an imbecile.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the house organ for Liberalism, Inc.....the NYSlimes.
> 
> Your post is simply one more example of the fact that the least intelligent are Liberal acolytes....many of whom....you.....cannot keep up with the alterations in the propaganda.
> 
> 
> We have learned from the Times and from your post...
> 
> a. The Left now admits what we on the Right always said about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton
> 
> and
> 
> b. you are a low-life moron.
> 
> 
> Any questions?
Click to expand...

Liar, you did not quote The NY Times... you quoted an opinion piece on The NY Times. So that’s not an opinion of “the left” as you falsely claim.

So yeah, here’s a question for ya... do you ever stop lying?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> 
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the house organ for Liberalism, Inc.....the NYSlimes.
> 
> Your post is simply one more example of the fact that the least intelligent are Liberal acolytes....many of whom....you.....cannot keep up with the alterations in the propaganda.
> 
> 
> We have learned from the Times and from your post...
> 
> a. The Left now admits what we on the Right always said about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton
> 
> and
> 
> b. you are a low-life moron.
> 
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, you did not quote The NY Times... you quoted an opinion piece on The NY Times. So that’s not an opinion of “the left” as you falsely claim.
> 
> So yeah, here’s a question for ya... do you ever stop lying?
Click to expand...




I certainly hit a nerve, using the NYTimes to pull the rug out from under all of your rapist-defenders.

Really hurts to have your own house organ smash the custard pie in your kisser.

Excellent.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the house organ for Liberalism, Inc.....the NYSlimes.
> 
> Your post is simply one more example of the fact that the least intelligent are Liberal acolytes....many of whom....you.....cannot keep up with the alterations in the propaganda.
> 
> 
> We have learned from the Times and from your post...
> 
> a. The Left now admits what we on the Right always said about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton
> 
> and
> 
> b. you are a low-life moron.
> 
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, you did not quote The NY Times... you quoted an opinion piece on The NY Times. So that’s not an opinion of “the left” as you falsely claim.
> 
> So yeah, here’s a question for ya... do you ever stop lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly hit a nerve, using the NYTimes to pull the rug out from under all of your rapist-defenders.
> 
> Really hurts to have your own house organ smash the custard pie in your kisser.
> 
> Excellent.
Click to expand...

Moron....

You quoted an op/ed by the author of, _“Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream,”_ and then idiotically claimed  that’s the left admitting the right was correct about Clinton.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the house organ for Liberalism, Inc.....the NYSlimes.
> 
> Your post is simply one more example of the fact that the least intelligent are Liberal acolytes....many of whom....you.....cannot keep up with the alterations in the propaganda.
> 
> 
> We have learned from the Times and from your post...
> 
> a. The Left now admits what we on the Right always said about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton
> 
> and
> 
> b. you are a low-life moron.
> 
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, you did not quote The NY Times... you quoted an opinion piece on The NY Times. So that’s not an opinion of “the left” as you falsely claim.
> 
> So yeah, here’s a question for ya... do you ever stop lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly hit a nerve, using the NYTimes to pull the rug out from under all of your rapist-defenders.
> 
> Really hurts to have your own house organ smash the custard pie in your kisser.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron....
> 
> You quoted an op/ed by the author of, _“Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream,”_ and then idiotically claimed  that’s the left admitting the right was correct about Clinton.
Click to expand...



Again?


From the NYTimes:

*The Democrats.....
"...turning their party into an accessory to Clinton’s appetites, shamelessly abandoning feminist principle, smearing victims and blithely ignoring his most credible accuser,..."


Exactly what we on the Right have said all along.*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Faun said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
Click to expand...




"With all the scandals in the news, liberals are turning on President Clinton. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes reckons that the “center left” is “overdue for a real reckoning” with Mr. Clinton. The Times’ Michelle Goldberg says, “I believe Juanita,” a reference to Mrs. Broaddrick, who in the late 1990s alleged that in 1978, Mr. Clinton, then Arkansas’ attorney-general, raped her at a hotel. Mr. Clinton has long denied the charge. Chelsea Handler tweets an apology to Mrs. Broaddrick. Ross Douthat, referring to the special prosecutor who turned Mr. Clinton over to Congress for impeachment for perjury and obstruction, asks, “What if Ken Starr was right?”

Juanitas News - The New York Sun


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrats have never changed....*champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.
> 
> 
> Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....
> *
> "The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.
> 
> ....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
> From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- the usual GOP echo chamber chimes in.
Click to expand...


"With all the scandals in the news, liberals are turning on President Clinton. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes reckons that the “center left” is “overdue for a real reckoning” with Mr. Clinton. The Times’ Michelle Goldberg says, “I believe Juanita,” a reference to Mrs. Broaddrick, who in the late 1990s alleged that in 1978, Mr. Clinton, then Arkansas’ attorney-general, raped her at a hotel. Mr. Clinton has long denied the charge. Chelsea Handler tweets an apology to Mrs. Broaddrick. Ross Douthat, referring to the special prosecutor who turned Mr. Clinton over to Congress for impeachment for perjury and obstruction, asks, “What if Ken Starr was right?”

Juanitas News - The New York Sun


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the house organ for Liberalism, Inc.....the NYSlimes.
> 
> Your post is simply one more example of the fact that the least intelligent are Liberal acolytes....many of whom....you.....cannot keep up with the alterations in the propaganda.
> 
> 
> We have learned from the Times and from your post...
> 
> a. The Left now admits what we on the Right always said about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton
> 
> and
> 
> b. you are a low-life moron.
> 
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, you did not quote The NY Times... you quoted an opinion piece on The NY Times. So that’s not an opinion of “the left” as you falsely claim.
> 
> So yeah, here’s a question for ya... do you ever stop lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly hit a nerve, using the NYTimes to pull the rug out from under all of your rapist-defenders.
> 
> Really hurts to have your own house organ smash the custard pie in your kisser.
> 
> Excellent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron....
> 
> You quoted an op/ed by the author of, _“Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream,”_ and then idiotically claimed  that’s the left admitting the right was correct about Clinton.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Again?
> 
> 
> From the NYTimes:
> 
> *The Democrats.....
> "...turning their party into an accessory to Clinton’s appetites, shamelessly abandoning feminist principle, smearing victims and blithely ignoring his most credible accuser,..."
> 
> 
> Exactly what we on the Right have said all along.*
Click to expand...

You’re fucking deranged. 

You say, “from The NY Times,” but then link an article from the Atlantic.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "With all the scandals in the news, liberals are turning on President Clinton. MSNBC’s Chris Hayes reckons that the “center left” is “overdue for a real reckoning” with Mr. Clinton. The Times’ Michelle Goldberg says, “I believe Juanita,” a reference to Mrs. Broaddrick, who in the late 1990s alleged that in 1978, Mr. Clinton, then Arkansas’ attorney-general, raped her at a hotel. Mr. Clinton has long denied the charge. Chelsea Handler tweets an apology to Mrs. Broaddrick. Ross Douthat, referring to the special prosecutor who turned Mr. Clinton over to Congress for impeachment for perjury and obstruction, asks, “What if Ken Starr was right?”
> 
> Juanitas News - The New York Sun
Click to expand...

Juanita Broaddrick, under oath and facing perjury if she lies...

_During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.
> 
> Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity.  "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties.  That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders.  Again, no political party was required to participate in either.
> 
> These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections.  So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.
> 
> Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew.  That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans.  Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery.  The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force.  And they had nothing to do with politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?
> 
> Answer, you dunce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- the usual GOP echo chamber chimes in.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The NYTimes is a GOP echo chamber???
> \.
Click to expand...


No- you are. 

Remember- the OP is a lie- and all of your GOP suck asses are just promoting the lie of the OP>


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Rapist?
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> Who has he raped?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the house organ for Liberalism, Inc.....the NYSlimes.
> 
> Your post is simply one more example of the fact that the least intelligent are Liberal acolytes....many of whom....you.....cannot keep up with the alterations in the propaganda.
> 
> 
> We have learned from the Times and from your post...
> 
> a. The Left now admits what we on the Right always said about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton
> 
> and
> 
> b. you are a low-life moron.
> 
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, you did not quote The NY Times... you quoted an opinion piece on The NY Times. So that’s not an opinion of “the left” as you falsely claim.
> 
> So yeah, here’s a question for ya... do you ever stop lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly hit a nerve, using the NYTimes to pull the rug out from under all of your rapist-defenders.
Click to expand...


Certainly you haven't other than in your own delusions since you are so transparent as to be trying to change the topic from the OP- which is another GOP lie about the Democratic Party- to an attempt to divert attention from your hero Roy Moore.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> NYTimes: a day late and a dollar short...
> 
> 
> "But with Paula Jones and Monica Lewinsky, we know what happened: A president being sued for sexual harassment tried to buy off a mistress-turned-potential-witness with White House favors, and then committed perjury serious enough to merit disbarment. Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her.
> 
> The longer I spent with these old stories, the more I came back to a question: If exploiting a willing intern is a serious enough abuse of power to warrant resignation, why is obstructing justice in a sexual harassment case not serious enough to warrant impeachment? Especially when the behavior is part of a longstanding pattern that also may extend to rape? Would any feminist today hesitate to take a similar opportunity to remove a predatory studio head or C.E.O.?"           Opinion | What if Ken Starr Was Right?
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the house organ for Liberalism, Inc.....the NYSlimes.
> 
> Your post is simply one more example of the fact that the least intelligent are Liberal acolytes....many of whom....you.....cannot keep up with the alterations in the propaganda.
> 
> 
> We have learned from the Times and from your post...
> 
> a. The Left now admits what we on the Right always said about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton
> 
> and
> 
> b. you are a low-life moron.
> 
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, you did not quote The NY Times... you quoted an opinion piece on The NY Times. So that’s not an opinion of “the left” as you falsely claim.
> 
> So yeah, here’s a question for ya... do you ever stop lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly hit a nerve, using the NYTimes to pull the rug out from under all of your rapist-defenders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly you haven't other than in your own delusions since you are so transparent as to be trying to change the topic from the OP- which is another GOP lie about the Democratic Party- to an attempt to divert attention from your hero Roy Moore.
Click to expand...



I answered the previous post.

And, answered correctly.


----------



## regent

deanrd said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
Click to expand...

Not a liberal in the parade.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the house organ for Liberalism, Inc.....the NYSlimes.
> 
> Your post is simply one more example of the fact that the least intelligent are Liberal acolytes....many of whom....you.....cannot keep up with the alterations in the propaganda.
> 
> 
> We have learned from the Times and from your post...
> 
> a. The Left now admits what we on the Right always said about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton
> 
> and
> 
> b. you are a low-life moron.
> 
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, you did not quote The NY Times... you quoted an opinion piece on The NY Times. So that’s not an opinion of “the left” as you falsely claim.
> 
> So yeah, here’s a question for ya... do you ever stop lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly hit a nerve, using the NYTimes to pull the rug out from under all of your rapist-defenders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly you haven't other than in your own delusions since you are so transparent as to be trying to change the topic from the OP- which is another GOP lie about the Democratic Party- to an attempt to divert attention from your hero Roy Moore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I answered the previous post.
> 
> And, answered correctly.
Click to expand...


lol

Certainly you haven't other than in your own delusions since you are so transparent as to be trying to change the topic from the OP- which is another GOP lie about the Democratic Party- to an attempt to divert attention from your hero Roy Moore.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the house organ for Liberalism, Inc.....the NYSlimes.
> 
> Your post is simply one more example of the fact that the least intelligent are Liberal acolytes....many of whom....you.....cannot keep up with the alterations in the propaganda.
> 
> 
> We have learned from the Times and from your post...
> 
> a. The Left now admits what we on the Right always said about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton
> 
> and
> 
> b. you are a low-life moron.
> 
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> Liar, you did not quote The NY Times... you quoted an opinion piece on The NY Times. So that’s not an opinion of “the left” as you falsely claim.
> 
> So yeah, here’s a question for ya... do you ever stop lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly hit a nerve, using the NYTimes to pull the rug out from under all of your rapist-defenders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly you haven't other than in your own delusions since you are so transparent as to be trying to change the topic from the OP- which is another GOP lie about the Democratic Party- to an attempt to divert attention from your hero Roy Moore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I answered the previous post.
> 
> And, answered correctly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol
> 
> Certainly you haven't other than in your own delusions since you are so transparent as to be trying to change the topic from the OP- which is another GOP lie about the Democratic Party- to an attempt to divert attention from your hero Roy Moore.
Click to expand...



I changed nothing.
I answered the previous post.

And, answered correctly.


----------



## deanrd

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…


OK America, it's time to quit pretending.  We all know it's all about race.

Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters

Things change.


----------



## deanrd

Ame®icano said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
Click to expand...

The only one that matters:

Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOL
> 
> An *opinion piece, ‘what if*_, Starr was right’_; which speculates...
> 
> _Which also brought forward a compelling allegation from Juanita Broaddrick that the president had raped her._​
> ... except Juanita Broaddrick swore under oath that Clinton had not raped her...
> 
> _During the 1992 Presidential campaign *there were unfounded rumors* and stories circulated that Mr. Clinton had made unwelcome sexual advances toward me in the late seventies. Newspaper and tabloid reporters hounded me and my family, seeking corroboration of these tales. *I repeatedly denied the allegations* and requested that my family's privacy be respected. *These allegations are untrue* and I had hoped that they would no longer haunt me, or cause further disruption to my family._​
> So the question was, who did Clinton rape? And you couldn’t find anyone. Thanks for confirming what everyone else with a functioning brain already knew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted the house organ for Liberalism, Inc.....the NYSlimes.
> 
> Your post is simply one more example of the fact that the least intelligent are Liberal acolytes....many of whom....you.....cannot keep up with the alterations in the propaganda.
> 
> 
> We have learned from the Times and from your post...
> 
> a. The Left now admits what we on the Right always said about Bill 'the rapist' Clinton
> 
> and
> 
> b. you are a low-life moron.
> 
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liar, you did not quote The NY Times... you quoted an opinion piece on The NY Times. So that’s not an opinion of “the left” as you falsely claim.
> 
> So yeah, here’s a question for ya... do you ever stop lying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I certainly hit a nerve, using the NYTimes to pull the rug out from under all of your rapist-defenders.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Certainly you haven't other than in your own delusions since you are so transparent as to be trying to change the topic from the OP- which is another GOP lie about the Democratic Party- to an attempt to divert attention from your hero Roy Moore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I answered the previous post.
> 
> And, answered correctly.
Click to expand...

You never stop lying, do ya, politicalHack? In a thread based on the lie that the KKK was Democrats marching at the 1924 DNC at Madison Square Garden, *you’re* the one who diverted to Bill Clinton, who has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, here...

Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

You don’t possess an ounce of personal responsibility, do you?


----------



## Ame®icano

deanrd said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
Click to expand...


He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.

Try again.


----------



## Faun

Ame®icano said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...

He switched parties because Democrats wouldn’t elect him.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Ame®icano said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...



Absolutely!

Throughout his formative years, when he learned to be a violent racist.....he was a Democrat.


----------



## Faun

PoliticalChic said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> Throughout his formative years, when he learned to be a violent racist.....he was a Democrat.
Click to expand...

And he couldn't get elected until he ran as a Republican because Democrats wouldn't support his racism.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> Throughout his formative years, when he learned to be a violent racist.....he was a Democrat.
Click to expand...


Yup. For the same reason Ray Nagin was a "Democrat" when he ran for Mayor of New Orleans, and for the same reason Frank Rizzo was a "Democrat" when he ran for Mayor of Philadelphia --- because in those times and places, you either ran as a Democrat, or you lost to one.  When the great shift happened Duke, like Thurmond, like Buddy Roemer, like Trent Lott, like Richard Shelby, like Jesse Helms, like Rick Perry, etc etc, turned into Republicans for exactly the same reason.  All of them were the same people before and after any label you simpletons want to hang on them as if it's some kind of causal force.

It isn't.  It's simply the means to an end and that's all it is.  Hell the Sheriff in my local burg did exactly the same thing.  He's still exactly the same guy.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
Click to expand...


You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?

Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.

In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.

Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.


----------



## Faun

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
Click to expand...

Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
Click to expand...


It's stupefying how many wags are so dense that they either don't know, or are willing to go onto the internets to pretend they don't know --- that a political party is not some kind of ideological fount, but simply a machine to get to the goal of elections, and that machine will drive on any road it needs to to get to that goal.

If that were not the case it would be impossible for anybody to change their own party affiliation just as it would be impossible for a baseball player free agent to sign with a new team.  It's the same thing. 

Hell, Arlen Specter was a Democrat, then he was a Republican, then he was a Democrat again, all based on what he thought would work at the time.  And yet Arlen Specter (D), Arlen Specter (R) and Arlen Specter (D) are all the same person.

Hard to understand why they cling to their Composition Fallacies after being humiliated on them.


----------



## Ame®icano

Faun said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He switched parties because Democrats wouldn’t elect him.
Click to expand...


Duke by just being in Democrat party until 1988 speaks for itself.

By the way, the "party switch" happened two decades earlier.


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
Click to expand...


And you think that parties just "switched". Right.

Very few people did switched, one of them Thurmond. Who else? 

You lefties keep talking about racists leaving Democrat party to join Republican party, but when asked for names, you come up short, every singe time.

Give me four more names that can support the leftist argument of parties switching sides.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> Throughout his formative years, when he learned to be a violent racist.....he was a Democrat.
Click to expand...


So were you a Democrat then too? Just trying to figure out when you learned to be a violent racist.


----------



## Ame®icano

Faun said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
Click to expand...


I see you're bit confused. Although learning history from Comedy Central can be fun, it's not really backed with facts. You should switch to history books. 

By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. Unlike communists that were aiming for socialism/communism on international level (think global), national socialists were doing it on national level.


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
Click to expand...


LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.

On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> And you think that parties just "switched". Right.



Nope, wrong.  The parties didn't switch --- the membership (in the white South) did.

That's because in the white South for 99 years it was unthinkable to be a Republican.  That was the "Party of Lincoln", the President who had defeated and humiliated it.  So it was tradition that if you were a white Southerner and ran for office, you either ran as a Democrat, or you lost to one.  The contest was in the primary election, Democrat against Democrat --- because whoever won that was a shoo-in to beat whoever the Republican sacrificial lamb was.  And yet the whole time these Southern archconservative Democrats were wailing about "Northern Liberals" --- see George Wallace for a ready example.

In other words it was an emotional/traditional attachment, and not an ideological one.  The ideology was in fact at odds.  Any time there was a political campaign debate, it was over "this Democrat" versus "that Democrat".  Whoever the Republican was, was little more than a trivia question.

My grandfather told the anecdote of counting votes in southern Mississippi in the 1940 election:

"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"....
"Roosevelt"....
"Wilkie".....
"Roosevelt"....
"Roosevelt"....
"Wilkie -- aw shoot, we gotta throw out the ballot.  Some damn fool voted twice!"

That's based on the reality.

Bottom line is this -- if you were a white Southerner who was also a right-wing racist, and had a political party, it was Democrat, while on the other hand if you were a white Southerner who was a Liberal non-racist you were a Democrat.  See the difference?  If you do, essplain it.




Ame®icano said:


> Very few people did switched, one of them Thurmond. Who else?



I just gave you several names.  And according to Lush Rimjob, here's another one:  Roy Moore.

Limblob didn't seem to cite any sources but it's plausible.

Again, a political party is a practical choice --- what will work.  Max Scherzer is an outstanding pitcher but it's not because he pitched for the Detroit Tigers and it's not because he pitches for the Washington Gnats.  He's the same pitcher either way, and what uniform he puts on has no influence on that.  Frank Rizzo and George Wallace and Lester Maddox and David Duke weren't Democrats because they had a shred of belief in Liberalism.  They were Democrats *because that's how you got elected.*


----------



## Pogo

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
Click to expand...


Matter of fact the actual Socialists --- who the brownshirts were created to intimidate --- were the first Nazi "guests" at Dachau.


----------



## Mikeoxenormous

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
Click to expand...




> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.





> The National* Socialist* German Workers' Party (NSDAP), more commonly known as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945. - Origins in the German Worker's Party.
> 
> Reference: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holocaust/nsdap.html


 When you point out the lies of the lib/progs of this board, it will end up with them denying that it happened.

How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job


> *#9) Sociopaths never apologize.* They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.


 Liberals are the stupidest people in the universe..


----------



## Faun

andaronjim said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National* Socialist* German Workers' Party (NSDAP), more commonly known as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945. - Origins in the German Worker's Party.
> 
> Reference: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holocaust/nsdap.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you point out the lies of the lib/progs of this board, it will end up with them denying that it happened.
> 
> How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job
> 
> 
> 
> *#9) Sociopaths never apologize.* They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals are the stupidest people in the universe..
Click to expand...

Nah, no one is dumber than an abject imbecile who claims Bill Clinton flew to pedophile island 26 times according to flight logs — *and then posts s link to an article which states flight logs indicate ZERO trips to pedophile island.*


----------



## jillian

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



who says liberals aren't liking it, psychotroll?
everyone knows that the kkk used to be part of the dem party in the south. that's part of our history.

it's also part of our history that since the civil rights act passed, they all belong to you.

that's why the orange sociopath defended them.

but I still don't understand why you losers keep talking about 50 years ago when you own the kkk and the white supremacists today.

now be a good hack and run along


----------



## jillian

andaronjim said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National* Socialist* German Workers' Party (NSDAP), more commonly known as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945. - Origins in the German Worker's Party.
> 
> Reference: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holocaust/nsdap.html
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you point out the lies of the lib/progs of this board, it will end up with them denying that it happened.
> 
> How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job
> 
> 
> 
> *#9) Sociopaths never apologize.* They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Liberals are the stupidest people in the universe..
Click to expand...


no that would be sub literate uneducated uninformed trumptards.


----------



## Pogo

andaronjim said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National* Socialist* German Workers' Party (NSDAP), more commonly known as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945. - Origins in the German Worker's Party.
> 
> Reference: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holocaust/nsdap.html
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Because a swell stand-up guy like Adolf Hitler, who created the brownshirts to beat up Socialists and then called them the "gymnastic and sports division" (and then sent them off to Dachau) would *never *stoop to misrepresentation via lying propaganda, right?

Guess how many grapes and how many nuts are in this box.  Win a prize.





​"B-but... but... it's in the name!"

Are you actually trying to tell us that Adolf Hitler is more honest than Post Cereals?

 Wanna try a bonus question?

---- How many people do you think are in the band "10,000 Maniacs"?  Just pick a number.

Idiot.



andaronjim said:


> How to spot a sociopath - 10 red flags that could save you from being swept under the influence of a charismatic nut job
> 
> 
> 
> *#9) Sociopaths never apologize.* They are never wrong. They never feel guilt. They can never apologize. Even if shown proof that they were wrong, they will refuse to apologize and instead go on the attack.
Click to expand...


True, but this thread isn't about Donald Rump.


----------



## Pogo

jillian said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who says liberals aren't liking it, psychotroll?
> everyone knows that the kkk used to be part of the dem party in the south. that's part of our history.
> 
> it's also part of our history that since the civil rights act passed, they all belong to you.
> 
> that's why the orange sociopath defended them.
> 
> but I still don't understand why you losers keep talking about 50 years ago when you own the kkk and the white supremacists today.
> 
> now be a good hack and run along
Click to expand...


Actually although this KKK was founded in the South it was founded by a nonpolitical opportunist who was trying to cash in on the rampant racism and xenophobia of the time, and this photo Sleaux posted is not of a political convention at all, but a funeral march in Wisconsin.  Has nothing to do with either the South or with Democrats, whose convention had already taken place six months earlier and a thousand miles away, after which the Klan endorsed the Republican Coolidge, the only major candidate who didn't denounce them.

That's why Sleaux already ran along.  He stepped in it big time.


----------



## jillian

Pogo said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who says liberals aren't liking it, psychotroll?
> everyone knows that the kkk used to be part of the dem party in the south. that's part of our history.
> 
> it's also part of our history that since the civil rights act passed, they all belong to you.
> 
> that's why the orange sociopath defended them.
> 
> but I still don't understand why you losers keep talking about 50 years ago when you own the kkk and the white supremacists today.
> 
> now be a good hack and run along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually although this KKK was founded in the South it was founded by a nonpolitical opportunist who was trying to cash in on the rampant racism and xenophobia of the time, and this photo Sleaux posted is not of a political convention at all, but a funeral march in Wisconsin.  Has nothing to do with either the South or with Democrats, whose convention had already taken place six months earlier and a thousand miles away, after which the Klan endorsed the Republican Coolidge, the only major candidate who didn't denounce them.
> 
> That's why Sleaux already ran along.  He stepped in it big time.
Click to expand...


that may well be, though there was a democratic convention where the kkk interfered and wanted their choice of candidate.

the result was that the democratic party split and a republican was elected.

but again, this was all more than 60 years ago and the kkk'ers are all GOP now.


----------



## Syriusly

andaronjim said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National* Socialist* German Workers' Party (NSDAP), more commonly known as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945. - Origins in the German Worker's Party.
> 
> Reference: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holocaust/nsdap.html..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
Click to expand...


Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....

Democratic People's Republic of Korea.

No- the Nazi's were not socialists.

Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
Socialism:
any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.

Socialists however- were persecuted.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> Throughout his formative years, when he learned to be a violent racist.....he was a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So were you a Democrat then too? Just trying to figure out when you learned to be a violent racist.
Click to expand...



Definition of racist: a conservative winning an argument with a Liberal.

I believe you have just documented that definition.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National* Socialist* German Workers' Party (NSDAP), more commonly known as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945. - Origins in the German Worker's Party.
> 
> Reference: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holocaust/nsdap.html..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
Click to expand...




Of course the Nazis were socialists.

And their policies couldn't be more Liberal.

"The *Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt* (NSV), meaning "National Socialist People's Welfare", was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in 1933,.... The NSV became established as the single Nazi Party welfare organ in May 1933.[1] .... the programme was massively expanded, so that the régime deemed it worthy to be called the "greatest social institution in the world." One method of expansion was to absorb, or in NSDAP parlance coordinate, already existing but non-Nazi charity organizations. NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, second only to the German Labor Front.

*The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs* under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.”[4]

*The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance,* which was not decreed mandatory until 1941[5] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”

*These social welfare programs* represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans “the highest possible standard of living.” National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia


Communists, Liberals, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis.....peas in a pod.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National* Socialist* German Workers' Party (NSDAP), more commonly known as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945. - Origins in the German Worker's Party.
> 
> Reference: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holocaust/nsdap.html..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
Click to expand...



"The Nazi Party embraced capitalism."

Another lie you were taught in government school.


*"Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian*
Why Nazism Was Socialism and Why Socialism Is Totalitarian


*1. ".... Nazi Germany was a socialist state, not a capitalist one. And ... socialism, understood as an economic system based on government ownership of the means of production, positively requires a totalitarian dictatorship.*


*2. ... the word "Nazi" was an abbreviation for "der Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiters Partei — in English translation: the National Socialist German Workers' Party ... what should one expect the economic system of a country ruled by a party with "socialist" in its name to be but socialism?*


3. It is far more common to believe that it represented a form of capitalism, which is what the Communists and all other Marxists have claimed. The basis of the claim that Nazi Germany was capitalist was the fact that most industries in Nazi Germany appeared to be left in private hands.


4. . What Mises identified was that private ownership of the means of production existed _in name only_ under the Nazis and that the actual substance of ownership of the means of production resided in the German government. For it was _the German government_ and not the nominal private owners that exercised all of the _substantive powers of ownership_: it, not the nominal private owners, decided what was to be produced, in what quantity, by what methods, and to whom it was to be distributed, as well as what prices would be charged and what wages would be paid, and what dividends or other income the nominal private owners would be permitted to receive. *The position of the alleged private owners, Mises showed, was reduced essentially to that of government pensioners."


Don't be stupid your whole life.......take a day off.*


----------



## Pogo

jillian said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who says liberals aren't liking it, psychotroll?
> everyone knows that the kkk used to be part of the dem party in the south. that's part of our history.
> 
> it's also part of our history that since the civil rights act passed, they all belong to you.
> 
> that's why the orange sociopath defended them.
> 
> but I still don't understand why you losers keep talking about 50 years ago when you own the kkk and the white supremacists today.
> 
> now be a good hack and run along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually although this KKK was founded in the South it was founded by a nonpolitical opportunist who was trying to cash in on the rampant racism and xenophobia of the time, and this photo Sleaux posted is not of a political convention at all, but a funeral march in Wisconsin.  Has nothing to do with either the South or with Democrats, whose convention had already taken place six months earlier and a thousand miles away, after which the Klan endorsed the Republican Coolidge, the only major candidate who didn't denounce them.
> 
> That's why Sleaux already ran along.  He stepped in it big time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that may well be, though there was a democratic convention where the kkk interfered and wanted their choice of candidate.
> 
> the result was that the democratic party split and a republican was elected.
> 
> but again, this was all more than 60 years ago and the kkk'ers are all GOP now.
Click to expand...


In 1924 the Klan was at the height of its national power and its infilltrators got the Democratic convention (in New York) deadlocked so many times it became the longest convention in history (and still is), over the issue of which candidate, a Klan denouncer or a Klan apologist, would get the nod.  After over a hundred ballots they finally settled on an innocuous dark horse who was inoffensive to both sides --- who then promptly denounced the Klan anyway.  

Meanwhile Klan gadflies camped across the Hudson River in New Jersey, and that's what Sleaux thought he was posting in a photo of some wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin, because he didn't bother to inspect his source.  He actually thought a political party held a convention on some wet trolley tracks.  

He even swallowed the bit about "newly discovered" even though the photo has been sitting in the Wisconsin Historical  Society for 90+ years.

In the same year the Klan was pushing, often successfully, to get Governors, Senators and lower offices elected in Indiana, Maine, Colorado, Kansas, California and other places, all as Republicans.  But they also got a couple of Dems elected at the same time.  Whatever would work in that time and that place.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National* Socialist* German Workers' Party (NSDAP), more commonly known as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945. - Origins in the German Worker's Party.
> 
> Reference: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holocaust/nsdap.html..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Nazis were socialists.
> 
> And their policies couldn't be more Liberal.
> 
> "The *Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt* (NSV), meaning "National Socialist People's Welfare", was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in 1933,.... The NSV became established as the single Nazi Party welfare organ in May 1933.[1] .... the programme was massively expanded, so that the régime deemed it worthy to be called the "greatest social institution in the world." One method of expansion was to absorb, or in NSDAP parlance coordinate, already existing but non-Nazi charity organizations. NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, second only to the German Labor Front.
> 
> *The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs* under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.”[4]
> 
> *The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance,* which was not decreed mandatory until 1941[5] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”
> 
> *These social welfare programs* represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans “the highest possible standard of living.” National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> Communists, Liberals, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis.....peas in a pod.
Click to expand...


Spandexia continues to wallow in abject ignorance of what the term "Liberal" means.  Let alone all the others of which she's equally clueless.

Wanna see some Liberals?  Here's a hint:





​OK, they do dress kinda weird.  Granted.


