# The first couple portrayed as apes



## BDBoop

Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.

Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes







> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:



I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.


----------



## Gracie

I know I am on ignore so you won't see this, but I plan to respond anyway and don't give a damn if you peek or not.

That pic is disgusting. I dislike Michelle, semi like Barrack and wish he was not president cuz he would be better at something else, but to display them as apes is crude.

Then again...Bush was depicted as a chimpanzee so.....


----------



## Votto

Oh the rage, they were insulted.

Let's pass more laws to stop them.


----------



## Papageorgio

Not very classy, but what do you expect from Europeans, they can be very crude and have some superiority complex, which shows how ignorant they really are.


----------



## Papageorgio

Gracie said:


> I know I am on ignore so you won't see this, but I plan to respond anyway and don't give a damn if you peek or not.
> 
> That pic is disgusting. I dislike Michelle, semi like Barrack and wish he was not president cuz he would be better at something else, but to display them as apes is crude.
> 
> Then again...Bush was depicted as a chimpanzee so.....



Why does she have you on ignore?


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Several things...European newspapers are faaar more successful than the dying newspaper industry in America. The main reason is things just like this, they inject humor and push the envelope like this to entertain readers. So for one of their papers to do this is not like an American newspaper doing it.
  Secondly, not all of the countries there have the PC police running wild, they have a sense of humor. Not nearly as uptight as our society is.
 And finally, the author points out that if you look at the photo without the story - yes it looks terrible.
  So three things to consider there.


----------



## mudwhistle

BDBoop said:


> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
Click to expand...


This doesn't surprise me at all. 

I've been trying to say for years that racism is worse in some countries than in America. Heck, in Mexico the ethnicity of the population is closely controlled. Germans sometimes look at blacks like they're aliens from outer-space.


----------



## iamwhatiseem

Why is the left photo in English?


----------



## mudwhistle

iamwhatiseem said:


> Why is the left photo in English?



Everyone in public school in Europe learns some English.


----------



## DriftingSand

The only way the pics could be seen as "racist" is if certain folks secretly harbor a sense that blacks are somehow more related to chimps than humans. So the real "racists" are the first ones who reached that conclusion and raised the battle cry.  Are they decrying their own sense of guilt?

Were anyone called racists when George Bush was depicted as a chimp? 

Is this a racist photo?:


----------



## Desperado

Bush = Monkey = Funny
Obama = Monkey = Racist

Absolute BS.... It is called political satire and it has been going on for a long time.
Now because Obama is black, satire is off limits because you do no want to offend your messiah.
This is the part of free speech that is tough for you liberals to understand.  Even speech or ideas that you do not agree with are covered under "Free Speech".  Just as a reminder:


----------



## mudwhistle

Desperado said:


> Bush = Monkey = Funny
> Obama = Monkey = Racist
> 
> Absolute BS.... It is called political satire and it has been going on for a long time.
> Now because Obama is black, satire is off limits because you do no want to offend your messiah.
> This is the part of free speech that is tough for you liberals to understand.  Even speech or ideas that you do not agree with are covered under "Free Speech".  Just as a reminder:



Anything negative about Obama is racist.

You know that.


----------



## rightwinger

Conservatives on this board paste the same picture and then complain they are not racist


----------



## Stephanie

omg, it's the end of the world as we know it

find whoever did that picture and HANG them from the highest tree or gas them, firing squad?

good grief, you people went ape shit (forgive the pun, lol) over some comedy skit in a rodeo for crying out loud

give us all a BREAK


----------



## Iceweasel

That's insulting. What a bunch of a-holes. What did apes ever do to deserve that?


----------



## MrMax

Photoshopping a monkey's face on Moochelle was superfluous. She probably likes to relax up in a tree with a good book and some bananas.

Q: What do you call a book of primates in Moochelle's hands?

A: A family photo album.


----------



## rightwinger

MrMax said:


> Photoshopping a monkey's face on Moochelle was superfluous. She probably likes to relax up in a tree with a good book and some bananas.
> 
> Q: What do you call a book of primates in Moochelle's hands?
> 
> A: A family photo album.



Max

We all know you are new and trying to make a name for yourself. But your childlike attempts at trolling are not working

Notice how most just ignore what you post?

Get used to it


----------



## MrMax

rightwinger said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photoshopping a monkey's face on Moochelle was superfluous. She probably likes to relax up in a tree with a good book and some bananas.
> 
> Q: What do you call a book of primates in Moochelle's hands?
> 
> A: A family photo album.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Max
> 
> We all know you are new and trying to make a name for yourself. But your childlike attempts at trolling are not working
> 
> Notice how most just ignore what you post?
> 
> Get used to it
Click to expand...


C'mon, are you trying to say that Moochelle doesn't have have natural simian features, like really long arms, and a protruding mouth/jaw like an ape?


----------



## Stephanie

MrMax said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> Photoshopping a monkey's face on Moochelle was superfluous. She probably likes to relax up in a tree with a good book and some bananas.
> 
> Q: What do you call a book of primates in Moochelle's hands?
> 
> A: A family photo album.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Max
> 
> We all know you are new and trying to make a name for yourself. But your childlike attempts at trolling are not working
> 
> Notice how most just ignore what you post?
> 
> Get used to it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> C'mon, are you trying to say that Moochelle doesn't have have natural simian features, like really long arms, and a protruding mouth/jaw like an ape?
Click to expand...


Ignore him, his name should wrongwhiner over anything that is said about his Dear Leader, Obambam

but please don't get carried away with this stuff about Michelle, uncalled for and ugly we don't need it on this board


----------



## rightwinger

Stephanie said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Max
> 
> We all know you are new and trying to make a name for yourself. But your childlike attempts at trolling are not working
> 
> Notice how most just ignore what you post?
> 
> Get used to it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, are you trying to say that Moochelle doesn't have have natural simian features, like really long arms, and a protruding mouth/jaw like an ape?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ignore him, his name should wrongwhiner over anything that is said about his Dear Leader, Obambam
Click to expand...


LOL....look who jumps in to defend Max

Way to go Steph!


----------



## BlindBoo

I understand the oppositions need to denigrate the President in any way possible.  They will attack him in all walks of life including his family.  Images and vile talking points are a price of freedom.  I do remember some monkey comparison with President Bush as well but I don't recall Laura Bush being attacked in such a way, but the internet is big and so full of shit.........


----------



## TakeAStepBack

The liberal hypocrisy knows no boundaries. They embrace that shit like they invented it.


----------



## Stephanie

TakeAStepBack said:


> The liberal hypocrisy knows no boundaries. They embrace that shit like they invented it.



yes they did, everyone should know by now they're all, TWO faced hypocrites

but this is a tactic to try and squelch your Freedoms of speech people

wake up


----------



## MrMax

TakeAStepBack said:


> The liberal hypocrisy knows no boundaries. They embrace that shit like they invented it.



More like Forrest Gump, I would have thought, lol.


----------



## Zoom-boing

From the link:



> The article was reportedly *a satirical piece that also joked about Obama selling marijuana. *The newspaper packaged the photos as if they had been submitted by Russian president Vladimir Putin, Metro said Sunday.
> 
> The picture was joined by a message reading, Vladimir Putin is the president of Russia. He sent us this attachment at our request, and chose to send pictures instead of text 'because he doesn't have a lot of time', the Independent said.
> 
> While the article has many readers outraged, there are also readers who have come to the newspapers defense. "It was a joke," one Reddit user said.
> 
> "In their defense, there are tons upon tons of pictures and t-shirts with Bush drawn as an ape," another user wrote.
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from *its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section*, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."



It was an Onion-esque joke in the satirical section of the newspaper.  In Belgium.

Context counts.

And note, Bush was depicted as a chimp more times than anyone can count.  I thought we could all trace our roots back to Africa anyway.  

Stop whining and grow a thicker skin.


----------



## PredFan

Iceweasel said:


> That's insulting. What a bunch of a-holes. What did apes ever do to deserve that?



BAM! Wish I could double rep.


----------



## PredFan

rightwinger said:


> Conservatives on this board paste the same picture and then complain they are not racist


Boop is a Con? Who knew?


----------



## Stephanie

rightwinger said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> C'mon, are you trying to say that Moochelle doesn't have have natural simian features, like really long arms, and a protruding mouth/jaw like an ape?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignore him, his name should wrongwhiner over anything that is said about his Dear Leader, Obambam
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL....look who jumps in to defend Max
> 
> Way to go Steph!
Click to expand...


really whiner, you cut off the rest of the post?
you are beginning to crawl as low a SNAKE
now go bow to your Obama shrine


----------



## BDBoop

I say jump, and y'all ask how high.


----------



## paperview

DriftingSand said:


> The only way the pics could be seen as "racist" is if certain folks secretly harbor a sense that blacks are somehow more related to chimps than humans. So the real "racists" are the first ones who reached that conclusion and raised the battle cry.  Are they decrying their own sense of guilt?
> ...


Don't know much about history, do you?


----------



## PredFan

It's hysterical.


----------



## BDBoop

paperview said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way the pics could be seen as "racist" is if certain folks secretly harbor a sense that blacks are somehow more related to chimps than humans. So the real "racists" are the first ones who reached that conclusion and raised the battle cry.  Are they decrying their own sense of guilt?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know much about history, do you?
Click to expand...


Apparently not.


----------



## Stephanie

BDBoop said:


> I say jump, and y'all ask how high.



some people need a life to make them feel superior over others..pathetic as it is

then they wonder why people can't stand liberals


----------



## bodecea

Stephanie said:


> omg, it's the end of the world as we know it
> 
> find whoever did that picture and HANG them from the highest tree or gas them, firing squad?
> 
> good grief, you people went ape shit (forgive the pun, lol) over some comedy skit in a rodeo for crying out loud
> 
> give us all a BREAK




"you people"?   I thought the rodeo thing was no big deal...but feel free to swing that broad brush.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Yup, the photo is racist (as is the one of Bush chimp), and the nature of such informs people do not let their children associate with the children of those who publish and or relish such photos.  One simply does not associate with such folks; Mother would not let us play with the children of known or suspected Klan members.

The photo, however, is political and thus protected by free speech rules, as it should be.  The principle helps separate the wheat from the tares.


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, the photo is racist (as is the one of Bush chimp), and the nature of such informs people do not let their children associate with the children of those who publish and or relish such photos.  One simply does not associate with such folks; Mother would not let us play with the children of known or suspected Klan members.
> 
> The photo, however, is political and thus protected by free speech rules, as it should be.  The principle helps separate the wheat from the tares.



The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist


----------



## TakeAStepBack

JakeStarkey said:


> Yup, the photo is racist (as is the one of Bush chimp), and the nature of such informs people do not let their children associate with the children of those who publish and or relish such photos.  One simply does not associate with such folks; Mother would not let us play with the children of known or suspected Klan members.
> 
> The photo, however, is political and thus protected by free speech rules, as it should be.  The principle helps separate the wheat from the tares.



STFU.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the photo is racist (as is the one of Bush chimp), and the nature of such informs people do not let their children associate with the children of those who publish and or relish such photos.  One simply does not associate with such folks; Mother would not let us play with the children of known or suspected Klan members.
> 
> The photo, however, is political and thus protected by free speech rules, as it should be.  The principle helps separate the wheat from the tares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
Click to expand...


No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.

Stop projecting your racism onto others.


----------



## paperview

Short history lesson:  Ota Benga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

&

*The Ape in American Bigotry, From Thomas Jefferson to 2009 *




> ...The effort to dehumanize black people by characterizing them as apes  is central to our national history. Thomas Jefferson made the connection  in his notorious book Notes on the State of Virginia, in which he  asserted fantastically that male orangutans were sexually drawn to Negro  women.
> 
> By defining Negroes not as human beings but as beasts,  the nation rationalized subjugation and cruelty    and justified laws  that stripped them of basic human rights. The case for segregation  itself rested heavily on the assertion that animal origins made Negroes  feebleminded, smelly and intolerably offensive to white sensibilities.
> 
> 
> Acting on the ludicrous premise that people of color had coarser  palates, Southern shop owners sometimes refused to sell them white  foodstuffs, forcing them instead to buy inferior grades of flour and  other goods.
> 
> 
> Picture postcards, kitchen crockery and other media  often showed Negroes with grotesquely distorted faces eating outsize  slices of watermelon, which was said by racists to be catnip to the  coloreds. In keeping with the animal theme, Negroes were typically  depicted consuming food with their hands, while standing or sitting out  in the open. White folks, of course, were shown sitting at the table,  dining with utensils.
> 
> 
> Ape propaganda reached a hysterical pitch  during periods when African-Americans were winning rights or making  racial progress.
> 
> During the 1950s, for example, racists reacted to the  movement toward integration with placards and broadsides depicting  apelike caricatures of Negro men performing heinous acts or making  sexual advances on the flower of white womanhood.


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/opinion/28sat4.html?_r=0


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Did you pull any muscles with that stretch?


----------



## bedowin62

paperview said:


> Short history lesson:  Ota Benga - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> &
> 
> *The Ape in American Bigotry, From Thomas Jefferson to 2009 *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...The effort to dehumanize black people by characterizing them as apes  is central to our national history. Thomas Jefferson made the connection  in his notorious book Notes on the State of Virginia, in which he  asserted fantastically that male orangutans were sexually drawn to Negro  women.
> 
> By defining Negroes not as human beings but as beasts,  the nation rationalized subjugation and cruelty    and justified laws  that stripped them of basic human rights. The case for segregation  itself rested heavily on the assertion that animal origins made Negroes  feebleminded, smelly and intolerably offensive to white sensibilities.
> 
> 
> Acting on the ludicrous premise that people of color had coarser  palates, Southern shop owners sometimes refused to sell them white  foodstuffs, forcing them instead to buy inferior grades of flour and  other goods.
> 
> 
> Picture postcards, kitchen crockery and other media  often showed Negroes with grotesquely distorted faces eating outsize  slices of watermelon, which was said by racists to be catnip to the  coloreds. In keeping with the animal theme, Negroes were typically  depicted consuming food with their hands, while standing or sitting out  in the open. White folks, of course, were shown sitting at the table,  dining with utensils.
> 
> 
> Ape propaganda reached a hysterical pitch  during periods when African-Americans were winning rights or making  racial progress.
> 
> During the 1950s, for example, racists reacted to the  movement toward integration with placards and broadsides depicting  apelike caricatures of Negro men performing heinous acts or making  sexual advances on the flower of white womanhood.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/28/opinion/28sat4.html?_r=0
Click to expand...


race-obsessed, perpetually aggreived left-wing nutjobs living in the past think it's still the 1950s


----------



## High_Gravity

mudwhistle said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This doesn't surprise me at all.
> 
> I've been trying to say for years that racism is worse in some countries than in America. Heck, in Mexico the ethnicity of the population is closely controlled. Germans sometimes look at blacks like they're aliens from outer-space.
Click to expand...


You are exactly right, although the Germans I met were friendly to me.


----------



## blastoff

Let's call a spade a spade here.  What they've done is definitely Assault Satire, and the U.N. should step in and end it with one of their toothless Resolutions.


----------



## JakeStarkey

blastoff said:


> Let's call a spade a spade here.  What they've done is definitely Assault Satire, and the U.N. should step in and end it with one of their toothless Resolutions.



  Why?  Let stupid look stupid.


----------



## DriftingSand

rightwinger said:


> Conservatives on this board paste the same picture and then complain they are not racist














Sniff, sniff ... sorry your "feelings" are hurt.  No, really.


----------



## rightwinger

TakeAStepBack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the photo is racist (as is the one of Bush chimp), and the nature of such informs people do not let their children associate with the children of those who publish and or relish such photos.  One simply does not associate with such folks; Mother would not let us play with the children of known or suspected Klan members.
> 
> The photo, however, is political and thus protected by free speech rules, as it should be.  The principle helps separate the wheat from the tares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
Click to expand...


Our society has not had a history of portraying whites as apes

However, we have a 300 year history of portraying blacks as apes. We used it as a justification to enslave them (they are nothing more than animals) and to segregate them from society (who wants to sleep in a bed that a "negro" has used)

Even today, European Soccer fans throw bananas at black players. They do not do it for whites

That is why it is not equivalent


----------



## Samson

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the photo is racist (as is the one of Bush chimp), and the nature of such informs people do not let their children associate with the children of those who publish and or relish such photos.  One simply does not associate with such folks; Mother would not let us play with the children of known or suspected Klan members.
> 
> The photo, however, is political and thus protected by free speech rules, as it should be.  The principle helps separate the wheat from the tares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
Click to expand...






Interesting. So you believe depicting African Americans as Apes has more to do with skin color than their behaviour or intelligence.


----------



## Two Thumbs

BDBoop said:


> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
Click to expand...


I love leftist hypocrassy


----------



## TakeAStepBack

rightwinger said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our society has not had a history of portraying whites as apes
> 
> However, we have a 300 year history of portraying blacks as apes. We used it as a justification to enslave them (they are nothing more than animals) and to segregate them from society (who wants to sleep in a bed that a "negro" has used)
> 
> Even today, European Soccer fans throw bananas at black players. They do not do it for whites
> 
> That is why it is not equivalent
Click to expand...


I thought progressives weren't living in the past? Apparently that's just a facade they use for enslaving purposes.


----------



## DriftingSand

paperview said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way the pics could be seen as "racist" is if certain folks secretly harbor a sense that blacks are somehow more related to chimps than humans. So the real "racists" are the first ones who reached that conclusion and raised the battle cry.  Are they decrying their own sense of guilt?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know much about history, do you?
Click to expand...


Enough to know that blacks aren't the ONLY folks who have suffered hardship over the centuries.  Time to quit whimpering over spilled milk and focus on self-improvement and personal responsibility.  This endless victim-complex is getting really old and all that these guilt-ridden whites are accomplishing is 1) revealing personal guilt and 2) telling the world that they don't really believe that blacks can make it without their (guilty whites) help.  That, my friend, is true racism whether you want to admit it or not.

I believe that blacks can better themselves without YOUR help.


----------



## Zoom-boing

rightwinger said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Our society has not had a history of portraying whites as apes*
> 
> However, we have a 300 year history of portraying blacks as apes. We used it as a justification to enslave them (they are nothing more than animals) and to segregate them from society (who wants to sleep in a bed that a "negro" has used)
> 
> Even today, European Soccer fans throw bananas at black players. They do not do it for whites
> 
> That is why it is not equivalent
Click to expand...


Until the left decided to depict Bush as one.  

And when Bush was called or depicted as a chimp, it was because of his lack of intelligence, because he was dumb, because he was an idiot.

But with obama it's because he's black and 'YOU RACiST!".

You people scream the same shit when anyone disagrees with obama's policies but when people disagreed with Bush's policies it wasn't because he was white,it was because they disagreed with his policies.

Waddabunchofhypocriticalbananas.


----------



## wavingrl

rightwinger said:


> Conservatives on this board paste the same picture and then complain they are not racist



Thanks for saving me some keystrokes.

I have been on hiatus for a month or so--after an infamous thread about Michelle Obama started by the poster who uses this as his avatar. Whether the individual is politically conservative or not --I don't know. A crude type of individual I have to assume. 

It is one thing to disagree with 'anyone' and another to go far beyond 'ad hominem' attacks. 

My political ideologies are different from those of the first couple--if I have a right to believe as I do--each and every other individual has the same right. That would seem to be a basic concept in becoming a civilized adult. 

jmo. 

I would think this newspaper would be eligible for a lawsuit--but--hurray--they apologized. 

Making a mental note to never rely on that publication for veracity. Certain that will hit them where it hurts.


----------



## bedowin62

Samson said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the photo is racist (as is the one of Bush chimp), and the nature of such informs people do not let their children associate with the children of those who publish and or relish such photos.  One simply does not associate with such folks; Mother would not let us play with the children of known or suspected Klan members.
> 
> The photo, however, is political and thus protected by free speech rules, as it should be.  The principle helps separate the wheat from the tares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. So you believe depicting African Americans as Apes has more to do with skin color than their behaviour or intelligence.
Click to expand...



losers like Rightwinger are so self-deluded there is no mind-fuck they wont contort themselves through to stick with their false narrative that the rights' views are guided by racism of minorities in general or the inept obama in particular


----------



## Stephanie

DriftingSand said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way the pics could be seen as "racist" is if certain folks secretly harbor a sense that blacks are somehow more related to chimps than humans. So the real "racists" are the first ones who reached that conclusion and raised the battle cry.  Are they decrying their own sense of guilt?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know much about history, do you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Enough to know that blacks aren't the ONLY folks who have suffered hardship over the centuries.  Time to quit whimpering over spilled milk and focus on self-improvement and personal responsibility.  This endless victim-complex is getting really old and all that these guilt-ridden whites are accomplishing is 1) revealing personal guilt and 2) telling the world that they don't really believe that blacks can make it without their (guilty whites) help.  That, my friend, is true racism whether you want to admit it or not.
> 
> I believe that blacks can better themselves without YOUR help.
Click to expand...


that's not going to happen, unfortuantly they have been fed a steady diet of how they were victims, of course none of them were slaves or probably even had a relative who was a slave today.... but that doesn't stop the Democrat party from EXPLOITING THEM with it...that's how they have put them BACK on a plantation, the Democrat party plantation


----------



## DriftingSand

rightwinger said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our society has not had a history of portraying whites as apes
> 
> However, we have a 300 year history of portraying blacks as apes. We used it as a justification to enslave them (they are nothing more than animals) and to segregate them from society (who wants to sleep in a bed that a "negro" has used)
> 
> Even today, European Soccer fans throw bananas at black players. They do not do it for whites
> 
> That is why it is not equivalent
Click to expand...


And now we have a white dude portraying himself as an ape.  Progressives never cease to amaze me.


----------



## rightwinger

TakeAStepBack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our society has not had a history of portraying whites as apes
> 
> However, we have a 300 year history of portraying blacks as apes. We used it as a justification to enslave them (they are nothing more than animals) and to segregate them from society (who wants to sleep in a bed that a "negro" has used)
> 
> Even today, European Soccer fans throw bananas at black players. They do not do it for whites
> 
> That is why it is not equivalent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I thought progressives weren't living in the past? Apparently that's just a facade they use for enslaving purposes.
Click to expand...


WTF?

How on earth does that have anything to do with our societies history of portraying blacks as apes?

Go back and try again


----------



## bedowin62

the fact that bananas are thrown at black soccer players in europe has nothing to do with the fact that LEFT-WINGERS HERE PORTRAYED BUSH AS A CHIMP FOR YEARS
 left-wing losers like "Rightwinger" are simply pathetic losers who lie to themselves; and rationalize their own bigotry, intolerance and rabid partisanship away with straw men, red herrings and pure bullshit


----------



## DriftingSand

Stephanie said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know much about history, do you?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enough to know that blacks aren't the ONLY folks who have suffered hardship over the centuries.  Time to quit whimpering over spilled milk and focus on self-improvement and personal responsibility.  This endless victim-complex is getting really old and all that these guilt-ridden whites are accomplishing is 1) revealing personal guilt and 2) telling the world that they don't really believe that blacks can make it without their (guilty whites) help.  That, my friend, is true racism whether you want to admit it or not.
> 
> I believe that blacks can better themselves without YOUR help.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> that's not going to happen, unfortuantly they have been fed a steady diet of how they were victims, of course none of them were slaves or probably even had a relative who was a slave today.... but that doesn't stop the Democrat party from EXPLOITING THEM with it...that's how they have put them BACK on a plantation, the Democrat party plantation
Click to expand...


Very true.  But like you say ... some things will never change.  Many folks truly enjoy being a victim.  They get the attention they didn't get as a kid, I suppose.


----------



## PredFan

TakeAStepBack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the photo is racist (as is the one of Bush chimp), and the nature of such informs people do not let their children associate with the children of those who publish and or relish such photos.  One simply does not associate with such folks; Mother would not let us play with the children of known or suspected Klan members.
> 
> The photo, however, is political and thus protected by free speech rules, as it should be.  The principle helps separate the wheat from the tares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
Click to expand...


Bingo.


----------



## wavingrl

BDBoop said:


> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> *"When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."*
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
Click to expand...


So TPTB at De Morgen are cut off from other sources of news?  'We wrongly assumed racism is no longer accepted'. Meaning--what?  

Racism is no longer accepted as an acceptable practice. Plenty of attention is given to those who experienced such injustice. Is there any humor in the Holocaust and other inhumane aspects of history?  

Even in Belguim--I would think news of Oprah Winfrey's thoughts on racism would be known. In LA --'Twelve Years a Slave'--a good bit of focus on how racism is viewed there also. Just to name 2 more trivial means of gauging 'where we are' with racism.

Golly--someone from De Morgen could have researched this on the internet. 

STFU--De Morgen. all that needs to be said.


----------



## rightwinger

Zoom-boing said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Our society has not had a history of portraying whites as apes*
> 
> However, we have a 300 year history of portraying blacks as apes. We used it as a justification to enslave them (they are nothing more than animals) and to segregate them from society (who wants to sleep in a bed that a "negro" has used)
> 
> Even today, European Soccer fans throw bananas at black players. They do not do it for whites
> 
> That is why it is not equivalent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Until the left decided to depict Bush as one.
> 
> And when Bush was called or depicted as a chimp, it was because of his lack of intelligence, because he was dumb, because he was an idiot.
> 
> But with obama it's because he's black and 'YOU RACiST!".
> 
> You people scream the same shit when anyone disagrees with obama's policies but when people disagreed with Bush's policies it wasn't because he was white,it was because they disagreed with his policies.
> 
> Waddabunchofhypocriticalbananas.
Click to expand...


Why do Conservatives struggle so much with equivalence and context?

Adults are expected to understand the meanings of words and symbols. They are not always the same

Calling a white an ape is not the same as calling a black person an ape
Watermelon and Fried Chicken does not have the same connotation for whites as it does blacks


----------



## PredFan

bedowin62 said:


> Samson said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting. So you believe depicting African Americans as Apes has more to do with skin color than their behaviour or intelligence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> losers like Rightwinger are so self-deluded there is no mind-fuck they wont contort themselves through to stick with their false narrative that the rights' views are guided by racism of minorities in general or the inept obama in particular
Click to expand...


People like rightwinger are the reason the label "racist" no longer carries meaning. It says more about him than it does about us.


----------



## bedowin62

rightwinger said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our society has not had a history of portraying whites as apes*
> 
> However, we have a 300 year history of portraying blacks as apes. We used it as a justification to enslave them (they are nothing more than animals) and to segregate them from society (who wants to sleep in a bed that a "negro" has used)
> 
> Even today, European Soccer fans throw bananas at black players. They do not do it for whites
> 
> That is why it is not equivalent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until the left decided to depict Bush as one.
> 
> And when Bush was called or depicted as a chimp, it was because of his lack of intelligence, because he was dumb, because he was an idiot.
> 
> But with obama it's because he's black and 'YOU RACiST!".
> 
> You people scream the same shit when anyone disagrees with obama's policies but when people disagreed with Bush's policies it wasn't because he was white,it was because they disagreed with his policies.
> 
> Waddabunchofhypocriticalbananas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do Conservatives struggle so much with equivalence and context?
> 
> Adults are expected to understand the meanings of words and symbols. They are not always the same
> 
> Calling a white an ape is not the same as calling a black person an ape
> Watermelon and Fried Chicken does not have the same connotation for whites as it does blacks
Click to expand...




not conforming to your false pretenses isnt struggling with equivlence or context.

the only contradictory hypocrite here is you


----------



## Stephanie

(hope you don't mind I use this dear)


> Enough to know that blacks aren't the ONLY folks who have suffered hardship over the centuries.  Time to quit whimpering over spilled milk and focus on self-improvement and personal responsibility.



Here's the queen of the slave hustlers in the Democrat party
 along with Obama, Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, etc etc



Michelle Obama injects race into politics| Latest News Videos | Fox News


----------



## MrMax

BDBoop said:


> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
Click to expand...


So are you saying that someone photoshopped Moochelle's face? Hmmm, not sure about that.


----------



## natstew

BDBoop said:


> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
Click to expand...


It's as funny as when George Bush was pictured as an ape by Rightwingers in the U.S., actually more so, the Obama's do bear a resemblance.


----------



## TakeAStepBack

rightwinger said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our society has not had a history of portraying whites as apes
> 
> However, we have a 300 year history of portraying blacks as apes. We used it as a justification to enslave them (they are nothing more than animals) and to segregate them from society (who wants to sleep in a bed that a "negro" has used)
> 
> Even today, European Soccer fans throw bananas at black players. They do not do it for whites
> 
> That is why it is not equivalent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought progressives weren't living in the past? Apparently that's just a facade they use for enslaving purposes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> How on earth does that have anything to do with our societies history of portraying blacks as apes?
> 
> Go back and try again
Click to expand...


It has to do with this isn't 1960 anymore. This isn't 1900 anymore. You progressive shitbags blame people like me for "wanting to go back to the 1800s" meanwhile you're stuck in the past when your delicate sensibilities are hurt. Basically, you whiny fucks are mental.


----------



## bedowin62

look at the left-wing losers jumping through hoops trying to explain how LEFT-WING AMERICANS calling  Bush "the Chimp" for years is somehow less offensive than EUROPEANS depicting the Obama's as apes!!

lol! there is no mind-phuck left-wing bigots and hypocrites wont put themselves through to stick to their demonizing talking points and false narrative


----------



## rightwinger

TakeAStepBack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought progressives weren't living in the past? Apparently that's just a facade they use for enslaving purposes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF?
> 
> How on earth does that have anything to do with our societies history of portraying blacks as apes?
> 
> Go back and try again
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It has to do with this isn't 1960 anymore. This isn't 1900 anymore. You progressive shitbags blame people like me for "wanting to go back to the 1800s" meanwhile you're stuck in the past when your delicate sensibilities are hurt. Basically, you whiny fucks are mental.
Click to expand...


Based on the article in the OP...it seems we have not progressed as far as we think


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Your social progress is all an illusion because it is predicated off from force and violence. You want people to be accepting and tolerant of others, and you're willing to make it so at the point of a gun. You haven't progressed to anywhere. Your ideology is regressive.


----------



## Zoom-boing

rightwinger said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our society has not had a history of portraying whites as apes*
> 
> However, we have a 300 year history of portraying blacks as apes. We used it as a justification to enslave them (they are nothing more than animals) and to segregate them from society (who wants to sleep in a bed that a "negro" has used)
> 
> Even today, European Soccer fans throw bananas at black players. They do not do it for whites
> 
> That is why it is not equivalent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until the left decided to depict Bush as one.
> 
> And when Bush was called or depicted as a chimp, it was because of his lack of intelligence, because he was dumb, because he was an idiot.
> 
> But with obama it's because he's black and 'YOU RACiST!".
> 
> You people scream the same shit when anyone disagrees with obama's policies but when people disagreed with Bush's policies it wasn't because he was white,it was because they disagreed with his policies.
> 
> Waddabunchofhypocriticalbananas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do Conservatives struggle so much with equivalence and context?
> 
> Adults are expected to understand the meanings of words and symbols. They are not always the same
> 
> Calling a white an ape is not the same as calling a black person an ape
> Watermelon and Fried Chicken does not have the same connotation for whites as it does blacks
Click to expand...


Why do leftists struggle so much with equivalence and context?

Depicting a black person as an ape _because you see them as an inferior intelligence_ is the same as depicting a white person as an ape _because you see them as an inferior intelligence_ ... unless you're a leftist.   

Watermelon?  Fried chicken?  Isn't is the left that is always screaming for the right to stop 'living in the past', that 'those days are gone' that the right needs to 'lean forward'?


----------



## rightwinger

Zoom-boing said:


> From the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article was reportedly *a satirical piece that also joked about Obama selling marijuana. *The newspaper packaged the photos as if they had been submitted by Russian president Vladimir Putin, Metro said Sunday.
> 
> The picture was joined by a message reading, Vladimir Putin is the president of Russia. He sent us this attachment at our request, and chose to send pictures instead of text 'because he doesn't have a lot of time', the Independent said.
> 
> While the article has many readers outraged, there are also readers who have come to the newspapers defense. "It was a joke," one Reddit user said.
> 
> "In their defense, there are tons upon tons of pictures and t-shirts with Bush drawn as an ape," another user wrote.
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from *its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section*, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an Onion-esque joke in the satirical section of the newspaper.  In Belgium.
> 
> Context counts.
> 
> And note, Bush was depicted as a chimp more times than anyone can count.  I thought we could all trace our roots back to Africa anyway.
> 
> Stop whining and grow a thicker skin.
Click to expand...


Depicting Bush as a chimp is not the same as depicting Obama as a chimp
One case has racial overtones the other doesn't

If the George and Laura Bush were going to an official dinner and I said.....Serve them Fried Chicken and Watermelon it would not have the same meaning as if I said it about the Obamas


----------



## rightwinger

Zoom-boing said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the left decided to depict Bush as one.
> 
> And when Bush was called or depicted as a chimp, it was because of his lack of intelligence, because he was dumb, because he was an idiot.
> 
> But with obama it's because he's black and 'YOU RACiST!".
> 
> You people scream the same shit when anyone disagrees with obama's policies but when people disagreed with Bush's policies it wasn't because he was white,it was because they disagreed with his policies.
> 
> Waddabunchofhypocriticalbananas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Conservatives struggle so much with equivalence and context?
> 
> Adults are expected to understand the meanings of words and symbols. They are not always the same
> 
> Calling a white an ape is not the same as calling a black person an ape
> Watermelon and Fried Chicken does not have the same connotation for whites as it does blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do leftists struggle so much with equivalence and context?
> 
> Depicting a black person as an ape _because you see them as an inferior intelligence_ is the same as depicting a white person as an ape _because you see them as an inferior intelligence_ ... unless you're a leftist.
> 
> Watermelon?  Fried chicken?  Isn't is the left that is always screaming for the right to stop 'living in the past', that 'those days are gone' that the right needs to 'lean forward'?
Click to expand...







Not as far in the past as you think


----------



## Katzndogz

So much for obama being respected around the world!

Apes are intelligent creatures, unlike our current royal couple.  The comparison is erroneous.


----------



## natstew

People like 'Rightwinger' want equality to be selective and exclusive, only for certain people and in certain areas. Of course, they're the ones to select and exclude.

Well I don't accept that, so I guess that makes me a racist? If so, then we're all racist at the core.


----------



## Zoom-boing

rightwinger said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article was reportedly *a satirical piece that also joked about Obama selling marijuana. *The newspaper packaged the photos as if they had been submitted by Russian president Vladimir Putin, Metro said Sunday.
> 
> The picture was joined by a message reading, Vladimir Putin is the president of Russia. He sent us this attachment at our request, and chose to send pictures instead of text 'because he doesn't have a lot of time', the Independent said.
> 
> While the article has many readers outraged, there are also readers who have come to the newspapers defense. "It was a joke," one Reddit user said.
> 
> "In their defense, there are tons upon tons of pictures and t-shirts with Bush drawn as an ape," another user wrote.
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from *its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section*, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an Onion-esque joke in the satirical section of the newspaper.  In Belgium.
> 
> Context counts.
> 
> And note, Bush was depicted as a chimp more times than anyone can count.  I thought we could all trace our roots back to Africa anyway.
> 
> Stop whining and grow a thicker skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depicting Bush as a chimp is not the same as depicting Obama as a chimp
> One case has racial overtones the other doesn't
> 
> If the George and Laura Bush were going to an official dinner and I said.....Serve them Fried Chicken and Watermelon it would not have the same meaning as if I said it about the Obamas
Click to expand...


Bullshit.  The left came up with the whole 'Bush as a chimp' theme because they thought he was an idiot.  Now that obama is president, they cry "racist!".   Hypocrite.  obama is Bush on steriods.  You've cried (racist) wolf too many times, no one is buying it anymore. obama is a dope and makes the US weak.  He is making a monkey out of all of us.


----------



## Zoom-boing

natstew said:


> People like 'Rightwinger' want equality to be selective and exclusive, only for certain people and in certain areas, of course, they're the ones to select and exclude.
> 
> Well I don't accept that, so I guess that makes me a racist? If so, then we're all racist at the core.



Leftists are a bunch of thin skinned whiners.


----------



## Stephanie

They been protesting Obama all over the middle east, burning his effigy, throwing shoes at his posters, etc etc

but amazingly that hasn't been reported in the new today like it was when BUSH was President

at least 60% of the people have woken up to this President and his comrades in the Democrat party

don't rely on the leftwing domatied media folks to get your information...you won't hear THE TRUTH

and don't let them DISTRACT you with crap such as this picture...that's all it is...A PICTURE

VOTE this party out of our lives


----------



## natstew

Katzndogz said:


> So much for obama being respected around the world!
> 
> Apes are intelligent creatures, unlike our current royal couple.  The comparison is erroneous.



 The apology should go to the Apes of the World


----------



## Zoom-boing

Oh and make a note of this ... if Hillary becomes president, 'racist' will be replaced with 'sexist'.  

Mark it down.


----------



## Stephanie

Zoom-boing said:


> Oh and make a note of this ... if Hillary becomes president, 'racist' will be replaced with 'sexist'.
> 
> Mark it down.



We can bet on that one...it was their plan with Obama (so they could beat down any criticism of him) and that's why they are now pushing the shrillary to run...

open your eye's people get your head out of the sand


----------



## wavingrl

I suppose each individual must make choices according to whatever values or standards they hold.

Meanwhile some very serious things are going on in the world --if another day like '911' comes anywhere on this earth--that might provide some perspective. 

Realistically--I don't see much hope that 'respect for others' will ever be an achievable goal.


----------



## mudwhistle

BlindBoo said:


> I understand the oppositions need to denigrate the President in any way possible.  They will attack him in all walks of life including his family.  Images and vile talking points are a price of freedom.  I do remember some monkey comparison with President Bush as well but I don't recall Laura Bush being attacked in such a way, but the internet is big and so full of shit.........



Belgium did it. When did they become "the opposition"?


----------



## Gracie

Papageorgio said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am on ignore so you won't see this, but I plan to respond anyway and don't give a damn if you peek or not.
> 
> That pic is disgusting. I dislike Michelle, semi like Barrack and wish he was not president cuz he would be better at something else, but to display them as apes is crude.
> 
> Then again...Bush was depicted as a chimpanzee so.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does she have you on ignore?
Click to expand...


Guess I said something she doesn't like.
*Shrug*


----------



## Politico

Have no problem with the picture. But then again I read the article. Perhaps the rest of you should.


----------



## DriftingSand

natstew said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much for obama being respected around the world!
> 
> Apes are intelligent creatures, unlike our current royal couple.  The comparison is erroneous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The apology should go to the Apes of the World
Click to expand...


Good point. At least they don't lie and they have a lot more dignity.


----------



## DriftingSand

Gracie said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am on ignore so you won't see this, but I plan to respond anyway and don't give a damn if you peek or not.
> 
> That pic is disgusting. I dislike Michelle, semi like Barrack and wish he was not president cuz he would be better at something else, but to display them as apes is crude.
> 
> Then again...Bush was depicted as a chimpanzee so.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why does she have you on ignore?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Guess I said something she doesn't like.
> *Shrug*
Click to expand...


People use the ignore button when they've runt out of good arguments.


----------



## DriftingSand

Zoom-boing said:


> Oh and make a note of this ... if Hillary becomes president, 'racist' will be replaced with 'sexist'.
> 
> Mark it down.



And ... if things go as they plan ... the "coin" word will be "homophobe" (should their next candidate reach White House status).


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

BDBoop said:


> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
Click to expand...


Isn't it the height of hypocrisy for Belgium to make a law against any sexist words against a woman ( 1 yr in jail ) and within 48 hours of announcing that law turn around in their news to splash this photograph about the First Lady of the USA?  

Do these people ever think or did worshiping Satan kill their last brain cell?   Belgium!  Leave it to Belgium to make a law and then break it themselves within 48 hours.  The stupidity simply cannot be over-emphasized for this one!


----------



## Stephanie

And King Obama is getting ready to grace Belgium with himself

damn what a greeting


----------



## whitehall

We saved their asses in a couple of world wars and now that we have a weak administration the Belgians feel free to ridicule the president of the United States. No big deal, the radical American left did worse to Reagan and Bush.


----------



## Unkotare

As long as it doesn't include a picture of the Statue of Liberty's foot we should get through this crisis...


----------



## Unkotare

whitehall said:


> We saved their asses in a couple of world wars and now that we have a weak administration the Belgians feel free to ridicule the president of the United States. No big deal, the radical American left did worse to Reagan and Bush.





The Belgians should be proud now that Kerry is Secretary of State. 







Ok, anyone get that one?


----------



## JakeStarkey

TakeAStepBack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the photo is racist (as is the one of Bush chimp), and the nature of such informs people do not let their children associate with the children of those who publish and or relish such photos.  One simply does not associate with such folks; Mother would not let us play with the children of known or suspected Klan members.
> 
> The photo, however, is political and thus protected by free speech rules, as it should be.  The principle helps separate the wheat from the tares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
Click to expand...


I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.


----------



## Stephanie

JakeStarkey said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.
Click to expand...


stop being a troll and grow up 
you and wrongwhiner two peas in a pod


----------



## BDBoop

JakeStarkey said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.
Click to expand...


Yup. And those are the type of people I place on ignore. If they EVER say anything worth the reading, Somebody is bound to repeat it.


----------



## Gracie

Well, someone is busting a gut at how high y'all are jumping in her thread, that's fer sure.


----------



## Stephanie

Gracie said:


> Well, someone is busting a gut at how high y'all are jumping in her thread, that's fer sure.



If that's the case then I pity them..it shows they have no life


----------



## Gracie

BDBoop said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. And those are the type of people I place on ignore. If they EVER say anything worth the reading, Somebody is bound to repeat it.
Click to expand...




But..but...as long as I agreed with her, I was NOT on iggy. I used to say something worth while at one time. Not so much any more I guess.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Gracie said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. And those are the type of people I place on ignore. If they EVER say anything worth the reading, Somebody is bound to repeat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But..but...as long as I agreed with her, I was NOT on iggy. I used to say something worth while at one time. Not so much any more I guess.
Click to expand...


  TASB is one of the reactionaries way to the far right who so shame America with their words and actions.


----------



## DriftingSand

whitehall said:


> We saved their asses in a couple of world wars and now that we have a weak administration the Belgians feel free to ridicule the president of the United States. No big deal, the radical American left did worse to Reagan and Bush.



I'm certain that if the Belgian's respected our POTUS then they would show respect but I'm not too certain that anyone other nation on earth really does.  Hell ... 70% of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum don't even respect him.


----------



## DriftingSand

Gracie said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. And those are the type of people I place on ignore. If they EVER say anything worth the reading, Somebody is bound to repeat it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But..but...as long as I agreed with her, I was NOT on iggy. I used to say something worth while at one time. Not so much any more I guess.
Click to expand...


Her loss.


----------



## Stephanie

DriftingSand said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> We saved their asses in a couple of world wars and now that we have a weak administration the Belgians feel free to ridicule the president of the United States. No big deal, the radical American left did worse to Reagan and Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm certain that if the Belgian's respected our POTUS then they would show respect but i'm not too certain that anyone other other nation on earth really does.  Hell ... 70% of Americans on both sides of the political spectrum don't even respect him.
Click to expand...


Exactly, these same people howled with glee when a shoe was thrown at Bush WHILE he was Iraq and Hugo Chavez called him a dog on our own homeland

They just can't face the fact, people don't respect Obama and see as nothing more than a arrogant man/boy who should've never been President and that has failed at everything he's touched...They don't trust him to have their backs...and they have a good reason for that, he's proved it


----------



## mudwhistle

High_Gravity said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This doesn't surprise me at all.
> 
> I've been trying to say for years that racism is worse in some countries than in America. Heck, in Mexico the ethnicity of the population is closely controlled. Germans sometimes look at blacks like they're aliens from outer-space.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are exactly right, although the Germans I met were friendly to me.
Click to expand...


Most Germans are nice to everyone.


----------



## Book of Jeremiah

The officials and King of Belgium respect paedophiles and satanists. If you are not one of them you don't get their respect.   Obama should feel flattered!  This is a high honor to be rejected by such a bunch.   Maybe some folks need to review Michel Nihoul, Dutroux and the monster of Belgium for what goes on in Belgium, eh?


----------



## rightwinger

JakeStarkey said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.
Click to expand...


You have to understand the context of racism

Depicting Bush as a chimp is demeaning and disrespectful to the office of President
Depicting Obama as a chimp is demeaning, disrespectful to the office of President and RACIST

Think if I had made a reference to feeding Bush watermelon vs feeding Obama watermelon.......it is not the same


----------



## Stephanie

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand the context of racism
> 
> Depicting Bush as a chimp is demeaning and disrespectful to the office of President
> Depicting Obama as a chimp is demeaning, disrespectful to the office of President and RACIST
> 
> Think if I had made a reference to feeding Bush watermelon vs feeding Obama watermelon.......it is not the same
Click to expand...


oh go stuff a watermelon in your mouth or somewhere else...we've heard it all from you already....blah blah blah racist blah blah racist racist racist


----------



## TooTall

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand the context of racism
> 
> Depicting Bush as a chimp is demeaning and disrespectful to the office of President
> Depicting Obama as a chimp is demeaning, disrespectful to the office of President and RACIST
> 
> Think if I had made a reference to feeding Bush watermelon vs feeding Obama watermelon.......it is not the same
Click to expand...


That is complete BS.


----------



## rightwinger

TooTall said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand the context of racism
> 
> Depicting Bush as a chimp is demeaning and disrespectful to the office of President
> Depicting Obama as a chimp is demeaning, disrespectful to the office of President and RACIST
> 
> Think if I had made a reference to feeding Bush watermelon vs feeding Obama watermelon.......it is not the same
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is complete BS.
Click to expand...

Really?

How so?


----------



## Katzndogz

At least the visit from the obama is costing Belgium 10 million dollars.


----------



## Stephanie

Katzndogz said:


> At least the visit from the obama is costing Belgium 10 million dollars.



You would think his followers would be cheering that and saying, there serves them right

How dare you!!!!!


----------



## Gracie

You must love Obama to Obama Lovers. If you do not, then you are unworthy. Eventually. 

There was a gal I knew at another board that had a cow when a bunch of us were talking about Rosie O'Donell. None of us liked her, and this was when she was on The View. So we were discussing Rosie's antics and our dislike of her...not name calling, not belittling her...just saying stuff like "OMG, is she NUTS?" kinda stuff....and this one gal comes blasting in the thread screaming at all of us on how HORRIBLE we were for dissing poor Rosie....then she cussed us out and flounced off the board. We were all like....wtf??

I find likeminded individuals here on the "you must love Obamas or else" mentality. I think its stupid, myself. And a little creepy.


----------



## Stephanie

Gracie said:


> You must love Obama to Obama Lovers. If you do not, then you are unworthy. Eventually.
> 
> There was a gal I knew at another board that had a cow when a bunch of us were talking about Rosie O'Donell. None of us liked her, and this was when she was on The View. So we were discussing Rosie's antics and our dislike of her...not name calling, not belittling her...just saying stuff like "OMG, is she NUTS?" kinda stuff....and this one gal comes blasting in the thread screaming at all of us on how HORRIBLE we were for dissing poor Rosie....then she cussed us out and flounced off the board. We were all like....wtf??
> 
> I find likeminded individuals here on the "you must love Obamas or else" mentality. I think its stupid, myself. And a little creepy.



no kidding, they went ape shit over a rodeo skit that has been done with past Presidents...they wanted the poor guy charged with a hate crime...
I'll be glad when Obama is out of lives...It's hard to take these people anymore with their wails of racist every time we turn around...you're accused of it if you talk about Fried chicken and a frkken watermelon
it's gone beyond stupid


----------



## Gracie

SOME of those people. Not all are nutbars.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

DriftingSand said:


> The only way the pics could be seen as "racist" is if certain folks secretly harbor a sense that blacks are somehow more related to chimps than humans. So the real "racists" are the first ones who reached that conclusion and raised the battle cry.  Are they decrying their own sense of guilt?
> 
> Were anyone called racists when George Bush was depicted as a chimp?
> 
> Is this a racist photo?:



The extent to which you and others on the right dont get it is remarkable  not surprising, but remarkable nonetheless.


----------



## Stephanie

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way the pics could be seen as "racist" is if certain folks secretly harbor a sense that blacks are somehow more related to chimps than humans. So the real "racists" are the first ones who reached that conclusion and raised the battle cry.  Are they decrying their own sense of guilt?
> 
> Were anyone called racists when George Bush was depicted as a chimp?
> 
> Is this a racist photo?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extent to which you and others on the right don&#8217;t get it is remarkable &#8211; not surprising, but remarkable nonetheless.
Click to expand...


OH WE GET IT ALRIGHT...It's been six years of it
you left/liberals Obot's have nothing else to beat people over the head with and you are all just showing how two faced hypocrites you all are


----------



## BDBoop

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way the pics could be seen as "racist" is if certain folks secretly harbor a sense that blacks are somehow more related to chimps than humans. So the real "racists" are the first ones who reached that conclusion and raised the battle cry.  Are they decrying their own sense of guilt?
> 
> Were anyone called racists when George Bush was depicted as a chimp?
> 
> Is this a racist photo?:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The extent to which you and others on the right dont get it is remarkable  not surprising, but remarkable nonetheless.
Click to expand...


I believe "willful ignorance" describes this situation.


----------



## Gracie

Obama is half black. I see the Belgium photo as crass and crude and possibly racist but I also see it no different than when Bush was shown as a chimp. Unlike some, I don't automatically assume what the newspaper had in their minds when they published it. Obama is not exempt any more than any other president.


----------



## Stephanie

I think because of you people and Obama himself, the people will think twice before voting for another black man for president

and it's all because of BS like this over a picture

bravo to you all


----------



## JakeStarkey

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand the context of racism
> 
> Depicting Bush as a chimp is demeaning and disrespectful to the office of President
> Depicting Obama as a chimp is demeaning, disrespectful to the office of President and RACIST
> 
> Think if I had made a reference to feeding Bush watermelon vs feeding Obama watermelon.......it is not the same
Click to expand...


Yeah it is, it is racist.


----------



## JakeStarkey

Stephanie said:


> I think because of you people and Obama himself, the people will think twice before voting for another black man for president
> 
> and it's all because of BS like this over a picture
> 
> bravo to you all



Because of you and folks like Santorum and Perry, the electorate will never consider another reactonary for president.


----------



## bodecea

JakeStarkey said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think because of you people and Obama himself, the people will think twice* before voting for another black man for president*
> 
> and it's all because of BS like this over a picture
> 
> bravo to you all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of you and folks like Santorum and Perry, the electorate will never consider another reactonary for president.
Click to expand...


Because all black men are the same.  Right, Stephanie?


