# Democrat "Slavers Party"



## Lumpy 1

Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lumpy 1 said:


> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?


Do you have that in English?


----------



## Lumpy 1

PaintMyHouse said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have that in English?
Click to expand...


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lumpy 1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have that in English?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I'll take that as a no.


----------



## Lumpy 1

I doubt this will help you, you don't seem overly bright... 

---------

Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South.
In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they held that slavery was a good thing and promoted its expansion into the West. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts.
During the 1930s, as the New Deal began to move Democrats as a whole to the left in economic policy, Southern Democrats were mostly supportive, although by the late 1930s there was a growing conservative faction. Both factions supported Roosevelt's foreign policies. By 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election. After 1964, Southern Democrats lost major battles to the civil rights movement. Federal laws ended segregation and restrictions on black voters.


Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lumpy 1 said:


> I doubt this will hep you, you don't seem overly bright...
> 
> ---------
> 
> Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South.
> In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they held that slavery was a good thing and promoted its expansion into the West. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts.
> During the 1930s, as the New Deal began to move Democrats as a whole to the left in economic policy, Southern Democrats were mostly supportive, although by the late 1930s there was a growing conservative faction. Both factions supported Roosevelt's foreign policies. By 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election. After 1964, Southern Democrats lost major battles to the civil rights movement. Federal laws ended segregation and restrictions on black voters.
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


I know the history but what is your question?


----------



## Lumpy 1

PaintMyHouse said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt this will hep you, you don't seem overly bright...
> 
> ---------
> 
> Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South.
> In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they held that slavery was a good thing and promoted its expansion into the West. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts.
> During the 1930s, as the New Deal began to move Democrats as a whole to the left in economic policy, Southern Democrats were mostly supportive, although by the late 1930s there was a growing conservative faction. Both factions supported Roosevelt's foreign policies. By 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election. After 1964, Southern Democrats lost major battles to the civil rights movement. Federal laws ended segregation and restrictions on black voters.
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> I know the history but what is your question?
Click to expand...


You're wasting my time, shut up, put on the dunce cap and sit in the corner...


----------



## Duped

Lumpy 1 said:


> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?


Excellent interrogative!


----------



## Nyvin

Lumpy 1 said:


> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?



I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask


----------



## Clementine

When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings.    Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people.    Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.

Liberals did not want the slaves freed.   Liberals did not want equal rights.   The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know.   They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites.   The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power.    Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed.   They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.

Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Nyvin said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
Click to expand...


That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..


----------



## Lumpy 1

Democrats "run way..run away" ....


----------



## jasonnfree

Clementine said:


> When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings.    Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people.    Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.
> 
> Liberals did not want the slaves freed.   Liberals did not want equal rights.   The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know.   They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites.   The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power.    Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed.   They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.
> 
> Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.



I see you put Hitler in there as a liberal.  Don't give up on Hitler so easily.  He had a lot to be admired by modern american conservatives.  He hated unions, intellectuals , homosexuals and Negroes.


----------



## The T

Lumpy 1 said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
Click to expand...

And they STILL fight to keep them from escaping their plantation...as IF that is some big favor? The black community is screaming louder than ever...so what's Obama do? Call for another program to "HELP" them overcome adversity started BY Democrat Statists in the first place.

What a country...eh?


----------



## Lumpy 1

The T said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And they STILL fight to keep them from escaping their plantation...as IF that is some big favor? The black community is screaming louder than ever...so what's Obama do? Call for another program to "HELP" them overcome adversity started BY Democrat Statists in the first place.
> 
> What a country...eh?
Click to expand...


It's the political season, Democrats pay off the Black traitor race baiters, make promises and after the election, they laugh it off and screw them over and over and over..etc...it happens every time.


----------



## francoHFW

And now conservatives are GOP...zzzzzz


----------



## francoHFW

One thing stays the same, conservatives are FOS.


----------



## Lumpy 1

francoHFW said:


> And now conservatives are GOP...zzzzzz



Sleep it off franco...the true reality of the Democratic Party sucks and can only make ridiculous excuses.  Yawn and bend over for the Party Franco...


----------



## Nyvin

This same old gimic has been tried over and over....it's the same thing every time.

Back in the day 100+ some years ago...there were conservatives in the south that called themselves democrats.....nowadays those same areas are still in the south and they now call themselves republicans.   It's the same group of people and the same ideas are still being supported, they just change the party name.


----------



## The T

Lumpy 1 said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
> 
> 
> 
> And they STILL fight to keep them from escaping their plantation...as IF that is some big favor? The black community is screaming louder than ever...so what's Obama do? Call for another program to "HELP" them overcome adversity started BY Democrat Statists in the first place.
> 
> What a country...eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the political season, Democrats pay off the Black traitor race baiters, make promises and after the election, they laugh it off and screw them over and over and over..etc...it happens every time.
Click to expand...

I think it's time for the "Black Community"(Whatever THAT is any longer) to step OUT of their comfort zone(s) and look inside rather than outside...Maybe the closest mirror will do?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

jasonnfree said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings.    Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people.    Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.
> 
> Liberals did not want the slaves freed.   Liberals did not want equal rights.   The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know.   They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites.   The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power.    Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed.   They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.
> 
> Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you put Hitler in there as a liberal.  Don't give up on Hitler so easily.  He had a lot to be admired by modern american conservatives.  He hated unions, intellectuals , homosexuals and Negroes.
Click to expand...


Actually for the reasons you listed he fits in perfectly with the left of this country. He didn't hate unions he expanded them, he just did so within his own rules. The great lie of the left is Hitler got rid of unions, he did not. He eliminated people that disagreed with him and created his own unions for the loyal to buy into. Do you see any conservative unions these days? Same reason and same goal of the democrat party.

He didn't hate intellectuals, he hated anyone that had the intelligence and thought to not go along with his program. Kind of like you left wingers and global warming, the economy etc. You like to sound off about being the party of intellectuals but only the ones that agree with your predetermined result.

Homosexuals and blacks are currently revered by the left not for granting them any freedom but to guarantee a voting block. As soon as the left has run the homo agenda into the ground the gays will be expected to just shut up and go along with the program like the blacks do today. Take the measly government handout and STFU. Just look at how you people are so intolerent of any black person wanting nothing more than what MLK asked for, judgement by character, you would think they had killed someone with the attacks. The democrat party of race identity goes apeshit when a black person doesn't simply sidle up to the left wing government tit and remain silent.

I think Hitler would be pretty jealous of the democrats today, they accomplished so much more than he ever thought possible.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Nyvin said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
Click to expand...

I understand.  I read it several times and I can usually work out right-wing gibberish but not this one.  He's a master of it apparently.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Nyvin said:


> This same old gimic has been tried over and over....it's the same thing every time.
> 
> Back in the day 100+ some years ago...there were conservatives in the south that called themselves democrats.....nowadays those same areas are still in the south and they now call themselves republicans.   It's the same group of people and the same ideas are still being supported, they just change the party name.



There were never conservatives that called themselves democrats. Not today and not a hundred years ago. They have been and always will be progressives. No party names have changed only how the parties made these groups of people useful to their cause. The conservatives have always held that individual freedom and opportunity is best for any race group. The progressives used them as a block with government subsidies to keep them in line.

The party of the KKK and Jim Crow didn't go anywhere, never left and never changed their party affiliation. They just found a new use for those they hate that benefits them. Racism is alive and well in the democrat party, for evidence just look at what they say about any black stepping outside of their predetermined role.


----------



## francoHFW

I have a masters in history- and the op is insipid...typical hater dupe propaganda....a total perversion of history.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

It seems as though he is trying to say that only the Democrats bought slaves?  Is that correct?  Meaning George Washington was a Democrat?  Does anyone have what he is trying to say figured out yet?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

francoHFW said:


> I have a masters in history- and the op is insipid...typical hater dupe propaganda....a total perversion of history.



You don't have a masters in anything stop lying to people. You're too fucking stupid to post an actual rebuttal to any post on this board and yet still expect me to believe you're some kind of intellectual giant? Bitch please.


----------



## Duped

PaintMyHouse said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I understand.  I read it several times and I can usually work out right-wing gibberish but not this one.  He's a master of it apparently.
Click to expand...

Take your partisian blinders off: Dems started the slave trade, but cast the blame on others. 

The liberal controllers are wolfs, the blacks are sheep unless they are enlightened - then they are " uncle toms " and every other castigation!


----------



## Nyvin

AzMike said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> This same old gimic has been tried over and over....it's the same thing every time.
> 
> Back in the day 100+ some years ago...there were conservatives in the south that called themselves democrats.....nowadays those same areas are still in the south and they now call themselves republicans.   It's the same group of people and the same ideas are still being supported, they just change the party name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were never conservatives that called themselves democrats. Not today and not a hundred years ago. They have been and always will be progressives. No party names have changed only how the parties made these groups of people useful to their cause. The conservatives have always held that individual freedom and opportunity is best for any race group. The progressives used them as a block with government subsidies to keep them in line.
> 
> The party of the KKK and Jim Crow didn't go anywhere, never left and never changed their party affiliation. They just found a new use for those they hate that benefits them. Racism is alive and well in the democrat party, for evidence just look at what they say about any black stepping outside of their predetermined role.
Click to expand...