----------



## Geaux4it

jillian said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who says liberals aren't liking it, psychotroll?
> everyone knows that the kkk used to be part of the dem party in the south. that's part of our history.
> 
> it's also part of our history that since the civil rights act passed, they all belong to you.
> 
> that's why the orange sociopath defended them.
> 
> but I still don't understand why you losers keep talking about 50 years ago when you own the kkk and the white supremacists today.
> 
> now be a good hack and run along
Click to expand...


It was Buuuuuuuush fault no?

-Geaux


----------



## Synthaholic

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…


So did the racists all move out of the South?  Did the Klan cease to be?

What Party do they all belong to today?


----------



## Geaux4it

Synthaholic said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> So did the racists all move out of the South?  Did the Klan cease to be?
> 
> What Party do they all belong to today?
Click to expand...


I have no idea as their numbers today have zero influence regardless

-Geaux


----------



## Synthaholic

Geaux4it thinks he's stumbled onto some huge gotcha!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




When Democrats started becoming the Party of the working class and the immigrant and the Blacks and the poor Whites, the racists looked around and said "The Right-Wing are speaking our language", and every Republican played on that racism, from Nixon's Southern Strategy to Reagan announcing his candidacy in Philadelphia, Mississippi.
*
Not all Republicans are racist but nearly all racists are Republicans.*


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National* Socialist* German Workers' Party (NSDAP), more commonly known as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945. - Origins in the German Worker's Party.
> 
> Reference: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holocaust/nsdap.html..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Nazis were socialists.
> 
> And their policies couldn't be more Liberal.
> 
> "The *Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt* (NSV), meaning "National Socialist People's Welfare", was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in 1933,.... The NSV became established as the single Nazi Party welfare organ in May 1933.[1] .... the programme was massively expanded, so that the régime deemed it worthy to be called the "greatest social institution in the world." One method of expansion was to absorb, or in NSDAP parlance coordinate, already existing but non-Nazi charity organizations. NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, second only to the German Labor Front.
> 
> *The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs* under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.”[4]
> 
> *The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance,* which was not decreed mandatory until 1941[5] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”
> 
> *These social welfare programs* represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans “the highest possible standard of living.” National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> Communists, Liberals, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis.....peas in a pod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spandexia continues to wallow in abject ignorance of what the term "Liberal" means.  Let alone all the others of which she's equally clueless.
> 
> Wanna see some Liberals?  Here's a hint:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​OK, they do dress kinda weird.  Granted.
Click to expand...



"Liberal" in today's parlance, means just what 'communism' means.

That's easily documented when one compares the aims and desires of the current Democrat/Liberal establishment with the aims and desires of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA)

Here's today's lesson, you dolt:

How about you take a look at the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the aims of the modern Democrat Party.


Watch, and note the consubstantial basis of both the aims of the Communist Party and the Democrat Party:

......it is ...extraordinary.....the correspondence between the aims of the communist party and the aims of the Democrats.....

1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.

2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.

3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.

4. . Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.


5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.

6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.

7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.

8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."

9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."

10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.


11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."

12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.

13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce



Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?

I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...

The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals



You might take a look at this one, too.
10 planks of Communist manifesto
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks

1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. 

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 



"*Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof*

And this:

"Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.*Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917*(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107. 


They didn't call it ObamaCare....




*....we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism.... Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter: UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME - Address at Commencement Exercises at the University*


President Barack *Obama downplayed the differences between capitalism and communism,* claiming that they are just “intellectual arguments.” He urged those at a town hall eventin Buenos Aires, Argentina on Wednesday to “just choose from what works.” 
Obama Downplays Difference Between Capitalism, Communism [VIDEO]





At your advanced age, of course, you will never admit that you have been manipulated to support Bolshevism....

.....but you have.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National* Socialist* German Workers' Party (NSDAP), more commonly known as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945. - Origins in the German Worker's Party.
> 
> Reference: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holocaust/nsdap.html..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Nazis were socialists.
> 
> And their policies couldn't be more Liberal.
> 
> "The *Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt* (NSV), meaning "National Socialist People's Welfare", was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in 1933,.... The NSV became established as the single Nazi Party welfare organ in May 1933.[1] .... the programme was massively expanded, so that the régime deemed it worthy to be called the "greatest social institution in the world." One method of expansion was to absorb, or in NSDAP parlance coordinate, already existing but non-Nazi charity organizations. NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, second only to the German Labor Front.
> 
> *The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs* under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.”[4]
> 
> *The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance,* which was not decreed mandatory until 1941[5] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”
> 
> *These social welfare programs* represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans “the highest possible standard of living.” National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> Communists, Liberals, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis.....peas in a pod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spandexia continues to wallow in abject ignorance of what the term "Liberal" means.  Let alone all the others of which she's equally clueless.
> 
> Wanna see some Liberals?  Here's a hint:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​OK, they do dress kinda weird.  Granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberal" in today's parlance, means just what 'communism' means.
> 
> That's easily documented when one compares the aims and desires of the current Democrat/Liberal establishment with the aims and desires of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA)
Click to expand...


 Taken to school and metaphorically whipped with a cane, she wrests away the cane and uses it to dig herself even deeper.



Now she can't distinguish between a political _philosophy _and a political _party_.

/continuously offtopic


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Synthaholic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> So did the racists all move out of the South?  Did the Klan cease to be?
> 
> What Party do they all belong to today?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have no idea as their numbers today have zero influence regardless
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Dey sure wuz in control of the trolley tracks in Madison Wisconsin on that Decemer day in 1924 though huh?

You miss those daze?


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Nazis were socialists.
> 
> And their policies couldn't be more Liberal.
> 
> "The *Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt* (NSV), meaning "National Socialist People's Welfare", was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in 1933,.... The NSV became established as the single Nazi Party welfare organ in May 1933.[1] .... the programme was massively expanded, so that the régime deemed it worthy to be called the "greatest social institution in the world." One method of expansion was to absorb, or in NSDAP parlance coordinate, already existing but non-Nazi charity organizations. NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, second only to the German Labor Front.
> 
> *The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs* under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.”[4]
> 
> *The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance,* which was not decreed mandatory until 1941[5] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”
> 
> *These social welfare programs* represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans “the highest possible standard of living.” National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> Communists, Liberals, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis.....peas in a pod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spandexia continues to wallow in abject ignorance of what the term "Liberal" means.  Let alone all the others of which she's equally clueless.
> 
> Wanna see some Liberals?  Here's a hint:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​OK, they do dress kinda weird.  Granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberal" in today's parlance, means just what 'communism' means.
> 
> That's easily documented when one compares the aims and desires of the current Democrat/Liberal establishment with the aims and desires of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken to school and metaphorically whipped with a cane, she wrests away the cane and uses it to dig herself even deeper.
> 
> 
> 
> Now she can't distinguish between a political _philosophy _and a political _party_.
> 
> /continuously offtopic
Click to expand...



Good to see you ran from the post, as you were unable to deny any of it.

As I predicted, your tenure in ignorance and indoctrination, prevents acceptance of the truth.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Nazis were socialists.
> 
> And their policies couldn't be more Liberal.
> 
> "The *Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt* (NSV), meaning "National Socialist People's Welfare", was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in 1933,.... The NSV became established as the single Nazi Party welfare organ in May 1933.[1] .... the programme was massively expanded, so that the régime deemed it worthy to be called the "greatest social institution in the world." One method of expansion was to absorb, or in NSDAP parlance coordinate, already existing but non-Nazi charity organizations. NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, second only to the German Labor Front.
> 
> *The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs* under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.”[4]
> 
> *The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance,* which was not decreed mandatory until 1941[5] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”
> 
> *These social welfare programs* represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans “the highest possible standard of living.” National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> Communists, Liberals, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis.....peas in a pod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spandexia continues to wallow in abject ignorance of what the term "Liberal" means.  Let alone all the others of which she's equally clueless.
> 
> Wanna see some Liberals?  Here's a hint:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​OK, they do dress kinda weird.  Granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberal" in today's parlance, means just what 'communism' means.
> 
> That's easily documented when one compares the aims and desires of the current Democrat/Liberal establishment with the aims and desires of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken to school and metaphorically whipped with a cane, she wrests away the cane and uses it to dig herself even deeper.
> 
> 
> 
> Now she can't distinguish between a political _philosophy _and a political _party_.
> 
> /continuously offtopic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see you ran from the post, as you were unable to deny any of it.
> 
> As I predicted, your tenure in ignorance and indoctrination, prevents acceptance of the truth.
Click to expand...


Oh I gave it the fifteen seconds of mockery it deserved.  Wasn't worth any more than that.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Nazis were socialists.
> 
> And their policies couldn't be more Liberal.
> 
> "The *Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt* (NSV), meaning "National Socialist People's Welfare", was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in 1933,.... The NSV became established as the single Nazi Party welfare organ in May 1933.[1] .... the programme was massively expanded, so that the régime deemed it worthy to be called the "greatest social institution in the world." One method of expansion was to absorb, or in NSDAP parlance coordinate, already existing but non-Nazi charity organizations. NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, second only to the German Labor Front.
> 
> *The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs* under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.”[4]
> 
> *The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance,* which was not decreed mandatory until 1941[5] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”
> 
> *These social welfare programs* represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans “the highest possible standard of living.” National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> Communists, Liberals, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis.....peas in a pod.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spandexia continues to wallow in abject ignorance of what the term "Liberal" means.  Let alone all the others of which she's equally clueless.
> 
> Wanna see some Liberals?  Here's a hint:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​OK, they do dress kinda weird.  Granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberal" in today's parlance, means just what 'communism' means.
> 
> That's easily documented when one compares the aims and desires of the current Democrat/Liberal establishment with the aims and desires of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken to school and metaphorically whipped with a cane, she wrests away the cane and uses it to dig herself even deeper.
> 
> 
> 
> Now she can't distinguish between a political _philosophy _and a political _party_.
> 
> /continuously offtopic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see you ran from the post, as you were unable to deny any of it.
> 
> As I predicted, your tenure in ignorance and indoctrination, prevents acceptance of the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I gave it the fifteen seconds of mockery it deserved.  Wasn't worth any more than that.
Click to expand...




I provided a documented, linked sourced post proving the point that there is hardly a difference between your political positions and those of Earl Browder.

*"Earl Russell Browder* (May 20, 1891 – June 27, 1973) was an American political activist and leader of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Browder is best remembered as the General Secretary of the CPUSA during the 1930s and first half of the 1940s."
Earl Browder - Wikipedia

So far, you've pretended that the KKK wasn't created by the Democrats, and the party is racist to this day, and that Liberals don't yearn for the same conclusions for society as the communists did...

I leave it to readers of the several post to make their own conclusions about your inability to tell the truth.


----------



## Pogo

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spandexia continues to wallow in abject ignorance of what the term "Liberal" means.  Let alone all the others of which she's equally clueless.
> 
> Wanna see some Liberals?  Here's a hint:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​OK, they do dress kinda weird.  Granted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberal" in today's parlance, means just what 'communism' means.
> 
> That's easily documented when one compares the aims and desires of the current Democrat/Liberal establishment with the aims and desires of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Taken to school and metaphorically whipped with a cane, she wrests away the cane and uses it to dig herself even deeper.
> 
> 
> 
> Now she can't distinguish between a political _philosophy _and a political _party_.
> 
> /continuously offtopic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see you ran from the post, as you were unable to deny any of it.
> 
> As I predicted, your tenure in ignorance and indoctrination, prevents acceptance of the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I gave it the fifteen seconds of mockery it deserved.  Wasn't worth any more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a documented, linked sourced post proving the point that there is hardly a difference between your political positions and those of Earl Browder.
> 
> *"Earl Russell Browder* (May 20, 1891 – June 27, 1973) was an American political activist and leader of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Browder is best remembered as the General Secretary of the CPUSA during the 1930s and first half of the 1940s."
> Earl Browder - Wikipedia
> 
> So far, you've pretended that the KKK wasn't created by the Democrats, and the party is racist to this day, and that Liberals don't yearn for the same conclusions for society as the communists did...
> 
> I leave it to readers of the several post to make their own conclusions about your inability to tell the truth.
Click to expand...


What you 'provided' was the latest dropping in an endless diarrhea of off-topic TL;DRs that nobody pisses away their time reading because we all know there's no there there.  Here, for example, you persisted in trying to derail a topic set in the year 1924 to "Bill Clinton", an entity who didn't even *exist *in 1924.  Because you can't handle the topic.  It's like ----- what is the word ------ Kryptonite.

I haven't "pretended" the KKK wasn't created by the Democrats ---- I've stated it outright.  In dripping detail complete with exact names, dates and places, as well as historical context.  And I've then invited any contradiction to those facts, and it's never happened.  And such contradiction has never happened simply because it does not exist.  The simple and irrefutable fact remains that there is no record of any political affiliation for any founder of the Klan, in either of its iterations.  Period.

Now I'm sure it's all touchy-feely to live in a fantasy land where you just wish for whatever you'd like to have happened in the past but the world of Reality simply doesn't work that way.


----------



## PoliticalChic

Pogo said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberal" in today's parlance, means just what 'communism' means.
> 
> That's easily documented when one compares the aims and desires of the current Democrat/Liberal establishment with the aims and desires of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taken to school and metaphorically whipped with a cane, she wrests away the cane and uses it to dig herself even deeper.
> 
> 
> 
> Now she can't distinguish between a political _philosophy _and a political _party_.
> 
> /continuously offtopic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Good to see you ran from the post, as you were unable to deny any of it.
> 
> As I predicted, your tenure in ignorance and indoctrination, prevents acceptance of the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh I gave it the fifteen seconds of mockery it deserved.  Wasn't worth any more than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I provided a documented, linked sourced post proving the point that there is hardly a difference between your political positions and those of Earl Browder.
> 
> *"Earl Russell Browder* (May 20, 1891 – June 27, 1973) was an American political activist and leader of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). Browder is best remembered as the General Secretary of the CPUSA during the 1930s and first half of the 1940s."
> Earl Browder - Wikipedia
> 
> So far, you've pretended that the KKK wasn't created by the Democrats, and the party is racist to this day, and that Liberals don't yearn for the same conclusions for society as the communists did...
> 
> I leave it to readers of the several post to make their own conclusions about your inability to tell the truth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you 'provided' was the latest dropping in an endless diarrhea of off-topic TL;DRs that nobody pisses away their time reading because we all know there's no there there.
> 
> I haven't "pretended" the KKK wasn't created by the Democrats ---- I've stated it outright.  In dripping detail complete with exact names, dates and places.  And I've then invited any contradiction to those facts, and it's never happened.  And such contradiction has never happened simply because it does not exist.
> 
> Now I'm sure it's all touchy-feely to live in a fantasy land where you just wish for whatever you'd like to have happened in the past but the world of Reality simply doesn't work that way.
Click to expand...





Still not able to find any of my documented statements that you could truthfully deny....
...just more lies and pretense from one infamous for same.




....so, I'll have to slap you in the kisser again:

*Alexander Trachtenberg... longtime activist in the Socialist Party of America and later in the Communist Party USA...*.

“When we get ready to take the United States, we will not take it under the label of communism; we will not take it under the label socialism. These labels are unpleasant to the American people, and have been speared too much. *We will take the United States under labels we have made very lovable; we will take it under liberalism, under progressivism, *under democracy. But, take it we will.”
~ Alexander Trachtenberg, at the National Convention of Communist Parties, Madison Square Garden, 1944
Trachtenberg worked tirelessly to gain a strangle hold on the culture....and to hide terms like Communist and Socialist.



And they will take it as long as they have enough loyal communists....er, Democrats like you.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National* Socialist* German Workers' Party (NSDAP), more commonly known as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945. - Origins in the German Worker's Party.
> 
> Reference: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holocaust/nsdap.html..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Nazis were socialists.
> 
> And their policies couldn't be more Liberal.
> 
> "The *Nationalsozialistische Volkswohlfahrt* (NSV), meaning "National Socialist People's Welfare", was a social welfare organization during the Third Reich. The NSV was established in 1933,.... The NSV became established as the single Nazi Party welfare organ in May 1933.[1] .... the programme was massively expanded, so that the régime deemed it worthy to be called the "greatest social institution in the world." One method of expansion was to absorb, or in NSDAP parlance coordinate, already existing but non-Nazi charity organizations. NSV was the second largest Nazi group organization by 1939, second only to the German Labor Front.
> 
> *The National Socialists provided a plethora of social welfare programs* under the Nazi concept of Volksgemeinschaft which promoted the collectivity of a “people’s community” where citizens would sacrifice themselves for the greater good. The NSV operated “8,000 day-nurseries” by 1939, and funded holiday homes for mothers, distributed additional food for large families, and was involved with a “wide variety of other facilities.”[4]
> 
> *The Nazi social welfare provisions included old age insurance, rent supplements, unemployment and disability benefits, old-age homes, interest-free loans for married couples, along with healthcare insurance,* which was not decreed mandatory until 1941[5] One of the NSV branches, the Office of Institutional and Special Welfare, was responsible “for travellers’ aid at railway stations; relief for ex-convicts; ‘support’ for re-migrants from abroad; assistance for the physically disabled, hard-of-hearing, deaf, mute, and blind; relief for the elderly, homeless and alcoholics; and the fight against illicit drugs and epidemics.”
> 
> *These social welfare programs* represented a Hitlerian endeavor to lift the community above the individual while promoting the wellbeing of all bona fide citizens. As Hitler told a reporter in 1934, he was determined to give Germans “the highest possible standard of living.” National Socialist People's Welfare - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> Communists, Liberals, Socialists, Fascists, Nazis.....peas in a pod.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spandexia continues to wallow in abject ignorance of what the term "Liberal" means.  Let alone all the others of which she's equally clueless.
> 
> Wanna see some Liberals?  Here's a hint:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​OK, they do dress kinda weird.  Granted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "Liberal" in today's parlance, means just what 'communism' means.
> 
> That's easily documented when one compares the aims and desires of the current Democrat/Liberal establishment with the aims and desires of the CPUSA (Communist Party USA)
> 
> Here's today's lesson, you dolt:
> 
> How about you take a look at the aims of the Communist Party, USA, and the aims of the modern Democrat Party.
> 
> 
> Watch, and note the consubstantial basis of both the aims of the Communist Party and the Democrat Party:
> 
> ......it is ...extraordinary.....the correspondence between the aims of the communist party and the aims of the Democrats.....
> 
> 1. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
> 
> 2. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces.
> 
> 3. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
> 
> 4. . Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers' associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
> 
> 
> 5. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
> 
> 6. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
> 
> 7. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press.
> 
> 8. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as "normal, natural, healthy."
> 
> 9. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch."
> 
> 10. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
> 
> 
> 11. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man."
> 
> 12. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture--education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
> 
> 13. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce
> 
> 
> 
> Now....wouldn't an honest appraisal agree that all or almost all are clearly the aims and direction of Democrats/Liberals/Progressive leaders?
> 
> I got 'em from a website of declared communist goals...
> 
> The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
> The Communist Takeover Of America - 45 Declared Goals
> 
> 
> 
> You might take a look at this one, too.
> 10 planks of Communist manifesto
> Communist Manifesto 10 Planks
> 
> 1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.
> 
> 2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
> 
> 3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
> 
> 
> 
> "*Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street"
> Obama Set To Propose Taxes On Capital Gains, Inheritance, And Wall Street - Shadowproof*
> 
> And this:
> 
> "Government control of private sector activity...is aptly described as Bolshevik- or Marxist, socialist, collectivist, statist, or, for that matter, fascist, too.*Indeed, nationalized health care was one of the first programs enacted by the Bolsheviks after they seized power in 1917*(Banks, insurance companies and means of communications were also taken over by Soviet authorities immediately."
> Dziewanowski, "A History of Soviet Russia," p. 107.
> 
> 
> They didn't call it ObamaCare....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *....we are now free of that inordinate fear of communism.... Jimmy Carter Jimmy Carter: UNIVERSITY OF NOTRE DAME - Address at Commencement Exercises at the University*
> 
> 
> President Barack *Obama downplayed the differences between capitalism and communism,* claiming that they are just “intellectual arguments.” He urged those at a town hall eventin Buenos Aires, Argentina on Wednesday to “just choose from what works.”
> Obama Downplays Difference Between Capitalism, Communism [VIDEO]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At your advanced age, of course, you will never admit that you have been manipulated to support Bolshevism....
> 
> .....but you have.
Click to expand...


Does anyone ever actually read her stomach content spewing of partisan delusions?


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> andaronjim said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The National* Socialist* German Workers' Party (NSDAP), more commonly known as the Nazi Party, was a political party in Germany between 1920 and 1945. - Origins in the German Worker's Party.
> 
> Reference: jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/holocaust/nsdap.html..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh- well I guess that means North Korea is a democracy....
> 
> Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
> 
> No- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Who are 'socialists'? Those who believe in Socialism
> Socialism:
> any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
> 2 a *: *a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
> b *: *a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
> 
> The Nazi Party embraced capitalism. Volkswagon and BMW thrived under Nazism.
> 
> Socialists however- were persecuted.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> "The Nazi Party embraced capitalism."
> 
> Another lie you were taught in government school.
Click to expand...


LOL- yes I did go to school. 

Clearly you didn't. 

Capitalists made out like bandits in Nazi Germany- while socialists were locked up in Concentration camps.

https://coreyrobin.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/bel-2010-nazi-privatizations1.pdf

Great article on how the Nazi's privatized much of the public sector- including sectors that had previously been nationalized.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> Throughout his formative years, when he learned to be a violent racist.....he was a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So were you a Democrat then too? Just trying to figure out when you learned to be a violent racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of racist: a conservative winning an argument with a Liberal.
> 
> I believe you have just documented that definition.
Click to expand...


Definition of a PoliticalChic: a delusional partisan hate filled Conservative who is incapable of perceiving reality and spams regurgitated political nonsense.

I believe you have just documented that definition


----------



## PoliticalChic

Syriusly said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> Throughout his formative years, when he learned to be a violent racist.....he was a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So were you a Democrat then too? Just trying to figure out when you learned to be a violent racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of racist: a conservative winning an argument with a Liberal.
> 
> I believe you have just documented that definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of a PoliticalChic: a delusional partisan hate filled Conservative who is incapable of perceiving reality and spams regurgitated political nonsense.
> 
> I believe you have just documented that definition
Click to expand...




Well.....I do hate ignorance....

 See, I belong to The Alliance for an "Idiot-Free" America, and you're on the to-do list.


----------



## deanrd

Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters

I believe David Duke.  I suspect he's telling the truth.

KKK, Confederates, Pedophilia, Alt Right

Yep, that's today's GOP.

You go Dave.

Tell it like it is.


----------



## jillian

Geaux4it said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who says liberals aren't liking it, psychotroll?
> everyone knows that the kkk used to be part of the dem party in the south. that's part of our history.
> 
> it's also part of our history that since the civil rights act passed, they all belong to you.
> 
> that's why the orange sociopath defended them.
> 
> but I still don't understand why you losers keep talking about 50 years ago when you own the kkk and the white supremacists today.
> 
> now be a good hack and run along
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was Buuuuuuuush fault no?
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


psychotic uneducated freak says what?


----------



## jillian

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> Throughout his formative years, when he learned to be a violent racist.....he was a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So were you a Democrat then too? Just trying to figure out when you learned to be a violent racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of racist: a conservative winning an argument with a Liberal.
> 
> I believe you have just documented that definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of a PoliticalChic: a delusional partisan hate filled Conservative who is incapable of perceiving reality and spams regurgitated political nonsense.
> 
> I believe you have just documented that definition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.....I do hate ignorance....
> 
> See, I belong to The Alliance for an "Idiot-Free" America, and you're on the to-do list.
Click to expand...


says the poster child for ignorant cut and paste spew.


----------



## Syriusly

PoliticalChic said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> Throughout his formative years, when he learned to be a violent racist.....he was a Democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So were you a Democrat then too? Just trying to figure out when you learned to be a violent racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of racist: a conservative winning an argument with a Liberal.
> 
> I believe you have just documented that definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of a PoliticalChic: a delusional partisan hate filled Conservative who is incapable of perceiving reality and spams regurgitated political nonsense.
> 
> I believe you have just documented that definition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.....I do hate ignorance.....
Click to expand...


How very odd- since the definition of Politicalchic includes embracing hate- and ignorance.


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only one that matters:
> 
> Former KKK Leader David Duke Says 'Of Course' Trump Voters Are His Voters
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
Click to expand...


You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".

One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.

Do you ever wonder how someone can say something so stupid and still survive the day?

You do know the where name "Nazi" came from? Let me help you: NSDAP (National*sozialistische* Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Name itself speaks for itself.

If breading and reading is not to much of the trouble for you, I suggest you to read *Nazi party platform*, for start, and if you somehow get thru it, switch to Strasser, and his writings. You could find Hitler's speaches too, and if you listen carefully, he sounds a lot like today's modern progressive left, without "national" part.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were far right, and you believe in that too.


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Matter of fact the actual Socialists --- who the brownshirts were created to intimidate --- were the first Nazi "guests" at Dachau.
Click to expand...


Sure, but socialist of different sort. International socialists, and communists. Have you heard of Third International, also called Comintern? 

Both, Nazi's and Commies were leftist scam, only Commies were further to the left.


----------



## Freewill

Ame®icano said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
Click to expand...


Thanks but it won't even register.


----------



## PoliticalChic

jillian said:


> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PoliticalChic said:
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely!
> 
> Throughout his formative years, when he learned to be a violent racist.....he was a Democrat.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So were you a Democrat then too? Just trying to figure out when you learned to be a violent racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Definition of racist: a conservative winning an argument with a Liberal.
> 
> I believe you have just documented that definition.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Definition of a PoliticalChic: a delusional partisan hate filled Conservative who is incapable of perceiving reality and spams regurgitated political nonsense.
> 
> I believe you have just documented that definition
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well.....I do hate ignorance....
> 
> See, I belong to The Alliance for an "Idiot-Free" America, and you're on the to-do list.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> says the poster child for ignorant cut and paste spew.
Click to expand...




" ...ignorant cut and paste..."

"The lady doth protest too much, methinks." 

Seems it really, really irritates you that I have the education and research ability that you don't....

Excellent.


Oh...and Happy Thanksgiving, you turkey.


----------



## Faun

Ame®icano said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
Click to expand...

Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...






... to Republican ...


----------



## Pogo

Freewill said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks but it won't even register.
Click to expand...


Actually I've already named more than five without seeing this post.  And yes, it didn't register.

Nice pun btw --- "register".  I get it.  Haw haw.


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".
> 
> One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.
Click to expand...


Well since the Nazi's were the party of rabid Nationalism.....hmmmm

Hell the Nazi's were very successful Nationalists- stirring up Nationalist sentiment against everyone who wasn't 'Aryan'- but were terrible socialists- since corporations and industrial tycoons got filthy rich- and the Nazi's jailed both socialists and communists....


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was Democrat until 1988, way way after "party switch" happened.
> 
> Try again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".
> 
> One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.
> 
> Do you ever wonder how someone can say something so stupid and still survive the day?
> 
> You do know the where name "Nazi" came from? Let me help you: NSDAP (National*sozialistische* Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Name itself speaks for itself.
> 
> If breading and reading is not to much of the trouble for you, I suggest you to read *Nazi party platform*, for start, and if you somehow get thru it, switch to Strasser, and his writings. You could find Hitler's speaches too, and if you listen carefully, he sounds a lot like today's modern progressive left, without "national" part.
> 
> Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were far right, and you believe in that too.
Click to expand...


The Nazi's were both far right- and far left. 

But they were always Nationalists.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
Click to expand...


This first map (1924) is especially interesting on several levels.

The blue (Democrat votes for Davis) dominate the South (and don't appear anywhere else than that greater region).  The entire rest of the country save one state is red, representing the vote for Coolidge.

Coolidge is who the Ku Klux Klan endorsed.  To the extent they had any effect on the vote, the Klan could not overcome the deep Solid South tradition.  The entire South voted against the Klan choice.

Four years later when the Klan endorsed Hoover and pushed a viscious smear campaign against the Democrat, the results were mixed:




​--- even though the Klan influence was starting to wane by then.  The Deep South still voted against the Klan choice in favor of the old Solid South tradition.

Also note how few electoral votes Florida had then, compared to now.  California too.

The other interesting note about the 1924 map is the green color of Wisconsin, representing the Progressive "Fighting Bob" LaFollette.   Just because Wisconsin is the site of the photo in the OP taken one month after it voted for LaFollette, which tells us for all the bluster of a photo of a Wisconsin Klan march ridiculously misrepresented as "the Democratic convention", they didn't have much of an influence in Wisconsin either.  At least not to the extent they did in Indiana and Ohio and Kansas where they got Governors and boatloads of local officials elected, that same year.


----------



## Ame®icano

Faun said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
Click to expand...


Are we still talking about all those racists Democrats that became Republicans, and parties "switching sides"?

How about you finish the list so we can discuss it...


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks but it won't even register.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I've already named more than five without seeing this post.  And yes, it didn't register.
> 
> Nice pun btw --- "register".  I get it.  Haw haw.
Click to expand...


Names.


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".
> 
> One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well since the Nazi's were the party of rabid Nationalism.....hmmmm
> 
> Hell the Nazi's were very successful Nationalists- stirring up Nationalist sentiment against everyone who wasn't 'Aryan'- but were terrible socialists- since corporations and industrial tycoons got filthy rich- and the Nazi's jailed both socialists and communists....
Click to expand...


Pulling it out of your ass doesn't make it true.


----------



## Ame®icano

Syriusly said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think the party shift of the South happened at 12:43 on a Tuesday the 11th of July in 19xx?
> 
> Time doesn't work that way.  When Thurmond jumped in the fall of 1964, he was doing what had been for 99 years unthinkable in the South.  That took time to crack; tradition runs deep -- some were more bold than others.  Thurmond had the temerity to do it because his base was so strong --- he had already won his Senate seat as a write-in after the state Democratic Party had dumped him off the ballot, so he knew party affiliation was, in his position, irrelevant. First and so far only person ever elected to the Senate as a write-in.
> 
> In other words he was so entrenched that he could do the unthinkable as a protest parting shot against LBJ's CRA that he couldn't stop that summer.  LBJ had mused that the CRA would cost his party the Solid South, and Thurmond was taking steps to make that happen.
> 
> Hell, Zell Miller and Billy Graham are still Democrats to this day.  It's part of a deep tradition and the South is nothing if not traditional.
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".
> 
> One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.
> 
> Do you ever wonder how someone can say something so stupid and still survive the day?
> 
> You do know the where name "Nazi" came from? Let me help you: NSDAP (National*sozialistische* Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Name itself speaks for itself.
> 
> If breading and reading is not to much of the trouble for you, I suggest you to read *Nazi party platform*, for start, and if you somehow get thru it, switch to Strasser, and his writings. You could find Hitler's speaches too, and if you listen carefully, he sounds a lot like today's modern progressive left, without "national" part.
> 
> Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were far right, and you believe in that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nazi's were both far right- and far left.
> 
> But they were always Nationalists.
> 
> Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.
Click to expand...