----------



## Stephanie

JakeStarkey said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think because of you people and Obama himself, the people will think twice before voting for another black man for president
> 
> and it's all because of BS like this over a picture
> 
> bravo to you all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of you and folks like Santorum and Perry, the electorate will never consider another reactonary for president.
Click to expand...


lol, jake you're just so funny
reactionary
what do you call Obama pushing OScamCare on us...?
stable and clam?
no he was and still is a raving mad man over it
please stop


----------



## Vigilante

Racism, or Political Satire?....Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and the left who continually enjoys trying to point out if you don't kiss B. Insane's ring, you're a racist!







Truth in advertising 150 years ago?


----------



## Unkotare

rightwinger said:


> Depicting Bush as a chimp is demeaning and disrespectful to the office of President
> Depicting Obama as a chimp is demeaning, disrespectful to the office of President and RACIST





And _there's_ a liberal for ya, failing to recognize his own racist assumptions and all.


----------



## Zoom-boing

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to understand the context of racism
> 
> Depicting Bush as a chimp is demeaning and disrespectful to the office of President
> Depicting Obama as a chimp is demeaning, disrespectful to the office of President and RACIST
> 
> Think if I had made a reference to feeding Bush watermelon vs feeding Obama watermelon.......it is not the same
Click to expand...


Nope.  Equality for all.  If it was fine for the left to depict Bush as a chimp then it is fine for the right to depict obama as a chimp.  Stop whining.

You guys pounded the shit out of Bush then cry like girls when the exact same treatment is given to obama.  



ftr, it's in poor taste for either side to take shots like this at the potus but wachagonnado.


----------



## Unkotare

Stephanie said:


> I think because of you people and Obama himself, the people will think twice before voting for another black man for president






I won't think twice. I'll continue to vote for whomever I believe to be the best man or woman for the job; the person who would be best for AMERICA. Ah, but then I'm not a 'liberal'....


----------



## Stephanie

Zoom-boing said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree with RW: I think the chimp photo is in bad taste and has racist overtones.  You, on the other hand, are a birfer, constitutionally challenged, and engage in racial demagoguery, TASB.  You are the type of person with whom people refuse to associate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to understand the context of racism
> 
> Depicting Bush as a chimp is demeaning and disrespectful to the office of President
> Depicting Obama as a chimp is demeaning, disrespectful to the office of President and RACIST
> 
> Think if I had made a reference to feeding Bush watermelon vs feeding Obama watermelon.......it is not the same
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope.  Equality for all.  If it was fine for the left to depict Bush as a chimp then it is fine for the right to depict obama as a chimp.  Stop whining.
> 
> You guys pounded the shit out of Bush then cry like girls when the exact same treatment is given to obama.
> 
> 
> 
> ftr, it's in poor taste for either side to take shots like this at the potus but wachagonnado.
Click to expand...


ain't gonna happen but good try
we watched these same people be lions with bush then turn into simpering whiny sheep with Obama. they need to look at themselves it's pathetic

and I don't like the Obama's and think that picture is disgusting, but I'm not going to demand our freedoms of speech be shut down over it


----------



## rightwinger

Unkotare said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Depicting Bush as a chimp is demeaning and disrespectful to the office of President
> Depicting Obama as a chimp is demeaning, disrespectful to the office of President and RACIST
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And _there's_ a liberal for ya, failing to recognize his own racist assumptions and all.
Click to expand...


What would that racist assumption be?


----------



## alan1

paperview said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only way the pics could be seen as "racist" is if certain folks secretly harbor a sense that blacks are somehow more related to chimps than humans. So the real "racists" are the first ones who reached that conclusion and raised the battle cry.  Are they decrying their own sense of guilt?
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> Don't know much about history, do you?
Click to expand...


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhzG9aeOn9w]Sam Cooke Don't know much about history - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## alan1

rightwinger said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Our society has not had a history of portraying whites as apes*
> 
> However, we have a 300 year history of portraying blacks as apes. We used it as a justification to enslave them (they are nothing more than animals) and to segregate them from society (who wants to sleep in a bed that a "negro" has used)
> 
> Even today, European Soccer fans throw bananas at black players. They do not do it for whites
> 
> That is why it is not equivalent
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Until the left decided to depict Bush as one.
> 
> And when Bush was called or depicted as a chimp, it was because of his lack of intelligence, because he was dumb, because he was an idiot.
> 
> But with obama it's because he's black and 'YOU RACiST!".
> 
> You people scream the same shit when anyone disagrees with obama's policies but when people disagreed with Bush's policies it wasn't because he was white,it was because they disagreed with his policies.
> 
> Waddabunchofhypocriticalbananas.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do Conservatives struggle so much with equivalence and context?
> 
> Adults are expected to understand the meanings of words and symbols. They are not always the same
> 
> Calling a white an ape is not the same as calling a black person an ape
> Watermelon and Fried Chicken does not have the same connotation for whites as it does blacks
Click to expand...


Spoken like a true racist that believes those racist stereotypes.
Thank you for telling us where your actual racist stereotypes live.


----------



## Mojo2

BDBoop said:


> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
Click to expand...


At least now we know why there was no birth certificate.


----------



## alan1

rightwinger said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the link:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The article was reportedly *a satirical piece that also joked about Obama selling marijuana. *The newspaper packaged the photos as if they had been submitted by Russian president Vladimir Putin, Metro said Sunday.
> 
> The picture was joined by a message reading, Vladimir Putin is the president of Russia. He sent us this attachment at our request, and chose to send pictures instead of text 'because he doesn't have a lot of time', the Independent said.
> 
> While the article has many readers outraged, there are also readers who have come to the newspapers defense. "It was a joke," one Reddit user said.
> 
> "In their defense, there are tons upon tons of pictures and t-shirts with Bush drawn as an ape," another user wrote.
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from *its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section*, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It was an Onion-esque joke in the satirical section of the newspaper.  In Belgium.
> 
> Context counts.
> 
> And note, Bush was depicted as a chimp more times than anyone can count.  I thought we could all trace our roots back to Africa anyway.
> 
> Stop whining and grow a thicker skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Depicting Bush as a chimp is not the same as depicting Obama as a chimp
> One case has racial overtones the other doesn't
> 
> If the George and Laura Bush were going to an official dinner and I said.....Serve them Fried Chicken and Watermelon it would not have the same meaning as if I said it about the Obamas
Click to expand...


I guess that if you think watermelon and fried chicken is somehow tied to race it might be racist.  
Evidently, you do, so that makes you the racist.


----------



## Stephanie

alan1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the link:
> 
> 
> 
> It was an Onion-esque joke in the satirical section of the newspaper.  In Belgium.
> 
> Context counts.
> 
> And note, Bush was depicted as a chimp more times than anyone can count.  I thought we could all trace our roots back to Africa anyway.
> 
> Stop whining and grow a thicker skin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Depicting Bush as a chimp is not the same as depicting Obama as a chimp
> One case has racial overtones the other doesn't
> 
> If the George and Laura Bush were going to an official dinner and I said.....Serve them Fried Chicken and Watermelon it would not have the same meaning as if I said it about the Obamas
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess that if you think watermelon and fried chicken is somehow tied to race it might be racist.
> Evidently, you do, so that makes you the racist.
Click to expand...


Pretty soon these fascist will demand outlawing saying Fried chicken and watermelon...like all we are allowed to say now, it's the N WORD
we'll have to say, FC for fried chickenand that green sweet thing sometimes with seeds in them for watermelon


----------



## Mojo2

Unkotare said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think because of you people and Obama himself, the people will think twice before voting for another black man for president
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I won't think twice. I'll continue to vote for whomever I believe to be the best man or woman for the job; the person who would be best for AMERICA. Ah, but then I'm not a 'liberal'....
Click to expand...


As a Black man I gotta say if Obama is the best example of Negritude we have to possibly be POTUS, I wouldn't blame anyone for never again voting for a Black man for POTUS.

He is NOT a credit to our race.

He is a shameful example of what it means to be Black.

All the Whites in the Dem Party cared about was that he was clean, spoke like he was White and, like a Judas Goat, could lead his fellow Blacks AS WELL AS Whites, to the 'slaughter'. 

Ask (Keep yall in chains) Biden. 

Ben Carson and Allen West would be much better leaders but thanks to the Resident in Chief they will never be judged on the content of their character because of the degeneracy of Obama's.


----------



## MisterBeale

When it comes to government meddling in the affairs of sovereign private citizens?  All government officials are apes. . . . 




That being said, of course there has been a tradition to depict blacks as apes.  To deny it is to be anti-intellectual.  But to not understand the humorous irony here is to be woefully obtuse. . . this is the POTUS we are talking about. . . blacks are now, "THE MAN."  They have been part of the establishment for some time.  I remember a black Secretary of State.  I remember a black Secretary of defense.  To my recollection, there are minority congressmen and Senators.  In fact, correct me if I'm wrong here, there have even been black supreme court justices going back several decades.  It would be fool hardy to say that racism doesn't exist, but then again, it just seems that in this case, freedom of the press is probably a more compelling interest.

That is the whole point.  Generally in the past when blacks were referred to as apes, they were done so because they were not in charge, they were a subordinate class.  Now?  Well, it seems it doesn't make sense any more to get so upset when such a powerful political figure is ridiculed, even if it IS racist.  It does more harm than good, and it divides us more as a society than it unites us.  

Frankly, it should say more about the magazine than the Belgian people or European society.  But curtailing everyone's freedom over it is definitely wrong.  

Truly it is being done as satire.  The only way it could've been done in a racist way is perhaps if you think we live in a post apocalyptic world and the POTUS' policies were responsible for destroying the world and the Belgian people.  Then I suppose they might have a notion to tell him this about his policies and his initiatives. . . . 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cdmqn9JIuzc]Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape! - YouTube[/ame]

http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/apes-and-allegories-what-is-the-meaning-of-this


----------



## Iceweasel

Mojo2 said:


> Ben Carson and Allen West would be much better leaders but thanks to the Resident in Chief they will never be judged on the content of their character because of the degeneracy of Obama's.


I don't believe that at all. If either one of them won the nomination, and they could, Republicans would come out of the woodwork and vote for them. This time with the conservative base. Don't let the dems convince you that it's a racist country. Sure it exists but it is not the driving force with most folks. The extreme left uses it to get votes, I believe that's where most of the racism is.


----------



## rightwinger

alan1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> Until the left decided to depict Bush as one.
> 
> And when Bush was called or depicted as a chimp, it was because of his lack of intelligence, because he was dumb, because he was an idiot.
> 
> But with obama it's because he's black and 'YOU RACiST!".
> 
> You people scream the same shit when anyone disagrees with obama's policies but when people disagreed with Bush's policies it wasn't because he was white,it was because they disagreed with his policies.
> 
> Waddabunchofhypocriticalbananas.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Conservatives struggle so much with equivalence and context?
> 
> Adults are expected to understand the meanings of words and symbols. They are not always the same
> 
> Calling a white an ape is not the same as calling a black person an ape
> Watermelon and Fried Chicken does not have the same connotation for whites as it does blacks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true racist that believes those racist stereotypes.
> Thank you for telling us where your actual racist stereotypes live.
Click to expand...


Actually, I do believe there are racist stereotypes and depicting blacks as apes and making watermelon references are at the top of the list

For conservatives to assume that those stereotypes appy equally to all races shows how out of touch they are with society


----------



## DriftingSand

MisterBeale said:


> When it comes to government meddling in the affairs of sovereign private citizens?  All government officials are apes. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, of course there has been a tradition to depict blacks as apes.  To deny it is to be anti-intellectual.  But to not understand the humorous irony here is to be woefully obtuse. . . this is the POTUS we are talking about. . . blacks are now, "THE MAN."  They have been part of the establishment for some time.  I remember a black Secretary of State.  I remember a black Secretary of defense.  To my recollection, there are minority congressmen and Senators.  In fact, correct me if I'm wrong here, there have even been black supreme court justices going back several decades.  It would be fool hardy to say that racism doesn't exist, but then again, it just seems that in this case, freedom of the press is probably a more compelling interest.
> 
> That is the whole point.  Generally in the past when blacks were referred to as apes, they were done so because they were not in charge, they were a subordinate class.  Now?  Well, it seems it doesn't make sense any more to get so upset when such a powerful political figure is ridiculed, even if it IS racist.  It does more harm than good, and it divides us more as a society than it unites us.
> 
> Frankly, it should say more about the magazine than the Belgian people or European society.  But curtailing everyone's freedom over it is definitely wrong.
> 
> Truly it is being done as satire.  The only way it could've been done in a racist way is perhaps if you think we live in a post apocalyptic world and the POTUS' policies were responsible for destroying the world and the Belgian people.  Then I suppose they might have a notion to tell him this about his policies and his initiatives. . . .
> 
> Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape! - YouTube
> 
> http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/apes-and-allegories-what-is-the-meaning-of-this



Not to mention the fact that the Progressives are arguing that the depiction of the Obamas is "racist" based on the "history of *THIS* country."  However, the pictorial occurred in a _Belgian_ newspaper so that argument falls flat on its face.


----------



## DriftingSand

rightwinger said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Conservatives struggle so much with equivalence and context?
> 
> Adults are expected to understand the meanings of words and symbols. They are not always the same
> 
> Calling a white an ape is not the same as calling a black person an ape
> Watermelon and Fried Chicken does not have the same connotation for whites as it does blacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true racist that believes those racist stereotypes.
> Thank you for telling us where your actual racist stereotypes live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I do believe there are racist stereotypes and depicting blacks as apes and making watermelon references are at the top of the list
> 
> For conservatives to assume that those stereotypes appy equally to all races shows how out of touch they are with society
Click to expand...


So if a black person says that he likes watermelons would he be considered racist?  What if someone says that a white guy likes watermelons -- is that racist too?  Just what in the hell do you want?  Should folks just stop talking altogether?  It seems that it doesn't matter what anyone says there's going to be some crybaby screaming -- RACISM.  Sorry but I'm not going to walk on eggshells for you.  I happen to know some black people who like watermelon.  I happen to like it to.  It's a tasty fruit and wonderful summertime refreshment (racist or not).


----------



## rightwinger

DriftingSand said:


> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to government meddling in the affairs of sovereign private citizens?  All government officials are apes. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, of course there has been a tradition to depict blacks as apes.  To deny it is to be anti-intellectual.  But to not understand the humorous irony here is to be woefully obtuse. . . this is the POTUS we are talking about. . . blacks are now, "THE MAN."  They have been part of the establishment for some time.  I remember a black Secretary of State.  I remember a black Secretary of defense.  To my recollection, there are minority congressmen and Senators.  In fact, correct me if I'm wrong here, there have even been black supreme court justices going back several decades.  It would be fool hardy to say that racism doesn't exist, but then again, it just seems that in this case, freedom of the press is probably a more compelling interest.
> 
> That is the whole point.  Generally in the past when blacks were referred to as apes, they were done so because they were not in charge, they were a subordinate class.  Now?  Well, it seems it doesn't make sense any more to get so upset when such a powerful political figure is ridiculed, even if it IS racist.  It does more harm than good, and it divides us more as a society than it unites us.
> 
> Frankly, it should say more about the magazine than the Belgian people or European society.  But curtailing everyone's freedom over it is definitely wrong.
> 
> Truly it is being done as satire.  The only way it could've been done in a racist way is perhaps if you think we live in a post apocalyptic world and the POTUS' policies were responsible for destroying the world and the Belgian people.  Then I suppose they might have a notion to tell him this about his policies and his initiatives. . . .
> 
> Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape! - YouTube
> 
> http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/apes-and-allegories-what-is-the-meaning-of-this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the fact that the Progressives are arguing that the depiction of the Obamas is "racist" based on the "history of *THIS* country."  However, the pictorial occurred in a _Belgian_ newspaper so that argument falls flat on its face.
Click to expand...


European soccer fans throw bananas at black soccer players

Racism is not restricted to our borders


----------



## bedowin62

why dont you go cry on a message board for european soccer fans that they arent respecting your Messiah obama enough leftard?


----------



## TakeAStepBack

RWer is a racist. He sees the black man as a monkey, so it hurts the delicate sensibility he's spent years keeping PC to see such a picture. While the white man as a monkey is just distasteful. Because clearly the white man is not a monkey.

You're a racist, dude. Embrace it like you embrace your ideological hypocrisy.


----------



## NoNukes

Papageorgio said:


> Not very classy, but what do you expect from Europeans, they can be very crude and have some superiority complex, which shows how ignorant they really are.




But yet you can see this picture on on avatar on these boards.


----------



## NoNukes

Papageorgio said:


> Not very classy, but what do you expect from Europeans, they can be very crude and have some superiority complex, which shows how ignorant they really are.



Europeans only have to come to America to feel this way.


----------



## NoNukes

TakeAStepBack said:


> The liberal hypocrisy knows no boundaries. They embrace that shit like they invented it.



Do you not realize how a Black being compared to a monkey is a totally different type of hatred? Come on, you are sharper than this.


----------



## bedowin62

NoNukes said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal hypocrisy knows no boundaries. They embrace that shit like they invented it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not realize how a Black being compared to a monkey is a totally different type of hatred? Come on, you are sharper than this.
Click to expand...



look at the left-wing idiots rationalizing their bigotry!!


----------



## TakeAStepBack

NoNukes said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal hypocrisy knows no boundaries. They embrace that shit like they invented it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not realize how a Black being compared to a monkey is a totally different type of hatred? Come on, you are sharper than this.
Click to expand...


No. I do not see how it is different. I'm not a racist, or a race hustler like you leftie lunatics.


----------



## longknife

And I suppose all you leftists think this was okay?


----------



## L.K.Eder

rightwinger said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, YOU are a racist, that's why you separate them out as if one is different from the other. You see the black man as a monkey, so it offends the years of trying to control such racist thoughts by putting it out there like this for you. You only think it's poor taste for Bush because you see him as a white man who is superior, so it's just in poor taste.
> 
> Stop projecting your racism onto others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our society has not had a history of portraying whites as apes
> 
> However, we have a 300 year history of portraying blacks as apes. We used it as a justification to enslave them (they are nothing more than animals) and to segregate them from society (who wants to sleep in a bed that a "negro" has used)
> 
> Even today, European Soccer fans throw bananas at black players. They do not do it for whites
> 
> That is why it is not equivalent
Click to expand...


they threw bananas at oliver kahn, though.


----------



## MisterBeale

rightwinger said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to government meddling in the affairs of sovereign private citizens?  All government officials are apes. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, of course there has been a tradition to depict blacks as apes.  To deny it is to be anti-intellectual.  But to not understand the humorous irony here is to be woefully obtuse. . . this is the POTUS we are talking about. . . blacks are now, "THE MAN."  They have been part of the establishment for some time.  I remember a black Secretary of State.  I remember a black Secretary of defense.  To my recollection, there are minority congressmen and Senators.  In fact, correct me if I'm wrong here, there have even been black supreme court justices going back several decades.  It would be fool hardy to say that racism doesn't exist, but then again, it just seems that in this case, freedom of the press is probably a more compelling interest.
> 
> That is the whole point.  Generally in the past when blacks were referred to as apes, they were done so because they were not in charge, they were a subordinate class.  Now?  Well, it seems it doesn't make sense any more to get so upset when such a powerful political figure is ridiculed, even if it IS racist.  It does more harm than good, and it divides us more as a society than it unites us.
> 
> Frankly, it should say more about the magazine than the Belgian people or European society.  But curtailing everyone's freedom over it is definitely wrong.
> 
> Truly it is being done as satire.  The only way it could've been done in a racist way is perhaps if you think we live in a post apocalyptic world and the POTUS' policies were responsible for destroying the world and the Belgian people.  Then I suppose they might have a notion to tell him this about his policies and his initiatives. . . .
> 
> Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape! - YouTube
> 
> http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/apes-and-allegories-what-is-the-meaning-of-this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the fact that the Progressives are arguing that the depiction of the Obamas is "racist" based on the "history of *THIS* country."  However, the pictorial occurred in a _Belgian_ newspaper so that argument falls flat on its face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> European soccer fans throw bananas at black soccer players
> 
> Racism is not restricted to our borders
Click to expand...


I think you completely missed my point though.  Fine, so let's say it IS racist.  So what?  This is _supposed_ to be the leader of the Free World.  They are some piddly ass magazine.  Do you think HE is going to dignify them with a response?  So why should you?

Frankly, I chuckle every time this numb nuts of a President addresses his critics, by NAME even.  He actually gives them that satisfaction and recognition.  Talk about lowering himself to their level.  I don't have very good memory, but I can't remember any other president actually ever doing that.  Did Nixon actually ever criticize Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein in public?  Did he lash out at Hunter Thompson?  I don't know, I wasn't around.

Did Bush snipe back at the comedians on SNL?  Did he lower himself to specifically criticize Bill Marr when he was under attack?  

Yet Obama does these things, he doesn't let himself rise above the fray, as any good POTUS should do.  Why this is the first POTUS that should need the plebs to defend him and his reputation is beyond me.  

Unnecessary thread.


----------



## DriftingSand

Iceweasel said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Carson and Allen West would be much better leaders but thanks to the Resident in Chief they will never be judged on the content of their character because of the degeneracy of Obama's.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that at all. If either one of them won the nomination, and they could, Republicans would come out of the woodwork and vote for them. This time with the conservative base. Don't let the dems convince you that it's a racist country. Sure it exists but it is not the driving force with most folks. The extreme left uses it to get votes, I believe that's where most of the racism is.
Click to expand...


If America IS a racist nation the greatest amount of racism is by non-whites against whites.  The most hated organism on earth is the white male.  Not too sure why but it might have something to do with all of those pesky inventions, discoveries, and civilizations but I'm just guessing.


----------



## rightwinger

DriftingSand said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ben Carson and Allen West would be much better leaders but thanks to the Resident in Chief they will never be judged on the content of their character because of the degeneracy of Obama's.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that at all. If either one of them won the nomination, and they could, Republicans would come out of the woodwork and vote for them. This time with the conservative base. Don't let the dems convince you that it's a racist country. Sure it exists but it is not the driving force with most folks. The extreme left uses it to get votes, I believe that's where most of the racism is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If America IS a racist nation the greatest amount of racism is by non-whites against whites.  The most hated organism on earth is the white male.  Not too sure why but it might have something to do with all of those pesky inventions, discoveries, and civilizations but I'm just guessing.
Click to expand...


We need to do more to save the white male. At least we have the Republican Party standing up for them


----------



## JakeStarkey

Stephanie said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think because of you people and Obama himself, the people will think twice before voting for another black man for president
> 
> and it's all because of BS like this over a picture
> 
> bravo to you all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of you and folks like Santorum and Perry, the electorate will never consider another reactonary for president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> lol, jake you're just so funny  reactionary  what do you call Obama pushing OScamCare on us...?  stable and clam?  no he was and still is a raving mad man over it  please stop
Click to expand...


And you have written like a low-information reactionary.


----------



## NoNukes

TakeAStepBack said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal hypocrisy knows no boundaries. They embrace that shit like they invented it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not realize how a Black being compared to a monkey is a totally different type of hatred? Come on, you are sharper than this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No. I do not see how it is different. I'm not a racist, or a race hustler like you leftie lunatics.
Click to expand...


For years Blacks have been portrayed as being no better or more developed than  monkeys by people with racial hatred.


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Mama Burger Milan, Italy


----------



## CrusaderFrank

JakeStarkey said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think because of you people and Obama himself, the people will think twice before voting for another black man for president
> 
> and it's all because of BS like this over a picture
> 
> bravo to you all
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because of you and folks like Santorum and Perry, the electorate will never consider another reactonary for president.
Click to expand...


^ Reactiony, reflexive defense of Obama


----------



## DriftingSand

rightwinger said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe that at all. If either one of them won the nomination, and they could, Republicans would come out of the woodwork and vote for them. This time with the conservative base. Don't let the dems convince you that it's a racist country. Sure it exists but it is not the driving force with most folks. The extreme left uses it to get votes, I believe that's where most of the racism is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If America IS a racist nation the greatest amount of racism is by non-whites against whites.  The most hated organism on earth is the white male.  Not too sure why but it might have something to do with all of those pesky inventions, discoveries, and civilizations but I'm just guessing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We need to do more to save the white male. At least we have the Republican Party standing up for them
Click to expand...


Actually ... the reason we *don't* need anyone standing up for us is because we've been able to do it on our own for centuries.  We've had our trials and tribulations throughout history but we don't whimper and whine about it.  We just stand up and march in a forward direction.  I'm certainly not ashamed of my heritage and history.

By the way ... here are a few black Republicans so apparently the Republican Party is pretty neutral concerning who it will "stand up for."


----------



## DriftingSand

NoNukes said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not realize how a Black being compared to a monkey is a totally different type of hatred? Come on, you are sharper than this.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. I do not see how it is different. I'm not a racist, or a race hustler like you leftie lunatics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For years Blacks have been portrayed as being no better or more developed than  monkeys by people with racial hatred.
Click to expand...


Who has "portrayed" them that way?  Themselves or someone else?






I didn't take the above picture but it was recently taken in Africa.  Notice the murder of one black by another as bystanders kick back and watch.  Again ... not my doing and I'm not doing the "portraying."


----------



## L.K.Eder

DriftingSand said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I do not see how it is different. I'm not a racist, or a race hustler like you leftie lunatics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For years Blacks have been portrayed as being no better or more developed than  monkeys by people with racial hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has "portrayed" them that way?  Themselves or someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't take the above picture but it was recently taken in Africa.  Notice the murder of one black by another as bystanders kick back and watch.  Again ... not my doing and I'm not doing the "portraying."
Click to expand...


of course you are doing the "portraying", you silly muppet.


----------



## bedowin62

L.K.Eder said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> For years Blacks have been portrayed as being no better or more developed than  monkeys by people with racial hatred.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who has "portrayed" them that way?  Themselves or someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't take the above picture but it was recently taken in Africa.  Notice the murder of one black by another as bystanders kick back and watch.  Again ... not my doing and I'm not doing the "portraying."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> of course you are doing the "portraying", you silly muppet.
Click to expand...


\
well you can always keep crying


----------



## rightwinger

DriftingSand said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> If America IS a racist nation the greatest amount of racism is by non-whites against whites.  The most hated organism on earth is the white male.  Not too sure why but it might have something to do with all of those pesky inventions, discoveries, and civilizations but I'm just guessing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We need to do more to save the white male. At least we have the Republican Party standing up for them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually ... the reason we *don't* need anyone standing up for us is because we've been able to do it on our own for centuries.  We've had our trials and tribulations throughout history but we don't whimper and whine about it.  We just stand up and march in a forward direction.  I'm certainly not ashamed of my heritage and history.
> 
> By the way ... here are a few black Republicans so apparently the Republican Party is pretty neutral concerning who it will "stand up for."
Click to expand...


I'm sorry....But that is just too fucking funny

The funny part is you are dead serious


----------



## TakeAStepBack

And you're a full blown racist pig, RWer. so there is that.


----------



## rightwinger

TakeAStepBack said:


> And you're a full blown racist pig, RWer. so there is that.



You have extremely poor personal hygiene , so there is that


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Well, you wouldn't know that. but what everyone here can know, is that you're a racist. A racist that projects his racism onto others to hide it. As if being an overt racist wasn't enough.


----------



## BDBoop

rightwinger said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Conservatives struggle so much with equivalence and context?
> 
> Adults are expected to understand the meanings of words and symbols. They are not always the same
> 
> Calling a white an ape is not the same as calling a black person an ape
> Watermelon and Fried Chicken does not have the same connotation for whites as it does blacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true racist that believes those racist stereotypes.
> Thank you for telling us where your actual racist stereotypes live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I do believe there are racist stereotypes and depicting blacks as apes and making watermelon references are at the top of the list
> 
> For conservatives to assume that those stereotypes appy equally to all races shows how out of touch they are with society
Click to expand...


"But racism isn't a problem anymore, and you're the problem for saying it's a problem!!!"


----------



## TakeAStepBack

Oh, please. You turds have been yanking out your race cards at every turn when this president is mocked.

The problem of racism is real, and the racists have created the perception that everyone but them are the racists. It's actually brilliant in a sleazy, underhanded and nefarious kind of way.


----------



## bedowin62

BDBoop said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true racist that believes those racist stereotypes.
> Thank you for telling us where your actual racist stereotypes live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I do believe there are racist stereotypes and depicting blacks as apes and making watermelon references are at the top of the list
> 
> For conservatives to assume that those stereotypes appy equally to all races shows how out of touch they are with society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "But racism isn't a problem anymore, and you're the problem for saying it's a problem!!!"
Click to expand...




you are simply an idiot; what "race" are apes? 

they arent human; so they cant be either black or white. so calling somebody an ape cant have racial overtones unless you put them there.  you are trying to read people's minds; and making a fool of yourself.
if that is what you're going to do then people can rightly conclude you called Bush an ape of "the Chimp" becaue you didnt like his race.


idiots and hypocrites


----------



## BDBoop

rightwinger said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need to do more to save the white male. At least we have the Republican Party standing up for them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually ... the reason we *don't* need anyone standing up for us is because we've been able to do it on our own for centuries.  We've had our trials and tribulations throughout history but we don't whimper and whine about it.  We just stand up and march in a forward direction.  I'm certainly not ashamed of my heritage and history.
> 
> By the way ... here are a few black Republicans so apparently the Republican Party is pretty neutral concerning who it will "stand up for."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry....But that is just too fucking funny
> 
> The funny part is you are dead serious
Click to expand...


Yup. And the fact that they had to go back a century or two to find enough peeps is just overkill on the cake icing.


----------



## rightwinger

TakeAStepBack said:


> Oh, please. You turds have been yanking out your race cards at every turn when this president is mocked.
> 
> The problem of racism is real, and the racists have created the perception that everyone but them are the racists. It's actually brilliant in a sleazy, underhanded and nefarious kind of way.



Sorry...but objecting to the portaying the first family as chimps is not playing the race card

You guys use the "Race Card, Race Card" defense like a Get out of Jail Free card


----------



## bedowin62

BDBoop said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true racist that believes those racist stereotypes.
> Thank you for telling us where your actual racist stereotypes live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I do believe there are racist stereotypes and depicting blacks as apes and making watermelon references are at the top of the list
> 
> For conservatives to assume that those stereotypes appy equally to all races shows how out of touch they are with society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "But racism isn't a problem anymore, and you're the problem for saying it's a problem!!!"
Click to expand...




what was the point when left-wing idiots called Bush "the Chimp". they obviously werent complementing him; it was meant to be a putdown. a putdown is a putdown.

leave it to crybaby left-wing losers to say a putdown on somebody they like or think they are defending is worse than any other


idiots and hypocrites


----------



## TakeAStepBack

rightwinger said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please. You turds have been yanking out your race cards at every turn when this president is mocked.
> 
> The problem of racism is real, and the racists have created the perception that everyone but them are the racists. It's actually brilliant in a sleazy, underhanded and nefarious kind of way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...but objecting to the portaying the first family as chimps is not playing the race card
> 
> You guys use the "Race Card, Race Card" defense like a Get out of Jail Free card
Click to expand...


That's not what did it for you. The double standard did it for you. It showed who you really are, dude. I appreciate that kind of admission.

Embrace it. Your ideology is founded on racist  (and of course hypocritical) principles anyway. You have no shame in hypocrisy. I can't see why you shouldn't embrace the racism too.


----------



## bedowin62

rightwinger said:


> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please. You turds have been yanking out your race cards at every turn when this president is mocked.
> 
> The problem of racism is real, and the racists have created the perception that everyone but them are the racists. It's actually brilliant in a sleazy, underhanded and nefarious kind of way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...but objecting to the portaying the first family as chimps is not playing the race card
> 
> You guys use the "Race Card, Race Card" defense like a Get out of Jail Free card
Click to expand...




denying you're a left-wing idiot using the race card doesnt make it true; you ARE using it


----------



## rightwinger

BDBoop said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually ... the reason we *don't* need anyone standing up for us is because we've been able to do it on our own for centuries.  We've had our trials and tribulations throughout history but we don't whimper and whine about it.  We just stand up and march in a forward direction.  I'm certainly not ashamed of my heritage and history.
> 
> By the way ... here are a few black Republicans so apparently the Republican Party is pretty neutral concerning who it will "stand up for."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry....But that is just too fucking funny
> 
> The funny part is you are dead serious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. And the fact that they had to go back a century or two to find enough peeps is just overkill on the cake icing.
Click to expand...


Yea...and they still try to pass off that Martin Luther King was a Republican nonsense


----------



## rightwinger

TakeAStepBack said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, please. You turds have been yanking out your race cards at every turn when this president is mocked.
> 
> The problem of racism is real, and the racists have created the perception that everyone but them are the racists. It's actually brilliant in a sleazy, underhanded and nefarious kind of way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...but objecting to the portaying the first family as chimps is not playing the race card
> 
> You guys use the "Race Card, Race Card" defense like a Get out of Jail Free card
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's not what did it for you. The double standard did it for you. It showed who you really are, dude. I appreciate that kind of admission.
> 
> Embrace it. Your ideology is founded on racist  (and of course hypocritical) principles anyway. You have no shame in hypocrisy. I can't see why you shouldn't embrace the racism too.
Click to expand...


Just as popular as the Race Card whine is the "We're not racist....you're the racist" deflection


----------



## TakeAStepBack

bedowin62 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I do believe there are racist stereotypes and depicting blacks as apes and making watermelon references are at the top of the list
> 
> For conservatives to assume that those stereotypes appy equally to all races shows how out of touch they are with society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "But racism isn't a problem anymore, and you're the problem for saying it's a problem!!!"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what was the point when left-wing idiots called Bush "the Chimp". they obviously werent complementing him; it was meant to be a putdown. a putdown is a putdown.
> 
> leave it to crybaby left-wing losers to say a putdown on somebody they like or think they are defending is worse than any other
> 
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
Click to expand...


Right?

It's just distasteful to call Bush a chimp. Clearly he's not a monkey, he's a white man. But how DARE you mock that black man as a monkey! 

What makes it all even funnier is these pukes are all about evolution. Which essentially makes us and primates biological relatives. And they still manage to get all bent and  shit over it.

DOuble standard racist is so double standard!


----------



## bedowin62

BDBoop said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually ... the reason we *don't* need anyone standing up for us is because we've been able to do it on our own for centuries.  We've had our trials and tribulations throughout history but we don't whimper and whine about it.  We just stand up and march in a forward direction.  I'm certainly not ashamed of my heritage and history.
> 
> By the way ... here are a few black Republicans so apparently the Republican Party is pretty neutral concerning who it will "stand up for."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry....But that is just too fucking funny
> 
> The funny part is you are dead serious
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yup. And the fact that they had to go back a century or two to find enough peeps is just overkill on the cake icing.
Click to expand...




just like  you have to go back into the last century to find examples of Dems doing anything right by Blacks you crybaby loser

oh and even then all you managed to really do is enslave them cycles of government dependence that spanned generations; destroyed the Black family, and led to near-genocidal rates of black on black violence


----------



## earlycuyler

BDBoop said:


> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
Click to expand...


It go's to the same type of humor as putting Clinton and the Bushes in Nazi uniforms and cross hairs, or survayers marks on polititions. Its raising funds on outrage, nothing more. Wouldn't be the least bit surprised if it was a democratic operative who made the memes.


----------



## rightwinger

bedowin62 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry....But that is just too fucking funny
> 
> The funny part is you are dead serious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. And the fact that they had to go back a century or two to find enough peeps is just overkill on the cake icing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just like  you have to go back into the last century to find examples of Dems doing anything right by Blacks you crybaby loser
> 
> oh and even then all you managed to really do is enslave them cycles of government dependence that spanned generations; destroyed the Black family, and led to near-genocidal rates of black on black violence
Click to expand...


bedwetter...have you been in a coma the last 50 years?


----------



## bedowin62

TakeAStepBack said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> "But racism isn't a problem anymore, and you're the problem for saying it's a problem!!!"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what was the point when left-wing idiots called Bush "the Chimp". they obviously werent complementing him; it was meant to be a putdown. a putdown is a putdown.
> 
> leave it to crybaby left-wing losers to say a putdown on somebody they like or think they are defending is worse than any other
> 
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Right?
> 
> It's just distasteful to call Bush a chimp. Clearly he's not a monkey, he's a white man. But how DARE you mock that black man as a monkey!
> 
> What makes it all even funnier is these pukes are all about evolution. Which essentially makes us and primates biological relatives. And they still manage to get all bent and  shit over it.
> 
> DOuble standard racist is so double standard!
Click to expand...


and of course the very first human beings evolved out of apes in Africa; that is a fact.

 it's comical when thin-skinned Black loser Progressives get all butt-hurt over things and project things onto others that just arent there. 

are there some white racists calling the First Couple apes? of course

are these left-wing losers Black bigots?

probably; thank God most Black people aren like these rabid, brainwashed, perpetually-aggreived far-Left LOSERS!!


----------



## KevinWestern

Desperado said:


> Bush = Monkey = Funny
> Obama = Monkey = Racist
> 
> Absolute BS.... It is called political satire and it has been going on for a long time.
> Now because Obama is black, satire is off limits because you do no want to offend your messiah.
> This is the part of free speech that is tough for you liberals to understand.  Even speech or ideas that you do not agree with are covered under "Free Speech".  Just as a reminder:



A few things. Is anyone calling for the arrest of the people running this paper or are they just criticizing it? No one is saying that they "shouldn't be allowed" to print this, folks are just saying that it's not very tasteful. There's a difference, Desperado.

Secondly, I don't know about you but I just don't find the "black people are monkeys" thing all that funny. You're right in that folks did this to Bush, but when you apply the concept to a black person there's a lot of racial connotations that get brought up that most of us want to leave behind in the past (ie blacks are savages, subhuman, etc). 

Either way, this isn't journalism and I would bet you the paper is total garbage. I wish people could be a little more intellectual with their criticisms instead of driving our society down to the level of a trashy reality TV show.


----------



## bedowin62

just because there are racial connotations from the past in portraying Black people as apes; doesnt mean you can just assume that is what is meant by portraying obama and michelle as apes

you cant go making blanket judgements on people alive now based on the past

it is only fair that after years of left-wing losers and morons calling Bush "the Chimp" that the same thing be done to the half-White obama

 iditos and hypocrites


----------



## KevinWestern

bedowin62 said:


> just because there are racial connotations from the past in portraying Black people as apes; doesnt mean you can just assume that is what is meant by portraying obama and michelle as apes



Whether or not that was the "editor's" intention to drive a racial connotation I think in the realm of common sense and decency you should stay away from portraying black people - specifically - as apes. Again, I'm not saying make a law against it, I'm just saying it happened a lot in the past - to blacks specifically - and was designed to portray them as subhuman, less than people, savage, etc. Whites never had to deal with this which is why the Bush to Obama comparison isn't exactly apples to apples. 




bedowin62 said:


> you cant go making blanket judgements on people alive now based on the past
> 
> it is only fair that after years of left-wing losers and morons calling Bush "the Chimp" that the same thing be done to the half-White obama



Yep, agree it was done to Bush (and that was trashy too) but Bush was white and that changes a lot of things. Again, I'm not saying "we should prohibit this", I'm just saying that a decent editor who actually cares about an intellectual discussion vs cheap thrills for ratings wouldn't dare post something as trashy as this. It's garbage, total trash.


----------



## rightwinger

bedowin62 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> just like  you have to go back into the last century to find examples of Dems doing anything right by Blacks you crybaby loser
> 
> oh and even then all you managed to really do is enslave them cycles of government dependence that spanned generations; destroyed the Black family, and led to near-genocidal rates of black on black violence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedwetter...have you been in a coma the last 50 years?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> GO ASK YOUR MOM what i been doing
Click to expand...


?


----------



## bedowin62

KevinWestern said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> just because there are racial connotations from the past in portraying Black people as apes; doesnt mean you can just assume that is what is meant by portraying obama and michelle as apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not that was the "editor's" intention to drive a racial connotation I think in the realm of common sense and decency you should stay away from portraying black people - specifically - as apes. Again, I'm not saying make a law against it, I'm just saying it happened a lot in the past - to blacks specifically - and was designed to portray them as subhuman, less than people, savage, etc. Whites never had to deal with this which is why the Bush to Obama comparison isn't exactly apples to apples.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> you cant go making blanket judgements on people alive now based on the past
> 
> it is only fair that after years of left-wing losers and morons calling Bush "the Chimp" that the same thing be done to the half-White obama
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, agree it was done to Bush (and that was trashy too) but Bush was white and that changes a lot of things. Again, I'm not saying "we should prohibit this", I'm just saying that a decent editor who actually cares about an intellectual discussion vs cheap thrills for ratings wouldn't dare post something as trashy as this. It's garbage, total trash.
Click to expand...


um no; it is no less trashy as the ones done to Bush. they are the same, regardless of PAST connotations


----------



## KevinWestern

bedowin62 said:


> um no; it is no less trashy as the ones done to Bush. they are the same, regardless of PAST connotations



Two pieces of trash usually don't equal something of value. And no, it's not the same. 

If you jokingly tell a black person to "go the back of the bus", it will carry a lot more weight and history than if you jokingly tell a white person to "go to the back of the bus".

History is history.


----------



## BDBoop

rightwinger said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> bedwetter...have you been in a coma the last 50 years?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GO ASK YOUR MOM what i been doing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ?
Click to expand...


Don't mind him, he's twelve.


----------



## Gracie

KevinWestern said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> um no; it is no less trashy as the ones done to Bush. they are the same, regardless of PAST connotations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two pieces of trash usually don't equal something of value. And no, it's not the same.
> 
> If you jokingly tell a black person to "go the back of the bus", it will carry a lot more weight and history than if you jokingly tell a white person to "go to the back of the bus".
> 
> History is history.
Click to expand...


I don't know about that. I say "all back of the bus shit" all the time...and that is from Riddick movies. Never crossed my mind someone would view that saying as racist. Yes, I know what it refers to but I don't live with that crap 24/7 while I tippy toe around being all pc.


----------



## koshergrl




----------



## koshergrl

RNC chairman Michael Steele had oreo cookies thrown in his path during his senatorial campaign:


----------



## KevinWestern

Gracie said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> um no; it is no less trashy as the ones done to Bush. they are the same, regardless of PAST connotations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two pieces of trash usually don't equal something of value. And no, it's not the same.
> 
> If you jokingly tell a black person to "go the back of the bus", it will carry a lot more weight and history than if you jokingly tell a white person to "go to the back of the bus".
> 
> History is history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about that. I say "all back of the bus shit" all the time...and that is from Riddick movies. Never crossed my mind someone would view that saying as racist. Yes, I know what it refers to but I don't live with that crap 24/7 while I tippy toe around being all pc.
Click to expand...


I'm with you in that I don't like all the hard lined PC all of the time. It's too much.

However portraying a black person as an APE; that carries a very significant racial connotation that was long standing for hundreds of years. It really just recently fell out of fashion (maybe in the 1940's). The ape thing is very significant, straightforward.


----------



## koshergrl

Ah, the proud anti-racist history of the Democrat Party...


----------



## bedowin62

KevinWestern said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> um no; it is no less trashy as the ones done to Bush. they are the same, regardless of PAST connotations
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Two pieces of trash usually don't equal something of value. And no, it's not the same.
> 
> If you jokingly tell a black person to "go the back of the bus", it will carry a lot more weight and history than if you jokingly tell a white person to "go to the back of the bus".
> 
> History is history.
Click to expand...




and assumptions are assumptions; especially to thin-skinned, sanctimonious people looking for something that isnt there; making moral equivalencies


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> Ah, the proud anti-racist history of the Democrat Party...



and USMB Conservative posters still post that filth


----------



## koshergrl

"
In light of data available through the Census Bureau, the Democrat party&#8217;s insistence that they care is shown to be a hollow statement. African-American adults living at or below the poverty level grew from 19.8 percent back in 2007, to 23 percent by the end of 2010. It is even worse for African-American children; their numbers in poverty rose from 34.5 in 2007, to a dismal and disappointing 39.1 percent by 2010.
The median income of African-American households under President Bush &#8211; while Bush enjoyed Republican majorities in the House and Senate &#8211; during 2005, was $12,124. Sadly, by 2009 &#8211; after only three years of Democrat party majorities in both houses and Obama&#8217;s first year in office &#8211; that number plummeted 53 percent to $5,677 according to the Pew Research Center. One might be forced to wonder what, exactly, the Democrat party truly cares for.
Furthermore, a look at jobs data shows that the plight of American minorities under the gentle guidance Democrat party, becomes even worse: Total numbers of employment aged African-Americans in the workforce, slid from 58.6 percent in June 2007, to 52.8 percent by August 2012. Fewer than 50 percent of young African-American males have full-time employment, today.
However, even in the face of all those irrefutable facts, 90 percent of African-Americans who did vote, gave their votes to the architects of their economic demise. Under the guise of Progressivism and misguided Liberalism, the Democrat party has been leading minorities &#8211; and everyone else &#8211; down the gilded path to an economic and social dystopia."

Democrat Party Still Racist After All These Years


----------



## koshergrl

"
Over the past 5000 years or more, mankind has domesticated thousands of wild animal species by inducing exactly that level of dependence. The practice has been thoroughly vetted; proven to be 99.99 percent effective, every time it is applied. Which is why tourists at many state parks are admonished to not allow the wild animals to become dependent on free food, given to them by humans. To survive, thrive and succeed, independent living creatures must have the knowledge and the _will_ to provide for themselves.
The Democrat party wants to create and maintain that level of dependence in their fellow American citizens, so they can enjoy societal and economic mastery over them. They claim they are &#8220;helping&#8221; minorities, when all they are actually doing is making them more and more dependent. After all of these &#8220;progressive&#8221; years, the Democrat party is still just as racist as it has ever been, it has simply become more sophisticated in how it exercises that racism."

Democrat Party Still Racist After All These Years


----------



## bedowin62

nobody is really surprised left-wing nutjobs would rationalize their own bigotry and petty insults while insisting the same thing on the other side is somehow worse; because of historical context or some other reason. the loser left demands to frame every debate; demands  to be the arbitor of context

group guilt in perpetuity is the rule of law for these intellectually dishonest cowards


----------



## KevinWestern

bedowin62 said:


> and assumptions are assumptions; especially to thin-skinned, sanctimonious people looking for something that isnt there; making moral equivalencies



It's just a thing we used to do in the past, and best to avoid nowadays. 

No one gains anything by portraying Bush or Obama as a monkey. It's all exploitation and trash. I wish people strove for something better.


----------



## rightwinger

koshergrl said:


> "
> Over the past 5000 years or more, mankind has domesticated thousands of wild animal species by inducing exactly that level of dependence. The practice has been thoroughly vetted; proven to be 99.99 percent effective, every time it is applied. Which is why tourists at many state parks are admonished to not allow the wild animals to become dependent on free food, given to them by humans. To survive, thrive and succeed, independent living creatures must have the knowledge and the _will_ to provide for themselves.
> The Democrat party wants to create and maintain that level of dependence in their fellow American citizens, so they can enjoy societal and economic mastery over them. They claim they are helping minorities, when all they are actually doing is making them more and more dependent. After all of these progressive years, the Democrat party is still just as racist as it has ever been, it has simply become more sophisticated in how it exercises that racism."
> 
> Democrat Party Still Racist After All These Years



Your party has been demolished by just these analogies of the treatment of blacks being equivalent to wild animals

I'm surprised you still use such an offensive tract


----------



## koshergrl

^^The dem depiction of Clarence Thomas 






^^the dem depiction of Michael Steele


----------



## KevinWestern

koshergrl said:


> ^^The dem depiction of Clarence Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^the dem depiction of Michael Steele



All these wrongs most certainly result in a right, right?


----------



## MisterBeale

CrusaderFrank said:


> Mama Burger Milan, Italy



What's the point here?  Do you see this as racist?

Only racists see this as racist.  Lovers of soul food see this as complimentary.  Just goes to show. . . . 

Racism is in the mind of the beholder. . .


----------



## boedicca

I don't see how this is a big deal after the Bush-Chimp meme the libs happily spread for 8 years.


----------



## koshergrl

KevinWestern said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^The dem depiction of Clarence Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^the dem depiction of Michael Steele
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All these wrongs most certainly result in a right, right?
Click to expand...

 
Doctor heal thyself.


----------



## KevinWestern

MisterBeale said:


> What's the point here?  Do you see this as racist?
> 
> Only racists see this as racist.  Lovers of soul food see this as complimentary.  Just goes to show. . . .
> 
> Racism is in the mind of the beholder. . .



Yep, some might see the cartoon below as racist, but others might see it as just a depiction of a kind white guy helping out some young, animal looking black people.


----------



## boedicca

rightwinger said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> Over the past 5000 years or more, mankind has domesticated thousands of wild animal species by inducing exactly that level of dependence. The practice has been thoroughly vetted; proven to be 99.99 percent effective, every time it is applied. Which is why tourists at many state parks are admonished to not allow the wild animals to become dependent on free food, given to them by humans. To survive, thrive and succeed, independent living creatures must have the knowledge and the _will_ to provide for themselves.
> The Democrat party wants to create and maintain that level of dependence in their fellow American citizens, so they can enjoy societal and economic mastery over them. They claim they are helping minorities, when all they are actually doing is making them more and more dependent. After all of these progressive years, the Democrat party is still just as racist as it has ever been, it has simply become more sophisticated in how it exercises that racism."
> 
> Democrat Party Still Racist After All These Years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your party has been demolished by just these analogies of the treatment of blacks being equivalent to wild animals
> 
> I'm surprised you still use such an offensive tract
Click to expand...




It's so transparent when the Leftwing-Democrats try to blame the GOP for the Dems' appalling treatment of blacks over the decades.


----------



## koshergrl

And apparently Boop thinks it's our fault that Europeans (Belgians, in this case) are racist.

Yet THEY'RE the ones who are continually telling us we should emulate them!

Irony. It makes the best frying pan.


----------



## bedowin62

koshergrl said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^The dem depiction of Clarence Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^the dem depiction of Michael Steele
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All these wrongs most certainly result in a right, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Doctor heal thyself.
Click to expand...




lol!

 so typical. throw some examples of the Left's massive hypocirsy on matters of race out there and someone out there will accuse you of implying two wrongs make a right

straw man; we arent admitting we've done anything close to the massively racist things Black Dems did in the past to Black people and still do nowadays to Black people who have the temerity to not be liberals


idiots and hypocrites


----------



## koshergrl

What's even funnier...Europeans are eternally calling AMERICANS racist!

If there's a more racist piece of earth in the universe than Europe and Great Britain, I would LOVE to see it! How many black PMs have the Brits had?