Yes there were conservatives that called themselves democrats.   The south has always been one of the most conservative areas of the country.   Dixiecrats distinguished themselves as being the "conservative democrats".   

"Progressive" is always about changing from the status quo to something new.   Keeping slavery isn't something new, it was keeping the status quo.   Segregation wasn't changing to something new, it was attempting to keep the status quo.   If you want to make progressives out to be the group that supported segregation you're just whacko.


----------



## Nyvin

Duped said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  I read it several times and I can usually work out right-wing gibberish but not this one.  He's a master of it apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take your partisian blinders off: Dems started the slave trade, but cast the blame on others.
> 
> The liberal controllers are wolfs, the blacks are sheep unless they are enlightened - then they are " uncle toms " and every other castigation!
Click to expand...


How odd that 98% of African Americans vote democrat.


----------



## MACAULAY

Slavery is a national shame. There is plenty of blame to go around.

Jefferson tried to condemn slavery in the Declaration, and later wrote that it was stricken because South Carolina was adamant, but also that Massachusetts and New York were against it because they were the ones making money shipping them into the country.

Ralph Waldo Emerson got to gad about spouting his transcendentalist bullshit because his ancestor, a Mr. Waldo, made a fortune bringing in slaves from Africa. His principal ship was the African. Massachusetts had slavery and abandoned it, not out of a moral awaking, but because it just wasn't profitable in their climate and terrain.  In fact, Massachusetts had to pass a law making it a crime to abandon your slave on the street, after they got too old to work.  

This is all true. 

For pure unadulterated hypocrisy, New York, New Jersey, New England--have had no rivals throughout American history---and are just now getting a competitor in Hollywood, and the rest of the loons in California. 

I would like to add that Harry Reid is a National Disgrace.


----------



## francoHFW

Hitler was a liberal- Absolute idiocy, the calling card of a brainwashed Beckbot...lol. Along with no Dems were ever conservatives- like slave owners and segregationists were liberals lol...


----------



## Duped

Nyvin said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  I read it several times and I can usually work out right-wing gibberish but not this one.  He's a master of it apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> Take your partisian blinders off: Dems started the slave trade, but cast the blame on others.
> 
> The liberal controllers are wolfs, the blacks are sheep unless they are enlightened - then they are " uncle toms " and every other castigation!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How odd that 98% of African Americans vote democrat.
Click to expand...

They are hoodwinked; they vote for their demise.


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Nyvin said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> This same old gimic has been tried over and over....it's the same thing every time.
> 
> Back in the day 100+ some years ago...there were conservatives in the south that called themselves democrats.....nowadays those same areas are still in the south and they now call themselves republicans.   It's the same group of people and the same ideas are still being supported, they just change the party name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There were never conservatives that called themselves democrats. Not today and not a hundred years ago. They have been and always will be progressives. No party names have changed only how the parties made these groups of people useful to their cause. The conservatives have always held that individual freedom and opportunity is best for any race group. The progressives used them as a block with government subsidies to keep them in line.
> 
> The party of the KKK and Jim Crow didn't go anywhere, never left and never changed their party affiliation. They just found a new use for those they hate that benefits them. Racism is alive and well in the democrat party, for evidence just look at what they say about any black stepping outside of their predetermined role.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there were conservatives that called themselves democrats.   The south has always been one of the most conservative areas of the country.   Dixiecrats distinguished themselves as being the "conservative democrats".
> 
> "Progressive" is always about changing from the status quo to something new.   Keeping slavery isn't something new, it was keeping the status quo.   Segregation wasn't changing to something new, it was attempting to keep the status quo.   If you want to make progressives out to be the group that supported segregation you're just whacko.
Click to expand...

You obviously have a very lacking knowledge of history and the terms used at each point in time. You also have a severe deficiency in self reflection.

What has changed in the democrat party since slavery ended? Nothing more than getting the blacks to vote for their own demise, willingly through lies and false promises. The same lies and false promises you deliver today.



> I'll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the "Great Society" programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]
> 
> 
> &#8213; Lyndon B. Johnson



And you have. I guess he was right. The great society for blacks was based upon giving them handouts at poverty levels and making them afraid of voting for true equality and success in favor of the government poverty level handout.

Anything changed lately? Same program, same "progression"?


----------



## francoHFW

Blacks know who the racists are...


----------



## francoHFW

Blacks used to be Republicans...


----------



## Missouri_Mike

francoHFW said:


> Hitler was a liberal- Absolute idiocy, the calling card of a brainwashed Beckbot...lol. Along with no Dems were ever conservatives- like slave owners were liberals lol...



Hitler was all aboard for liberal programs. Do you and your multiple so called (fake) masters degrees have any real and documentable evidence to prove otherwise?


----------



## francoHFW

Absolutely. Hitler was a focus. Dictatorship, militarism, concentration camps, total intolerance, racism are not exactly liberal values.


----------



## hazlnut

Lumpy 1 said:


> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?




Keep in mind (if you have one) that the party polarities were reversed.

The Dems were the "Conservatives" - 

The Republicans were the more progressive party -- although, like today's liberal dems at the federal level they break right when the going gets tough and business interests conflict with social interests.


----------



## KNB

Progressives felt a moral duty to free the slaves and the Jews because slavery and genocide are not progress.


----------



## Sallow

AzMike said:


> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was a liberal- Absolute idiocy, the calling card of a brainwashed Beckbot...lol. Along with no Dems were ever conservatives- like slave owners were liberals lol...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was all aboard for liberal programs. Do you and your multiple so called (fake) masters degrees have any real and documentable evidence to prove otherwise?
Click to expand...


Hitler was a white Austrian Christian who was a veteran. 

He said he was doing god's work.


----------



## Sallow

hazlnut said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind (if you have one) that the party polarities were reversed.
> 
> The Dems were the "Conservatives" -
> 
> The Republicans were the more progressive party -- although, like today's liberal dems at the federal level they break right when the going gets tough and business interests conflict with social interests.
Click to expand...


It's not that simple.



> a national party[edit]
> 
> The party launched its first national convention in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in February 1856, with its first national nominating convention held in the summer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,[7] presided by Francis Preston Blair.
> 
> John C. Frémont ran as the first Republican nominee for President in 1856 behind the slogan: "Free soil, free silver, free men, Frémont and victory!" Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 185660 as a divisive force that threatened civil war.[8]
> 
> Without using the term "containment", the new Party in the mid 1850s proposed a system of containing slavery, once it gained control of the national government. Historian James Oakes explains the strategy:
> "The federal government would surround the south with free states, free territories, and free waters, building what they called a 'cordon of freedom' around slavery, hemming it in until the system's own internal weaknesses forced the slave states one by one to abandon slavery."[9]
> The Civil War and an era of Republican dominance: 18601896[edit]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Union" ticket in 1864; party men gave these to voters to deposit in the ballot box
> The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of Andrew Jackson. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans sometimes refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.
> 
> The Third Party System was dominated by the Republican Party (it lost the presidency in 1884 and 1892). Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union.[10] However he usually fought the Radical Republicans who demanded harsher measures. Most Democrats at first were War Democrats, and supportive until the Fall of 1862. When Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal, many war Democrats became "peace Democrats."
> 
> Most of the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, the first temporary income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, railroads, and aid to education and agriculture.
> 
> The Republicans denounced the peace-oriented Democrats as disloyal Copperheads and won enough War Democrats to maintain their majority in 1862; in 1864, they formed a coalition with many War Democrats as the National Union Party which reelected Lincoln easily. During the war, upper middle-class men in major cities formed Union Leagues, to promote and help finance the war effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Colored Senator and Representatives: Sen. Hiram Revels (R-MS), Rep. Benjamin Turner (R-AL), Robert DeLarge (R-SC), Josiah Walls (R-FL), Jefferson Long (R-GA), Joseph Rainey and Robert B. Elliott (R-SC), 1872
> Reconstruction: Freedmen, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags[edit]
> 
> In Reconstruction, how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves, or freedmen, were the major issues. By 1864, Radical Republicans controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off, but just barely. Republicans at first welcomed President Andrew Johnson; the Radicals thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South.
> 
> Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ulysses S. Grant was the first Republican president to serve for two full terms. (18691877)
> With the election of Ulysses S. Grant in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party and the Army, and attempted to build a solid Republican base in the South using the votes of Freedmen, Scalawags and Carpetbaggers,[8] supported directly by U.S. Army detachments. Republicans all across the South formed local clubs called Union Leagues that effectively mobilized the voters, discussed issues, and when necessary fought off Ku Klux Klan (KKK) attacks. Thousands died on both sides.[11]
> 
> Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the Fourteenth Amendment, and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the Whiskey Ring.
> 
> Many of the founders of the GOP joined the Liberal movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated Horace Greeley for president, who also gained the Democratic nomination, but the ticket was defeated in a landslide. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House and formed "Redeemer" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence.
> 
> Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded by a special electoral commission to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes who promised, through the unofficial Compromise of 1877, to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the Solid South, giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964.
> 
> In terms of racial issues, "White Republicans as well as Democrats solicited black votes but reluctantly rewarded blacks with nominations for office only when necessary, even then reserving the more choice positions for whites. The results were predictable: these half-a-loaf gestures satisfied neither black nor white Republicans. The fatal weakness of the Republican Party in Alabama, as elsewhere in the South, was its inability to create a biracial political party. And while in power even briefly, they failed to protect their members from Democratic terror. Alabama Republicans were forever on the defensive, verbally and physically."[12]
> 
> Social pressure eventually forced most Scalawags to join the conservative/Democratic Redeemer coalition. A minority persisted and formed the "tan" half of the "Black and Tan" Republican Party, a minority in every southern state after 1877.[13]
> 
> In several southern states, the "Lily Whites", who sought to recruit white Democrats to the Republican Party, attempted to purge the Black and Tan faction or at least to reduce its influence. Among such "Lily White" leaders in the early 20th century, Arkansas' Wallace Townsend was the party's gubernatorial nominee in 1916 and 1920, and its veteran national GOP committeeman.[14]