Nope, Nazi were on the left. By name, by platform, by ideology, you name it.

Only reason you're wishing they were on the right is so you lefties can compare them and equate them with todays right. Compare Nazi platform with Progressive left platform and you may notice that you are the same. At least, decades ago you were hiding behind the name "liberal", now you're proudly waving hammer and sickle flags, wearing Che shirts and openly calling for communism.

Again, Nazis were socialists, the left side on political spectrum, just bit less left than communists.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks but it won't even register.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I've already named more than five without seeing this post.  And yes, it didn't register.
> 
> Nice pun btw --- "register".  I get it.  Haw haw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Names.
Click to expand...


Yup.  First and last.  Just yesterday.
Need their shoe sizes too?

Fatter o' mact I posted elsewhere about one of them in an unrelated story, about how the Bush (I) White House encouraged Buddy Roemer to switch as a hedge against David Duke.  That's two of them right there.

That was back when a POTUS had the balls to disown a tarnished pol who threatened to sully the party's image.  You know, unlike today.

Imagine, having a POTUS whose balls can't measure up to President Wimp.


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks but it won't even register.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I've already named more than five without seeing this post.  And yes, it didn't register.
> 
> Nice pun btw --- "register".  I get it.  Haw haw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  First and last.  Just yesterday.
> Need their shoe sizes too?
> 
> Fatter o' mact I posted elsewhere about one of them in an unrelated story, about how the Bush (I) White House encouraged Buddy Roemer to switch as a hedge against David Duke.  That's two of them right there.
> 
> That was back when a POTUS had the balls to disown a tarnished pol who threatened to sully the party's image.  You know, unlike today.
> 
> Imagine, having a POTUS whose balls can't measure up to President Wimp.
Click to expand...


You're dodging, soooo...elsewhere doesn't count, bud.

You'd think I'm following every post around just to see if Pogo answered the question. 

Nope, I asked the question here, if you're already replying, why don;t you answer here?


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks but it won't even register.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I've already named more than five without seeing this post.  And yes, it didn't register.
> 
> Nice pun btw --- "register".  I get it.  Haw haw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  First and last.  Just yesterday.
> Need their shoe sizes too?
> 
> Fatter o' mact I posted elsewhere about one of them in an unrelated story, about how the Bush (I) White House encouraged Buddy Roemer to switch as a hedge against David Duke.  That's two of them right there.
> 
> That was back when a POTUS had the balls to disown a tarnished pol who threatened to sully the party's image.  You know, unlike today.
> 
> Imagine, having a POTUS whose balls can't measure up to President Wimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're dodging, soooo...elsewhere doesn't count, bud.
> 
> You'd think I'm following every post around just to see if Pogo answered the question.
> 
> Nope, I asked the question here, if you're already replying, why don;t you answer here?
Click to expand...


You went all the way back to post one from months ago, yet you can't wend back one day?

Wassamatta Peewee?  Afraid of what you might find?


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks but it won't even register.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've already named more than five without seeing this post.  And yes, it didn't register.
> 
> Nice pun btw --- "register".  I get it.  Haw haw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  First and last.  Just yesterday.
> Need their shoe sizes too?
> 
> Fatter o' mact I posted elsewhere about one of them in an unrelated story, about how the Bush (I) White House encouraged Buddy Roemer to switch as a hedge against David Duke.  That's two of them right there.
> 
> That was back when a POTUS had the balls to disown a tarnished pol who threatened to sully the party's image.  You know, unlike today.
> 
> Imagine, having a POTUS whose balls can't measure up to President Wimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're dodging, soooo...elsewhere doesn't count, bud.
> 
> You'd think I'm following every post around just to see if Pogo answered the question.
> 
> Nope, I asked the question here, if you're already replying, why don;t you answer here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You went all the way back to post one from months ago, yet you can't wend back one day?
> 
> Wassamatta Peewee?  Afraid of what you might find?
Click to expand...


No soyboy, I replied to posts that were marked "new" to me.

Why is the problem to fill the blanks on the list? 

Names.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I've already named more than five without seeing this post.  And yes, it didn't register.
> 
> Nice pun btw --- "register".  I get it.  Haw haw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup.  First and last.  Just yesterday.
> Need their shoe sizes too?
> 
> Fatter o' mact I posted elsewhere about one of them in an unrelated story, about how the Bush (I) White House encouraged Buddy Roemer to switch as a hedge against David Duke.  That's two of them right there.
> 
> That was back when a POTUS had the balls to disown a tarnished pol who threatened to sully the party's image.  You know, unlike today.
> 
> Imagine, having a POTUS whose balls can't measure up to President Wimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're dodging, soooo...elsewhere doesn't count, bud.
> 
> You'd think I'm following every post around just to see if Pogo answered the question.
> 
> Nope, I asked the question here, if you're already replying, why don;t you answer here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You went all the way back to post one from months ago, yet you can't wend back one day?
> 
> Wassamatta Peewee?  Afraid of what you might find?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No soyboy, I replied to posts that were marked "new" to me.
> 
> Why is the problem to fill the blanks on the list?
> 
> Names.
Click to expand...


Fetch.


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Names.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup.  First and last.  Just yesterday.
> Need their shoe sizes too?
> 
> Fatter o' mact I posted elsewhere about one of them in an unrelated story, about how the Bush (I) White House encouraged Buddy Roemer to switch as a hedge against David Duke.  That's two of them right there.
> 
> That was back when a POTUS had the balls to disown a tarnished pol who threatened to sully the party's image.  You know, unlike today.
> 
> Imagine, having a POTUS whose balls can't measure up to President Wimp.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're dodging, soooo...elsewhere doesn't count, bud.
> 
> You'd think I'm following every post around just to see if Pogo answered the question.
> 
> Nope, I asked the question here, if you're already replying, why don;t you answer here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You went all the way back to post one from months ago, yet you can't wend back one day?
> 
> Wassamatta Peewee?  Afraid of what you might find?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No soyboy, I replied to posts that were marked "new" to me.
> 
> Why is the problem to fill the blanks on the list?
> 
> Names.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fetch.
Click to expand...


That's what I thought.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".
> 
> One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.
> 
> Do you ever wonder how someone can say something so stupid and still survive the day?
> 
> You do know the where name "Nazi" came from? Let me help you: NSDAP (National*sozialistische* Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Name itself speaks for itself.
> 
> If breading and reading is not to much of the trouble for you, I suggest you to read *Nazi party platform*, for start, and if you somehow get thru it, switch to Strasser, and his writings. You could find Hitler's speaches too, and if you listen carefully, he sounds a lot like today's modern progressive left, without "national" part.
> 
> Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were far right, and you believe in that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nazi's were both far right- and far left.
> 
> But they were always Nationalists.
> 
> Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, Nazi were on the left. By name, by platform, by ideology, you name it.
> 
> Only reason you're wishing they were on the right is so you lefties can compare them and equate them with todays right. Compare Nazi platform with Progressive left platform and you may notice that you are the same. At least, decades ago you were hiding behind the name "liberal", now you're proudly waving hammer and sickle flags, wearing Che shirts and openly calling for communism.
> 
> Again, Nazis were socialists, the left side on political spectrum, just bit less left from communists.
Click to expand...




Pathetic, dood.  Nazis vehemently _opposed _both communists _and _socialists.  Beat them up and then locked them up.  Pure authoritarianism.

/way offtopic


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".
> 
> One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.
> 
> Do you ever wonder how someone can say something so stupid and still survive the day?
> 
> You do know the where name "Nazi" came from? Let me help you: NSDAP (National*sozialistische* Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Name itself speaks for itself.
> 
> If breading and reading is not to much of the trouble for you, I suggest you to read *Nazi party platform*, for start, and if you somehow get thru it, switch to Strasser, and his writings. You could find Hitler's speaches too, and if you listen carefully, he sounds a lot like today's modern progressive left, without "national" part.
> 
> Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were far right, and you believe in that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nazi's were both far right- and far left.
> 
> But they were always Nationalists.
> 
> Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, Nazi were on the left. By name, by platform, by ideology, you name it.
> 
> Only reason you're wishing they were on the right is so you lefties can compare them and equate them with todays right. Compare Nazi platform with Progressive left platform and you may notice that you are the same. At least, decades ago you were hiding behind the name "liberal", now you're proudly waving hammer and sickle flags, wearing Che shirts and openly calling for communism.
> 
> Again, Nazis were socialists, the left side on political spectrum, just bit less left from communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic, dood.  Nazis vehemently _opposed _both communists _and _socialists.  Beat them up and then locked them up.  Pure authoritarianism.
> 
> /way offtopic
Click to expand...


Let's go back to those names... four more.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".
> 
> One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.
> 
> Do you ever wonder how someone can say something so stupid and still survive the day?
> 
> You do know the where name "Nazi" came from? Let me help you: NSDAP (National*sozialistische* Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Name itself speaks for itself.
> 
> If breading and reading is not to much of the trouble for you, I suggest you to read *Nazi party platform*, for start, and if you somehow get thru it, switch to Strasser, and his writings. You could find Hitler's speaches too, and if you listen carefully, he sounds a lot like today's modern progressive left, without "national" part.
> 
> Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were far right, and you believe in that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nazi's were both far right- and far left.
> 
> But they were always Nationalists.
> 
> Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, Nazi were on the left. By name, by platform, by ideology, you name it.
> 
> Only reason you're wishing they were on the right is so you lefties can compare them and equate them with todays right. Compare Nazi platform with Progressive left platform and you may notice that you are the same. At least, decades ago you were hiding behind the name "liberal", now you're proudly waving hammer and sickle flags, wearing Che shirts and openly calling for communism.
> 
> Again, Nazis were socialists, the left side on political spectrum, just bit less left from communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic, dood.  Nazis vehemently _opposed _both communists _and _socialists.  Beat them up and then locked them up.  Pure authoritarianism.
> 
> /way offtopic
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's go back to those names... four more.
Click to expand...

.
Haha your Googly Image spelled "wanking" wrong.

Wank on this, lazy-ass fuck.  Same fucking names I gave you yesterday while you play Pee Wee Herman games.  Fuck you.


----------



## Syriusly

Ame®icano said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatism and nazism share the same core belief that their ideology is a panacea which should prevail above all others. In their respective [and diseased] minds, their ideology can do no wrong when practiced in its purist form.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, national socialism (Nazism) and nationalism are not the same same thing. On the other side, national socialism is socialism. l.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL- National Socialism was very specifically a Nationalist movement.
> 
> On the other hand- the Nazi's were not socialists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep pointing to "nationalist" while I am pointing to "socialist".
> 
> One of them is not necessarily bad, guess which one.
> 
> Do you ever wonder how someone can say something so stupid and still survive the day?
> 
> You do know the where name "Nazi" came from? Let me help you: NSDAP (National*sozialistische* Deutsche Arbeiterpartei). Name itself speaks for itself.
> 
> If breading and reading is not to much of the trouble for you, I suggest you to read *Nazi party platform*, for start, and if you somehow get thru it, switch to Strasser, and his writings. You could find Hitler's speaches too, and if you listen carefully, he sounds a lot like today's modern progressive left, without "national" part.
> 
> Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were far right, and you believe in that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Nazi's were both far right- and far left.
> 
> But they were always Nationalists.
> 
> Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, Nazi were on the left. By name, by platform, by ideology, you name it.s.
Click to expand...


The Nazi's were both far right- and far left.

But they were always Nationalists.

Let me guess, someone told you that Nazi's were socialists, and you believe in that too.

Even as they marched Socialists off to the gas chambers.


----------



## Freewill

Faun said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
Click to expand...

The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.


----------



## Faun

Freewill said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
Click to expand...

The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.


----------



## Ame®icano

Faun said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
Click to expand...


You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power. 

The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.


----------



## Faun

Ame®icano said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
Click to expand...


----------



## Freewill

Ame®icano said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
Click to expand...

Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats.  As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism).   You are trying to prove causality without proof.  Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist.  That is foolishness to assume such. 

Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism.  The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.


----------



## Ame®icano

Faun said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Is that the best answer you could provide? Rather, can you prove they're not?

Homework for you, Kenneth Stampp's - *The Peculiar Institution*

If you go today to any Democrat controlled inner city, and we're talking about two dozens of cities completely dominated by Democrats for decades, you find in them today all the features of slave plantations that Stampp outlined in his classic work. When you finish reading, return here to debate me.


----------



## Ame®icano

Freewill said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats.  As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism).   You are trying to prove causality without proof.  Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist.  That is foolishness to assume such.
> 
> Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism.  The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.
Click to expand...


They're trying to prove many things not by providing proofs, but by lying and rewriting history. How possibly we can blame Democrats today for what Democrats did 150 years ago under slavery, or 100 years ago under segregation, or 70 years ago under KKK, 60 years ago under lynching, or 50 years ago for voting against civil rights act, why do we blame them for all that? Democrats have changed, right?

I'll believe they have changed once they admit and apologize for all they did. Until then, they will always remain party of slavery, party of segregation, party of Jim Crow laws, party of KKK, party of lynching, party of poll taxes, party of forced sterilization, etc.

They will not admit or apologize! They called Robert Byrd a "conscience of the Senate" until he died in 2010. We're not talking about Democrat from before 50 years ago, but before just seven years ago. Hillary Clinton called him her mentor, her husband Bill and President Barry went to the funeral. Remember what Bubba said at the funeral?


----------



## Faun

Freewill said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats.  As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism).   You are trying to prove causality without proof.  Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist.  That is foolishness to assume such.
> 
> Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism.  The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.
Click to expand...

And the conservative south is now Republican. Still conservative and still racist.


----------



## Faun

Ame®icano said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best answer you could provide? Rather, can you prove they're not?
> 
> Homework for you, Kenneth Stampp's - *The Peculiar Institution*
> 
> If you go today to any Democrat controlled inner city, and we're talking about two dozens of cities completely dominated by Democrats for decades, you find in them today all the features of slave plantations that Stampp outlined in his classic work. When you finish reading, return here to debate me.
Click to expand...

When you post crazy shit, yeah, that suffices.


----------



## emilynghiem

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



At least give the Dems early points for "inclusion" of political beliefs and diversity!

As for defending Constitutional rights and freedoms of Klan members and groups:

One of the most established Liberal activists for LGBT rights and prison reform,
Ray Hill, prides himself on defending the First Amendment "free speech" rights
of the Klan when they sued for the right to march down public streets in Houston.

This is especially significant as Ray is opposed to the far right and Christians who are anti-gay
and intolerant of opposing liberal views and beliefs.

The case was styled in his name, and he wants people to remember that as a
symbol that Constitutional rights apply to ALL PEOPLE regardless if we agree on their beliefs or views.

If we don't defend the rights of those we even oppose, that threatens OUR RIGHTS.
We can't selectively enforce laws and rights depending on politics,
especially when we don't want that done to us. It weakens the law for everyone.


----------



## Geaux4it

Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.

-Geaux


----------



## Freewill

Faun said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats.  As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism).   You are trying to prove causality without proof.  Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist.  That is foolishness to assume such.
> 
> Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism.  The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the conservative south is now Republican. Still conservative and still racist.
Click to expand...

As I have pointed out to you, and you ignore, there is no causality in your argument.  You point to absolutely nothing as your proof.  Nixon is usually whom you who perpetuate the lie point to as the cause but that has been shown to be nothing but apologetic BS.

You have nothing except to keep repeating the same old lie.  Why won't you just admit it?  Republicans took over the south and the Jim Crow laws ended.  The KKK fell out of power and favor.  There were no more KKK movies shown in the WH.  Name a racist event and you will find it was democrats.


----------



## Freewill

emilynghiem said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least give the Dems early points for "inclusion" of political beliefs and diversity!
> 
> As for defending Constitutional rights and freedoms of Klan members and groups:
> 
> One of the most established Liberal activists for LGBT rights and prison reform,
> Ray Hill, prides himself on defending the First Amendment "free speech" rights
> of the Klan when they sued for the right to march down public streets in Houston.
> 
> This is especially significant as Ray is opposed to the far right and Christians who are anti-gay
> and intolerant of opposing liberal views and beliefs.
> 
> The case was styled in his name, and he wants people to remember that as a
> symbol that Constitutional rights apply to ALL PEOPLE regardless if we agree on their beliefs or views.
> 
> If we don't defend the rights of those we even oppose, that threatens OUR RIGHTS.
> We can't selectively enforce laws and rights depending on politics,
> especially when we don't want that done to us. It weakens the law for everyone.
Click to expand...

You have to be joking.  The left wing and the democrats are about as intolerant of group as one could find.  Being tolerant isn't going along with nothing as do the democrats being tolerant is a Christian helping a sinner, which they do, the democrats not so much.  Look at the intolerance displayed on this board. Is there a liberal/democrat that has any tolerance for anything a conservative/republican might think?

Take abortion for example.  What does the left wing do to counter the argument the at the unborn is worthy of protection?  First they vilify, then they claim some unwritten write to choice.  Intolerant is the only way to look at the democrat party.  A least there are Log Cabin Republicans. 

You also use as a defense of democrats the actions of their members which is disingenuous.  Much like the left will paint the right as anti-gay, not true, but in fact there are gay in the Republican party.  Which, interestingly enough, who are vilified by the democrats.


----------



## Ame®icano

Faun said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that the best answer you could provide? Rather, can you prove they're not?
> 
> Homework for you, Kenneth Stampp's - *The Peculiar Institution*
> 
> If you go today to any Democrat controlled inner city, and we're talking about two dozens of cities completely dominated by Democrats for decades, you find in them today all the features of slave plantations that Stampp outlined in his classic work. When you finish reading, return here to debate me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you post crazy shit, yeah, that suffices.
Click to expand...


And that is classic leftist argument.


----------



## emilynghiem

Freewill said:


> emilynghiem said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least give the Dems early points for "inclusion" of political beliefs and diversity!
> 
> As for defending Constitutional rights and freedoms of Klan members and groups:
> 
> One of the most established Liberal activists for LGBT rights and prison reform,
> Ray Hill, prides himself on defending the First Amendment "free speech" rights
> of the Klan when they sued for the right to march down public streets in Houston.
> 
> This is especially significant as Ray is opposed to the far right and Christians who are anti-gay
> and intolerant of opposing liberal views and beliefs.
> 
> The case was styled in his name, and he wants people to remember that as a
> symbol that Constitutional rights apply to ALL PEOPLE regardless if we agree on their beliefs or views.
> 
> If we don't defend the rights of those we even oppose, that threatens OUR RIGHTS.
> We can't selectively enforce laws and rights depending on politics,
> especially when we don't want that done to us. It weakens the law for everyone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have to be joking.  The left wing and the democrats are about as intolerant of group as one could find.  Being tolerant isn't going along with nothing as do the democrats being tolerant is a Christian helping a sinner, which they do, the democrats not so much.  Look at the intolerance displayed on this board. Is there a liberal/democrat that has any tolerance for anything a conservative/republican might think?
> 
> Take abortion for example.  What does the left wing do to counter the argument the at the unborn is worthy of protection?  First they vilify, then they claim some unwritten write to choice.  Intolerant is the only way to look at the democrat party.  A least there are Log Cabin Republicans.
> 
> You also use as a defense of democrats the actions of their members which is disingenuous.  Much like the left will paint the right as anti-gay, not true, but in fact there are gay in the Republican party.  Which, interestingly enough, who are vilified by the democrats.
Click to expand...


Dear Freewill
1. I'm not using this as a "defense" or "denial" of democrat intolerance which I constantly criticize for the same reasons you and other opponents do, but rather using this to point to exceptions such as Ray Hill as an example of what liberals ought to be doing in terms of inclusion and working with leaders and people of both parties. He has consulted with govt officials at all levels on getting reforms done. He will work with Christians and Conservatives, such as helping Joel Osteen cut through city red tape to get the Compaq Center they were blocking him from buying because they wanted the business revenue and not sell it to a church.

2. I am a progressive prochoice Democrat.
I also strive to do what all citizens and leaders who care about the country should do:
and that is put the Constitution first before party.

And yes I DO give to prolife causes such as my friend Juda Myers
Choices for Life where I bought an ad to support her gala
to promote The Nurturing Network as one of my favorite models for prolife
support of women to prevent abortion and forcing women into it by social
career or financial pressures.

I argue on behalf of prolife beliefs that should be equally and Constitutionally
protected from infringement the same as prochoice beliefs that are equally a choice.

Yes, I know that Liberals such as Ray Hill and me are rare, and we have a greater responsibility to help others to understand where they and the Democrats go wrong.
Ray is even more traditional liberal than me, and willing to push the LGBT agenda
while I also hold it to be a belief or creed that should be a free choice not pushed by govt to the point of penalizing or discriminating against people of opposing beliefs.

3. I am a harder critic of fellow Democrats
and believe the Republicans tend to do better checking their own party
corruption because their members who are Christians and Constitutionalists
already know how to use, cite, invoke and rebuke one another BY THE LAWS.

the Democrats generally don't know how to do this
and have avoided taking the law to conscience as the conservatives do.
instead they rely on party and media to bully to protest and demand reforms.

So I tend to focus more on correcting that problem.
I will correct Republicans and conservatives when they get off point
and start bullying liek their counterparts instead of STICKING TO PRINCIPLE.
I have virtually "yelled" and lectured Republicans to unite and get their act
together because the Democrats surely won't follow the Constitution
if the Republicans stray and don't enforce it. We need them to do their job!

So I am a Constitutional first.
I find it is only fair, ethical and consistent to defend
the beliefs of people of both parties from each other,
as well as the other parties where key solutions
are coming from the Greens and Libertarians
who can't be heard if the floors of Courts and Congress are dominated by
D and R members bullying and outshouting each other in the media as well.

I can best explain and enforce principles by example.

Ray Hill happens to be a shining example while he is
respected as representing the liberals and Democrats
even more than I am who is constantly labeled a conservative
because of my Constitutional arguments that sound more like
Christians on the right and Conservatives. Sometimes I can
be  harder than prolife advocates on their own prolife colleagues who aren't truly supporting the leaders and solutions that would most effectively prevent abortion,
and equally harder than other Democrats liberals and prochoice
on the prochoice people who violate that principle by pushing right to health
care through govt instead of respecting free choice.

So I can be harder on both sides as a Constitutionalist.
But at least those arguments are consistent.

I'm saying if you are going to be prochoice and demand
separation of beliefs from govt, then practice what you preach.

And if you are going to be  prolife for Constitutional principles,
then practice and protect those same beliefs for both sides equally.

That ends up being the most consistent enforceable way
I can help defend the beliefs on both sides because I am not
asking to violate the beliefs of the other, but to satisfy and protect both equally.

So that is both prochoice and prolife.
I'm against abortion and believe in 100% prevention
but believe this is best accomplished using a prochoice approach
as the prolife movement already does. They do'nt depend on laws
making abortion illegal or punishing it in order to invest all efforts
and resources in prevention, and they do the best job. So we need
to increase and back up those prevention prolife efforts 100% in order
to reduce and eliminate the causes of unwanted pregrancy and abortion,
in keeping with prolife goals, while not pushing unconstitutional laws
that violate due process and beliefs of prochoice advocates in free choice.


----------



## Pogo

Freewill said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats.  As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism).   You are trying to prove causality without proof.  Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist.  That is foolishness to assume such.
> 
> Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism.  The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the conservative south is now Republican. Still conservative and still racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I have pointed out to you, and you ignore, there is no causality in your argument.  You point to absolutely nothing as your proof.  Nixon is usually whom you who perpetuate the lie point to as the cause but that has been shown to be nothing but apologetic BS.
> 
> You have nothing except to keep repeating the same old lie.  Why won't you just admit it?  Republicans took over the south and the Jim Crow laws ended.  The KKK fell out of power and favor.  There were no more KKK movies shown in the WH.  Name a racist event and you will find it was democrats.
Click to expand...


Charlottesville?

Ooopsie.


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.
> 
> -Geaux



Or maybe it's more like "take a picture of where we are, not some freaking trolley tracks in Wisconsin".


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats.  As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism).   You are trying to prove causality without proof.  Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist.  That is foolishness to assume such.
> 
> Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism.  The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're trying to prove many things not by providing proofs, but by lying and rewriting history. How possibly we can blame Democrats today for what Democrats did 150 years ago under slavery, or 100 years ago under segregation, or 70 years ago under KKK, 60 years ago under lynching, or 50 years ago for voting against civil rights act, why do we blame them for all that? Democrats have changed, right?
> 
> I'll believe they have changed once they admit and apologize for all they did. Until then, they will always remain party of slavery, party of segregation, party of Jim Crow laws, party of KKK, party of lynching, party of poll taxes, party of forced sterilization, etc.
> 
> They will not admit or apologize! They called Robert Byrd a "conscience of the Senate" until he died in 2010. We're not talking about Democrat from before 50 years ago, but before just seven years ago. Hillary Clinton called him her mentor, her husband Bill and President Barry went to the funeral. Remember what Bubba said at the funeral?
Click to expand...


Once again and for the 5966th time --- Byrd walked away from the Klan before he ever ran for office and before Hillary was even _born_.  And vigorously repudiated it.  What does he have to do, crawl out of the grave and put an "R" after his name?

That's what Thurmond did when he took a hissyfit about not being able to stop the CRA in 1964, and Thurmond never repudiated jack shit.

Says a lot about "spelling" huh.


----------



## Pogo

Freewill said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
Click to expand...


Once again, the history lesson that refuses to sink in --- the Civil War was not between "political parties"; the Republican Party did not fight, or "win", the Civil War.  The *United States* won the Civil War, and it did so with a Republican President and a Democratic Vice President, or as the two collectively named themselves, the "National Union Party".

The Civil War was between _regions_.  In the Presidential election just before it, both the Republican and the Democrat candidates won _dead zero_ electoral votes in the region that seceded.  That's because the secession had in spirit already begun.  And after that region did secede, it deliberately had no political parties.

As someone posted above, "The problem with your BS is that there is no causality".
Who posted that?  You did.


----------



## Faun

Geaux4it said:


> Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.
> 
> -Geaux


Spits the idiot who started this thread with the bullshit that the OP’s photo was of the KKK marching at the 1924 DNC at *Madison* Square Garden when it was really in *Madison*, Wisconsin — nowhere near the DNC.


----------



## Faun

Freewill said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats.  As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism).   You are trying to prove causality without proof.  Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist.  That is foolishness to assume such.
> 
> Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism.  The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the conservative south is now Republican. Still conservative and still racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> As I have pointed out to you, and you ignore, there is no causality in your argument.  You point to absolutely nothing as your proof.  Nixon is usually whom you who perpetuate the lie point to as the cause but that has been shown to be nothing but apologetic BS.
> 
> You have nothing except to keep repeating the same old lie.  Why won't you just admit it?  Republicans took over the south and the Jim Crow laws ended.  The KKK fell out of power and favor.  There were no more KKK movies shown in the WH.  Name a racist event and you will find it was democrats.
Click to expand...

You unwittingly make my point and you don’t even know it. You point out how Jim Crow laws ended thanks to Republicans, which is true. That was while the vast majority of Republicans were still in the north and west while the Deep South was still Democrat. Just as with the Civil war, it was north versus south.

That has since switched where the north and west is mostly Democrat and the south is now mostly Republican. What hasn’t changed is that the south was, and is, largely conservative.


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the idiot who started this thread with the bullshit that the OP’s photo was of the KKK marching at the 1924 DNC at *Madison* Square Garden when it was really in *Madison*, Wisconsin — nowhere near the DNC.
Click to expand...


--- and a month after the election itself had already happened.

Peculiar that the OP waddles his way back in here yet has nothing to say to defend his laughable OP.  And can't admit to his documentable fuckup.

That's exactly why it follows him around like a puppy wherever he posts.  And until he fesses up to it, I'll make sure that puppy keeps a-barkin'.  It's the least I can do to call out rank dishonesty.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…



Liberals???   Context???

The difference today is they all wear suits and ties sold by Trump.  A few token women and one black man round out the swamp critters:


----------



## Pogo

Freewill said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> Name five who did so.
> 
> I'll help you with first one, you fill the blanks. Can you?
> 
> 1. Strom Thurmond
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure .... all of the conservative southerners who flipped the south from Democrat...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... to Republican ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats.  As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism).   You are trying to prove causality without proof.  Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist.  That is foolishness to assume such.
> 
> Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism.  The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.
Click to expand...


Racism is a *social *construct, not a political one, so there is no "party of racism".  Racism and the slave trade it fueled was entrenched way before there were any political parties or even a country here.  Centuries before.

NOR is such a social construct limited to a region just because _slavery _was an economic model "here" and not "there".  _Slavery _and _racism _are not the same thing, even if they work symbiotically.  You didn't need to own a slave --- or have any interaction at all with Africans -- to be a racist.  Ignorance does that.  But you did need to be a racist to participate in African slavery.

We can point out here that in the election of 1860 immediately preceding the Civil War, one of the states also held a referendum on the question of whether black people (read: men) should be given the right to vote in that state.  The referendum came back with a resounding NO on that question -- black people, it said, should not be given the right to vote.  And that state was ---- New York.  Which in the very same election voted for Abraham Lincoln, the guy from the new upstart party that was making noises about Abolition.

So this matter is always more complex than "racism is all in the South".  Racism actually comes in regional flavors.

In another example the influx of black migration to the factories springing up in Illinois and Michigan and Indiana and Ohio and Pennsylvania, etc etc saw these new workers shunted off into segregated living facilities.  And those were also prime recruiting fields for the Klan, who preyed on that fear of the "invading hordes".  That's why the Klan also railed against immigrants and labor unions. And when the Klan got people voted into office in those places they were Republicans,while its candidates in the South were Democrats.  That's not a cause-and-effect political relationship; it's a simple case of political expediency --- whatever would sell in that time and that place.


----------



## Ame®icano

Pogo said:


> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with your BS is that there is no causality.  Just because the south turned red doesn't mean it was caused by racism.  Using you illogic every state that is red is racist, we know that isn't true.  There was no reason to support the Republican party because of racism.  The Republican party won the Civil war, supported ALL of the civil rights acts.  Did not start the KKK, or the Jim Crow laws.  There was absolutely nothing to lead a racist to the Republican party, but states rights, that is another issue.
> 
> 
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats.  As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism).   You are trying to prove causality without proof.  Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist.  That is foolishness to assume such.
> 
> Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism.  The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're trying to prove many things not by providing proofs, but by lying and rewriting history. How possibly we can blame Democrats today for what Democrats did 150 years ago under slavery, or 100 years ago under segregation, or 70 years ago under KKK, 60 years ago under lynching, or 50 years ago for voting against civil rights act, why do we blame them for all that? Democrats have changed, right?
> 
> I'll believe they have changed once they admit and apologize for all they did. Until then, they will always remain party of slavery, party of segregation, party of Jim Crow laws, party of KKK, party of lynching, party of poll taxes, party of forced sterilization, etc.
> 
> They will not admit or apologize! They called Robert Byrd a "conscience of the Senate" until he died in 2010. We're not talking about Democrat from before 50 years ago, but before just seven years ago. Hillary Clinton called him her mentor, her husband Bill and President Barry went to the funeral. Remember what Bubba said at the funeral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again and for the 5966th time --- Byrd walked away from the Klan before he ever ran for office and before Hillary was even _born_.  And vigorously repudiated it.  What does he have to do, crawl out of the grave and put an "R" after his name?
> 
> That's what Thurmond did when he took a hissyfit about not being able to stop the CRA in 1964, and Thurmond never repudiated jack shit.
> 
> Says a lot about "spelling" huh.
Click to expand...