----------



## rightwinger

boedicca said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> "
> Over the past 5000 years or more, mankind has domesticated thousands of wild animal species by inducing exactly that level of dependence. The practice has been thoroughly vetted; proven to be 99.99 percent effective, every time it is applied. Which is why tourists at many state parks are admonished to not allow the wild animals to become dependent on free food, given to them by humans. To survive, thrive and succeed, independent living creatures must have the knowledge and the _will_ to provide for themselves.
> The Democrat party wants to create and maintain that level of dependence in their fellow American citizens, so they can enjoy societal and economic mastery over them. They claim they are helping minorities, when all they are actually doing is making them more and more dependent. After all of these progressive years, the Democrat party is still just as racist as it has ever been, it has simply become more sophisticated in how it exercises that racism."
> 
> Democrat Party Still Racist After All These Years
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your party has been demolished by just these analogies of the treatment of blacks being equivalent to wild animals
> 
> I'm surprised you still use such an offensive tract
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's so transparent when the Leftwing-Democrats try to blame the GOP for the Dems' appalling treatment of blacks over the decades.
Click to expand...


What is appalling?

What did Republicans offer as an alternative?


----------



## koshergrl

An alternative to what?

You must get paid by the keystroke, and not for coherent thought.


----------



## KevinWestern

bedowin62 said:


> lol!
> 
> so typical. throw some examples of the Left's massive hypocirsy on matters of race out there and someone out there will accuse you of implying two wrongs make a right
> 
> straw man; we arent admitting we've done anything close to the massively racist things Black Dems did in the past to Black people and still do nowadays to Black people who have the temerity to not be liberals
> 
> 
> idiots and hypocrites



So that's the leading defense now in this OP over the news piece? That "the left" did a lot of racist stuff so this some how makes it okay for people to do racist things in the present? What are we all ten years old here?

Let me lay it to you straight. This newspaper knew that if they posted the President and his wife as apes, racial connotations would drive controversy and increase traffic. None of us would be talking about this obscure paper otherwise. 

It's a cheap, grimy, exploitative publicity stunt, and anyone who defends it clearly doesn't have any regard for promoting good, wholesome, and unbiased news. 

It's just trash, guys. That's it.


----------



## boedicca

Which is worse:

- Portraying the Obamas as apes?

OR

- Making a snuff film about George W. Biush?


----------



## koshergrl

KevinWestern said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol!
> 
> so typical. throw some examples of the Left's massive hypocirsy on matters of race out there and someone out there will accuse you of implying two wrongs make a right
> 
> straw man; we arent admitting we've done anything close to the massively racist things Black Dems did in the past to Black people and still do nowadays to Black people who have the temerity to not be liberals
> 
> 
> idiots and hypocrites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So that's the leading defense now in this OP over the news piece? That "the left" did a lot of racist stuff so this some how makes it okay for people to do racist things in the present? What are we all ten years old here?
> 
> Let me lay it to you straight. This newspaper knew that if they posted the President and his wife as apes, racial connotations would drive controversy and increase traffic. None of us would be talking about this obscure paper otherwise.
> 
> It's a cheap, grimy, exploitative publicity stunt, and anyone who defends it clearly doesn't have any regard for promoting good, wholesome, and unbiased news.
> 
> It's just trash, guys. That's it.
Click to expand...

 
The racist image in question was published in BELGIUM. Not in the US, not by "rightwingers".

Good grief. READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. I suggest you brush up on it.


----------



## KevinWestern

koshergrl said:


> The racist image in question was published in BELGIUM. Not in the US, not by "rightwingers".
> 
> Good grief. READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. I suggest you brush up on it.



Haha, Kosher when did I say that this was published in the US?

And help me out here; do "social progressives" not exist in other countries? There's no such thing? The "left" / "right" political spectrum can only be applied to US politics? Is that the case?

Good grief. How about you use that brain of yours kit kat? Clear off the cobwebs. 

.


----------



## bedowin62

KevinWestern said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The racist image in question was published in BELGIUM. Not in the US, not by "rightwingers".
> 
> Good grief. READING IS FUNDAMENTAL. I suggest you brush up on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha, Kosher when did I say that this was published in the US?
> 
> And help me out here; do "social progressives" not exist in other countries? Does the left/right paradigm apply to only US citizens? Is that the case?
> 
> Good grief. How about you use that brain of yours kit kat? Clear off the cobwebs.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


comical really; first came the rationalization of left-wing bigotry; now the implication that American right-wingers are responsible for "racist" images of obama.

if you're going to bring up history; europeans dont necessarily know or care bout our history.

liberals wanted to portray bush as an ignorant sub-human ape when they called him the Chimp; pretty much the same thing anybody doing it to obama is doing; regardless of history. that isnt ignoring history; it's just stating the facts


----------



## KevinWestern

bedowin62 said:


> comical really; first came the rationalization of left-wing bigotry; now the implication that American right-wingers are responsible for "racist" images of obama.



Challenge: Point out where I said US "right wingers" were "responsible" for this image. I'll hang around to see what you come up with. 



bedowin62 said:


> if you're going to bring up history; europeans dont necessarily know or care bout our history.
> 
> liberals wanted to portray bush as an ignorant sub-human ape when they called him the Chimp; pretty much the same thing anybody doing it to obama is doing; regardless of history. that isnt ignoring history; it's just stating the facts



Why do you defend a piece of trash? Again it was designed to drive traffic. Racist controversial image of a famous person = more viewers. None of us would know about this paper if it weren't for the cover.

Can't you at least admit this is trash and serves no intellectual puprose?


----------



## Zoom-boing

KevinWestern said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^The dem depiction of Clarence Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^the dem depiction of Michael Steele
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All these wrongs most certainly result in a right, right?
Click to expand...



The left's hypocrisy flew right over your head.


----------



## MrMax

Moochelle's grandfather Clyde starred with Clint in Every Which Way But Loose.


----------



## Zoom-boing

MrMax said:


> Moochelle's grandfather Clyde starred with Clint in Every Which Way But Loose.



Shut up.


----------



## KevinWestern

Zoom-boing said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^The dem depiction of Clarence Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^the dem depiction of Michael Steele
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All these wrongs most certainly result in a right, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The left's hypocrisy flew right over your head.
Click to expand...


Goddamnit, lol, can you please explain to me why I am charged to speak for and defend the "hypocrisy of the left"? Am I some sort of spokesperson for the "left"? I was addressing this particular newspaper, and calling these particular editors "trashy" for the pic they photoshopped. I don't even really recall talking about "the right" and the "left" until other folks who are seemingly obsessed with the paradigm thought it would be worthwhile to throw it into the mix. 

Go on - buddy - read everything I posted here, and then come back and address me again. 

I'm no Barack supporter. I know the Democrats do a lot of crony, crappy things. I know the KKK was started by Democrats. You don't have to "school" me. Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and generally don't side with Democrats on a majority of things except for maybe some social issues. 

Before you go accusing people of "things flying over their head", how about you know who you're talking to first. Just a little advice.

.


----------



## bedowin62

KevinWestern said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> comical really; first came the rationalization of left-wing bigotry; now the implication that American right-wingers are responsible for "racist" images of obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenge: Point out where I said US "right wingers" were "responsible" for this image. I'll hang around to see what you come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you're going to bring up history; europeans dont necessarily know or care bout our history.
> 
> liberals wanted to portray bush as an ignorant sub-human ape when they called him the Chimp; pretty much the same thing anybody doing it to obama is doing; regardless of history. that isnt ignoring history; it's just stating the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you defend a piece of trash? Again it was designed to drive traffic. Racist controversial image of a famous person = more viewers. None of us would know about this paper if it weren't for the cover.
> 
> Can't you at least admit this is trash and serves no intellectual puprose?
Click to expand...


reading comprehension; i said implication; it was implied


----------



## Vigilante

Check it out! Google's RACIST!


----------



## KevinWestern

bedowin62 said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> comical really; first came the rationalization of left-wing bigotry; now the implication that American right-wingers are responsible for "racist" images of obama.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Challenge: Point out where I said US "right wingers" were "responsible" for this image. I'll hang around to see what you come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> if you're going to bring up history; europeans dont necessarily know or care bout our history.
> 
> liberals wanted to portray bush as an ignorant sub-human ape when they called him the Chimp; pretty much the same thing anybody doing it to obama is doing; regardless of history. that isnt ignoring history; it's just stating the facts
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why do you defend a piece of trash? Again it was designed to drive traffic. Racist controversial image of a famous person = more viewers. None of us would know about this paper if it weren't for the cover.
> 
> Can't you at least admit this is trash and serves no intellectual puprose?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> reading comprehension; i said implication; it was implied
Click to expand...


Ah.. gotcha. It was "implied"? Why, because you said it was "implied"? lol. 

What it comes down to is that you're too stubborn to admit that this picture serves no good intellectual or journalistic purpose, and was designed to incite controversy. Until you do that I don't think we'll see eye to eye. 

.


----------



## MrMax

Here's Mooch's aunt Koko and her second husband.


----------



## Zoom-boing

KevinWestern said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> All these wrongs most certainly result in a right, right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The left's hypocrisy flew right over your head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Goddamnit, lol, can you please explain to me why I am charged to speak for and defend the "hypocrisy of the left"? Am I some sort of spokesperson for the "left"? I was addressing this particular newspaper, and calling these particular editors "trashy" for the pic they photoshopped. I don't even really recall talking about "the right" and the "left" until other folks who are seemingly obsessed with the paradigm thought it would be worthwhile to throw it into the mix.
> 
> Go on - buddy - read everything I posted here, and then come back and address me again.
> 
> I'm no Barack supporter. I know the Democrats do a lot of crony, crappy things. I know the KKK was started by Democrats. You don't have to "school" me. Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing, and generally don't side with Democrats on a majority of things except for maybe some social issues.
> 
> Before you go accusing people of "things flying over their head", how about you know who you're talking to first. Just a little advice.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Dude, take a pill.  I was referring to your comment on the pic that's all.  The left is silent on their own racism and hypocrisy, your comment came across as glib.  Chill.


----------



## KevinWestern

MrMax said:


> Here's Mooch's aunt Koko and her husband.



No, that's Mr. Rogers and Koko - a Gorilla. 

Where were you educated sir? I feel like they may have failed you miserably.


----------



## KevinWestern

Zoom-boing said:


> Dude, take a pill.  I was referring to your comment on the pic that's all.  The left is silent on their own racism and hypocrisy, your comment came across as glib.  Chill.



Sure (getting close to done w/the thread anyways). Just sort of annoyed by the "you did it so we can do it too argument". It doesn't solve much. And on top of it there's no verification whatsoever of who published those pics. Was it the left? Was it a fringe group? I mean, come on.

I'll chill though, lol. All this discussion just gets me nice and fired up.


----------



## Vigilante

KevinWestern said:


> MrMax said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's Mooch's aunt Koko and her husband.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, that's Mr. Rogers and Koko - a Gorilla.
> 
> Where were you educated sir? I feel like they may have failed you miserably.
Click to expand...


Some see this whole thread as comical. Because Negroes skin color is closer to simians , than to Caucasian, it has been used as satire for centuries. Just as there are more than enough jokes about what Jews, Italians, Greeks, etc. look like! 

 Today, the RACIST card has been played so often, and especially by the left, that few, if any, give any credence to the idiots making the charge, such as the OP!


----------



## bedowin62

KevinWestern said:


> bedowin62 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Challenge: Point out where I said US "right wingers" were "responsible" for this image. I'll hang around to see what you come up with.
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you defend a piece of trash? Again it was designed to drive traffic. Racist controversial image of a famous person = more viewers. None of us would know about this paper if it weren't for the cover.
> 
> Can't you at least admit this is trash and serves no intellectual puprose?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reading comprehension; i said implication; it was implied
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ah.. gotcha. It was "implied"? Why, because you said it was "implied"? lol.
> 
> What it comes down to is that you're too stubborn to admit that this picture serves no good intellectual or journalistic purpose, and was designed to incite controversy. Until you do that I don't think we'll see eye to eye.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


no; becaue you implied it

 sorry try again

 yawn


----------



## KevinWestern

bedowin62 said:


> no; becaue you implied it
> 
> sorry try again
> 
> yawn



But I didn't imply it, lol. That was something that you made up with your own head. I didn't start talking "right/left" until I had to address someone else talking "right/left". 

You can't just make things up and _expect _people to believe it, my friend.


----------



## KevinWestern

Vigilante said:


> Some see this whole thread as comical. Because Negroes skin color is closer to simians , than to Caucasian, it has been used as satire for centuries. Just as there are more than enough jokes about what Jews, Italians, Greeks, etc. look like!
> 
> Today, the RACIST card has been played so often, and especially by the left, that few, if any, give any credence to the idiots making the charge, such as the OP!



Vigilante, what I'm most upset about is a paper USING these images that they KNOW will stir controversy to get cheap hits and views. Do you think people on this forum would be talking about an article from a Belgian newspaper otherwise? 

If you disagree, than why else would they post this pic? Was it to stir an intellectual discussion? 

From the onset of this thread, my whole position is this was a trashy, exploitative gesture on the part of the newspaper. Shame on them. It's driving everyone's minds straight into the ground.


----------



## Vigilante

KevinWestern said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some see this whole thread as comical. Because Negroes skin color is closer to simians , than to Caucasian, it has been used as satire for centuries. Just as there are more than enough jokes about what Jews, Italians, Greeks, etc. look like!
> 
> Today, the RACIST card has been played so often, and especially by the left, that few, if any, give any credence to the idiots making the charge, such as the OP!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante, what I'm most upset about is a paper USING these images that they KNOW will stir controversy to get cheap hits and views. Do you think people on this forum would be talking about an article from a Belgian newspaper otherwise?
> 
> If you disagree, than why else would they post this pic? Was it to stir an intellectual discussion?
> 
> From the onset of this thread, my whole position is this was a trashy, exploitative gesture on the part of the newspaper. Shame on them. It's driving everyone's minds straight into the ground.
Click to expand...


You must realize that the people of Belgium have a different MORAL CODE than many in America. They dislike JEWS, just as much, More so even, and use them as a foil also. They started to do that with muslims, BUT the muslims decide to riot and kill some native Belgium people, and being, from Europe, those people are cowards when someone REALLY fights back and it causes death. Just an observation of one, whose sister in law is from Belgium, and tells us what really goes on!


----------



## KevinWestern

Vigilante said:


> You must realize that the people of Belgium have a different MORAL CODE than many in America. They dislike JEWS, just as much, More so even, and use them as a foil also. They started to do that with muslims, BUT the muslims decide to riot and kill some native Belgium people, and being, from Europe, those people are cowards when someone REALLY fights back and it causes death. Just an observation of one, whose sister in law is from Belgium, and tells us what really goes on!



Sure. But I'm sure you can agree this pic was published solely to drive traffic vs. make a worthwhile journalistic point, right?


----------



## MrMax

Here's Mooch's dad back in the 70s. Cornelius was his name, I think.


----------



## alan1

rightwinger said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Conservatives struggle so much with equivalence and context?
> 
> Adults are expected to understand the meanings of words and symbols. They are not always the same
> 
> Calling a white an ape is not the same as calling a black person an ape
> Watermelon and Fried Chicken does not have the same connotation for whites as it does blacks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true racist that believes those racist stereotypes.
> Thank you for telling us where your actual racist stereotypes live.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually, I do believe there are racist stereotypes and depicting blacks as apes and making watermelon references are at the top of the list
Click to expand...

Of course you do, because you are racist.



rightwinger said:


> For conservatives to assume that those stereotypes appy equally to all races shows how out of touch they are with society


Racists like you hold stereotypes, and then apply those stereotypes in a biased and racist manner while trying to claim those stereotypes and biases belong to somebody else.  You just did it again.


----------



## alan1

DriftingSand said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoken like a true racist that believes those racist stereotypes.
> Thank you for telling us where your actual racist stereotypes live.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I do believe there are racist stereotypes and depicting blacks as apes and making watermelon references are at the top of the list
> 
> For conservatives to assume that those stereotypes appy equally to all races shows how out of touch they are with society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if a black person says that he likes watermelons would he be considered racist?  What if someone says that a white guy likes watermelons -- is that racist too?  Just what in the hell do you want?  Should folks just stop talking altogether?  It seems that it doesn't matter what anyone says there's going to be some crybaby screaming -- RACISM.  Sorry but I'm not going to walk on eggshells for you.  I happen to know some black people who like watermelon.  I happen to like it to.  It's a tasty fruit and wonderful summertime refreshment (racist or not).
Click to expand...


I like watermelon also.
If I ask my black friends and coworkers to enjoy some watermelon with me, does that make me racist?
What about Buffaloe wings?  It's chicken, but certainly, culturally a white person food.
Where does this imagined racism begin and end.


----------



## alan1

rightwinger said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MisterBeale said:
> 
> 
> 
> When it comes to government meddling in the affairs of sovereign private citizens?  All government officials are apes. . . .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That being said, of course there has been a tradition to depict blacks as apes.  To deny it is to be anti-intellectual.  But to not understand the humorous irony here is to be woefully obtuse. . . this is the POTUS we are talking about. . . blacks are now, "THE MAN."  They have been part of the establishment for some time.  I remember a black Secretary of State.  I remember a black Secretary of defense.  To my recollection, there are minority congressmen and Senators.  In fact, correct me if I'm wrong here, there have even been black supreme court justices going back several decades.  It would be fool hardy to say that racism doesn't exist, but then again, it just seems that in this case, freedom of the press is probably a more compelling interest.
> 
> That is the whole point.  Generally in the past when blacks were referred to as apes, they were done so because they were not in charge, they were a subordinate class.  Now?  Well, it seems it doesn't make sense any more to get so upset when such a powerful political figure is ridiculed, even if it IS racist.  It does more harm than good, and it divides us more as a society than it unites us.
> 
> Frankly, it should say more about the magazine than the Belgian people or European society.  But curtailing everyone's freedom over it is definitely wrong.
> 
> Truly it is being done as satire.  The only way it could've been done in a racist way is perhaps if you think we live in a post apocalyptic world and the POTUS' policies were responsible for destroying the world and the Belgian people.  Then I suppose they might have a notion to tell him this about his policies and his initiatives. . . .
> 
> Take your stinking paws off me you damn dirty ape! - YouTube
> 
> http://www.rogerebert.com/scanners/apes-and-allegories-what-is-the-meaning-of-this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the fact that the Progressives are arguing that the depiction of the Obamas is "racist" based on the "history of *THIS* country."  However, the pictorial occurred in a _Belgian_ newspaper so that argument falls flat on its face.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> European soccer fans throw bananas at black soccer players
> 
> Racism is not restricted to our borders
Click to expand...

Bananas are from the tropics and South America, not from Africa.
Black people are from Africa, not South America.
What is the connection?


----------



## Vigilante

KevinWestern said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> You must realize that the people of Belgium have a different MORAL CODE than many in America. They dislike JEWS, just as much, More so even, and use them as a foil also. They started to do that with muslims, BUT the muslims decide to riot and kill some native Belgium people, and being, from Europe, those people are cowards when someone REALLY fights back and it causes death. Just an observation of one, whose sister in law is from Belgium, and tells us what really goes on!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. But I'm sure you can agree this pic was published solely to drive traffic vs. make a worthwhile journalistic point, right?
Click to expand...


I can easily see it doing both, as obuma isn't such a hit anymore in Europe. His weakness in handling Putin has been duly noted in all the different European press....Have you seen the articles in The Guardian?


----------



## whitehall

I don't recall the US mainstream media ever apologizing for the outrageously racist cartoons portraying Dr. Condie Rice as a slave mammy during the Bush administration. The hypocrites on the left applauded a foreign made movie depicting the assassination of a sitting president because they hated George Bush.


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> iamwhatiseem said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is the left photo in English?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone in public school in Europe learns some English.
Click to expand...


Not an answer, is it?


----------



## Pogo

Desperado said:


> Bush = Monkey = Funny
> Obama = Monkey = Racist
> 
> Absolute BS.... It is called political satire and it has been going on for a long time.
> Now because Obama is black, satire is off limits because you do no want to offend your messiah.
> This is the part of free speech that is tough for you liberals to understand.  Even speech or ideas that you do not agree with are covered under "Free Speech".  Just as a reminder:



What's that got to do with _Belgium_?


----------



## Pogo

Stephanie said:


> (hope you don't mind I use this dear)
> 
> 
> 
> Enough to know that blacks aren't the ONLY folks who have suffered hardship over the centuries.  Time to quit whimpering over spilled milk and focus on self-improvement and personal responsibility.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's the queen of the slave hustlers in the Democrat party
> along with Obama, Sharpton, Jessie Jackson, etc etc
> 
> 
> 
> Michelle Obama injects race into politics| Latest News Videos | Fox News
Click to expand...


"Slave hustlers" huh?

Is she wrong?  Was the White House NOT built with slave labor?  Did slavery not exist?


----------



## rightwinger

whitehall said:


> I don't recall the US mainstream media ever apologizing for the outrageously racist cartoons portraying Dr. Condie Rice as a slave mammy during the Bush administration. The hypocrites on the left applauded a foreign made movie depicting the assassination of a sitting president because they hated George Bush.



Which mainstream media?


----------



## Vigilante

rightwinger said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't recall the US mainstream media ever apologizing for the outrageously racist cartoons portraying Dr. Condie Rice as a slave mammy during the Bush administration. The hypocrites on the left applauded a foreign made movie depicting the assassination of a sitting president because they hated George Bush.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which mainstream media?
Click to expand...


Racist cartoons of Condoleezza Rice? | Alas, a Blog


----------



## DriftingSand

alan1 said:


> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, I do believe there are racist stereotypes and depicting blacks as apes and making watermelon references are at the top of the list
> 
> For conservatives to assume that those stereotypes appy equally to all races shows how out of touch they are with society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if a black person says that he likes watermelons would he be considered racist?  What if someone says that a white guy likes watermelons -- is that racist too?  Just what in the hell do you want?  Should folks just stop talking altogether?  It seems that it doesn't matter what anyone says there's going to be some crybaby screaming -- RACISM.  Sorry but I'm not going to walk on eggshells for you.  I happen to know some black people who like watermelon.  I happen to like it to.  It's a tasty fruit and wonderful summertime refreshment (racist or not).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I like watermelon also.
> If I ask my black friends and coworkers to enjoy some watermelon with me, does that make me racist?
> What about Buffaloe wings?  It's chicken, but certainly, culturally a white person food.
> Where does this imagined racism begin and end.
Click to expand...


It won't end!  It's all the left has left. They have no reasonable argumentation for their failed systems and asinine, economic "solutions" so they've resorted to calling names; stomping their feet; throwing tantrums; and succumbing to their phobia that everyone is automatically a "racist" if they say "monkey" or "watermelon" or "chicken" or "raccoon" or "Negro" or whatever else their feeble imaginations conjure up.  To be honest?  I find it somewhat amusing.  Sad but amusing.


----------



## Pogo

TakeAStepBack said:


> RWer is a racist. He sees the black man as a monkey, so it hurts the delicate sensibility he's spent years keeping PC to see such a picture. While the white man as a monkey is just distasteful. Because clearly the white man is not a monkey.
> 
> You're a racist, dude. Embrace it like you embrace your ideological hypocrisy.



This may be the funniest thread ever.  Just for its ability to bring racists out of the woodwork to bellow "Me?? No, it's *them*!"

So to paraphrase Deep Throat, 'follow the logic'....

Visually portraying black people as apes, an infamous racial slureotype going back centuries, isn't racist... like this guy, even though he's admitted that's what it is...

Verbally portraying black people as apes, see above, isn't racist... like this guy:



MrMax said:


> Photoshopping a monkey's face on Moochelle was superfluous. She probably likes to relax up in a tree with a good book and some bananas.
> 
> Q: What do you call a book of primates in Moochelle's hands?
> A: A family photo album.



.... But _knowing what those racial slureotypes are_, wa-hey, that's racist!

Cold, hard logic right there.  Some of y'all boggle the mind.


Apparently the trick is to Know Nothing.  Which says a lot if you know anything about history.


----------



## Pogo

alan1 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> DriftingSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to mention the fact that the Progressives are arguing that the depiction of the Obamas is "racist" based on the "history of *THIS* country."  However, the pictorial occurred in a _Belgian_ newspaper so that argument falls flat on its face.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> European soccer fans throw bananas at black soccer players
> 
> Racism is not restricted to our borders
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bananas are from the tropics and South America, not from Africa.
> Black people are from Africa, not South America.
> What is the connection?
Click to expand...


Really?  Africa doesn't have tropics?

Bananas were brought to the Americas by Portuguese traders --- *from West Africa*.  They're grown all over the world, having probably developed in Indomalaya.  My friends in New Orleans grow them.


----------



## BDBoop

Pogo said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> European soccer fans throw bananas at black soccer players
> 
> Racism is not restricted to our borders
> 
> 
> 
> Bananas are from the tropics and South America, not from Africa.
> Black people are from Africa, not South America.
> What is the connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Africa doesn't have tropics?
> 
> Bananas were brought to the Americas by Portuguese traders --- from West Africa.  They're grown all over the world, having probably developed in Indomalaya.  My friends in New Orleans grow them.
Click to expand...


Ya learn something new every day! 

Well. Some of us learn something new. Some just remain willfully ignorant.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


>



Bullshit.  Once again, the Klan was started by a group of Confederate veteran soldiers around a campfire on Christmas Day 1865.  It has never been a political organization or been affiliated with a political party.

Oh wait -- you found this image on the *internet *where everything is true.  I forgot.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit. Once again, the Klan was started by a group of Confederate veteran soldiers around a campfire on Christmas Day 1865. It has never been a political organization or been affiliated with a political party.
> 
> Oh wait -- you found this image on the *internet *where everything is true. I forgot.
Click to expand...


Refute this...

 History Of The Democrats And The KKK.

LiveLeak.com - History Of The Democrats And The KKK.


----------



## Pogo

Refute "Live Leak" 
Got your live leak right here pal  -- 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




As I said, you have the internets, I have history books.  Guess which one wins.

Hey, don't stop now -- post a credible source.

The Klan saw itself and ran itself as a _social_ organization.  Its objectives were cultural values, not political.  You didn't have to belong to a party or be involved in politics to be Klan.  Matter of fact the few times they did try to push into politics all they got out of it was a governor in Indiana and some city council seats in Anaheim.  All of whom were Republicans FWIW, but that doesn't make them a Republican organization either.

But carry on, I'm sure there's more fun on Google Images.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Refute "Live Leak"
> Got your live leak right here pal --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you have the internets, I have history books. Guess which one wins.
> 
> Hey, don't stop now -- post a credible source.
> 
> The Klan saw itself and ran itself as a _social_ organization. Its objectives were cultural values, not political. You didn't have to belong to a party or be involved in politics to be Klan. Matter of fact the few times they did try to push into politics all they got out of it was a governor in Indiana and some city council seats in Anaheim. All of whom were Republicans FWIW, but that doesn't make them a Republican organization either.
> 
> But carry on, I'm sure there's more fun on Google Images.



Thanks for NOT playing. The Klan was a white Democratic terrorist group, but I imagine that's a social organization to the 2 digit IQ set!


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute "Live Leak"
> Got your live leak right here pal --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you have the internets, I have history books. Guess which one wins.
> 
> Hey, don't stop now -- post a credible source.
> 
> The Klan saw itself and ran itself as a _social_ organization. Its objectives were cultural values, not political. You didn't have to belong to a party or be involved in politics to be Klan. Matter of fact the few times they did try to push into politics all they got out of it was a governor in Indiana and some city council seats in Anaheim. All of whom were Republicans FWIW, but that doesn't make them a Republican organization either.
> 
> But carry on, I'm sure there's more fun on Google Images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for NOT playing. The Klan was a white Democratic terrorist group, but I imagine that's a social organization to the 2 digit IQ set!
Click to expand...


So........... nothing.

It always ends this way.  Amateurs...


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute "Live Leak"
> Got your live leak right here pal --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you have the internets, I have history books. Guess which one wins.
> 
> Hey, don't stop now -- post a credible source.
> 
> The Klan saw itself and ran itself as a _social_ organization. Its objectives were cultural values, not political. You didn't have to belong to a party or be involved in politics to be Klan. Matter of fact the few times they did try to push into politics all they got out of it was a governor in Indiana and some city council seats in Anaheim. All of whom were Republicans FWIW, but that doesn't make them a Republican organization either.
> 
> But carry on, I'm sure there's more fun on Google Images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for NOT playing. The Klan was a white Democratic terrorist group, but I imagine that's a social organization to the 2 digit IQ set!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So........... nothing.
> 
> It always ends this way. Amateurs...
Click to expand...


Sorry Brutha, but the KKK was as much a social organization as your IQ is over 160!


----------



## BDBoop

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute "Live Leak"
> Got your live leak right here pal --
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As I said, you have the internets, I have history books. Guess which one wins.
> 
> Hey, don't stop now -- post a credible source.
> 
> The Klan saw itself and ran itself as a _social_ organization. Its objectives were cultural values, not political. You didn't have to belong to a party or be involved in politics to be Klan. Matter of fact the few times they did try to push into politics all they got out of it was a governor in Indiana and some city council seats in Anaheim. All of whom were Republicans FWIW, but that doesn't make them a Republican organization either.
> 
> But carry on, I'm sure there's more fun on Google Images.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for NOT playing. The Klan was a white Democratic terrorist group, but I imagine that's a social organization to the 2 digit IQ set!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So........... nothing.
> 
> It always ends this way.  Amateurs...
Click to expand...


Yeah, exactly. If they have to time travel to make their point, then said point is obviously invalid.


----------



## Vigilante

BDBoop said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for NOT playing. The Klan was a white Democratic terrorist group, but I imagine that's a social organization to the 2 digit IQ set!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So........... nothing.
> 
> It always ends this way. Amateurs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, exactly. If they have to time travel to make their point, then said point is obviously invalid.
Click to expand...


Words of wisdom from BirD Poop!  Another deep thinker!


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for NOT playing. The Klan was a white Democratic terrorist group, but I imagine that's a social organization to the 2 digit IQ set!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So........... nothing.
> 
> It always ends this way. Amateurs...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry Brutha, but the KKK was as much a social organization as your IQ is over 160!
Click to expand...


Thanks for your concession.

Are you that fluff boy who hangs outside the MENSA building begging for crumbs?


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> So........... nothing.
> 
> It always ends this way. Amateurs...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry Brutha, but the KKK was as much a social organization as your IQ is over 160!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thanks for your concession.
> 
> Are you that fluff boy who hangs outside the MENSA building begging for crumbs?
Click to expand...


Concession, you delusion little child!


----------



## CaféAuLait

The photo in the OP is awful, and given history can be seen as racist.  however I don't know if it was meant to be racist, please allow me to explain myself. I know many say this is to make blacks seem sub-human but is it really any different when portraying Bush as a Neanderthal? Sub- human is sub-human either way, yes? 

For years president have been portrayed as buffoons, idiots, etc. Presidents have been hung in effigy, from Nixon to Obama. Heck even Palin was hung in effigy. 

As far as I know the secret service did not visit those who hung Bush in effigy but they did visit those who hung Obama. I am unsure why it takes on a different meaning if it's political in nature.  

I recall when Obama was portrayed as the Joker and the screams of racism echoed through America. While every other president has been portrayed in a negative manner. 

Obama is a president, he is not immune to the SAME treatment others president have gotten, to imply everything which happens to Obama as racist is nothing but a way to try and push an agenda to paint the opposite party as racists to gain political points  even though it's been a common practice through history.


----------



## NoNukes

DriftingSand said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TakeAStepBack said:
> 
> 
> 
> No. I do not see how it is different. I'm not a racist, or a race hustler like you leftie lunatics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For years Blacks have been portrayed as being no better or more developed than  monkeys by people with racial hatred.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who has "portrayed" them that way?  Themselves or someone else?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't take the above picture but it was recently taken in Africa.  Notice the murder of one black by another as bystanders kick back and watch.  Again ... not my doing and I'm not doing the "portraying."
Click to expand...


Are you saying that these are Black Americans? Do you have a point?


----------



## NoNukes

TakeAStepBack said:


> Well, you wouldn't know that. but what everyone here can know, is that you're a racist. A racist that projects his racism onto others to hide it. As if being an overt racist wasn't enough.



You are out of your mind and should not be taken seriously. Get back on your meds.


----------



## NoNukes

bedowin62 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry....But that is just too fucking funny
> 
> The funny part is you are dead serious
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. And the fact that they had to go back a century or two to find enough peeps is just overkill on the cake icing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> just like  you have to go back into the last century to find examples of Dems doing anything right by Blacks you crybaby loser
> 
> oh and even then all you managed to really do is enslave them cycles of government dependence that spanned generations; destroyed the Black family, and led to near-genocidal rates of black on black violence
Click to expand...


Another Blacks are too stupid to know what is good for them post. Now, tell me that you are not a racist.


----------



## NoNukes

koshergrl said:


> ^^The dem depiction of Clarence Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^the dem depiction of Michael Steele



Was it a White or Black person doing these depictions?


----------



## Pogo

CaféAuLait;8838460 said:
			
		

> The photo in the OP is awful, and given history can be seen as racist.  however I don't know if it was meant to be racist, please allow me to explain myself. I know many say this is to make blacks seem sub-human but is it really any different when portraying Bush as a Neanderthal? Sub- human is sub-human either way, yes?
> 
> For years president have been portrayed as buffoons, idiots, etc. Presidents have been hung in effigy, from Nixon to Obama. Heck even Palin was hung in effigy.
> 
> As far as I know the secret service did not visit those who hung Bush in effigy but they did visit those who hung Obama. I am unsure why it takes on a different meaning if it's political in nature.
> 
> I recall when Obama was portrayed as the Joker and the screams of racism echoed through America. While every other president has been portrayed in a negative manner.
> 
> Obama is a president, he is not immune to the SAME treatment others president have gotten, to imply everything which happens to Obama as racist is nothing but a way to try and push an agenda to paint the opposite party as racists to gain political points  even though it's been a common practice through history.



Oh come off it.  All you're doing is rationalizing racism.  Of course it's meant to be racist, and I'll prove it.  If it's not racist --- _what's Michelle doing in the picture?_

Think about it.  She's not a politician, so that removes political pretense.  That makes it personal.  The concept of that picture would not even exist if she were white.

And besides, the paper has already *admitted it* in an apology.  Your motives thus exposed.


----------



## Pogo

NoNukes said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^The dem depiction of Clarence Thomas
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^the dem depiction of Michael Steele
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was it a White or Black person doing these depictions?
Click to expand...


Looks like Photoshop, but hey, it's never too early in the day for a biased sample/blanket generalization fallacy.

What the fuck is "Emerge" magazine?


----------



## emilynghiem

OK so they apologized and admitted guilt in having bad taste. Maybe we are evolving as a society. Ted Nugent also apologized publicly for his crude remarks, and acknowledged the corrections of his peers, who advised him to stick with Constitutional points and criticisms. 

More proof of human "evolution." We may be getting more civilized after all!



BDBoop said:


> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
Click to expand...


----------



## MrMax




----------



## KevinWestern

Vigilante said:


> Refute this...
> 
> History Of The Democrats And The KKK.



Yes, it has its roots in the Democratic Party - no doubt. 

But straight talk here, *TODAY - do you think there are a greater percentage of KKK members who are registered Democrats or registered GOP members? *

I don't know the answer personally, but believe the majority of KKK members would generally _not be registered Democrats _due to the fact it is the Democrats who generally push things like affirmative action, gay rights, etc. 

I would imagine the KKK to be made up of people who wan the Gov't out of their lives, and to maintain gun rights, etc, and to not take huge chunks out of their paychecks to support welfare recipients. Is that a fair statement? 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Pogo

KevinWestern said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute this...
> 
> History Of The Democrats And The KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it has its roots in the Democratic Party - no doubt.
> 
> But straight talk here, *TODAY - do you think there are a greater percentage of KKK members who are registered Democrats or registered GOP members? *
> 
> I don't know the answer personally, but believe the majority of KKK members would generally _not be registered Democrats _due to the fact it is the Democrats who generally push things like affirmative action, gay rights, etc.
> 
> I would imagine the KKK to be made up of people who wan the Gov't out of their lives, and to maintain gun rights, etc, and to not take huge chunks out of their paychecks to support welfare recipients. Is that a fair statement?
> 
> Just my two cents.
Click to expand...


No actually it doesn't.  The KKK was founded by six Confederate ex-soldiers, not politicians.  That's historical fact.  What LiveLeak-boy is doing is just more of that history revisionism - you know, "Clinton caused 9/11"; "Reagan rescued the hostages and brought down the Wall"; "FDR caused the Depression"; "Hitler was a leftist"; "Democratic Party invented slavery and used them to build the Pyramids"... it's all part of the same comic book.  I believe it's called _Wanker's Weakly_.


----------



## mudwhistle

Pogo said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute this...
> 
> History Of The Democrats And The KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it has its roots in the Democratic Party - no doubt.
> 
> But straight talk here, *TODAY - do you think there are a greater percentage of KKK members who are registered Democrats or registered GOP members? *
> 
> I don't know the answer personally, but believe the majority of KKK members would generally _not be registered Democrats _due to the fact it is the Democrats who generally push things like affirmative action, gay rights, etc.
> 
> I would imagine the KKK to be made up of people who wan the Gov't out of their lives, and to maintain gun rights, etc, and to not take huge chunks out of their paychecks to support welfare recipients. Is that a fair statement?
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No actually it doesn't.  The KKK was founded by six Confederate ex-soldiers, not politicians.  That's historical fact.  What LiveLeak-boy is doing is just more of that history revisionism - you know, "Clinton caused 9/11"; "Reagan rescued the hostages and brought down the Wall"; "FDR caused the Depression"; "Hitler was a leftist"; "Democratic Party invented slavery and used them to build the Pyramids"... it's all part of the same comic book.  I believe it's called _Wanker's Weakly_.
Click to expand...


Chances are those soldiers were Democrats.

Don't forget that.


----------



## Pogo

mudwhistle said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it has its roots in the Democratic Party - no doubt.
> 
> But straight talk here, *TODAY - do you think there are a greater percentage of KKK members who are registered Democrats or registered GOP members? *
> 
> I don't know the answer personally, but believe the majority of KKK members would generally _not be registered Democrats _due to the fact it is the Democrats who generally push things like affirmative action, gay rights, etc.
> 
> I would imagine the KKK to be made up of people who wan the Gov't out of their lives, and to maintain gun rights, etc, and to not take huge chunks out of their paychecks to support welfare recipients. Is that a fair statement?
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No actually it doesn't.  The KKK was founded by six Confederate ex-soldiers, not politicians.  That's historical fact.  What LiveLeak-boy is doing is just more of that history revisionism - you know, "Clinton caused 9/11"; "Reagan rescued the hostages and brought down the Wall"; "FDR caused the Depression"; "Hitler was a leftist"; "Democratic Party invented slavery and used them to build the Pyramids"... it's all part of the same comic book.  I believe it's called _Wanker's Weakly_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Chances are those soldiers were Democrats.
> 
> Don't forget that.
Click to expand...


And you know this how?  Link?  How do you know they were even political at all?

"Don't forget that"??   Self-aggrandize much?  Hard to not forget a point that hasn't been made.

Ex-soldiers around a campfire does not equate to an already-existing political organization.  It just doesn't.  Not to mention, it wouldn't make them spokespeople for an entire national political party by some freakish ooze of reverse osmosis.

I grew out of comic books when I was a kid though, so the fantasy fetish is kinda lost on me.

"Chances Are"   Thank you Johnny Mathis.  If I had a nickel for every fallacy...


----------



## Luddly Neddite

BlindBoo said:


> I understand the oppositions need to denigrate the President in any way possible.  They will attack him in all walks of life including his family.  Images and vile talking points are a price of freedom.  I do remember some monkey comparison with President Bush as well but I don't recall Laura Bush being attacked in such a way, but the internet is big and so full of shit.........



That was the good old days when the president's family was off limits. 

Unless, of course, you were Chelsea Clinton.


----------



## Stephanie

Luddly Neddite said:


> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the oppositions need to denigrate the President in any way possible.  They will attack him in all walks of life including his family.  Images and vile talking points are a price of freedom.  I do remember some monkey comparison with President Bush as well but I don't recall Laura Bush being attacked in such a way, but the internet is big and so full of shit.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That was the good old days when the president's family was off limits.
> 
> Unless, of course, you were Chelsea Clinton.
Click to expand...


Ok, now you libs can shoot your two faced high horses

go into any Palin thread, Romney's wife was attacked so on so on by you ugly people on the left..the media never tired of the Bush children, etc

they posted a picture of the Obama's in a Belgian newspaper...YOU all should go whine to them about it...


----------



## Vigilante

KevinWestern said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute this...
> 
> History Of The Democrats And The KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it has its roots in the Democratic Party - no doubt.
> 
> But straight talk here, *TODAY - do you think there are a greater percentage of KKK members who are registered Democrats or registered GOP members? *
> 
> I don't know the answer personally, but believe the majority of KKK members would generally _not be registered Democrats _due to the fact it is the Democrats who generally push things like affirmative action, gay rights, etc.
> 
> I would imagine the KKK to be made up of people who wan the Gov't out of their lives, and to maintain gun rights, etc, and to not take huge chunks out of their paychecks to support welfare recipients. Is that a fair statement?
> 
> Just my two cents.
Click to expand...


I doubt that KKK members today are registered as either party but are probably independents. That would make more sense to me.


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Refute this...
> 
> History Of The Democrats And The KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it has its roots in the Democratic Party - no doubt.
> 
> But straight talk here, *TODAY - do you think there are a greater percentage of KKK members who are registered Democrats or registered GOP members? *
> 
> I don't know the answer personally, but believe the majority of KKK members would generally _not be registered Democrats _due to the fact it is the Democrats who generally push things like affirmative action, gay rights, etc.
> 
> I would imagine the KKK to be made up of people who wan the Gov't out of their lives, and to maintain gun rights, etc, and to not take huge chunks out of their paychecks to support welfare recipients. Is that a fair statement?
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that KKK members today are registered as either party but are probably independents. That would make more sense to me.
Click to expand...


Then how do you manage to make a half dozen soldiers into an entire pre-existing political party?

Revising history - 182 posts.
Abject denial - 563 posts.
Having it both ways: *Priceless* 

Here, you dropped this:


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, it has its roots in the Democratic Party - no doubt.
> 
> But straight talk here, *TODAY - do you think there are a greater percentage of KKK members who are registered Democrats or registered GOP members? *
> 
> I don't know the answer personally, but believe the majority of KKK members would generally _not be registered Democrats _due to the fact it is the Democrats who generally push things like affirmative action, gay rights, etc.
> 
> I would imagine the KKK to be made up of people who wan the Gov't out of their lives, and to maintain gun rights, etc, and to not take huge chunks out of their paychecks to support welfare recipients. Is that a fair statement?
> 
> Just my two cents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that KKK members today are registered as either party but are probably independents. That would make more sense to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then how do you manage to make a half dozen soldiers into an entire pre-existing political party?
> 
> Revising history - 182 posts.
> Abject denial - 563 posts.
> Having it both ways: *Priceless*
> 
> Here, you dropped this:
Click to expand...


Perhaps their just a small chapter of the Democratic party. Probably meet in the back room of an abortion clinic!


----------



## CaféAuLait

Pogo said:


> CaféAuLait;8838460 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo in the OP is awful, and given history can be seen as racist.  however I don't know if it was meant to be racist, please allow me to explain myself. I know many say this is to make blacks seem sub-human but is it really any different when portraying Bush as a Neanderthal? Sub- human is sub-human either way, yes?
> 
> For years president have been portrayed as buffoons, idiots, etc. Presidents have been hung in effigy, from Nixon to Obama. Heck even Palin was hung in effigy.
> 
> As far as I know the secret service did not visit those who hung Bush in effigy but they did visit those who hung Obama. I am unsure why it takes on a different meaning if it's political in nature.
> 
> I recall when Obama was portrayed as the Joker and the screams of racism echoed through America. While every other president has been portrayed in a negative manner.
> 
> Obama is a president, he is not immune to the SAME treatment others president have gotten, to imply everything which happens to Obama as racist is nothing but a way to try and push an agenda to paint the opposite party as racists to gain political points  even though it's been a common practice through history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh come off it.  All you're doing is rationalizing racism.  Of course it's meant to be racist, and I'll prove it.  If it's not racist --- _what's Michelle doing in the picture?_
> 
> Think about it.  She's not a politician, so that removes political pretense.  That makes it personal.  The concept of that picture would not even exist if she were white.
> 
> And besides, the paper has already *admitted it* in an apology.  Your motives thus exposed.
Click to expand...


I was not trying to rationalize racism. I was merely saying that racism is claimed for the very same things which have happened to other presidents and their wives. I ALSO stated that I thought the picture could be racist (and awful) and I understand how it could be taken that way, but I was unsure what the intent was if it was political satire or not. I did not read the article, I only viewed the photo. 

Laura Bush was portrayed in awful manners too ( a demon, a monkey, nude, a dominatrix, portrayed as calling her husband a monkey, a Nazi, and just about any other thing you can imagine, just because it happened to Michelle as well does not make it racist per se. I don't know if you get my drift or not. I was not supporting the photo.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## S.J.

Liberals can dish it out but they sure as shit can't take it.  Obama has spent 5 years fucking over the United States and nobody is allowed to criticize him?  He deserves all the shit anybody can throw at him, and so does his ugly ass entitlement wife.  The first amendment works both ways, commies.  Deal with it.


----------



## Vigilante

S.J. said:


> Liberals can dish it out but they sure as shit can't take it. Obama has spent 5 years fucking over the United States and nobody is allowed to criticize him? He deserves all the shit anybody can throw at him, and so does his ugly ass entitlement wife. The first amendment works both ways, commies. Deal with it.



The fucking hypocrisy of the left is almost beyond belief!!!

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJxmpTMGhU0]I Am Sick And Tired - Hillary Clinton - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## CaféAuLait

BlindBoo said:


> I understand the oppositions need to denigrate the President in any way possible.  They will attack him in all walks of life including his family.  Images and vile talking points are a price of freedom.  I do remember some monkey comparison with President Bush as well but I don't recall Laura Bush being attacked in such a way, but the internet is big and so full of shit.........



Yet she was. That is the simple truth of the matter. Attacking a presidents wife did not start with the Obama's. There a ton of pics I cant even post here. There were pics of their kids drunk and she was then accused of raising two "whores". The pic at the bottom suggests she may be a pedophile. So yeah, they have all been attacked.  








This is what the Onion ran after the WH asked they stop using the presidential seal ( makes perfect sense to do that to Laura right? 

















Type Laura Bush Naked into Google and see the crap that comes back.


----------



## Vigilante

I Goggled Mooch Obuma naked and here's what I got...


----------



## KevinWestern

Vigilante said:


> I doubt that KKK members today are registered as either party but are probably independents. That would make more sense to me.



So then, lets stop peddling this non-sense that the KKK is somehow tied to _today's_ Democratic party. It confuses people, and is not correct.


----------



## Vigilante

KevinWestern said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that KKK members today are registered as either party but are probably independents. That would make more sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, lets stop peddling this non-sense that the KKK is somehow tied to _today's_ Democratic party. It confuses people, and is not correct.
Click to expand...


Our HISTORY demands being placed before the uninformed!


----------



## KevinWestern

Vigilante said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that KKK members today are registered as either party but are probably independents. That would make more sense to me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So then, lets stop peddling this non-sense that the KKK is somehow tied to _today's_ Democratic party. It confuses people, and is not correct.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Our HISTORY demands being placed before the uninformed!
Click to expand...


But it's wrong to assert that the people who support the Democratic Party - today - are going to be the same people who support the Klu Klux Klan.


----------



## Vigilante

KevinWestern said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, lets stop peddling this non-sense that the KKK is somehow tied to _today's_ Democratic party. It confuses people, and is not correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our HISTORY demands being placed before the uninformed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's wrong to assert that the people who support the Democratic Party - today - are going to be the same people who support the Klu Klux Klan.
Click to expand...


Let the people decide once they have ALL the information!


----------



## KevinWestern

Vigilante said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our HISTORY demands being placed before the uninformed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's wrong to assert that the people who support the Democratic Party - today - are going to be the same people who support the Klu Klux Klan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let the people decide once they have ALL the information!
Click to expand...


There's no "up in the air decision" to be made. The modern Democratic Party is no friend to the KKK.

The modern Democratic party pushes for things like affirmative action, and open borders, and generally has many more representatives of color than the Republicans. I'm not saying the Republicans "welcome" KKK members - by any means - I'm just saying (using common sense and logic) that the Democratic party is not going to be supported by the KKK for some extremely glaring reasons. 

Can you at least admit this?


----------



## Unkotare

KevinWestern said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> So then, lets stop peddling this non-sense that the KKK is somehow tied to _today's_ Democratic party. It confuses people, and is not correct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Our HISTORY demands being placed before the uninformed!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But it's wrong to assert that the people who support the Democratic Party - today - are going to be the same people who support the Klu Klux Klan.
Click to expand...



It's not wrong for the many sins of the democrat party (and they include much more than just the KKK) be laid at their doorstep.


----------



## Unkotare

KevinWestern said:


> The modern Democratic party pushes for things like affirmative action, and open borders





Strong arguments can be made that those are not items for the 'plus' column.


----------



## KevinWestern

Unkotare said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our HISTORY demands being placed before the uninformed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's wrong to assert that the people who support the Democratic Party - today - are going to be the same people who support the Klu Klux Klan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It's not wrong for the many sins of the democrat party (and they include much more than just the KKK) be laid at their doorstep.
Click to expand...


That's entirely different. I won't argue with you that the list is long.

However...

To say that the modern Democratic Party, and the people that generally flock to it, are likely to be affiliated to the KKK in any meaningful way is an incorrect statement. That is the point I'm trying to drive through right now.


----------



## Pogo

CaféAuLait;8844233 said:
			
		

> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the oppositions need to denigrate the President in any way possible.  They will attack him in all walks of life including his family.  Images and vile talking points are a price of freedom.  I do remember some monkey comparison with President Bush as well but I don't recall Laura Bush being attacked in such a way, but the internet is big and so full of shit.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet she was. That is the simple truth of the matter. Attacking a presidents wife did not start with the Obama's. There a ton of pics I cant even post here. There were pics of their kids drunk and she was then accused of raising two "whores". The pic at the bottom suggests she may be a pedophile. So yeah, they have all been attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the Onion ran after the WH asked they stop using the presidential seal ( makes perfect sense to do that to Laura right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Type Laura Bush Naked into Google and see the crap that comes back.
Click to expand...


Really?  You go scouring the internets to find obscure stuff nobody's ever seen before to make a strawman, just so you can excuse racism? _* Really?*_

And don't feed me that bullshit that that's not what you're doing.  You fall back on this crutch of "b-but but every President gets criticized" as a pretext for excusing a racist depiction _*that has already been admitted to as racist by its creator*_.  Not even the newspaper itself tries to pretend this is not racism, yet you do.