History of the United States Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Lumpy's not smart enough to grasp all the nuances of the formation of the Republican party. Which was basically the Liberal wing of the Whigs.


----------



## ron4342

Clementine said:


> When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings. Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people. Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.  Lyndon Johnson was a liberal and he was the president who signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  That kind of contradicts what you posted above.
> 
> Liberals did not want the slaves freed. Liberals did not want equal rights. The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know. They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites. The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power. Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed. They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.
> 
> Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.  You can scream, jump up and down, and spin around in your effort to re-write history to fit your warped viewpoint but the bottom line is that the majority of Blacks in this country are smart enough to recognize who would grind them into the dirt if the had the chance.  One does not have to be a brain surgeon or rocket scientist to recognize that the republicans removing early voting and solving a voter fraud problem that doesn't exist will disproportionately affect minorities.  I am sure that many in the black population are looking closely at how republicans are treating Hispanics.
> Further, of all the groups of people in this country who are suffering most because of a lack of jobs it is the Black community.  Where is the republican jobs bill?  And don't give me that bullshit that Reid wouldn't bring it to a vote.  IF the republicans did pass a jobs bill in the House you would have heard Fox News screaming about it 24/7.  As far as a republican jobs bill is concerned, all we hear from Fox is silence.  Oh, excuse me, we do hear about the House voting 47 times to repeal ACA.  That shows you how concerned they are about jobs.


So stick it!!!!


----------



## hazlnut

Sallow said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind (if you have one) that the party polarities were reversed.
> 
> The Dems were the "Conservatives" -
> 
> The Republicans were the more progressive party -- although, like today's liberal dems at the federal level they break right when the going gets tough and business interests conflict with social interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that simple.
Click to expand...


I know, but when explaining things to the simple minded, it's best to keep it simple.


----------



## The T

AzMike said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> There were never conservatives that called themselves democrats. Not today and not a hundred years ago. They have been and always will be progressives. No party names have changed only how the parties made these groups of people useful to their cause. The conservatives have always held that individual freedom and opportunity is best for any race group. The progressives used them as a block with government subsidies to keep them in line.
> 
> The party of the KKK and Jim Crow didn't go anywhere, never left and never changed their party affiliation. They just found a new use for those they hate that benefits them. Racism is alive and well in the democrat party, for evidence just look at what they say about any black stepping outside of their predetermined role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes there were conservatives that called themselves democrats. The south has always been one of the most conservative areas of the country. Dixiecrats distinguished themselves as being the "conservative democrats".
> 
> "Progressive" is always about changing from the status quo to something new. Keeping slavery isn't something new, it was keeping the status quo. Segregation wasn't changing to something new, it was attempting to keep the status quo. If you want to make progressives out to be the group that supported segregation you're just whacko.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You obviously have a very lacking knowledge of history and the terms used at each point in time. You also have a severe deficiency in self reflection.
> 
> What has changed in the democrat party since slavery ended? Nothing more than getting the blacks to vote for their own demise, willingly through lies and false promises. The same lies and false promises you deliver today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll have those ******* voting Democratic for the next 200 years. [Touting his underlying intentions for the "Great Society" programs, LBJ confided with two like-minded governors on Air Force One]
> 
> 
> &#8213; Lyndon B. Johnson
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you have. I guess he was right. The great society for blacks was based upon giving them handouts at poverty levels and making them afraid of voting for true equality and success in favor of the government poverty level handout.
> 
> Anything changed lately? Same program, same "progression"?
Click to expand...

Just keep handing out boubles and trinquets to quell until the cries get louder...how long before they shout '_enough_'!?


----------



## The T

Duped said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> Take your partisian blinders off: Dems started the slave trade, but cast the blame on others.
> 
> The liberal controllers are wolfs, the blacks are sheep unless they are enlightened - then they are " uncle toms " and every other castigation!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How odd that 98% of African Americans vote democrat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are hoodwinked; they vote for their demise.
Click to expand...

Indeed...and by the time they realize that they have been had and can NEVER leave the plantation? The 'Progressives', will have enslaved everyone else they deem their enemies...and then _realization FAR TOO LATE..._


----------



## hazlnut

Back then, the Koch Bros and Walton Kids would have been Dems.

Especially the Walton kids.


----------



## Clementine

jasonnfree said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings.    Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people.    Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.
> 
> Liberals did not want the slaves freed.   Liberals did not want equal rights.   The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know.   They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites.   The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power.    Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed.   They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.
> 
> Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you put Hitler in there as a liberal.  Don't give up on Hitler so easily.  He had a lot to be admired by modern american conservatives.  He hated unions, intellectuals , homosexuals and Negroes.
Click to expand...


You have a lot to learn about Republicans.    A dislike of today's unions is the only thing they have in common with that tyrant.    Highly religious people likely can't accept gays, but those people are on both sides of the political spectrum.     

The rest is a bunch of myths pushed by the left.     It's the left who has done harm to blacks over the years and it's time for them to admit that.    Some lefties think they are intellectual because their liberal professors taught them well.    Sadly, they tend to confuse being educated with being intelligent.

Your response here is similar to every other hit and run post.    Drop some talking points and pretend you know what you're talking about.


----------



## hazlnut

Lumpy 1 said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
Click to expand...



They were the conservative party during those time periods.


The liberals fought for abolition and integration.


----------



## The T

hazlnut said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> They were the _*conservative party*_ during those time periods.
> 
> 
> The liberals fought for abolition and integration.
Click to expand...

But NOT Democrats...No matter HOW YOU try to parse it. Nice try son. 

 DENIED.


----------



## francoHFW

The Dems had both Northern liberals and Southern conservatives...the GOP had NE LIBERALS AND Midwestern conservatives- in the 20's through 60's- that was before Nixon and his Southern strategy led to hyperpartisanship- and when people remembered the Civil War...


----------



## francoHFW

op- Beckbot idiocy


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
Click to expand...


Bullshit.

When the slave trade started and flourished, the "Democratic Party" didn't yet exist.  Neither did the Republican.

Purty desperate stretch here, Lumpster.  Purty desperate.

What's your point then?  One-party state?


----------



## The T

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> When the slave trade started and flourished, the "Democratic Party" didn't yet exist. Neither did the Republican.
> 
> Purty desperate stretch here, Lumpster. Purty desperate.
> 
> What's your point then? One-party state?
Click to expand...

 
 The Whole POINT is the mindset, and WHOM is still perpetrating it to this day.

 Nice try...

 DENIED.


----------



## hazlnut

The T said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were the _*conservative party*_ during those time periods.
> 
> 
> The liberals fought for abolition and integration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But NOT Democrats...No matter HOW YOU try to parse it. Nice try son.
> 
> DENIED.
Click to expand...



Another GOPer who failed U.S. History.


----------



## Sallow

The T said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were the _*conservative party*_ during those time periods.
> 
> 
> The liberals fought for abolition and integration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But NOT Democrats...No matter HOW YOU try to parse it. Nice try son.
> 
> DENIED.
Click to expand...


And there were no Republicans at the time of the Founding of this country.

In fact, Conservatives had very little to do with the Revolution.

You can be proud of Aaron Burr and Benedict Arnold.

The Conservative "founders".


----------



## The T

hazlnut said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> They were the _*conservative party*_ during those time periods.
> 
> 
> The liberals fought for abolition and integration.
> 
> 
> 
> But NOT Democrats...No matter HOW YOU try to parse it. Nice try son.
> 
> DENIED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Another GOPer who failed U.S. History.
Click to expand...

 
 Wrong answer cumquat. First? I am NOT GOP...Second? I KNOW history, and it is YOU that is wrong. Conservative is NOT a party...but a MINDSET.

 Any other fallacies YOU wish to impart tonight? 

 DENIED Second time.