Byrd repudiated the KKK, when? He said that being in the Klan was his greatest mistake, but when did he apologized for it?

And we can't call him on it because you said he walk away from it, but you can rub on David Duke who also left the Klan, until the end of time?

By the way, how far did you get with compiling the list of all those racist Democrats that became Republicans during that non existent "party switch"?

Let's finish that list:
1. Strom Thurmond,
2.
3.
4.
5.

Fill the blanks.


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats.  As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism).   You are trying to prove causality without proof.  Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist.  That is foolishness to assume such.
> 
> Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism.  The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're trying to prove many things not by providing proofs, but by lying and rewriting history. How possibly we can blame Democrats today for what Democrats did 150 years ago under slavery, or 100 years ago under segregation, or 70 years ago under KKK, 60 years ago under lynching, or 50 years ago for voting against civil rights act, why do we blame them for all that? Democrats have changed, right?
> 
> I'll believe they have changed once they admit and apologize for all they did. Until then, they will always remain party of slavery, party of segregation, party of Jim Crow laws, party of KKK, party of lynching, party of poll taxes, party of forced sterilization, etc.
> 
> They will not admit or apologize! They called Robert Byrd a "conscience of the Senate" until he died in 2010. We're not talking about Democrat from before 50 years ago, but before just seven years ago. Hillary Clinton called him her mentor, her husband Bill and President Barry went to the funeral. Remember what Bubba said at the funeral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again and for the 5966th time --- Byrd walked away from the Klan before he ever ran for office and before Hillary was even _born_.  And vigorously repudiated it.  What does he have to do, crawl out of the grave and put an "R" after his name?
> 
> That's what Thurmond did when he took a hissyfit about not being able to stop the CRA in 1964, and Thurmond never repudiated jack shit.
> 
> Says a lot about "spelling" huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Byrd repudiated the KKK, when? He said that being in the Klan was his greatest mistake, but when did he apologized for it?
> 
> And we can't call him on it because you said he walk away from it, but you can rub on David Duke who also left the Klan, until the end of time?
> 
> By the way, how far did you get with compiling the list of all those racist Democrats that became Republicans during that non existent "party switch"?
> 
> Let's finish that list:
> 1. Strom Thurmond,
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Fill the blanks.
Click to expand...


You're on ignore until you learn to grow the fuck up, Peewee.

Quit wasting everybody's bandwidth with these childish horseshit games.


----------



## Wry Catcher

Ame®icano said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ame®icano said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The south has always been more racist than the north. The south has always been more conservative than the north and more religious than the north. At one time, the south was also more Democrat than Republican.   Ideologies don’t shift much. Religions don’t shift much. But political parties do. And the south which was once firmly Democrat, is now mostly Republican. Still more conservative... still more religious... and still more racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're probably right, the southern states used to be more racist, when Democrats were in power.
> 
> The most racist states today are those where Democrats still have power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Everything ever done in the south that was racist was done be democrats.  As I pointed out, Slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK, Standing in the school house door shouting segregation today and forever(took a Republican to stop that racism).   You are trying to prove causality without proof.  Even if the south as a whole is more racist than the north that does not mean that the Republican party is racist.  That is foolishness to assume such.
> 
> Instead of painting the picture you want, look at the record of the democrat party and that of the republican party, no comparison the democrats proved by their actions that they are truly the party of racism.  The republicans, by action, proved themselves to be the opposite.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're trying to prove many things not by providing proofs, but by lying and rewriting history. How possibly we can blame Democrats today for what Democrats did 150 years ago under slavery, or 100 years ago under segregation, or 70 years ago under KKK, 60 years ago under lynching, or 50 years ago for voting against civil rights act, why do we blame them for all that? Democrats have changed, right?
> 
> I'll believe they have changed once they admit and apologize for all they did. Until then, they will always remain party of slavery, party of segregation, party of Jim Crow laws, party of KKK, party of lynching, party of poll taxes, party of forced sterilization, etc.
> 
> They will not admit or apologize! They called Robert Byrd a "conscience of the Senate" until he died in 2010. We're not talking about Democrat from before 50 years ago, but before just seven years ago. Hillary Clinton called him her mentor, her husband Bill and President Barry went to the funeral. Remember what Bubba said at the funeral?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again and for the 5966th time --- Byrd walked away from the Klan before he ever ran for office and before Hillary was even _born_.  And vigorously repudiated it.  What does he have to do, crawl out of the grave and put an "R" after his name?
> 
> That's what Thurmond did when he took a hissyfit about not being able to stop the CRA in 1964, and Thurmond never repudiated jack shit.
> 
> Says a lot about "spelling" huh.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Byrd repudiated the KKK, when? He said that being in the Klan was his greatest mistake, but when did he apologized for it?
> 
> And we can't call him on it because you said he walk away from it, but you can rub on David Duke who also left the Klan, until the end of time?
> 
> By the way, how far did you get with compiling the list of all those racist Democrats that became Republicans during that non existent "party switch"?
> 
> Let's finish that list:
> 1. Strom Thurmond,
> 2.
> 3.
> 4.
> 5.
> 
> Fill the blanks.
Click to expand...


There are not enough blanks:

Party switching in the United States - Wikipedia


----------



## Peach

Faun said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the idiot who started this thread with the bullshit that the OP’s photo was of the KKK marching at the 1924 DNC at *Madison* Square Garden when it was really in *Madison*, Wisconsin — nowhere near the DNC.
Click to expand...


I read it was 1925, Washington DC. In any event, not the DNC. 

The day 30,000 white supremacists in KKK robes marched in the nation’s capital


----------



## Pogo

Peach said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the idiot who started this thread with the bullshit that the OP’s photo was of the KKK marching at the 1924 DNC at *Madison* Square Garden when it was really in *Madison*, Wisconsin — nowhere near the DNC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it was 1925, Washington DC. In any event, not the DNC.
> 
> The day 30,000 white supremacists in KKK robes marched in the nation’s capital
Click to expand...


That happened too but it was hardly the only Klan march or event.

The OP's picture is in the Wisconsin Historical Society.  It's from December 1924 (this very day in fact, December 2) and it's a funeral march for a slain police officer.  Nothing to do with politics and a thousand miles away from, and six months after, the actual Democratic convention, which was in New York and didn't take place on wet trolley tracks (nor, of course, is the picture "newly discovered").

The thread's just a glaring example of how partisan hacks like Geaux4it will run with a fake story without bothering to vet its veracity just because they'd like it to be true.  Now he's wearing it around his neck.


----------



## Faun

Pogo said:


> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the idiot who started this thread with the bullshit that the OP’s photo was of the KKK marching at the 1924 DNC at *Madison* Square Garden when it was really in *Madison*, Wisconsin — nowhere near the DNC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it was 1925, Washington DC. In any event, not the DNC.
> 
> The day 30,000 white supremacists in KKK robes marched in the nation’s capital
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That happened too but it was hardly the only Klan march or event.
> 
> The OP's picture is in the Wisconsin Historical Society.  It's from December 1924 (this very day in fact, December 2) and it's a funeral march for a slain police officer.  Nothing to do with politics and a thousand miles away from, and six months after, the actual Democratic convention, which was in New York and didn't take place on wet trolley tracks (nor, of course, is the picture "newly discovered").
> 
> The thread's just a glaring example of how partisan hacks like Geaux4it will run with a fake story without bothering to vet its veracity just because they'd like it to be true.  Now he's wearing it around his neck.
Click to expand...

So is bripat9643. Another yahoo who started a thread on this nonsense. His idiotic thread was merged into this one.


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the idiot who started this thread with the bullshit that the OP’s photo was of the KKK marching at the 1924 DNC at *Madison* Square Garden when it was really in *Madison*, Wisconsin — nowhere near the DNC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it was 1925, Washington DC. In any event, not the DNC.
> 
> The day 30,000 white supremacists in KKK robes marched in the nation’s capital
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That happened too but it was hardly the only Klan march or event.
> 
> The OP's picture is in the Wisconsin Historical Society.  It's from December 1924 (this very day in fact, December 2) and it's a funeral march for a slain police officer.  Nothing to do with politics and a thousand miles away from, and six months after, the actual Democratic convention, which was in New York and didn't take place on wet trolley tracks (nor, of course, is the picture "newly discovered").
> 
> The thread's just a glaring example of how partisan hacks like Geaux4it will run with a fake story without bothering to vet its veracity just because they'd like it to be true.  Now he's wearing it around his neck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is bripat9643. Another yahoo who started a thread on this nonsense. His idiotic thread was merged into this one.
Click to expand...


I remember that -- in fact I think it was Fingerboy's thread when I first got here.

Isn't that right Fingerboy?  Be proud, own your co-hackery.

Guess it just demonstrates that partisan hacks will not only gulp down whatever looks good whole without reading the ingredient label, but they'll also do so en masse, apparently due to an inability to individually think for oneself.


----------



## regent

Moonglow said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> You are right I don't like it at all, no porta potties available , instead public urination, disgusting...
Click to expand...

That's why the sheets.


----------



## Geaux4it

The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.

-Geaux


----------



## Syriusly

Geaux4it said:


> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux



Says the liar who posted the lies of the OP. 

'which is widely known'- i.e. Geaux4it keeps saying it. 

But he says lots of bullshit


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux



They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.

And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.

If that ain't collusion -----

---- oh wait.  It isn't.

History book.  Get one.

And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:


Rice Means (Colorado)

Edward Jackson (Indiana)
Clarence Morley (Colorado)

Owen Brewster (Maine)
Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)

Ben Paulen (Kansas)

George Luis Baker (Oregon)

D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.

Fun stuff, mythbusting.


----------



## Pogo

Pogo said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting now how they say they 'changed' as in that erases history. But when it comes to change with others, they say a tiger can't change its stripes. For the Dems, its 'what I say, not what I do'.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the idiot who started this thread with the bullshit that the OP’s photo was of the KKK marching at the 1924 DNC at *Madison* Square Garden when it was really in *Madison*, Wisconsin — nowhere near the DNC.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read it was 1925, Washington DC. In any event, not the DNC.
> 
> The day 30,000 white supremacists in KKK robes marched in the nation’s capital
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That happened too but it was hardly the only Klan march or event.
> 
> The OP's picture is in the Wisconsin Historical Society.  It's from December 1924 (this very day in fact, December 2) and it's a funeral march for a slain police officer.  Nothing to do with politics and a thousand miles away from, and six months after, the actual Democratic convention, which was in New York and didn't take place on wet trolley tracks (nor, of course, is the picture "newly discovered").
> 
> The thread's just a glaring example of how partisan hacks like Geaux4it will run with a fake story without bothering to vet its veracity just because they'd like it to be true.  Now he's wearing it around his neck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is bripat9643. Another yahoo who started a thread on this nonsense. His idiotic thread was merged into this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember that -- in fact I think it was Fingerboy's thread when I first got here.
> 
> Isn't that right Fingerboy?  Be proud, own your co-hackery.
> 
> Guess it just demonstrates that partisan hacks will not only gulp down whatever looks good whole without reading the ingredient label, but they'll also do so en masse, apparently due to an inability to individually think for oneself.
Click to expand...


Whelp --- courtesy of a September story in the Wisconsin State Journal here's the background on the whole thing, including the police murder, the neighborhood and the rumrunning that perpetuated it, the whole shebang.  And an additional photo from where the march was going:




​Dayum.  Madison Square Garden in the middle of Noo Yawk sure looked different then, dinnit?

It also notes where this ridiculous faux pas got started --- apparently Dinesh d'Souza, who purports to write history books, AND..


..... wait for it.............................




Chuck Woolery.

*CHUCK FUCKING WOOLERY. * Yep, the bigly-head TV game show host.  That's where they're taking their cues.  His tweet is at the link.  You'll have to kill your AdBlock to get in there.

Woolery is apparently vying with d'Souza in a game of "can you out-clueless this" --- in here he's actually suggesting the Klan is "on the left" and expresses clueless incredulity that it isn't.

"Since when did the #*KKK* become the Far Right? They have historically been the plain ole Left"​




Can't make it up.


----------



## Rustic

Pogo said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spits the idiot who started this thread with the bullshit that the OP’s photo was of the KKK marching at the 1924 DNC at *Madison* Square Garden when it was really in *Madison*, Wisconsin — nowhere near the DNC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read it was 1925, Washington DC. In any event, not the DNC.
> 
> The day 30,000 white supremacists in KKK robes marched in the nation’s capital
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That happened too but it was hardly the only Klan march or event.
> 
> The OP's picture is in the Wisconsin Historical Society.  It's from December 1924 (this very day in fact, December 2) and it's a funeral march for a slain police officer.  Nothing to do with politics and a thousand miles away from, and six months after, the actual Democratic convention, which was in New York and didn't take place on wet trolley tracks (nor, of course, is the picture "newly discovered").
> 
> The thread's just a glaring example of how partisan hacks like Geaux4it will run with a fake story without bothering to vet its veracity just because they'd like it to be true.  Now he's wearing it around his neck.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So is bripat9643. Another yahoo who started a thread on this nonsense. His idiotic thread was merged into this one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I remember that -- in fact I think it was Fingerboy's thread when I first got here.
> 
> Isn't that right Fingerboy?  Be proud, own your co-hackery.
> 
> Guess it just demonstrates that partisan hacks will not only gulp down whatever looks good whole without reading the ingredient label, but they'll also do so en masse, apparently due to an inability to individually think for oneself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whelp --- courtesy of a September story in the Wisconsin State Journal here's the background on the whole thing, including the police murder, the neighborhood and the rumrunning that perpetuated it, the whole shebang.  And an additional photo from where the march was going:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ​Dayum.  Madison Square Garden in the middle of Noo Yawk sure looked different then, dinnit?
> 
> It also notes where this ridiculous faux pas got started --- apparently Dinesh d'Souza, who purports to write history books, AND..
> 
> 
> ..... wait for it.............................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuck Woolery.
> 
> *CHUCK FUCKING WOOLERY. * Yep, the bigly-head TV game show host.  That's where they're taking their cues.  His tweet is at the link.  You'll have to kill your AdBlock to get in there.
> 
> Woolery is apparently vying with d'Souza in a game of "can you out-clueless this" --- in here he's actually suggesting the Klan is "on the left" and expresses clueless incredulity that it isn't.
> 
> "Since when did the #*KKK* become the Far Right? They have historically been the plain ole Left"​
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't make it up.
Click to expand...

They are progressives


----------



## Crixus

Pogo said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
Click to expand...



Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.


----------



## Pogo

Crixus said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
Click to expand...


Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).

That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.

That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.

That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.

Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.

NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.

Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.

Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.

aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
Click to expand...

Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
Click to expand...


Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them.  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.

Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them..  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
Click to expand...

You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1865.  It clearly did.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them..  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1865.  It clearly did.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  I claimed the Democratic Party didn't exist _*in that time and place.*_

That time was 1865 and that place was Tennessee.  Tennessee was occupied vanquished territory, the last country it had been a part of being the CSA.  And the CSA had no political parties.  It had deliberately abolished them when it formed.


----------



## Faun

Crixus said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
Click to expand...

The KKK is a monster created in the conservative south. They were primarily Democrats back then. Today, they are primarily Republicans. While they switched political parties, they didn’t switch switch ideologies; which remains conservative.


----------



## bodecea

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
Click to expand...

Look at that...only two states went Democrat.   The "Southern Democratic" party was a new party.  Thank you for posting that, btw.....


----------



## Crixus

bodecea said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at that...only two states went Democrat.   The "Southern Democratic" party was a new party.  Thank you for posting that, btw.....
Click to expand...



Cherry picked bled s. You support slavery. What a mook.


----------



## Crixus

Faun said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The KKK is a monster created in the conservative south. They were primarily Democrats back then. Today, they are primarily Republicans. While they switched political parties, they didn’t switch switch ideologies; which remains conservative.
Click to expand...




Not true. You just a slave supporting your party of slavery.


----------



## Faun

Crixus said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The KKK is a monster created in the conservative south. They were primarily Democrats back then. Today, they are primarily Republicans. While they switched political parties, they didn’t switch switch ideologies; which remains conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true. You just a slave supporting your party of slavery.
Click to expand...

LOL 

Your, _”nuh-uh,”_  is laughed at and summarily discarded.


----------



## bripat9643

bodecea said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at that...only two states went Democrat.   The "Southern Democratic" party was a new party.  Thank you for posting that, btw.....
Click to expand...


The "Southern Democratic" party existed only until the 1860 election.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them.  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
Click to expand...


The map shows the party affilations to be Republican, Democrat, Southern Democrat and Constitutional Union.  Then you stupidly claim there was no party affiliation.


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The KKK is a monster created in the conservative south. They were primarily Democrats back then. Today, they are primarily Republicans. While they switched political parties, they didn’t switch switch ideologies; which remains conservative.
Click to expand...


Actually they weren't even primarily Democrats then.  In 1865 Tennessee had had no political parties for four years since the Confederacy seceded, and before that in the election of 1860 the Democratic candidate Douglas got no electoral votes at all from the states that would become the Confederacy.  Tennessee was won by John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party, an offshoot of the Whigs.

The Democratic domination of the South began a decade or so after the War ended, as the Whigs and Constitutional Unionists had dried up and the Republican Party, which didn't exist in the South until after the War, was resisted by the white insurgents, and that left the DP as the last party standing.  Republicans remained predominantly in the black population, however marginalized, until the 1930s when the black vote too shifted to the DP.

But none of that is really relevant to the Klan, who weren't taking political positions.  When they resisted Republicans -- it wasn't because of their choice of political party.  The "conservative South" however *absolutely *applies.  That's exactly what they were going for --- to _conserve_, preserve, and recreate the old daze.  To resist the inevitable change.  And that meant change in the _social order_.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
Click to expand...


I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.

The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.

The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.

So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.

Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.

That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.

Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look at that...only two states went Democrat.   The "Southern Democratic" party was a new party.  Thank you for posting that, btw.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "Southern Democratic" party existed only until the 1860 election.
Click to expand...


There was no such thing.  That's just the name historians give to the Southern politicians who convened in Alabama and nominated Breckinridge.  They didn't exist as a unit before then and they didn't exist after the election.  They didn't even pick a name for themselves.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them.  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The map shows the party affilations to be Republican, Democrat, Southern Democrat and Constitutional Union.  Then you stupidly claim there was no party affiliation.
Click to expand...


I didn't know you posted a map until just now, and I addressed it thoroughly.  Maybe when you post an image you should give a clue that you posted an image.


----------



## Syriusly

Crixus said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
Click to expand...


In other words- you are pissed off because someone interrupted your lies with the facts.

LOL


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan colluded with the Democrats which is widely known.
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
Click to expand...

You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.

You were dead wrong.  

End of story.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them.  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The map shows the party affilations to be Republican, Democrat, Southern Democrat and Constitutional Union.  Then you stupidly claim there was no party affiliation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know you posted a map until just now, and I addressed it thoroughly.  Maybe when you post an image you should give a clue that you posted an image.
Click to expand...

I never heard of Adblock preventing an image you linked to from being displayed.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
Click to expand...


Here is what he actually said:
_Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway

Who invented the KKK?_
6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party

_Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
_
Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them.  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The map shows the party affilations to be Republican, Democrat, Southern Democrat and Constitutional Union.  Then you stupidly claim there was no party affiliation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know you posted a map until just now, and I addressed it thoroughly.  Maybe when you post an image you should give a clue that you posted an image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never heard of Adblock preventing an image you linked to from being displayed.
Click to expand...


I still can't see your images. 
I am assuming that my filter is blocking it somehow.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway
> 
> Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
> _
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.
Click to expand...


What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway
> 
> Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
> _
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
Click to expand...

Here dumbass- I will type more slowly for you this time- and make it a bigger font. 

Here is what he actually said:
_Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway_

_Who invented the KKK?_
6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party

_Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?_

Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
Click to expand...


Once AGAIN -- *WRONG*.  And once again, we already did this.  Once again, as I corrected your jellyfaced ignorant ass before, I said it did not exist **IN* *THAT* *TIME* *AND* *PLACE**.  And once again, "that time and place" was Tennessee and 1865.  I did not bring up "1860".  YOU did.

Jesus Christ in a Canoe, you even QUOTED ME two posts later and contradicted yourself ---



bripat9643 said:


> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway
> 
> Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
> _
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here dumbass- I will type more slowly for you this time- and make it a bigger font.
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway_
> 
> _Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?_
> 
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started
Click to expand...


What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN -- *WRONG*.  And once again, we already did this.  Once again, as I corrected your jellyfaced ignorant ass before, I said it did not exist **IN* *THAT* *TIME* *AND* *PLACE**.  And once again, "that time and place" was Tennessee and 1865.  I did not bring up "1860".  YOU did.
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Canoe, you even QUOTED ME two posts later and contradicted yourself ---
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


You have provided not the slightest bit of evidence that the Democrat Party didn't exist in TN in 1865.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them.  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The map shows the party affilations to be Republican, Democrat, Southern Democrat and Constitutional Union.  Then you stupidly claim there was no party affiliation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know you posted a map until just now, and I addressed it thoroughly.  Maybe when you post an image you should give a clue that you posted an image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never heard of Adblock preventing an image you linked to from being displayed.
Click to expand...


Obviously you never heard of coherently reading the English language or vetting a bogus story about a fucking political convention meeting on Wisconsin trolley tracks in a December rain either, so what else is new.

I eventually saw it by killing my AdBlock and picked it apart once I did.  Where did you get it?  Funny how your source not only thinks West Virginia was a state in 1860 but also attrributes electoral votes to it that it did not and could not have cast.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them.  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The map shows the party affilations to be Republican, Democrat, Southern Democrat and Constitutional Union.  Then you stupidly claim there was no party affiliation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know you posted a map until just now, and I addressed it thoroughly.  Maybe when you post an image you should give a clue that you posted an image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never heard of Adblock preventing an image you linked to from being displayed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't see your images.
> I am assuming that my filter is blocking it somehow.
Click to expand...


You must have software that blocks all truth from reaching your screen.  That would explain a lot.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them..  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1865.  It clearly did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  I claimed the Democratic Party didn't exist _*in that time and place.*_
> 
> That time was 1865 and that place was Tennessee.  Tennessee was occupied vanquished territory, the last country it had been a part of being the CSA.  And the CSA had no political parties.  It had deliberately abolished them when it formed.
Click to expand...


The CSA ceased to exist in 1865, so your "logic" is faulty.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN -- *WRONG*.  And once again, we already did this.  Once again, as I corrected your jellyfaced ignorant ass before, I said it did not exist **IN* *THAT* *TIME* *AND* *PLACE**.  And once again, "that time and place" was Tennessee and 1865.  I did not bring up "1860".  YOU did.
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Canoe, you even QUOTED ME two posts later and contradicted yourself ---
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have provided not the slightest bit of evidence that the Democrat Party didn't exist in TN in 1865.
Click to expand...


Hell, Fingeboi, you have provided no evidence at all for a damn thing, just plopping ipse dixits for others to clean up.  Just as some of us had to clean up your ridiculous political convention on trolley tracks in Wisconsin in a "newly discovered" photo that's been sitting in the Wisconsin state archives for 93 freaking years.

Of course that also tells us that you're helpless to check any of this shit out, as you could have checked this out before you stuck yet another jelly foot in your own mouth:

>>
*Political Parties in the Confederacy*
*There were no recognized political parties in the Confederate States of America*. Most Southerners, including Confederate President Jefferson Davis, opposed political parties, considering them to be a corruption of the principles of republican government. However, many of the members of the Confederate Congress were former Southern Democrats. A few had been Constitutional Unionists or Whigs. While there were no political parties, per se, Confederate politicians often divided over the issue of whether to have a strong central government. Nationalists, including Jefferson Davis, favored giving the Confederate government broad powers, especially in war time. Libertarians, led by Alexander Stephens, favored a very limited confederate government, reserving most powers -- including most war powers -- to the individual states. << --- linkylinky​


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them.  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The map shows the party affilations to be Republican, Democrat, Southern Democrat and Constitutional Union.  Then you stupidly claim there was no party affiliation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know you posted a map until just now, and I addressed it thoroughly.  Maybe when you post an image you should give a clue that you posted an image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never heard of Adblock preventing an image you linked to from being displayed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't see your images.
> I am assuming that my filter is blocking it somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have software that blocks all truth from reaching your screen.  That would explain a lot.
Click to expand...


"Truth" like West Virginia being a state in 1860?  "Truth" like the Democratic Party holding its convention in Wisconsin a month after the election was already over?

You're in a deep dark hole here Fingerboy.  And what do you do?  Dig deeper.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them..  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1865.  It clearly did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  I claimed the Democratic Party didn't exist _*in that time and place.*_
> 
> That time was 1865 and that place was Tennessee.  Tennessee was occupied vanquished territory, the last country it had been a part of being the CSA.  And the CSA had no political parties.  It had deliberately abolished them when it formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CSA ceased to exist in 1865, so your "logic" is faulty.
Click to expand...


Correct.  And that's the year of which we speak.  DUH.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> They "colluded" so much that they endorsed Coolidge in the election that happened a month before your photo of a funeral march on trolley tracks in Wisconsin.  In the same year they "colluded" so effectively with Democrats that they got governors and Senators in Indiana, Colorado, Kansas and Maine elected and took over the City Council of Anaheim --- all as Republicans.
> 
> And then four years later they "colluded" so well that not only did they endorse Hoover but they ran a national smear campaign against the Democrat candidate Al Smith, because he was a Catholic.
> 
> If that ain't collusion -----
> 
> ---- oh wait.  It isn't.
> 
> History book.  Get one.
> 
> And if that ever actually happens (by mistake no doubt) or if Santa sticks one under your tree, look up these names:
> 
> 
> Rice Means (Colorado)
> 
> Edward Jackson (Indiana)
> Clarence Morley (Colorado)
> 
> Owen Brewster (Maine)
> Mark Alton Barwise (Maine)
> 
> Ben Paulen (Kansas)
> 
> George Luis Baker (Oregon)
> 
> D.C. Stephenson (Indiana)
> Jack Walton (Oklahoma)
> Actually Walton is the only Democrat on the list.  The Klan got him removed from the governor's office after he tried to drive them out of his state.
> 
> Fun stuff, mythbusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
Click to expand...

LOL 

He never said that, ya lyin’ piss bucket.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway
> 
> Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
> _
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
Click to expand...

What part of, “in that time and place,” don’t you understand?


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN -- *WRONG*.  And once again, we already did this.  Once again, as I corrected your jellyfaced ignorant ass before, I said it did not exist **IN* *THAT* *TIME* *AND* *PLACE**.  And once again, "that time and place" was Tennessee and 1865.  I did not bring up "1860".  YOU did.
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Canoe, you even QUOTED ME two posts later and contradicted yourself ---
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have provided not the slightest bit of evidence that the Democrat Party didn't exist in TN in 1865.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, Fingeboi, you have provided no evidence at all for a damn thing, just plopping ipse dixits for others to clean up.  Just as some of us had to clean up your ridiculous political convention on trolley tracks in Wisconsin in a "newly discovered" photo that's been sitting in the Wisconsin state archives for 93 freaking years.
> 
> Of course that also tells us that you're helpless to check any of this shit out, as you could have checked this out before you stuck yet another jelly foot in your own mouth:
> 
> >>
> *Political Parties in the Confederacy*
> *There were no recognized political parties in the Confederate States of America*. Most Southerners, including Confederate President Jefferson Davis, opposed political parties, considering them to be a corruption of the principles of republican government. However, many of the members of the Confederate Congress were former Southern Democrats. A few had been Constitutional Unionists or Whigs. While there were no political parties, per se, Confederate politicians often divided over the issue of whether to have a strong central government. Nationalists, including Jefferson Davis, favored giving the Confederate government broad powers, especially in war time. Libertarians, led by Alexander Stephens, favored a very limited confederate government, reserving most powers -- including most war powers -- to the individual states. << --- linkylinky​
Click to expand...


Still harping on the trolly tracks parade post?  Wasn't that about 2 years ago?  See, that's how far you have to go back to find any kind of mistake I made, and you drag it up everytime you're getting your ass kicked in a thread.

BTW, the Confederacy didn't exist in "the time and place" where the KKK was formed, so why do you keep bringing it up?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway
> 
> Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
> _
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of, “in that time and place,” don’t you understand?
Click to expand...


Pogo did, moron.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway
> 
> Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
> _
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of, “in that time and place,” don’t you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo did, moron.
Click to expand...

Nope, Pogo didn’t. You’re simply lying now and everyone here sees that for themselves. 

Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing before 1860... you can’t because he didn’t even say snything about 1860.

Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing beyond the borders of Tennessee... you can’t do that either because he didn’t.

Basically, you misunderstood what he said and accused him of saying what you imagine he did. And because you’re not a man of character, you can’t bring yourself to simply acknowledge your mistake but would rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN -- *WRONG*.  And once again, we already did this.  Once again, as I corrected your jellyfaced ignorant ass before, I said it did not exist **IN* *THAT* *TIME* *AND* *PLACE**.  And once again, "that time and place" was Tennessee and 1865.  I did not bring up "1860".  YOU did.
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Canoe, you even QUOTED ME two posts later and contradicted yourself ---
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have provided not the slightest bit of evidence that the Democrat Party didn't exist in TN in 1865.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, Fingeboi, you have provided no evidence at all for a damn thing, just plopping ipse dixits for others to clean up.  Just as some of us had to clean up your ridiculous political convention on trolley tracks in Wisconsin in a "newly discovered" photo that's been sitting in the Wisconsin state archives for 93 freaking years.
> 
> Of course that also tells us that you're helpless to check any of this shit out, as you could have checked this out before you stuck yet another jelly foot in your own mouth:
> 
> >>
> *Political Parties in the Confederacy*
> *There were no recognized political parties in the Confederate States of America*. Most Southerners, including Confederate President Jefferson Davis, opposed political parties, considering them to be a corruption of the principles of republican government. However, many of the members of the Confederate Congress were former Southern Democrats. A few had been Constitutional Unionists or Whigs. While there were no political parties, per se, Confederate politicians often divided over the issue of whether to have a strong central government. Nationalists, including Jefferson Davis, favored giving the Confederate government broad powers, especially in war time. Libertarians, led by Alexander Stephens, favored a very limited confederate government, reserving most powers -- including most war powers -- to the individual states. << --- linkylinky​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still harping on the trolly tracks parade post?  Wasn't that about 2 years ago?  See, that's how far you have to go back to find any kind of mistake I made, and you drag it up everytime you're getting your ass kicked in a thread.
Click to expand...