Poster please.  You're a damn hypocrite, and it's transparent.


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our HISTORY demands being placed before the uninformed!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's wrong to assert that the people who support the Democratic Party - today - are going to be the same people who support the Klu Klux Klan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let the people decide once they have ALL the information!
Click to expand...


We've had all the information since December 25, 1865 dumbass.

Maybe you mean "let the people decide once I've rewritten the history books", comrade?  These half-dozen soldiers are unpersons around an uncampfire that never existed?  Or wait, are you saying they created the Democratic Party at the same time?  These six guys?

But then faced with the David Dukes and Edward Jacksons, oh no they're "independent", right?

Because we've got anther poster who claims the DP invented the slave trade, 200 years before it was even founded, so you might want to coordinate a common story before you need a whole Council of Nicea to decide what the revised history book is.

Political parties are neither useful, nor temporally static in their philosophy, and to troll around for power points by picking one party, denigrating it and pointing at it as the source of all evil, that's first a useless rhetorical wank and second it ascribes far more power to political parties than they actually have or can ever sustain.

What I'm saying is -- grow up already.  Try to post on something higher than a third grade thought level.


----------



## DriftingSand

This is "racist": 





Oh wait ... nobody altered this pic.  Nevermind.


----------



## Unkotare

Pogo said:


> What I'm saying is -- grow up already.  Try to post on something higher than a third grade thought level.





And you believe you have demonstrated such an ability yourself?


----------



## Pogo

Unkotare said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is -- grow up already.  Try to post on something higher than a third grade thought level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe you have demonstrated such an ability yourself?
Click to expand...


You can't even spell the word "Democrat*ic*", trollboy, so I'd be circumspect with that glass house, just sayin'...


----------



## Big Black Dog

The first couple portrayed as apes

That's a hell of a thing to do to apes...


----------



## DriftingSand

Big Black Dog said:


> The first couple portrayed as apes
> 
> That's a hell of a thing to do to apes...



I know it's totally politically incorrect for me to laugh at your post but I did anyway. 

If a lib wants to get even with me just call me a cracker or a peckerwood.  I won't cry.


----------



## S.J.

If depicting a black person in a racist way by exaggerating their physical characteristics was not out of bounds for you liberals when they did it to Condoleeza Rice, it's not out of bounds for someone to do it to the Obamas.  So quit your whining.


----------



## Unkotare

Pogo said:


> Unkotare said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I'm saying is -- grow up already.  Try to post on something higher than a third grade thought level.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you believe you have demonstrated such an ability yourself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can't even spell the word "Democrat*ic*", trollboy, so I'd be circumspect with that glass house, just sayin'...
Click to expand...




Is that a "yes" or a "no"?


----------



## Vigilante

KevinWestern said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's wrong to assert that the people who support the Democratic Party - today - are going to be the same people who support the Klu Klux Klan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the people decide once they have ALL the information!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's no "up in the air decision" to be made. The modern Democratic Party is no friend to the KKK.
> 
> The modern Democratic party pushes for things like affirmative action, and open borders, and generally has many more representatives of color than the Republicans. I'm not saying the Republicans "welcome" KKK members - by any means - I'm just saying (using common sense and logic) that the Democratic party is not going to be supported by the KKK for some extremely glaring reasons.
> 
> Can you at least admit this?
Click to expand...


But this man, up until his death a few years ago was your Democratic parties DEAN....







And as to the black issue, even a good many blacks see your party having done nothing for the black man, but giving him bits and pieces, scraps, if you will, off the parties table. Even the chairman of the Black Congressional Caucus , Rep. Emanueal Cleaver said about Obuma...*"African Americans would &#8216;march on the White House&#8217; if Obama wasn&#8217;t black."* 

http://news.yahoo.com/cbc-chairman-african-americans-march-white-house-obama-180941714.html

Obuma has done such a bad job of helping this nations black unemployment that is currently at 12.1 % compared to overall unemployment at 6.7%. Sooner or later these plantation blacks will wake up and say....


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> But it's wrong to assert that the people who support the Democratic Party - today - are going to be the same people who support the Klu Klux Klan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let the people decide once they have ALL the information!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We've had all the information since December 25, 1865 dumbass.
> 
> Maybe you mean "let the people decide once I've rewritten the history books", comrade? These half-dozen soldiers are unpersons around an uncampfire that never existed? Or wait, are you saying they created the Democratic Party at the same time? These six guys?
> 
> But then faced with the David Dukes and Edward Jacksons, oh no they're "independent", right?
> 
> Because we've got anther poster who claims the DP invented the slave trade, 200 years before it was even founded, so you might want to coordinate a common story before you need a whole Council of Nicea to decide what the revised history book is.
> 
> Political parties are neither useful, nor temporally static in their philosophy, and to troll around for power points by picking one party, denigrating it and pointing at it as the source of all evil, that's first a useless rhetorical wank and second it ascribes far more power to political parties than they actually have or can ever sustain.
> 
> What I'm saying is -- grow up already. Try to post on something higher than a third grade thought level.
Click to expand...


Seems I'm posting 2 grades higher than your bullshit! But I must admit, you rants are entertaining!


----------



## alan1

Pogo said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> European soccer fans throw bananas at black soccer players
> 
> Racism is not restricted to our borders
> 
> 
> 
> Bananas are from the tropics and South America, not from Africa.
> Black people are from Africa, not South America.
> What is the connection?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  Africa doesn't have tropics?
> 
> Bananas were brought to the Americas by Portuguese traders --- *from West Africa*.  They're grown all over the world, having probably developed in Indomalaya.  My friends in New Orleans grow them.
Click to expand...

Imported into Africa from Southeast Asia around 400 CE.  So technically, would it would be more racist to throw bananas at Asians?


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> If depicting a black person in a racist way by exaggerating their physical characteristics was not out of bounds for you liberals when they did it to Condoleeza Rice, it's not out of bounds for someone to do it to the Obamas.  So quit your whining.



I take it "SJ" stands for "Strawman Jobber".


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let the people decide once they have ALL the information!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's no "up in the air decision" to be made. The modern Democratic Party is no friend to the KKK.
> 
> The modern Democratic party pushes for things like affirmative action, and open borders, and generally has many more representatives of color than the Republicans. I'm not saying the Republicans "welcome" KKK members - by any means - I'm just saying (using common sense and logic) that the Democratic party is not going to be supported by the KKK for some extremely glaring reasons.
> 
> Can you at least admit this?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But this man, up until his death a few years ago was your Democratic parties DEAN....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]
Click to expand...


If whoever did that photoshop had done his homework, he wouldn't have put stars and bars on a man from _West Virginia_ -- which split off from Virginia (and hence the Confederacy) specifically in objection to the slave status of the latter.



But we've already established that history for you is like smallpox; you're pre-inoculated against it.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KevinWestern said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's no "up in the air decision" to be made. The modern Democratic Party is no friend to the KKK.
> 
> The modern Democratic party pushes for things like affirmative action, and open borders, and generally has many more representatives of color than the Republicans. I'm not saying the Republicans "welcome" KKK members - by any means - I'm just saying (using common sense and logic) that the Democratic party is not going to be supported by the KKK for some extremely glaring reasons.
> 
> Can you at least admit this?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But this man, up until his death a few years ago was your Democratic parties DEAN....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If whoever did that photoshop had done his homework, he wouldn't have put stars and bars on a man from _West Virginia_ -- which split off from Virginia (and hence the Confederacy) specifically in objection to the slave status of the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> But we've already established that history for you is like smallpox; you're pre-inoculated against it.
Click to expand...


But a WV KKK member would have supposedly had allegiance to the Confederacy! And your denying that Byrd held the title of Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940's?


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this man, up until his death a few years ago was your Democratic parties DEAN....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whoever did that photoshop had done his homework, he wouldn't have put stars and bars on a man from _West Virginia_ -- which split off from Virginia (and hence the Confederacy) specifically in objection to the slave status of the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> But we've already established that history for you is like smallpox; you're pre-inoculated against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But a WV KKK member would have supposedly had allegiance to the Confederacy!
Click to expand...


What are you, wearing some kind of special anti-history suit right now, treated with new LogicOff®?
Why would a citizen of West Virginia -- _which is by definition a rejection of the Confederacy_ -- be wearing the flag of the country they deliberately seceded from? 

Are you wearing a Union Jack right now?  Screwball.

Did Edward Jackson wear a Stars & Bars because he was Klan?  Warren Harding?



Vigilante said:


> And your denying that Byrd held the title of Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940's?



I don't know what the fuck Byrd did in the 1940s; I wasn't even alive then.  So where exactly do you read "denial"?  Quite a stretch since you don't seem to be able to read anything else...


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If whoever did that photoshop had done his homework, he wouldn't have put stars and bars on a man from _West Virginia_ -- which split off from Virginia (and hence the Confederacy) specifically in objection to the slave status of the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> But we've already established that history for you is like smallpox; you're pre-inoculated against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But a WV KKK member would have supposedly had allegiance to the Confederacy!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you, wearing some kind of special anti-history suit right now, treated with new LogicOff®?
> Why would a citizen of West Virginia -- _which is by definition a rejection of the Confederacy_ -- be wearing the flag of the country they deliberately seceded from?
> 
> Are you wearing a Union Jack right now? Screwball.
> 
> Did Edward Jackson wear a Stars & Bars because he was Klan? Warren Harding?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your denying that Byrd held the title of Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what the fuck Byrd did in the 1940s; I wasn't even alive then. So where exactly do you read "denial"? Quite a stretch since you don't seem to be able to read anything else...
Click to expand...


Your lack of knowledge of history is certainly amazing. There were Confederate sympathizers all over the Union, and since the KKK in WV, was firmly against the union because of the slave issue, they would have the Confederate flag as an emblem. Were either Jackson or Harding members of the KK as Byrd was...Bird brain? 

 As I stated, your LACK OF KNOWLEDGE about Byrd's history, makes you one


----------



## rightwinger

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> But this man, up until his death a few years ago was your Democratic parties DEAN....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/IMG]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If whoever did that photoshop had done his homework, he wouldn't have put stars and bars on a man from _West Virginia_ -- which split off from Virginia (and hence the Confederacy) specifically in objection to the slave status of the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> But we've already established that history for you is like smallpox; you're pre-inoculated against it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But a WV KKK member would have supposedly had allegiance to the Confederacy! And your denying that Byrd held the title of Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940's?
Click to expand...


You can condemn Byrd as do I for his membership in the Klan in the 1940s.  But you can't condemn his voting record as a Senator for 30 years which did not reflect racism


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> But a WV KKK member would have supposedly had allegiance to the Confederacy!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you, wearing some kind of special anti-history suit right now, treated with new LogicOff®?
> Why would a citizen of West Virginia -- _which is by definition a rejection of the Confederacy_ -- be wearing the flag of the country they deliberately seceded from?
> 
> Are you wearing a Union Jack right now? Screwball.
> 
> Did Edward Jackson wear a Stars & Bars because he was Klan? Warren Harding?
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> And your denying that Byrd held the title of Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know what the fuck Byrd did in the 1940s; I wasn't even alive then. So where exactly do you read "denial"? Quite a stretch since you don't seem to be able to read anything else...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your lack of knowledge of history is certainly amazing. There were Confederate sympathizers all over the Union, and since the KKK in WV, was firmly against the union because of the slave issue, they would have the Confederate flag as an emblem. Were either Jackson or Harding members of the KK as Byrd was...Bird brain?
Click to expand...


Of course, that's why I mention them ... duh.  And they were from Indiana and Ohio.  So where's their flag?

All we're talking about here is how sloppy the Photoshop is.  We already know it _is_ a Photoshop, which is apparently the kind of counterfeit history you trade in.



Vigilante said:


> As I stated, your LACK OF KNOWLEDGE about Byrd's history, makes you one



I'm not the one stupid enough to post a Photoshop of a West Virginian with a Stars & Bars on it, am I?

Tissue?


----------



## Pogo

rightwinger said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If whoever did that photoshop had done his homework, he wouldn't have put stars and bars on a man from _West Virginia_ -- which split off from Virginia (and hence the Confederacy) specifically in objection to the slave status of the latter.
> 
> 
> 
> But we've already established that history for you is like smallpox; you're pre-inoculated against it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But a WV KKK member would have supposedly had allegiance to the Confederacy! And your denying that Byrd held the title of Exalted Cyclops in the Ku Klux Klan in the 1940's?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can condemn Byrd as do I for his membership in the Klan in the 1940s.  But you can't condemn his voting record as a Senator for 30 years which did not reflect racism
Click to expand...


From the site Vagina-boy linked with his Photoshop:
>> Im not sure whats more amusing: the 23-year gap on your proof of lifelong racism, or the fact that the thing after the gap is, Democrat votes against Republican nominee for Supreme Court.

By this logic, every Senate Republican who voted against Sotomayor is a Latino-hating racist. And every Senate Republican who voted against Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and now Kagan is a sexist woman-hater.

Seriously? Its okay to dislike a Democratic senatorI have no reason to love Byrdbut it looks bad when you allow those political biases to drive the analysis off a cliff in search of a rhetorical cheap shot.

Suggestion: if the fact [sic] fail to support the argument, then the argument may be flawed. <<


----------



## Flopper

BDBoop said:


> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
Click to expand...


Blacks have been depicted as monkey and apes for over a hundred years. Dehumanization has always been an important tool of racists.


----------



## Flopper

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the photo is racist (as is the one of Bush chimp), and the nature of such informs people do not let their children associate with the children of those who publish and or relish such photos.  One simply does not associate with such folks; Mother would not let us play with the children of known or suspected Klan members.
> 
> The photo, however, is political and thus protected by free speech rules, as it should be.  The principle helps separate the wheat from the tares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
Click to expand...

Bush is depicted as an ape to make a statement about his intelligence.  Obama is depicted as ape to make a statement about his humanity; that is to remind people that blacks are just apes.


----------



## S.J.

Flopper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the photo is racist (as is the one of Bush chimp), and the nature of such informs people do not let their children associate with the children of those who publish and or relish such photos.  One simply does not associate with such folks; Mother would not let us play with the children of known or suspected Klan members.
> 
> The photo, however, is political and thus protected by free speech rules, as it should be.  The principle helps separate the wheat from the tares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush is depicted as an ape to make a statement about his intelligence.  *Obama is depicted as ape to make a statement about his humanity; that is to remind people that blacks are just apes.*
Click to expand...

That's how you interpret it because that's how you think of them.


----------



## Flopper

S.J. said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> 
> 
> Bush is depicted as an ape to make a statement about his intelligence.  *Obama is depicted as ape to make a statement about his humanity; that is to remind people that blacks are just apes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's how you interpret it because that's how you think of them.
Click to expand...

Nope.

Ever since I can remember, Backs have been depicted as apes to convince people that blacks are not really human. This supports the theory which was popular in the early 20th century that blacks, not whites were descendants of apes.  Once you dehumanize people, denying basic human right is an easy step. It's been done with the Chinese, Japanese, Blacks, and Jews.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> 
> 
> Bush is depicted as an ape to make a statement about his intelligence.  *Obama is depicted as ape to make a statement about his humanity; that is to remind people that blacks are just apes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's how you interpret it because that's how you think of them.
Click to expand...


Once again, life on Planet Moron where to_ use_ a racial stereotype isn't racism, but to _understand what a racial stereotype is_, IS racism.  A racist's paradise where ignorance is status.

That's almost as stupid as claiming the demographics of a news channel are "racist" because they show white people are watching.

Oh wait - forgot whose post I was reading. 
Fucking wacko.


----------



## S.J.

Funny how the liberals keep referring to black people as looking like apes.  And they say conservatives are the racists.  Maybe that's why they always defend and make excuses for their Exalted Cyclops Senator, Bob Byrd.  Dems created the KKK and continued their support by making one of them their leader in the Senate.


----------



## JakeStarkey

S.J. said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> 
> 
> Bush is depicted as an ape to make a statement about his intelligence.  *Obama is depicted as ape to make a statement about his humanity; that is to remind people that blacks are just apes.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's how you interpret it because that's how you think of them.
Click to expand...


Flopper accurately interprets how S.J. and his ilk think of blacks.


----------



## Vigilante

Perhaps if black Democratic politicians didn't advertise their unbelievable stupidity, it would help in many peoples perception of them being dumb as a chimp!

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cesSRfXqS1Q]Guam will Capsize and Tip Over into the ocean Hank Johnson - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Funny how the liberals keep referring to black people as looking like apes.  And they say conservatives are the racists.  Maybe that's why they always defend and make excuses for their Exalted Cyclops Senator, Bob Byrd.  Dems created the KKK and continued their support by making one of them their leader in the Senate.



Once again, Stupid...
The KKK was founded by a half-dozen Confederate ex-soldiers after the war in 1865.  It's never had an affiliation with any political party.  And you've been told this a dozen times.  

But then you're the same moron who thinks the demographics of a TV channel are "racist" because they show white people so clearly you ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the liberals keep referring to black people as looking like apes. And they say conservatives are the racists. Maybe that's why they always defend and make excuses for their Exalted Cyclops Senator, Bob Byrd. Dems created the KKK and continued their support by making one of them their leader in the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Stupid...
> The KKK was founded by a half-dozen Confederate ex-soldiers after the war in 1865. It's never had an affiliation with any political party. And you've been told this a dozen times.
> 
> But then you're the same moron who thinks the demographics of a TV channel are "racist" because they show white people so clearly you ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Click to expand...


Have a Republican politician, of any stature, that was a member of the KKK?


----------



## S.J.

They twist, they turn, they struggle in every way possible to pin the KKK on the Republicans but they can't escape history and facts.  The KKK was formed to intimidate Republicans, and the Democrats made the KKK's most famous member their Senatorial leader.  Accept it and own it, libs.


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the liberals keep referring to black people as looking like apes. And they say conservatives are the racists. Maybe that's why they always defend and make excuses for their Exalted Cyclops Senator, Bob Byrd. Dems created the KKK and continued their support by making one of them their leader in the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Stupid...
> The KKK was founded by a half-dozen Confederate ex-soldiers after the war in 1865. It's never had an affiliation with any political party. And you've been told this a dozen times.
> 
> But then you're the same moron who thinks the demographics of a TV channel are "racist" because they show white people so clearly you ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have a Republican politician, of any stature, that was a member of the KKK?
Click to expand...


The memory is the second thing to go.... didn't I just mention Edward Jackson?

Ever heard of David Duke?

Still, these are politicians who happen to be KKK; they might also be Presbyterians or lefthanded or Norwegian/Italian; that doesn't make the KKK founded by Presbyterians or lefthanders or Norwegian/Italians.  Or Republicans.

This is sailing right over your head, isn't it....


----------



## S.J.

David Duke was rebuked by the GOP.  Robert Byrd was embraced by the DNC.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> David Duke was rebuked by the GOP.  Robert Byrd was embraced by the DNC.



Links? 

No?

You simplistic childish morons ascribing personal behaviour to political parties embarrass yourselves.  Stupidity gone wild.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, Stupid...
> The KKK was founded by a half-dozen Confederate ex-soldiers after the war in 1865. It's never had an affiliation with any political party. And you've been told this a dozen times.
> 
> But then you're the same moron who thinks the demographics of a TV channel are "racist" because they show white people so clearly you ain't the sharpest knife in the drawer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have a Republican politician, of any stature, that was a member of the KKK?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The memory is the second thing to go.... didn't I just mention Edward Jackson?
> 
> Ever heard of David Duke?
> 
> Still, these are politicians who happen to be KKK; they might also be Presbyterians or lefthanded or Norwegian/Italian; that doesn't make the KKK founded by Presbyterians or lefthanders or Norwegian/Italians. Or Republicans.
> 
> This is sailing right over your head, isn't it....
Click to expand...


Hmmm....Jackson, left being gov. of Indiana in 1929, never heard from again after that...Byrd in 1946 or 1947, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."....He died IN OFFICE in 2010.... Point made! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#cite_note-20


----------



## S.J.

One would think the Democratic Party would have declined to make Byrd their leader in the Senate (for obvious reasons) but they kept voting for him over and over until he died.  They are proud racists, indeed.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> One would think the Democratic Party would have declined to make Byrd their leader in the Senate (for obvious reasons) but they kept voting for him over and over until he died.  They are proud racists, indeed.



So.... no links.  Didn't think so.


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Have a Republican politician, of any stature, that was a member of the KKK?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The memory is the second thing to go.... didn't I just mention Edward Jackson?
> 
> Ever heard of David Duke?
> 
> Still, these are politicians who happen to be KKK; they might also be Presbyterians or lefthanded or Norwegian/Italian; that doesn't make the KKK founded by Presbyterians or lefthanders or Norwegian/Italians. Or Republicans.
> 
> This is sailing right over your head, isn't it....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hmmm....Jackson, left being gov. of Indiana in 1929, never heard from again after that...Byrd in 1946 or 1947, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."....He died IN OFFICE in 2010.... Point made! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Byrd#cite_note-20
Click to expand...


1940s... and he ran for office when?

What exactly is the point you're going for here?  First you claim a political party invented the KKK, I shot that down.  Then you asked for Republican KKK, I gave you two (who unlike Byrd were Klan _contemporary_ with being in office, not decades later).  Neither of those parties invented the KKK.

What have we learned?


----------



## S.J.

I love how the libs try to deny their roots.  Or their support for the infamous Robert Byrd.


----------



## Mertex

DriftingSand said:


> The only way the pics could be seen as "racist" is if certain folks secretly harbor a sense that blacks are somehow more related to chimps than humans. So the real "racists" are the first ones who reached that conclusion and raised the battle cry.  Are they decrying their own sense of guilt?
> 
> Were anyone called racists when George Bush was depicted as a chimp?
> 
> Is this a racist photo?:



No, it is just ignorant, just like the pictures of Obama and Michelle as apes....some people are really stupid and the only way they can express themselves is through putting others down.


----------



## Mertex

S.J. said:


> I love how the libs try to deny their roots.  Or their support for the infamous Robert Byrd.



You seem to have no problem supporting Strum Thurmond....


----------



## S.J.

Mertex said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how the libs try to deny their roots.  Or their support for the infamous Robert Byrd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have no problem supporting Strum Thurmond....
Click to expand...

And when, exactly, did I support "Strum" Thurmond?  Sounds like a guitar player.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The memory is the second thing to go.... didn't I just mention Edward Jackson?
> 
> Ever heard of David Duke?
> 
> Still, these are politicians who happen to be KKK; they might also be Presbyterians or lefthanded or Norwegian/Italian; that doesn't make the KKK founded by Presbyterians or lefthanders or Norwegian/Italians. Or Republicans.
> 
> This is sailing right over your head, isn't it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm....Jackson, left being gov. of Indiana in 1929, never heard from again after that...Byrd in 1946 or 1947, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."....He died IN OFFICE in 2010.... Point made!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1940s... and he ran for office when?
> 
> What exactly is the point you're going for here? First you claim a political party invented the KKK, I shot that down. Then you asked for Republican KKK, I gave you two. Neither of those parties invented the KKK.
> 
> What have we learned?
Click to expand...


I've learned you LIE, have no conception of what is perported as the truth as presented by the LIBERAL PBS, and you're a moron! BTW, Byrd was elected in 1953! 

 "At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government,* Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.

 The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. *Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.

Rise of the Ku Klux Klan . U.S. Grant: Warrior . WGBH American Experience | PBS

 Now , please fade away, or do you contend that LIBERAL PBS doesn't know what it's writing?


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> I love how the libs try to deny their roots.  Or their support for the infamous Robert Byrd.



Classic Biased Sample fallacy.  Fallacies are the only way the mentally deficient can debate.

By this logic, all Republicans are Klan (because of Jackson and Duke); all Republicans are racists (ditto), all Republicans are pedophiles (Mark Foley); all Republicans are pervs who pay high-priced hookers to dress them in diapers (David Vitter); all Republicans solicit gay sex in public bathrooms (Larry Craig); all Republicans are election-fixing crooks (Richard Nixon), all Republicans are drunks (Joe McCarthy), drunk drivers (Mike Crapo), sex blackmailers (John Ensign), and I'm sure we could go on all night.

That's why it's a fallacy.


----------



## S.J.

And the twisting, turning, and struggling continues.  I haven't heard one liberal condemn Byrd yet.  I've heard them make a lot of excuses for him but not one condemnation.


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmmm....Jackson, left being gov. of Indiana in 1929, never heard from again after that...Byrd in 1946 or 1947, Byrd wrote a letter to a Grand Wizard stating, "The Klan is needed today as never before, and I am anxious to see its rebirth here in West Virginia and in every state in the nation."....He died IN OFFICE in 2010.... Point made!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1940s... and he ran for office when?
> 
> What exactly is the point you're going for here? First you claim a political party invented the KKK, I shot that down. Then you asked for Republican KKK, I gave you two. Neither of those parties invented the KKK.
> 
> What have we learned?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've learned you LIE, have no conception of what is perported as the truth as presented by the LIBERAL PBS, and you're a moron! BTW, Byrd was elected in 1953!
> 
> "At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government,* Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.
> 
> The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. *Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.
> 
> Rise of the Ku Klux Klan . U.S. Grant: Warrior . WGBH American Experience | PBS
> 
> Now , please fade away, or do you contend that LIBERAL PBS doesn't know what it's writing?
Click to expand...


If you quoted them accurately then apparently not, because the historical fact is the KKK was founded by veteran soldiers, not politicians, on 25 December 1865.  Like it or lump it.

Actually your own quote already puts it out: "Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers".  Which is what I just said, except they leave out that the founders WERE soldiers.

DUH.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1940s... and he ran for office when?
> 
> What exactly is the point you're going for here? First you claim a political party invented the KKK, I shot that down. Then you asked for Republican KKK, I gave you two. Neither of those parties invented the KKK.
> 
> What have we learned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've learned you LIE, have no conception of what is perported as the truth as presented by the LIBERAL PBS, and you're a moron! BTW, Byrd was elected in 1953!
> 
> "At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government,* Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.
> 
> The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. *Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.
> 
> Rise of the Ku Klux Klan . U.S. Grant: Warrior . WGBH American Experience | PBS
> 
> Now , please fade away, or do you contend that LIBERAL PBS doesn't know what it's writing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you quoted them accurately then apparently not, because the historical fact is the KKK was founded by veteran soldiers, not politicians, on 25 December 1865. Like it or lump it.
Click to expand...


Apparently WITHOUT HIGHLIGHTING, you're completely BLIND, besides being stupid!

*Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.*

 From the above PBS article! Now SPIN THAT!


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1940s... and he ran for office when?
> 
> What exactly is the point you're going for here? First you claim a political party invented the KKK, I shot that down. Then you asked for Republican KKK, I gave you two. Neither of those parties invented the KKK.
> 
> What have we learned?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've learned you LIE, have no conception of what is perported as the truth as presented by the LIBERAL PBS, and you're a moron! BTW, Byrd was elected in 1953!
> 
> "At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government,* Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.
> 
> The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. *Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.
> 
> Rise of the Ku Klux Klan . U.S. Grant: Warrior . WGBH American Experience | PBS
> 
> Now , please fade away, or do you contend that LIBERAL PBS doesn't know what it's writing?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you quoted them accurately then apparently not, because the historical fact is the KKK was founded by veteran soldiers, not politicians, on 25 December 1865. Like it or lump it.
> 
> Actually your own quote already puts it out: "Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers". Which is what I just said, except they leave out that the founders WERE soldiers.
> 
> DUH.
Click to expand...


I like the quick EDIT that you didn't get done in time to cover your ass! 

 Oh, and where did they leave out that the Confederate soldiers WERE soldiers????? You are MY ENTERTAINMENT!


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've learned you LIE, have no conception of what is perported as the truth as presented by the LIBERAL PBS, and you're a moron! BTW, Byrd was elected in 1953!
> 
> "At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government,* Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.
> 
> The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. *Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.
> 
> Rise of the Ku Klux Klan . U.S. Grant: Warrior . WGBH American Experience | PBS
> 
> Now , please fade away, or do you contend that LIBERAL PBS doesn't know what it's writing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you quoted them accurately then apparently not, because the historical fact is the KKK was founded by veteran soldiers, not politicians, on 25 December 1865. Like it or lump it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently WITHOUT HIGHLIGHTING, you're completely BLIND, besides being stupid!
> 
> *Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.*
> 
> From the above PBS article! Now SPIN THAT!
Click to expand...


And where in any of that do you see the KKK founded by a political party?

Where?

That _was _the original point, dumbass...


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you quoted them accurately then apparently not, because the historical fact is the KKK was founded by veteran soldiers, not politicians, on 25 December 1865. Like it or lump it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently WITHOUT HIGHLIGHTING, you're completely BLIND, besides being stupid!
> 
> *Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.*
> 
> From the above PBS article! Now SPIN THAT!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And where in any of that do you see the KKK founded by a political party?
> 
> Where?
> 
> That _was _the original point, dumbass...
Click to expand...


Shit for brains..."*help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans".... Now who else was there to do that EXCEPT the Democrats....the Bull Moose party, The Whigs? .... MORE SPIN....PLEASE!!!!*


----------



## Mertex

S.J. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I love how the libs try to deny their roots.  Or their support for the infamous Robert Byrd.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have no problem supporting Strum Thurmond....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And when, exactly, did I support "Strum" Thurmond?  Sounds like a guitar player.
Click to expand...


Well, obviously you don't know...he was a big racist Democrat who became a Republican, and Republicans welcomed him with open arms......so, it makes you look foolish when you point your finger at Byrd.....you also welcomed Jesse Helms.....another big racist.


----------



## S.J.

The KKK was started to intimidate Republicans, and the Democratic Party defended them, much in the same way the liberals on this site defend Robert Byrd.


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently WITHOUT HIGHLIGHTING, you're completely BLIND, besides being stupid!
> 
> *Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.*
> 
> From the above PBS article! Now SPIN THAT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where in any of that do you see the KKK founded by a political party?
> 
> Where?
> 
> That _was _the original point, dumbass...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit for brains..."help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans".... Now who else was there to do that EXCEPT the Democrats....the Bull Moose party, The Whigs? .... MORE SPIN....PLEASE!!!!
Click to expand...


The Klan, moron.  That's what we're talking about.

You don't need a political organization to commit terrorism.  You don't need a political party to stir up hate against blacks, Jews, Catholics and loose women, which is what the Klan stood for.  That's why it called itself a "social" organization.

Matter of fact the DP put the first Jewish Senator in office... twenty years _before_ the Klan was even formed by them soldiers (David Levy Yulee, 1845) and would nominate the first Catholic for President (Al Smith, 1928), a move that was bitterly opposed by the KKK. 

Now why would a political organization go around shooting its own agenda in the foot?  Isn't really adding up, is it?


----------



## Pogo

Mertex said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have no problem supporting Strum Thurmond....
> 
> 
> 
> And when, exactly, did I support "Strum" Thurmond?  Sounds like a guitar player.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, obviously you don't know...he was a big racist Democrat who became a Republican, and Republicans welcomed him with open arms......so, it makes you look foolish when you point your finger at Byrd.....you also welcomed Jesse Helms.....another big racist.
Click to expand...


Trent Lott too.  And Richard Shelby.  That's what prior posts are talking about describing them as 'conservatives'.  These armchair wags see their Fox Noise equate "Liberal" with "Democrat" and think that not only is that true, but it's _always _been true, and everywhere.  Childlike thinking.  History is truly a lost art.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where in any of that do you see the KKK founded by a political party?
> 
> Where?
> 
> That _was _the original point, dumbass...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shit for brains..."help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans".... Now who else was there to do that EXCEPT the Democrats....the Bull Moose party, The Whigs? .... MORE SPIN....PLEASE!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Klan, moron. That's what we're talking about.
> 
> You don't need a political organization to commit terrorism. You don't need a political party to stir up hate against blacks, Jews, Catholics and loose women, which is what the Klan stood for. That's why it called itself a "social" organization.
> 
> Matter of fact the DP put the first Jewish Senator in office... twenty years _before_ the Klan was even formed by them soldiers (David Levy Yulee, 1845) and would nominate the first Catholic for President (Al Smith, 1928), a move that was bitterly opposed by the KKK.
> 
> Now why would a political organization go around shooting its own agenda in the foot? Isn't really adding up, is it?
Click to expand...


The KLAN WAS SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS! Why do you find it so hard in recognizing that? Even PBS recognizes that! Who cares about the other diversions you try to cover the facts with, just like a good subversive, LOOK OVER THERE AT THE SHINY OBJECT!!!!


----------



## S.J.

Mertex said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have no problem supporting Strum Thurmond....
> 
> 
> 
> And when, exactly, did I support "Strum" Thurmond?  Sounds like a guitar player.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, obviously you don't know...he was a big racist Democrat who became a Republican, and Republicans welcomed him with open arms......so, it makes you look foolish when you point your finger at Byrd.....you also welcomed Jesse Helms.....another big racist.
Click to expand...

Give up, Mertex, it's "StrOm Thurmond", not "Strum".  I was making fun of you but you're too stupid to catch it.  Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat, and you need to make your case for Jesse Helms being a racist.  As far as I know, he never made statements proclaiming that blacks were mongrels, like Byrd did.  The point is I never defended Thurmond or Helms.  You libs, on the other hand, have defended Byrd repeatedly on this board.


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit for brains..."help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans".... Now who else was there to do that EXCEPT the Democrats....the Bull Moose party, The Whigs? .... MORE SPIN....PLEASE!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan, moron. That's what we're talking about.
> 
> You don't need a political organization to commit terrorism. You don't need a political party to stir up hate against blacks, Jews, Catholics and loose women, which is what the Klan stood for. That's why it called itself a "social" organization.
> 
> Matter of fact the DP put the first Jewish Senator in office... twenty years _before_ the Klan was even formed by them soldiers (David Levy Yulee, 1845) and would nominate the first Catholic for President (Al Smith, 1928), a move that was bitterly opposed by the KKK.
> 
> Now why would a political organization go around shooting its own agenda in the foot? Isn't really adding up, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The KLAN WAS SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS! Why do you find it so hard in recognizing that? Even PBS recognizes that! Who cares about the other diversions you try to cover the facts with, just like a good subversive, LOOK OVER THERE AT THE SHINY OBJECT!!!!
Click to expand...


Not everybody is political, dumbshit.  Nor is that what your PBS page says.  You didn't need to be political or belong to a party at all to be in the Klan.  *Because it's not a political organization*.

What you're trying to do is a classic fallacy.  You're pointing to a bag of lemons sitting next to a sack of potatoes and then claiming lemons are potatoes.


----------



## S.J.

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Shit for brains..."help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans".... Now who else was there to do that EXCEPT the Democrats....the Bull Moose party, The Whigs? .... MORE SPIN....PLEASE!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan, moron. That's what we're talking about.
> 
> You don't need a political organization to commit terrorism. You don't need a political party to stir up hate against blacks, Jews, Catholics and loose women, which is what the Klan stood for. That's why it called itself a "social" organization.
> 
> Matter of fact the DP put the first Jewish Senator in office... twenty years _before_ the Klan was even formed by them soldiers (David Levy Yulee, 1845) and would nominate the first Catholic for President (Al Smith, 1928), a move that was bitterly opposed by the KKK.
> 
> Now why would a political organization go around shooting its own agenda in the foot? Isn't really adding up, is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The KLAN WAS SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS! Why do you find it so hard in recognizing that? Even PBS recognizes that! Who cares about the other diversions you try to cover the facts with, just like a good subversive, LOOK OVER THERE AT THE SHINY OBJECT!!!!
Click to expand...

He recognizes it, he just can't admit it.  That would make him wrong, and he can't stand being wrong, even though he's wrong all the time.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan, moron. That's what we're talking about.
> 
> You don't need a political organization to commit terrorism. You don't need a political party to stir up hate against blacks, Jews, Catholics and loose women, which is what the Klan stood for. That's why it called itself a "social" organization.
> 
> Matter of fact the DP put the first Jewish Senator in office... twenty years _before_ the Klan was even formed by them soldiers (David Levy Yulee, 1845) and would nominate the first Catholic for President (Al Smith, 1928), a move that was bitterly opposed by the KKK.
> 
> 
> Now why would a political organization go around shooting its own agenda in the foot? Isn't really adding up, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KLAN WAS SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS! Why do you find it so hard in recognizing that? Even PBS recognizes that! Who cares about the other diversions you try to cover the facts with, just like a good subversive, LOOK OVER THERE AT THE SHINY OBJECT!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not everybody is political, dumbshit. Nor is that what your PBS page says. You didn't need to be political or belong to a party at all to be in the Klan. *Because it's not a political organization*.
> 
> What you're trying to do is a classic fallacy. You're pointing to a bag of lemons sitting next to a sack of potatoes and then claiming lemons are potatoes.
Click to expand...


Of course it wasn't it only *TARGETED BLACKS AND SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS!!!!!* Damn, how stupid do you think people are who read your trash?


----------



## Vigilante

S.J. said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Klan, moron. That's what we're talking about.
> 
> You don't need a political organization to commit terrorism. You don't need a political party to stir up hate against blacks, Jews, Catholics and loose women, which is what the Klan stood for. That's why it called itself a "social" organization.
> 
> Matter of fact the DP put the first Jewish Senator in office... twenty years _before_ the Klan was even formed by them soldiers (David Levy Yulee, 1845) and would nominate the first Catholic for President (Al Smith, 1928), a move that was bitterly opposed by the KKK.
> 
> Now why would a political organization go around shooting its own agenda in the foot? Isn't really adding up, is it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KLAN WAS SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS! Why do you find it so hard in recognizing that? Even PBS recognizes that! Who cares about the other diversions you try to cover the facts with, just like a good subversive, LOOK OVER THERE AT THE SHINY OBJECT!!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He recognizes it, he just can't admit it. That would make him wrong, and he can't stand being wrong, even though he's wrong all the time.
Click to expand...


 This is so much fun, I might have to spend another hour here watching him squirm!!!  You know his !!!!!!


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And when, exactly, did I support "Strum" Thurmond?  Sounds like a guitar player.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, obviously you don't know...he was a big racist Democrat who became a Republican, and Republicans welcomed him with open arms......so, it makes you look foolish when you point your finger at Byrd.....you also welcomed Jesse Helms.....another big racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Give up, Mertex, it's "StrOm Thurmond", not "Strum".  I was making fun of you but you're too stupid to catch it.  Strom Thurmond was a Dixiecrat, and you need to make your case for Jesse Helms being a racist.  As far as I know, he never made statements proclaiming that blacks were mongrels, like Byrd did.  The point is I never defended Thurmond or Helms.  You libs, on the other hand, have defended Byrd repeatedly on this board.
Click to expand...


Again -- link?

Want to explain what a Dixiecrat is?  Never mind, you're incompetent so I'll take it.  Thurmond and other Southerners walked out of the 1948 Democratic convention because of its platform on civil rights, which they weren't having.  They formed their own party (officially called the "States Rights Democratic Party"and ran Thurmond as a candidate.  He actually won four states, all in the South, including Mississippi, which is what Trent Lott was referring to at Thurmond's birthday party where he said "we voted for him and if the rest of this country followed our lead we wouldn'ta had all these problems".

Once again (see Yulee and Smith above) there seems to be a political party alleged to have formed the Klan, working directly against the interests of that group.

'Splain that.

Oh and 1948 would be a few years after Byrd left the Klan and before he ran for office.  Just for temporal perspective.


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KLAN WAS SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS! Why do you find it so hard in recognizing that? Even PBS recognizes that! Who cares about the other diversions you try to cover the facts with, just like a good subversive, LOOK OVER THERE AT THE SHINY OBJECT!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not everybody is political, dumbshit. Nor is that what your PBS page says. You didn't need to be political or belong to a party at all to be in the Klan. *Because it's not a political organization*.
> 
> What you're trying to do is a classic fallacy. You're pointing to a bag of lemons sitting next to a sack of potatoes and then claiming lemons are potatoes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it wasn't it only *TARGETED BLACKS AND SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS!!!!!* Damn, how stupid do you think people are who read your trash?
Click to expand...


And Catholics, and Jews, and "unvirtuous" women, and anyone who wasn't a practicing Protestant Christian.
Is there some reason you're leaving all that out?  Is it the inconvenience?  

Oh wait, I get it... you need the Klan to be political, and Jews and Catholics and virtuous women and Christianity don't help that argument.

Now why would a political party persecute Catholics, Jews and women?  Particularly when that same party is the one nominating, and getting the votes of, Catholics, Jews and women?


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not everybody is political, dumbshit. Nor is that what your PBS page says. You didn't need to be political or belong to a party at all to be in the Klan. *Because it's not a political organization*.
> 
> What you're trying to do is a classic fallacy. You're pointing to a bag of lemons sitting next to a sack of potatoes and then claiming lemons are potatoes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it wasn't it only *TARGETED BLACKS AND SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS!!!!!* Damn, how stupid do you think people are who read your trash?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And Catholics, and Jews, and "unvirtuous" women.
> Is there some reason you're leaving that out? Is it the inconvenience?
Click to expand...


NOT germane to the topic, as the DEMOCRATIC KKK TARGETED BLACKS and SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS.... try to concentrate on the fact that you denied the KKK was Democratic and PBS corrected you!


----------



## S.J.

I remember Chris (housing crisis) Dodd attacking Trent Lott for praising Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday, stating that Thurmond was a racist and should not have been praised.  Then shortly after that, Dodd was doing the exact same thing, praising Robert Byrd (KKK) on his birthday.  Can you say "hypocrite"?


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it wasn't it only *TARGETED BLACKS AND SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS!!!!!* Damn, how stupid do you think people are who read your trash?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Catholics, and Jews, and "unvirtuous" women.
> Is there some reason you're leaving that out? Is it the inconvenience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOT germane to the topic, as the DEMOCRATIC KKK TARGETED BLACKS and SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS.... try to concentrate on the fact that you denied the KKK was Democratic and PBS corrected you!
Click to expand...


The KKK wasn't Democratic (or Republican).  _It was never a political organization_.   You have utterly failed to prove that it is or was.

Why would a Democratic organization elect a Republican governor?  Or a state Congressman?  Oh that's another Democrat-turned-Republican btw (Duke).

It's "not germane" because it doesn't support your bullshit, that's why.  The fact is the Klan was a Protestant Christian social organization (sometimes called itself "fraternal") that worked on *cultural *values, not politics.  That's why it got involved in religions and public morals.  Those aren't the domain of political parties.

So you have failed to answer why a political party that you would have us believe was founded on racism, attracts Jews, Catholics and women (and more recently gays) in direct _opposition _to everything the Klan stands for.  And had gone down that road before there even was a Klan.

This is where your bullshit starts to stink and turn into a rhetorical runny goo.

Why would Duke, and Lott and Thurmond and Helms et al, leave a political party and jump to the opposition?  Because it wasn't serving their interests, that's why.  Back to 1948, Harry Truman had already desegregated the military by Executive Order before that convention, and those conservatives in the South didn't cotton to that at all and were, as usual, working against the Liberal policies of tolerance.  As they always had.  That's why they walked out.  They weren't getting what they wanted from the DP, so they ran their own renegade party and eventually bolted the party altogether, starting with Thurmond in '64.  That was no small feat in the South, which was virtually a one-party (Democratic) region -- just as it is now on the other side.  The names of the party changed; the conservative spirit under it didn't.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Catholics, and Jews, and "unvirtuous" women.
> Is there some reason you're leaving that out? Is it the inconvenience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT germane to the topic, as the DEMOCRATIC KKK TARGETED BLACKS and SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS.... try to concentrate on the fact that you denied the KKK was Democratic and PBS corrected you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The KKK wasn't Democratic (or Republican). _It was never a political organization_. You have utterly failed to prove that it is or was.
> 
> Why would a Democratic organization elect a Republican governor? Or a state Congressman? Oh that's another Democrat-turned-Republican btw (Duke).
> 
> It's "not germane" because it doesn't support your bullshit, that's why. The fact is the Klan was a Protestant Christian social organization (sometimes called itself "fraternal") that worked on *cultural *values, not politics. That's why it got involved in religions and public morals. Those aren't the domain of political parties.
> 
> So you have failed to answer why a political party that you would have us believe was founded on racism, attracts Jews, Catholics and women (and more recently gays) in direct _opposition _to everything the Klan stands for. And had gone down that road before there even was a Klan.
> 
> This is where your bullshit starts to stink and turn into a rhetorical runny goo.
Click to expand...


Does the republican party have Jews, Blacks and women? It's all about $$$$$$!!!!! Jews gave up being Jewish when they changed their religion to LIBERALISM!

So after all the bullshit, you're calling the PBS article a pack of lies.... Boy, I was born at night, but NOT last night!


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> I remember Chris (housing crisis) Dodd attacking Trent Lott for praising Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday, stating that Thurmond was a racist and should not have been praised.  Then shortly after that, Dodd was doing the exact same thing, praising Robert Byrd (KKK) on his birthday.  Can you say "hypocrite"?



I laugh when I say this but... Link?
I know, you have a lot to catch up.... nothing more persuasive than "I seem to remember..."


----------



## katsteve2012

BDBoop said:


> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
Click to expand...



Not surprising and not the first time. 

California Tea Party Activist Portrays President Obama as a Monkey | Politicus USA's Archives


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> NOT germane to the topic, as the DEMOCRATIC KKK TARGETED BLACKS and SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS.... try to concentrate on the fact that you denied the KKK was Democratic and PBS corrected you!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK wasn't Democratic (or Republican). _It was never a political organization_. You have utterly failed to prove that it is or was.
> 
> Why would a Democratic organization elect a Republican governor? Or a state Congressman? Oh that's another Democrat-turned-Republican btw (Duke).
> 
> It's "not germane" because it doesn't support your bullshit, that's why. The fact is the Klan was a Protestant Christian social organization (sometimes called itself "fraternal") that worked on *cultural *values, not politics. That's why it got involved in religions and public morals. Those aren't the domain of political parties.
> 
> So you have failed to answer why a political party that you would have us believe was founded on racism, attracts Jews, Catholics and women (and more recently gays) in direct _opposition _to everything the Klan stands for. And had gone down that road before there even was a Klan.
> 
> This is where your bullshit starts to stink and turn into a rhetorical runny goo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Does the republican party have Jews, Blacks and women? It's all about $$$$$$!!!!! Jews gave up being Jewish when they changed their religion to LIBERALISM!
> 
> So after all the bullshit, you're calling the PBS article a pack of lies.... Boy, I was born at night, but NOT last night!
Click to expand...


After three pages you have still failed to make your case.

First KKK
>> The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, *by six veterans of the Confederate Army*.[17] The name is probably derived from the Greek word kuklos (&#954;&#973;&#954;&#955;&#959;&#962 which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[18]
Although there was little organizational structure above the local level, similar groups rose across the South and adopted the same name and methods.[19] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans.

Second KKK
... In 1915, the second Klan was founded in Atlanta, Georgia. Starting in 1921, it adopted a modern business system of recruiting (which paid most of the initiation fee and costume charges as commissions to the organizers) and grew rapidly nationwide at a time of prosperity. Reflecting the social tensions of urban industrialization and vastly increased immigration, its membership grew most rapidly in cities, and spread out of the South to the Midwest and West. The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[4] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants.[21]

...Third KKK
The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by a *numerous independent local groups* opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[25] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. << (Wiki)

--- none of which name a political party as a founder, funder or supporter.

Hmm... that didn't go well, did it?  Let's try another source.

>> The *six Confederate army veterans credited with originating the Ku Klux Klan* on Christmas Eve of 1865 in Pulaski, Tenn. are not memorialized in current klan literature.  ... The organization to which modern klansmen pay homage was the Ku Klux Klan headed by Nathan Bedford Forrest, which officially operated in at least nine Southern states from 1867 to 1869 and unofficially for some years thereafter.

The conversion of klan purposes from amusement to terrorism had already been demonstrated by the time representatives of the local klan "dens" held a unifying convention in Nashville, Tenn., in 1867 and elected former Confederate Army General Forrest as their grand wizard. << _-- The Present Day Ku Klux Klan Movement, Report by the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, First Session, December 11, 1967_

Damn.  No political party there either.  Two strikes, try again...

>> About the Ku Klux Klan
The Ku Klux Klan is a racist, anti-Semitic movement with a commitment to extreme violence to achieve its goals of racial segregation and white supremacy. 
... At first, the Ku Klux Klan focused its anger and violence on African-Americans, on white Americans who stood up for them, and against the federal government which supported their rights. Subsequent incarnations of the Klan, which typically emerged in times of rapid social change, added more categories to its enemies list, including Jews, Catholics (less so after the 1970s), homosexuals, and different groups of immigrants. 

*Founder: Confederate Civil War veterans* Captain John C. Lester, Major James R. Crowe, John D. Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard R. Reed, Frank O. McCord << ---Extremism in America/ADL

There you go, you even have their names.  Six Confederate vets, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and the guy who revived it in 1921 with a "fraternal" organization was William Joseph Simmons.  You can read that here.  Page 5.  Shortly after where it notes, ""the Klan admitted only white, native-born, gentile, adult men who believed in Christianity, white supremacy, and "pure Americanism'".

None of whom, and none of which, comprise any political party.

Strike three.  You're out.


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember Chris (housing crisis) Dodd attacking Trent Lott for praising Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday, stating that Thurmond was a racist and should not have been praised.  Then shortly after that, Dodd was doing the exact same thing, praising Robert Byrd (KKK) on his birthday.  Can you say "hypocrite"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I laugh when I say this but... Link?
> I know, you have a lot to catch up.... nothing more persuasive than "I seem to remember..."
Click to expand...

Yeah, well, seems my memory is a lot better than your's, fuckface.  Here ya go.

Dodd Says He Regrets 'Poor Choice Of Words' - NYTimes.com


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I remember Chris (housing crisis) Dodd attacking Trent Lott for praising Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday, stating that Thurmond was a racist and should not have been praised.  Then shortly after that, Dodd was doing the exact same thing, praising Robert Byrd (KKK) on his birthday.  Can you say "hypocrite"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I laugh when I say this but... Link?
> I know, you have a lot to catch up.... nothing more persuasive than "I seem to remember..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, well, seems my memory is a lot better than your's, fuckface.  Here ya go.
> 
> Dodd Says He Regrets 'Poor Choice Of Words' - NYTimes.com
Click to expand...


Dodd regrets referencing the Civil War?  That's it??

How the fuck does that compare to wishing an outright racist would have won the Presidency?

And where's the other part?  About Thurmond?  Get back to work, you ain't done.


----------



## Pogo

This one can just stand by itself, lest it be lost in a sea of words:



Vigilante said:


> Jews gave up being Jewish when they changed their religion to LIBERALISM!


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I laugh when I say this but... Link?
> I know, you have a lot to catch up.... nothing more persuasive than "I seem to remember..."
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, seems my memory is a lot better than your's, fuckface.  Here ya go.
> 
> Dodd Says He Regrets 'Poor Choice Of Words' - NYTimes.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dodd regrets referencing the Civil War?  That's it??
> 
> How the fuck does that compare to wishing an outright racist would have won the Presidency?
> 
> And where's the other part?  About Thurmond?  *Get back to work, you ain't done.*
Click to expand...