----------



## Sallow

The T said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> But NOT Democrats...No matter HOW YOU try to parse it. Nice try son.
> 
> DENIED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another GOPer who failed U.S. History.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wrong answer cumquat. First? I am NOT GOP...Second? I KNOW history, and it is YOU that is wrong. Conservative is NOT a party...but a MINDSET.
> 
> Any other fallacies YOU wish to impart tonight?
> 
> DENIED Second time.
Click to expand...


You running again in 2016?


----------



## S.J.

Democrats consider themselves special, privileged.  They feel they have the right to tell everyone else what to do and how to do it, and to force compliance if they don't do it voluntarily.  It's only logical that they would be the party of slavery.


----------



## The T

S.J. said:


> Democrats consider themselves special, privileged. They feel they have the right to tell everyone else what to do and how to do it, and to force compliance if they don't do it voluntarily. It's only logical that they would be the party of slavery.


Obama, Reid, Pelosi...doing their level best to keep the plantation growing.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Ah, okay, so the OP is blaming American Slavery on these guys, is that correct?

"The Democratic Party evolved from the Jeffersonian Republican or Democratic-Republican Party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in opposition to the Federalist party of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The party favored republicanism, a weak federal government, states' rights, agrarian interests (especially Southern planters) and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank, close ties to Great Britain, and business and banking interests. The Party came to power in the election of 1800."
Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And

"Slavery in the United States was the legal institution that existed in the United States of America in the 17th to 19th centuries. Slavery had been practiced in British North America from early colonial days, and was recognized in the Thirteen Colonies at the time of the United States' Declaration of Independence in 1776. After the Revolutionary War, abolitionist sentiment gradually spread in the Northern states, while the rapid expansion of the cotton industry from 1800 led to the Southern states strongly identifying with slavery, and attempting to extend it into the new Western territories. The United States was polarized by slavery into slave and free states along the Mason-Dixon Line, which separated Maryland (slave) and Pennsylvania (free)."
Slavery in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Am I missing something?


----------



## Nyvin

The T said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> When the slave trade started and flourished, the "Democratic Party" didn't yet exist. Neither did the Republican.
> 
> Purty desperate stretch here, Lumpster. Purty desperate.
> 
> What's your point then? One-party state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Whole POINT is the mindset, and WHOM is still perpetrating it to this day.
> 
> Nice try...
> 
> DENIED.
Click to expand...


For which party do most slave states vote for today?


----------



## Missouri_Mike

Sallow said:


> AzMike said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> francoHFW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was a liberal- Absolute idiocy, the calling card of a brainwashed Beckbot...lol. Along with no Dems were ever conservatives- like slave owners were liberals lol...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was all aboard for liberal programs. Do you and your multiple so called (fake) masters degrees have any real and documentable evidence to prove otherwise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hitler was a white Austrian Christian who was a veteran.
> 
> He said he was doing god's work.
Click to expand...


And that means what versus his actions?

He said it was God's work so you being an easily manipulated troll equate that to...what exactly? He did everything you left wing nuts find acceptable today yet somehow we're supposed to view you as different?

I don't give a fuck about race. You apparently do. A white guy in Germany back in '38 isn't any different than the black guy in 2014 when their views and actions are the same. Let me know when you can come up with a difference between the two other than race. Policy is what I'm looking for. Put up or shut up.


----------



## jknowgood

Nyvin said:


> This same old gimic has been tried over and over....it's the same thing every time.
> 
> Back in the day 100+ some years ago...there were conservatives in the south that called themselves democrats.....nowadays those same areas are still in the south and they now call themselves republicans.   It's the same group of people and the same ideas are still being supported, they just change the party name.



Senator byrd?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Nyvin said:


> The T said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> When the slave trade started and flourished, the "Democratic Party" didn't yet exist. Neither did the Republican.
> 
> Purty desperate stretch here, Lumpster. Purty desperate.
> 
> What's your point then? One-party state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Whole POINT is the mindset, and WHOM is still perpetrating it to this day.
> 
> Nice try...
> 
> DENIED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For which party do most slave states vote for today?
Click to expand...

Ah, but when the South was filled with Dem voters they were Bad Racist People.  Now that they vote for the GOP they are Good Racist People.  See, that's so much better.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Nyvin said:


> This same old gimic has been tried over and over....it's the same thing every time.
> 
> Back in the day 100+ some years ago...there were conservatives in the south that called themselves democrats.....nowadays those same areas are still in the south and they now call themselves republicans.   It's the same group of people and the same ideas are still being supported, they just change the party name.



It doesn't surprise me you chose to believe that crapola...

You are a member of the original slaver party in America, accept and embrace it, it's the reality..


----------



## Lumpy 1

francoHFW said:


> I have a masters in history- and the op is insipid...typical hater dupe propaganda....a total perversion of history.



That's your problem Franco, you have a perverted liberal education filled with excuses to use but far short of reality.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Nyvin said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  I read it several times and I can usually work out right-wing gibberish but not this one.  He's a master of it apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> Take your partisian blinders off: Dems started the slave trade, but cast the blame on others.
> 
> The liberal controllers are wolfs, the blacks are sheep unless they are enlightened - then they are " uncle toms " and every other castigation!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How odd that 98% of African Americans vote democrat.
Click to expand...


Control the message, pay off the Black leadership traitors, persecute the Blacks that reject the Democratic Party plantation, keep the less fortunate Blacks dependent on government handouts with no hope.. are you getting the clue yet?


----------



## TheOldSchool

Demopiss and slavery?  That's the only time they ever did anythin to help the black cause


----------



## Lumpy 1

hazlnut said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind (if you have one) that the party polarities were reversed.
> 
> The Dems were the "Conservatives" -
> 
> The Republicans were the more progressive party -- although, like today's liberal dems at the federal level they break right when the going gets tough and business interests conflict with social interests.
Click to expand...


Read the link and accept reality... .. yah right

I suspect like most Democrats you only care about the Black vote, not the people themselves. Democrats screw the Blacks over and that's fine with you as long as they vote Democrat...You would have to accept your racism to believe other than you do.

Answer this.. how have Blacks fared over the past 7 yrs., their best chance for Democratic Party assistance?  See Ya later..