Are you FINALLY admitting you fucked up?  Actually it's been half a year and you and Geaux4it were following the lead of that eminent historian Chuck Woolery, who also thinks the Klan was "leftist"  So much for sources.

Apparently you don't think this way but I would **NEVER** trot out a story on these pages I didn't first check out to make sure it was valid, or take a cue from Chuck Fucking Woolery.  Apparently I value "facts" more that you though.  But it doesn't matter how long ago it started -- I'm just marking time as to how long you'll prattle alone without ever admitting you got punked by a bogus blog.



bripat9643 said:


> BTW, the Confederacy didn't exist in "the time and place" where the KKK was formed, so why do you keep bringing it up?



I've never claimed it did.  I noted that these six kids who founded it were ex-Confederate soldiers and that's as close as I got to "Confederacy".

And speaking of sources, since you won't say what yours was I took the liberty of looking for an image of the electoral map of 1860 that thinks West Virginia was a state.  I couldn't even _find_ one.


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway
> 
> Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
> _
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of, “in that time and place,” don’t you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo did, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Pogo didn’t. You’re simply lying now and everyone here sees that for themselves.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing before 1860... you can’t because he didn’t even say snything about 1860.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing beyond the borders of Tennessee... you can’t do that either because he didn’t.
> 
> Basically, you misunderstood what he said and accused him of saying what you imagine he did. And because you’re not a man of character, you can’t bring yourself to simply acknowledge your mistake but would rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
Click to expand...


--- much like the way he can't admit he trotted in a bogus convention picture from Wisconsin.

I've already noted billions and billions of times on these pages that the Democratic Party dates back to 1834,


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN -- *WRONG*.  And once again, we already did this.  Once again, as I corrected your jellyfaced ignorant ass before, I said it did not exist **IN* *THAT* *TIME* *AND* *PLACE**.  And once again, "that time and place" was Tennessee and 1865.  I did not bring up "1860".  YOU did.
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Canoe, you even QUOTED ME two posts later and contradicted yourself ---
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Your use of facts  and actual accurate language confuses Brippy.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them.  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The map shows the party affilations to be Republican, Democrat, Southern Democrat and Constitutional Union.  Then you stupidly claim there was no party affiliation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know you posted a map until just now, and I addressed it thoroughly.  Maybe when you post an image you should give a clue that you posted an image.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I never heard of Adblock preventing an image you linked to from being displayed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I still can't see your images.
> I am assuming that my filter is blocking it somehow.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You must have software that blocks all truth from reaching your screen.  That would explain a lot.
Click to expand...


LOL- if I had software that blocked all truth, then I would never see a single post from you.

This is what I see from your post:





Looks like it is only blocking your excrement.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN -- *WRONG*.  And once again, we already did this.  Once again, as I corrected your jellyfaced ignorant ass before, I said it did not exist **IN* *THAT* *TIME* *AND* *PLACE**.  And once again, "that time and place" was Tennessee and 1865.  I did not bring up "1860".  YOU did.
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Canoe, you even QUOTED ME two posts later and contradicted yourself ---
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have provided not the slightest bit of evidence that the Democrat Party didn't exist in TN in 1865.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hell, Fingeboi, you have provided no evidence at all for a damn thing, just plopping ipse dixits for others to clean up.  Just as some of us had to clean up your ridiculous political convention on trolley tracks in Wisconsin in a "newly discovered" photo that's been sitting in the Wisconsin state archives for 93 freaking years.
> 
> Of course that also tells us that you're helpless to check any of this shit out, as you could have checked this out before you stuck yet another jelly foot in your own mouth:
> 
> >>
> *Political Parties in the Confederacy*
> *There were no recognized political parties in the Confederate States of America*. Most Southerners, including Confederate President Jefferson Davis, opposed political parties, considering them to be a corruption of the principles of republican government. However, many of the members of the Confederate Congress were former Southern Democrats. A few had been Constitutional Unionists or Whigs. While there were no political parties, per se, Confederate politicians often divided over the issue of whether to have a strong central government. Nationalists, including Jefferson Davis, favored giving the Confederate government broad powers, especially in war time. Libertarians, led by Alexander Stephens, favored a very limited confederate government, reserving most powers -- including most war powers -- to the individual states. << --- linkylinky​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still harping on the trolly tracks parade post?
Click to expand...


Yep- he is still 'harping' on your lies.


----------



## Pogo

Syriusly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN -- *WRONG*.  And once again, we already did this.  Once again, as I corrected your jellyfaced ignorant ass before, I said it did not exist **IN* *THAT* *TIME* *AND* *PLACE**.  And once again, "that time and place" was Tennessee and 1865.  I did not bring up "1860".  YOU did.
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Canoe, you even QUOTED ME two posts later and contradicted yourself ---
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of facts  and actual accurate language confuses Brippy.
Click to expand...


I bet if I posted that the "Democrat" Party was founded in 1924 on some trorlley tracks in Wisconsin whereupon it convened to invent slavery, ebola and penile warts, he'd be all in.  And wouldn't demand a link either.


----------



## Syriusly

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway
> 
> Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
> _
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of, “in that time and place,” don’t you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo did, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Pogo didn’t. You’re simply lying now and everyone here sees that for themselves.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing before 1860... you can’t because he didn’t even say snything about 1860.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing beyond the borders of Tennessee... you can’t do that either because he didn’t.
> 
> Basically, you misunderstood what he said and accused him of saying what you imagine he did. And because you’re not a man of character, you can’t bring yourself to simply acknowledge your mistake but would rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
Click to expand...


I think you give Brippy too much credit- because you assume he/she/it just misunderstood- rather than was deliberately lying the entire time.


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN -- *WRONG*.  And once again, we already did this.  Once again, as I corrected your jellyfaced ignorant ass before, I said it did not exist **IN* *THAT* *TIME* *AND* *PLACE**.  And once again, "that time and place" was Tennessee and 1865.  I did not bring up "1860".  YOU did.
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Canoe, you even QUOTED ME two posts later and contradicted yourself ---
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of facts  and actual accurate language confuses Brippy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I bet if I posted that the "Democrat" Party was founded in 1924 on some trorlley tracks in Wisconsin whereupon it convened to invent slavery, ebola and penile warts, he'd be all in.  And wouldn't demand a link either.
Click to expand...


And would end up blaming it on "Affirmative Action"


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them..  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1865.  It clearly did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  I claimed the Democratic Party didn't exist _*in that time and place.*_
> 
> That time was 1865 and that place was Tennessee.  Tennessee was occupied vanquished territory, the last country it had been a part of being the CSA.  And the CSA had no political parties.  It had deliberately abolished them when it formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CSA ceased to exist in 1865, so your "logic" is faulty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  And that's the year of which we speak.  DUH.
Click to expand...


The KKK wasn't formed until after Lee surrendured at Appomatix, dumbass.  The CSA didn't exist when it was formed.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway
> 
> Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
> _
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of, “in that time and place,” don’t you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo did, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Pogo didn’t. You’re simply lying now and everyone here sees that for themselves.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing before 1860... you can’t because he didn’t even say snything about 1860.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing beyond the borders of Tennessee... you can’t do that either because he didn’t.
> 
> Basically, you misunderstood what he said and accused him of saying what you imagine he did. And because you’re not a man of character, you can’t bring yourself to simply acknowledge your mistake but would rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you give Brippy too much credit- because you assume he/she/it just misunderstood- rather than was deliberately lying the entire time.
Click to expand...


No one will ever make the mistake of giving you too much credit because it's so obvious that your a brain damaged dumbass.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly ---- there isn't any "party affiliation".  For any of them..  Nor was either one founded for that purpose anyway.
> 
> Not sure what it takes to get through to y'all morons that "party affiliation" isn't some kind of universal requirement, just because you box yourself into it.
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1865.  It clearly did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong.  I claimed the Democratic Party didn't exist _*in that time and place.*_
> 
> That time was 1865 and that place was Tennessee.  Tennessee was occupied vanquished territory, the last country it had been a part of being the CSA.  And the CSA had no political parties.  It had deliberately abolished them when it formed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CSA ceased to exist in 1865, so your "logic" is faulty.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Correct.  And that's the year of which we speak.  DUH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The KKK wasn't formed until after Lee surrendured at Appomatix, dumbass.  The CSA didn't exist when it was formed.
Click to expand...


No shit Sherlock.  Linear time, what a concept.

If you had a point here --- what would it be?


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> 
> 
> What part of, “in that time and place,” don’t you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo did, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Pogo didn’t. You’re simply lying now and everyone here sees that for themselves.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing before 1860... you can’t because he didn’t even say snything about 1860.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing beyond the borders of Tennessee... you can’t do that either because he didn’t.
> 
> Basically, you misunderstood what he said and accused him of saying what you imagine he did. And because you’re not a man of character, you can’t bring yourself to simply acknowledge your mistake but would rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you give Brippy too much credit- because you assume he/she/it just misunderstood- rather than was deliberately lying the entire time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No one will ever make the mistake of giving you too much credit because it's so obvious that your a brain damaged dumbass.
Click to expand...


He didn't post a picture from a rainy December day in Wisconsin and claim it was the Democratic convention did he?
He didn't post an electoral college map that counts states that didn't exist, did he?

Somebody else did both of those.  Who was it now.......


----------



## IsaacNewton

Another thread where cons want to distance themselves from being the party of the Ku Klux Klan now and the Neo Nazis.

Their dear leader condemsn Americans that exercise their 1st amendment rights at football games, while he praises the Klan and the Nazis in Charlottesville ... "there's fine people on both sides". You mean the inside of your white hood and the outside?


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Crixus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don’t change the fact, three democrats invented the KKK. Democrats moved the most in the KKK especially those in the south despite what your top secret KKK archives you put together.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> He never said that, ya lyin’ piss bucket.
Click to expand...


Post #1391

*"Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway."*

Wrong again, dumbass.


----------



## bripat9643

Faun said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway
> 
> Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
> _
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of, “in that time and place,” don’t you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo did, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Pogo didn’t. You’re simply lying now and everyone here sees that for themselves.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing before 1860... you can’t because he didn’t even say snything about 1860.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing beyond the borders of Tennessee... you can’t do that either because he didn’t.
> 
> Basically, you misunderstood what he said and accused him of saying what you imagine he did. And because you’re not a man of character, you can’t bring yourself to simply acknowledge your mistake but would rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
Click to expand...


Allow me to quote post #1391

*"Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway."*

You and Pogo are batting 1.000 when it comes to being wrong.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway. They were all twentysomethings and modeled it after "Kuklos Adelphon" a popular college fraternity of the time; they corrupted _Kuklos _(Greek for 'circle') into two words _Ku Klux_ for the mystery factor and added Klan with A K for alliteration (all the ideas of a founder-soldier named Kennedy).
> 
> That Klan was soon taken over by nearby pre-existing vigilante elements and became one of literally dozens of similar local and regional groups throughout the defeated Confederacy, usually started by and/or populated by ex-soldiers bent on in effect continuing the War.  That Klan was defunct by the early 1870s.  Then in 1915 after the Dixon/Grifith film "Birth of a Nation" romanticized that decades-old Klan as part of the Lost Cause movement, an ex-minister and salesman named William J. "Colonel Joe" Simmons recreated a new Klan (officially called the "_*Knights of*_ the Ku Klux Klan") so that he could milk money off the film by selling memberships to gullibles wanting to emulate the movie.  Simmons too had no political affiliation.
> 
> That (Simmons) Klan is the one pictured in the OP.  It spread literally from coast to coast.
> 
> That Klan was officially terminated in 1944 by a combination of an IRS lien and getting its state charter terminated by the Governor.  Some historians cite a third Klan when one Dr. Samuel Green tried to re-start it after World War II.  Happily Green keeled over and croaked from a heart attack and that was the end of that.  I don't count Green as a "third Klan" since it never officially got off the ground, but if you want to count him --- Green too had no political affiliation.
> 
> Ya see shirley, the Klan wasn't there for politics.  It was there for racism and bigotry and busting unions and whipping drunks and making people go to church.  When it dabbled in politics at all it supported or opposed both Democrats and Republicans as well as no-party candidates.
> 
> NONE of this is a "secret".  It's all readily available on the internets.  You could go to those internets and try to prove any of this wrong.  But you'll fail.
> 
> Here, I'll even give you the search terms:
> Original founders:  James Crowe, Calvin Jones, John B. Kennedy, John Lester, Frank O. McCord, Richard R. Reed.  December 24 1865.  205 West Madison Street, Pulaski Tennessee.
> 
> Second Klan:  William Joseph Simmons, Thanksgiving Day 1915, Stone Mountain Georgia.
> 
> aaaaaaaaaaaaand GO.
> 
> 
> 
> Notice what is says about party affiliation (here's a hint:  "Democrat"):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't know there was an image here until I killed my AdBlock just now.
> 
> The Democrat (Douglas) is in *blue*. He won one state  and half of New Jersey, which split its EV between Douglas and Lincoln.  Douglas came in dead last in a field of four major candidates.  You'll notice none of his EVs are in the South, the same number there (zero) as Lincoln --- who wasn't even on ballots in the South (the Republican Party didn't run a POTUS candidate in the South until 1868).  The purple area is a candidate the Southerners ran after they kicked the Democratic Party convention out from Charleston.  The D party had to move its convention north.  The southerners never actually named the party or formally organized it -- they just put a candidate on the ballots.
> 
> The ochre color is the Constitutional Unionists, an outgrowth of the defunct Whig Party which disintegrated because it couldn't come to a consensus on slavery.  Bell was a slaveowner himself who nevertheless opposed expansion of slavery and opposed secession.  In fact of these four candidates three (Lincoln, Douglas and Bell) actively opposed the idea of secession.  After Douglas lost he worked with Lincoln to prevent the secession going on speaking tours in the South and when that didn't work, advised the new President on how to combat the South.
> 
> So contrary to Fingerboy's Fantasies, the Democratic Party pulled a big fat zero in 1860 in the South.  As I said it wasn't going to be in its dominant "Solid South" position until at least the 1870s.
> 
> Oh and here's another flaw in this map --- "West Virginia".  It didn't exist in 1860.  That area was part of Virginia until after the War started when it was split off, ostensibly not wishing to be part of secession.  There might have been an "East Tennessee" created in the same way, as there was similar sentiment in this region.  So where this map imagines a West Virginia sending its votes to Lincoln, it was actually the northwest section of Virginia, which voted for Bell. And New Jersey should be both red and blue.  Sloppy work.
> 
> That West Virginia split to the Union and East Tennessee did not, is a reflection of how many Union troops were in West Virginia and how many Confederate troops were in East Tennessee, when each took their votes on it.  And that in turn is demonstrative of how split the South was about secession and war.  Significant chunks of the Southern population wanted no part of either.  Just as there were significant chunks of what is now West Virginia who wanted to stay Virginia and Confederate.  As usual the population is cowed by force --- voter intimidation was in NO WAY a new idea when the Klan and the Knights of the White Camellia and all those groups engaged in it.
> 
> Matter of fact here's a blatant example of voter intimidation from several years before the Civil War in a massive riot perpetuated by the political party that would most resemble the later Klan --- the Know Nothings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860.
> 
> You were dead wrong.
> 
> End of story.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once AGAIN -- *WRONG*.  And once again, we already did this.  Once again, as I corrected your jellyfaced ignorant ass before, I said it did not exist **IN* *THAT* *TIME* *AND* *PLACE**.  And once again, "that time and place" was Tennessee and 1865.  I did not bring up "1860".  YOU did.
> 
> Jesus Christ in a Canoe, you even QUOTED ME two posts later and contradicted yourself ---
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of facts  and actual accurate language confuses Brippy.
Click to expand...


I'll let you know if I ever encounter any from you dumbasses.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway
> 
> Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
> _
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of, “in that time and place,” don’t you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo did, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Pogo didn’t. You’re simply lying now and everyone here sees that for themselves.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing before 1860... you can’t because he didn’t even say snything about 1860.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing beyond the borders of Tennessee... you can’t do that either because he didn’t.
> 
> Basically, you misunderstood what he said and accused him of saying what you imagine he did. And because you’re not a man of character, you can’t bring yourself to simply acknowledge your mistake but would rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allow me to quote post #1391
> 
> *"Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway."*
> 
> You and Pogo are batting 1.000 when it comes to being wrong.
Click to expand...


Then find us one.

And don't take us to some trolley tracks a thousand miles away this time.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> 
> 
> What part of, “in that time and place,” don’t you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo did, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Pogo didn’t. You’re simply lying now and everyone here sees that for themselves.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing before 1860... you can’t because he didn’t even say snything about 1860.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing beyond the borders of Tennessee... you can’t do that either because he didn’t.
> 
> Basically, you misunderstood what he said and accused him of saying what you imagine he did. And because you’re not a man of character, you can’t bring yourself to simply acknowledge your mistake but would rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allow me to quote post #1391
> 
> *"Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway."*
> 
> You and Pogo are batting 1.000 when it comes to being wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then find us one.
> 
> And don't take us to some trolley tracks a thousand miles away this time.
Click to expand...


You aren't improving your creibility by brining up the same two-year old post over and over again.  If that's all you got, it's pretty fucking sad. 

You're the one who made the claim.  Now support it.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> What part of, “in that time and place,” don’t you understand?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo did, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Pogo didn’t. You’re simply lying now and everyone here sees that for themselves.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing before 1860... you can’t because he didn’t even say snything about 1860.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing beyond the borders of Tennessee... you can’t do that either because he didn’t.
> 
> Basically, you misunderstood what he said and accused him of saying what you imagine he did. And because you’re not a man of character, you can’t bring yourself to simply acknowledge your mistake but would rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allow me to quote post #1391
> 
> *"Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway."*
> 
> You and Pogo are batting 1.000 when it comes to being wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then find us one.
> 
> And don't take us to some trolley tracks a thousand miles away this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't improving your creibility by brining up the same two-year old post over and over again.  If that's all you got, it's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> You're the one who made the claim.  Now support it.
Click to expand...


Already did.  The first time you started whining about it.  Your job is to prove the positive.

The Confederacy didn't believe in political parties.  Some historians say that contributed to their downfall.  I don't necessarily agree but it's out there.

Ironic you want to bring up "credibility" after trying to claim a Klan march in December in Wisconsin was a Democratic convention, and then somehow found a map that included a state that did not then exist.

Oh yes do tell us more about this "credibility".


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo did, moron.
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, Pogo didn’t. You’re simply lying now and everyone here sees that for themselves.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing before 1860... you can’t because he didn’t even say snything about 1860.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing beyond the borders of Tennessee... you can’t do that either because he didn’t.
> 
> Basically, you misunderstood what he said and accused him of saying what you imagine he did. And because you’re not a man of character, you can’t bring yourself to simply acknowledge your mistake but would rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allow me to quote post #1391
> 
> *"Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway."*
> 
> You and Pogo are batting 1.000 when it comes to being wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then find us one.
> 
> And don't take us to some trolley tracks a thousand miles away this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't improving your creibility by brining up the same two-year old post over and over again.  If that's all you got, it's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> You're the one who made the claim.  Now support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did.  The first time you started whining about it.  Your job is to prove the positive.
> 
> The Confederacy didn't believe in political parties.  Some historians say that contributed to their downfall.  I don't necessarily agree but it's out there.
Click to expand...


The "positive" is your claim that there was no Democrat party in Tennesee when the KKK was created.  You don't get to claim your proposition is the "negative" simply because it has the word "no" in it.  A 5-year-old could understand that.  You keep talking about the Confederacy, but that didn't exist at the time the KKK was created.

Who do you think you're fooling?


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, Pogo didn’t. You’re simply lying now and everyone here sees that for themselves.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing before 1860... you can’t because he didn’t even say snything about 1860.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing beyond the borders of Tennessee... you can’t do that either because he didn’t.
> 
> Basically, you misunderstood what he said and accused him of saying what you imagine he did. And because you’re not a man of character, you can’t bring yourself to simply acknowledge your mistake but would rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to quote post #1391
> 
> *"Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway."*
> 
> You and Pogo are batting 1.000 when it comes to being wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then find us one.
> 
> And don't take us to some trolley tracks a thousand miles away this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't improving your creibility by brining up the same two-year old post over and over again.  If that's all you got, it's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> You're the one who made the claim.  Now support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did.  The first time you started whining about it.  Your job is to prove the positive.
> 
> The Confederacy didn't believe in political parties.  Some historians say that contributed to their downfall.  I don't necessarily agree but it's out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "positive" is your claim that there was no Democrat party in Tennesee when the KKK was created.  You don't get to claim your proposition is the "negative" simply because it has the word "no" in it.  A 5-year-old could understand that.  You keep talking about the Confederacy, but that didn't exist at the time the KKK was created.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
Click to expand...


And neither did the United States in that time and place.  Tennessee wouldn't be readmitted until 1866.  Therefore the last time it existed under a government where Democrats even operated was June of 1861, when it seceded from that government.  And that's four years prior to 1865, which is what I said in the first place.

See, I have this shit mapped out before I post.  I don't just throw up random fake Wisconsin and West Virginia pics and hope nobody notices.  That's the difference between you and I.  Also I don't have jelly all over my face.

And no, the "positive" is your claim that something _existed_.  All you need is one to prove that.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Allow me to quote post #1391
> 
> *"Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway."*
> 
> You and Pogo are batting 1.000 when it comes to being wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then find us one.
> 
> And don't take us to some trolley tracks a thousand miles away this time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You aren't improving your creibility by brining up the same two-year old post over and over again.  If that's all you got, it's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> You're the one who made the claim.  Now support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did.  The first time you started whining about it.  Your job is to prove the positive.
> 
> The Confederacy didn't believe in political parties.  Some historians say that contributed to their downfall.  I don't necessarily agree but it's out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "positive" is your claim that there was no Democrat party in Tennesee when the KKK was created.  You don't get to claim your proposition is the "negative" simply because it has the word "no" in it.  A 5-year-old could understand that.  You keep talking about the Confederacy, but that didn't exist at the time the KKK was created.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither did the United States in that time and place.  Tennessee wouldn't be readmitted until 1866.  Therefore the last time it existed under a government where Democrats even operated was June of 1861, when it seceded from that government.  And that's four years prior to 1865, which is what I said in the first place.
> 
> See, I have this shit mapped out before I post.  I don't just throw up random fake Wisconsin and West Virginia pics and hope nobody notices.  That's the difference between you and I.  Also I don't have jelly all over my face.
> 
> And no, the "positive" is your claim that something _existed_.  All you need is one to prove that.
Click to expand...


I don't even care about this point, but you're parsing words like your life depended on it.
From now on here's the only response you're going to get:  I just don't care.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then find us one.
> 
> And don't take us to some trolley tracks a thousand miles away this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't improving your creibility by brining up the same two-year old post over and over again.  If that's all you got, it's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> You're the one who made the claim.  Now support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did.  The first time you started whining about it.  Your job is to prove the positive.
> 
> The Confederacy didn't believe in political parties.  Some historians say that contributed to their downfall.  I don't necessarily agree but it's out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "positive" is your claim that there was no Democrat party in Tennesee when the KKK was created.  You don't get to claim your proposition is the "negative" simply because it has the word "no" in it.  A 5-year-old could understand that.  You keep talking about the Confederacy, but that didn't exist at the time the KKK was created.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither did the United States in that time and place.  Tennessee wouldn't be readmitted until 1866.  Therefore the last time it existed under a government where Democrats even operated was June of 1861, when it seceded from that government.  And that's four years prior to 1865, which is what I said in the first place.
> 
> See, I have this shit mapped out before I post.  I don't just throw up random fake Wisconsin and West Virginia pics and hope nobody notices.  That's the difference between you and I.  Also I don't have jelly all over my face.
> 
> And no, the "positive" is your claim that something _existed_.  All you need is one to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even care about this point, but you're parsing words like your life depended on it.
> From now on here's the only response you're going to get:  I just don't care.
Click to expand...


So you can't do it.

No shit.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't improving your creibility by brining up the same two-year old post over and over again.  If that's all you got, it's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> You're the one who made the claim.  Now support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already did.  The first time you started whining about it.  Your job is to prove the positive.
> 
> The Confederacy didn't believe in political parties.  Some historians say that contributed to their downfall.  I don't necessarily agree but it's out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "positive" is your claim that there was no Democrat party in Tennesee when the KKK was created.  You don't get to claim your proposition is the "negative" simply because it has the word "no" in it.  A 5-year-old could understand that.  You keep talking about the Confederacy, but that didn't exist at the time the KKK was created.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither did the United States in that time and place.  Tennessee wouldn't be readmitted until 1866.  Therefore the last time it existed under a government where Democrats even operated was June of 1861, when it seceded from that government.  And that's four years prior to 1865, which is what I said in the first place.
> 
> See, I have this shit mapped out before I post.  I don't just throw up random fake Wisconsin and West Virginia pics and hope nobody notices.  That's the difference between you and I.  Also I don't have jelly all over my face.
> 
> And no, the "positive" is your claim that something _existed_.  All you need is one to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even care about this point, but you're parsing words like your life depended on it.
> From now on here's the only response you're going to get:  I just don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't do it.
> 
> No shit.
Click to expand...


I don't care, moron


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Already did.  The first time you started whining about it.  Your job is to prove the positive.
> 
> The Confederacy didn't believe in political parties.  Some historians say that contributed to their downfall.  I don't necessarily agree but it's out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The "positive" is your claim that there was no Democrat party in Tennesee when the KKK was created.  You don't get to claim your proposition is the "negative" simply because it has the word "no" in it.  A 5-year-old could understand that.  You keep talking about the Confederacy, but that didn't exist at the time the KKK was created.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither did the United States in that time and place.  Tennessee wouldn't be readmitted until 1866.  Therefore the last time it existed under a government where Democrats even operated was June of 1861, when it seceded from that government.  And that's four years prior to 1865, which is what I said in the first place.
> 
> See, I have this shit mapped out before I post.  I don't just throw up random fake Wisconsin and West Virginia pics and hope nobody notices.  That's the difference between you and I.  Also I don't have jelly all over my face.
> 
> And no, the "positive" is your claim that something _existed_.  All you need is one to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even care about this point, but you're parsing words like your life depended on it.
> From now on here's the only response you're going to get:  I just don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't do it.
> 
> No shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care, moron
Click to expand...


Obviously not.  Nor did you care when you posted a December day in Wisconsin and tried to sell it as the "Democratic convention" at the beginning here.  Because it's all about "credibility".

Friggin' jackass.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "positive" is your claim that there was no Democrat party in Tennesee when the KKK was created.  You don't get to claim your proposition is the "negative" simply because it has the word "no" in it.  A 5-year-old could understand that.  You keep talking about the Confederacy, but that didn't exist at the time the KKK was created.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And neither did the United States in that time and place.  Tennessee wouldn't be readmitted until 1866.  Therefore the last time it existed under a government where Democrats even operated was June of 1861, when it seceded from that government.  And that's four years prior to 1865, which is what I said in the first place.
> 
> See, I have this shit mapped out before I post.  I don't just throw up random fake Wisconsin and West Virginia pics and hope nobody notices.  That's the difference between you and I.  Also I don't have jelly all over my face.
> 
> And no, the "positive" is your claim that something _existed_.  All you need is one to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even care about this point, but you're parsing words like your life depended on it.
> From now on here's the only response you're going to get:  I just don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't do it.
> 
> No shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't care, moron
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously not.  Nor did you care when you posted a December day in Wisconsin and tried to sell it as the "Democratic convention" at the beginning here.  Because it's all about "credibility".
> 
> Friggin' jackass.
Click to expand...

I don't care, moron


----------



## Syriusly

Just pointing out- that Brippy is the sterling character who called every American veteran of World War 2 a dupe. And clearly he is still pissed off that America defeated Germany and Japan. 

_The people who engineered us into a war with Germany and Japan are Stalinists. The people who actually did the fighting were just dupes and victims._


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…



And here is of course Brip lying again. 

Still trying to dance away from his lie.

But as we all know- all he/she/it does is lie- and make nonsensical insults and of course express his disdain for our veterans of World War 2


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then find us one.
> 
> And don't take us to some trolley tracks a thousand miles away this time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't improving your creibility by brining up the same two-year old post over and over again.  If that's all you got, it's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> You're the one who made the claim.  Now support it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Already did.  The first time you started whining about it.  Your job is to prove the positive.
> 
> The Confederacy didn't believe in political parties.  Some historians say that contributed to their downfall.  I don't necessarily agree but it's out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "positive" is your claim that there was no Democrat party in Tennesee when the KKK was created.  You don't get to claim your proposition is the "negative" simply because it has the word "no" in it.  A 5-year-old could understand that.  You keep talking about the Confederacy, but that didn't exist at the time the KKK was created.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither did the United States in that time and place.  Tennessee wouldn't be readmitted until 1866.  Therefore the last time it existed under a government where Democrats even operated was June of 1861, when it seceded from that government.  And that's four years prior to 1865, which is what I said in the first place.
> 
> See, I have this shit mapped out before I post.  I don't just throw up random fake Wisconsin and West Virginia pics and hope nobody notices.  That's the difference between you and I.  Also I don't have jelly all over my face.
> 
> And no, the "positive" is your claim that something _existed_.  All you need is one to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even care about this point, but you're parsing words like your life depended on it.
> From now on here's the only response you're going to get:  I just don't care.
Click to expand...


You don't care so much you keep posting bullshit over and over. 

lol


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is of course Brip lying again.
> 
> Still trying to dance away from his lie.
> 
> But as we all know- all he/she/it does is lie- and make nonsensical insults and of course express his disdain for our veterans of World War 2
Click to expand...


That's really the only post I ever submitted that you can attack?


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You aren't improving your creibility by brining up the same two-year old post over and over again.  If that's all you got, it's pretty fucking sad.
> 
> You're the one who made the claim.  Now support it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Already did.  The first time you started whining about it.  Your job is to prove the positive.
> 
> The Confederacy didn't believe in political parties.  Some historians say that contributed to their downfall.  I don't necessarily agree but it's out there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The "positive" is your claim that there was no Democrat party in Tennesee when the KKK was created.  You don't get to claim your proposition is the "negative" simply because it has the word "no" in it.  A 5-year-old could understand that.  You keep talking about the Confederacy, but that didn't exist at the time the KKK was created.
> 
> Who do you think you're fooling?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And neither did the United States in that time and place.  Tennessee wouldn't be readmitted until 1866.  Therefore the last time it existed under a government where Democrats even operated was June of 1861, when it seceded from that government.  And that's four years prior to 1865, which is what I said in the first place.
> 
> See, I have this shit mapped out before I post.  I don't just throw up random fake Wisconsin and West Virginia pics and hope nobody notices.  That's the difference between you and I.  Also I don't have jelly all over my face.
> 
> And no, the "positive" is your claim that something _existed_.  All you need is one to prove that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't even care about this point, but you're parsing words like your life depended on it.
> From now on here's the only response you're going to get:  I just don't care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't care so much you keep posting bullshit over and over.
> 
> lol
Click to expand...