Try reading more than just the headline.  I'll wait for your next red herring since you have no argument.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, well, seems my memory is a lot better than your's, fuckface.  Here ya go.
> 
> Dodd Says He Regrets 'Poor Choice Of Words' - NYTimes.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dodd regrets referencing the Civil War?  That's it??
> 
> How the fuck does that compare to wishing an outright racist would have won the Presidency?
> 
> And where's the other part?  About Thurmond?  *Get back to work, you ain't done.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Try reading more than just the headline.  I'll wait for your next red herring since you have no argument.
Click to expand...


So you can't do it... what a surprise.


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dodd regrets referencing the Civil War?  That's it??
> 
> How the fuck does that compare to wishing an outright racist would have won the Presidency?
> 
> And where's the other part?  About Thurmond?  *Get back to work, you ain't done.*
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading more than just the headline.  I'll wait for your next red herring since you have no argument.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you can't do it... what a surprise.
Click to expand...

Just as I thought, no argument.  Since you don't want to acknowledge it, I'll post part of it so everyone can see you're full of shit and aren't man enough to admit you were wrong.



> When senator after senator -- including Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader -- praised Mr. Byrd as a national treasure, Mr. Dodd said, ''I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment.''
> 
> He added: ''He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century.''
> 
> Conservative commentators have seized on Mr. Dodd's remarks in the last two weeks, putting pressure on the senator to offer a response. In news releases, on radio and television programs and on the Internet, some commentators compared Mr. Dodd's Civil War comments to those of Senator Trent Lott, who lost his position as majority leader in 2002 after making what many considered racially insensitive remarks at a party celebrating former Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday.
> 
> Mr. Lott, a Republican from Mississippi, said the country would have been better off if Mr. Thurmond, a South Carolina Republican who campaigned on a segregationist platform, had won the presidency in 1948. Mr. Thurmond died last June 26.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Try reading more than just the headline.  I'll wait for your next red herring since you have no argument.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't do it... what a surprise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just as I thought, no argument.  Since you don't want to acknowledge it, I'll post part of it so everyone can see you're full of shit and aren't man enough to admit you were wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When senator after senator -- including Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, and Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Republican majority leader -- praised Mr. Byrd as a national treasure, Mr. Dodd said, ''I do not think it is an exaggeration at all to say to my friend from West Virginia that he would have been a great senator at any moment.''
> 
> He added: ''He would have been right at the founding of this country. He would have been in the leadership crafting this Constitution. He would have been right during the great conflict of Civil War in this nation. He would have been right at the great moments of international threat we faced in the 20th century.''
> 
> Conservative commentators have seized on Mr. Dodd's remarks in the last two weeks, putting pressure on the senator to offer a response. In news releases, on radio and television programs and on the Internet, some commentators compared Mr. Dodd's Civil War comments to those of Senator Trent Lott, who lost his position as majority leader in 2002 after making what many considered racially insensitive remarks at a party celebrating former Senator Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday.
> 
> Mr. Lott, a Republican from Mississippi, said the country would have been better off if Mr. Thurmond, a South Carolina Republican who campaigned on a segregationist platform, had won the presidency in 1948. Mr. Thurmond died last June 26.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Idiot.  Here's the part you're still missing:


S.J. said:


> I remember C*hris (housing crisis) Dodd attacking Trent Lott for praising Strom Thurmond on his 100th birthday, stating that Thurmond was a racist and should not have been praised*.  Then shortly after that, Dodd was doing the exact same thing, praising Robert Byrd (KKK) on his birthday.  Can you say "hypocrite"?



You contrasted two different things and then claimed "hypocrisy".  I asked for a link, you linked one side and not the other.  Without both, you don't have hypocrisy.  DUH.

Speaking of shit you failed to link:


S.J. said:


> *David Duke was rebuked by the GOP.*  Robert Byrd was embraced by the DNC.



Care to explain how he managed to get not only elected to office but Republican Party Chair for his parish?

Or is that why you didn't have a link?


----------



## Indofred

BDBoop said:


> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes



Sorry, I thought this was about Adam and Eve.


----------



## Pogo

>> Although victims did include Negroes attempting to register other Negroes to vote, historians have observed that many of the persons singled out for punishment by the hooded order were men and women of white Protestant stock allegedly guilt [sic] of violating some "moral" law.  Repeated incidents are cited of the flogging of persons because they allegedly gambled, dealt in liquor, peddled dope, or deserted a spouse.

Among the more "refined" forms of intimidation practiced by the modern klan were boycotts of businesses owned by Catholics or Jews, and campaigns to oust Roman Catholic public school teachers and persons of Catholic or Jewish faiths holding elected positions.  Meanwhile, klansmen entered politics and used the labels of both major political parties to put klansmen in local sheriff and  police departments, courts, and State legislatures.  Klansmen allegedly served as Governors in three States, as attorney general for another State, in addition to obtaining seats in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives before the klan's fortunes declined in the last half of the 1920s. <<_ -- The Present Day Ku Klux Klan Movement, "The Klan As a National Operation", ibid, p. 7_

Independent search indicates these referenced above would be (Senators) Bilbo (D-MS), Watson (R-IN) and Means (R-CO); Governors Graves (D-AL), Jackson (R-IN), Morley (R-CO) and Walker (D-GA); and Rep. Gordon (D-TN 10).


----------



## Mertex

S.J. said:


> And the twisting, turning, and struggling continues.  I haven't heard one liberal condemn Byrd yet.  I've heard them make a lot of excuses for him but not one condemnation.




If Byrd had become a Republican like Thurmond did, you'd be defending him, just like Strum Thurmond is defended and revered.  You only mention Byrd because he is the only Democrat you can point to as a racist, while the Republican party has many......

So, quit acting as if you've discovered a gold mine....it just shows how ignorant some conservatives can be and how little they know of their party.

Strom Thurmond: A Tribute

Former Untied States Senator Strom Thurmond died today. He was just one hundred years old. He was a solider, a lawyer, a judge, a Governor, a Presidential candidate, and the longest-serving Senator in the entire history of the United States. He was a man of honor. He was a great man. And he was a hero.

In the days to come you will hear many obituaries for Strom and, I am certain, virtually all of them will come with a but. Yes, they will say, Senator Thurmond did this and this, but *he was also once a segregationist.* This will come from the same people in the media who praise Robert Byrd a man who, at about the same time then-Governor Thurmond was losing a Senate Primary because he appointed a black Doctor to a state medical board, was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. There will even be those who will denounce him, a warrior who gave three lifetimes worth of service to his country, ignoring the facts of his life.

*Strom Thurmond was a patriot.* More than that, he is a man who played a great role in helping to heal the country from the lingering wounds of the Civil War, and to propel it to greatness. When he was born, in December of 1902, there were still men alive who had fought with Lee at Gettysburg who were not yet fifty-five. Young Strom probably sat with many of them, and heard their stories of the lost cause, and became a Democrat. Because, in those days, every white person in the South was a Democrat.

Who ever would have thought that the white South would come to embrace the party of Lincoln? Its one of those historical oddities that, if you predicted it just a few years earlier, would have been utterly unbelievable. Yet it happened, and it happened because of him. *When, in 1964, he switched parties it was an earthquake in Southern politics. The GOP, after all, was the party of William T. Sherman, and all of the rest who had so long been reviled in the South.* But the people went with him and, in doing so, they healed many of the wounds of the long-ago war.
[url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936388/posts]Strom Thurmond: A Tribute[/URL]


In his Washington Post column, *Fox News contributor George Will downplayed the explicitly racist, segregationist presidential campaigns of Strom Thurmond* and George Wallace, referring to them as merely focused on the "burning issues" of "regional grievances relating to race" and "venting class and cultural resentments," respectfully.
George Will Whitewashes Racism From Pro-Segregation Presidential Campaigns | Blog | Media Matters for America


----------



## SAYIT

Flopper said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, the photo is racist (as is the one of Bush chimp), and the nature of such informs people do not let their children associate with the children of those who publish and or relish such photos.  One simply does not associate with such folks; Mother would not let us play with the children of known or suspected Klan members.
> 
> The photo, however, is political and thus protected by free speech rules, as it should be.  The principle helps separate the wheat from the tares.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The photo of Bush is in poor taste. The photo of Obama is racist
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bush is depicted as an ape to make a statement about his intelligence.  Obama is depicted as ape to make a statement about his humanity; that is to remind people that blacks are just apes.
Click to expand...


The truth of which is supported by the publisher in an apology. They can admit its obvious racial overtones which some here disingenuously deny. The point of their apology? That on its own the pic is "sheer racism."
"When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, *then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism*," the newspaper said.


----------



## Mertex

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently WITHOUT HIGHLIGHTING, you're completely BLIND, besides being stupid!
> 
> *Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.*
> 
> From the above PBS article! Now SPIN THAT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And where in any of that do you see the KKK founded by a political party?
> 
> Where?
> 
> That _was _the original point, dumbass...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Shit for brains..."*help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans".... Now who else was there to do that EXCEPT the Democrats....the Bull Moose party, The Whigs? .... MORE SPIN....PLEASE!!!!*
Click to expand...


Pssst.......you can always tell when someone is losing an argument....they start to make it personal.  Stick to the facts.....you don't have to attack the person you are debating with, unless, that's your interpretation of winning a debate.....


----------



## Iceweasel

Mertex said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have no problem supporting Strum Thurmond....
> 
> 
> 
> And when, exactly, did I support "Strum" Thurmond?  Sounds like a guitar player.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well, obviously you don't know...he was a big racist Democrat who became a Republican, and Republicans welcomed him with open arms......so, it makes you look foolish when you point your finger at Byrd.....you also welcomed Jesse Helms.....another big racist.
Click to expand...

Strom changed very much from his younger days so you aren't being honest. And Republicans are not a person, they are many people, like Democrats. And yes, racism is alive and well in the Democrat party.


"I think one man is just as good as another so long as he's not a n*gger or a Chinaman. Uncle Will says that the Lord made a White man from dust, a n*gger from mud, then He threw up what was left and it came down a Chinaman. He does hate Chinese and Japs. So do I. It is race prejudice, I guess. But I am strongly of the opinion Negroes ought to be in Africa, Yellow men in Asia and White men in Europe and America."
-Harry Truman (1911) in a letter to his future wife Bess

"I'll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years."
-- Lyndon B. Johnson to two governors on Air Force One according Ronald Kessler's Book, "Inside The White House" 


"You cannot go to a 7-11 or Dunkin Donuts unless you have a slight Indian Accent." -Senator Joe Biden

Mahatma Gandhi "ran a gas station down in Saint Louis."
-Senator Hillary Clinton

Some junior high n*gger kicked Steve's ass while he was trying to help his brothers out; junior high or sophomore in high school. Whatever it was, Steve had the n*gger down. However it was, it was Steve's fault. He had the n*gger down, he let him up. The n*gger blindsided him."
-- Roger Clinton, the President's brother on audiotape


"Republicans bring out Colin Powell and J.C. Watts because they have no program, no policy. They have no love and no joy. They'd rather take pictures with black children than feed them." -- Donna Brazile, Al Gore's Campaign Manager for the 2000 election


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The KKK wasn't Democratic (or Republican). _It was never a political organization_. You have utterly failed to prove that it is or was.
> 
> Why would a Democratic organization elect a Republican governor? Or a state Congressman? Oh that's another Democrat-turned-Republican btw (Duke).
> 
> It's "not germane" because it doesn't support your bullshit, that's why. The fact is the Klan was a Protestant Christian social organization (sometimes called itself "fraternal") that worked on *cultural *values, not politics. That's why it got involved in religions and public morals. Those aren't the domain of political parties.
> 
> So you have failed to answer why a political party that you would have us believe was founded on racism, attracts Jews, Catholics and women (and more recently gays) in direct _opposition _to everything the Klan stands for. And had gone down that road before there even was a Klan.
> 
> This is where your bullshit starts to stink and turn into a rhetorical runny goo.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does the republican party have Jews, Blacks and women? It's all about $$$$$$!!!!! Jews gave up being Jewish when they changed their religion to LIBERALISM!
> 
> So after all the bullshit, you're calling the PBS article a pack of lies.... Boy, I was born at night, but NOT last night!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> After three pages you have still failed to make your case.
> 
> First KKK
> >> The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, *by six veterans of the Confederate Army*.[17] The name is probably derived from the Greek word kuklos (&#954;&#973;&#954;&#955;&#959;&#962 which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[18]
> Although there was little organizational structure above the local level, similar groups rose across the South and adopted the same name and methods.[19] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans.
> 
> Second KKK
> ... In 1915, the second Klan was founded in Atlanta, Georgia. Starting in 1921, it adopted a modern business system of recruiting (which paid most of the initiation fee and costume charges as commissions to the organizers) and grew rapidly nationwide at a time of prosperity. Reflecting the social tensions of urban industrialization and vastly increased immigration, its membership grew most rapidly in cities, and spread out of the South to the Midwest and West. The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[4] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants.[21]
> 
> ...Third KKK
> The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by a *numerous independent local groups* opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[25] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. << (Wiki)
> 
> --- none of which name a political party as a founder, funder or supporter.
> 
> Hmm... that didn't go well, did it? Let's try another source.
> 
> >> The *six Confederate army veterans credited with originating the Ku Klux Klan* on Christmas Eve of 1865 in Pulaski, Tenn. are not memorialized in current klan literature. ... The organization to which modern klansmen pay homage was the Ku Klux Klan headed by Nathan Bedford Forrest, which officially operated in at least nine Southern states from 1867 to 1869 and unofficially for some years thereafter.
> 
> The conversion of klan purposes from amusement to terrorism had already been demonstrated by the time representatives of the local klan "dens" held a unifying convention in Nashville, Tenn., in 1867 and elected former Confederate Army General Forrest as their grand wizard. << _-- The Present Day Ku Klux Klan Movement, Report by the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, First Session, December 11, 1967_
> 
> Damn. No political party there either. Two strikes, try again...
> 
> >> About the Ku Klux Klan
> The Ku Klux Klan is a racist, anti-Semitic movement with a commitment to extreme violence to achieve its goals of racial segregation and white supremacy.
> ... At first, the Ku Klux Klan focused its anger and violence on African-Americans, on white Americans who stood up for them, and against the federal government which supported their rights. Subsequent incarnations of the Klan, which typically emerged in times of rapid social change, added more categories to its enemies list, including Jews, Catholics (less so after the 1970s), homosexuals, and different groups of immigrants.
> 
> *Founder: Confederate Civil War veterans* Captain John C. Lester, Major James R. Crowe, John D. Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard R. Reed, Frank O. McCord << ---Extremism in America/ADL
> 
> There you go, you even have their names. Six Confederate vets, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and the guy who revived it in 1921 with a "fraternal" organization was William Joseph Simmons. You can read that here. Page 5. Shortly after where it notes, ""the Klan admitted only white, native-born, gentile, adult men who believed in Christianity, white supremacy, and "pure Americanism'".
> 
> None of whom, and none of which, comprise any political party.
> 
> Strike three. You're out.
Click to expand...


OMG!!! I had gone to bed after my last post at 2:15 AM and it took you a HALF HOUR to search around for all that bullshit try to prove DEMOCRAPS didn't start the KKK, You have NO PROOF that those Confederate soldiers WEREN'T DEMOCRAPS, and If you go to BING with KKK FOUNDED BY DEMOCRAPS, you'll get 479,000 links to it! 

kkk was founded by democrats - Bing

 Since anyone with 2 working brain cells KNOWS, that the KKK TARGETED BLACKS and SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS, and since that has been taught in school when the schools actually did teach history, 50 years ago, your crap is simply a diversion, from a recognized fact! Aything to try and prove Pogo Stick is correct...What a moron, BUT the entertainment value is an 8 out of 10! 

 Perhaps we should talk about the Democrats trying to stop the 1964 Civil Rights Act.... Lots of Democrap politician names we can pull out of that who fought INTERGRATION and showed their RACIST SIDE.... Any takers???


----------



## SAYIT

Mertex said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where in any of that do you see the KKK founded by a political party?
> 
> Where?
> 
> That _was _the original point, dumbass...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shit for brains..."*help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans".... Now who else was there to do that EXCEPT the Democrats....the Bull Moose party, The Whigs? .... MORE SPIN....PLEASE!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pssst.......you can always tell when someone is losing an argument....they start to make it personal.  Stick to the facts.....you don't have to attack the person you are debating with, unless, that's your interpretation of winning a debate.....
Click to expand...


I'm definitely no Lib but some (or most) of these guys are just couching their bigotry in a cloak of "conservatism." I suspect some are just trolls trying to make genuine Cons look bad.


----------



## Vigilante

Mertex said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And where in any of that do you see the KKK founded by a political party?
> 
> Where?
> 
> That _was _the original point, dumbass...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shit for brains..."*help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans".... Now who else was there to do that EXCEPT the Democrats....the Bull Moose party, The Whigs? .... MORE SPIN....PLEASE!!!!*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pssst.......you can always tell when someone is losing an argument....they start to make it personal. Stick to the facts.....you don't have to attack the person you are debating with, unless, that's your interpretation of winning a debate.....
Click to expand...


What attack? The above? Come on Mert, he had his ass handed to him, and the "HELP A DUMB LEFTIST OUT" posse has to rally around that poor fellow to try and bolster his feeble attempt to prove something, even YOU know was false! 

 Mert, care to give me "*MORE SPIN....PLEASE!!!!" I have more respect for you than this!*


----------



## Spoonman

Gracie said:


> I know I am on ignore so you won't see this, but I plan to respond anyway and don't give a damn if you peek or not.
> 
> That pic is disgusting. I dislike Michelle, semi like Barrack and wish he was not president cuz he would be better at something else, but to display them as apes is crude.
> 
> Then again...Bush was depicted as a chimpanzee so.....



I think its wrong but being wrong has never stopper the left in their attacks on the right either.   so it goes both ways.  as long as it remains an acceptable practice for one side to do it, the other side will continue to do it to.


----------



## SAYIT

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it wasn't it only *TARGETED BLACKS AND SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS!!!!!* Damn, how stupid do you think people are who read your trash?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And Catholics, and Jews, and "unvirtuous" women.
> Is there some reason you're leaving that out? Is it the inconvenience?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> NOT germane to the topic, as the DEMOCRATIC KKK TARGETED BLACKS and SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS.... try to concentrate on the fact that you denied the KKK was Democratic and PBS corrected you!
Click to expand...


Not germane to the topic. The fact remains that even the publisher admits the picture in question is "*just a picture evoking sheer racism*." The rest of this thread and those spinning wildly to deny it is just self-serving BS.


----------



## SAYIT

Spoonman said:


> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am on ignore so you won't see this, but I plan to respond anyway and don't give a damn if you peek or not.
> 
> That pic is disgusting. I dislike Michelle, semi like Barrack and wish he was not president cuz he would be better at something else, but to display them as apes is crude.
> 
> Then again...Bush was depicted as a chimpanzee so.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its wrong but being wrong has never stopper the left in their attacks on the right either.   so it goes both ways.  as long as it remains an acceptable practice for one side to do it, the other side will continue to do it to.
Click to expand...


I am as discomforted by the ranting of ideologues and dogmatists on both sides of the aisle. That our elected officials fling stupid shit at one another is unfortunate but to be expected. We as Americans don't need to follow their lead.


----------



## Vigilante

SAYIT said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Catholics, and Jews, and "unvirtuous" women.
> Is there some reason you're leaving that out? Is it the inconvenience?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NOT germane to the topic, as the DEMOCRATIC KKK TARGETED BLACKS and SOUTHERN REPUBLICANS.... try to concentrate on the fact that you denied the KKK was Democratic and PBS corrected you!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not germane to the topic. The fact remains that even the publisher admits the picture in question is "*just a picture evoking sheer racism*." The rest of this thread and those spinning wildly to deny it is just self-serving BS.
Click to expand...


I do believe I did explain POLITICAL SATIRE in this thread. It's SUPPOSED to hurt others feelings and make a statement. whether you agree or not, is up to the viewer.

 Now this is superb political humor that you subversives will yell and rant about for 50 posts, if not more...I think it's funny and to the point, but others will have their head explode.... I can only wait for the fun to begin!


----------



## Pogo

"The _President's *brother*_"?????  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




::scrape:: ::scrape:: ::scrape:::

Desperation strikes deep &#9835;
Into your post it will creep
It starts when you're all full of crap
Step off the rails, look like moron and a partisan hack

I think you better

Stop, hey who's that clown
Everybody look, he's goin' down... &#9836;

There's battle lines bein' drawn
Iceweasel's right, everybody else is wrong
Dumb people speakin' their minds
a-pullin' so much bullshit... from their behinds, I think it's time you

Stop, hey what's that sound
Another hack is goin' down...

​

The rest of that post claims racism, then goes on to cite several examples (of questionable veracity, and all of them unlinked) that demonstrate the poster doesn't even know what racism is...


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Does the republican party have Jews, Blacks and women? It's all about $$$$$$!!!!! Jews gave up being Jewish when they changed their religion to LIBERALISM!
> 
> So after all the bullshit, you're calling the PBS article a pack of lies.... Boy, I was born at night, but NOT last night!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> After three pages you have still failed to make your case.
> 
> First KKK
> >> The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, *by six veterans of the Confederate Army*.[17] The name is probably derived from the Greek word kuklos (&#954;&#973;&#954;&#955;&#959;&#962 which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[18]
> Although there was little organizational structure above the local level, similar groups rose across the South and adopted the same name and methods.[19] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans.
> 
> Second KKK
> ... In 1915, the second Klan was founded in Atlanta, Georgia. Starting in 1921, it adopted a modern business system of recruiting (which paid most of the initiation fee and costume charges as commissions to the organizers) and grew rapidly nationwide at a time of prosperity. Reflecting the social tensions of urban industrialization and vastly increased immigration, its membership grew most rapidly in cities, and spread out of the South to the Midwest and West. The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[4] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants.[21]
> 
> ...Third KKK
> The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by a *numerous independent local groups* opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[25] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. << (Wiki)
> 
> --- none of which name a political party as a founder, funder or supporter.
> 
> Hmm... that didn't go well, did it? Let's try another source.
> 
> >> The *six Confederate army veterans credited with originating the Ku Klux Klan* on Christmas Eve of 1865 in Pulaski, Tenn. are not memorialized in current klan literature. ... The organization to which modern klansmen pay homage was the Ku Klux Klan headed by Nathan Bedford Forrest, which officially operated in at least nine Southern states from 1867 to 1869 and unofficially for some years thereafter.
> 
> The conversion of klan purposes from amusement to terrorism had already been demonstrated by the time representatives of the local klan "dens" held a unifying convention in Nashville, Tenn., in 1867 and elected former Confederate Army General Forrest as their grand wizard. << _-- The Present Day Ku Klux Klan Movement, Report by the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, First Session, December 11, 1967_
> 
> Damn. No political party there either. Two strikes, try again...
> 
> >> About the Ku Klux Klan
> The Ku Klux Klan is a racist, anti-Semitic movement with a commitment to extreme violence to achieve its goals of racial segregation and white supremacy.
> ... At first, the Ku Klux Klan focused its anger and violence on African-Americans, on white Americans who stood up for them, and against the federal government which supported their rights. Subsequent incarnations of the Klan, which typically emerged in times of rapid social change, added more categories to its enemies list, including Jews, Catholics (less so after the 1970s), homosexuals, and different groups of immigrants.
> 
> *Founder: Confederate Civil War veterans* Captain John C. Lester, Major James R. Crowe, John D. Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard R. Reed, Frank O. McCord << ---Extremism in America/ADL
> 
> There you go, you even have their names. Six Confederate vets, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and the guy who revived it in 1921 with a "fraternal" organization was William Joseph Simmons. You can read that here. Page 5. Shortly after where it notes, ""the Klan admitted only white, native-born, gentile, adult men who believed in Christianity, white supremacy, and "pure Americanism'".
> 
> None of whom, and none of which, comprise any political party.
> 
> Strike three. You're out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> OMG!!! I had gone to bed after my last post at 2:15 AM and it took you a HALF HOUR to search around for all that bullshit try to prove DEMOCRAPS didn't start the KKK, You have NO PROOF that those Confederate soldiers WEREN'T DEMOCRAPS, and If you go to BING with KKK FOUNDED BY DEMOCRAPS, you'll get 479,000 links to it!
> 
> kkk was founded by democrats - Bing
> 
> Since anyone with 2 working brain cells KNOWS, that the KKK TARGETED BLACKS and SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS, and since that has been taught in school when the schools actually did teach history, 50 years ago, your crap is simply a diversion, from a recognized fact! Aything to try and prove Pogo Stick is correct...What a moron, BUT the entertainment value is an 8 out of 10!
> 
> Perhaps we should talk about the Democrats trying to stop the 1964 Civil Rights Act.... Lots of Democrap politician names we can pull out of that who fought INTERGRATION and showed their RACIST SIDE.... Any takers???
Click to expand...


^^ Links to a Bing search as his documentation.    A new nadir in stupidity.



> You have NO PROOF that those Confederate soldiers WEREN'T DEMOCRAPS



We also have no proof they weren't aliens, Indians, trannies, tennis players, brain surgeons, midgets, Bigfoots or guitar players.  What does that tell us?

You don't prove something *wasn't*, dumbass.  You prove it _was_.  That's your job.  And you failed.  Utterly.

New at this logic thing, huh?

And no, I didn't have to search a half hour for that book.  It's right here on my shelf.


----------



## Spoonman

SAYIT said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gracie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know I am on ignore so you won't see this, but I plan to respond anyway and don't give a damn if you peek or not.
> 
> That pic is disgusting. I dislike Michelle, semi like Barrack and wish he was not president cuz he would be better at something else, but to display them as apes is crude.
> 
> Then again...Bush was depicted as a chimpanzee so.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think its wrong but being wrong has never stopper the left in their attacks on the right either.   so it goes both ways.  as long as it remains an acceptable practice for one side to do it, the other side will continue to do it to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am as discomforted by the ranting of ideologues and dogmatists on both sides of the aisle. That our elected officials fling stupid shit at one another is unfortunate but to be expected. We as Americans don't need to follow their lead.
Click to expand...


I'm more pissed that our politicians no longer represent us, but represent special interests instead.   I'm more pissed that we as citizens let them create the great divide with their child like games.   fact is, democrats control, corporations still benefit, the rich get richer, the poor still remain poor.  Republicans control, abortion still remains legal, books aren't burned, churches don't control the government.  our government plays the divide and conquer game great.  the more outrageous the attack the more angered people will be with the other side.


----------



## Samson

Spoonman said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think its wrong but being wrong has never stopper the left in their attacks on the right either.   so it goes both ways.  as long as it remains an acceptable practice for one side to do it, the other side will continue to do it to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am as discomforted by the ranting of ideologues and dogmatists on both sides of the aisle. That our elected officials fling stupid shit at one another is unfortunate but to be expected. We as Americans don't need to follow their lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm more pissed that our politicians no longer represent us, but represent special interests instead.   I'm more pissed that we as citizens let them create the great divide with their child like games.   fact is, democrats control, corporations still benefit, the rich get richer, the poor still remain poor.  Republicans control, abortion still remains legal, books aren't burned, churches don't control the government.  our government plays the divide and conquer game great.  the more outrageous the attack the more angered people will be with the other side.
Click to expand...


Partisanship is a function of the number of people each representative represents:

So, if a representative represents only 1 person, then partisanship = 0


Today, each member of the HoR represents over 700,000 people.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> After three pages you have still failed to make your case.
> 
> First KKK
> >> The first Klan was founded in 1865 in Pulaski, Tennessee, *by six veterans of the Confederate Army*.[17] The name is probably derived from the Greek word kuklos (&#954;&#973;&#954;&#955;&#959;&#962 which means circle, suggesting a circle or band of brothers.[18]
> Although there was little organizational structure above the local level, similar groups rose across the South and adopted the same name and methods.[19] Klan groups spread throughout the South as an insurgent movement during the Reconstruction era in the United States. As a secret vigilante group, the Klan targeted freedmen and their allies; it sought to restore white supremacy by threats and violence, including murder, against black and white Republicans.
> 
> Second KKK
> ... In 1915, the second Klan was founded in Atlanta, Georgia. Starting in 1921, it adopted a modern business system of recruiting (which paid most of the initiation fee and costume charges as commissions to the organizers) and grew rapidly nationwide at a time of prosperity. Reflecting the social tensions of urban industrialization and vastly increased immigration, its membership grew most rapidly in cities, and spread out of the South to the Midwest and West. The second KKK preached "One Hundred Percent Americanism" and demanded the purification of politics, calling for strict morality and better enforcement of prohibition. Its official rhetoric focused on the threat of the Catholic Church, using anti-Catholicism and nativism.[4] Its appeal was directed exclusively at white Protestants.[21]
> 
> ...Third KKK
> The "Ku Klux Klan" name was used by a *numerous independent local groups* opposing the Civil Rights Movement and desegregation, especially in the 1950s and 1960s. During this period, they often forged alliances with Southern police departments, as in Birmingham, Alabama; or with governor's offices, as with George Wallace of Alabama.[25] Several members of KKK groups were convicted of murder in the deaths of civil rights workers and children in the bombing of the 16th Street Baptist Church in Birmingham. << (Wiki)
> 
> --- none of which name a political party as a founder, funder or supporter.
> 
> Hmm... that didn't go well, did it? Let's try another source.
> 
> >> The *six Confederate army veterans credited with originating the Ku Klux Klan* on Christmas Eve of 1865 in Pulaski, Tenn. are not memorialized in current klan literature. ... The organization to which modern klansmen pay homage was the Ku Klux Klan headed by Nathan Bedford Forrest, which officially operated in at least nine Southern states from 1867 to 1869 and unofficially for some years thereafter.
> 
> The conversion of klan purposes from amusement to terrorism had already been demonstrated by the time representatives of the local klan "dens" held a unifying convention in Nashville, Tenn., in 1867 and elected former Confederate Army General Forrest as their grand wizard. << _-- The Present Day Ku Klux Klan Movement, Report by the Committee on Un-American Activities, House of Representatives, Ninetieth Congress, First Session, December 11, 1967_
> 
> Damn. No political party there either. Two strikes, try again...
> 
> >> About the Ku Klux Klan
> The Ku Klux Klan is a racist, anti-Semitic movement with a commitment to extreme violence to achieve its goals of racial segregation and white supremacy.
> ... At first, the Ku Klux Klan focused its anger and violence on African-Americans, on white Americans who stood up for them, and against the federal government which supported their rights. Subsequent incarnations of the Klan, which typically emerged in times of rapid social change, added more categories to its enemies list, including Jews, Catholics (less so after the 1970s), homosexuals, and different groups of immigrants.
> 
> *Founder: Confederate Civil War veterans* Captain John C. Lester, Major James R. Crowe, John D. Kennedy, Calvin Jones, Richard R. Reed, Frank O. McCord << ---Extremism in America/ADL
> 
> There you go, you even have their names. Six Confederate vets, Nathan Bedford Forrest, and the guy who revived it in 1921 with a "fraternal" organization was William Joseph Simmons. You can read that here. Page 5. Shortly after where it notes, ""the Klan admitted only white, native-born, gentile, adult men who believed in Christianity, white supremacy, and "pure Americanism'".
> 
> None of whom, and none of which, comprise any political party.
> 
> Strike three. You're out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!! I had gone to bed after my last post at 2:15 AM and it took you a HALF HOUR to search around for all that bullshit try to prove DEMOCRAPS didn't start the KKK, You have NO PROOF that those Confederate soldiers WEREN'T DEMOCRAPS, and If you go to BING with KKK FOUNDED BY DEMOCRAPS, you'll get 479,000 links to it!
> 
> kkk was founded by democrats - Bing
> 
> Since anyone with 2 working brain cells KNOWS, that the KKK TARGETED BLACKS and SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS, and since that has been taught in school when the schools actually did teach history, 50 years ago, your crap is simply a diversion, from a recognized fact! Aything to try and prove Pogo Stick is correct...What a moron, BUT the entertainment value is an 8 out of 10!
> 
> Perhaps we should talk about the Democrats trying to stop the 1964 Civil Rights Act.... Lots of Democrap politician names we can pull out of that who fought INTERGRATION and showed their RACIST SIDE.... Any takers???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ^^ Links to a Bing search as his documentation.  A new nadir in stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have NO PROOF that those Confederate soldiers WEREN'T DEMOCRAPS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also have no proof they weren't aliens, Indians, trannies, tennis players, brain surgeons, midgets, Bigfoots or guitar players. What does that tell us?
> 
> You don't prove something *wasn't*, dumbass. You prove it _was_. That's your job. And you failed. Utterly.
> 
> New at this logic thing, huh?
> 
> And no, I didn't have to search a half hour for that book. It's right here on my shelf.
Click to expand...


Thought I'd throw a few of these in for kicks!  And the KKK was formed by Southern Democrats! 

 Did they or did they not target blacks and Southern Republicans?...Then who the fuck were they, little green men, Illegal Mexicans, the Taliban?... Damn, how fucking stupid do you think people are. It's been reported for decades!


----------



## S.J.

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> OMG!!! I had gone to bed after my last post at 2:15 AM and it took you a HALF HOUR to search around for all that bullshit try to prove DEMOCRAPS didn't start the KKK, You have NO PROOF that those Confederate soldiers WEREN'T DEMOCRAPS, and If you go to BING with KKK FOUNDED BY DEMOCRAPS, you'll get 479,000 links to it!
> 
> kkk was founded by democrats - Bing
> 
> Since anyone with 2 working brain cells KNOWS, that the KKK TARGETED BLACKS and SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS, and since that has been taught in school when the schools actually did teach history, 50 years ago, your crap is simply a diversion, from a recognized fact! Aything to try and prove Pogo Stick is correct...What a moron, BUT the entertainment value is an 8 out of 10!
> 
> Perhaps we should talk about the Democrats trying to stop the 1964 Civil Rights Act.... Lots of Democrap politician names we can pull out of that who fought INTERGRATION and showed their RACIST SIDE.... Any takers???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ Links to a Bing search as his documentation.  A new nadir in stupidity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have NO PROOF that those Confederate soldiers WEREN'T DEMOCRAPS
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We also have no proof they weren't aliens, Indians, trannies, tennis players, brain surgeons, midgets, Bigfoots or guitar players. What does that tell us?
> 
> You don't prove something *wasn't*, dumbass. You prove it _was_. That's your job. And you failed. Utterly.
> 
> New at this logic thing, huh?
> 
> And no, I didn't have to search a half hour for that book. It's right here on my shelf.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thought I'd throw a few of these in for kicks!  And the KKK was formed by Southern Democrats!
> 
> Did they or did they not target blacks and Southern Republicans?...Then who the fuck were they, little green men, Illegal Mexicans, the Taliban?... Damn, how fucking stupid do you think people are. It's been reported for decades!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/QUOTE]
> Pogo's gonna claim your images are lies, and demand you post a dozen links from liberal sites to prove they are not, then claim victory if you don't.
Click to expand...


----------



## Vigilante

S.J. said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^ Links to a Bing search as his documentation.  A new nadir in stupidity.
> 
> We also have no proof they weren't aliens, Indians, trannies, tennis players, brain surgeons, midgets, Bigfoots or guitar players. What does that tell us?
> 
> You don't prove something *wasn't*, dumbass. You prove it _was_. That's your job. And you failed. Utterly.
> 
> New at this logic thing, huh?
> 
> And no, I didn't have to search a half hour for that book. It's right here on my shelf.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thought I'd throw a few of these in for kicks!  And the KKK was formed by Southern Democrats!
> 
> Did they or did they not target blacks and Southern Republicans?...Then who the fuck were they, little green men, Illegal Mexicans, the Taliban?... Damn, how fucking stupid do you think people are. It's been reported for decades!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [/quote]
> Pogo's gonna claim your images are lies, and demand you post a dozen links from liberal sites to prove they are not, then claim victory if you don't.[/QUOTE]
> 
> He is a deranged little fellow, isn't he? I enjoy handling those who think that their spin on a fact, is IN FACT, the FACT! High entertainment from the subversive left and their race card toting lackeys!
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## Pogo

Really?  You're so desperate in defeat that you're searching Google Images?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Pathetic dood.  I handed you your ass last night on the history; man up, admit you were wrong and do your homework next time.

I: Woodrow Wilson was a racist and a megalomaniac asshole.  That's well known and it was well known at the end of his term when his popularity resembled Shrub's in 2008.  So much so that Warren Harding (who btw allegedly was associated with the Klan) hardly had to campaign at all and won the biggest landslide in history.

II: your list of names may be accurate (who cares) but the last line is not.  Number one we demolished that myth last night and you still have that crow to eat (I cited three independent historical sources, you cited bupkis), and number two there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" except in Lush Rimjob's malaprop mouth, and never has been.  That says a lot about the research that didn't go into the line itself; not only don't they know the history, they can't even spell the name.

III: Black's Klan days seem not to have been known at the time:

>> The next day the full Senate considered Black's nomination. Rumors relating to Black's involvement in the Ku Klux Klan surfaced among the senators, and two Democratic senators tried defeating the nomination. However, no conclusive evidence of Black's involvement was available at the time, so after six hours of debate, the Senate voted 63-16 to confirm Black, ten Republicans and six Democrats voted against Black.[32] << (Wiki)  But the story wasn't put together until the next month.

-- again, a party opposing its own nominee for being part of what you claim the same party started?  Not quite.   Hey, at least they spelled the name of the organization right. That's something. 

IV: again, as we know, a personal letter, 1945, years before running for office, and a mindset he later renounced.  Now if the world actually operated on the infantile comic book mentality partisan hacks such as yourself seem to like to imagine, where all events and all people and all political parties are frozen in time forever, that would make this impossible to explain, would it not?

Unfortunately for your fantasies, people grow.  Parties grow, cultures grow, populations grow.  Things evolve.  Life isn't a still picture on Google images with an incoherent caption on it.  Who knew.

Hang on, we ain't done.  Here's number five:

*V:* why are you obsessed with derailing a thread about a Belgian newspaper's racist depiction of the POTUS and FLOTUS and trying to morph it into a thread about Robert Byrd, a dead guy who has absolutely zero to do with this topic?  Embarrassed?

To get back on track the topic is this:


BDBoop said:


> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
Click to expand...


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Really? You're so desperate in defeat that you're searching Google Images?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic dood. I handed you your ass last night on the history; man up, admit you were wrong and do your homework next time.
> 
> I: Woodrow Wilson was a racist and a megalomaniac asshole. That's well known and it was well known at the end of his term when his popularity resembled Shrub's in 2008. So much so that Warren Harding (who btw allegedly was associated with the Klan) hardly had to campaign at all and won the biggest landslide in history.
> 
> II: your list of names may be accurate (who cares) but the last line is not. Number one we demolished that myth last night and you still have that crow to eat (I cited three independent historical sources, you cited bupkis), and number two there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" except in Lush Rimjob's malaprop mouth, and never has been. That says a lot about the research that didn't go into the line itself; not only don't they know the history, they can't even spell the name.
> 
> III: Black's Klan days seem not to have been known at the time:
> 
> >> The next day the full Senate considered Black's nomination. Rumors relating to Black's involvement in the Ku Klux Klan surfaced among the senators, and two Democratic senators tried defeating the nomination. However, no conclusive evidence of Black's involvement was available at the time, so after six hours of debate, the Senate voted 63-16 to confirm Black, ten Republicans and six Democrats voted against Black.[32] << (Wiki) But the story wasn't put together until the next month.
> 
> -- again, a party opposing its own nominee for being part of what you claim the same party started? Not quite.  Hey, at least they spelled the name of the organization right. That's something.
> 
> IV: again, as we know, a personal letter, 1945, years before running for office, and a mindset he later renounced. Now if the world actually operated on the infantile comic book mentality partisan hacks such as yourself seem to like to imagine, where all events and all people and all political parties are frozen in time forever, that would make this impossible to explain, would it not?
> 
> Unfortunately for your fantasies, people grow. Parties grow, cultures grow, populations grow. Things evolve. Life isn't a still picture on Google images with an incoherent caption on it. Who knew.
> 
> Hang on, we ain't done. Here's number five:
> 
> *V:* why are you obsessed with derailing a thread about a Belgian newspaper's racist depiction of the POTUS and FLOTUS and trying to morph it into a thread about Robert Byrd, a dead guy who has absolutely zero to do with this topic? Embarrassed?
> 
> To get back on track the topic is this:
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


*The KKK targeted BLACKS and Southern Republicans,* Who were they? ....BTW, what's a Dood?


----------



## Flopper

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're so desperate in defeat that you're searching Google Images?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic dood. I handed you your ass last night on the history; man up, admit you were wrong and do your homework next time.
> 
> I: Woodrow Wilson was a racist and a megalomaniac asshole. That's well known and it was well known at the end of his term when his popularity resembled Shrub's in 2008. So much so that Warren Harding (who btw allegedly was associated with the Klan) hardly had to campaign at all and won the biggest landslide in history.
> 
> II: your list of names may be accurate (who cares) but the last line is not. Number one we demolished that myth last night and you still have that crow to eat (I cited three independent historical sources, you cited bupkis), and number two there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" except in Lush Rimjob's malaprop mouth, and never has been. That says a lot about the research that didn't go into the line itself; not only don't they know the history, they can't even spell the name.
> 
> III: Black's Klan days seem not to have been known at the time:
> 
> >> The next day the full Senate considered Black's nomination. Rumors relating to Black's involvement in the Ku Klux Klan surfaced among the senators, and two Democratic senators tried defeating the nomination. However, no conclusive evidence of Black's involvement was available at the time, so after six hours of debate, the Senate voted 63-16 to confirm Black, ten Republicans and six Democrats voted against Black.[32] << (Wiki) But the story wasn't put together until the next month.
> 
> -- again, a party opposing its own nominee for being part of what you claim the same party started? Not quite.  Hey, at least they spelled the name of the organization right. That's something.
> 
> IV: again, as we know, a personal letter, 1945, years before running for office, and a mindset he later renounced. Now if the world actually operated on the infantile comic book mentality partisan hacks such as yourself seem to like to imagine, where all events and all people and all political parties are frozen in time forever, that would make this impossible to explain, would it not?
> 
> Unfortunately for your fantasies, people grow. Parties grow, cultures grow, populations grow. Things evolve. Life isn't a still picture on Google images with an incoherent caption on it. Who knew.
> 
> Hang on, we ain't done. Here's number five:
> 
> *V:* why are you obsessed with derailing a thread about a Belgian newspaper's racist depiction of the POTUS and FLOTUS and trying to morph it into a thread about Robert Byrd, a dead guy who has absolutely zero to do with this topic? Embarrassed?
> 
> To get back on track the topic is this:
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The KKK targeted BLACKS and Southern Republicans,* Who were they? ....BTW, what's a Dood?
Click to expand...

You're correct the KKK did target Republicans because the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln.  After the civil war and the early 20th century, racist in the South hated Lincoln and his party more than they hated blacks. However, after the mid 20th century there were drastic changes.  The Democratic Party became the preferred party of blacks in the South thus the KKK moved away from the Democrats generally favoring Republican candidates. In fact, David Duke former Grand Wizard of the KKK, White Nationalist, former Louisiana House of Representative member is a Republican along with a number of KKK leaders.


----------



## Vigilante

Flopper said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're so desperate in defeat that you're searching Google Images?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic dood. I handed you your ass last night on the history; man up, admit you were wrong and do your homework next time.
> 
> I: Woodrow Wilson was a racist and a megalomaniac asshole. That's well known and it was well known at the end of his term when his popularity resembled Shrub's in 2008. So much so that Warren Harding (who btw allegedly was associated with the Klan) hardly had to campaign at all and won the biggest landslide in history.
> 
> II: your list of names may be accurate (who cares) but the last line is not. Number one we demolished that myth last night and you still have that crow to eat (I cited three independent historical sources, you cited bupkis), and number two there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" except in Lush Rimjob's malaprop mouth, and never has been. That says a lot about the research that didn't go into the line itself; not only don't they know the history, they can't even spell the name.
> 
> III: Black's Klan days seem not to have been known at the time:
> 
> >> The next day the full Senate considered Black's nomination. Rumors relating to Black's involvement in the Ku Klux Klan surfaced among the senators, and two Democratic senators tried defeating the nomination. However, no conclusive evidence of Black's involvement was available at the time, so after six hours of debate, the Senate voted 63-16 to confirm Black, ten Republicans and six Democrats voted against Black.[32] << (Wiki) But the story wasn't put together until the next month.
> 
> -- again, a party opposing its own nominee for being part of what you claim the same party started? Not quite.  Hey, at least they spelled the name of the organization right. That's something.
> 
> IV: again, as we know, a personal letter, 1945, years before running for office, and a mindset he later renounced. Now if the world actually operated on the infantile comic book mentality partisan hacks such as yourself seem to like to imagine, where all events and all people and all political parties are frozen in time forever, that would make this impossible to explain, would it not?
> 
> Unfortunately for your fantasies, people grow. Parties grow, cultures grow, populations grow. Things evolve. Life isn't a still picture on Google images with an incoherent caption on it. Who knew.
> 
> Hang on, we ain't done. Here's number five:
> 
> *V:* why are you obsessed with derailing a thread about a Belgian newspaper's racist depiction of the POTUS and FLOTUS and trying to morph it into a thread about Robert Byrd, a dead guy who has absolutely zero to do with this topic? Embarrassed?
> 
> To get back on track the topic is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The KKK targeted BLACKS and Southern Republicans,* Who were they? ....BTW, what's a Dood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're correct the KKK did target Republicans because the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln. After the civil war and the early 20th century, racist in the South hated Lincoln and his party more than they hated blacks. However, after the mid 20th century there were drastic changes. The Democratic Party became the preferred party of blacks in the South thus the KKK moved away from the Democrats generally favoring Republican candidates. In fact, David Duke former Grand Wizard of the KKK, White Nationalist, former Louisiana House of Representative member is a Republican along with a number of KKK leaders.
Click to expand...


As I've been saying all along, Southern Democrats so hated Lincoln and Republicans, along with blacks that they targeted them! Thanks for confirming this point!


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're so desperate in defeat that you're searching Google Images?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic dood. I handed you your ass last night on the history; man up, admit you were wrong and do your homework next time.
> 
> I: Woodrow Wilson was a racist and a megalomaniac asshole. That's well known and it was well known at the end of his term when his popularity resembled Shrub's in 2008. So much so that Warren Harding (who btw allegedly was associated with the Klan) hardly had to campaign at all and won the biggest landslide in history.
> 
> II: your list of names may be accurate (who cares) but the last line is not. Number one we demolished that myth last night and you still have that crow to eat (I cited three independent historical sources, you cited bupkis), and number two there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" except in Lush Rimjob's malaprop mouth, and never has been. That says a lot about the research that didn't go into the line itself; not only don't they know the history, they can't even spell the name.
> 
> III: Black's Klan days seem not to have been known at the time:
> 
> >> The next day the full Senate considered Black's nomination. Rumors relating to Black's involvement in the Ku Klux Klan surfaced among the senators, and two Democratic senators tried defeating the nomination. However, no conclusive evidence of Black's involvement was available at the time, so after six hours of debate, the Senate voted 63-16 to confirm Black, ten Republicans and six Democrats voted against Black.[32] << (Wiki) But the story wasn't put together until the next month.
> 
> -- again, a party opposing its own nominee for being part of what you claim the same party started? Not quite.  Hey, at least they spelled the name of the organization right. That's something.
> 
> IV: again, as we know, a personal letter, 1945, years before running for office, and a mindset he later renounced. Now if the world actually operated on the infantile comic book mentality partisan hacks such as yourself seem to like to imagine, where all events and all people and all political parties are frozen in time forever, that would make this impossible to explain, would it not?
> 
> Unfortunately for your fantasies, people grow. Parties grow, cultures grow, populations grow. Things evolve. Life isn't a still picture on Google images with an incoherent caption on it. Who knew.
> 
> Hang on, we ain't done. Here's number five:
> 
> *V:* why are you obsessed with derailing a thread about a Belgian newspaper's racist depiction of the POTUS and FLOTUS and trying to morph it into a thread about Robert Byrd, a dead guy who has absolutely zero to do with this topic? Embarrassed?
> 
> To get back on track the topic is this:
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *The KKK targeted BLACKS and Southern Republicans* Who were they?
Click to expand...


I see you spent all of a minute and a half reading that.  No wonder you never get anything.

Actually "who were they" is a good question, even if it is still off topic.  A side point I neglected.

When we say "Ku Klux Klan" we refer to several incarnations of several organizations, some tightly organized, some just loosely using the name, with purposes ranging from simple joking around with Greek word forms to a kind of moral police force masquerading as a 'social' club, to outright despicable terrorism, murder and destruction.

There are generally speaking three incarnations of KKK; the first, organized by those six soldiers and the war general, was actually one of several vigilante/terrorism groups (e.g. Knights of the White Camelia [sic], founded 1867) created by Confederate ex-soldiers who basically didn't want to accept defeat.  In legal terms they maintained a concept of "states rights", an anti-Big Government stance that wanted Northerners out (a sentiment that persists today as a buzzword in the Republican Party, especially but not exclusively, in the South).  Congress and President Grant passed laws in response (Grant virtually drove them out of South Carolina, at least temporarily).  This version of the Klan, the original, was dissolved in 1869, although local chapters continued without a national structure for about five more years.  

So that Klan had a life of about ten years.  By the end of the century it was all but forgotten, although the decades on either side of the turn of that century would manifest the worst racial relations, rioting, lynchings and other persecutions in our nation's entire history, ones which make the 1960s and the Rodney King LA riot look like a sunny day in the park.  By then it wasn't the Klan; it was the general population.  Read about the Tulsa race riots and question why they're not in the history books.  Bob Dylan's "Desolation Row" is built around one of these riots, in Duluth in 1920.

The second Klan was the one organized by Simmons in Georgia (posted last night) directly out of that atmosphere as a "fraternal" organization and chartered by the state, but reaching back to the vigilantism and terrorism practices of the post-Civil war era.  This was 1915, the nadir of our shameful racial past, just after, and probably influenced by, the racist D.W. Griffith film _Birth of a Nation_.  Griffith, tapping on that nadir of American race relations, had invoked the white sheet and burning crosses of a romanticized old England in his film, and Simmons' group incorporated these now-familiar icons along with a manifesto from the original Klan written in 1867.  This second Klan milked the paranoias of the time: it was anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, prohibitionist and antisemitic.  Its membership purportedly seeded from the Knights of Mary Phagan, a vigilante group that had lynched Leo Frank in 1915.