----------



## Lumpy 1

Sallow said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep in mind (if you have one) that the party polarities were reversed.
> 
> The Dems were the "Conservatives" -
> 
> The Republicans were the more progressive party -- although, like today's liberal dems at the federal level they break right when the going gets tough and business interests conflict with social interests.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's not that simple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a national party[edit]
> 
> The party launched its first national convention in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, in February 1856, with its first national nominating convention held in the summer in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,[7] presided by Francis Preston Blair.
> 
> John C. Frémont ran as the first Republican nominee for President in 1856 behind the slogan: "Free soil, free silver, free men, Frémont and victory!" Although Frémont's bid was unsuccessful, the party showed a strong base. It dominated in New England, New York and the northern Midwest, and had a strong presence in the rest of the North. It had almost no support in the South, where it was roundly denounced in 185660 as a divisive force that threatened civil war.[8]
> 
> Without using the term "containment", the new Party in the mid 1850s proposed a system of containing slavery, once it gained control of the national government. Historian James Oakes explains the strategy:
> "The federal government would surround the south with free states, free territories, and free waters, building what they called a 'cordon of freedom' around slavery, hemming it in until the system's own internal weaknesses forced the slave states one by one to abandon slavery."[9]
> The Civil War and an era of Republican dominance: 18601896[edit]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Union" ticket in 1864; party men gave these to voters to deposit in the ballot box
> The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 ended the domination of the fragile coalition of pro-slavery southern Democrats and conciliatory northern Democrats which had existed since the days of Andrew Jackson. Instead, a new era of Republican dominance based in the industrial and agricultural north ensued. Republicans sometimes refer to their party as the "party of Lincoln" in honor of the first Republican President.
> 
> The Third Party System was dominated by the Republican Party (it lost the presidency in 1884 and 1892). Lincoln proved brilliantly successful in uniting the factions of his party to fight for the Union.[10] However he usually fought the Radical Republicans who demanded harsher measures. Most Democrats at first were War Democrats, and supportive until the Fall of 1862. When Lincoln added the abolition of slavery as a war goal, many war Democrats became "peace Democrats."
> 
> Most of the state Republican parties accepted the antislavery goal except Kentucky. In Congress, the party passed major legislation to promote rapid modernization, including a national banking system, high tariffs, the first temporary income tax, many excise taxes, paper money issued without backing ("greenbacks"), a huge national debt, homestead laws, railroads, and aid to education and agriculture.
> 
> The Republicans denounced the peace-oriented Democrats as disloyal Copperheads and won enough War Democrats to maintain their majority in 1862; in 1864, they formed a coalition with many War Democrats as the National Union Party which reelected Lincoln easily. During the war, upper middle-class men in major cities formed Union Leagues, to promote and help finance the war effort.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First Colored Senator and Representatives: Sen. Hiram Revels (R-MS), Rep. Benjamin Turner (R-AL), Robert DeLarge (R-SC), Josiah Walls (R-FL), Jefferson Long (R-GA), Joseph Rainey and Robert B. Elliott (R-SC), 1872
> Reconstruction: Freedmen, Carpetbaggers and Scalawags[edit]
> 
> In Reconstruction, how to deal with the ex-Confederates and the freed slaves, or freedmen, were the major issues. By 1864, Radical Republicans controlled Congress and demanded more aggressive action against slavery, and more vengeance toward the Confederates. Lincoln held them off, but just barely. Republicans at first welcomed President Andrew Johnson; the Radicals thought he was one of them and would take a hard line in punishing the South.
> 
> Johnson however broke with them and formed a loose alliance with moderate Republicans and Democrats. The showdown came in the Congressional elections of 1866, in which the Radicals won a sweeping victory and took full control of Reconstruction, passing key laws over the veto. Johnson was impeached by the House, but acquitted by the Senate.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ulysses S. Grant was the first Republican president to serve for two full terms. (18691877)
> With the election of Ulysses S. Grant in 1868, the Radicals had control of Congress, the party and the Army, and attempted to build a solid Republican base in the South using the votes of Freedmen, Scalawags and Carpetbaggers,[8] supported directly by U.S. Army detachments. Republicans all across the South formed local clubs called Union Leagues that effectively mobilized the voters, discussed issues, and when necessary fought off Ku Klux Klan (KKK) attacks. Thousands died on both sides.[11]
> 
> Grant supported radical reconstruction programs in the South, the Fourteenth Amendment, and equal civil and voting rights for the freedmen. Most of all he was the hero of the war veterans, who marched to his tune. The party had become so large that factionalism was inevitable; it was hastened by Grant's tolerance of high levels of corruption typified by the Whiskey Ring.
> 
> Many of the founders of the GOP joined the Liberal movement, as did many powerful newspaper editors. They nominated Horace Greeley for president, who also gained the Democratic nomination, but the ticket was defeated in a landslide. The depression of 1873 energized the Democrats. They won control of the House and formed "Redeemer" coalitions which recaptured control of each southern state, in some cases using threats and violence.
> 
> Reconstruction came to an end when the contested election of 1876 was awarded by a special electoral commission to Republican Rutherford B. Hayes who promised, through the unofficial Compromise of 1877, to withdraw federal troops from control of the last three southern states. The region then became the Solid South, giving overwhelming majorities of its electoral votes and Congressional seats to the Democrats until 1964.
> 
> In terms of racial issues, "White Republicans as well as Democrats solicited black votes but reluctantly rewarded blacks with nominations for office only when necessary, even then reserving the more choice positions for whites. The results were predictable: these half-a-loaf gestures satisfied neither black nor white Republicans. The fatal weakness of the Republican Party in Alabama, as elsewhere in the South, was its inability to create a biracial political party. And while in power even briefly, they failed to protect their members from Democratic terror. Alabama Republicans were forever on the defensive, verbally and physically."[12]
> 
> Social pressure eventually forced most Scalawags to join the conservative/Democratic Redeemer coalition. A minority persisted and formed the "tan" half of the "Black and Tan" Republican Party, a minority in every southern state after 1877.[13]
> 
> In several southern states, the "Lily Whites", who sought to recruit white Democrats to the Republican Party, attempted to purge the Black and Tan faction or at least to reduce its influence. Among such "Lily White" leaders in the early 20th century, Arkansas' Wallace Townsend was the party's gubernatorial nominee in 1916 and 1920, and its veteran national GOP committeeman.[14]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> History of the United States Republican Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Lumpy's not smart enough to grasp all the nuances of the formation of the Republican party. Which was basically the Liberal wing of the Whigs.
Click to expand...


.. nice cherry picking.. alas you're not really a "thinker" or honest but thanks for the laugh..


----------



## Political Junky

Lumpy 1 said:


> I doubt this will help you, you don't seem overly bright...
> 
> ---------
> 
> Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South.
> In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they held that slavery was a good thing and promoted its expansion into the West. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts.
> During the 1930s, as the New Deal began to move Democrats as a whole to the left in economic policy, Southern Democrats were mostly supportive, although by the late 1930s there was a growing conservative faction. Both factions supported Roosevelt's foreign policies. By 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election. After 1964, Southern Democrats lost major battles to the civil rights movement. Federal laws ended segregation and restrictions on black voters.
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


*The article you posted continues to say:*

After World War II, during the civil rights movement, Democrats in the South initially still voted loyally with their party. After the signing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the old argument that all whites had to stick together to prevent civil rights legislation lost its force because the legislation had now been passed. 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.[1]
Denouncing the forced busing policy that was used to enforce school desegregation,[2] Richard Nixon courted conservative Southern whites with what is called the Southern Strategy, though his speechwriter Jeffrey Hart claimed that his campaign rhetoric was actually a "Border State Strategy" and accused the press of being "very lazy" when they called it a "Southern Strategy".[3] In the 1971 Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education ruling, the power of the federal government to enforce forced busing was strengthened when the Supreme Court ruled that the federal courts had the discretion to include busing as a desegregation tool to achieve racial balance. Many southern Democrats became Republicans at the national level, while remaining with their old party in state and local politics throughout the 1970s and 1980s. In the 1974 Milliken v. Bradley decision, however, the ability to use forced busing as a political tactic was greatly diminished when the U.S. Supreme Court placed an important limitation on Swann and ruled that students could only be bused across district lines if evidence of de jure segregation across multiple school districts existed. In 1980, the Southern Strategy would officially see fruition when Ronald Reagan announced that he supported states rights and that welfare abuse justified the need for it.[4] Lee Atwater, who served Reagan's chief strategist in the Southern states, claimed that by 1968, a vast majority of southern whites had learned to accept that racial slurs like "******" were very offensive and that mentioning "states rights" and reasons for its justification had now become the best way to both use the politically valuable race card and appeal to southern white voters.[5]
The South became fertile ground for the GOP, which conversely was becoming more conservative as the Democrats were becoming more liberal. Democratic incumbents, however, still held sway over voters in many states, especially those of the Deep South. Although Republicans won most presidential elections in Southern states starting in 1964, Democrats controlled nearly every Southern state legislature until the mid-1990s and had a moderate (although not huge) amount of members in state legislatures until 2010. In fact, until 2002, Democrats still had much control over Southern politics. It wasn't until the 1990s that Democratic control began to implode, starting with the elections of 1994, in which Republicans gained control of both houses of Congress, through the rest of the decade. By the mid-1990s, however, the political value of the race card was evaporating and many Republicans began to court African Americans by playing on their vast dedication to Christian conservatism.[6]
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. Southern Democrats of today who vote for the Democratic ticket are mostly urban liberals. Rural residents tend to vote for the Republican ticket, although there are sizable numbers of Conservative Democrats.
A huge portion of Representatives, Senators, and voters who were referred to as Reagan Democrats in the 1980s were conservative Southern Democrats. An Interesting exception has been Arkansas, whose state legislature has continued to be majority Democrat (having, however, given its electoral votes to the GOP in the past three Presidential elections, except in 1992 and 1996 when "favorite son" Bill Clinton was the candidate and won each time) until 2012, when Arkansas voters selected a 21-14 Republican majority in the Arkansas Senate.
<more>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Democrats


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> When the slave trade started and flourished, the "Democratic Party" didn't yet exist.  Neither did the Republican.
> 
> Purty desperate stretch here, Lumpster.  Purty desperate.
> 
> What's your point then?  One-party state?
Click to expand...


The Democrat Party was started in 1792..slavery expanded to their delight...


----------



## WillowTree

PaintMyHouse said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have that in English?
Click to expand...


What language did you read it in?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> When the slave trade started and flourished, the "Democratic Party" didn't yet exist.  Neither did the Republican.
> 
> Purty desperate stretch here, Lumpster.  Purty desperate.
> 
> What's your point then?  One-party state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party was started in 1792..slavery expanded to their delight...
Click to expand...

Tell us, who was responsible for the slaves coming here 150 years before that?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

WillowTree said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have that in English?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What language did you read it in?
Click to expand...

I attempted to read it in English.  The problem was it was written in gibberish.


----------



## hunarcy

PaintMyHouse said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> When the slave trade started and flourished, the "Democratic Party" didn't yet exist.  Neither did the Republican.
> 
> Purty desperate stretch here, Lumpster.  Purty desperate.
> 
> What's your point then?  One-party state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party was started in 1792..slavery expanded to their delight...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us, who was responsible for the slaves coming here 150 years before that?
Click to expand...


The Spanish


----------



## PaintMyHouse

hunarcy said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party was started in 1792..slavery expanded to their delight...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us, who was responsible for the slaves coming here 150 years before that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Spanish
Click to expand...

No, that was 100 years even before that.  The question is, if the Democrats didn't exist, who brought in the slaves?


----------



## Borillar

Duped said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  I read it several times and I can usually work out right-wing gibberish but not this one.  He's a master of it apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take your partisian blinders off: Dems started the slave trade, but cast the blame on others.
> 
> The liberal controllers are wolfs, the blacks are sheep unless they are enlightened - then they are " uncle toms " and every other castigation!
Click to expand...