I don't care, moron.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is of course Brip lying again.
> 
> Still trying to dance away from his lie.
> 
> But as we all know- all he/she/it does is lie- and make nonsensical insults and of course express his disdain for our veterans of World War 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really the only post I ever submitted that you can attack?
Click to expand...


No- i can attack virtually all of your posts. 

I choose to point out this specific blatant lie that you were caught in in this thread.


----------



## bripat9643

Syriusly said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is of course Brip lying again.
> 
> Still trying to dance away from his lie.
> 
> But as we all know- all he/she/it does is lie- and make nonsensical insults and of course express his disdain for our veterans of World War 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really the only post I ever submitted that you can attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- i can attack virtually all of your posts.
> 
> I choose to point out this specific blatant lie that you were caught in in this thread.
Click to expand...


You really are a pathetic douchebag.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is of course Brip lying again.
> 
> Still trying to dance away from his lie.
> 
> But as we all know- all he/she/it does is lie- and make nonsensical insults and of course express his disdain for our veterans of World War 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really the only post I ever submitted that you can attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- i can attack virtually all of your posts.
> 
> I choose to point out this specific blatant lie that you were caught in in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a pathetic douchebag.
Click to expand...


Interesting choice of adjectives.  Which ones would you use for a poster who, say, took a 93-year old photo of a Klan funeral march in Wisconsin and tried to sell it as a "newly discovered" photo of the Democratic convention?

This oughta be some scathing dunce-denunciation right here.  Prolly involves whole new words. I'm ready to take notes.


----------



## Syriusly

bripat9643 said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is of course Brip lying again.
> 
> Still trying to dance away from his lie.
> 
> But as we all know- all he/she/it does is lie- and make nonsensical insults and of course express his disdain for our veterans of World War 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really the only post I ever submitted that you can attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- i can attack virtually all of your posts.
> 
> I choose to point out this specific blatant lie that you were caught in in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a pathetic douchebag.
Click to expand...


You really are a pathetic douchebag liar.

And always will be.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ever wonder why the Dims try so hard to paint Republicans as racists?  Here's your answer, and it's hilarious!
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democrat Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And here is of course Brip lying again.
> 
> Still trying to dance away from his lie.
> 
> But as we all know- all he/she/it does is lie- and make nonsensical insults and of course express his disdain for our veterans of World War 2
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's really the only post I ever submitted that you can attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- i can attack virtually all of your posts.
> 
> I choose to point out this specific blatant lie that you were caught in in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a pathetic douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting choice of adjectives.  Which ones would you use for a poster who, say, took a 93-year old photo of a Klan funeral march in Wisconsin and tried to sell it as a "newly discovered" photo of the Democratic convention?
> 
> This oughta be some scathing dunce-denunciation right here.  Prolly involves whole new words. I'm ready to take notes.
Click to expand...


Not interested, shit stain.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here is of course Brip lying again.
> 
> Still trying to dance away from his lie.
> 
> But as we all know- all he/she/it does is lie- and make nonsensical insults and of course express his disdain for our veterans of World War 2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's really the only post I ever submitted that you can attack?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No- i can attack virtually all of your posts.
> 
> I choose to point out this specific blatant lie that you were caught in in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a pathetic douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting choice of adjectives.  Which ones would you use for a poster who, say, took a 93-year old photo of a Klan funeral march in Wisconsin and tried to sell it as a "newly discovered" photo of the Democratic convention?
> 
> This oughta be some scathing dunce-denunciation right here.  Prolly involves whole new words. I'm ready to take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not interested, shit stain.
Click to expand...


Disappointing.  I kinda expected something stronger considering those who called out that faux pas are already "pathetic douchebags".

How 'bout this to sweeten the deal.
Suppose this same bullshit poster also trotted in a map of the 1860 election featuring a vote for "West Virginia", which didn't even exist?  And then won't say where he got it?

_NOW_ how much would you pay?


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's really the only post I ever submitted that you can attack?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No- i can attack virtually all of your posts.
> 
> I choose to point out this specific blatant lie that you were caught in in this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really are a pathetic douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting choice of adjectives.  Which ones would you use for a poster who, say, took a 93-year old photo of a Klan funeral march in Wisconsin and tried to sell it as a "newly discovered" photo of the Democratic convention?
> 
> This oughta be some scathing dunce-denunciation right here.  Prolly involves whole new words. I'm ready to take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not interested, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disappointing.  I kinda expected something stronger considering those who called out that faux pas are already "pathetic douchebags".
> 
> How 'bout this to sweeten the deal.
> Suppose this same bullshit poster also trotted in a map of the 1860 election featuring a vote for "West Virginia", which didn't even exist?  And then won't say where he got it?
> 
> _NOW_ how much would you pay?
Click to expand...

We're done, idiot.  Haven't you figured that out yet?


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> No- i can attack virtually all of your posts.
> 
> I choose to point out this specific blatant lie that you were caught in in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a pathetic douchebag.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Interesting choice of adjectives.  Which ones would you use for a poster who, say, took a 93-year old photo of a Klan funeral march in Wisconsin and tried to sell it as a "newly discovered" photo of the Democratic convention?
> 
> This oughta be some scathing dunce-denunciation right here.  Prolly involves whole new words. I'm ready to take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not interested, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disappointing.  I kinda expected something stronger considering those who called out that faux pas are already "pathetic douchebags".
> 
> How 'bout this to sweeten the deal.
> Suppose this same bullshit poster also trotted in a map of the 1860 election featuring a vote for "West Virginia", which didn't even exist?  And then won't say where he got it?
> 
> _NOW_ how much would you pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're done, idiot.  Haven't you figured that out yet?
Click to expand...


This thread was done when it started.  We established that six months ago.  And you got busted on it.

Sooooooooo why are you still posting again?

Once again the question on the floor is: if a poster who calls out a fake photo on a fake-news story is a "pathetic douchebag" ---- then what does that make the fake news poster who brought it in in the first place?

And what if that fake-news poster then continues calling attention to his own fuckup by continuing to bump the same bullshit thread six months later?  What then?   The whole world wants to know.


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are a pathetic douchebag.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting choice of adjectives.  Which ones would you use for a poster who, say, took a 93-year old photo of a Klan funeral march in Wisconsin and tried to sell it as a "newly discovered" photo of the Democratic convention?
> 
> This oughta be some scathing dunce-denunciation right here.  Prolly involves whole new words. I'm ready to take notes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not interested, shit stain.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Disappointing.  I kinda expected something stronger considering those who called out that faux pas are already "pathetic douchebags".
> 
> How 'bout this to sweeten the deal.
> Suppose this same bullshit poster also trotted in a map of the 1860 election featuring a vote for "West Virginia", which didn't even exist?  And then won't say where he got it?
> 
> _NOW_ how much would you pay?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We're done, idiot.  Haven't you figured that out yet?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread was done when it started.  We established that six months ago.  And you got busted on it.
> 
> Sooooooooo why are you still posting again?
Click to expand...


I love it when posters say that they are 'not interested' and that they are 'done' and just keep replying. 

Just showing what idiotic douchebag shitheads that they are.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is what he actually said:
> _Nnnnnnope.  Six (not three) ex-Confederate soldiers invented the KKK and they had no known political affilations -- and Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway
> 
> Who invented the KKK?_
> 6 white ex-confederate soldiers- that there is no record of ever being members of the Democratic Party
> 
> _Why did he say that the Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway?
> _
> Because the Democratic Party didn't exist in the Confederacy and wasn't yet an official force in the ex-Confederate states when the KKK was started.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What part of "_*Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway*"_ didn't you understand, dumbass?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What part of, “in that time and place,” don’t you understand?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pogo did, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nope, Pogo didn’t. You’re simply lying now and everyone here sees that for themselves.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing before 1860... you can’t because he didn’t even say snything about 1860.
> 
> Quote Pogo saying anything about Democrats not existing beyond the borders of Tennessee... you can’t do that either because he didn’t.
> 
> Basically, you misunderstood what he said and accused him of saying what you imagine he did. And because you’re not a man of character, you can’t bring yourself to simply acknowledge your mistake but would rather keep digging your hole deeper and deeper.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Allow me to quote post #1391
> 
> *"Democrats didn't exist in that time and place anyway."*
> 
> You and Pogo are batting 1.000 when it comes to being wrong.
Click to expand...

LOLOL

How the fuck does, _"Democrats didn't exist in that time [1866] and place [Tennessee] anyway,"_ equal, _"you claimed the Democrat Party didn't exist in 1860."_

You must have shit for brains.

I bet you stare at juice containers because they say, _"concentrate"_.


----------



## Pogo

Whelp --- here we are a year later and neither OP has the stones to admit how much they fucked up, just because they weren't interested in actual facts.

Shocker I tell ya.  Guess I win the bet with Forney Johnston.  He said they'd man up.  I just won a penny.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Carter Malone said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The modern day Klan traded in their hoods and robes for business suits and live in the penthouses of NY and in Malibu/Hollywood Hills.
> 
> 
> 
> They also be living in shotgun shacks in Arkansas...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's base because he understands. They believe his guttersnipe personality means he speaks for them.
> 
> How could they have gotten it so wrong and what's taking them so long?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
Click to expand...

So many socks, so little difference


----------



## GWV5903

deanrd said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
Click to expand...


Other than Strom Thurmond and less than a handful of others, these individuals are life long Democrats... 

The DNC has long been the party of the KKK and history has proven this, but you'll continue to fool the dumb dumbs...


----------



## Pogo

GWV5903 said:


> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than Strom Thurmond and less than a handful of others, these individuals are life long Democrats...
> 
> The DNC has long been the party of the KKK and history has proven this, but you'll continue to fool the dumb dumbs...
Click to expand...


There's no evidence Strom Thurmond was with the Klan.  Prove me wrong.

The photo above however, which is not at all the summer 1924 Democratic convention in New York but a Klan funeral march in Wisconsin in December of that year --- a month after the election had already happened, where the Klan endorsed Coolidge because he was the only major candidate who did not denounce them --- was taken just after the Klan had elected its candidates to governor and Senator seats in Maine, Indiana, Colorado, Oregon, California and Kansas.  Want their names?  Owen Brewster (ME), Ed Jackson (IN), Rice Means (CO), Clarence Morley (CO), George Baker (OR), Ben Paulen (KS) as well as the city council of Anaheim and numerous local offices in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Maine and elsewhere.

Might want to essplain to the class why DNC would be electing Republicans.  Or you might wanna just skulk away and hope nobody notices.

Happily that didn't last long though....

​--- although it didn't stop the KKK from running a vicious smear campaign against Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic nominee, because he was Catholic.  Oh that's right, you also didn't know the group in the OP picture -- the one taken on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks in December -- stood in staunch opposition to not only blacks but Catholics, Jews, immigrants and labor unions, and was founded by the remnants of a lynch mob that had murdered a Jew.  Might want to take a stab at explaining why a political party would be running around oppressing its own constituents.

But again --- prove any of that wrong.  We did all this a year ago and nobody has yet.


See you in a year.


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than Strom Thurmond and less than a handful of others, these individuals are life long Democrats...
> 
> The DNC has long been the party of the KKK and history has proven this, but you'll continue to fool the dumb dumbs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no evidence Strom Thurmond was with the Klan.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> The photo above however, which is not at all the summer 1924 Democratic convention in New York but a Klan funeral march in Wisconsin in December of that year --- a month after the election had already happened, where the Klan endorsed Coolidge because he was the only major candidate who did not denounce them --- was taken just after the Klan had elected its candidates to governor and Senator seats in Maine, Indiana, Colorado, Oregon, California and Kansas.  Want their names?  Owen Brewster (ME), Ed Jackson (IN), Rice Means (CO), Clarence Morley (CO), George Baker (OR), Ben Paulen (KS) as well as the city council of Anaheim and numerous local offices in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Maine and elsewhere.
> 
> Might want to essplain to the class why DNC would be electing Republicans.  Or you might wanna just skulk away and hope nobody notices.
> 
> Happily that didn't last long though....
> 
> ​--- although it didn't stop the KKK from running a vicious smear campaign against Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic nominee, because he was Catholic.  Oh that's right, you also didn't know the group in the OP picture -- the one taken on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks in December -- stood in staunch opposition to not only blacks but Catholics, Jews, immigrants and labor unions, and was founded by the remnants of a lynch mob that had murdered a Jew.  Might want to take a stab at explaining why a political party would be running around oppressing its own constituents.
> 
> But again --- prove any of that wrong.  We did all this a year ago and nobody has yet.
> 
> 
> See you in a year.
Click to expand...


What has history really shown us? 

That the idiots who started this thread and continued to support it- are liars like their cherished Don the Con.


----------



## Pogo

Syriusly said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GWV5903 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> deanrd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow, look at all those white conservatives.  Glad they became Republicans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Other than Strom Thurmond and less than a handful of others, these individuals are life long Democrats...
> 
> The DNC has long been the party of the KKK and history has proven this, but you'll continue to fool the dumb dumbs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no evidence Strom Thurmond was with the Klan.  Prove me wrong.
> 
> The photo above however, which is not at all the summer 1924 Democratic convention in New York but a Klan funeral march in Wisconsin in December of that year --- a month after the election had already happened, where the Klan endorsed Coolidge because he was the only major candidate who did not denounce them --- was taken just after the Klan had elected its candidates to governor and Senator seats in Maine, Indiana, Colorado, Oregon, California and Kansas.  Want their names?  Owen Brewster (ME), Ed Jackson (IN), Rice Means (CO), Clarence Morley (CO), George Baker (OR), Ben Paulen (KS) as well as the city council of Anaheim and numerous local offices in Ohio and Pennsylvania and Maine and elsewhere.
> 
> Might want to essplain to the class why DNC would be electing Republicans.  Or you might wanna just skulk away and hope nobody notices.
> 
> Happily that didn't last long though....
> 
> ​--- although it didn't stop the KKK from running a vicious smear campaign against Al Smith, the 1928 Democratic nominee, because he was Catholic.  Oh that's right, you also didn't know the group in the OP picture -- the one taken on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks in December -- stood in staunch opposition to not only blacks but Catholics, Jews, immigrants and labor unions, and was founded by the remnants of a lynch mob that had murdered a Jew.  Might want to take a stab at explaining why a political party would be running around oppressing its own constituents.
> 
> But again --- prove any of that wrong.  We did all this a year ago and nobody has yet.
> 
> 
> See you in a year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What has history really shown us?
> 
> That the idiots who started this thread and continued to support it- are liars like their cherished Don the Con.
Click to expand...


And a year later ---- still running away from their glorious fuckup.


----------



## Norman

Leftists here are STILL pissed that we freed their slaves.


----------



## JakeStarkey

In 94 years, they stopped wearing the sheets and joined the GOP.

The liberal GOP and the conservative northern Democrats freed the slaves from the southern Democrats and remaining Whigs.


----------



## Geaux4it

CrusaderFrank said:


> Carter Malone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The modern day Klan traded in their hoods and robes for business suits and live in the penthouses of NY and in Malibu/Hollywood Hills.
> 
> 
> 
> They also be living in shotgun shacks in Arkansas...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's base because he understands. They believe his guttersnipe personality means he speaks for them.
> 
> How could they have gotten it so wrong and what's taking them so long?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So many socks, so little difference
Click to expand...

Thanks for the bump

It should be noted that the Democratic Party has a rich history enriched in Racism. Their policies today are a pseudo form of racism. For example, assuming Blacks are so segregated, they have no means to obtain, or even lack a government ID that could be required at the voting booth.

Other examples are Democratic policies, where their lack of economic initiatives which allows the poor, with will and ambition, to make a better life for themselves through job opportunities.

Mr Trump has changed that and is showing what this great country can do for those willing to sacrifice hard work for the reward of a weekly paycheck

-Geaux


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carter Malone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The modern day Klan traded in their hoods and robes for business suits and live in the penthouses of NY and in Malibu/Hollywood Hills.
> 
> 
> 
> They also be living in shotgun shacks in Arkansas...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's base because he understands. They believe his guttersnipe personality means he speaks for them.
> 
> How could they have gotten it so wrong and what's taking them so long?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So many socks, so little difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the bump
> 
> It should be noted that the Democratic Party has a rich history enriched in Racism. Their policies today are a pseudo form of racism. For example, assuming Blacks are so segregated, they have no means to obtain, or even lack a government ID that could be required at the voting booth.
> 
> Other examples are Democratic policies where their lack of economic initiatives that allow the poor, with will and ambition, to make a better life for themselves through job opportunities.
> 
> Mr Trump has changed that and is showing what this great country can do for those willing to sacrifice hard work for the reward of weekly paycheck
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Oh look.  It's the ballless wonder who posted a picture of the Klan marching on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December and called it the "Democratic convention".  And a year later he still can't man up to his grandiose fuckup.


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carter Malone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The modern day Klan traded in their hoods and robes for business suits and live in the penthouses of NY and in Malibu/Hollywood Hills.
> 
> 
> 
> They also be living in shotgun shacks in Arkansas...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's base because he understands. They believe his guttersnipe personality means he speaks for them.
> 
> How could they have gotten it so wrong and what's taking them so long?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So many socks, so little difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the bump
> 
> It should be noted that the Democratic Party has a rich history enriched in Racism. Their policies today are a pseudo form of racism. For example, assuming Blacks are so segregated, they have no means to obtain, or even lack a government ID that could be required at the voting booth.
> 
> Other examples are Democratic policies, where their lack of economic initiatives which allows the poor, with will and ambition, to make a better life for themselves through job opportunities.
> 
> Mr Trump has changed that and is showing what this great country can do for those willing to sacrifice hard work for the reward of a weekly paycheck
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Hey look Sleaux!  Your collossal boner done made Snopes.  

>>  Did the Klan actually march at the 1924 convention? There’s no credible evidence that they did. It’s well documented that there was a Klan presence at the convention aimed at influencing its outcome (as many as 300 delegates were card-carrying Klansmen, according to Arnold S. Rice’s _The Ku Klux Klan in American Politics_), but we found no mention of Klan marches or rallies at or near Madison Square Garden in contemporaneous press coverage (including that of the _New York Times_, which published daily reports on the convention’s progress), nor in history books recounting the event.

However, there is a grain of truth to the less dramatic version of the claim, which holds that the Klan held a convention-related rally in New Jersey. The city of Long Branch (which is not “across the river,” but further down the shore from New York City) was the site of a massive, multi-state Ku Klux Klan gathering scheduled for the Fourth of July. It was billed as the largest Klan gathering ever, though actual attendance fell short of the projected 50,000 Klansmen and family members. Although they hadn’t convened for that purpose, attendees were kept abreast of the political drama unfolding at Madison Square Garden and reacted accordingly, the _New York Times_ reported:

> The event which drew men, women and children of the hooded order from all New Jersey and Delaware and from Eastern Pennsylvania had been announced as a Tri-State Klorero, the purpose of which was to demonstrate the patriotism of the Klansmen and their devotion to the cause of good government. Before the day’s program had proceeded an hour, however, scores of men and women, and many children encouraged by their elders, had pounded to a battered pulp an effigy of Governor Smith, which the Kloreans were invited to attack at three baseballs for a nickel. <
​Anti-Smith outbursts aside, the Klan event was “largely a picnic,” the _Times_ reported, “with no features of unusual importance.” Indeed, most of the day, leading up to the obligatory cross burning ceremony after dark, was taken up with standard KKK activities...

... There is no reason to suppose, in fact, that the overlapping timings of the Klan gathering and the Democratic National Convention were anything other than coincidental. The convention got underway, as scheduled, on June 24. Had it lasted four days (which was, and still is, the average length of presidential nominating conventions), it would have been over by June 28th. No one, least of all the planners of the so-called Independence Day “Klorero,” could have predicted that the convention would continue through the Fourth of July and beyond. The events were _unrelated._

...   What’s interesting about every version we were able to find of this claim, however, is that _*not one of them was published before 2000*_. During the entire 76 years between 1924, when the convention took place, and 2000, when it was first asserted that it was popularly known as the “Klanbake,” there appear to have been _no published mentions of that “fact” _at all.

The results of our research tracked those of historian Peter Shulman and freelance journalist Jennifer Mendelsohn, who reported in the _Washington Post_ in March 2018 that in all the contemporaneous press coverage of the convention, the word “Klanbake” appeared only once — as an editorial joke — and would not used again in that context for more than seven decades:

> While the Klan presence at the Democratic convention was significant, it was not enough to control the proceedings. Yet members of the Invisible Empire were not exactly invisible. On June 25, 1924, the second day of the convention, a reporter for the young tabloid _New York Daily News_ published a breezy, joking announcement from the Democratic convention hall in Madison Square Garden declaring that the “Klanbake steamed open at 12:45.” <
​An exhaustive search of contemporary newspapers, digitized and microfilmed, *including papers published by the Klan itself*, found not a single instance of another publication, including the _Daily News_, ever using this term again during their coverage of the convention or its aftermath.

In the decades that followed, neither the lone book nor scholarly articles about the convention referenced this supposedly well-known “nickname,” nor do any of the most-respected histories of the Klan. Yet today, this moniker has emerged as widely known shorthand for the convention — shorthand that conveys the mistaken message that Democrats were the party of the Klan in the 1920s.

... The Klan’s impact on the Republican Party was noted in press coverage of the time as well. In the same vein as the _Daily News_ had quipped that the Democratic convention was a “Klanbake,” _TIME_ ran a 23 June 1924 report on a failed attempt by a Republican faction to include an anti-KKK plank in the party platform which referred to the Republican National Convention by the nickname “Kleveland Konvention.”

Shulman says the unchecked spread of the “Klanbake” meme illustrates the perils of putting partisanship before accuracy:

_n an age of the internet, it’s really easy for a initial embellishment to snowball into both an apparent authoritative fact as well as a partisan bludgeon. We should resist that temptation, be skeptical of partisan and ideological uses of history, and correct the record whenever a story doesn’t check out. <<
_​_
_
Wassup, Sleaux foot?  Told you all this a year ago, idiot.

Long Branch is new info though. I know exactly where Long Branch is.  It's not even near New York --- let alone freaking Wisconsin.


----------



## whitehall

It's no secret that FDR appointed a (former) member of the KKK to the Supreme Court. The photo isn't "newly discovered" at all but the liberal MSM hopes that Americans forget about the democrat party's historic ties to the KKK.


----------



## Pogo

whitehall said:


> It's no secret that FDR appointed a (former) member of the KKK to the Supreme Court. The photo isn't "newly discovered" at all but the liberal MSM hopes that Americans forget about the democrat party's historic ties to the KKK.



Sorry, there aren't any.

You are correct that it isn't 'newly discovered' at all.  It's a completely bogus attribution attached to a completely bogus story posted by a completely bogus poster.  Actually two -- Fingerboy did the same thing.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The photo is typical very poor alt right agitprop that fails.

It is neither from the Democratic convention nor from Wisconsin.

This has been exposed for some time.


----------



## Pogo

JakeStarkey said:


> The photo is typical very poor alt right agitprop that fails.
> 
> It is neither from the Democratic convention nor from Wisconsin.
> 
> This has been exposed for some time.



Actually it is from Wisconsin, a funeral march for a slain policeman.  But the OP claimed it was New York and a political convention that had already happened five months before.  And the actual Klan picnic didn't take place in either of those places but down the shoreline of New Jersey.  And neither the Klan picnic nor the convention was called "Klanbake" at the time --- that turns out to have been an internet invention.

The most hilarious part of the OP's faux pas may be the phrase "newly discovered" -- a 94-year-old photo that's been documented for decades and sits in the Wisconsin Historical Society archives.  Anybody could have looked that up but the OPs (two of them) chose to punk themselves and take the shame.


----------



## whitehall

Pogo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's no secret that FDR appointed a (former) member of the KKK to the Supreme Court. The photo isn't "newly discovered" at all but the liberal MSM hopes that Americans forget about the democrat party's historic ties to the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there aren't any.
> 
> You are correct that it isn't 'newly discovered' at all.  It's a completely bogus attribution attached to a completely bogus story posted by a completely bogus poster.  Actually two -- Fingerboy did the same thing.
Click to expand...

FDR didn't appoint a (former) member of the KKK to the supreme court? The modern argument seems to be that the democrats who were against the civil rights act and used dogs and KKK muscle to intimidate Black voters were really republicans in disguise. Do you really want to go with that argument?


----------



## Syriusly

Norman said:


> Leftists here are STILL pissed that we freed their slaves.



Which leftists here owned slaves- specifically?

The last slaves owned in America were owned mostly by Conservative white Christians. 

You know- the modern Republican Party.


----------



## Syriusly

Geaux4it said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carter Malone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The modern day Klan traded in their hoods and robes for business suits and live in the penthouses of NY and in Malibu/Hollywood Hills.
> 
> 
> 
> They also be living in shotgun shacks in Arkansas...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's base because he understands. They believe his guttersnipe personality means he speaks for them.
> 
> How could they have gotten it so wrong and what's taking them so long?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So many socks, so little difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the bump
> 
> It should be noted that the Democratic Party has a rich history enriched in Racism. Their policies today are a pseudo form of racism. For example, assuming Blacks are so segregated, they have no means to obtain, or even lack a government ID that could be required at the voting booth.
> 
> Other examples are Democratic policies, where their lack of economic initiatives which allows the poor, with will and ambition, to make a better life for themselves through job opportunities.
> 
> Mr Trump has changed that and is showing what this great country can do for those willing to sacrifice hard work for the reward of a weekly paycheck
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


It should be noted that the Republican Party has a rich history of enriched in Racism. 
Look at how they consider most African Americans to be racists? And Jews. And Asians. And Latinos.

The Democratic Party is the party of all races- and the majority of every racial minority in America recognizes that- which is why they are members of the Democratic Party- not the Republican Party.

While the Republicans continue to call Democrats- African Americans, Jews, Mexican Americans, Asian Americans- and white Americans- racists.


----------



## Syriusly

Geaux4it said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carter Malone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The modern day Klan traded in their hoods and robes for business suits and live in the penthouses of NY and in Malibu/Hollywood Hills.
> 
> 
> 
> They also be living in shotgun shacks in Arkansas...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's base because he understands. They believe his guttersnipe personality means he speaks for them.
> 
> How could they have gotten it so wrong and what's taking them so long?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So many socks, so little difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Trump has changed that and is showing what this great country can do for those willing to sacrifice hard work for the reward of a weekly paycheck
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Like Don the Con- you do enjoy lying in order to promote racial strife in America

Remember your doozy of a lie in the OP?
_
-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention._

You still pimping that lie- what a good little Trumpkin you are!


----------



## JakeStarkey

If all the conservative KKK had reformed as *Black and Byrd and others, the world would be a better place.

Instead the joined the GOP.*


----------



## Pogo

whitehall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's no secret that FDR appointed a (former) member of the KKK to the Supreme Court. The photo isn't "newly discovered" at all but the liberal MSM hopes that Americans forget about the democrat party's historic ties to the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there aren't any.
> 
> You are correct that it isn't 'newly discovered' at all.  It's a completely bogus attribution attached to a completely bogus story posted by a completely bogus poster.  Actually two -- Fingerboy did the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR didn't appoint a (former) member of the KKK to the supreme court? The modern argument seems to be that the democrats who were against the civil rights act and used dogs and KKK muscle to intimidate Black voters were really republicans in disguise. Do you really want to go with that argument?
Click to expand...


Care to waddle back to post 1472 and essplain to me why the Democratic Party would be electing Republicans?  All of those names I put in there, plus an endorsement in the next POTUS election for Hoover, featuring a vicious national smear campaign against the Democrat?  Care to essplain why the 1924 Democrat Davis denounced the Klan while the 1924 Republican Coolidge wouldn't?

Care to essplain that video about all those Indiana Klan Republicans?  Seems like an organization with "Democratic Party ties" wouldn't want a state run by Republicans.  What am  I missing?

How 'bout essplaining why an organization with "Democratic Party ties" would be working to remove a Democratic governer (Walton, Oklahoma) after he tried to drive them out?  Or why a Democratic governor (Ellis Arnall, Georgia) would be the guy to revoke their charter?  Or why a Democrat (LBJ) would be the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant?

Oh speaking of Grant, since you want to selectively quote history --- guess who the last POTUS was who had been a slaveowner.


----------



## Syriusly

whitehall said:


> It's no secret that FDR appointed a (former) member of the KKK to the Supreme Court. The photo isn't "newly discovered" at all but the liberal MSM hopes that Americans forget about the democrat party's historic ties to the KKK.



The GOP wants to label African Americans as supporters of the KKK, while their own Don the Con has trouble distancing himself from all of his KKK and white supremacist supporters- or denouncing them.

And by the way- LBJ appointed the first African American to the Supreme Court. Wilson appointed the first Jewish American to the Supreme Court. 

Yep- the party of the KKK......lol


----------



## Pogo

Syriusly said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Carter Malone said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AsianTrumpSupporter said:
> 
> 
> 
> The modern day Klan traded in their hoods and robes for business suits and live in the penthouses of NY and in Malibu/Hollywood Hills.
> 
> 
> 
> They also be living in shotgun shacks in Arkansas...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Trump's base because he understands. They believe his guttersnipe personality means he speaks for them.
> 
> How could they have gotten it so wrong and what's taking them so long?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So many socks, so little difference
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Mr Trump has changed that and is showing what this great country can do for those willing to sacrifice hard work for the reward of a weekly paycheck
> 
> -Geaux
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like Don the Con- you do enjoy lying in order to promote racial strife in America
> 
> Remember your doozy of a lie in the OP?
> _
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention._
> 
> You still pimping that lie- what a good little Trumpkin you are!
Click to expand...


And even more like Don the Con --- he can't take responsibility for his fuckup.
It follows him around like a puppy.


----------



## Syriusly

Pogo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's no secret that FDR appointed a (former) member of the KKK to the Supreme Court. The photo isn't "newly discovered" at all but the liberal MSM hopes that Americans forget about the democrat party's historic ties to the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there aren't any.
> 
> You are correct that it isn't 'newly discovered' at all.  It's a completely bogus attribution attached to a completely bogus story posted by a completely bogus poster.  Actually two -- Fingerboy did the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR didn't appoint a (former) member of the KKK to the supreme court? The modern argument seems to be that the democrats who were against the civil rights act and used dogs and KKK muscle to intimidate Black voters were really republicans in disguise. Do you really want to go with that argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to waddle back to post 1472 and essplain to me why the Democratic Party would be electing Republicans?  All of those names I put in there, plus an endorsement in the next POTUS election for Hoover, featuring a vicious national smear campaign against the Democrat?  Care to essplain why the 1924 Democrat Davis denounced the Klan while the 1924 Republican Coolidge wouldn't?
> 
> Care to essplain that video about all those Indiana Klan Republicans?  Seems like an organization with "Democratic Party ties" wouldn't want a state run by Republicans.  What am  I missing?
> 
> How 'bout essplaining why an organization with "Democratic Party ties" would be working to remove a Democratic governer (Walton, Oklahoma) after he tried to drive them out?  Or why a Democratic governor (Ellis Arnall, Georgia) would be the guy to revoke their charter?  Or why a Democrat (LBJ) would be the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant?
> 
> Oh speaking of Grant, since you want to selectively quote history --- guess who the last POTUS was who had been a slaveowner.
Click to expand...