Simmons' "fraternal" organization was a small local group for six years until it expanded in 1921. This would be the Klan that spread from the south into the midwest and west, the one that attracted Edward Jackson and Robert Byrd and those other politicians from Colorado and Indiana and California, as well as all over the South.  That incarnation peaked in the 1920s, then fell into decline and withered away with World War Two.

The third Klan is a loose gathering of autonomous local groups that sprang up in the 1950s and into the '60s, using the old Klan name but without a central structure.  These loosely defined groups were responsible for some of the most heinous crimes of what we call the "civil rights era" including the bombing of the Birmingham church that killed four girls and the triple murder of Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner as well as Medgar Evers.  More accepted even in the South today as terrorists, this "Klan", however loosely organized, is underground and despised but still exists in some degree.

So when we speak of "who started the KKK" we speak of many different people in at least three different times.  Confederate soldiers started the original one, which lasted ten years.  A Georgia vigilante started the second one and did damage for two decades.  Various community racists locally revived the name for the third one.  None of them was a political party.

But seeing as how you've probably devoted your usual seven seconds of reading to all of the above, why not go back to Google Images and pretend to make a point.  It's less work than thinking.


----------



## Pogo

Flopper said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're so desperate in defeat that you're searching Google Images?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic dood. I handed you your ass last night on the history; man up, admit you were wrong and do your homework next time.
> 
> I: Woodrow Wilson was a racist and a megalomaniac asshole. That's well known and it was well known at the end of his term when his popularity resembled Shrub's in 2008. So much so that Warren Harding (who btw allegedly was associated with the Klan) hardly had to campaign at all and won the biggest landslide in history.
> 
> II: your list of names may be accurate (who cares) but the last line is not. Number one we demolished that myth last night and you still have that crow to eat (I cited three independent historical sources, you cited bupkis), and number two there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" except in Lush Rimjob's malaprop mouth, and never has been. That says a lot about the research that didn't go into the line itself; not only don't they know the history, they can't even spell the name.
> 
> III: Black's Klan days seem not to have been known at the time:
> 
> >> The next day the full Senate considered Black's nomination. Rumors relating to Black's involvement in the Ku Klux Klan surfaced among the senators, and two Democratic senators tried defeating the nomination. However, no conclusive evidence of Black's involvement was available at the time, so after six hours of debate, the Senate voted 63-16 to confirm Black, ten Republicans and six Democrats voted against Black.[32] << (Wiki) But the story wasn't put together until the next month.
> 
> -- again, a party opposing its own nominee for being part of what you claim the same party started? Not quite.  Hey, at least they spelled the name of the organization right. That's something.
> 
> IV: again, as we know, a personal letter, 1945, years before running for office, and a mindset he later renounced. Now if the world actually operated on the infantile comic book mentality partisan hacks such as yourself seem to like to imagine, where all events and all people and all political parties are frozen in time forever, that would make this impossible to explain, would it not?
> 
> Unfortunately for your fantasies, people grow. Parties grow, cultures grow, populations grow. Things evolve. Life isn't a still picture on Google images with an incoherent caption on it. Who knew.
> 
> Hang on, we ain't done. Here's number five:
> 
> *V:* why are you obsessed with derailing a thread about a Belgian newspaper's racist depiction of the POTUS and FLOTUS and trying to morph it into a thread about Robert Byrd, a dead guy who has absolutely zero to do with this topic? Embarrassed?
> 
> To get back on track the topic is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The KKK targeted BLACKS and Southern Republicans,* Who were they? ....BTW, what's a Dood?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're correct the KKK did target Republicans because the Republican Party was the party of Lincoln.  After the civil war and the early 20th century, racist in the South hated Lincoln and his party more than they hated blacks. However, after the mid 20th century there were drastic changes.  The Democratic Party became the preferred party of blacks in the South thus the KKK moved away from the Democrats generally favoring Republican candidates. In fact, David Duke former Grand Wizard of the KKK, White Nationalist, former Louisiana House of Representative member is a Republican along with a number of KKK leaders.
Click to expand...


-- and as noted before, was the Republican Party Chair for his region.

But that doesn't make the KKK founded by Republicans.  I know nobody suggested that, but it follows Vigilante's logic.

"Vigilante"... I just noticed that name.

It says a lot.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're so desperate in defeat that you're searching Google Images?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pathetic dood. I handed you your ass last night on the history; man up, admit you were wrong and do your homework next time.
> 
> I: Woodrow Wilson was a racist and a megalomaniac asshole. That's well known and it was well known at the end of his term when his popularity resembled Shrub's in 2008. So much so that Warren Harding (who btw allegedly was associated with the Klan) hardly had to campaign at all and won the biggest landslide in history.
> 
> II: your list of names may be accurate (who cares) but the last line is not. Number one we demolished that myth last night and you still have that crow to eat (I cited three independent historical sources, you cited bupkis), and number two there is no such thing as the "Democrat Party" except in Lush Rimjob's malaprop mouth, and never has been. That says a lot about the research that didn't go into the line itself; not only don't they know the history, they can't even spell the name.
> 
> III: Black's Klan days seem not to have been known at the time:
> 
> >> The next day the full Senate considered Black's nomination. Rumors relating to Black's involvement in the Ku Klux Klan surfaced among the senators, and two Democratic senators tried defeating the nomination. However, no conclusive evidence of Black's involvement was available at the time, so after six hours of debate, the Senate voted 63-16 to confirm Black, ten Republicans and six Democrats voted against Black.[32] << (Wiki) But the story wasn't put together until the next month.
> 
> -- again, a party opposing its own nominee for being part of what you claim the same party started? Not quite.  Hey, at least they spelled the name of the organization right. That's something.
> 
> IV: again, as we know, a personal letter, 1945, years before running for office, and a mindset he later renounced. Now if the world actually operated on the infantile comic book mentality partisan hacks such as yourself seem to like to imagine, where all events and all people and all political parties are frozen in time forever, that would make this impossible to explain, would it not?
> 
> Unfortunately for your fantasies, people grow. Parties grow, cultures grow, populations grow. Things evolve. Life isn't a still picture on Google images with an incoherent caption on it. Who knew.
> 
> Hang on, we ain't done. Here's number five:
> 
> *V:* why are you obsessed with derailing a thread about a Belgian newspaper's racist depiction of the POTUS and FLOTUS and trying to morph it into a thread about Robert Byrd, a dead guy who has absolutely zero to do with this topic? Embarrassed?
> 
> To get back on track the topic is this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The KKK targeted BLACKS and Southern Republicans* Who were they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I see you spent all of a minute and a half reading that. No wonder you never get anything.
> 
> Actually "who were they" is a good question, even if it is still off topic. A side point I neglected.
> 
> When we say "Ku Klux Klan" we refer to several incarnations of several organizations, some tightly organized, some just loosely using the name, with purposes ranging from simple joking around with Greek word forms to a kind of moral police force masquerading as a 'social' club, to outright despicable terrorism, murder and destruction.
> 
> There are generally three incarnations of KKK; the first, organized by those six soldiers and the war general, was actually one of several vigilante/terrorism groups (e.g. Knights of the White Camelia, founded 1867) created by Confederate ex-soldiers who basically didn't want to accept defeat. In legal terms they maintained a concept of "states rights", an anti-Big Government stance that wanted Northerners out (a sentiment that persists today as a buzzword in the Republican Party, especially but not exclusivey, in the South). Congress and President Grant passed laws in response (Grant virtually drove them out of South Carolina, at least temporarily). This version of the Klan, the original, was dissolved in 1869, although local chapters continued without a national structure for about five more years.
> 
> So that Klan had a life of about ten years. By the end of the century it was all but forgotten, although the decades on either side of the turn of that century would manifest the worst racial relations, rioting, lynchings and other persecutions in our nation's entire history, ones which make the 1960s and the Rodney King LA riot look like a sunny day in the park. By then it wasn't the Klan; it was the general population. Read about the Tulsa race riots and question why they're not in the history books. Bob Dylan's "Desolation Row" is built around one of these riots, in Duluth in 1920.
> 
> The second Klan was the one organized by Simmons in Georgia (posted last night) directly out of that atmosphere as a "fraternal" organization and chartered by the state, but reaching back to the vigilantism and terrorism practices of the post-Civil war era. This was 1915, the nadir of our shameful racial past, just after, and probably influenced by, the racist D.W. Griffith film _Birth of a Nation_. Griffith, tapping on that nadir of American race relations, had invoked the white sheet and burning crosses of a romanticized old England in his film, and Simmons' group incorporated these now-familiar icons along with a manifesto from the original Klan written in 1867. This second Klan milked the paranoias of the time: it was anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, prohibitionist and antisemitic. Its membership purportedly seeded from the Knights of Mary Phagan, a vigilante group that had lynched Leo Frank in 1915.
> 
> Simmons' "fraternal" orgnanization was a small local group for six years until it expanded in 1921. This would be the Klan that spread from the south into the midwest and west, the one that attracted Edward Jackson and Robert Byrd and those other politicians from Colorado and Indiana and California, as well as all over the South. That incarnation peaked in the 1920s, then fell into decline and withered away with World War Two.
> 
> The third Klan is a loose gathering of autonomous local groups that sprang up in the 1950s and into the '60s, using the old Klan name but without a central structure. These loosely defined groups were responsible for some of the most heinous crimes of what we call the "civil rights era" including the bombing of the Birmingham church that killed four girls and the triple murder of Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner as well as Medgar Evers. More accepted even in the South today as terrorists, this "Klan", however loosely organized, is underground and despised but still exists in some degree.
> 
> So when we speak of "who started the KKK" we speak of many different people in at least three different times. Confederate soldiers started the original one, which lasted ten years. A Georgia vigilante started the second one and did damage for two decades. Various community racists locally revived the name for the third one. None of them was a political party.
> 
> But seeing as how you've probably devoted your usual seven seconds of reading to all of the above, why not go back to Google Images and pretend to make a point. It's less work than thinking.
Click to expand...


How many times are you going to post this summary from Wikipedia? You just like to do your revisionist history on Southern Democrats targeted Blacks and Southern Republicans... Get over it boy, it's history well known, and published. And for you who haven't the time or energy to look back at this thread, here AGAIN is what PBS has written down in it's article "The Rise Of The Ku Klux Klan"

"At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, *Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.

The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.*

Folks, unless you're a total idiot, as Pogo here is, you just have to know that what I stated was true, even the heavily left leaning PBS has said so....But Pogo, you keep on doing what you do best, TRYING to revise known history, and many of us, who aren't brain dead liberals, will watch your antics with this, and chuckle to ourselves, as to how truly demented you must be to keep your bullshit revisions going on as long as they have.

Remember, with this thread, and your denial that Democrats were the founders of the KKK, who could ever take you seriously about any other topic you try to spin...Thanks for the laughs and entertainment! 

Oh, didn't need the cute little pictures this time to put you in your place. I suggest you try contacting PBS so they can revise their website to go along with your suspension of rationalization! ...Please continue!


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The KKK targeted BLACKS and Southern Republicans* Who were they?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you spent all of a minute and a half reading that. No wonder you never get anything.
> 
> Actually "who were they" is a good question, even if it is still off topic. A side point I neglected.
> 
> When we say "Ku Klux Klan" we refer to several incarnations of several organizations, some tightly organized, some just loosely using the name, with purposes ranging from simple joking around with Greek word forms to a kind of moral police force masquerading as a 'social' club, to outright despicable terrorism, murder and destruction.
> 
> There are generally three incarnations of KKK; the first, organized by those six soldiers and the war general, was actually one of several vigilante/terrorism groups (e.g. Knights of the White Camelia, founded 1867) created by Confederate ex-soldiers who basically didn't want to accept defeat. In legal terms they maintained a concept of "states rights", an anti-Big Government stance that wanted Northerners out (a sentiment that persists today as a buzzword in the Republican Party, especially but not exclusivey, in the South). Congress and President Grant passed laws in response (Grant virtually drove them out of South Carolina, at least temporarily). This version of the Klan, the original, was dissolved in 1869, although local chapters continued without a national structure for about five more years.
> 
> So that Klan had a life of about ten years. By the end of the century it was all but forgotten, although the decades on either side of the turn of that century would manifest the worst racial relations, rioting, lynchings and other persecutions in our nation's entire history, ones which make the 1960s and the Rodney King LA riot look like a sunny day in the park. By then it wasn't the Klan; it was the general population. Read about the Tulsa race riots and question why they're not in the history books. Bob Dylan's "Desolation Row" is built around one of these riots, in Duluth in 1920.
> 
> The second Klan was the one organized by Simmons in Georgia (posted last night) directly out of that atmosphere as a "fraternal" organization and chartered by the state, but reaching back to the vigilantism and terrorism practices of the post-Civil war era. This was 1915, the nadir of our shameful racial past, just after, and probably influenced by, the racist D.W. Griffith film _Birth of a Nation_. Griffith, tapping on that nadir of American race relations, had invoked the white sheet and burning crosses of a romanticized old England in his film, and Simmons' group incorporated these now-familiar icons along with a manifesto from the original Klan written in 1867. This second Klan milked the paranoias of the time: it was anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, prohibitionist and antisemitic. Its membership purportedly seeded from the Knights of Mary Phagan, a vigilante group that had lynched Leo Frank in 1915.
> 
> Simmons' "fraternal" orgnanization was a small local group for six years until it expanded in 1921. This would be the Klan that spread from the south into the midwest and west, the one that attracted Edward Jackson and Robert Byrd and those other politicians from Colorado and Indiana and California, as well as all over the South. That incarnation peaked in the 1920s, then fell into decline and withered away with World War Two.
> 
> The third Klan is a loose gathering of autonomous local groups that sprang up in the 1950s and into the '60s, using the old Klan name but without a central structure. These loosely defined groups were responsible for some of the most heinous crimes of what we call the "civil rights era" including the bombing of the Birmingham church that killed four girls and the triple murder of Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner as well as Medgar Evers. More accepted even in the South today as terrorists, this "Klan", however loosely organized, is underground and despised but still exists in some degree.
> 
> So when we speak of "who started the KKK" we speak of many different people in at least three different times. Confederate soldiers started the original one, which lasted ten years. A Georgia vigilante started the second one and did damage for two decades. Various community racists locally revived the name for the third one. None of them was a political party.
> 
> But seeing as how you've probably devoted your usual seven seconds of reading to all of the above, why not go back to Google Images and pretend to make a point. It's less work than thinking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times are you going to post this summary from Wikipedia? You just like to do your revisionist history on Southern Democrats targeted Blacks and Southern Republicans... Get over it boy, it's history well known, and published. And for you who haven't the time or energy to look back at this thread, here AGAIN is what PBS has written down in it's article "The Rise Of The Ku Klux Klan"
> 
> "At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, *Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.
> 
> The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.*
> 
> Folks, unless you're a total idiot, as Pogo here is, you just have to know that what I stated was true, even the heavily left leaning PBS has said so....But Pogo, you keep on doing what you do best, TRYING to revise known history, and many of us, who aren't brain dead liberals, will watch your antics with this, and chuckle to ourselves, as to how truly demented you must be to keep your bullshit revisions going on as long as they have.
> 
> Remember, with this thread, and your denial that Democrats were the founders of the KKK, who could ever take you seriously about any other topic you try to spin...Thanks for the laughs and entertainment!
> 
> Oh, didn't need the cute little pictures this time to put you in your place. I suggest you try contacting PBS so they can revise their website to go along with your suspension of rationalization! ...Please continue!
Click to expand...



That's not Wiki, asshole; I wrote it.  Not for the likes of you obviously, and I knew you wouldn't read it for fear of discovering you're even wronger than you knew; I wrote it for the rest of the readers who can see how far your head is up your ass right now.

Look, you lost this canard last night.  I gave you three independent histories that all say the same thing (one even gave their names); you keep putting up a PBS site that's badly worded and _unsourced_, and then pretending that because this terrorist group targeted Republicans, that group must therefore be Democrats.  That's like saying some football team targets the Giants, therefore that team must be the Eagles.

You* LOST*, K?  Get *OVER *it.  NONE of this is the topic.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you spent all of a minute and a half reading that. No wonder you never get anything.
> 
> Actually "who were they" is a good question, even if it is still off topic. A side point I neglected.
> 
> When we say "Ku Klux Klan" we refer to several incarnations of several organizations, some tightly organized, some just loosely using the name, with purposes ranging from simple joking around with Greek word forms to a kind of moral police force masquerading as a 'social' club, to outright despicable terrorism, murder and destruction.
> 
> There are generally three incarnations of KKK; the first, organized by those six soldiers and the war general, was actually one of several vigilante/terrorism groups (e.g. Knights of the White Camelia, founded 1867) created by Confederate ex-soldiers who basically didn't want to accept defeat. In legal terms they maintained a concept of "states rights", an anti-Big Government stance that wanted Northerners out (a sentiment that persists today as a buzzword in the Republican Party, especially but not exclusivey, in the South). Congress and President Grant passed laws in response (Grant virtually drove them out of South Carolina, at least temporarily). This version of the Klan, the original, was dissolved in 1869, although local chapters continued without a national structure for about five more years.
> 
> So that Klan had a life of about ten years. By the end of the century it was all but forgotten, although the decades on either side of the turn of that century would manifest the worst racial relations, rioting, lynchings and other persecutions in our nation's entire history, ones which make the 1960s and the Rodney King LA riot look like a sunny day in the park. By then it wasn't the Klan; it was the general population. Read about the Tulsa race riots and question why they're not in the history books. Bob Dylan's "Desolation Row" is built around one of these riots, in Duluth in 1920.
> 
> The second Klan was the one organized by Simmons in Georgia (posted last night) directly out of that atmosphere as a "fraternal" organization and chartered by the state, but reaching back to the vigilantism and terrorism practices of the post-Civil war era. This was 1915, the nadir of our shameful racial past, just after, and probably influenced by, the racist D.W. Griffith film _Birth of a Nation_. Griffith, tapping on that nadir of American race relations, had invoked the white sheet and burning crosses of a romanticized old England in his film, and Simmons' group incorporated these now-familiar icons along with a manifesto from the original Klan written in 1867. This second Klan milked the paranoias of the time: it was anti-immigrant, anti-Catholic, prohibitionist and antisemitic. Its membership purportedly seeded from the Knights of Mary Phagan, a vigilante group that had lynched Leo Frank in 1915.
> 
> Simmons' "fraternal" orgnanization was a small local group for six years until it expanded in 1921. This would be the Klan that spread from the south into the midwest and west, the one that attracted Edward Jackson and Robert Byrd and those other politicians from Colorado and Indiana and California, as well as all over the South. That incarnation peaked in the 1920s, then fell into decline and withered away with World War Two.
> 
> The third Klan is a loose gathering of autonomous local groups that sprang up in the 1950s and into the '60s, using the old Klan name but without a central structure. These loosely defined groups were responsible for some of the most heinous crimes of what we call the "civil rights era" including the bombing of the Birmingham church that killed four girls and the triple murder of Goodman, Chaney and Schwerner as well as Medgar Evers. More accepted even in the South today as terrorists, this "Klan", however loosely organized, is underground and despised but still exists in some degree.
> 
> So when we speak of "who started the KKK" we speak of many different people in at least three different times. Confederate soldiers started the original one, which lasted ten years. A Georgia vigilante started the second one and did damage for two decades. Various community racists locally revived the name for the third one. None of them was a political party.
> 
> But seeing as how you've probably devoted your usual seven seconds of reading to all of the above, why not go back to Google Images and pretend to make a point. It's less work than thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times are you going to post this summary from Wikipedia? You just like to do your revisionist history on Southern Democrats targeted Blacks and Southern Republicans... Get over it boy, it's history well known, and published. And for you who haven't the time or energy to look back at this thread, here AGAIN is what PBS has written down in it's article "The Rise Of The Ku Klux Klan"
> 
> "At the time of Ulysses S. Grant's election to the presidency, white supremacists were conducting a reign of terror throughout the South. In outright defiance of the Republican-led federal government, *Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.
> 
> The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. Originally founded as a social club for former Confederate soldiers, the Klan evolved into a terrorist organization. It would be responsible for thousands of deaths, and would help to weaken the political power of Southern blacks and Republicans.*
> 
> Folks, unless you're a total idiot, as Pogo here is, you just have to know that what I stated was true, even the heavily left leaning PBS has said so....But Pogo, you keep on doing what you do best, TRYING to revise known history, and many of us, who aren't brain dead liberals, will watch your antics with this, and chuckle to ourselves, as to how truly demented you must be to keep your bullshit revisions going on as long as they have.
> 
> Remember, with this thread, and your denial that Democrats were the founders of the KKK, who could ever take you seriously about any other topic you try to spin...Thanks for the laughs and entertainment!
> 
> Oh, didn't need the cute little pictures this time to put you in your place. I suggest you try contacting PBS so they can revise their website to go along with your suspension of rationalization! ...Please continue!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's not Wiki, asshole; I wrote it. Not for the likes of you obviously, and I knew you wouldn't read it for fear of discovering you're even wronger than you knew; I wrote it for the rest of the readers who can see how far your head is up your ass right now.
> 
> Look, you lost this canard last night. I gave you three independent histories that all say the same thing (one even gave their names); *you keep putting up a PBS site that's badly worded and unsourced, and then pretending that because this terrorist group targeted Republicans, that group must therefore be Democrats. *That's like saying some football team targets the Giants, therefore that team must be the Eagles.
> 
> You* LOST*, K? Get *OVER *it. NONE of this is the topic.
Click to expand...


You took all that time to write that bullshit, and PBS shot you down before you even started... BUT  I HIGHLIGHTED what you think PBS was wrong with!!! Well, It's good to see we have a fucking genius here that is smarter than the PBS staff that wrote the piece, and that the other 400,000+ links to Democrats started the KKK are also wrong!

 And.....sorry, laughing so hard, tears in my eyes... *I LOST!!!!!!!!!*

 If none of this is on topic, why did you start with it, and why did you continue it..... I fear that you have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder, and the very thought that you are fighting a losing battle has you shaken to your very core. Oh, the ENTERTAINMENT of actually watching a mental breakdown, by a subversive IS PRICELESS!


----------



## Pogo

Source* FOUR*:
In Pulaski, Tennessee, *a group of Confederate veterans* convenes to form a secret society that they christen the "Ku Klux Klan." The KKK rapidly grew from a secret social fraternity to a paramilitary force bent on reversing the federal government's progressive Reconstruction Era-activities in the South, especially policies that elevated the rights of the local African American population.

The name of the Ku Klux Klan was derived from the Greek word kyklos, meaning "circle," and the Scottish-Gaelic word "clan," which was probably chosen for the sake of alliteration. Under a platform of philosophized white racial superiority, the group employed violence as a means of pushing back Reconstruction and its enfranchisement of African Americans. Former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest was the KKK's first grand wizard; in 1869, he unsuccessfully tried to disband it after he grew critical of the Klan's excessive violence. <<

Source *FIVE*:
>> The original Ku Klux Klan was created in an 1865 meeting in a law office *by six Confederate veterans* in Pulaski, Tennessee. It was, at first, a humorous social club centering on practical jokes and hazing rituals. From 1866 to 1867, various local units began breaking up black prayer meetings and invading black homes at night to steal firearms. Some of these activities may have been modeled on previous Tennessee vigilante groups such as the Yellow Jackets and Redcaps. In an 1867 convention held in Nashville, the Klan was formalized as a national organization under a &#8220;Prescript&#8221; written by George Gordon, a former Confederate brigadier general.

...  As historian Elaine Frantz Parsons discovered [Parsons p 816]:

&#8220;Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own.&#8221; <<

Source *SIX*:
>> The first Klan was created *by six men from Pulaski Tennessee*, in the image of other secret societies of the day. The hierarchical organization with local chapters housed under a national umbressa [sic] structure.

... History and context:

The first KKK was formed in the American South at the end of the civil war, when the victorious Union government imposed a version of martial law on the south and began to enforce laws designed to end segregation against black citizens. When a constitutional amendment granted black men the right to vote in 1870, the group turned to intimidation and violence to try to halt de-segregation. <<

Source *SEVEN*:
>> Started during Reconstruction at the end of the Civil War, the Klan quickly mobilized as *a vigilante group* to intimidate Southern blacks - and any whites who would help them - and to prevent them from enjoying basic civil rights. <<

Source *EIGHT*:
>> 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. <<

Source *NINE*:
>> The 19th-century Klan was originally organized as a social club *by Confederate veterans* in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1866. They apparently derived the name from the Greek word _kyklos_, from which comes the English &#8220;circle&#8221;; &#8220;Klan&#8221; was added for the sake of alliteration and Ku Klux Klan emerged. The organization quickly became a vehicle for Southern white underground resistance to Radical Reconstruction. Klan members sought the restoration of white supremacy through intimidation and violence aimed at the newly enfranchised black freedmen. A similar organization, the Knights of the White Camelia, began in Louisiana in 1867. <<

You lost.  Get over it.  And lift a finger to do some fucking homework next time.

And don't worry about my time; this is part of the research I do and have already done.  That's how I knew you were completely full of shit when you started this malarkey.


----------



## Pogo

Meanwhile, back in the Present:

KKK Recruitment Flyers Distributed in Central Louisiana Neighborhoods

>> EUNICE, La (WVLA) &#8211; Someone is passing out hateful flyers in the Acadiana area, telling Eunice residents the KKK is &#8220;awake.&#8221;

This flier was passed out in one predominantly black neighborhood over the weekend.

...According to the website listed on the flyer, they are &#8220;the largest and most active Klan in America.&#8221;

_The website also says: &#8220;We hate drugs, homosexuality, abortion, and race-mixing because these things go against God&#8217;s law and they are destroying all white nations.&#8221;_ <<

Yup, that sounds like Democrats.  (/sarc)


----------



## S.J.

Damn, Pogo, give it up already.  How many times do you have to have your ass handed to you before you slink away in defeat?  I almost feel embarrassed for you.  ALMOST.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Damn, Pogo, give it up already.  How many times do you have to have your ass handed to you before you slink away in defeat?  I almost feel embarrassed for you.  ALMOST.



From the smegma sucker who thinks racism means mentioning what Fox News' demographics are. 

Poster please.  You're not even part of this.  Vigilante's clearly an idiot but at least he puts his own posts up rather than standing on the side barking like a schnauzer with a hair up its ass.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Source* FOUR*:
> In Pulaski, Tennessee, *a group of Confederate veterans* convenes to form a secret society that they christen the "Ku Klux Klan." The KKK rapidly grew from a secret social fraternity to a paramilitary force bent on reversing the federal government's progressive Reconstruction Era-activities in the South, especially policies that elevated the rights of the local African American population.
> 
> The name of the Ku Klux Klan was derived from the Greek word kyklos, meaning "circle," and the Scottish-Gaelic word "clan," which was probably chosen for the sake of alliteration. Under a platform of philosophized white racial superiority, the group employed violence as a means of pushing back Reconstruction and its enfranchisement of African Americans. Former Confederate General Nathan Bedford Forrest was the KKK's first grand wizard; in 1869, he unsuccessfully tried to disband it after he grew critical of the Klan's excessive violence. <<
> 
> Source *FIVE*:
> >> The original Ku Klux Klan was created in an 1865 meeting in a law office *by six Confederate veterans* in Pulaski, Tennessee. It was, at first, a humorous social club centering on practical jokes and hazing rituals. From 1866 to 1867, various local units began breaking up black prayer meetings and invading black homes at night to steal firearms. Some of these activities may have been modeled on previous Tennessee vigilante groups such as the Yellow Jackets and Redcaps. In an 1867 convention held in Nashville, the Klan was formalized as a national organization under a Prescript written by George Gordon, a former Confederate brigadier general.
> 
> ... As historian Elaine Frantz Parsons discovered [Parsons p 816]:
> 
> Lifting the Klan mask revealed a chaotic multitude of antiblack vigilante groups, disgruntled poor white farmers, wartime guerrilla bands, displaced Democratic politicians, illegal whiskey distillers, coercive moral reformers, bored young men, sadists, rapists, white workmen fearful of black competition, employers trying to enforce labor discipline, common thieves, neighbors with decades-old grudges, and even a few freedmen and white Republicans who allied with Democratic whites or had criminal agendas of their own. <<
> 
> Source *SIX*:
> >> The first Klan was created *by six men from Pulaski Tennessee*, in the image of other secret societies of the day. The hierarchical organization with local chapters housed under a national umbressa [sic] structure.
> 
> ... History and context:
> 
> The first KKK was formed in the American South at the end of the civil war, when the victorious Union government imposed a version of martial law on the south and began to enforce laws designed to end segregation against black citizens. When a constitutional amendment granted black men the right to vote in 1870, the group turned to intimidation and violence to try to halt de-segregation. <<
> 
> Source *SEVEN*:
> >> Started during Reconstruction at the end of the Civil War, the Klan quickly mobilized as *a vigilante group* to intimidate Southern blacks - and any whites who would help them - and to prevent them from enjoying basic civil rights. <<
> 
> Source *EIGHT*:
> >> 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. <<
> 
> Source *NINE*:
> >> The 19th-century Klan was originally organized as a social club *by Confederate veterans* in Pulaski, Tenn., in 1866. They apparently derived the name from the Greek word _kyklos_, from which comes the English circle; Klan was added for the sake of alliteration and Ku Klux Klan emerged. The organization quickly became a vehicle for Southern white underground resistance to Radical Reconstruction. Klan members sought the restoration of white supremacy through intimidation and violence aimed at the newly enfranchised black freedmen. A similar organization, the Knights of the White Camelia, began in Louisiana in 1867. <<
> 
> You lost. Get over it. And lift a finger to do some fucking homework next time.
> 
> And don't worry about my time; this is part of the research I do and have already done. That's how I knew you were completely full of shit when you started this malarkey.



Look at all the SHIT this retard has gone through to try and prove, to himself, I might add, that PBS was completely wrong by stating *"Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865"*

 What, pray tell is so difficult to understand here?... I swear, it's that OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER shaking this Boy to his very roots! 

 DENIAL, you absolutely have a terminal case of it! I do hope your insurance policy is paid up, hate to have your wife have her house taken away when your heart gives out from stress!


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, Pogo, give it up already. How many times do you have to have your ass handed to you before you slink away in defeat? I almost feel embarrassed for you. ALMOST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the smegma sucker who thinks racism means mentioning what Fox News' demographics are.
> 
> Poster please. You're not even part of this. Vigilante's clearly an idiot but at least he puts his own posts up rather than standing on the side barking like a schnauzer with a hair up its ass.
Click to expand...


The STRESS is getting to him, heart rate faster, blood pressure going up, soon headaches and vomiting, better take an aspirin, and call the doctor in the morning! ....FRUITCAKE CITY!


----------



## Pogo

Clearly I know one *fuck *of a lot more about history than you do.  And have a lot more books.

Stress?

Which one of us is posting all the strings of exclamation points, nervous-laughter emoticons and badly captioned Google Images?
You lost, Danth.  Deal with it.


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, Pogo, give it up already.  How many times do you have to have your ass handed to you before you slink away in defeat?  I almost feel embarrassed for you.  ALMOST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the smegma sucker who thinks racism means mentioning what Fox News' demographics are.
> 
> Poster please.  You're not even part of this.  Vigilante's clearly an idiot but at least he puts his own posts up rather than standing on the side barking like a schnauzer with a hair up its ass.
Click to expand...

I already handed you your ass a couple of pages back, but you can act as though it never happened.  The other members, however, can go back and see for themselves how you have been struggling to rewrite history and failing miserably.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Meanwhile, back in the Present:
> 
> KKK Recruitment Flyers Distributed in Central Louisiana Neighborhoods
> 
> >> EUNICE, La (WVLA) &#8211; Someone is passing out hateful flyers in the Acadiana area, telling Eunice residents the KKK is &#8220;awake.&#8221;
> 
> This flier was passed out in one predominantly black neighborhood over the weekend.
> 
> ...According to the website listed on the flyer, they are &#8220;the largest and most active Klan in America.&#8221;
> 
> _The website also says: &#8220;We hate drugs, homosexuality, abortion, and race-mixing because these things go against God&#8217;s law and they are destroying all white nations.&#8221;_ <<
> 
> Yup, that sounds like Democrats. (/sarc)



Why yes it does, SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS.... who else would it be...I bet you think it's them rascal Republicans, and specifically the, shall I say those awful words....*THE TEA PARTY!!!!!*... OMG, I'm convulsing in laughter!


----------



## Vigilante

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, Pogo, give it up already. How many times do you have to have your ass handed to you before you slink away in defeat? I almost feel embarrassed for you. ALMOST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the smegma sucker who thinks racism means mentioning what Fox News' demographics are.
> 
> Poster please. You're not even part of this. Vigilante's clearly an idiot but at least he puts his own posts up rather than standing on the side barking like a schnauzer with a hair up its ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already handed you your ass a couple of pages back, but you can act as though it never happened. The other members, however, can go back and see for themselves how you have been struggling to rewrite history and failing miserably.
Click to expand...


This is too fucking funny. His SUSPENSION OF REALITY is the worst case by a subversive that I've ever encountered....and he keeps piling onto it....simply amazing, I have to bookmark this to display on other forums for those folks to look at and comment.... My chest hurts from the guffaws!


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, Pogo, give it up already.  How many times do you have to have your ass handed to you before you slink away in defeat?  I almost feel embarrassed for you.  ALMOST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the smegma sucker who thinks racism means mentioning what Fox News' demographics are.
> 
> Poster please.  You're not even part of this.  Vigilante's clearly an idiot but at least he puts his own posts up rather than standing on the side barking like a schnauzer with a hair up its ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I already handed you your ass a couple of pages back, but you can act as though it never happened.  The other members, however, can go back and see for themselves how you have been struggling to rewrite history and failing miserably.
Click to expand...


Wrong, dickhead.  You claimed David Duke was rebuked by the Republican Party; I called for you to link it and you went crickets.  Then I pointed out that he was the Republican Party *Chair*.  That's when you ran away.

Oh yeah it's all back there, moron.


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the smegma sucker who thinks racism means mentioning what Fox News' demographics are.
> 
> Poster please. You're not even part of this. Vigilante's clearly an idiot but at least he puts his own posts up rather than standing on the side barking like a schnauzer with a hair up its ass.
> 
> 
> 
> I already handed you your ass a couple of pages back, but you can act as though it never happened. The other members, however, can go back and see for themselves how you have been struggling to rewrite history and failing miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is too fucking funny. His SUSPENSION OF REALITY is the worst case by a subversive that I've ever encountered....and he keeps piling onto it....simply amazing, I have to bookmark this to display on other forums for those folks to look at and comment.... My chest hurts from the guffaws!
Click to expand...


Face it, NervousDanth.  I put nine sources up; all of them go into more detail and not a single one of them supports your PBS wording.  Is there anything that does?   No?

To be honest I didn't list everything I found; one site for instance had Nathan Bedford Forrest starting the KKK.  But _nobody_ recounts a Democratic Party founding it.

That was your contention; you're unable to document it.  Therefore --- YOU LOSE.

You history revisionists kill me -- you must think because you bury your own heads in the sand everybody else will too.

The Democratic Party not only invented the KKK but invented slavery.  They used slaves to build the Pyramids.  Hitler was a leftist.  FDR caused the Depression.  Clinton caused 9/11 and O'bama caused the economic collapse of 2008, months before he was even elected, by using his magic TelePrompTer.    O'bama also caused Hurricane Sandy with the same device.

These are all hystories I've learned at this site from you Revisionista hacks.  It's hilarious.
Especially watching you squirm when confronted with the facts.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Clearly I know one *fuck *of a lot more about history than you do. And have a lot more books.
> 
> Stress?
> 
> Which one of us is posting all the strings of exclamation points, nervous-laughter emoticons and badly captioned Google Images?
> You lost, Danth. Deal with it.



Now the braggadocios idiot is claiming "I HAVE A LOT MORE BOOKS"! He doesn't know me, I don't want to know him (his writing makes one believe he is dangerously deranged), but his simplistic style of denial is textbook Obsessive compulsive disorder. 

 I enjoy those little emoticons, they simply drive home the feeling of the thread! If I were a religious man, I'd  for you, but I'm not so I'll at you.!


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already handed you your ass a couple of pages back, but you can act as though it never happened. The other members, however, can go back and see for themselves how you have been struggling to rewrite history and failing miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is too fucking funny. His SUSPENSION OF REALITY is the worst case by a subversive that I've ever encountered....and he keeps piling onto it....simply amazing, I have to bookmark this to display on other forums for those folks to look at and comment.... My chest hurts from the guffaws!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Face it, NervousDanth. I put nine sources up; all of them go into more detail and not a single one of them supports your PBS wording. Is there anything that does? No?
> To be honest I didn't list everything I found; one site for instance had Nathan Bedford Forrest starting the KKK. But nobody recounts a Democratic Party founding it.
> 
> That was your contention; you're unable to document it. Therefore --- YOU LOSE.
Click to expand...


 who cares what you put up, I'll go with a proven source, PBS! I don't have to document anything, PBS has done it for me, now I just have to get a little rest, but I'm sure you'll post something else equally as inane as you have been, and I'll be back to play with your head tomorrow. You've tired me out from the hilarity of your compulsion.....DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT, DOCUMENT.... this is the internet, OMG!!!!!!!


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the smegma sucker who thinks racism means mentioning what Fox News' demographics are.
> 
> Poster please.  You're not even part of this.  Vigilante's clearly an idiot but at least he puts his own posts up rather than standing on the side barking like a schnauzer with a hair up its ass.
> 
> 
> 
> I already handed you your ass a couple of pages back, but you can act as though it never happened.  The other members, however, can go back and see for themselves how you have been struggling to rewrite history and failing miserably.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong, dickhead.  You claimed David Duke was rebuked by the Republican Party; *I called for you to link it and you went crickets.  Then I pointed out that he was the Republican Party Chair.  That's when you ran away.*
> 
> Oh yeah it's all back there, moron.
Click to expand...

So, because I don't jump through your diversionary hoops, that means you win?  Face it, "dood", your ass has been handed to you several times in this thread.  You're gonna pass out from all the spinning.  But please don't stop, it's fun watching you squirm.  You're like a rat on a treadmill, you don't know when to jump off.


----------



## Pogo

Spoonman said:


> SAYIT said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think its wrong but being wrong has never stopper the left in their attacks on the right either.   so it goes both ways.  as long as it remains an acceptable practice for one side to do it, the other side will continue to do it to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am as discomforted by the ranting of ideologues and dogmatists on both sides of the aisle. That our elected officials fling stupid shit at one another is unfortunate but to be expected. We as Americans don't need to follow their lead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm more pissed that our politicians no longer represent us, but represent special interests instead.   I'm more pissed that we as citizens let them create the great divide with their child like games.   fact is, democrats control, corporations still benefit, the rich get richer, the poor still remain poor.  Republicans control, abortion still remains legal, books aren't burned, churches don't control the government.  our government plays the divide and conquer game great.  the more outrageous the attack the more angered people will be with the other side.
Click to expand...


So true.  Eisenhower tried to warn us.  Down here we pretend the red and blue puppets are some sort of different, which is exactly what those holding the puppet strings want.  Keep fighting with each other; whatever you do don't look up at the puppeteer.


----------



## Vigilante

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I already handed you your ass a couple of pages back, but you can act as though it never happened. The other members, however, can go back and see for themselves how you have been struggling to rewrite history and failing miserably.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, dickhead. You claimed David Duke was rebuked by the Republican Party; *I called for you to link it and you went crickets. Then I pointed out that he was the Republican Party Chair. That's when you ran away.*
> 
> Oh yeah it's all back there, moron.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, because I don't jump through your diversionary hoops, that means you win? Face it, "dood", your ass has been handed to you several times in this thread. You're gonna pass out from all the spinning. But please don't stop, it's fun watching you squirm. You're like a rat on a treadmill, you don't know when to jump off.
Click to expand...


Now that he might get the message that PBS is a more trusted source than a subversive, I just wonder if he'll let go of this problem he has, or will he try to be LAST POSTER in this thread....time will tell


----------



## Stephanie

katsteve2012 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> De Morgen apologized for the image in its Monday edition, admitting it was guilty of "bad taste."
> 
> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just a picture evoking sheer racism," the newspaper said. "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."
> 
> Unigwe, who lives in Belgium, went on to tweet in depth about the controversial spread, noting that the fault lies with Belgian society moreso than De Morgen:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising and not the first time.
> 
> California Tea Party Activist Portrays President Obama as a Monkey | Politicus USA's Archives
Click to expand...


a commie site, please spare us
I wouldn't believe anything they said if it came notarized on their tongue


----------



## Stephanie

Mertex said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the twisting, turning, and struggling continues.  I haven't heard one liberal condemn Byrd yet.  I've heard them make a lot of excuses for him but not one condemnation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Byrd had become a Republican like Thurmond did, you'd be defending him, just like Strum Thurmond is defended and revered.  You only mention Byrd because he is the only Democrat you can point to as a racist, while the Republican party has many......
> 
> So, quit acting as if you've discovered a gold mine....it just shows how ignorant some conservatives can be and how little they know of their party.
> 
> Strom Thurmond: A Tribute
> 
> Former Untied States Senator Strom Thurmond died today. He was just one hundred years old. He was a solider, a lawyer, a judge, a Governor, a Presidential candidate, and the longest-serving Senator in the entire history of the United States. He was a man of honor. He was a great man. And he was a hero.
> 
> In the days to come you will hear many obituaries for Strom and, I am certain, virtually all of them will come with a but. Yes, they will say, Senator Thurmond did this and this, but *he was also once a segregationist.* This will come from the same people in the media who praise Robert Byrd a man who, at about the same time then-Governor Thurmond was losing a Senate Primary because he appointed a black Doctor to a state medical board, was a member of the Ku Klux Klan. There will even be those who will denounce him, a warrior who gave three lifetimes worth of service to his country, ignoring the facts of his life.
> 
> *Strom Thurmond was a patriot.* More than that, he is a man who played a great role in helping to heal the country from the lingering wounds of the Civil War, and to propel it to greatness. When he was born, in December of 1902, there were still men alive who had fought with Lee at Gettysburg who were not yet fifty-five. Young Strom probably sat with many of them, and heard their stories of the lost cause, and became a Democrat. Because, in those days, every white person in the South was a Democrat.
> 
> Who ever would have thought that the white South would come to embrace the party of Lincoln? Its one of those historical oddities that, if you predicted it just a few years earlier, would have been utterly unbelievable. Yet it happened, and it happened because of him. *When, in 1964, he switched parties it was an earthquake in Southern politics. The GOP, after all, was the party of William T. Sherman, and all of the rest who had so long been reviled in the South.* But the people went with him and, in doing so, they healed many of the wounds of the long-ago war.
> [url=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/936388/posts]Strom Thurmond: A Tribute[/URL]
> 
> 
> In his Washington Post column, *Fox News contributor George Will downplayed the explicitly racist, segregationist presidential campaigns of Strom Thurmond* and George Wallace, referring to them as merely focused on the "burning issues" of "regional grievances relating to race" and "venting class and cultural resentments," respectfully.
> George Will Whitewashes Racism From Pro-Segregation Presidential Campaigns | Blog | Media Matters for America
Click to expand...


You just can't stay on the fact BYRD was a member of the KKK, can you
must distract must distract...lol


----------



## Pogo

Stephanie said:


> katsteve2012 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> 
> Satire? I don't think that word means what they think it means.
> 
> Belgian Newspaper Accused Of Racism For Picture Of Obama And Michelle As Apes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I really can't find the possible humor angle. I guess I need to evolve more, or something.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not surprising and not the first time.
> 
> California Tea Party Activist Portrays President Obama as a Monkey | Politicus USA's Archives
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a commie site, please spare us
> I wouldn't believe anything they said if it came notarized on their tongue
Click to expand...


A "commie site"?  

Is the story untrue?

Here it is on a local TV station  (with images)  How can they have images of it if it's made up?

Here it is in a local entertainment paper --

>> The Weekly has obtained a copy of an email sent to fellow conservatives this week by Marilyn Davenport, a Southern California Tea Party activist and member of the central committee of the Orange County Republican Party.

Under the words, "Now you know why no birth certificate," there's an Obama family portrait showing them as apes. 

... (Update: KCAL and KCBS reported during their respective 10 and 11 p.m. broadcasts that in a telephone interview Davenport blamed the media for this controversy and slammed down the phone.)

>> "When I saw that email today I thought it was despicable," Baugh said. "It is dripping with racism and it does not promote the type of message Orange County Republicans want to deliver to the public. I think she should consider stepping down as an elected official." << -- Scott Baugh, OC Republican Party Chair

Why would the party Chair be denouncing a story that was made up by "a commie site"?

Then there's this... (same article)



Is that made up by a "commie site" too?  Why would the mayor apologize for it?

Funny Orange County should come up, there was a tangent just recently about the KKK, who won some Anaheim city council seats there back in the infamous '20s.  Strange place.


----------



## Flopper

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Damn, Pogo, give it up already. How many times do you have to have your ass handed to you before you slink away in defeat? I almost feel embarrassed for you. ALMOST.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From the smegma sucker who thinks racism means mentioning what Fox News' demographics are.
> 
> Poster please. You're not even part of this. Vigilante's clearly an idiot but at least he puts his own posts up rather than standing on the side barking like a schnauzer with a hair up its ass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The STRESS is getting to him, heart rate faster, blood pressure going up, soon headaches and vomiting, better take an aspirin, and call the doctor in the morning! ....FRUITCAKE CITY!
Click to expand...

There is no doubt that in the first half of 20th century, KKK members were either Democrats or had no party affiliation because the South was mostly Democrat.  Republicans in the South were about as common as whites at an NAACP rally.  Democrats were so strong that the South was called the "Solid South".  Winning a Democratic Primary in most southern states was equivalent winning the election.  In national elections, the deep  south voted Democrat in every election in first half of the 20th century.

So, yes, the KKK before the mid 20th century attacked Republicans, not because of their achievements in civil rights but because they were the party of Lincoln, they were Yankees, and they weren't Democrats. 

However, after the mid 20th century roles reversed. As Blacks flooded into the Democratic Party in the South, KKK members and segregationist began to move away from the Democratic Party.  Some supported 3rd parties, became independents, and joined the Republican party while other remained in the Democrat party but voted Republican in national elections.   The Solid South was becoming solidly Republican in national elections.  They gained more strength in state elections.  The KKK which now is about 6 different groups strongly opposes Democrats, supporting independents and Republicans, a total reversal from a hundred years ago.


----------



## S.J.

Flopper said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> From the smegma sucker who thinks racism means mentioning what Fox News' demographics are.
> 
> Poster please. You're not even part of this. Vigilante's clearly an idiot but at least he puts his own posts up rather than standing on the side barking like a schnauzer with a hair up its ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The STRESS is getting to him, heart rate faster, blood pressure going up, soon headaches and vomiting, better take an aspirin, and call the doctor in the morning! ....FRUITCAKE CITY!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is no doubt that in the first half of 20th century, KKK members were either Democrats or had no party affiliation because the South was mostly Democrat.  Republicans in the South were about as common as whites at an NAACP rally.  Democrats were so strong that the South was called the "Solid South".  Winning a Democratic Primary in most southern states was equivalent winning the election.  In national elections, the deep  south voted Democrat in every election in first half of the 20th century.
> 
> So, yes, the KKK before the mid 20th century attacked Republicans, not because of their achievements in civil rights but because they were the party of Lincoln, they were Yankees, and they weren't Democrats.
> 
> *However, after the mid 20th century roles reversed.* As Blacks flooded into the Democratic Party in the South, KKK members and segregationist began to move away from the Democratic Party.  Some supported 3rd parties, became independents, and joined the Republican party while other remained in the Democrat party but voted Republican in national elections.   The Solid South was becoming solidly Republican in national elections.  They gained more strength in state elections.  The KKK which now is about 6 different groups strongly opposes Democrats, supporting independents and Republicans, a total reversal from a hundred years ago.
Click to expand...

You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century.  He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party.  Nice try though.  And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks.  "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The STRESS is getting to him, heart rate faster, blood pressure going up, soon headaches and vomiting, better take an aspirin, and call the doctor in the morning! ....FRUITCAKE CITY!
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt that in the first half of 20th century, KKK members were either Democrats or had no party affiliation because the South was mostly Democrat.  Republicans in the South were about as common as whites at an NAACP rally.  Democrats were so strong that the South was called the "Solid South".  Winning a Democratic Primary in most southern states was equivalent winning the election.  In national elections, the deep  south voted Democrat in every election in first half of the 20th century.
> 
> So, yes, the KKK before the mid 20th century attacked Republicans, not because of their achievements in civil rights but because they were the party of Lincoln, they were Yankees, and they weren't Democrats.
> 
> *However, after the mid 20th century roles reversed.* As Blacks flooded into the Democratic Party in the South, KKK members and segregationist began to move away from the Democratic Party.  Some supported 3rd parties, became independents, and joined the Republican party while other remained in the Democrat party but voted Republican in national elections.   The Solid South was becoming solidly Republican in national elections.  They gained more strength in state elections.  The KKK which now is about 6 different groups strongly opposes Democrats, supporting independents and Republicans, a total reversal from a hundred years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century.  He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party.  Nice try though.  And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks.  "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson
Click to expand...


You know that quote is uncorroborated, right?  Nah, you probably don't...

What he's talking about by "role reversal" is the shift in the population of the South from blue to red.  Was there a sudden influx of new people, while the existing ones were exiled away in some latter day Trail of Tears?  Nope, same people, same conservative values.  Only the name of the party has changed.  Traditions die hard here but these conservatives could no longer countenance a political party with which they had so many fundamental differences.

His point, and it's a valid one, is that as far as the tangent of the KKK, their values haven't changed either, and they'll align with whatever party reflects them, and against whatever party doesn't.  Which disproves the specious relationship idea tendered when this tangent hit the fan.

Again, that does not mean the Republican Party invented the KKK, because that would be the same illogic as Vagina-boy brought in in the first place.