Bullshit. The slave trade began long before there was any Democratic party or even a United States. The right always tries to claim the founding fathers as being conservatives. Well a lot of them including Washington and Jefferson were slave owners. 150 years ago what were then Democrats supported slavery or "state's rights". Today, Republicans are all about "state's rights". You can see their opinions regarding blacks, gays, or anyone else who isn't one of them in nearly every thread. It isn't even subtle in many cases.


----------



## Pheonixops

Lumpy 1 said:


> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?



LOL, you guys try so hard to prove that you are not what you really are.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Pheonixops said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you guys try so hard to prove that you are not what you really are.
Click to expand...

The Party of Whitie is desperate not to be thought of as such a thing yet they stand for just exactly what they did 200 years ago?  The South hasn't changed.  It's still the same mentality.  Call it Tea Party, call it GOP.  There are no black people to speak of in it, just a few tokens, because they want them back down on the farm picking cotton, like the Bible says they should.  The Pro-slavery folks are still anti-choice, pro-religion, pro-states rights, pro-capitalism, pro-inequality, and anti-multicultural anything at all.  Not a thing has changed in 300 years.

Freed the slaves?  These people killed the guy who did, and they wonder why black people don't vote for them?


----------



## Locke11_21

jasonnfree said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings.    Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people.    Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.
> 
> Liberals did not want the slaves freed.   Liberals did not want equal rights.   The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know.   They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites.   The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power.    Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed.   They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.
> 
> Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you put Hitler in there as a liberal.
Click to expand...


Hitler was not a liberal, however; he was a leftist.  Too many people make the mistake of thinking leftism is synonymous with liberalism.



> Don't give up on Hitler so easily.  He had a lot to be admired by modern american conservatives.  He hated unions



Hitler hated unions??? Well, you must have missed chapter 12 in his book _"Mein Kampf"_, where he stated:

_"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence"._

When Hitler came to power, he moved to correct hyperinflation while keeping his socialist views front and center. In 1933, the Nazis disbanded the Weimar unions and replaced them with the new and improved union, the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF), which was comprised of 2 primary entities, the National Socialist Factory Organization and the National Socialist Trade and Industry Organization. The labor contracts that were Weimar contracts were now DAF-honored contracts. The Nazi&#8217;s funded the DAF&#8217;s coffers with the Weimar unions&#8217; stockpile of wealth (the existing unions were part of that inflation problem). One of the new unions&#8217; most popular programs was the Strength through Joy (Kraft durch Freude, KdF)) program, which developed the KdF-wagen, that later became the Volkswagen, or People&#8217;s Car.




> intellectuals



Intellectualism is not a staple of only people with leftist socialist politics. There are intellectuals from the far left to the far right and at every point in between.  If you weren't such a profoundly ignorant hack, you would've stated that Hitler hated intellects of opposing views, much like Barack Obama, who surrounds himself with only like-minded idealogues.



> Negroes.



Negroes?? Wow, the term you used is a completely different topic in and of itself.  Well, let's talk about hatred of black Americans....

How about good ol leftist progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson whose favorite movie was the KKK movie _"Birth of a Nation"_.  Keep in mind the last high ranking KKK member in politics was a Democrat senator, Robert Byrd.

Oh, what was it Bill Clinton told Ted Kennedy during the 2008 Democrat primary battle between Hillary and Barack Obama, Bill Clinton said to Ted Kennedy in reference to Barack Obama:

_"A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags.&#8221;_

Oh, and how about lefties open-mindedness and tolerance towards Clarence Thomas:

[ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc]"Progressive" Ralliers Call for Lynching of Clarence Thomas - YouTube[/ame]


While the above mentioned incidents are not even scratching the surface in leftist progressive hatred of black people, the long history of it lead Malcolm X to make these statements in his: _"God's Judgement of White America"_ speech:

_"The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way. The liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negro&#8217;s friend and benefactor, and by winning the friendship and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political football game. Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football, and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball. Through tricks of tokenism and false promises, and they have the willing cooperation of Negro leaders. These leaders sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains.

The white conservatives aren&#8217;t friends of the Negro either, but at least they don&#8217;t try to hide it. They are like wolves, they show you their teeth in a snarl. That always keep the Negro aware of where he stands with them, but the white liberals are foxes who show their teeth to the Negro also, but they pretend they&#8217;re smiling. The white liberal is more dangerous than the conservative. They lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf. He flees into the open jaws of the smiling fox. The job of the Negro leaders is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and fox belong to the same canine family, and no matter which one of them the Negro puts his trust in. He always ends up in the dog house."_


While Malcolm X didn't like conservatives, he clearly saw progressive leftists for for the worthless trash they are.  Malcolm X hit too many raw nerves of the leftist Democrats........


----------



## Lumpy 1

PaintMyHouse said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> When the slave trade started and flourished, the "Democratic Party" didn't yet exist.  Neither did the Republican.
> 
> Purty desperate stretch here, Lumpster.  Purty desperate.
> 
> What's your point then?  One-party state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party was started in 1792..slavery expanded to their delight...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Tell us, who was responsible for the slaves coming here 150 years before that?
Click to expand...


Democrat ancestors seems the likely answer. but Yes & No

A timeline for your lazy Democrat ass.


http://sharondraper.com/timeline.pdf 

You can do research on PCs Ya know..you don't have to depend on others to do your work for you, women up. Paint-MY-House sounds appropriate...


----------



## S.J.

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you guys try so hard to prove that you are not what you really are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Party of Whitie is desperate not to be thought of as such a thing yet they stand for just exactly what they did 200 years ago?  The South hasn't changed.  It's still the same mentality.  Call it Tea Party, call it GOP.  There are no black people to speak of in it, just a few tokens, because they want them back down on the farm picking cotton, like the Bible says they should.  The Pro-slavery folks are still anti-choice, pro-religion, pro-states rights, pro-capitalism, pro-inequality, and anti-multicultural anything at all.  Not a thing has changed in 300 years.
> 
> Freed the slaves?  These people killed the guy who did, and they wonder why black people don't vote for them?
Click to expand...

Black people will vote for whoever gives them free shit.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lumpy 1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party was started in 1792..slavery expanded to their delight...
> 
> 
> 
> Tell us, who was responsible for the slaves coming here 150 years before that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Democrat ancestors seems the likely answer. but Yes & No
> 
> A timeline for your lazy Democrat ass.
> 
> 
> http://sharondraper.com/timeline.pdf
> 
> You can do research on PCs Ya know..you don't have to depend on others to do your work for you, women up.
Click to expand...

I know the answers.  I do wonder however why you blame something on one group when it started more than 300 years before they even existed?  To my way of thinking, that's known as not telling the truth.  Is that who you are?  Was it just an honest mistake?

Your other problem of course is that what they believed in 220 years ago, maybe with the exception of Slavery, you believe in today.  So that makes you what exactly?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

S.J. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL, you guys try so hard to prove that you are not what you really are.
> 
> 
> 
> The Party of Whitie is desperate not to be thought of as such a thing yet they stand for just exactly what they did 200 years ago?  The South hasn't changed.  It's still the same mentality.  Call it Tea Party, call it GOP.  There are no black people to speak of in it, just a few tokens, because they want them back down on the farm picking cotton, like the Bible says they should.  The Pro-slavery folks are still anti-choice, pro-religion, pro-states rights, pro-capitalism, pro-inequality, and anti-multicultural anything at all.  Not a thing has changed in 300 years.
> 
> Freed the slaves?  These people killed the guy who did, and they wonder why black people don't vote for them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Black people will vote for whoever gives them free shit.
Click to expand...

Think so huh?  Then they must be really, really stupid right?  I mean, I can just buy their votes and they aren't smart enough to catch on?  So what you mean is, boy are they really stupid?