It is pretty funny that Whitehall likes to throw out KKK charges- while is a big fanboy and apologist for the Confederate Slave owning states.


----------



## whitehall

Pogo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's no secret that FDR appointed a (former) member of the KKK to the Supreme Court. The photo isn't "newly discovered" at all but the liberal MSM hopes that Americans forget about the democrat party's historic ties to the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there aren't any.
> 
> You are correct that it isn't 'newly discovered' at all.  It's a completely bogus attribution attached to a completely bogus story posted by a completely bogus poster.  Actually two -- Fingerboy did the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR didn't appoint a (former) member of the KKK to the supreme court? The modern argument seems to be that the democrats who were against the civil rights act and used dogs and KKK muscle to intimidate Black voters were really republicans in disguise. Do you really want to go with that argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to waddle back to post 1472 and essplain to me why the Democratic Party would be electing Republicans?  All of those names I put in there, plus an endorsement in the next POTUS election for Hoover, featuring a vicious national smear campaign against the Democrat?  Care to essplain why the 1924 Democrat Davis denounced the Klan while the 1924 Republican Coolidge wouldn't?
> 
> Care to essplain that video about all those Indiana Klan Republicans?  Seems like an organization with "Democratic Party ties" wouldn't want a state run by Republicans.  What am  I missing?
> 
> How 'bout essplaining why an organization with "Democratic Party ties" would be working to remove a Democratic governer (Walton, Oklahoma) after he tried to drive them out?  Or why a Democratic governor (Ellis Arnall, Georgia) would be the guy to revoke their charter?  Or why a Democrat (LBJ) would be the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant?
> 
> Oh speaking of Grant, since you want to selectively quote history --- guess who the last POTUS was who had been a slaveowner.
Click to expand...


Guess which party was the last to have senator who was a member of the KKK. Coolidge didn't denounce the Klan? Is that the best you can do?  FDR had an ace in the hole with his appointment of the former KKK member. Justice Black bailed him out of the messy executive order that authorized the arrest of American citizens without due process.  LBJ was so crooked that the media even made jokes about how many dead guys it took to elect him but he went against his own party with the Civil Rights act and it took republican pressure to get it passed. If you checked the wallets of the KKK operatives who were threatening and intimidating (and killing?) Black voters you would have found 100% democrat party registration.


----------



## Pogo

whitehall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's no secret that FDR appointed a (former) member of the KKK to the Supreme Court. The photo isn't "newly discovered" at all but the liberal MSM hopes that Americans forget about the democrat party's historic ties to the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there aren't any.
> 
> You are correct that it isn't 'newly discovered' at all.  It's a completely bogus attribution attached to a completely bogus story posted by a completely bogus poster.  Actually two -- Fingerboy did the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR didn't appoint a (former) member of the KKK to the supreme court? The modern argument seems to be that the democrats who were against the civil rights act and used dogs and KKK muscle to intimidate Black voters were really republicans in disguise. Do you really want to go with that argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to waddle back to post 1472 and essplain to me why the Democratic Party would be electing Republicans?  All of those names I put in there, plus an endorsement in the next POTUS election for Hoover, featuring a vicious national smear campaign against the Democrat?  Care to essplain why the 1924 Democrat Davis denounced the Klan while the 1924 Republican Coolidge wouldn't?
> 
> Care to essplain that video about all those Indiana Klan Republicans?  Seems like an organization with "Democratic Party ties" wouldn't want a state run by Republicans.  What am  I missing?
> 
> How 'bout essplaining why an organization with "Democratic Party ties" would be working to remove a Democratic governer (Walton, Oklahoma) after he tried to drive them out?  Or why a Democratic governor (Ellis Arnall, Georgia) would be the guy to revoke their charter?  Or why a Democrat (LBJ) would be the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant?
> 
> Oh speaking of Grant, since you want to selectively quote history --- guess who the last POTUS was who had been a slaveowner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess which party was the last to have senator who was a member of the KKK. Coolidge didn't denounce the Klan? Is that the best you can do?  FDR had an ace in the hole with his appointment of the former KKK member. Justice Black bailed him out of the messy executive order that authorized the arrest of American citizens without due process.  LBJ was so crooked that the media even made jokes about how many dead guys it took to elect him but he went against his own party with the Civil Rights act and it took republican pressure to get it passed. If you checked the wallets of the KKK operatives who were threatening and intimidating (and killing?) Black voters you would have found 100% democrat party registration.
Click to expand...


  The Klan has never required a political party. What it did require was that you be white, Chrisitan, specifically Protestant Christian, native-born and believe in the superiority of the white race.  Nothing about politics.  KKK preached "100% Americanism" but it didn't care how you got there politically.

I know this is hard for you False Dichotomists to understand but not everything in the world is made up of the two elements "Democrat" and "Republican".  Actually most people are _neither_.

So I take it you're wimping out on all of those questions I just put to you.  Not that that's a surprise.


----------



## whitehall

Pogo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's no secret that FDR appointed a (former) member of the KKK to the Supreme Court. The photo isn't "newly discovered" at all but the liberal MSM hopes that Americans forget about the democrat party's historic ties to the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there aren't any.
> 
> You are correct that it isn't 'newly discovered' at all.  It's a completely bogus attribution attached to a completely bogus story posted by a completely bogus poster.  Actually two -- Fingerboy did the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FDR didn't appoint a (former) member of the KKK to the supreme court? The modern argument seems to be that the democrats who were against the civil rights act and used dogs and KKK muscle to intimidate Black voters were really republicans in disguise. Do you really want to go with that argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to waddle back to post 1472 and essplain to me why the Democratic Party would be electing Republicans?  All of those names I put in there, plus an endorsement in the next POTUS election for Hoover, featuring a vicious national smear campaign against the Democrat?  Care to essplain why the 1924 Democrat Davis denounced the Klan while the 1924 Republican Coolidge wouldn't?
> 
> Care to essplain that video about all those Indiana Klan Republicans?  Seems like an organization with "Democratic Party ties" wouldn't want a state run by Republicans.  What am  I missing?
> 
> How 'bout essplaining why an organization with "Democratic Party ties" would be working to remove a Democratic governer (Walton, Oklahoma) after he tried to drive them out?  Or why a Democratic governor (Ellis Arnall, Georgia) would be the guy to revoke their charter?  Or why a Democrat (LBJ) would be the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant?
> 
> Oh speaking of Grant, since you want to selectively quote history --- guess who the last POTUS was who had been a slaveowner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess which party was the last to have senator who was a member of the KKK. Coolidge didn't denounce the Klan? Is that the best you can do?  FDR had an ace in the hole with his appointment of the former KKK member. Justice Black bailed him out of the messy executive order that authorized the arrest of American citizens without due process.  LBJ was so crooked that the media even made jokes about how many dead guys it took to elect him but he went against his own party with the Civil Rights act and it took republican pressure to get it passed. If you checked the wallets of the KKK operatives who were threatening and intimidating (and killing?) Black voters you would have found 100% democrat party registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan has never required a political party. What it did require was that you be white, Chrisitan, specifically Protestant Christian, native-born and believe in the superiority of the white race.  Nothing about politics.  KKK preached "100% Americanism" but it didn't care how you got there politically.
> 
> I know this is hard for you False Dichotomists to understand but not everything in the world is made up of the two elements "Democrat" and "Republican".  Actually most people are _neither_.
> 
> So I take it you're wimping out on all of those questions I just put to you.  Not that that's a surprise.
Click to expand...


You have it ass-backwards.. The Klan didn't have the sense or the political stability to engage in political activity. It was a case of a racist political party using the muscle of the KKK to achieve power. It worked for democrats until the 60's when the democrat party decided to use Black anger  instead of fighting it. Jane Fonda and John Kerry tried to combine the Black street anger promoted by the liberal media with a crazy sort of anti-war propaganda alleged Veteran instability into the "winter soldiers" propaganda movement and ...presto...democrats flipped their image. Thanks to the liberal media the democrat party would become the party of anarchy and the poor KKK was left behind.


----------



## jillian

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…


Why do you make up things about what other people think? 

Bad enough you’re a liar.


----------



## Pogo

whitehall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there aren't any.
> 
> You are correct that it isn't 'newly discovered' at all.  It's a completely bogus attribution attached to a completely bogus story posted by a completely bogus poster.  Actually two -- Fingerboy did the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR didn't appoint a (former) member of the KKK to the supreme court? The modern argument seems to be that the democrats who were against the civil rights act and used dogs and KKK muscle to intimidate Black voters were really republicans in disguise. Do you really want to go with that argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to waddle back to post 1472 and essplain to me why the Democratic Party would be electing Republicans?  All of those names I put in there, plus an endorsement in the next POTUS election for Hoover, featuring a vicious national smear campaign against the Democrat?  Care to essplain why the 1924 Democrat Davis denounced the Klan while the 1924 Republican Coolidge wouldn't?
> 
> Care to essplain that video about all those Indiana Klan Republicans?  Seems like an organization with "Democratic Party ties" wouldn't want a state run by Republicans.  What am  I missing?
> 
> How 'bout essplaining why an organization with "Democratic Party ties" would be working to remove a Democratic governer (Walton, Oklahoma) after he tried to drive them out?  Or why a Democratic governor (Ellis Arnall, Georgia) would be the guy to revoke their charter?  Or why a Democrat (LBJ) would be the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant?
> 
> Oh speaking of Grant, since you want to selectively quote history --- guess who the last POTUS was who had been a slaveowner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess which party was the last to have senator who was a member of the KKK. Coolidge didn't denounce the Klan? Is that the best you can do?  FDR had an ace in the hole with his appointment of the former KKK member. Justice Black bailed him out of the messy executive order that authorized the arrest of American citizens without due process.  LBJ was so crooked that the media even made jokes about how many dead guys it took to elect him but he went against his own party with the Civil Rights act and it took republican pressure to get it passed. If you checked the wallets of the KKK operatives who were threatening and intimidating (and killing?) Black voters you would have found 100% democrat party registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan has never required a political party. What it did require was that you be white, Chrisitan, specifically Protestant Christian, native-born and believe in the superiority of the white race.  Nothing about politics.  KKK preached "100% Americanism" but it didn't care how you got there politically.
> 
> I know this is hard for you False Dichotomists to understand but not everything in the world is made up of the two elements "Democrat" and "Republican".  Actually most people are _neither_.
> 
> So I take it you're wimping out on all of those questions I just put to you.  Not that that's a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it ass-backwards.. The Klan didn't have the sense or the political stability to engage in political activity. It was a case of a racist political party using the muscle of the KKK to achieve power. It worked for democrats until the 60's when the democrat party decided to use Black anger  instead of fighting it. Jane Fonda and John Kerry tried to combine the Black street anger promoted by the liberal media with a crazy sort of anti-war propaganda alleged Veteran instability into the "winter soldiers" propaganda movement and ...presto...democrats flipped their image. Thanks to the liberal media the democrat party would become the party of anarchy and the poor KKK was left behind.
Click to expand...


It didn't engage in political activity for most of its existence, but it did at the peak of its power in the 1920s.  And as already noted in that time it supported and got elected Owen Brewster in Maine (Republican), Ed Jackson in Indiana (Republican), Rice Means in Colorado (Republican), George Luis Baker in Oregon (Republican), Ben Paulen in Kansas (Republican) and Clarence Morely in Colorado (not only a Republican but an active Klan member). And it worked _against_ Jack Walton in Oklahoma (Democrat), Oscar Underwood in Alabama (Democrat), Huey Long in Louisiana (Democrat), Al Smith nationally (Democrat) and Stetson Kennedy in Florida (Democrat) who famously infiltrated the Klan and wrote an exposé and later developed a radio series to discredit the Klan in the most popular broadcast media program of the time (Superman).

All of that was WAY before the 1960s.

You still have no answer for any of that.


----------



## EGR one

usmbguest5318 said:


> Dear, God, OP-er!  You and the author of the _Top Secret Leaks_ article could not be any more dissembling in your depiction of the Democratic Party.  There is no question that the KKK had a material place in the Democratic Party of 1924.  This is 2017, however, and the KKK have shifted their allegiance to the Republican Party.
> 
> The protracted transformation of the GOP via what is called the "Southern Strategy" had its nascence in the post-Reconstruction days of GOP 19th century when it was little but an attempt not to entirely lose the South  and found its rhetorical mark in the 1960s, something that was apparent to then contemporary observers, and squarely hit that mark in the 1980s when the GOP unabashedly and in earnest employed the hateful pathos of racial angst, aggrievance, and animosity to court provincial Southern Democrats ("Blue Dog Democrats") who found themselves corrugated within an increasingly cosmopolitan party.
> 
> Quite simply, things change.
> 
> Lastly, it is lamentably ironic -- and frankly, piteously imbecilic -- that conservatives (or anyone, really) today broker the line you have insofar as in 1924, the GOP was the party of liberals.  The notion that the Democratic Party of early 20th century and before ideologically mirrors today's Democratic Party while the GOP has remained unchanged is a procrustean personification of perverse puerility.  I mean, really, dude.  It's just laughably f*cking-stupid!



Much like your post.  A lot of words put together in sentences, but little more.


----------



## Faun

whitehall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there aren't any.
> 
> You are correct that it isn't 'newly discovered' at all.  It's a completely bogus attribution attached to a completely bogus story posted by a completely bogus poster.  Actually two -- Fingerboy did the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR didn't appoint a (former) member of the KKK to the supreme court? The modern argument seems to be that the democrats who were against the civil rights act and used dogs and KKK muscle to intimidate Black voters were really republicans in disguise. Do you really want to go with that argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to waddle back to post 1472 and essplain to me why the Democratic Party would be electing Republicans?  All of those names I put in there, plus an endorsement in the next POTUS election for Hoover, featuring a vicious national smear campaign against the Democrat?  Care to essplain why the 1924 Democrat Davis denounced the Klan while the 1924 Republican Coolidge wouldn't?
> 
> Care to essplain that video about all those Indiana Klan Republicans?  Seems like an organization with "Democratic Party ties" wouldn't want a state run by Republicans.  What am  I missing?
> 
> How 'bout essplaining why an organization with "Democratic Party ties" would be working to remove a Democratic governer (Walton, Oklahoma) after he tried to drive them out?  Or why a Democratic governor (Ellis Arnall, Georgia) would be the guy to revoke their charter?  Or why a Democrat (LBJ) would be the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant?
> 
> Oh speaking of Grant, since you want to selectively quote history --- guess who the last POTUS was who had been a slaveowner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess which party was the last to have senator who was a member of the KKK. Coolidge didn't denounce the Klan? Is that the best you can do?  FDR had an ace in the hole with his appointment of the former KKK member. Justice Black bailed him out of the messy executive order that authorized the arrest of American citizens without due process.  LBJ was so crooked that the media even made jokes about how many dead guys it took to elect him but he went against his own party with the Civil Rights act and it took republican pressure to get it passed. If you checked the wallets of the KKK operatives who were threatening and intimidating (and killing?) Black voters you would have found 100% democrat party registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan has never required a political party. What it did require was that you be white, Chrisitan, specifically Protestant Christian, native-born and believe in the superiority of the white race.  Nothing about politics.  KKK preached "100% Americanism" but it didn't care how you got there politically.
> 
> I know this is hard for you False Dichotomists to understand but not everything in the world is made up of the two elements "Democrat" and "Republican".  Actually most people are _neither_.
> 
> So I take it you're wimping out on all of those questions I just put to you.  Not that that's a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it ass-backwards.. The Klan didn't have the sense or the political stability to engage in political activity. It was a case of a racist political party using the muscle of the KKK to achieve power. It worked for democrats until the 60's when the democrat party decided to use Black anger  instead of fighting it. Jane Fonda and John Kerry tried to combine the Black street anger promoted by the liberal media with a crazy sort of anti-war propaganda alleged Veteran instability into the "winter soldiers" propaganda movement and ...presto...democrats flipped their image. Thanks to the liberal media the democrat party would become the party of anarchy and the poor KKK was left behind.
Click to expand...

The klan was southern conservatives. True they were mostly Democrat back then, but today, they’re mostly Republican.


----------



## Crepitus

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…


Lol, you need to learn some history my friend.  It is well known how the parties switched places.  1924 was almost a century ago.


----------



## whitehall

Pogo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR didn't appoint a (former) member of the KKK to the supreme court? The modern argument seems to be that the democrats who were against the civil rights act and used dogs and KKK muscle to intimidate Black voters were really republicans in disguise. Do you really want to go with that argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to waddle back to post 1472 and essplain to me why the Democratic Party would be electing Republicans?  All of those names I put in there, plus an endorsement in the next POTUS election for Hoover, featuring a vicious national smear campaign against the Democrat?  Care to essplain why the 1924 Democrat Davis denounced the Klan while the 1924 Republican Coolidge wouldn't?
> 
> Care to essplain that video about all those Indiana Klan Republicans?  Seems like an organization with "Democratic Party ties" wouldn't want a state run by Republicans.  What am  I missing?
> 
> How 'bout essplaining why an organization with "Democratic Party ties" would be working to remove a Democratic governer (Walton, Oklahoma) after he tried to drive them out?  Or why a Democratic governor (Ellis Arnall, Georgia) would be the guy to revoke their charter?  Or why a Democrat (LBJ) would be the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant?
> 
> Oh speaking of Grant, since you want to selectively quote history --- guess who the last POTUS was who had been a slaveowner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess which party was the last to have senator who was a member of the KKK. Coolidge didn't denounce the Klan? Is that the best you can do?  FDR had an ace in the hole with his appointment of the former KKK member. Justice Black bailed him out of the messy executive order that authorized the arrest of American citizens without due process.  LBJ was so crooked that the media even made jokes about how many dead guys it took to elect him but he went against his own party with the Civil Rights act and it took republican pressure to get it passed. If you checked the wallets of the KKK operatives who were threatening and intimidating (and killing?) Black voters you would have found 100% democrat party registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan has never required a political party. What it did require was that you be white, Chrisitan, specifically Protestant Christian, native-born and believe in the superiority of the white race.  Nothing about politics.  KKK preached "100% Americanism" but it didn't care how you got there politically.
> 
> I know this is hard for you False Dichotomists to understand but not everything in the world is made up of the two elements "Democrat" and "Republican".  Actually most people are _neither_.
> 
> So I take it you're wimping out on all of those questions I just put to you.  Not that that's a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it ass-backwards.. The Klan didn't have the sense or the political stability to engage in political activity. It was a case of a racist political party using the muscle of the KKK to achieve power. It worked for democrats until the 60's when the democrat party decided to use Black anger  instead of fighting it. Jane Fonda and John Kerry tried to combine the Black street anger promoted by the liberal media with a crazy sort of anti-war propaganda alleged Veteran instability into the "winter soldiers" propaganda movement and ...presto...democrats flipped their image. Thanks to the liberal media the democrat party would become the party of anarchy and the poor KKK was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't engage in political activity for most of its existence, but it did at the peak of its power in the 1920s.  And as already noted in that time it supported and got elected Owen Brewster in Maine (Republican), Ed Jackson in Indiana (Republican), Rice Means in Colorado (Republican), George Luis Baker in Oregon (Republican), Ben Paulen in Kansas (Republican) and Clarence Morely in Colorado (not only a Republican but an active Klan member). And it worked _against_ Jack Walton in Oklahoma (Democrat), Oscar Underwood in Alabama (Democrat), Huey Long in Louisiana (Democrat), Al Smith nationally (Democrat) and Stetson Kennedy in Florida (Democrat) who famously infiltrated the Klan and wrote an exposé and later developed a radio series to discredit the Klan in the most popular broadcast media program of the time (Superman).
> 
> All of that was WAY before the 1960s.
> 
> You still have no answer for any of that.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was way before the 1960's. You might find a KKK affiliated organization supporting a Maine republican or an Oregon politician or a hundred democrats but a political endorsement in the 1920's didn't translate to political victory. It was just an endorsement...or not. Democrats used the KKK for political muscle in the 40's and 50's and up until the 60's when the democrat party decided to use Black hatred for political anarchy. LBJ paid them back with the ironically named "great society" and Black families turned into wards of the state.


----------



## Pogo

whitehall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to waddle back to post 1472 and essplain to me why the Democratic Party would be electing Republicans?  All of those names I put in there, plus an endorsement in the next POTUS election for Hoover, featuring a vicious national smear campaign against the Democrat?  Care to essplain why the 1924 Democrat Davis denounced the Klan while the 1924 Republican Coolidge wouldn't?
> 
> Care to essplain that video about all those Indiana Klan Republicans?  Seems like an organization with "Democratic Party ties" wouldn't want a state run by Republicans.  What am  I missing?
> 
> How 'bout essplaining why an organization with "Democratic Party ties" would be working to remove a Democratic governer (Walton, Oklahoma) after he tried to drive them out?  Or why a Democratic governor (Ellis Arnall, Georgia) would be the guy to revoke their charter?  Or why a Democrat (LBJ) would be the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant?
> 
> Oh speaking of Grant, since you want to selectively quote history --- guess who the last POTUS was who had been a slaveowner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess which party was the last to have senator who was a member of the KKK. Coolidge didn't denounce the Klan? Is that the best you can do?  FDR had an ace in the hole with his appointment of the former KKK member. Justice Black bailed him out of the messy executive order that authorized the arrest of American citizens without due process.  LBJ was so crooked that the media even made jokes about how many dead guys it took to elect him but he went against his own party with the Civil Rights act and it took republican pressure to get it passed. If you checked the wallets of the KKK operatives who were threatening and intimidating (and killing?) Black voters you would have found 100% democrat party registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan has never required a political party. What it did require was that you be white, Chrisitan, specifically Protestant Christian, native-born and believe in the superiority of the white race.  Nothing about politics.  KKK preached "100% Americanism" but it didn't care how you got there politically.
> 
> I know this is hard for you False Dichotomists to understand but not everything in the world is made up of the two elements "Democrat" and "Republican".  Actually most people are _neither_.
> 
> So I take it you're wimping out on all of those questions I just put to you.  Not that that's a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it ass-backwards.. The Klan didn't have the sense or the political stability to engage in political activity. It was a case of a racist political party using the muscle of the KKK to achieve power. It worked for democrats until the 60's when the democrat party decided to use Black anger  instead of fighting it. Jane Fonda and John Kerry tried to combine the Black street anger promoted by the liberal media with a crazy sort of anti-war propaganda alleged Veteran instability into the "winter soldiers" propaganda movement and ...presto...democrats flipped their image. Thanks to the liberal media the democrat party would become the party of anarchy and the poor KKK was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't engage in political activity for most of its existence, but it did at the peak of its power in the 1920s.  And as already noted in that time it supported and got elected Owen Brewster in Maine (Republican), Ed Jackson in Indiana (Republican), Rice Means in Colorado (Republican), George Luis Baker in Oregon (Republican), Ben Paulen in Kansas (Republican) and Clarence Morely in Colorado (not only a Republican but an active Klan member). And it worked _against_ Jack Walton in Oklahoma (Democrat), Oscar Underwood in Alabama (Democrat), Huey Long in Louisiana (Democrat), Al Smith nationally (Democrat) and Stetson Kennedy in Florida (Democrat) who famously infiltrated the Klan and wrote an exposé and later developed a radio series to discredit the Klan in the most popular broadcast media program of the time (Superman).
> 
> All of that was WAY before the 1960s.
> 
> You still have no answer for any of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it was way before the 1960's. You might find a KKK affiliated organization supporting a Maine republican or an Oregon politician or a hundred democrats but a political endorsement in the 1920's didn't translate to political victory. It was just an endorsement...or not. Democrats used the KKK for political muscle in the 40's and 50's and up until the 60's when the democrat party decided to use Black hatred for political anarchy. LBJ paid them back with the ironically named "great society" and Black families turned into wards of the state.
Click to expand...


LBJ?  You mean the guy who had the Klan burn a cross on his lawn in the '50s?  The guy who prosecuted them in the POTUS office in the '60s noting "I have fought them all my life" and referred to when he was a boy in Texas in the '20s when his father got threatened by the Klan because he (the father) denounced them in the state house so they all stayed up with shotguns waiting-- that LBJ?

The '40s?  You mean when Stetson Kennedy wrote his exposé of the Klan and shamed them through Superman?  And then had to flee the country because of Klan threats?

What the fuck kind of "muscle" is that?

You didn't find 'KKK affiliated organizations' in Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and as documented in this thread New Jersey and Wisconsin.  You found the actual *Klan itself*.  Electing all those Republicans and infiltrating the entire state of Indiana, where one-third of the entire adult male population was Klan.  These aren't "affilates".  That's the KLAN.

You never did answer why a "Democrat" organization would be working so hard in so many places to elect Republicans.


----------



## JakeStarkey

whitehall said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, there aren't any.
> 
> You are correct that it isn't 'newly discovered' at all.  It's a completely bogus attribution attached to a completely bogus story posted by a completely bogus poster.  Actually two -- Fingerboy did the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> FDR didn't appoint a (former) member of the KKK to the supreme court? The modern argument seems to be that the democrats who were against the civil rights act and used dogs and KKK muscle to intimidate Black voters were really republicans in disguise. Do you really want to go with that argument?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Care to waddle back to post 1472 and essplain to me why the Democratic Party would be electing Republicans?  All of those names I put in there, plus an endorsement in the next POTUS election for Hoover, featuring a vicious national smear campaign against the Democrat?  Care to essplain why the 1924 Democrat Davis denounced the Klan while the 1924 Republican Coolidge wouldn't?
> 
> Care to essplain that video about all those Indiana Klan Republicans?  Seems like an organization with "Democratic Party ties" wouldn't want a state run by Republicans.  What am  I missing?
> 
> How 'bout essplaining why an organization with "Democratic Party ties" would be working to remove a Democratic governer (Walton, Oklahoma) after he tried to drive them out?  Or why a Democratic governor (Ellis Arnall, Georgia) would be the guy to revoke their charter?  Or why a Democrat (LBJ) would be the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant?
> 
> Oh speaking of Grant, since you want to selectively quote history --- guess who the last POTUS was who had been a slaveowner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess which party was the last to have senator who was a member of the KKK. Coolidge didn't denounce the Klan? Is that the best you can do?  FDR had an ace in the hole with his appointment of the former KKK member. Justice Black bailed him out of the messy executive order that authorized the arrest of American citizens without due process.  LBJ was so crooked that the media even made jokes about how many dead guys it took to elect him but he went against his own party with the Civil Rights act and it took republican pressure to get it passed. If you checked the wallets of the KKK operatives who were threatening and intimidating (and killing?) Black voters you would have found 100% democrat party registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan has never required a political party. What it did require was that you be white, Chrisitan, specifically Protestant Christian, native-born and believe in the superiority of the white race.  Nothing about politics.  KKK preached "100% Americanism" but it didn't care how you got there politically.
> 
> I know this is hard for you False Dichotomists to understand but not everything in the world is made up of the two elements "Democrat" and "Republican".  Actually most people are _neither_.
> 
> So I take it you're wimping out on all of those questions I just put to you.  Not that that's a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it ass-backwards.. The Klan didn't have the sense or the political stability to engage in political activity. It was a case of a racist political party using the muscle of the KKK to achieve power. It worked for democrats until the 60's when the democrat party decided to use Black anger  instead of fighting it. Jane Fonda and John Kerry tried to combine the Black street anger promoted by the liberal media with a crazy sort of anti-war propaganda alleged Veteran instability into the "winter soldiers" propaganda movement and ...presto...democrats flipped their image. Thanks to the liberal media the democrat party would become the party of anarchy and the poor KKK was left behind.
Click to expand...

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

Nonsense.

The Klan was not political in that sense at all.


----------



## whitehall

Pogo said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Guess which party was the last to have senator who was a member of the KKK. Coolidge didn't denounce the Klan? Is that the best you can do?  FDR had an ace in the hole with his appointment of the former KKK member. Justice Black bailed him out of the messy executive order that authorized the arrest of American citizens without due process.  LBJ was so crooked that the media even made jokes about how many dead guys it took to elect him but he went against his own party with the Civil Rights act and it took republican pressure to get it passed. If you checked the wallets of the KKK operatives who were threatening and intimidating (and killing?) Black voters you would have found 100% democrat party registration.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan has never required a political party. What it did require was that you be white, Chrisitan, specifically Protestant Christian, native-born and believe in the superiority of the white race.  Nothing about politics.  KKK preached "100% Americanism" but it didn't care how you got there politically.
> 
> I know this is hard for you False Dichotomists to understand but not everything in the world is made up of the two elements "Democrat" and "Republican".  Actually most people are _neither_.
> 
> So I take it you're wimping out on all of those questions I just put to you.  Not that that's a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it ass-backwards.. The Klan didn't have the sense or the political stability to engage in political activity. It was a case of a racist political party using the muscle of the KKK to achieve power. It worked for democrats until the 60's when the democrat party decided to use Black anger  instead of fighting it. Jane Fonda and John Kerry tried to combine the Black street anger promoted by the liberal media with a crazy sort of anti-war propaganda alleged Veteran instability into the "winter soldiers" propaganda movement and ...presto...democrats flipped their image. Thanks to the liberal media the democrat party would become the party of anarchy and the poor KKK was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It didn't engage in political activity for most of its existence, but it did at the peak of its power in the 1920s.  And as already noted in that time it supported and got elected Owen Brewster in Maine (Republican), Ed Jackson in Indiana (Republican), Rice Means in Colorado (Republican), George Luis Baker in Oregon (Republican), Ben Paulen in Kansas (Republican) and Clarence Morely in Colorado (not only a Republican but an active Klan member). And it worked _against_ Jack Walton in Oklahoma (Democrat), Oscar Underwood in Alabama (Democrat), Huey Long in Louisiana (Democrat), Al Smith nationally (Democrat) and Stetson Kennedy in Florida (Democrat) who famously infiltrated the Klan and wrote an exposé and later developed a radio series to discredit the Klan in the most popular broadcast media program of the time (Superman).
> 
> All of that was WAY before the 1960s.
> 
> You still have no answer for any of that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, it was way before the 1960's. You might find a KKK affiliated organization supporting a Maine republican or an Oregon politician or a hundred democrats but a political endorsement in the 1920's didn't translate to political victory. It was just an endorsement...or not. Democrats used the KKK for political muscle in the 40's and 50's and up until the 60's when the democrat party decided to use Black hatred for political anarchy. LBJ paid them back with the ironically named "great society" and Black families turned into wards of the state.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LBJ?  You mean the guy who had the Klan burn a cross on his lawn in the '50s?  The guy who prosecuted them in the POTUS office in the '60s noting "I have fought them all my life" and referred to when he was a boy in Texas in the '20s when his father got threatened by the Klan because he (the father) denounced them in the state house so they all stayed up with shotguns waiting-- that LBJ?
> 
> The '40s?  You mean when Stetson Kennedy wrote his exposé of the Klan and shamed them through Superman?  And then had to flee the country because of Klan threats?
> 
> What the fuck kind of "muscle" is that?
> 
> You didn't find 'KKK affiliated organizations' in Washington, Oregon, California, Colorado, Kansas, Maine, Ohio, Indiana, Pennsylvania and as documented in this thread New Jersey and Wisconsin.  You found the actual *Klan itself*.  Electing all those Republicans and infiltrating the entire state of Indiana, where one-third of the entire adult male population was Klan.  These aren't "affilates".  That's the KLAN.
> 
> You never did answer why a "Democrat" organization would be working so hard in so many places to elect Republicans.
Click to expand...