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt that in the first half of 20th century, KKK members were either Democrats or had no party affiliation because the South was mostly Democrat.  Republicans in the South were about as common as whites at an NAACP rally.  Democrats were so strong that the South was called the "Solid South".  Winning a Democratic Primary in most southern states was equivalent winning the election.  In national elections, the deep  south voted Democrat in every election in first half of the 20th century.
> 
> So, yes, the KKK before the mid 20th century attacked Republicans, not because of their achievements in civil rights but because they were the party of Lincoln, they were Yankees, and they weren't Democrats.
> 
> *However, after the mid 20th century roles reversed.* As Blacks flooded into the Democratic Party in the South, KKK members and segregationist began to move away from the Democratic Party.  Some supported 3rd parties, became independents, and joined the Republican party while other remained in the Democrat party but voted Republican in national elections.   The Solid South was becoming solidly Republican in national elections.  They gained more strength in state elections.  The KKK which now is about 6 different groups strongly opposes Democrats, supporting independents and Republicans, a total reversal from a hundred years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century.  He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party.  Nice try though.  And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks.  "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know that quote is uncorroborated, right?  Nah, you probably don't...
> 
> What he's talking about by "role reversal" is the shift in the population of the South from blue to red.  Was there a sudden influx of new people, while the existing ones were exiled away in some latter day Trail of Tears?  Nope, same people, same conservative values.  Only the name of the party has changed.  Traditions die hard here but these conservatives could no longer countenance a political party with which they had so many fundamental differences.
> 
> His point, and it's a valid one, is that as far as the tangent of the KKK, their values haven't changed either, and they'll align with whatever party reflects them, and against whatever party doesn't.  Which disproves the specious relationship idea tendered when this tangent hit the fan.
> 
> Again, that does not mean the Republican Party invented the KKK, because that would be the same illogic as Vagina-boy brought in in the first place.
Click to expand...

And the twisting and turning continues.  Fact is that at the same time the Republican Party was publicly urging citizens to vote for the Democratic opponent of David Duke, to force him out of the Republican Party, Democrats like Teddy Kennedy were praising Robert Byrd as a "National Treasure".  But let's not address that inconvenient truth, let's instead challenge Lyndon Johnson's quote.  More diversion.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century.  He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party.  Nice try though.  And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks.  "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that quote is uncorroborated, right?  Nah, you probably don't...
> 
> What he's talking about by "role reversal" is the shift in the population of the South from blue to red.  Was there a sudden influx of new people, while the existing ones were exiled away in some latter day Trail of Tears?  Nope, same people, same conservative values.  Only the name of the party has changed.  Traditions die hard here but these conservatives could no longer countenance a political party with which they had so many fundamental differences.
> 
> His point, and it's a valid one, is that as far as the tangent of the KKK, their values haven't changed either, and they'll align with whatever party reflects them, and against whatever party doesn't.  Which disproves the specious relationship idea tendered when this tangent hit the fan.
> 
> Again, that does not mean the Republican Party invented the KKK, because that would be the same illogic as Vagina-boy brought in in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the twisting and turning continues.  Fact is that at the same time the Republican Party was publicly urging citizens to vote for the Democratic opponent of David Duke, to force him out of the Republican Party, Democrats like Teddy Kennedy were praising Robert Byrd as a "National Treasure".  But let's not address that inconvenient truth, let's instead challenge Lyndon Johnson's quote.  More diversion.
Click to expand...


Are you incapable of dealing with more than one point at a time then?  OK I see where that could be a limitation.  But hey, if you've got a corroborating source, bring it on.

The fact remains that _everybody _was urging citizens to vote for Duke's opponent, who himself is a felon.  Dood, *I lived there, I know whereof I speak*; I'm not spouting from my barcalounger in California.  That's exactly what these bumper stickers, all over Louisiana at the time, referred to:





-- such are the choices voters have, but that was a populist-produced bumper sticker, not a political party.  Again, I'm sure you have as much evidence that the RP made these bumper stickers as you have LBJ's voice on tape.

And the other fact remains, Duke was active Klan at the time, while Byrd's involvement was sixty years past and ended several years before he even ran for office at all.  So your point is... what?

And what the fuck does any of this have to do with a Belgian newspaper's racism?


----------



## Pogo

But hey, as long as you're obsessed with this guy -- I did the same thing for Condoleeza Rice so here ya go, git chew some Murkin culture:

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BouPR8ZczI"]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BouPR8ZczI[/ame]


There, you can use this to make some goofass point about how the "Democrat Party" doesn't bow its fiddles correctly.
Sheeesh.


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know that quote is uncorroborated, right?  Nah, you probably don't...
> 
> What he's talking about by "role reversal" is the shift in the population of the South from blue to red.  Was there a sudden influx of new people, while the existing ones were exiled away in some latter day Trail of Tears?  Nope, same people, same conservative values.  Only the name of the party has changed.  Traditions die hard here but these conservatives could no longer countenance a political party with which they had so many fundamental differences.
> 
> His point, and it's a valid one, is that as far as the tangent of the KKK, their values haven't changed either, and they'll align with whatever party reflects them, and against whatever party doesn't.  Which disproves the specious relationship idea tendered when this tangent hit the fan.
> 
> Again, that does not mean the Republican Party invented the KKK, because that would be the same illogic as Vagina-boy brought in in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> And the twisting and turning continues.  Fact is that at the same time the Republican Party was publicly urging citizens to vote for the Democratic opponent of David Duke, to force him out of the Republican Party, Democrats like Teddy Kennedy were praising Robert Byrd as a "National Treasure".  But let's not address that inconvenient truth, let's instead challenge Lyndon Johnson's quote.  More diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Are you incapable of dealing with more than one point at a time then?  OK I see where that could be a limitation.  But hey, if you've got a corroborating source, bring it on.
> 
> The fact remains that _everybody _was urging citizens to vote for Duke's opponent, who himself is a felon.  Dood, *I lived there, I know whereof I speak*; I'm not spouting from my barcalounger in California.  That's exactly what these bumper stickers, all over Louisiana at the time, referred to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- such are the choices voters have, but that was a populist-produced bumper sticker, not a political party.  Again, I'm sure you have as much evidence that the RP made these bumper stickers as you have LBJ's voice on tape.
> 
> And the other fact remains, Duke was active Klan at the time, while Byrd's involvement was sixty years past and ended several years before he even ran for office at all.  So your point is... what?
> 
> *And what the fuck does any of this have to do with a Belgian newspaper's racism?*
Click to expand...

I notice that every time you get your ass handed to you, you want to get back to the Belgian newspaper.  That's fine, let's do that.  My point all along has been that there is a double standard on the part of liberals regarding what is out of bounds and what is not.  Racial attacks on Republicans is not out of bounds (Condi Rice) but racial attacks on Democrats IS.  Even when they're NOT racial, liberals claim they are.  It's fine for libs to attack Laura Bush but "keep your comments to yourself about Michelle Obama, you racist".  Put a Hitler mustache on Bush, no problem.  Put one on Obama and it's "You just can't stand a black man being president".  You have no credibility when you cry foul about a foreign newspaper depicting the Obamas as monkeys when your party had an Exalted Cyclops as their Senate Majority Leader and praised him as a national treasure.  That's what this has to do with the Belgian newspaper's racism.


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> But hey, as long as you're obsessed with this guy -- I did the same thing for Condoleeza Rice so here ya go, git chew some Murkin culture:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BouPR8ZczI
> 
> 
> There, you can use this to make some goofass point about how the "Democrat Party" doesn't bow its fiddles correctly.
> Sheeesh.


Good strategy, change the subject and pretend you're making a valid point.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the twisting and turning continues.  Fact is that at the same time the Republican Party was publicly urging citizens to vote for the Democratic opponent of David Duke, to force him out of the Republican Party, Democrats like Teddy Kennedy were praising Robert Byrd as a "National Treasure".  But let's not address that inconvenient truth, let's instead challenge Lyndon Johnson's quote.  More diversion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you incapable of dealing with more than one point at a time then?  OK I see where that could be a limitation.  But hey, if you've got a corroborating source, bring it on.
> 
> The fact remains that _everybody _was urging citizens to vote for Duke's opponent, who himself is a felon.  Dood, *I lived there, I know whereof I speak*; I'm not spouting from my barcalounger in California.  That's exactly what these bumper stickers, all over Louisiana at the time, referred to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- such are the choices voters have, but that was a populist-produced bumper sticker, not a political party.  Again, I'm sure you have as much evidence that the RP made these bumper stickers as you have LBJ's voice on tape.
> 
> And the other fact remains, Duke was active Klan at the time, while Byrd's involvement was sixty years past and ended several years before he even ran for office at all.  So your point is... what?
> 
> *And what the fuck does any of this have to do with a Belgian newspaper's racism?*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I notice that every time you get your ass handed to you, you want to get back to the Belgian newspaper.  That's fine, let's do that.  My point all along has been that there is a double standard on the part of liberals regarding what is out of bounds and what is not.  Racial attacks on Republicans is not out of bounds (Condi Rice) but racial attacks on Democrats IS.  Even when they're NOT racial, liberals claim they are.  It's fine for libs to attack Laura Bush but "keep your comments to yourself about Michelle Obama, you racist".  Put a Hitler mustache on Bush, no problem.  Put one on Obama and it's "You just can't stand a black man being president".  You have no credibility when you cry foul about a foreign newspaper depicting the Obamas as monkeys when your party had an Exalted Cyclops as their Senate Majority Leader and praised him as a national treasure.  That's what this has to do with the Belgian newspaper's racism.
Click to expand...


The Belgian newspaper *IS* the topic, like it or lump it.  Your incoherent rambling about (reading) ... one, two, three, four, *five* strawmen posted with as much documentation as the LBJ quote doesn't make a point.  A strawman is by definition a fallacy.  You've got five of 'em.

And again, the _newspaper itself already acknowledged_ its own racism and apologized, so you're trying to defend a position that even the perpetrator itself doesn't believe.

Now take your strawmen and have a nice bonfire.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But hey, as long as you're obsessed with this guy -- I did the same thing for Condoleeza Rice so here ya go, git chew some Murkin culture:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BouPR8ZczI
> 
> 
> There, you can use this to make some goofass point about how the "Democrat Party" doesn't bow its fiddles correctly.
> Sheeesh.
> 
> 
> 
> Good strategy, *change the subject and pretend you're making a valid point*.
Click to expand...


-- like morphing a thread about a Belgian newspaper piece into one about the history of the Ku Klux Klan and what a dead Senator did in 1943?


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you incapable of dealing with more than one point at a time then?  OK I see where that could be a limitation.  But hey, if you've got a corroborating source, bring it on.
> 
> The fact remains that _everybody _was urging citizens to vote for Duke's opponent, who himself is a felon.  Dood, *I lived there, I know whereof I speak*; I'm not spouting from my barcalounger in California.  That's exactly what these bumper stickers, all over Louisiana at the time, referred to:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- such are the choices voters have, but that was a populist-produced bumper sticker, not a political party.  Again, I'm sure you have as much evidence that the RP made these bumper stickers as you have LBJ's voice on tape.
> 
> And the other fact remains, Duke was active Klan at the time, while Byrd's involvement was sixty years past and ended several years before he even ran for office at all.  So your point is... what?
> 
> *And what the fuck does any of this have to do with a Belgian newspaper's racism?*
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that every time you get your ass handed to you, you want to get back to the Belgian newspaper.  That's fine, let's do that.  My point all along has been that there is a double standard on the part of liberals regarding what is out of bounds and what is not.  Racial attacks on Republicans is not out of bounds (Condi Rice) but racial attacks on Democrats IS.  Even when they're NOT racial, liberals claim they are.  It's fine for libs to attack Laura Bush but "keep your comments to yourself about Michelle Obama, you racist".  Put a Hitler mustache on Bush, no problem.  Put one on Obama and it's "You just can't stand a black man being president".  You have no credibility when you cry foul about a foreign newspaper depicting the Obamas as monkeys when your party had an Exalted Cyclops as their Senate Majority Leader and praised him as a national treasure.  That's what this has to do with the Belgian newspaper's racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Belgian newspaper *IS* the topic, like it or lump it.  Your incoherent rambling about (reading) ... one, two, three, four, *five* strawmen posted with as much documentation as the LBJ quote doesn't make a point.  A strawman is by definition a fallacy.  You've got five of 'em.
> 
> And again, the _newspaper itself already acknowledged_ its own racism and apologized, *so you're trying to defend a position that even the perpetrator itself doesn't believe.*
> 
> Now take your strawmen and have a nice bonfire.
Click to expand...

Where am I trying to defend the newspaper?  All I'm doing is pointing out your hypocrisy.  You've been exposed for your double standard, which is why you keep trying to muddy the waters with bogus claims and bow fiddles.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I notice that every time you get your ass handed to you, you want to get back to the Belgian newspaper.  That's fine, let's do that.  My point all along has been that there is a double standard on the part of liberals regarding what is out of bounds and what is not.  Racial attacks on Republicans is not out of bounds (Condi Rice) but racial attacks on Democrats IS.  Even when they're NOT racial, liberals claim they are.  It's fine for libs to attack Laura Bush but "keep your comments to yourself about Michelle Obama, you racist".  Put a Hitler mustache on Bush, no problem.  Put one on Obama and it's "You just can't stand a black man being president".  You have no credibility when you cry foul about a foreign newspaper depicting the Obamas as monkeys when your party had an Exalted Cyclops as their Senate Majority Leader and praised him as a national treasure.  That's what this has to do with the Belgian newspaper's racism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Belgian newspaper *IS* the topic, like it or lump it.  Your incoherent rambling about (reading) ... one, two, three, four, *five* strawmen posted with as much documentation as the LBJ quote doesn't make a point.  A strawman is by definition a fallacy.  You've got five of 'em.
> 
> And again, the _newspaper itself already acknowledged_ its own racism and apologized, *so you're trying to defend a position that even the perpetrator itself doesn't believe.*
> 
> Now take your strawmen and have a nice bonfire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where am I trying to defend the newspaper?  All I'm doing is pointing out your hypocrisy.  You've been exposed for your double standard, which is why you keep trying to muddy the waters with bogus claims and bow fiddles.
Click to expand...


Strawmen don't make "hypocrisy".  They make strawmen.
The image in the Belgian newspaper is real, just as Steve McRacist's avatar is real.  All those scenaria you posted above are imaginary.  You can't compare the real with the imaginary.


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> But hey, as long as you're obsessed with this guy -- I did the same thing for Condoleeza Rice so here ya go, git chew some Murkin culture:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8BouPR8ZczI
> 
> 
> There, you can use this to make some goofass point about how the "Democrat Party" doesn't bow its fiddles correctly.
> Sheeesh.
> 
> 
> 
> Good strategy, *change the subject and pretend you're making a valid point*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> -- like morphing a thread about a Belgian newspaper piece into one about the history of the Ku Klux Klan and what a dead Senator did in 1943?
Click to expand...

Byrd was your Senate leader until 2010.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Good strategy, *change the subject and pretend you're making a valid point*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- like morphing a thread about a Belgian newspaper piece into one about the history of the Ku Klux Klan and what a dead Senator did in 1943?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Byrd was your Senate leader until 2010.
Click to expand...


"My" Senate leader?

OK, I amend:
- like morphing a thread about a Belgian newspaper piece into one about the history of the Ku Klux Klan and what a dead Senator did in 1943 and "who was the Senate leader until 2010"?

Better?

By the way your dates are *way *off:
Byrd led the Democratic caucus as Senate Majority Leader from 1977 to 1981 and 1987 to 1989, and as Senate Minority Leader from 1981 to 1987 -- Wiki

The Majority Leader in 2010 was Harry Reid.  Still is, unfortunately.

(/still utterly offtopic)


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Belgian newspaper *IS* the topic, like it or lump it.  Your incoherent rambling about (reading) ... one, two, three, four, *five* strawmen posted with as much documentation as the LBJ quote doesn't make a point.  A strawman is by definition a fallacy.  You've got five of 'em.
> 
> And again, the _newspaper itself already acknowledged_ its own racism and apologized, *so you're trying to defend a position that even the perpetrator itself doesn't believe.*
> 
> Now take your strawmen and have a nice bonfire.
> 
> 
> 
> Where am I trying to defend the newspaper?  All I'm doing is pointing out your hypocrisy.  You've been exposed for your double standard, which is why you keep trying to muddy the waters with bogus claims and bow fiddles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Strawmen don't make "hypocrisy".  They make strawmen.
> The image in the Belgian newspaper is real, just as Steve McRacist's avatar is real.  All those scenaria you posted above are imaginary.  *You can't compare the real with the imaginary.*
Click to expand...

And you can't hide from your own racism.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where am I trying to defend the newspaper?  All I'm doing is pointing out your hypocrisy.  You've been exposed for your double standard, which is why you keep trying to muddy the waters with bogus claims and bow fiddles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Strawmen don't make "hypocrisy".  They make strawmen.
> The image in the Belgian newspaper is real, just as Steve McRacist's avatar is real.  All those scenaria you posted above are imaginary.  *You can't compare the real with the imaginary.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you can't hide from your own racism.
Click to expand...


You're not supposed to be using terms you don't understand.  You're STILL the assclown who thinks the demographics of a TV channel are "racist", so don't bother.


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Strawmen don't make "hypocrisy".  They make strawmen.
> The image in the Belgian newspaper is real, just as Steve McRacist's avatar is real.  All those scenaria you posted above are imaginary.  *You can't compare the real with the imaginary.*
> 
> 
> 
> And you can't hide from your own racism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not supposed to be using terms you don't understand.  You're STILL the assclown who thinks the demographics of a TV channel are "racist", so don't bother.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's it.  Keep changing the subject, loser.  Maybe your bruises won't show as much.


----------



## Pogo

Danth drinks his own swill and rides into the sunset...


----------



## CaféAuLait

Pogo said:


> CaféAuLait;8844233 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlindBoo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the oppositions need to denigrate the President in any way possible.  They will attack him in all walks of life including his family.  Images and vile talking points are a price of freedom.  I do remember some monkey comparison with President Bush as well but I don't recall Laura Bush being attacked in such a way, but the internet is big and so full of shit.........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet she was. That is the simple truth of the matter. Attacking a presidents wife did not start with the Obama's. There a ton of pics I cant even post here. There were pics of their kids drunk and she was then accused of raising two "whores". The pic at the bottom suggests she may be a pedophile. So yeah, they have all been attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the Onion ran after the WH asked they stop using the presidential seal ( makes perfect sense to do that to Laura right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Type Laura Bush Naked into Google and see the crap that comes back.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You go scouring the internets to find obscure stuff nobody's ever seen before to make a strawman, just so you can excuse racism? _* Really?*_
> 
> And don't feed me that bullshit that that's not what you're doing.  You fall back on this crutch of "b-but but every President gets criticized" as a pretext for excusing a racist depiction _*that has already been admitted to as racist by its creator*_.  Not even the newspaper itself tries to pretend this is not racism, yet you do.
> 
> Poster please.  You're a damn hypocrite, and it's transparent.
Click to expand...


Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was. You said Michelle Obama should not be attacked because she is his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over, and you just cant admit it because you want to assume everything is about race. I said: 



> I was not trying to rationalize racism. I was merely saying that racism is claimed for the very same things which have happened to other presidents and their wives.* I ALSO stated that I thought the picture could be racist (and awful) and I understand how it could be taken that way, but I was unsure what the intent was if it was political satire or not. I did not read the article, I only viewed the photo.*
> 
> Laura Bush was portrayed in awful manners too ( a demon, a monkey, nude, a dominatrix, portrayed as calling her husband a monkey, a Nazi, and just about any other thing you can imagine, just because it happened to Michelle as well does not make it racist per se. I don't know if you get my drift or not. I was not supporting the photo.



Which you totally ignored. Hey, but that's cool. Ignore and pick and choose the way the Bushes were treated just like every other president and his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over by the left for 'MURDERING SOMEONE"., she is an alcoholic, etc. etc. In fact I recall articles where it was said she purposely hit him because she was mad because he broke up with her. *The left smeared her endlessly.  She was not the politician either, but it was claimed over and over*.   In fact they still do and compare her dresses to Michelle and say how frumpy she was. If the next presidents wife is white and they compare Michelle to that presidents wife, will that be racist too? 

But somehow you all of a sudden claim that spouses are off limits. That is why I posted the photos-- *ALL *spouses are treated this way by both parties.  It is nothing NEW, yet you want to say the photos of Laura Bush are unknown. That is bull and you know it. 

I'll REPEAT again* I did not read the article, I did not know they had admitted racism. I also said the photo WAS racist or could be seen as racist but I was unsure how it was used.* Heck Rummy just said something about Obama and an ape. Something that has been said for years about everyone. But when said about Obama its racist when it probably had no racist overtones. Sometimes people want to make something racist when that was not the intent. You are missing the point on purpose. You like to do that.


----------



## Vigilante

And Pogo stick is still in denial of the PBS story where they state * Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power.
 The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865.*

 The man is obsessed with his self importance, when plainly, no one gives a damn about his dementia!


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> Danth drinks his own swill and rides into the sunset...


Your desperation grows as your arguments slowly come to a grinding halt.  Better luck next time, loser.


----------



## CaféAuLait

When crap like this is done to the Obama girls will it be racist or the same crap which has happened to other presidential kids when they do human shit? 






To everyone who is ripping the Bush twins apart: - Democratic Underground


How about other first ladies? 






You want to keep the wives and kids out of it? Then demand that of ALL parties and stop with assuming its race all the time. I was not just speaking about the photo in the OP. My point was Bush was portrayed as a Monkey, Obama too, Laura and Michelle, just because it happens does not automatically point to race.  Its this automatic thing where everything is about race  with the Obama's  and when it finally may be about race ( as in the OP)  it won't be taken seriously.


----------



## Pogo

CaféAuLait;8857045 said:
			
		

> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8844233 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet she was. That is the simple truth of the matter. Attacking a presidents wife did not start with the Obama's. There a ton of pics I cant even post here. There were pics of their kids drunk and she was then accused of raising two "whores". The pic at the bottom suggests she may be a pedophile. So yeah, they have all been attacked.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what the Onion ran after the WH asked they stop using the presidential seal ( makes perfect sense to do that to Laura right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Type Laura Bush Naked into Google and see the crap that comes back.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You go scouring the internets to find obscure stuff nobody's ever seen before to make a strawman, just so you can excuse racism? _* Really?*_
> 
> And don't feed me that bullshit that that's not what you're doing.  You fall back on this crutch of "b-but but every President gets criticized" as a pretext for excusing a racist depiction _*that has already been admitted to as racist by its creator*_.  Not even the newspaper itself tries to pretend this is not racism, yet you do.
> 
> Poster please.  You're a damn hypocrite, and it's transparent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was. You said Michelle Obama should not be attacked because she is his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over, and you just cant admit it because you want to assume everything is about race.
Click to expand...


Uh.... kinda stating the obvious to the oblivious here but... the fact that you can go fetch images off Google (eight years later) doesn't in any way refute that a poster doesn't recall those attacks.

Boy, that was easy...



			
				CaféAuLait;8857045 said:
			
		

> I said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was not trying to rationalize racism. I was merely saying that racism is claimed for the very same things which have happened to other presidents and their wives.*
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> 
> -- and that IS rationalizing racism; basically what you're saying is that all Presidential criticism is fair game, therefore racist criticism is OK.  It's essentially the mirror image of the oft-heard complaint that any criticism of O'bama is denounced as "racist".  Which is a fair complaint -- even if it's a generalized strawman, when it happens it's a fair complaint.
> 
> You appear to want it both ways: on one hand, criticism of the POTUS isn't racist just because it's political criticism; that squelches criticism.  Fair enough.  We can't have dissent silenced.
> 
> But on the other hand when it is racist, hey it's just political criticism.  So you're in the same intolerant hole as the previous example
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8857045 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laura Bush was portrayed in awful manners too ( a demon, a monkey, nude, a dominatrix, portrayed as calling her husband a monkey, a Nazi, and just about any other thing you can imagine, just because it happened to Michelle as well does not make it racist per se. I don't know if you get my drift or not. I was not supporting the photo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you totally ignored. Hey, but that's cool. Ignore and pick and choose the way the Bushes were treated just like every other president and his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over by the left for 'MURDERING SOMEONE"., she is an alcoholic, etc. etc. In fact I recall articles where it was said she purposely hit him because she was mad because he broke up with her. The left smeared her endlessly.  She was not the politician either, but it was claimed over and over.   In fact they still do and compare her dresses to Michelle and say how frumpy she was. If the next presidents wife is white and they compare Michelle to that presidents wife, will that be racist too?
> 
> But somehow you all of a sudden claim that spouses are off limits. That is why I posted the photos-- ALL spouses are treated this way by both parties.  It is nothing NEW, yet you want to say the photos of Laura Bush are unknown. That is bull and you know it. *
Click to expand...

*

They ARE unknown.  They were until you went to find them.  Nobody here posted them, and posters here ARE who you're talking to.  Hell, I was running a blog at that time and I don't remember these.  Not to mention, none of what you have here with Laura Bush can be called "racist".

You're making the same error as the last guy, setting up strawmen and then pinning them on whoever's handy.  That dog don't hunt.*


----------



## Pogo

CaféAuLait;8857122 said:
			
		

> When crap like this is done to the Obama girls will it be racist or the same crap which has happened to other presidential kids when they do human shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To everyone who is ripping the Bush twins apart: - Democratic Underground
> 
> 
> How about other first ladies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to keep the wives and kids out of it? Then demand that of ALL parties and stop with assuming its race all the time. I was not just speaking about the photo in the OP. My point was Bush was portrayed as a Monkey, Obama too, Laura and Michelle, just because it happens does not automatically point to race.  Its this automatic thing where everything is about race  with the Obama's  and when it finally may be about race ( as in the OP)  it won't be taken seriously.



You actually think there can be only one purpose in portraying somebody as a monkey?

Again, and you just said this yourself, *the paper admitted to it*.  And so did Steve McRacist, who uses the same photo for his avatar.  Pass the dramamine, the spin is a bit overmuch.


----------



## CaféAuLait

Pogo said:


> CaféAuLait;8857045 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You go scouring the internets to find obscure stuff nobody's ever seen before to make a strawman, just so you can excuse racism? _* Really?*_
> 
> And don't feed me that bullshit that that's not what you're doing.  You fall back on this crutch of "b-but but every President gets criticized" as a pretext for excusing a racist depiction _*that has already been admitted to as racist by its creator*_.  Not even the newspaper itself tries to pretend this is not racism, yet you do.
> 
> Poster please.  You're a damn hypocrite, and it's transparent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was. You said Michelle Obama should not be attacked because she is his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over, and you just cant admit it because you want to assume everything is about race.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh.... kinda stating the obvious to the oblivious here but... the fact that you can go fetch images off Google (eight years later) doesn't in any way refute that a poster doesn't recall those attacks.
> 
> Boy, that was easy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8857045 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- and that IS rationalizing racism; basically what you're saying is that all Presidential criticism is fair game, therefore racist criticism is OK.  It's essentially the mirror image of the oft-heard complaint that any criticism of O'bama is denounced as "racist".  Which is a fair complaint -- even if it's a generalized strawman, when it happens it's a fair complaint.
> 
> You appear to want it both ways: on one hand, criticism of the POTUS isn't racist just because it's political criticism; that squelches criticism.  Fair enough.  We can't have dissent silenced.
> 
> But on the other hand when it *is *racist, hey it's just political criticism.  So you're in the same intolerant hole as the previous example
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8857045 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Laura Bush was portrayed in awful manners too ( a demon, a monkey, nude, a dominatrix, portrayed as calling her husband a monkey, a Nazi, and just about any other thing you can imagine, just because it happened to Michelle as well does not make it racist per se. I don't know if you get my drift or not. I was not supporting the photo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which you totally ignored. Hey, but that's cool. Ignore and pick and choose the way the Bushes were treated just like every other president and his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over by the left for 'MURDERING SOMEONE"., she is an alcoholic, etc. etc. In fact I recall articles where it was said she purposely hit him because she was mad because he broke up with her. *The left smeared her endlessly.  She was not the politician either, but it was claimed over and over*.   In fact they still do and compare her dresses to Michelle and say how frumpy she was. If the next presidents wife is white and they compare Michelle to that presidents wife, will that be racist too?
> 
> But somehow you all of a sudden claim that spouses are off limits. That is why I posted the photos-- *ALL *spouses are treated this way by both parties.  It is nothing NEW, yet you want to say the photos of Laura Bush are unknown. That is bull and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They ARE unknown.  They were until you went to find them.  Nobody here posted them, and posters here ARE who you're talking to.  Hell, I was running a blog at that time and I don't remember these.  Not to mention, none of what you have here with Laura Bush can be called "racist".
> 
> You're making the same error as the last guy, setting up strawmen and then pinning them on whoever's handy.  That dog don't hunt.
Click to expand...


Quite simple, just because you can't recall them does not meant they did not exist. The better explanation is you just did not care. You saw it as funny or ignored it. Just as most political humor, baiting, idiotic taunting, or what have you is done to the opposite party.


----------



## CaféAuLait

Pogo said:


> CaféAuLait;8857122 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When crap like this is done to the Obama girls will it be racist or the same crap which has happened to other presidential kids when they do human shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To everyone who is ripping the Bush twins apart: - Democratic Underground
> 
> 
> How about other first ladies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to keep the wives and kids out of it? Then demand that of ALL parties and stop with assuming its race all the time. I was not just speaking about the photo in the OP. My point was Bush was portrayed as a Monkey, Obama too, Laura and Michelle, just because it happens does not automatically point to race.  Its this automatic thing where everything is about race  with the Obama's  and when it finally may be about race ( as in the OP)  it won't be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think there can be only one purpose in portraying somebody as a monkey?
> 
> Again, and you just said this yourself, *the paper admitted to it*.  And so did Steve McRacist, who uses the same photo for his avatar.  Pass the dramamine, the spin is a bit overmuch.
Click to expand...


I said the paper admitted it because that is what *YOU* told me. Sheese! That is what happens when people discuss things. As I said before I was unaware of such. Is it that hard to accept such? 

Of course there is more than one reason to portray someone as a monkey, usually when I saw it applied to Bush and Clinton it was to imply they were idiots.


----------



## jillian

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century.  He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party.  Nice try though.  And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks.  "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know that quote is uncorroborated, right?  Nah, you probably don't...
> 
> What he's talking about by "role reversal" is the shift in the population of the South from blue to red.  Was there a sudden influx of new people, while the existing ones were exiled away in some latter day Trail of Tears?  Nope, same people, same conservative values.  Only the name of the party has changed.  Traditions die hard here but these conservatives could no longer countenance a political party with which they had so many fundamental differences.
> 
> His point, and it's a valid one, is that as far as the tangent of the KKK, their values haven't changed either, and they'll align with whatever party reflects them, and against whatever party doesn't.  Which disproves the specious relationship idea tendered when this tangent hit the fan.
> 
> Again, that does not mean the Republican Party invented the KKK, because that would be the same illogic as Vagina-boy brought in in the first place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the twisting and turning continues.  Fact is that at the same time the Republican Party was publicly urging citizens to vote for the Democratic opponent of David Duke, to force him out of the Republican Party, Democrats like Teddy Kennedy were praising Robert Byrd as a "National Treasure".  But let's not address that inconvenient truth, let's instead challenge Lyndon Johnson's quote.  More diversion.
Click to expand...


you are confusing your time periods. kkk'ers absolutely belonged to the democratic party before the civil rights laws.

then they all became republicans after the civil rights laws were passed. and the republican party has been running the "southern strategy" of speaking in code to racists since the 70's.... 

so let's talk some more about "inner cities"


----------



## S.J.

jillian said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know that quote is uncorroborated, right?  Nah, you probably don't...
> 
> What he's talking about by "role reversal" is the shift in the population of the South from blue to red.  Was there a sudden influx of new people, while the existing ones were exiled away in some latter day Trail of Tears?  Nope, same people, same conservative values.  Only the name of the party has changed.  Traditions die hard here but these conservatives could no longer countenance a political party with which they had so many fundamental differences.
> 
> His point, and it's a valid one, is that as far as the tangent of the KKK, their values haven't changed either, and they'll align with whatever party reflects them, and against whatever party doesn't.  Which disproves the specious relationship idea tendered when this tangent hit the fan.
> 
> Again, that does not mean the Republican Party invented the KKK, because that would be the same illogic as Vagina-boy brought in in the first place.
> 
> 
> 
> And the twisting and turning continues.  Fact is that at the same time the Republican Party was publicly urging citizens to vote for the Democratic opponent of David Duke, to force him out of the Republican Party, Democrats like Teddy Kennedy were praising Robert Byrd as a "National Treasure".  But let's not address that inconvenient truth, let's instead challenge Lyndon Johnson's quote.  More diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> you are confusing your time periods. kkk'ers absolutely belonged to the democratic party before the civil rights laws.
> 
> *then they all became republicans after the civil rights laws were passed.* and the republican party has been running the "southern strategy" of speaking in code to racists since the 70's....
> 
> so let's talk some more about "inner cities"
Click to expand...

Yeah, you lefties keep claiming that but you have yet to show any proof, whatsoever.  You do it because you can't escape the fact that you support the party of racism.  It's your history, you own it.


----------



## Pogo

CaféAuLait;8857201 said:
			
		

> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8857045 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was. You said Michelle Obama should not be attacked because she is his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over, and you just cant admit it because you want to assume everything is about race.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.... kinda stating the obvious to the oblivious here but... the fact that you can go fetch images off Google (eight years later) doesn't in any way refute that a poster doesn't recall those attacks.
> 
> Boy, that was easy...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8857045 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I said:
> 
> 
> 
> -- and that IS rationalizing racism; basically what you're saying is that all Presidential criticism is fair game, therefore racist criticism is OK.  It's essentially the mirror image of the oft-heard complaint that any criticism of O'bama is denounced as "racist".  Which is a fair complaint -- even if it's a generalized strawman, when it happens it's a fair complaint.
> 
> You appear to want it both ways: on one hand, criticism of the POTUS isn't racist just because it's political criticism; that squelches criticism.  Fair enough.  We can't have dissent silenced.
> 
> But on the other hand when it *is *racist, hey it's just political criticism.  So you're in the same intolerant hole as the previous example
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which you totally ignored. Hey, but that's cool. Ignore and pick and choose the way the Bushes were treated just like every other president and his wife. Laura Bush was attacked over and over by the left for 'MURDERING SOMEONE"., she is an alcoholic, etc. etc. In fact I recall articles where it was said she purposely hit him because she was mad because he broke up with her. *The left smeared her endlessly.  She was not the politician either, but it was claimed over and over*.   In fact they still do and compare her dresses to Michelle and say how frumpy she was. If the next presidents wife is white and they compare Michelle to that presidents wife, will that be racist too?
> 
> But somehow you all of a sudden claim that spouses are off limits. That is why I posted the photos-- *ALL *spouses are treated this way by both parties.  It is nothing NEW, yet you want to say the photos of Laura Bush are unknown. That is bull and you know it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They ARE unknown.  They were until you went to find them.  Nobody here posted them, and posters here ARE who you're talking to.  Hell, I was running a blog at that time and I don't remember these.  Not to mention, none of what you have here with Laura Bush can be called "racist".
> 
> You're making the same error as the last guy, setting up strawmen and then pinning them on whoever's handy.  That dog don't hunt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Quite simple, just because you can't recall them does not meant they did not exist. The better explanation is you just did not care. You saw it as funny or ignored it. Just as most political humor, baiting, idiotic taunting, or what have you is done to the opposite party.
Click to expand...


How many times do we have to go over this before it sinks in?
_The point was not whether or not they "exist".  The point was whether anyone here recalls them, or better yet, whether anyone here posted them._ What part of this blatant fallacy is sailing over your head here?


----------



## Pogo

CaféAuLait;8857208 said:
			
		

> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8857122 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When crap like this is done to the Obama girls will it be racist or the same crap which has happened to other presidential kids when they do human shit?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To everyone who is ripping the Bush twins apart: - Democratic Underground
> 
> 
> How about other first ladies?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want to keep the wives and kids out of it? Then demand that of ALL parties and stop with assuming its race all the time. I was not just speaking about the photo in the OP. My point was Bush was portrayed as a Monkey, Obama too, Laura and Michelle, just because it happens does not automatically point to race.  Its this automatic thing where everything is about race  with the Obama's  and when it finally may be about race ( as in the OP)  it won't be taken seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You actually think there can be only one purpose in portraying somebody as a monkey?
> 
> Again, and you just said this yourself, *the paper admitted to it*.  And so did Steve McRacist, who uses the same photo for his avatar.  Pass the dramamine, the spin is a bit overmuch.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said the paper admitted it because that is what *YOU* told me. Sheese! That is what happens when people discuss things. As I said before I was unaware of such. Is it that hard to accept such?
> 
> Of course there is more than one reason to portray someone as a monkey, usually when I saw it applied to Bush and Clinton it was to imply they were idiots.
Click to expand...


Very good.  Now take the next step: what's a different reason a monkey portrayal would be used specifically on black people?  Especially when that monkey illustration does not adopt any particular 'idiot' pose?  More especially *when the paper has already admitted to its motive*?

This ain't rocket surgery...

Btw that story on the Bush daughters is *true*.  The idea that the POTUS (and his wife) are monkeys is *not*.  I don't know about the Playboy cover though.


----------



## CaféAuLait

Pogo said:


> CaféAuLait;8857201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh.... kinda stating the obvious to the oblivious here but... the fact that you can go fetch images off Google (eight years later) doesn't in any way refute that a poster doesn't recall those attacks.
> 
> Boy, that was easy...
> 
> 
> 
> They ARE unknown.  They were until you went to find them.  Nobody here posted them, and posters here ARE who you're talking to.  Hell, I was running a blog at that time and I don't remember these.  Not to mention, none of what you have here with Laura Bush can be called "racist".
> 
> You're making the same error as the last guy, setting up strawmen and then pinning them on whoever's handy.  That dog don't hunt.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite simple, just because you can't recall them does not meant they did not exist. The better explanation is you just did not care. You saw it as funny or ignored it. Just as most political humor, baiting, idiotic taunting, or what have you is done to the opposite party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to go over this before it sinks in?
> _The point was not whether or not they "exist".  The point was whether anyone here recalls them, or better yet, whether anyone here posted them._ What part of this blatant fallacy is sailing over your head here?
> 
> Btw that story on the Bush daughters is *true*.  The idea that the POTUS (and his wife) are monkeys is *not*.
Click to expand...


No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.  

If I said "As I recall no one ever attacked the Obama's" on a discussion forum I would be told I was wrong and proof would be offered.

Again, this stuff happens all the time, this forum was not the only place which was being discussed. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.

Yes, I know the Bush girls got drunk, I thought I was clear when I said they did "something human". If the Obama girls do "something human" and they are pictured together and called "Dumb Dumber",  will racism become a point of discussion?  That was my point.

I recall when speaking about the stimulus bill a long time ago, ( at the same time there was a monkey who escaped and mauled a woman pretty bad) and  a cartoon was released. The cartoon depicted  that  monkey being shot by two cops and it said something like 'someone else will have to write the stimulus bill". I saw it as calling congress idiots, but others decided it was directed towards the president. The same cartoon probably would have been made if Bush were president damning congress.


----------



## Pogo

CaféAuLait;8857435 said:
			
		

> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8857201 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quite simple, just because you can't recall them does not meant they did not exist. The better explanation is you just did not care. You saw it as funny or ignored it. Just as most political humor, baiting, idiotic taunting, or what have you is done to the opposite party.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to go over this before it sinks in?
> _The point was not whether or not they "exist".  The point was whether anyone here recalls them, or better yet, whether anyone here posted them._ What part of this blatant fallacy is sailing over your head here?
> 
> Btw that story on the Bush daughters is *true*.  The idea that the POTUS (and his wife) are monkeys is *not*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.
> 
> If I said "As I recall no one ever attacked the Obama's" on a discussion forum I would be told I was wrong and proof would be offered.
> 
> Again, this stuff happens all the time, this forum was not the only place which was being discussed. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.
> 
> Yes, I know the Bush girls got drunk, I thought I was clear when I said they did "something human". If the Obama girls do "something human" and they are pictured together and called "Dumb Dumber",  will racism become a point of discussion?  That was my point.
> 
> I recall when speaking about the stimulus bill a long time ago, ( at the same time there was a monkey who escaped and mauled a woman pretty bad) and  a cartoon was released. The cartoon depicted  that  monkey being shot by two cops and it said something like 'someone else will have to write the stimulus bill". I saw it as calling congress idiots, but others decided it was directed towards the president. The same cartoon probably would have been made if Bush were president damning congress.
Click to expand...


I doubt that would have worked, since the reader has to be able to make the connection.  George Bush isn't associated with the idea of monkeys; the only way that worked was to superimpose a monkey with a goofy expression onto him.  Just the fact of "a monkey" doesn't convey "George Bush", any more than any other animal would.

Contrast that to the picture in the OP, where the expressions are not goofy at all, but simply monkeys.  Obviously the message is not "goofy".  There's only one thing left.

Now if the O'bama girls got drunk and were tagged "dumb and dumber" -- well there's no racial connotation to _dumb_.  But if they were pictured as monkeys sitting at a bar, then there might be another message.



> No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.



Actually I'm quoting you there:


			
				CaféAuLait;8857045 said:
			
		

> Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was.



Note also that what you refute is not the opposite of the premise.  You'd have to prove not that the attack existed, _but that the poster recalled it_.

Whoever's in this thread isn't responsible for whatever goofy images you can find on the internets.  We're just *not*.


----------



## Vigilante

Perhaps Pogo is one of those perpetually offended?


----------



## CaféAuLait

Pogo said:


> CaféAuLait;8857435 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times do we have to go over this before it sinks in?
> _The point was not whether or not they "exist".  The point was whether anyone here recalls them, or better yet, whether anyone here posted them._ What part of this blatant fallacy is sailing over your head here?
> 
> Btw that story on the Bush daughters is *true*.  The idea that the POTUS (and his wife) are monkeys is *not*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.
> 
> If I said "As I recall no one ever attacked the Obama's" on a discussion forum I would be told I was wrong and proof would be offered.
> 
> Again, this stuff happens all the time, this forum was not the only place which was being discussed. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.
> 
> Yes, I know the Bush girls got drunk, I thought I was clear when I said they did "something human". If the Obama girls do "something human" and they are pictured together and called "Dumb Dumber",  will racism become a point of discussion?  That was my point.
> 
> I recall when speaking about the stimulus bill a long time ago, ( at the same time there was a monkey who escaped and mauled a woman pretty bad) and  a cartoon was released. The cartoon depicted  that  monkey being shot by two cops and it said something like 'someone else will have to write the stimulus bill". I saw it as calling congress idiots, but others decided it was directed towards the president. The same cartoon probably would have been made if Bush were president damning congress.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I doubt that would have worked, since the reader has to be able to make the connection.  George Bush isn't associated with the idea of monkeys; the only way that worked was to superimpose a monkey with a goofy expression onto him.  Just the fact of "a monkey" doesn't convey "George Bush", any more than any other animal would.
> 
> Contrast that to the picture in the OP, where the expressions are not goofy at all, but simply monkeys.  Obviously the message is not "goofy".  There's only one thing left.
> 
> Now if the O'bama girls got drunk and were tagged "dumb and dumber" -- well there's no racial connotation to _dumb_.  But if they were pictured as monkeys sitting at a bar, then there might be another message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I'm quoting you there:
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8857045 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note also that what you refute is not the opposite of the premise.  You'd have to prove not that the attack existed, _but that the poster recalled it_.
> 
> Whoever's in this thread isn't responsible for whatever goofy images you can find on the internets.  We're just *not*.
Click to expand...


No,  I don't have to prove that he recalled it, he was speaking in general. Please stop with the usual hair splitting. Its unbecoming to you, really it is. He said he recalled Bush being made into a monkey but he did not recall such ever taking place with Laura. Again, this is a discussion board. Or would you prefer that people not be reminded of how ruthless the left was with prior presidents and their family? Yes, I believe that is the crux of this issue. 

As far as your claim, "whoever is in this thread is not responsible for attacks on presidents and their family's" *its NOT the issue*. LOL This forum and its posters did *not* make that photo of the Obama's,  but a but a newspaper supposed "satire". Capish?  *This post was about how the media portrayed president and his family.* Not posters here. Not hard to see. 

The Bush girls were once again as example of how the family of presidents are spoken of. And I bet my bottom dollar if someone wrote the same about them "dumb and dumber' it would be spun into something racist by some on the left, something like "Oh they are trying to say black people are dumb!!" 

Now I've gone and read the article, I don't see anywhere the paper admitted it was racist, ( as you claimed)  but they said it was 'bad taste' and _tried _to explain themselves since they said they were portraying how Putin would portray the Obama's . *I think it's BS*. But I did note Huffington Post called the paper who wrote and published the story 'progressive'. 



> The progressive newspaper De Morgen is being accused of racism for the image along with an article it published just prior to Obama's visit to the Netherlands Monday morning.



I was rather confused by that. So I guess they are not as 'progressive' as Huffpo thinks?


----------



## CaféAuLait

Here is the cartoon which was called racist by Sharpton and others:






_This cartoon image provided by the New York Post appeared in the Post's Page Six on Wednesday. The cartoon, which refers to Travis the chimp, who was shot to death by police in Stamford, Conn. on Monday after it mauled a friend of its owner, drew criticism_.

Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News

I saw that photo and immediately though they were spoofing congress, given the president does not write bills. Somehow it was turned into saying the president was a " rabid chimp"  and it was racist. 

The Post said this for an explanation: 



> In a statement, Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allan said: "The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."





Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News


----------



## Pogo

CaféAuLait;8858061 said:
			
		

> Here is the cartoon which was called racist by Sharpton and others:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _This cartoon image provided by the New York Post appeared in the Post's Page Six on Wednesday. The cartoon, which refers to Travis the chimp, who was shot to death by police in Stamford, Conn. on Monday after it mauled a friend of its owner, drew criticism_.
> 
> Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News
> 
> I saw that photo and immediately though they were spoofing congress



Yeah I'll bet you did.  Because we have a time-honored tradition of representing Congress with a chimp.  Just like donkeys and elephants for the parties.

A you a yoga teacher?  Because this is a helluva stretch.



			
				CaféAuLait;8858061 said:
			
		

> , given the president does not write bills. Somehow it was turned into saying the president was a " rabid chimp"  and it was racist.
> 
> The Post said this for an explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a statement, Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allan said: "The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News
Click to expand...


Again, in order for this explanation to even _begin_ to work, the viewer would have had to know about this obscure chimp story.  I remember the cartoon very well but this post tonight is the first time I've ever heard a chimp-shooting story connected to it.

Even granting that, let's suppose everybody knew about the chimp shooting -- how much of a leap is it to somehow connect a Congressional bill to a local chimp shooting?  Just doesn't pass the smell test.

Or should I say, how much of a stretch... 

Namaste.


----------



## CaféAuLait

Pogo said:


> CaféAuLait;8858061 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the cartoon which was called racist by Sharpton and others:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _This cartoon image provided by the New York Post appeared in the Post's Page Six on Wednesday. The cartoon, which refers to Travis the chimp, who was shot to death by police in Stamford, Conn. on Monday after it mauled a friend of its owner, drew criticism_.
> 
> Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News
> 
> I saw that photo and immediately though they were spoofing congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I'll bet you did.  Because we have a time-honored tradition of representing Congress with a chimp.  Just like donkeys and elephants for the parties.
> 
> A you a yoga teacher?  Because this is a helluva stretch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8858061 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , given the president does not write bills. Somehow it was turned into saying the president was a " rabid chimp"  and it was racist.
> 
> The Post said this for an explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In a statement, Post Editor-in-Chief Col Allan said: "The cartoon is a clear parody of a current news event, to wit the shooting of a violent chimpanzee in Connecticut. It broadly mocks Washington's efforts to revive the economy. Again, Al Sharpton reveals himself as nothing more than a publicity opportunist."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, in order for this explanation to even _begin_ to work, the viewer would have had to know about this obscure chimp story.  I remember the cartoon very well but this post tonight is the first time I've ever heard a chimp-shooting story connected to it.
> 
> Even granting that, let's suppose everybody knew about the chimp shooting -- how much of a leap is it to somehow connect a Congressional bill to a local chimp shooting?  Just doesn't pass the smell test.
> 
> Or should I say, how much of a stretch...
> 
> Namaste.
Click to expand...


It was a nationwide story when that woman lost her face, fingers, hands... it was huge, the same way it was HUGE when she became a face transplant recipient.  And when she appeared on Oprah.  The same when she decided to sue the state of Connecticut. Heck, I even recall when they reported the woman who owned the ape died of a heart attack. Perhaps you are not up on the latest news as many others are? 

Congress is mixed, what were they to show, some chimera type animal mixed between a donkey and elephant? It's a time honored tradition to picture idiots as monkeys or chimps. Simple fact. I never saw Obama in that photo ( although you want to infer otherwise because it seems to always be about race, exactly what my point was), I saw congress because it is congress who writes bills. Obama did not write the stimulus bill did he? Nancy Pelosi is the one who pushed the heck out of it, didn't she?


----------



## Pogo

CaféAuLait;8857965 said:
			
		

> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8857435 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.
> 
> If I said "As I recall no one ever attacked the Obama's" on a discussion forum I would be told I was wrong and proof would be offered.
> 
> Again, this stuff happens all the time, this forum was not the only place which was being discussed. How you came to that conclusion is beyond me.
> 
> Yes, I know the Bush girls got drunk, I thought I was clear when I said they did "something human". If the Obama girls do "something human" and they are pictured together and called "Dumb Dumber",  will racism become a point of discussion?  That was my point.
> 
> I recall when speaking about the stimulus bill a long time ago, ( at the same time there was a monkey who escaped and mauled a woman pretty bad) and  a cartoon was released. The cartoon depicted  that  monkey being shot by two cops and it said something like 'someone else will have to write the stimulus bill". I saw it as calling congress idiots, but others decided it was directed towards the president. The same cartoon probably would have been made if Bush were president damning congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt that would have worked, since the reader has to be able to make the connection.  George Bush isn't associated with the idea of monkeys; the only way that worked was to superimpose a monkey with a goofy expression onto him.  Just the fact of "a monkey" doesn't convey "George Bush", any more than any other animal would.
> 
> Contrast that to the picture in the OP, where the expressions are not goofy at all, but simply monkeys.  Obviously the message is not "goofy".  There's only one thing left.
> 
> Now if the O'bama girls got drunk and were tagged "dumb and dumber" -- well there's no racial connotation to _dumb_.  But if they were pictured as monkeys sitting at a bar, then there might be another message.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, the point was not whether anyone only "recalls" them, but it was implied it never happened, just as has been claimed elsewhere on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually I'm quoting you there:
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8857045 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked, I showed she was.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Note also that what you refute is not the opposite of the premise.  You'd have to prove not that the attack existed, _but that the poster recalled it_.
> 
> Whoever's in this thread isn't responsible for whatever goofy images you can find on the internets.  We're just *not*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No,  I don't have to prove that he recalled it, he was speaking in general. Please stop with the usual hair splitting. Its unbecoming to you, really it is.
Click to expand...


You really need me to spell this out a word at a time?
Here it comes again, broken down:
Part 1:
Bullshit, that poster said he did not recall Bush being attacked

"That poster" (the subject) "did not recall" (the verb).  It says what someone recalled.  *Not what may exist that they don't know about* --- _what they recall in actual experience_.  What exists that they don't know or recall is *irrelevant*.

The second part:
, I showed she was. (attacked)

"She" (subject, Laura Bush), "was attacked" (verb)

So again: "poster did not *recall* attacks" is not answered by "Laura Bush *was* attacked".