----------



## Lumpy 1

Locke11_21 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings.    Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people.    Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.
> 
> Liberals did not want the slaves freed.   Liberals did not want equal rights.   The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know.   They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites.   The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power.    Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed.   They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.
> 
> Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you put Hitler in there as a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hitler was not a liberal, however; he was a leftist.  Too many people make the mistake of thinking leftism is synonymous with liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler hated unions??? Well, you must have missed chapter 12 in his book _"Mein Kampf"_, where he stated:
> 
> _"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence"._
> 
> When Hitler came to power, he moved to correct hyperinflation while keeping his socialist views front and center. In 1933, the Nazis disbanded the Weimar unions and replaced them with the new and improved union, the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF), which was comprised of 2 primary entities, the National Socialist Factory Organization and the National Socialist Trade and Industry Organization. The labor contracts that were Weimar contracts were now DAF-honored contracts. The Nazis funded the DAFs coffers with the Weimar unions stockpile of wealth (the existing unions were part of that inflation problem). One of the new unions most popular programs was the Strength through Joy (Kraft durch Freude, KdF)) program, which developed the KdF-wagen, that later became the Volkswagen, or Peoples Car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> intellectuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intellectualism is not a staple of only people with leftist socialist politics. There are intellectuals from the far left to the far right and at every point in between.  If you weren't such a profoundly ignorant hack, you would've stated that Hitler hated intellects of opposing views, much like Barack Obama, who surrounds himself with only like-minded idealogues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negroes?? Wow, the term you used is a completely different topic in and of itself.  Well, let's talk about hatred of black Americans....
> 
> How about good ol leftist progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson whose favorite movie was the KKK movie _"Birth of a Nation"_.  Keep in mind the last high ranking KKK member in politics was a Democrat senator, Robert Byrd.
> 
> Oh, what was it Bill Clinton told Ted Kennedy during the 2008 Democrat primary battle between Hillary and Barack Obama, Bill Clinton said to Ted Kennedy in reference to Barack Obama:
> 
> _"A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags._
> 
> Oh, and how about lefties open-mindedness and tolerance towards Clarence Thomas:
> 
> [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc]"Progressive" Ralliers Call for Lynching of Clarence Thomas - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> While the above mentioned incidents are not even scratching the surface in leftist progressive hatred of black people, the long history of it lead Malcolm X to make these statements in his: _"God's Judgement of White America"_ speech:
> 
> _"The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way. The liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negros friend and benefactor, and by winning the friendship and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political football game. Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football, and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball. Through tricks of tokenism and false promises, and they have the willing cooperation of Negro leaders. These leaders sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains.
> 
> The white conservatives arent friends of the Negro either, but at least they dont try to hide it. They are like wolves, they show you their teeth in a snarl. That always keep the Negro aware of where he stands with them, but the white liberals are foxes who show their teeth to the Negro also, but they pretend theyre smiling. The white liberal is more dangerous than the conservative. They lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf. He flees into the open jaws of the smiling fox. The job of the Negro leaders is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and fox belong to the same canine family, and no matter which one of them the Negro puts his trust in. He always ends up in the dog house."_
> 
> 
> While Malcolm X didn't like conservatives, he clearly saw progressive leftists for for the worthless trash they are.  Malcolm X hit too many raw nerves of the leftist Democrats........
Click to expand...


Amazing post Locke, you are one impressive Guy..now behold my jealousy...


----------



## Lumpy 1

PaintMyHouse said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Party of Whitie is desperate not to be thought of as such a thing yet they stand for just exactly what they did 200 years ago?  The South hasn't changed.  It's still the same mentality.  Call it Tea Party, call it GOP.  There are no black people to speak of in it, just a few tokens, because they want them back down on the farm picking cotton, like the Bible says they should.  The Pro-slavery folks are still anti-choice, pro-religion, pro-states rights, pro-capitalism, pro-inequality, and anti-multicultural anything at all.  Not a thing has changed in 300 years.
> 
> Freed the slaves?  These people killed the guy who did, and they wonder why black people don't vote for them?
> 
> 
> 
> Black people will vote for whoever gives them free shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think so huh?  Then they must be really, really stupid right?  I mean, I can just buy their votes and they aren't smart enough to catch on?  So what you mean is, boy are they really stupid?
Click to expand...


No, I don't think he can read your mind..

Democrats have devastated the black family structure and made far too many dependent, afraid and obviously misguided...

Read Locke's post and learn..


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lumpy, the 1792 Democrat.

"History
Main article: History of the United States Democratic Party
Andrew Jackson is typically considered the first Democratic President of the United States

The Democratic Party evolved from the Jeffersonian Republican or Democratic-Republican Party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in opposition to the Federalist party of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The party favored republicanism, a weak federal government, states' rights, agrarian interests (especially Southern planters) and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank, close ties to Great Britain, and business and banking interests. The Party came to power in the election of 1800."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_(United_States)


----------



## S.J.

PaintMyHouse said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Party of Whitie is desperate not to be thought of as such a thing yet they stand for just exactly what they did 200 years ago?  The South hasn't changed.  It's still the same mentality.  Call it Tea Party, call it GOP.  There are no black people to speak of in it, just a few tokens, because they want them back down on the farm picking cotton, like the Bible says they should.  The Pro-slavery folks are still anti-choice, pro-religion, pro-states rights, pro-capitalism, pro-inequality, and anti-multicultural anything at all.  Not a thing has changed in 300 years.
> 
> Freed the slaves?  These people killed the guy who did, and they wonder why black people don't vote for them?
> 
> 
> 
> Black people will vote for whoever gives them free shit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Think so huh?  Then they must be really, really stupid right?  I mean, I can just buy their votes and they aren't smart enough to catch on?  So what you mean is, boy are they really stupid?
Click to expand...

What I mean is what I said, not what you SAY I said.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lumpy 1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black people will vote for whoever gives them free shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Think so huh?  Then they must be really, really stupid right?  I mean, I can just buy their votes and they aren't smart enough to catch on?  So what you mean is, boy are they really stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, I don't think he can read your mind..
> 
> Democrats have devastated the black family structure and made far too many dependent, afraid and obviously misguided...
> 
> Read Locke's post and learn..
Click to expand...

He's not reading my mind, he's reading the mind of these stupid black people who vote for Democrats who have "...devastated the black family structure and made far too many dependent, afraid and obviously misguided..." according to you.  Boy, they must really be stupid to have all that happen to them and still vote for us eh?  Some people might even say they were Dumb Ni++ers right?


----------



## S.J.

PaintMyHouse said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think so huh?  Then they must be really, really stupid right?  I mean, I can just buy their votes and they aren't smart enough to catch on?  So what you mean is, boy are they really stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think he can read your mind..
> 
> Democrats have devastated the black family structure and made far too many dependent, afraid and obviously misguided...
> 
> Read Locke's post and learn..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He's not reading my mind, he's reading the mind of these stupid black people who vote for Democrats who have "...devastated the black family structure and made far too many dependent, afraid and obviously misguided..." according to you.  Boy, they must really be stupid to have all that happen to them and still vote for us eh?  Some people might even say they were Dumb Ni++ers right?
Click to expand...

That seems to be what YOU'RE saying.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

S.J. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Black people will vote for whoever gives them free shit.
> 
> 
> 
> Think so huh?  Then they must be really, really stupid right?  I mean, I can just buy their votes and they aren't smart enough to catch on?  So what you mean is, boy are they really stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What I mean is what I said, not what you SAY I said.
Click to expand...

Well I don't want to put words in your mouth but what do you call someone who will vote for you just because you give them free stuff?  If I buy a woman a hamburger and a few beers and she blows me, isn't she kind of a dumb slut?  Shouldn't she have more respect for herself than that?

I mean if all I have to do is give somebody something for free and then they vote against their own best interests, doesn't that make them really stupid?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

S.J. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I don't think he can read your mind..
> 
> Democrats have devastated the black family structure and made far too many dependent, afraid and obviously misguided...
> 
> Read Locke's post and learn..
> 
> 
> 
> He's not reading my mind, he's reading the mind of these stupid black people who vote for Democrats who have "...devastated the black family structure and made far too many dependent, afraid and obviously misguided..." according to you.  Boy, they must really be stupid to have all that happen to them and still vote for us eh?  Some people might even say they were Dumb Ni++ers right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That seems to be what YOU'RE saying.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying that, you are.  If I vote for you, against my best interests, just because you gave me something, doesn't that make me pretty stupid?


----------



## Lumpy 1

PaintMyHouse said:


> Lumpy, the 1792 Democrat.
> 
> "History
> Main article: History of the United States Democratic Party
> Andrew Jackson is typically considered the first Democratic President of the United States
> 
> The Democratic Party evolved from the Jeffersonian Republican or Democratic-Republican Party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in opposition to the Federalist party of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The party favored republicanism, a weak federal government, states' rights, agrarian interests (especially Southern planters) and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank, close ties to Great Britain, and business and banking interests. The Party came to power in the election of 1800."
> Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Moving on...but here Ya go...

Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to American Presidents


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Lumpy 1 said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy, the 1792 Democrat.
> 
> "History
> Main article: History of the United States Democratic Party
> Andrew Jackson is typically considered the first Democratic President of the United States
> 
> The Democratic Party evolved from the Jeffersonian Republican or Democratic-Republican Party organized by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in opposition to the Federalist party of Alexander Hamilton and John Adams. The party favored republicanism, a weak federal government, states' rights, agrarian interests (especially Southern planters) and strict adherence to the Constitution; it opposed a national bank, close ties to Great Britain, and business and banking interests. The Party came to power in the election of 1800."
> Democratic Party (United States) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Moving on...but here Ya go...
> 
> Encyclopædia Britannica's Guide to American Presidents
Click to expand...

Fine.  Terrific.  But isn't that really close to what you believe in even 200 years later?


----------



## S.J.

PaintMyHouse said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's not reading my mind, he's reading the mind of these stupid black people who vote for Democrats who have "...devastated the black family structure and made far too many dependent, afraid and obviously misguided..." according to you.  Boy, they must really be stupid to have all that happen to them and still vote for us eh?  Some people might even say they were Dumb Ni++ers right?
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to be what YOU'RE saying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not saying that, you are.  If I vote for you, against my best interests, just because you gave me something, doesn't that make me pretty stupid?
Click to expand...