Working so hard? How hard was the KKK capable of working in a political sense at that time ? Anecdotal accounts of Cross burnings make my case. How could the President of the United States get away with appointing a former member of the KKK to the Supreme Court if the KKK wasn't considered harmless or a tool of the democrat party in the 40's?


----------



## JakeStarkey

Faun said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> FDR didn't appoint a (former) member of the KKK to the supreme court? The modern argument seems to be that the democrats who were against the civil rights act and used dogs and KKK muscle to intimidate Black voters were really republicans in disguise. Do you really want to go with that argument?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care to waddle back to post 1472 and essplain to me why the Democratic Party would be electing Republicans?  All of those names I put in there, plus an endorsement in the next POTUS election for Hoover, featuring a vicious national smear campaign against the Democrat?  Care to essplain why the 1924 Democrat Davis denounced the Klan while the 1924 Republican Coolidge wouldn't?
> 
> Care to essplain that video about all those Indiana Klan Republicans?  Seems like an organization with "Democratic Party ties" wouldn't want a state run by Republicans.  What am  I missing?
> 
> How 'bout essplaining why an organization with "Democratic Party ties" would be working to remove a Democratic governer (Walton, Oklahoma) after he tried to drive them out?  Or why a Democratic governor (Ellis Arnall, Georgia) would be the guy to revoke their charter?  Or why a Democrat (LBJ) would be the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant?
> 
> Oh speaking of Grant, since you want to selectively quote history --- guess who the last POTUS was who had been a slaveowner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess which party was the last to have senator who was a member of the KKK. Coolidge didn't denounce the Klan? Is that the best you can do?  FDR had an ace in the hole with his appointment of the former KKK member. Justice Black bailed him out of the messy executive order that authorized the arrest of American citizens without due process.  LBJ was so crooked that the media even made jokes about how many dead guys it took to elect him but he went against his own party with the Civil Rights act and it took republican pressure to get it passed. If you checked the wallets of the KKK operatives who were threatening and intimidating (and killing?) Black voters you would have found 100% democrat party registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan has never required a political party. What it did require was that you be white, Chrisitan, specifically Protestant Christian, native-born and believe in the superiority of the white race.  Nothing about politics.  KKK preached "100% Americanism" but it didn't care how you got there politically.
> 
> I know this is hard for you False Dichotomists to understand but not everything in the world is made up of the two elements "Democrat" and "Republican".  Actually most people are _neither_.
> 
> So I take it you're wimping out on all of those questions I just put to you.  Not that that's a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it ass-backwards.. The Klan didn't have the sense or the political stability to engage in political activity. It was a case of a racist political party using the muscle of the KKK to achieve power. It worked for democrats until the 60's when the democrat party decided to use Black anger  instead of fighting it. Jane Fonda and John Kerry tried to combine the Black street anger promoted by the liberal media with a crazy sort of anti-war propaganda alleged Veteran instability into the "winter soldiers" propaganda movement and ...presto...democrats flipped their image. Thanks to the liberal media the democrat party would become the party of anarchy and the poor KKK was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The klan was southern conservatives. True they were mostly Democrat back then, but today, they’re mostly Republican.
Click to expand...

. . . and still conservative.


----------



## Faun

JakeStarkey said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Care to waddle back to post 1472 and essplain to me why the Democratic Party would be electing Republicans?  All of those names I put in there, plus an endorsement in the next POTUS election for Hoover, featuring a vicious national smear campaign against the Democrat?  Care to essplain why the 1924 Democrat Davis denounced the Klan while the 1924 Republican Coolidge wouldn't?
> 
> Care to essplain that video about all those Indiana Klan Republicans?  Seems like an organization with "Democratic Party ties" wouldn't want a state run by Republicans.  What am  I missing?
> 
> How 'bout essplaining why an organization with "Democratic Party ties" would be working to remove a Democratic governer (Walton, Oklahoma) after he tried to drive them out?  Or why a Democratic governor (Ellis Arnall, Georgia) would be the guy to revoke their charter?  Or why a Democrat (LBJ) would be the first POTUS to prosecute the Klan since Grant?
> 
> Oh speaking of Grant, since you want to selectively quote history --- guess who the last POTUS was who had been a slaveowner.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess which party was the last to have senator who was a member of the KKK. Coolidge didn't denounce the Klan? Is that the best you can do?  FDR had an ace in the hole with his appointment of the former KKK member. Justice Black bailed him out of the messy executive order that authorized the arrest of American citizens without due process.  LBJ was so crooked that the media even made jokes about how many dead guys it took to elect him but he went against his own party with the Civil Rights act and it took republican pressure to get it passed. If you checked the wallets of the KKK operatives who were threatening and intimidating (and killing?) Black voters you would have found 100% democrat party registration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan has never required a political party. What it did require was that you be white, Chrisitan, specifically Protestant Christian, native-born and believe in the superiority of the white race.  Nothing about politics.  KKK preached "100% Americanism" but it didn't care how you got there politically.
> 
> I know this is hard for you False Dichotomists to understand but not everything in the world is made up of the two elements "Democrat" and "Republican".  Actually most people are _neither_.
> 
> So I take it you're wimping out on all of those questions I just put to you.  Not that that's a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have it ass-backwards.. The Klan didn't have the sense or the political stability to engage in political activity. It was a case of a racist political party using the muscle of the KKK to achieve power. It worked for democrats until the 60's when the democrat party decided to use Black anger  instead of fighting it. Jane Fonda and John Kerry tried to combine the Black street anger promoted by the liberal media with a crazy sort of anti-war propaganda alleged Veteran instability into the "winter soldiers" propaganda movement and ...presto...democrats flipped their image. Thanks to the liberal media the democrat party would become the party of anarchy and the poor KKK was left behind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The klan was southern conservatives. True they were mostly Democrat back then, but today, they’re mostly Republican.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> . . . and still conservative.
Click to expand...

Yup


----------



## GWV5903

Pogo said:


> There's no evidence Strom Thurmond was with the Klan. Prove me wrong.



Who's quote is this? 

_“[T]here’s not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n***r race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches,” _

I found this image on Google image, and yes Peter Shulman claims this is an image from the Wisconsin Historical Society. There are several others who continue to refer to it as an image from the 1924 DNC Convention. That doesn't change the number of Democrats or DixieCrats that changed parties... 

_Google__ image _
_



Image size:
600 × 387
Find other sizes of this image:
All sizes - Small - Medium
Best guess for this image: 1924 democratic national convention


_


----------



## GWV5903

Pogo said:


> Your collossal boner done made Snopes.



Snopes is your proof? RPFLMAO!!!


----------



## Pogo

GWV5903 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your collossal boner done made Snopes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Snopes is your proof? RPFLMAO!!!
Click to expand...


Nopes.  We done proved it here a year ago.  Snopes seems to have caught up now.

It was waaaaaay back in ought-17 that intrepid investigators here busted this bogus thread and found the Wisconsin Historical Society records --- matter of fact it was about day 2 of the thread.  We had a grand ol' time watching the OP squirm around without admitting he fucked up.  He STILL can't do it.  Fun stuff.


----------



## Pogo

GWV5903 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no evidence Strom Thurmond was with the Klan. Prove me wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who's quote is this?
> 
> _“[T]here’s not enough troops in the Army to force the Southern people to break down segregation and admit the n***r race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches,” _
> 
> I found this image on Google image, and yes Peter Shulman claims this is an image from the Wisconsin Historical Society. There are several others who continue to refer to it as an image from the 1924 DNC Convention. That doesn't change the number of Democrats or DixieCrats that changed parties...
> 
> _Google__ image
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Image size:
> 600 × 387
> Find other sizes of this image:
> All sizes - Small - Medium
> Best guess for this image: 1924 democratic national convention
> 
> _
Click to expand...


AGAIN... we did that a year ago.  I believe I posted the exact size dimensions, date (December 2) and name of the photographer (started with a V).

The quote is from Strom Thurmond, and it's from his 1948 run for President after he and several other Southerners walked out of the Democratic convention after hearing too much about "civil rights" from Harry Truman and the young mayor of Minneapolis Hubert Humphrey.  After he lost that bid he tried to run for Senate and the Democrats kicked him oft the ballot so he had to run as a write-in, which he won.

I don't even need to look this shit up anymore.  But what's that got to do with anything?

Back to the photo, I don't give a rat's ass how many citations you can find of anybody who misattributes it, mostly because they did what the dipshit OP did and ran it without checking --- NOBODY ANYWHERE holds a fucking political convention on wet trolley tracks in front of a residential street.  That's a SCREAMING clue right there.


----------



## Pogo

By the way I looked up Google Maps to tell me how far it is from Madison Square Garden (where the actual Democratic convention really was) to Long Branch New Jersey (where the Klan had its 'picnic').  If you're driving today it takes over an hour, 55 to 60 miles.  How long it would take in 1924, I don't know -- you could double or triple it.  And that's the closest the Klan got to the convention, and it was gone well before the convention was concluded.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Anyone who has trouble accepting Snopes in general is deserving of getting a RPFLMAO!!!

The fake news image of the OP is the caliber of crap the far right dishes out but can't take without crying.

I like this OP because it reveals the Trumpers and their supporters simply cannot come up with honest material, so the make up alt facts and use lying news.


----------



## Ame®icano

Playing In Theaters Nationwide

August 3, 2018

*Death Of A Nation*


----------



## Pogo

Ame®icano said:


> Playing In Theaters Nationwide
> 
> August 3, 2018
> 
> *Death Of A Nation*



Off the topic I know, but I looked in anyway out of curiosity.

First line of the blurb:

>> Not since 1860 have the Democrats so fanatically refused to accept the result of a free election. That year, their target was Lincoln. They smeared him. They went to war to defeat him. In the end, they assassinated him. <<​


Ah, so it's fantasy fiction.


Apparently the filmmaker is counting on the public to not know that in 1860 the Democrat, who ran on a platform of keeping the union intact, came in last, carrying one (1) state and being shut out in the South, that nobody of the four candidates in that election 'refused to accept' it; that after that election that losing Democrat went on a speaking tour to try to stave off the secession and when that failed, advised Lincoln to increase his military presence and that the seceders could not be trusted; that once the various states seceded the Confederacy abolished political parties altogether; and that Lincoln's military governor in Tennessee and then his VP who took over after his death, was a Democrat, as was a large contingent of Lincoln's support in the North -- the ones who were not Republicans.

Fake news comes to the movies.  And appropriately it's named after another fake history comes to the movies movie.

(/offtopic)


----------



## Sunsettommy

rightwinger said:


> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .



Then you need to correct History, who states that it was CONFEDERATES who created the group:

"*Founding of the Ku Klux Klan *
A group including many former Confederate veterans founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866. The first two words of the organization’s name supposedly derived from the Greek word “kyklos,” meaning circle. In the summer of 1867, local branches of the Klan met in a general organizing convention and established what they called an “Invisible Empire of the South.” Leading Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest was chosen as the first leader, or “grand wizard,” of the Klan; he presided over a hierarchy of grand dragons, grand titans and grand cyclopses."

It was REPUBLICAN President Grant and other Republicans who tried to shut down the KKK:

Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 was passed by Republicans.

"This expansion of federal authority–which Ulysses S. Grant promptly used in 1871 to crush Klan activity in South Carolina and other areas of the South–outraged Democrats and even alarmed many Republicans. From the early 1870s onward, white supremacy gradually reasserted its hold on the South as support for Reconstruction waned; by the end of 1876, the entire South was under Democratic control once again."


----------



## Pogo

Sunsettommy said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love revisionist history
> 
> First off.... The klan is and always was a Conservative organization. Liberals are not welcome
> 
> Secondly.... the second generation klan that emerged in the early 1900 s was comprised of both Democrats in the south and Republicans in the Midwest.
> 
> Thirdly..... TODAYS klan is staunchly Republican and Conservative
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to correct History, who states that it was CONFEDERATES who created the group:
> 
> "*Founding of the Ku Klux Klan *
> A group including many former Confederate veterans founded the first branch of the Ku Klux Klan as a social club in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1866. The first two words of the organization’s name supposedly derived from the Greek word “kyklos,” meaning circle. In the summer of 1867, local branches of the Klan met in a general organizing convention and established what they called an “Invisible Empire of the South.” Leading Confederate general Nathan Bedford Forrest was chosen as the first leader, or “grand wizard,” of the Klan; he presided over a hierarchy of grand dragons, grand titans and grand cyclopses."
> 
> It was REPUBLICAN President Grant and other Republicans who tried to shut down the KKK:
> 
> Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871 was passed by Republicans.
> 
> "This expansion of federal authority–which Ulysses S. Grant promptly used in 1871 to crush Klan activity in South Carolina and other areas of the South–outraged Democrats and even alarmed many Republicans. From the early 1870s onward, white supremacy gradually reasserted its hold on the South as support for Reconstruction waned; by the end of 1876, the entire South was under Democratic control once again."
Click to expand...


More or less accurate although the year was 1865 (Christmas) and the group of "many" was specifically six in number, twentysomething vets whose names are all known.  They modeled what was basically conceived as a college fraternity after a popular fraternity of the time called Kuklos Adelphon and the silly rituals, alliterative terms and costumes were soon taken over by regional vigilante "night riders" who formed at least two dozen such groups around the occupied former Confederacy.  Forrest, who was not present in the beginning stages, was drafted in absentia in 1867 and his first and only General Order No. 1 ordered the organization disbanded and its regalia destroyed, though that order was largely ignored as Forrest had been a figurehead.  By the early 1870s it was toast and took its place in the anals of history.

That's in effect a different Klan from the one pictured in the OP, which was far larger, far more widespread and lasted much longer than the original, which modeled _it_self after the movie stylings of _Birth of a Nation _(e.g. the cross burnings which were a D.W. Griffith invention) and was founded in 1915 by an opportunist looking to make money from selling memberships by making the Klan of the movie into a real thing.  Racism spurred by the Cult of the Lost Cause, which also produced _Birth of a Nation _(1915) as well as the novel "The Clansman" that it was based on (1905), was rampant at the time, as was xenophobia, antisemitism and antiCatholicism, all of which became Klan targets along with alcohol, adultery, "loose women" and people who didn't go to church.  Neither the six 1865 founders nor Simmons the 1915 founder had any known political affiliations, though SImmons had been a Methodist minister.

Both of those Klans operated independent of political party affiliation since their impetus was social structure rather than political power for its own sake.  Once Simmons lost control of his Klan, a victim of his own success in proliferating it, the KKK started working, especially through the 1920s, to support sympathetic politicians and oppose unsympathetic ones, be they Republicans, Democrats or unaffiliated.  That meant Democrats in the South, Republicans in the midwest and the west.  Maine for example was as solidly Republican as the South was Democratic, so being nominated by the Republican Party in Maine was tantamount to election just as being nominated as the Democratic candidate in Georgia.  Ergo both the pro- and anti- Klan forces were affiliated with the same political party in each state.  In Georgia, Talmadge (Democrat) supported the Klan while Arnall (Democrat) opposed it (and shut it down).  In Maine Brewster (Republican) supported the KKK while Baxter (Republican) opposed it.  So all this amateur jockeying to put political party uniforms on the Klan as if some kind of elemental causation deliberately ignores the history and context they lived in.

The Klan in the OP is, obviously, the 1915-founded one, in the peak year of its reach, which was coast-to-coast and numbered in the millions.  Though the errant Wisconsin trolley tracks photo has nothing to do with any political convention, it did seek to influence both political parties' conventions that year, to little effective result in either case.  It's become "fashionable" to conflate a Klan picnic sixty miles away with the Democratic convention and claim it was called "Klanbake" but all the evidence indicates that's yet another 21st century internet historical revision.  The OP and his careless conflation of a December day on Wisconsin trolley tracks with a political convention five months earlier and a thousand miles away, indicates just how recklessly partisan hacks will present their hackery expecting the gullible to line up to buy it.  Just as "Colonel Joe" Simmons in 1915 expected gullibles to line up to buy his new Klan.


What's ultimately interesting in all of this in the sense of rhetorical analysis is how these same revisionists want to take this clearly _Christian _terrorist organization and ignore its religious foundations, painting them over with contrived political party ones, while at the same time taking clearly _political_ terrorist organizations e.g. al Qaeda, ignore their political foundations and paint them over with contrived _religious _ones.  As I like to say after the old MasterCard commercial --- "Having it both ways: Priceless".


----------



## Pogo

Found object:

Story about the murder of the policeman being mourned in the funeral in the OP in Wisconsin, carried by a Klan newspaper of the time, December 19, 1924

Note that the Klan describes the victim specifically describes the victim as a "_*Protestant* _policeman", whining that he was sent on his mission by a "_Roman_" police chief.


----------



## rightwinger

The KKK today is closely aligned with the RepubliKlan Party


----------



## bripat9643

rightwinger said:


> The KKK today is closely aligned with the RepubliKlan Party


All five of them?


----------



## boedicca

Pogo said:


> By the way I looked up Google Maps to tell me how far it is from Madison Square Garden (where the actual Democratic convention really was) to Long Branch New Jersey (where the Klan had its 'picnic').  If you're driving today it takes over an hour, 55 to 60 miles.  How long it would take in 1924, I don't know -- you could double or triple it.  And that's the closest the Klan got to the convention, and it was gone well before the convention was concluded.




That's a lot shorter walk than the Caravan coming up through Mexico.

Just sayin'.


----------



## Pogo

bripat9643 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK today is closely aligned with the RepubliKlan Party
> 
> 
> 
> All five of them?
Click to expand...


Oh look.  It's the co-OP, here to continue to fail to admit he FUCKED UP ON A GRAND SCALE posting a picture of a Klan funeral march on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks in December and tried to tell us it was the "Democratic convention in New York", which had already happened the previous summer.

Neither one of these kkklowns has ever admitted it.


----------



## bripat9643

Pogo said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK today is closely aligned with the RepubliKlan Party
> 
> 
> 
> All five of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look.  It's the co-OP, here to continue to fail to admit he FUCKED UP ON A GRAND SCALE posting a picture of a Klan funeral march on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks in December and tried to tell us it was the "Democratic convention in New York", which had already happened the previous summer.
> 
> Neither one of these kkklowns has ever admitted it.
Click to expand...

You never change.  You squeeze your one pathetic victory for everything you can get out of it.


----------



## Faun

bripat9643 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK today is closely aligned with the RepubliKlan Party
> 
> 
> 
> All five of them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh look.  It's the co-OP, here to continue to fail to admit he FUCKED UP ON A GRAND SCALE posting a picture of a Klan funeral march on wet Wisconsin trolley tracks in December and tried to tell us it was the "Democratic convention in New York", which had already happened the previous summer.
> 
> Neither one of these kkklowns has ever admitted it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never change.  You squeeze your one pathetic victory for everything you can get out of it.
Click to expand...

LOLOLOL 

That victory is not alone — he has many friends.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Geaux4it said:


> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…




little has changed for the democrat party 

they have always been pretty comfortable hiding behind masks 


just the color of the mask has changed


----------



## bripat9643

jon_berzerk said:


> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> little has changed for the democrat party
> 
> they have always been pretty comfortable hiding behind masks
> 
> 
> just the color of the mask has changed
Click to expand...

look who else wears masks:


----------



## emilynghiem

rightwinger said:


> The KKK today is closely aligned with the RepubliKlan Party


rightwinger 
(A) If you have an issue with the Klan, go after the Klan.
If you have an issue with the Republicans, go after them!

There are plenty of abuses of party power and corporate interests to go after
individuals who do wrong, why not hold those actual wrongdoers accountable?

Why this insistence on allowing mobs and corporate interests to commit abuses,
but never go after them, and only abuse the crimes to "blame parties for points."
Doesn't this allow wrongdoers to go unpunished if the wrong groups get the blame?

(B) Also your insinuation above is like accusing Democrats of enabling and sympathizing 
* with Jihadists because of sympathy with peaceful law abiding Muslims and Palestinians who aren't terrorists but "associated with them"
* with Human Traffickers because of sympathy with peaceful law abiding immigrants and workers who aren't criminals but "associated with them"

Does this help for members of both parties
to accuse "the other group of Guilt by Association"?
Isn't this just deflection and distraction, and does nothing
but allow wrongdoers to keep getting away with crimes
while the public and media are "too busy pointing the finger at other groups."

How do you expect to get accountability by blaming one group
for wrongs that another groups is guilty of, instead of going after
each one to address and correct their OWN wrongs they are answerable for???

This kind of "mob mentality" and "collective judgment and punishment"
is what fuels War by "dehumanizing and demonizing" individuals as a "group that is hated and feared."

rightwinger if you and I are both progressives,
if we don't like the mob mentality behind war behind mobs like hateful clans and gangs,
what business would you or I have in blaming people because of the
crimes of "groups associated with groups"

Do you understand this is not how democratic due process works?
Do you believe it is fair if YOU got convicted judged or punished by law because of
the wrongful actions of "other people associated with you?"

Do you believe in the Golden Rule and not mistreating, misjudging or maligning people
the way YOU would not want to be treated either?

Or do you believe in continuing this endless war and bullying
where both groups just sling mud and demean the other by accusing
whole groups? Instead of just going after the actual wrongdoers?

What do you really hope to achieve by this tactic
and does it really help when BOTH parties accuse each other
and NEVER GO AFTER THE REAL WRONGDOERS!


----------



## jon_berzerk

bripat9643 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> little has changed for the democrat party
> 
> they have always been pretty comfortable hiding behind masks
> 
> 
> just the color of the mask has changed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look who else wears masks:
Click to expand...



yes some would say their allies


----------



## bripat9643

jon_berzerk said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> little has changed for the democrat party
> 
> they have always been pretty comfortable hiding behind masks
> 
> 
> just the color of the mask has changed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look who else wears masks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes some would say their allies
Click to expand...

They were masks for the exact same reason.


----------



## emilynghiem

bripat9643 said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> little has changed for the democrat party
> 
> they have always been pretty comfortable hiding behind masks
> 
> 
> just the color of the mask has changed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look who else wears masks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes some would say their allies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were masks for the exact same reason.
Click to expand...


Dear bripat9643 
The organization and motivation behind these groups
are too different to say they do things for the same reasons.

The Klan is based on Christian Identity beliefs that the races
are designed to remain intact and not mixed.  This is not
"in reaction" against another group, as the Antifa exist to
COUNTERATTACK what they perceive as White Racist
Supremacist and Fascist influence.  That is REACTIONARY.

The motivation of the Antifa and plotting anonymous attacks
is to DISRUPT the free speech and assembly of those other "hate" groups.

The Antifa groups do not host sustainable programs and activities organized to establish their OWN teachings like a church does, as the Klan does. I would compare Antifa more to OCCUPY that was mainly for reactionary protests in the media.

The Klan is more like an organized cult, with structure and
principles similar to the Masons.  They seem to take their
beliefs and principles more seriously, and even when they
give those up, they show a greater sense of identity as a group than Antifa which is more "reacting to other groups."

Daryl Davis - Wikipedia

^Here's the profile of a blues musician who has convinced hundreds of former Klansmen to leave that organization.  Very different set up.


----------



## Pogo

emilynghiem said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> little has changed for the democrat party
> 
> they have always been pretty comfortable hiding behind masks
> 
> 
> just the color of the mask has changed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look who else wears masks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes some would say their allies
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They were masks for the exact same reason.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear bripat9643
> The organization and motivation behind these groups
> are too different to say they do things for the same reasons.
> 
> The Klan is based on Christian Identity beliefs that the races
> are designed to remain intact and not mixed.  This is not
> "in reaction" against another group, as the Antifa exist to
> COUNTERATTACK what they perceive as White Racist
> Supremacist and Fascist influence.  That is REACTIONARY.
> 
> The motivation of the Antifa and plotting anonymous attacks
> is to DISRUPT the free speech and assembly of those other "hate" groups.
> 
> The Antifa groups do not host sustainable programs and activities organized to establish their OWN teachings like a church does, as the Klan does. I would compare Antifa more to OCCUPY that was mainly for reactionary protests in the media.
> 
> The Klan is more like an organized cult, with structure and
> principles similar to the Masons.  They seem to take their
> beliefs and principles more seriously, and even when they
> give those up, they show a greater sense of identity as a group than Antifa which is more "reacting to other groups."
> 
> Daryl Davis - Wikipedia
> 
> ^Here's the profile of a blues musician who has convinced hundreds of former Klansmen to leave that organization.  Very different set up.
Click to expand...


Here's the guy Emily's referring to telling his own story.  Good stuff.

​

Welcome back, Emily


----------



## Pogo

jon_berzerk said:


> bripat9643 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geaux4it said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wonder why?
> 
> -Geaux
> --------
> 
> The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was also known as “Klanbake.”
> 
> In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.
> 
> 
> Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> little has changed for the democrat party
> 
> they have always been pretty comfortable hiding behind masks
> 
> 
> just the color of the mask has changed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> look who else wears masks:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yes some would say their allies
Click to expand...


Some would say "they're", knowing how contractions work.

Some wouldn't say "democrat party" since there's no such thing.

And finally some would actually go back and read the thread to find out how the fake OP was called out last summer when it was first plopped here by Geaux4it and bripat9643 for being not a political convention at all but a Klan funeral march, not New York at all but Wisconsin, not the summer at all but December, and not a "Klanbake", a term which was not used for either the convention long past nor the funeral march.  In doing so some would also notice the picture has resided in the Wisconsin Historical Society for decades and is in no way "newly discovered", which makes the entire premise of this thread absolute unmitigated horse shit.  Nor, certainly, is there any reason "Liberals" would "not be liking" an irrelevant then-93-year-old photo, a claim which the author of course never substantiates.

One would further learn that in that same year of 1924 that Klan, which had no ties to any political party, got and/or supported Republicans elected to Governor in Maine, Colorado, Indiana and Kansas, a Republican Senator in Colorado, numerous local Republican officials in Ohio and Pennsylvania and New Jersey and the west coast, as well as the Presidential candidacy of Coolidge, because he refused to denounce the Klan while his Democratic opponent did so -- just as the same Klan would endorse Hoover in the next election while running a national smear campaign against the Democrat.

No one has ever essplained why a "democrat party" would be taking that approach.  Be the first.


----------



## Faun

Bumping this merged thread to highlight just how rightarded the two who started it are.

Geaux4it, bripat9643, take a bow.


----------



## Wyatt earp

Faun said:


> Bumping this merged thread to highlight just how rightarded the two who started it are.
> 
> Geaux4it, bripat9643, take a bow.


----------



## Pogo

Faun said:


> Bumping this merged thread to highlight just how rightarded the two who started it are.
> 
> Geaux4it, bripat9643, take a bow.



To this DAY neither one of those klowns has ever admitted they got punked by a specious full-of-shit blog that neither one of them bothered to vet, thirty seconds of which would have exposed it for the sham it is.

Wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin in December.  A fucking political convention held on wet trolley tracks a month after the election was already over.  SMGDFH.

Neither of them also seem to have mentioned that in that same year the Klan sent agents into the Republican convention as well (Time Magazine called it the "Kleveland Konvention") for the same purpose: to keep that party also from denouncing the KKK.  In both cases the Klan succeeded in preventing said denouncement:




--- the main difference being, while neither party platform denounced the Klan by name, the Republican nominee Coolidge also declined to do so while the Democratic nominee Davis did so immediately upon nomination, which is why the Klan then endorsed Coolidge.

Which is kind of ironic considering the historical reversal they tried to pull here.

But yeah, out of Geaux4it and bripat9643 neither one has the stones to admit they fucked up to this degree, which is exactly why they'll never hear the end of it.  Freaking cowards.


----------



## progressive hunter




----------



## Geaux4it

Faun said:


> Bumping this merged thread to highlight just how rightarded the two who started it are.
> 
> Geaux4it, bripat9643, take a bow.



Can't help it ... But I'm going to pile on....

As we all know, the root of racism goes deep into the bowels of the Democrat Party. They really liked them some bonfires and clear nights running the dogs. And there is no shame there. I mean, Barack Obama gave a *cough* tear jerking speech at the death of Senator Byrd, mega Cyclops citizen that he was.

Them darn statues need to come down that reflect history 157 years ago. But wait, the Democrats who are responsible for countless Civil Rights violations against African Americans, in what is considered 'modern history' have a plan. Of course, reparations is the punishment the Democrats say YOU.... we all owe!. That's right. You have no ties to the Democrat Party today, or yesterday. But hey, let's tax all of us to cover the horrific actions of the Democrat Party.

-Geaux


----------



## Pogo

Geaux4it said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping this merged thread to highlight just how rightarded the two who started it are.
> 
> Geaux4it, bripat9643, take a bow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't help it ... But I'm going to pile on....
> 
> As we all know, the root of racism goes deep into the bowels of the Democrat Party. They really liked them some bonfires and clear nights running the dogs. And there is no shame there. I mean, Barack Obama gave a *cough* tear jerking speech at the death of Senator Byrd, mega Cyclops citizen that he was.
> 
> Them darn statues need to come down that reflect history 157 years ago. But wait, the Democrats who are responsible for countless Civil Rights violations against African Americans, in what is considered 'modern history' have a plan. Of course, reparations is the punishment the Democrats say YOU.... we all owe!. That's right. You have no ties to the Democrat Party today, or yesterday. But hey, let's tax all of us to cover the horrific actions of the Democrat Party.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...


Oh look, it's the balless wonder who got hisself punked by a fake blog, tried to tell the world that a political convention took place a month after the election on wet trolley tracks in Wisconsin, got his thread debunked from here to Wisconsin, and _STILL _doesn't have the cojones to admit he fucked up.


----------



## Faun

Geaux4it said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bumping this merged thread to highlight just how rightarded the two who started it are.
> 
> Geaux4it, bripat9643, take a bow.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't help it ... But I'm going to pile on....
> 
> As we all know, the root of racism goes deep into the bowels of the Democrat Party. They really liked them some bonfires and clear nights running the dogs. And there is no shame there. I mean, Barack Obama gave a *cough* tear jerking speech at the death of Senator Byrd, mega Cyclops citizen that he was.
> 
> Them darn statues need to come down that reflect history 157 years ago. But wait, the Democrats who are responsible for countless Civil Rights violations against African Americans, in what is considered 'modern history' have a plan. Of course, reparations is the punishment the Democrats say YOU.... we all owe!. That's right. You have no ties to the Democrat Party today, or yesterday. But hey, let's tax all of us to cover the horrific actions of the Democrat Party.
> 
> -Geaux
Click to expand...

LOL

Slobbers the forum jester  who _thought_ a photo of a KKK rally in *Madison*, Wisconsin, was the Democrat National Convention at *Madison *Square Garden in New York City.






How stupid are you?


----------