Now had you brought in a post where said poster DID recall such attacks, or even posted them, _then_ you'd have a refutation.

Don't know what's so hard about this.



			
				CaféAuLait;8857965 said:
			
		

> He said he recalled Bush being made into a monkey but he did not recall such ever taking place with Laura. Again, this is a discussion board. Or would you prefer that people not be reminded of how ruthless the left was with prior presidents and their family? Yes, I believe that is the crux of this issue.



And there you just did it again.  First you're talking about "the poster" not recalling something, then you switch to "the left".  Those are in no way the same thing.  Nor can you make such a blanket monolithic statement about "the left", "the right", "the middle" or anyone else.  That is pure bullshit fallacy and will be called out as such every time it pops its ugly little head.

Get it yet?



			
				CaféAuLait;8857965 said:
			
		

> As far as your claim, "whoever is in this thread is not responsible for attacks on presidents and their family's" *its NOT the issue*. LOL This forum and its posters did *not* make that photo of the Obama's,  but a but a newspaper supposed "satire". Capish?  *This post was about how the media portrayed president and his family.* Not posters here. Not hard to see.
> 
> The Bush girls were once again as example of how the family of presidents are spoken of. And I bet my bottom dollar if someone wrote the same about them "dumb and dumber' it would be spun into something racist by some on the left, something like "Oh they are trying to say black people are dumb!!"



Woulda coulda shoulda is another fallacy, specifically hypothesis contrary to fact.  You don't get to speculate on "what would happen if".  Doesn't make an argument.



			
				CaféAuLait;8857965 said:
			
		

> Now I've gone and read the article, I don't see anywhere the paper admitted it was racist, ( as you claimed)  but they said it was 'bad taste' and _tried _to explain themselves since they said they were portraying how Putin would portray the Obama's . *I think it's BS*. But I did note Huffington Post called the paper who wrote and published the story 'progressive'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The progressive newspaper De Morgen is being accused of racism for the image along with an article it published just prior to Obama's visit to the Netherlands Monday morning.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was rather confused by that. So I guess they are not as 'progressive' as Huffpo thinks?
Click to expand...


I have no idea.  I don't read Dutch very well but near as I can tell it says "Vladimir Putin is President of Russia.  He sent this response to our request as an image instead of text due to time constraints" and that's a bar over both photos.  Doesn't make much sense.  There's also the caption "starts selling weed" under O'bama's straight picture, which also doesn't make sense, nor was it ever explained why that phrase is in English.

According to the HuffPo analysis, the premise is that Putin sent these pictures.  That makes even less sense.  Are they trying to say that Putin is a racist?  Does Vladimir Putin have a history of racism?  Not that I know of.  Does Putin think black people sell pot?  This is where the explanation that "it's a joke" collapses.  The joke is elusive to the point of non-existence.  Here again, falling back on "it's a joke" in order to get away with racism is as lame as falling back on "it's just political criticism".

Now as far as De Morgen acknowledging it, it's right in the quote in the OP, however clumsily phrased:



> "When you consider the fragment apart from its context, which is a properly worked out satirical section, then you don't see the joke but just *a picture evoking sheer racism*," the newspaper said.



And as we just went through, there is no context to make it into a joke.

That's followed with:


> "We wrongly assumed that racism is no longer accepted, and that in this way it could be the subject of a joke."



Which also doesn't make much sense in English; best guess to make sense out of this might be, "we wrongly assumed that racism is no longer _noticed_, therefore we can use it to joke".

I remain completely baffled as to why "Starts selling weed" is in English and what the significance of that is.  Are they saying Putin speaks English when he's joking?


----------



## Pogo

CaféAuLait;8858377 said:
			
		

> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8858061 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the cartoon which was called racist by Sharpton and others:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _This cartoon image provided by the New York Post appeared in the Post's Page Six on Wednesday. The cartoon, which refers to Travis the chimp, who was shot to death by police in Stamford, Conn. on Monday after it mauled a friend of its owner, drew criticism_.
> 
> Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News
> 
> I saw that photo and immediately though they were spoofing congress
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I'll bet you did.  Because we have a time-honored tradition of representing Congress with a chimp.  Just like donkeys and elephants for the parties.
> 
> A you a yoga teacher?  Because this is a helluva stretch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CaféAuLait;8858061 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , given the president does not write bills. Somehow it was turned into saying the president was a " rabid chimp"  and it was racist.
> 
> The Post said this for an explanation:
> 
> 
> 
> Cartoon said to link Obama to dead chimp - politics | NBC News
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Again, in order for this explanation to even _begin_ to work, the viewer would have had to know about this obscure chimp story.  I remember the cartoon very well but this post tonight is the first time I've ever heard a chimp-shooting story connected to it.
> 
> Even granting that, let's suppose everybody knew about the chimp shooting -- how much of a leap is it to somehow connect a Congressional bill to a local chimp shooting?  Just doesn't pass the smell test.
> 
> Or should I say, how much of a stretch...
> 
> Namaste.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It was a nationwide story when that woman lost her face, fingers, hands... it was huge, the same way it was HUGE when she became a face transplant recipient.  And when she appeared on Oprah.  The same when she decided to sue the state of Connecticut. Heck, I even recall when they reported the woman who owned the ape died of a heart attack. Perhaps you are not up on the latest news as many others are?
> 
> Congress is mixed, what were they to show, some chimera type animal mixed between a donkey and elephant? It's a time honored tradition to picture idiots as monkeys or chimps. Simple fact. I never saw Obama in that photo ( although you want to infer otherwise because it seems to always be about race, exactly what my point was), I saw congress because it is congress who writes bills. Obama did not write the stimulus bill did he? Nancy Pelosi is the one who pushed the heck out of it, didn't she?
Click to expand...


Sure, you're absolutely right, Congress writes bills.  The stretch part is, not only picturing Congress as a chimp (has that _ever_ been done before?) but especially, trying desperately to make a connection between a chimp shooting and a Congressional bill.  What the hell do they have to do with each other?  This is just like De Morgen's alleged "satire" -- claiming a joke as a pretext for racism when there's no joke to be made.  The New York Post is lying through its proverbial teeth with this rationalization.

No, I don't ever watch Oprah or shows like that.  I don't even have television.  And frankly, the idea of a chimp going berserk and attacking somebody is not what I'd consider news.  Which is very much why I don't have television.


----------



## Flopper

S.J. said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The STRESS is getting to him, heart rate faster, blood pressure going up, soon headaches and vomiting, better take an aspirin, and call the doctor in the morning! ....FRUITCAKE CITY!
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt that in the first half of 20th century, KKK members were either Democrats or had no party affiliation because the South was mostly Democrat.  Republicans in the South were about as common as whites at an NAACP rally.  Democrats were so strong that the South was called the "Solid South".  Winning a Democratic Primary in most southern states was equivalent winning the election.  In national elections, the deep  south voted Democrat in every election in first half of the 20th century.
> 
> So, yes, the KKK before the mid 20th century attacked Republicans, not because of their achievements in civil rights but because they were the party of Lincoln, they were Yankees, and they weren't Democrats.
> 
> *However, after the mid 20th century roles reversed.* As Blacks flooded into the Democratic Party in the South, KKK members and segregationist began to move away from the Democratic Party.  Some supported 3rd parties, became independents, and joined the Republican party while other remained in the Democrat party but voted Republican in national elections.   The Solid South was becoming solidly Republican in national elections.  They gained more strength in state elections.  The KKK which now is about 6 different groups strongly opposes Democrats, supporting independents and Republicans, a total reversal from a hundred years ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century.  He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party.  Nice try though.  And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks.  "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson
Click to expand...

Byrd is typical of the changes in the Democratic party in the second half of the 20th century, from a staunch segregationist to a supporter of the civil rights bill he fought against.  In later years the NAACP rated Bryd 100% in alignment with all proposed legislation.

This is the point, I was trying make.  The Democratic Party in the South in the first half of the 20th century strongly supported racist policies.  However, the flood of black voters into the party which began in the 60's radically changed the makeup of the party.  Segregationist such as Bryd had to either change their political philosophy or change their party loyalty.  Some felt more comfortable in the Republican party which was only 2% Black.  Other remained in the Democratic Party but split loyalties between the parties, voting for Republican in national elections, whose platform was less favorable to blacks and spiting their vote in state and local elections.

In the South controlled by Republicans and with a long history racism, Black representation in the Republican Party at less than 2%, guarantees policies that disfavor blacks.


----------



## Vigilante

President Obama&#8217;s fiscal year (FY) 2014 budget released yesterday persists in entangling taxpayer dollars in the abortion industry.

 Obama&#8217;s budget includes $327 million for Title X family planning programs, a more than $30 million increase over last year&#8217;s request. Title X is one of a number of sources of government funding to Planned Parenthood, which performs roughly one out of every four abortions in the United States and was recently accused of tacitly supporting infanticide.

 In 2011 alone, Planned Parenthood received over $542 million in total taxpayer funding while performing a record 333,964 abortions. According to analysis by the Susan B. Anthony List, Planned Parenthood has performed almost 1 million abortions in the past three reporting years alone.

Obama Budget Increases Taxpayer Funding of Abortion

 And you ask, just how stupid is the black race to follow the Democrats???


----------



## Pogo

Flopper said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt that in the first half of 20th century, KKK members were either Democrats or had no party affiliation because the South was mostly Democrat.  Republicans in the South were about as common as whites at an NAACP rally.  Democrats were so strong that the South was called the "Solid South".  Winning a Democratic Primary in most southern states was equivalent winning the election.  In national elections, the deep  south voted Democrat in every election in first half of the 20th century.
> 
> So, yes, the KKK before the mid 20th century attacked Republicans, not because of their achievements in civil rights but because they were the party of Lincoln, they were Yankees, and they weren't Democrats.
> 
> *However, after the mid 20th century roles reversed.* As Blacks flooded into the Democratic Party in the South, KKK members and segregationist began to move away from the Democratic Party.  Some supported 3rd parties, became independents, and joined the Republican party while other remained in the Democrat party but voted Republican in national elections.   The Solid South was becoming solidly Republican in national elections.  They gained more strength in state elections.  The KKK which now is about 6 different groups strongly opposes Democrats, supporting independents and Republicans, a total reversal from a hundred years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century.  He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party.  Nice try though.  And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks.  "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Byrd is typical of the changes in the Democratic party in the second half of the 20th century, from a staunch segregationist to a supporter of the civil rights bill he fought against.  In later years the NAACP rated Bryd 100% in alignment with all proposed legislation.
Click to expand...


Indeed, the 1950s-1960s brought a cultural sea change in race views, a sea change we would do well not to forget, and one that required a lot of people to take stock of where they were, particularly in the South.  If you had been opposed to civil rights in the past you were now at a crossroads; you either adopted the new mentality and remained with the party that drove the issue, or you stood firm on your old mentality and went Republican, which after all was and is the more "conservative" party, and the people we speak of are at heart very conservative and always were.

This is the part the revisionistas either don't get or prefer to ignore -- the Democratic Party had evolved into a hybrid of two different contrasting and co-existing philosophies; in the North you were Democrat or Republican because that party you chose represented your values, while in the South you were a Democrat simply because everyone was, and the idea of being a Republican was unthinkable.  The first Republican President, after all, was the guy who had crushed the South in the Civil War, and even though these were solid conservatives aligning with the liberal party, "the enemy of my enemy is my friend".  And change comes not easily in the South.  Of course, the fact that these ideologically different Southerners brought the national party vote power was not lost on the latter and for years they tried to have it both ways.

So before the CRA, being a Democrat in the North or West meant something entirely different ideologically from being a Democrat in the South.  And when the national party started making noises about civil rights beginning with Truman and especially in its convention of 1948, a schism sparked a kind of intraparty civil war.  A sizeable faction broke off and created its own party, ran a Presidential candidate (Thurmond) unsuccessfully, and returned to being Democrats, at least in name, but their votes and their rhetoric were more and more at odds with the national party.  The 1960s brought notable showdowns between Democratic local government and the Kennedy and later Johnson federal administrations, until LBJ basically said "fuck it" and pushed the Civil Rights Bill into law, southern support or no southern support (his actual words were, "we (the Democratic Party) have lost the South for a generation", a duration he underestimated).

That's when Thurmond bolted and did the until-then unthinkable in the South: he became a Republican.  In turn he was followed by Lott, Shelby, Helms and many others along with their supporter voters in the electorate, effectively turning the South from a sea of blue to a sea of red.  Same people, different party.  Naturally the RP had also seen what LBJ correctly assessed and capitalized on it with Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and Reagan's opening his presidential run in Philadelphia Mississippi talking about "states' rights".  The RP was courting the conservatives, and the racists, and got them.

My grandfather told a story of counting votes at his local precinct in southwest Mississippi in 1940:

"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Roosevelt"...
"Wilkie"...
"Roosevelt...
"Wilkie -- aw shoot, we gotta throw the vote out.  Some damn fool voted twice!"

That's the way it was.  Diversity has never been a feature of the South.


----------



## S.J.

Flopper said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no doubt that in the first half of 20th century, KKK members were either Democrats or had no party affiliation because the South was mostly Democrat.  Republicans in the South were about as common as whites at an NAACP rally.  Democrats were so strong that the South was called the "Solid South".  Winning a Democratic Primary in most southern states was equivalent winning the election.  In national elections, the deep  south voted Democrat in every election in first half of the 20th century.
> 
> So, yes, the KKK before the mid 20th century attacked Republicans, not because of their achievements in civil rights but because they were the party of Lincoln, they were Yankees, and they weren't Democrats.
> 
> *However, after the mid 20th century roles reversed.* As Blacks flooded into the Democratic Party in the South, KKK members and segregationist began to move away from the Democratic Party.  Some supported 3rd parties, became independents, and joined the Republican party while other remained in the Democrat party but voted Republican in national elections.   The Solid South was becoming solidly Republican in national elections.  They gained more strength in state elections.  The KKK which now is about 6 different groups strongly opposes Democrats, supporting independents and Republicans, a total reversal from a hundred years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century.  He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party.  Nice try though.  And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks.  "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Byrd is typical of the changes in the Democratic party in the second half of the 20th century, from a staunch segregationist to a supporter of the civil rights bill he fought against.  In later years the NAACP rated Bryd 100% in alignment with all proposed legislation.
> 
> This is the point, I was trying make.  The Democratic Party in the South in the first half of the 20th century strongly supported racist policies.  However, the flood of black voters into the party which began in the 60's radically changed the makeup of the party.  Segregationist such as Bryd had to either change their political philosophy or change their party loyalty.  Some felt more comfortable in the Republican party which was only 2% Black.  Other remained in the Democratic Party but split loyalties between the parties, voting for Republican in national elections, whose platform was less favorable to blacks and spiting their vote in state and local elections.
> 
> In the South controlled by Republicans and with a long history racism, Black representation in the Republican Party at less than 2%, guarantees policies that disfavor blacks.
Click to expand...

Blacks started voting Democrat when the Democratic Party started paying them for their votes.  It had nothing to do with Democrats changing their attitude toward blacks, they're still as racist as they've ever been, they just figured out how to keep them on the plantation.  To you, and other liberals, the term "policies that favor blacks" means welfare.


----------



## Flopper

S.J. said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You revisionists keep pushing that role reversal claim but if that were the case, Bob Byrd would have been pushed out of the Democratic Party instead of being elevated to party leader in the Senate through the second half of the century.  He was called "a national treasure" by every top Democrat in the party.  Nice try though.  And the only reason blacks embraced the Democratic Party is because Lyndon Johnson started buying their votes with welfare checks.  "I'll have those ******* voting Democrat for the next 100 years". - Lyndon Johnson
> 
> 
> 
> Byrd is typical of the changes in the Democratic party in the second half of the 20th century, from a staunch segregationist to a supporter of the civil rights bill he fought against.  In later years the NAACP rated Bryd 100% in alignment with all proposed legislation.
> 
> This is the point, I was trying make.  The Democratic Party in the South in the first half of the 20th century strongly supported racist policies.  However, the flood of black voters into the party which began in the 60's radically changed the makeup of the party.  Segregationist such as Bryd had to either change their political philosophy or change their party loyalty.  Some felt more comfortable in the Republican party which was only 2% Black.  Other remained in the Democratic Party but split loyalties between the parties, voting for Republican in national elections, whose platform was less favorable to blacks and spiting their vote in state and local elections.
> 
> In the South controlled by Republicans and with a long history racism, Black representation in the Republican Party at less than 2%, guarantees policies that disfavor blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks started voting Democrat when the Democratic Party started paying them for their votes.  It had nothing to do with Democrats changing their attitude toward blacks, they're still as racist as they've ever been, they just figured out how to keep them on the plantation.  To you, and other liberals, the term "policies that favor blacks" means welfare.
Click to expand...

It also could be argued that blacks turned to the Democratic Party because Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act of 1965 and enforced laws that ended segregation in the South. The social welfare programs passed by Democrats helped poor people of all races not just blacks.  Democrats in the South definitely changed their attitudes toward blacks because the number of blacks in the party made it impossible to ignore them.  Southern Republican with membership being less than 2% black have little reason to be concerned with issues important blacks.


----------



## S.J.

Flopper said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> Byrd is typical of the changes in the Democratic party in the second half of the 20th century, from a staunch segregationist to a supporter of the civil rights bill he fought against.  In later years the NAACP rated Bryd 100% in alignment with all proposed legislation.
> 
> This is the point, I was trying make.  The Democratic Party in the South in the first half of the 20th century strongly supported racist policies.  However, the flood of black voters into the party which began in the 60's radically changed the makeup of the party.  Segregationist such as Bryd had to either change their political philosophy or change their party loyalty.  Some felt more comfortable in the Republican party which was only 2% Black.  Other remained in the Democratic Party but split loyalties between the parties, voting for Republican in national elections, whose platform was less favorable to blacks and spiting their vote in state and local elections.
> 
> In the South controlled by Republicans and with a long history racism, Black representation in the Republican Party at less than 2%, guarantees policies that disfavor blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks started voting Democrat when the Democratic Party started paying them for their votes.  It had nothing to do with Democrats changing their attitude toward blacks, they're still as racist as they've ever been, they just figured out how to keep them on the plantation.  To you, and other liberals, the term "policies that favor blacks" means welfare.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It also could be argued that blacks turned to the Democratic Party because Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act of 1965 and enforced laws that ended segregation in the South.* The social welfare programs passed by Democrats helped poor people of all races not just blacks.  Democrats in the South definitely changed their attitudes toward blacks because the number of blacks in the party made it impossible to ignore them.  Southern Republican with membership being less than 2% black have little reason to be concerned with issues important blacks.
Click to expand...

Bullshit!  Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and your favorite "former" racist Bob Byrd led that filibuster.  It was a Republican (Everett Dirksen) who broke the filibuster and got it passed.  This is a perfect example of your attempt to rewrite history.  Go ahead, Pogo, challenge me to post a link.


----------



## wavingrl

31 pages.


----------



## Vigilante

You'll notice how the SO UPSET left has taken to the insinuation of racism here. BUT, you want to see what these scumbags write about a Down's Syndrome baby? 



PaintMyHouse said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Putin would not ever humiliate Palin on the world stage as he has done Obama
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dood, Pee Wee Herman could humiliate Palin in a high school gymnasium. She's like the Jerry Lewis of politics.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And she has one of Jerry's kids, or close enough.*
Click to expand...


We all recognize that Palin is a legitimate political target, but to PICK on her innocent baby, much less ALL babies with Down's syndrome? Perhaps we should pick on B. Insane's 2 young daughters, I'm srure some unsavory remarks can be made about them!

Weren't you people the one's always yelling about the CHILDREN are off limits? Let's now hear the spin on this, HYPOCRISY should be placed after any Liberals party affiliation!


----------



## Flopper

S.J. said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks started voting Democrat when the Democratic Party started paying them for their votes.  It had nothing to do with Democrats changing their attitude toward blacks, they're still as racist as they've ever been, they just figured out how to keep them on the plantation.  To you, and other liberals, the term "policies that favor blacks" means welfare.
> 
> 
> 
> *It also could be argued that blacks turned to the Democratic Party because Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act of 1965 and enforced laws that ended segregation in the South.* The social welfare programs passed by Democrats helped poor people of all races not just blacks.  Democrats in the South definitely changed their attitudes toward blacks because the number of blacks in the party made it impossible to ignore them.  Southern Republican with membership being less than 2% black have little reason to be concerned with issues important blacks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Bullshit!  Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and your favorite "former" racist Bob Byrd led that filibuster.  It was a Republican (Everett Dirksen) who broke the filibuster and got it passed.  This is a perfect example of your attempt to rewrite history.  Go ahead, Pogo, challenge me to post a link.
Click to expand...

The lose of the South is the price Democrats paid for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill.  After the bill was passed southern democrats began deserting the party.  Many southern democrats simply could not stand to be same party with the growing number of blacks.  More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.  

As democrats became more liberal with increasing numbers of blacks and poor whites, republicans became more conservative. Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South.  Thus in less than 50 years, the solid democratic southern turned from blue to red.  Had LBJ, not pushed civil rights legislation through congress, the political map of the US today may have looked quite different.

The story of breaking of filibuster is an interesting one as told in Caros LBJ biography.
How LBJ Twisted Everett Dirksen's Arm | NBC Chicago


----------



## Pogo

wavingrl said:


> 31 pages.



24 for me, but about 20 of them are off the topic.

Must be inconvenient.


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> You'll notice how the SO UPSET left has taken to the insinuation of racism here. BUT, you want to see what these scumbags write about a Down's Syndrome baby?
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dood, Pee Wee Herman could humiliate Palin in a high school gymnasium. She's like the Jerry Lewis of politics.
> 
> 
> 
> *And she has one of Jerry's kids, or close enough.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We all recognize that Palin is a legitimate political target, but to PICK on her innocent baby, much less ALL babies with Down's syndrome? Perhaps we should pick on B. Insane's 2 young daughters, I'm srure some unsavory remarks can be made about them!
> 
> Weren't you people the one's always yelling about the CHILDREN are off limits? Let's now hear the spin on this, HYPOCRISY should be placed after any Liberals party affiliation!
Click to expand...


_That isn't even from this thread._

Apparently they're so desperate to lose the topic here they're harvesting other threads now...


----------



## Pogo

Flopper said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It also could be argued that blacks turned to the Democratic Party because Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act of 1965 and enforced laws that ended segregation in the South.* The social welfare programs passed by Democrats helped poor people of all races not just blacks.  Democrats in the South definitely changed their attitudes toward blacks because the number of blacks in the party made it impossible to ignore them.  Southern Republican with membership being less than 2% black have little reason to be concerned with issues important blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and your favorite "former" racist Bob Byrd led that filibuster.  It was a Republican (Everett Dirksen) who broke the filibuster and got it passed.  This is a perfect example of your attempt to rewrite history.  Go ahead, Pogo, challenge me to post a link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lose of the South is the price Democrats paid for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill.  After the bill was passed southern democrats began deserting the party.  Many southern democrats simply could not stand to be same party with the growing number of blacks.  More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.
> 
> As democrats became more liberal with increasing numbers of blacks and poor whites, republicans became more conservative. Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South.  Thus in less than 50 years, the solid democratic southern turned from blue to red.  Had LBJ, not pushed civil rights legislation through congress, the political map of the US today may have looked quite different.
> 
> The story of breaking of filibuster is an interesting one as told in Caro&#8217;s LBJ biography.
> How LBJ Twisted Everett Dirksen's Arm | NBC Chicago
Click to expand...


Inevitably it comes down to this, which has been posted a hundred thousdand times and somehow gets consistently ignored:

The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7&#8211;87   (7&#8211;93%)
Southern Republicans: 0&#8211;10   (0&#8211;100%)
Northern Democrats: 145&#8211;9   (94&#8211;6%)
Northern Republicans: 138&#8211;24   (85&#8211;15%)

The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1&#8211;20   (5&#8211;95%)
Southern Republicans: 0&#8211;1   (0&#8211;100%)
Northern Democrats: 45&#8211;1   (98&#8211;2%)
Northern Republicans: 27&#8211;5   (84&#8211;16%)
(Wiki CRA64 page)

Pattern by party --  None.
Pattern by region -- Definitely.

That's history, folks.  Spin all you like, it ain't going away.

(/offtopic)


----------



## wavingrl

If I were to make a list of 'My Least Favorite Things'--discussing the struggle for civil rights would go at the very top.

A war was fought--some consensus that change was needed. The process has not been pleasant.


----------



## S.J.

Flopper said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It also could be argued that blacks turned to the Democratic Party because Democrats passed the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Voters Rights Act of 1965 and enforced laws that ended segregation in the South.* The social welfare programs passed by Democrats helped poor people of all races not just blacks.  Democrats in the South definitely changed their attitudes toward blacks because the number of blacks in the party made it impossible to ignore them.  Southern Republican with membership being less than 2% black have little reason to be concerned with issues important blacks.
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and your favorite "former" racist Bob Byrd led that filibuster.  It was a Republican (Everett Dirksen) who broke the filibuster and got it passed.  This is a perfect example of your attempt to rewrite history.  Go ahead, Pogo, challenge me to post a link.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The lose of the South is the price Democrats paid for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill.  After the bill was passed southern democrats began deserting the party.  Many southern democrats simply could not stand to be same party with the growing number of blacks.  More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.
> 
> As democrats became more liberal with increasing numbers of blacks and poor whites, republicans became more conservative. Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South.  Thus in less than 50 years, the solid democratic southern turned from blue to red.  Had LBJ, not pushed civil rights legislation through congress, the political map of the US today may have looked quite different.
> 
> The story of breaking of filibuster is an interesting one as told in Caros LBJ biography.
> How LBJ Twisted Everett Dirksen's Arm | NBC Chicago
Click to expand...

Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit!  Democrats filibustered the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and your favorite "former" racist Bob Byrd led that filibuster.  It was a Republican (Everett Dirksen) who broke the filibuster and got it passed.  This is a perfect example of your attempt to rewrite history.  Go ahead, Pogo, challenge me to post a link.
> 
> 
> 
> The lose of the South is the price Democrats paid for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill.  After the bill was passed southern democrats began deserting the party.  Many southern democrats simply could not stand to be same party with the growing number of blacks.  More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.
> 
> As democrats became more liberal with increasing numbers of blacks and poor whites, republicans became more conservative. Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South.  Thus in less than 50 years, the solid democratic southern turned from blue to red.  Had LBJ, not pushed civil rights legislation through congress, the political map of the US today may have looked quite different.
> 
> The story of breaking of filibuster is an interesting one as told in Caros LBJ biography.
> How LBJ Twisted Everett Dirksen's Arm | NBC Chicago
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true.
Click to expand...


Then why don't you just give it a rest?  Ain't nobody buying.


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> The lose of the South is the price Democrats paid for the passage of the Civil Rights Bill.  After the bill was passed southern democrats began deserting the party.  Many southern democrats simply could not stand to be same party with the growing number of blacks.  More and more whites began to vote Republican, especially in the suburbs and growing cities. Newcomers from the North were mostly Republican; they were now joined by conservatives and wealthy Southern whites, while liberal whites and poor whites, especially in rural areas, remained with the Democratic Party.
> 
> As democrats became more liberal with increasing numbers of blacks and poor whites, republicans became more conservative. Republicans first dominated presidential elections in the South, then controlled Southern gubernatorial and U.S. Congress elections, then took control of elections to several state legislatures and came to be competitive in or even to control local offices in the South.  Thus in less than 50 years, the solid democratic southern turned from blue to red.  Had LBJ, not pushed civil rights legislation through congress, the political map of the US today may have looked quite different.
> 
> The story of breaking of filibuster is an interesting one as told in Caros LBJ biography.
> How LBJ Twisted Everett Dirksen's Arm | NBC Chicago
> 
> 
> 
> Repeating the same lie over and over doesn't make it true.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then why don't you just give it a rest?  Ain't nobody buying.
Click to expand...

Your maturity level continues to diminish with each and every post, as your lack of substance continues to grow.


----------



## Iceweasel

Many or most blacks were Republicans then so it makes no sense that 'Democrats fled to be rid of blacks'.

The True History of the Democratic Racist Party

What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.


----------



## Pogo

Iceweasel said:


> Many or most blacks were Republicans then so it makes no sense that 'Democrats fled to be rid of blacks'.
> 
> The True History of the Democratic Racist Party
> 
> What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.



I don't think it was Buchanan -- the strategy is attributed to Kevin Phillips (see below) but the term may have come from this New York Times article about Phillips' idea.

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.
 -- _Kevin Phillips, quoted in the article_​
This now-infamous quote sums up what we've been talking about and unlike the LBJ "I'll have those ******* voting Democratic" quote, this one's actually documented.

A strategy for which RNC Chair Ken Mehlman apologized years later on behalf of the party.

''Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," he added. ''I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."​


----------



## Iceweasel

Pogo said:


> I don't think it was Buchanan -- the strategy is attributed to Kevin Phillips (see below) but the term may have come from this New York Times article about Phillips' idea.


Buchanan apparently disagrees.


> 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.
> -- _Kevin Phillips, quoted in the article_​
> This now-infamous quote sums up what we've been talking about and unlike the LBJ "I'll have those ******* voting Democratic" quote, this one's actually documented.
> 
> A strategy for which RNC Chair Ken Mehlman apologized years later on behalf of the party.
> 
> ''Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," he added. ''I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."​


Notice, he didn't say the all or even most Republicans and it wasn't them that divided the nation. Why should Republicans benefit from racial polarization since they're the ones against it? I think they were right to stand on principle so I don't agree with him.


----------



## Pogo

Iceweasel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it was Buchanan -- the strategy is attributed to Kevin Phillips (see below) but the term may have come from this New York Times article about Phillips' idea.
> 
> 
> 
> Buchanan apparently disagrees.
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> -- _Kevin Phillips, quoted in the article_​
> This now-infamous quote sums up what we've been talking about and unlike the LBJ "I'll have those ******* voting Democratic" quote, this one's actually documented.
> 
> A strategy for which RNC Chair Ken Mehlman apologized years later on behalf of the party.
> 
> ''Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," he added. ''I am here as Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong."​
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Notice, he didn't say the all or even most Republicans and it wasn't them that divided the nation. Why should Republicans benefit from racial polarization since they're the ones against it? I think they were right to stand on principle so I don't agree with him.
Click to expand...


OK, you said "Buchanan apparently disagrees" and then quoted exactly the links I posted attributing the strategy elsewhere.  

Generally such a statement would be followed with some kind of argument to the contrary, like a Buchanan source.  What you've done is reaffirmed the evidence against your own point.


----------



## Pogo

Iceweasel said:


> Notice, he didn't say the all or even most Republicans and it wasn't them that divided the nation. Why should Republicans benefit from racial polarization since they're the ones against it? I think they were right to stand on principle so I don't agree with him.



"Him" refers to ... who?

Exploiting racism doesn't require actually *being* racist oneself.  It just requires a preference for opportunism over ethics.  A political party (either one, depending on the era) baiting a certain population with keywords and implications doesn't have to follow or believe in racism itself; they just have to be the ones to wink alluringly at their target.  That's what political posturing is all about.


----------



## Iceweasel

Pogo said:


> OK, you said "Buchanan apparently disagrees" and then quoted exactly the links I posted attributing the strategy elsewhere.
> 
> Generally such a statement would be followed with some kind of argument to the contrary, like a Buchanan source.  What you've done is reaffirmed the evidence against your own point.


I posted the source and you think yours proves he's a liar? Good luck with the trolling.....


----------



## Pogo

Iceweasel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK, you said "Buchanan apparently disagrees" and then quoted exactly the links I posted attributing the strategy elsewhere.
> 
> Generally such a statement would be followed with some kind of argument to the contrary, like a Buchanan source.  What you've done is reaffirmed the evidence against your own point.
> 
> 
> 
> I posted the source and you think yours proves he's a liar? Good luck with the trolling.....
Click to expand...


You posted the words "Buchanan apparently disagrees".  That was it.
I need something with a bit more meat on it.  Maybe you don't but for me, simply posting three words on the internet falls a bit short of what I'd call "existence".

And your original post was nothing more than a link to a post on another message board (illegal here btw) and is entirely unsourced.  And the whole thing's written by some political message board poster-- not by Pat Buchanan.
Desperate points call for desperate measures.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll notice how the SO UPSET left has taken to the insinuation of racism here. BUT, you want to see what these scumbags write about a Down's Syndrome baby?
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> *And she has one of Jerry's kids, or close enough.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We all recognize that Palin is a legitimate political target, but to PICK on her innocent baby, much less ALL babies with Down's syndrome? Perhaps we should pick on B. Insane's 2 young daughters, I'm srure some unsavory remarks can be made about them!
> 
> Weren't you people the one's always yelling about the CHILDREN are off limits? Let's now hear the spin on this, HYPOCRISY should be placed after any Liberals party affiliation!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> _That isn't even from this thread._
> 
> Apparently they're so desperate to lose the topic here they're harvesting other threads now...
Click to expand...


No, it's not Pogo Stick, it's meant to show the fucking indignation of you and the others in here is BULLSHIT... PaintYourShack can make fun of a Down's Syndrome baby, yet all you scum can think about is RACISM from a Belgium picture. Here, I always thought you bastards were for the children I even remember your president saying

 
 Just do anything to save that one child, yet make fun of them is fine with you hypocrites. You're a deranged little man, that concentrates on a small fact that SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS founded the KKK, and would go on for 100 posts about it, when the FACT was right before your face. Yes, I'll keep harvesting this little incident, simply to show NEW FORUM members, just what you subversives are all about!


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> You'll notice how the SO UPSET left has taken to the insinuation of racism here. BUT, you want to see what these scumbags write about a Down's Syndrome baby?
> 
> 
> 
> We all recognize that Palin is a legitimate political target, but to PICK on her innocent baby, much less ALL babies with Down's syndrome? Perhaps we should pick on B. Insane's 2 young daughters, I'm srure some unsavory remarks can be made about them!
> 
> Weren't you people the one's always yelling about the CHILDREN are off limits? Let's now hear the spin on this, HYPOCRISY should be placed after any Liberals party affiliation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _That isn't even from this thread._
> 
> Apparently they're so desperate to lose the topic here they're harvesting other threads now...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it's not Pogo Stick, it's meant to show the fucking indignation of you and the others in here is BULLSHIT... PaintYourShack can make fun of a Down's Syndrome baby, yet all you scum can think about is RACISM from a Belgium picture. Here, I always thought you bastards were for the children I even remember your president saying
> 
> 
> Just do anything to save that one child, yet make fun of them is fine with you hypocrites. You're a deranged little man, that concentrates on a small fact that SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS founded the KKK, and would go on for 100 posts about it, when the FACT was right before your face. Yes, I'll keep harvesting this little incident, simply to show NEW FORUM members, just what you subversives are all about!
Click to expand...


--- so being called on it, he doubles down.  Can't make this shit up.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> _That isn't even from this thread._
> 
> Apparently they're so desperate to lose the topic here they're harvesting other threads now...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not Pogo Stick, it's meant to show the fucking indignation of you and the others in here is BULLSHIT... PaintYourShack can make fun of a Down's Syndrome baby, yet all you scum can think about is RACISM from a Belgium picture. Here, I always thought you bastards were for the children I even remember your president saying
> 
> 
> Just do anything to save that one child, yet make fun of them is fine with you hypocrites. You're a deranged little man, that concentrates on a small fact that SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS founded the KKK, and would go on for 100 posts about it, when the FACT was right before your face. Yes, I'll keep harvesting this little incident, simply to show NEW FORUM members, just what you subversives are all about!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> --- so being called on it, he doubles down. Can't make this shit up.
Click to expand...


And you're still in denial that the LIBERAL PBS stated you were WRONG....You can't make this shit up folks!


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it's not Pogo Stick, it's meant to show the fucking indignation of you and the others in here is BULLSHIT... PaintYourShack can make fun of a Down's Syndrome baby, yet all you scum can think about is RACISM from a Belgium picture. Here, I always thought you bastards were for the children I even remember your president saying
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OmD-QimMXE
> 
> Just do anything to save that one child, yet make fun of them is fine with you hypocrites. You're a deranged little man, that concentrates on a small fact that SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS founded the KKK, and would go on for 100 posts about it, when the FACT was right before your face. Yes, I'll keep harvesting this little incident, simply to show NEW FORUM members, just what you subversives are all about!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --- so being called on it, he doubles down. Can't make this shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you're still in denial that the LIBERAL PBS stated you were WRONG....You can't make this shit up folks!
Click to expand...


PBS refuted nothing about me.

Just as you refuted nothing about posts 361 and 398.

Guess you lose.

Oh wait, I'm being unfair -- you did saunter in with this sterling bit of logic:


Vigilante said:


> You have NO PROOF that those Confederate soldiers WEREN'T DEMOCRAPS, and If you go to BING with KKK FOUNDED BY DEMOCRAPS, you'll get 479,000 links to it!





You "get links to it".  What a devastating argument.  My head swims.

But being April Fool's Day and all I humored you and Googled "KKK founded by Republicans".  I got 529.000 links

Guess you still lose.  By a margin of fifty thousand links.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> --- so being called on it, he doubles down. Can't make this shit up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you're still in denial that the LIBERAL PBS stated you were WRONG....You can't make this shit up folks!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> PBS refuted nothing about me.
> 
> Just as you refuted nothing about posts 361 and 398.
> 
> You lose.
Click to expand...


Still with that OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER, I see. You really need to see a psychiatrist, this THING about refusing to admit that PBS stated * Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. *

Rise of the Ku Klux Klan . U.S. Grant: Warrior . WGBH American Experience | PBS

 No Jackass, *YOU LOST!!!*

 Is this deranged little man, the BEST and BRIGHTEST you liberals can come up with in here?


----------



## S.J.

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you're still in denial that the LIBERAL PBS stated you were WRONG....You can't make this shit up folks!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PBS refuted nothing about me.
> 
> Just as you refuted nothing about posts 361 and 398.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still with that OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER, I see. You really need to see a psychiatrist, this THING about refusing to admit that PBS stated * Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. *
> 
> Rise of the Ku Klux Klan . U.S. Grant: Warrior . WGBH American Experience | PBS
> 
> No Jackass, *YOU LOST!!!*
> 
> Is this deranged little man, the BEST and BRIGHTEST you liberals can come up with in here?
Click to expand...

He's trying to pretend he's not holding his ass in his hands.


----------



## Vigilante

S.J. said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> PBS refuted nothing about me.
> 
> Just as you refuted nothing about posts 361 and 398.
> 
> You lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still with that OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER, I see. You really need to see a psychiatrist, this THING about refusing to admit that PBS stated *Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865. *
> 
> Rise of the Ku Klux Klan . U.S. Grant: Warrior . WGBH American Experience | PBS
> 
> No Jackass, *YOU LOST!!!*
> 
> Is this deranged little man, the BEST and BRIGHTEST you liberals can come up with in here?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's trying to pretend he's not holding his ass in his hands.
Click to expand...


I await his next delusional post with baited breath!


----------



## Pogo

Um... that's not my ass -- it's yours.  Like it back?

Jeeves?



"baited" huh?  

Here, knock yerself out, make it an even ten:

Martin said the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. He acknowledged he was wrong.

Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But there&#8217;s no evidence the KKK was created by their political party.

It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today.

Recognizing that Martin has expressed regret for his statement. We rate his claim False.​
Sorry, fresh out of delusional posts.  I go to you two for those.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Um... that's not my ass -- it's yours. Like it back?
> 
> Jeeves?
> 
> 
> 
> "baited" huh?
> 
> Here, knock yerself out, make it an even ten: Martin said the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. He acknowledged he was wrong.
> 
> Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But there&#8217;s no evidence the KKK was created by their political party.
> 
> It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today.
> 
> Recognizing that Martin has expressed regret for his statement. We rate his claim False.​Sorry, fresh out of delusional posts. I go to you two for those.



How many times have you used that ass picture? Well, OK, I'll just have to point out your STRONG case of OCD, and you keep coming back, humiliation apparently doesn't overcome your compulsion to be tortured by FACT

*Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865.

*http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...cle/grant-kkk/

Funny how when pointed out even a LEFT LEANING site, such as PBS agrees with me on the KKK, the subversives kept arguing that PBS was wrong! They really are the party of the 2 digit IQ clan!


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um... that's not my ass -- it's yours. Like it back?
> 
> Jeeves?
> 
> 
> 
> "baited" huh?
> 
> Here, knock yerself out, make it an even ten: Martin said the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. He acknowledged he was wrong.
> 
> Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But theres no evidence the KKK was created by their political party.
> 
> It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today.
> 
> Recognizing that Martin has expressed regret for his statement. We rate his claim False.​Sorry, fresh out of delusional posts. I go to you two for those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you used that ass picture? Well, OK, I'll just have to point out your STRONG case of OCD, and you keep coming back, humiliation apparently doesn't overcome your compulsion to be tortured by FACT
> 
> *Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865.
> 
> *http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...cle/grant-kkk/
> 
> Funny how when pointed out even a LEFT LEANING site, such as PBS agrees with me on the KKK, the subversives kept arguing that PBS was wrong! They really are the party of the 2 digit IQ clan!
Click to expand...


And once again dumbass....

Where do you see the word "party" in that quote?
Reading comprehension...

Take the plate already.  Jeeves is getting tired holding your ass up.

Cue music: "Cheek to Cheek"


----------



## Mr. H.

When Obama gives it to Michelle back-door, he squirts his monkey see in her monkey doo.


----------



## Pogo

I see the old bar tab is gettin' tapped.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Um... that's not my ass -- it's yours. Like it back?
> 
> Jeeves?
> 
> 
> 
> "baited" huh?
> 
> Here, knock yerself out, make it an even ten: Martin said the KKK was created by the Democratic Party. He acknowledged he was wrong.
> 
> Historians say the KKK consisted of a group of Southern whites after the Civil War who were Democrats. But theres no evidence the KKK was created by their political party.
> 
> It should also be noted that the anti-black Democratic Party of the 1860s and 1870s bears no similarity to the party of today.
> 
> Recognizing that Martin has expressed regret for his statement. We rate his claim False.​ Sorry, fresh out of delusional posts. I go to you two for those.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times have you used that ass picture? Well, OK, I'll just have to point out your STRONG case of OCD, and you keep coming back, humiliation apparently doesn't overcome your compulsion to be tortured by FACT
> 
> *Southern Democrats formed organizations that violently intimidated blacks and Republicans who tried to win political power. The most prominent of these, the Ku Klux Klan, was formed in Pulaski, Tennessee, in 1865.
> 
> *http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexpe...cle/grant-kkk/
> 
> Funny how when pointed out even a LEFT LEANING site, such as PBS agrees with me on the KKK, the subversives kept arguing that PBS was wrong! They really are the party of the 2 digit IQ clan!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again dumbass....
> 
> Where do you see the word "party" in that quote?
> Reading comprehension...
> 
> Take the plate already. Jeeves is getting tired holding your ass up.
> 
> Cue music: "Cheek to Cheek"
Click to expand...


Well Pogo Stick, SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS are really * crepe suzette's?*

 Talk about reading comprehension...The OCD has not only made you an outright head case, instead of just going away humiliated, you must come back for more humiliation..... Perhaps some of this would cure what ails you, but I'd imagine you'd wet your pants if actually done to you!



 Please, have the good sense, and common courtesy to NOT make yourself looked more like that ASS than you already do!


----------



## Pogo

Still no "party" huh?  

Party on, Danth.  Keep looking. It's gotta be out there.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Still no "party" huh?
> 
> Party on, Danth. Keep looking. It's gotta be out there.





 Party!!! OMG, when talking Republican and Democrat do we have to state PARTY to identify them? I'm crying, you ARE MY ENTERTAINMENT, you're deranged, and even the other loony left are staying away from your derangement! Hard breathing, good thing I'm not drinking, might pass out! 

 THIS is the brightest and BEST of the subversives?..... I think you need a , and put to bed! Do you also sleep with a "TEDDY"....


----------



## Flopper

Iceweasel said:


> Many or most blacks were Republicans then so it makes no sense that 'Democrats fled to be rid of blacks'.
> 
> The True History of the Democratic Racist Party
> 
> What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.


In 1964, only 5% of the blacks identified themselves as Republican.  By 1968, on 1 to 2% identified themselves as Republicans while over 90% identified themselves as Democrats.  What better place for Southern Democrats who hated blacks than the Republican Party?
Blacks and the Democratic Party


----------



## S.J.

Flopper said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many or most blacks were Republicans then so it makes no sense that 'Democrats fled to be rid of blacks'.
> 
> The True History of the Democratic Racist Party
> 
> What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1964, only 5% of the blacks identified themselves as Republican.  By 1968, on 1 to 2% identified themselves as Republicans while over 90% identified themselves as Democrats.  What better place for Southern Democrats who hated blacks than the Republican Party?
> Blacks and the Democratic Party
Click to expand...

Yeah, they flocked to the party that wrote the biggest welfare checks.  No argument there.


----------



## Vigilante

S.J. said:


> Flopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> 
> Many or most blacks were Republicans then so it makes no sense that 'Democrats fled to be rid of blacks'.
> 
> The True History of the Democratic Racist Party
> 
> What about the reviled, allegedly anti-black, Republican "Southern strategy"? Pat Buchanan, writing for Richard Nixon (who became the Republican Party candidate two years later) coined the term "Southern strategy." They expected the "strategy" to ultimately result in the complete marginalization of racist Southern Democrats. "We would build our Republican Party on a foundation of states' rights, human rights, small government, and a strong national defense," said Buchanan, "and leave it to the 'party of [Democratic Georgia Gov. Lester] Maddox, [1966 Democratic challenger against Spiro Agnew for Maryland governor George] Mahoney, and [Democratic Alabama Gov. George] Wallace to squeeze the last ounces of political juice out of the rotting fruit of racial injustice.'" And President Richard Nixon, Republican, implemented the first federal affirmative action (race-based preference) laws with goals and timetables.
> 
> 
> 
> In 1964, only 5% of the blacks identified themselves as Republican. By 1968, on 1 to 2% identified themselves as Republicans while over 90% identified themselves as Democrats. What better place for Southern Democrats who hated blacks than the Republican Party?
> Blacks and the Democratic Party
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, they flocked to the party that wrote the biggest welfare checks. No argument there.
Click to expand...


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no "party" huh?
> 
> Party on, Danth. Keep looking. It's gotta be out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Party!!! OMG, when talking Republican and Democrat do we have to state PARTY to identify them? I'm crying, you ARE MY ENTERTAINMENT, you're deranged, and even the other loony left are staying away from your derangement! Hard breathing, good thing I'm not drinking, might pass out!
> 
> THIS is the brightest and BEST of the subversives?..... I think you need a , and put to bed! Do you also sleep with a "TEDDY"....
Click to expand...


You and Wildman are apparently skipping the same meds.  Y'all make this place look like a comic book.  Then again I guess that's what you're used to.

Yeah, when you posit that "the Democratic Party founded the KKK" and then all you have is some vague quote that some people who "may have been Democrats" did it, that's a sign that your reasoning is fucked up.  And that would be if there were any evidence that your six Confederate vets were Democrats, or indeed had any party affiliation at all -- which there isn't.  Bottom line, six ex-soldiers who may or may not be registered with a political party .... _don't comprise a political party_.  That's why you need the word "party".

Moreover, the KKK was one of at least a half-dozen, and probably more, such insurrection groups that sprang up after the Civil War; the KKK was the one that lasted, and even they sprang up as autonomous local groups following the original.  Now if a political party was going to found such a movement, why would it form a bunch of unconnected splinter groups --with different names-- when it already had the network to organize at least region-wide, if not nationwide?




David Duke is a Republican, so this is equivalent to equating the KKK with Republicans.  Same biased sample fallacy; you still lose.

Time to post 762 emoticons and 8226 exclamation points.  That always works as intelligent refutation.  (/sarc)


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still no "party" huh?
> 
> Party on, Danth. Keep looking. It's gotta be out there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Party!!! OMG, when talking Republican and Democrat do we have to state PARTY to identify them? I'm crying, you ARE MY ENTERTAINMENT, you're deranged, and even the other loony left are staying away from your derangement! Hard breathing, good thing I'm not drinking, might pass out!
> 
> THIS is the brightest and BEST of the subversives?..... I think you need a , and put to bed! Do you also sleep with a "TEDDY"....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and Wildman are apparently skipping the same meds. Y'all make this place look like a comic book. Then again I guess that's what you're used to.
> 
> Yeah, when you posit that "the Democratic Party founded the KKK" and then all you have is some vague quote that some people who "may have been Democrats" did it, that's a sign that your reasoning is fucked up. And that would be if there were any evidence that your six Confederate vets were Democrats, or indeed had any party affiliation at all -- which there isn't. Bottom line, six ex-soldiers who may or may not be registered with a political party .... _don't comprise a political party_. That's why you need the word "party".
> 
> Moreover, the KKK was one of at least a half-dozen, and probably more, such insurrection groups that sprang up after the Civil War; the KKK was the one that lasted, and even they sprang up as autonomous local groups following the original. Now if a political party was going to found such a movement, why would it form a bunch of unconnected splinter groups --with different names-- when it already had the network to organize at least region-wide, if not nationwide?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke is a Republican, so this is equivalent to equating the KKK with Republicans. Same biased sample fallacy; you still lose.
> 
> Time to post 762 emoticons and 8226 exclamation points. That always works as intelligent refutation. (/sarc)
Click to expand...


Well folks, if you want an excellent object lesson on OCD (OBSESSIVE COMPULSIVE DISORDER) this Pogo Stick, is a prime case! Simply walking away from his FAILED position, would have let this topic die, But...NOOOOOO! This asshole wants to continue to fight the PBS website stating HE WAS WRONG, He'll TWIST, SPIN, MUTILATE, and STAPLE anything he can find, from any source to try and prove PBS and I don't know what we are talking about! It was a simple statement, and he didn't like it....tough shit!.

Come on Pogo, my boy, call me names, insult my intelligence, Post your cute little posters, and I'll continue to make you my entertainment. What is this now, 3 days, your DISORDER hasn't subsided! You need a mental professional, and some of the infamous OBOZOCARE to straighten you head out....They might even suggest a DEATH PANEL, as you seem to be OVER THE CLIFF, when it comes to me and bitch slapping your dumb ass about the KKK was founded by Democrats. Everyone has known it for over a century, but NOT YOU! 

Come on Liberals, give this boy a hand, he REALLY TRIED but keeps ending up looking like Joe Biden's son when it comes to intelligence...Hey Pogo, remember that 3 letter word....J-O-B-S? I think you need to get one, and get off the internet, we've simply warped your mind!  Now  and don't make yourself look any dumber than this....BUT, I'll NEVER let you forget this dumbass diatribe! 

Vigilante 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




Pogo Stick


----------