Yes, we can agree you are pretty stupid.


----------



## Pheonixops

Locke11_21 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings.    Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people.    Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.
> 
> Liberals did not want the slaves freed.   Liberals did not want equal rights.   The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know.   They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites.   The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power.    Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed.   They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.
> 
> Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you put Hitler in there as a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hitler was not a liberal, however; he was a leftist.  Too many people make the mistake of thinking leftism is synonymous with liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler hated unions??? Well, you must have missed chapter 12 in his book _"Mein Kampf"_, where he stated:
> 
> _"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence"._
> 
> When Hitler came to power, he moved to correct hyperinflation while keeping his socialist views front and center. In 1933, the Nazis disbanded the Weimar unions and replaced them with the new and improved union, the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF), which was comprised of 2 primary entities, the National Socialist Factory Organization and the National Socialist Trade and Industry Organization. The labor contracts that were Weimar contracts were now DAF-honored contracts. The Nazis funded the DAFs coffers with the Weimar unions stockpile of wealth (the existing unions were part of that inflation problem). One of the new unions most popular programs was the Strength through Joy (Kraft durch Freude, KdF)) program, which developed the KdF-wagen, that later became the Volkswagen, or Peoples Car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> intellectuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intellectualism is not a staple of only people with leftist socialist politics. There are intellectuals from the far left to the far right and at every point in between.  If you weren't such a profoundly ignorant hack, you would've stated that Hitler hated intellects of opposing views, much like Barack Obama, who surrounds himself with only like-minded idealogues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negroes?? Wow, the term you used is a completely different topic in and of itself.  Well, let's talk about hatred of black Americans....
> 
> How about good ol leftist progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson whose favorite movie was the KKK movie _"Birth of a Nation"_.  Keep in mind the last high ranking KKK member in politics was a Democrat senator, Robert Byrd.
> 
> Oh, what was it Bill Clinton told Ted Kennedy during the 2008 Democrat primary battle between Hillary and Barack Obama, Bill Clinton said to Ted Kennedy in reference to Barack Obama:
> 
> _"A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags._
> 
> Oh, and how about lefties open-mindedness and tolerance towards Clarence Thomas:
> 
> [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc]"Progressive" Ralliers Call for Lynching of Clarence Thomas - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> While the above mentioned incidents are not even scratching the surface in leftist progressive hatred of black people, the long history of it lead Malcolm X to make these statements in his: _"God's Judgement of White America"_ speech:
> 
> _"The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way. The liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negros friend and benefactor, and by winning the friendship and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political football game. Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football, and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball. Through tricks of tokenism and false promises, and they have the willing cooperation of Negro leaders. These leaders sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains.
> 
> The white conservatives arent friends of the Negro either, but at least they dont try to hide it. They are like wolves, they show you their teeth in a snarl. That always keep the Negro aware of where he stands with them, but the white liberals are foxes who show their teeth to the Negro also, but they pretend theyre smiling. The white liberal is more dangerous than the conservative. They lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf. He flees into the open jaws of the smiling fox. The job of the Negro leaders is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and fox belong to the same canine family, and no matter which one of them the Negro puts his trust in. He always ends up in the dog house."_
> 
> 
> While Malcolm X didn't like conservatives, he clearly saw progressive leftists for for the worthless trash they are.  Malcolm X hit too many raw nerves of the leftist Democrats........
Click to expand...


He clearly saw the conservatives as the worthless trash they are. He saw them basically as the same, two sides of the same coin.................... I hope you don't think that he was giving a ringing endorsement to conservatives. I see plenty of today's conservatives playing the role of the "Fox" when they play their "Martin Luther King Game". Even then they can't hide it when they bring the likes of cain, west, and the other minstrels out to insult Blacks in general.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

S.J. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to be what YOU'RE saying.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, you are.  If I vote for you, against my best interests, just because you gave me something, doesn't that make me pretty stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we can agree you are pretty stupid.
Click to expand...

So, if I vote against my own best interests, like black people do now by voting for the Dems, then I'm stupid right?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

So, let's look at what Jefferson the Slave Owner, and he had children by at least one, believed in in 1800:

*Republican Platform of 1800  (it later became the Democratic-Republican Party and later still the Democratic Party)
Adopted in Congressional Caucus, Philadelphia*

    An inviolable preservation of the federal constitution, according to the true sense in which it was adopted by the states, that in which it was advocated by its friends, and not that which its enemies apprehended, who, therefore, became its enemies.

    Opposition to monarchising its features by the forms of its administration, with a view to conciliate a transition, &#64257;rst, to a president and senate for life, and secondly, to an hereditary tenure of those of&#64257;ces, and thus to worm out the elective principle.

    Preservation to the states of the powers not yielded by them to the Union, and to the legislature of the Union its constitutional share in the division of powers; and resistance, therefore, to existing movements for transferring all the powers of the states to the general government, and all of those of that government to the executive branch.

    A rigorously frugal administration of the government and the application of all the possible savings of the public revenue to the liquidation of the public debt; and resistance, therefore, to all measures looking to a multiplication of of&#64257;cers and salaries, merely to create partisans and to augment the public debt, on the principle of its being a public blessing.

    Reliance for internal defense solely upon the militia, till actual invasion, and for such a naval force only, as may be suf&#64257;cient [sic] to protect our coasts and harbors from depredations; and opposition, therefore, to the policy of a standing army in time of peace which may overawe the public sentiment, and to a navy, which, by its own expenses, and the wars in which it will implicate us, will grind us with public burdens and sink us under them.

    Free commerce with all nations, political connection with none, and little or no diplomatic establishment.

    Opposition to linking ourselves by new treaties with the quarrels of Europe, entering their &#64257;elds of slaughter to preserve their balance, or joining in the confederacy of kings to war against the principles of liberty.

    Freedom of religion and opposition to all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendency of one sect over another.

    Freedom of speech and of the press; and opposition, therefore, to all violations of the constitution to silence, by force, and not by reason, the complaints or criticisms, just or unjust, of our citizens against the conduct of their public agents.

    Liberal naturalization laws, under which the well disposed of all nations who may desire to embark their fortunes with us and share with us the public burdens may have that opportunity, under moderate restrictions for the development of honest intention, and severe ones to guard against the usurpation of our &#64258;ag.

    Encouragement of science and the arts in all their branches, to the end that the American people may perfect their independence of all foreign monopolies, institutions, and in&#64258;uences.
Republican Platform of 1800

Does anybody have any serious issues with all that?


----------



## Locke11_21

Pheonixops said:


> Locke11_21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> I see you put Hitler in there as a liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was not a liberal, however; he was a leftist.  Too many people make the mistake of thinking leftism is synonymous with liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler hated unions??? Well, you must have missed chapter 12 in his book _"Mein Kampf"_, where he stated:
> 
> _"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence"._
> 
> When Hitler came to power, he moved to correct hyperinflation while keeping his socialist views front and center. In 1933, the Nazis disbanded the Weimar unions and replaced them with the new and improved union, the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF), which was comprised of 2 primary entities, the National Socialist Factory Organization and the National Socialist Trade and Industry Organization. The labor contracts that were Weimar contracts were now DAF-honored contracts. The Nazis funded the DAFs coffers with the Weimar unions stockpile of wealth (the existing unions were part of that inflation problem). One of the new unions most popular programs was the Strength through Joy (Kraft durch Freude, KdF)) program, which developed the KdF-wagen, that later became the Volkswagen, or Peoples Car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectualism is not a staple of only people with leftist socialist politics. There are intellectuals from the far left to the far right and at every point in between.  If you weren't such a profoundly ignorant hack, you would've stated that Hitler hated intellects of opposing views, much like Barack Obama, who surrounds himself with only like-minded idealogues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negroes?? Wow, the term you used is a completely different topic in and of itself.  Well, let's talk about hatred of black Americans....
> 
> How about good ol leftist progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson whose favorite movie was the KKK movie _"Birth of a Nation"_.  Keep in mind the last high ranking KKK member in politics was a Democrat senator, Robert Byrd.
> 
> Oh, what was it Bill Clinton told Ted Kennedy during the 2008 Democrat primary battle between Hillary and Barack Obama, Bill Clinton said to Ted Kennedy in reference to Barack Obama:
> 
> _"A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags._
> 
> Oh, and how about lefties open-mindedness and tolerance towards Clarence Thomas:
> 
> [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc]"Progressive" Ralliers Call for Lynching of Clarence Thomas - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> While the above mentioned incidents are not even scratching the surface in leftist progressive hatred of black people, the long history of it lead Malcolm X to make these statements in his: _"God's Judgement of White America"_ speech:
> 
> _"The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way. The liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negros friend and benefactor, and by winning the friendship and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political football game. Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football, and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball. Through tricks of tokenism and false promises, and they have the willing cooperation of Negro leaders. These leaders sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains.
> 
> The white conservatives arent friends of the Negro either, but at least they dont try to hide it. They are like wolves, they show you their teeth in a snarl. That always keep the Negro aware of where he stands with them, but the white liberals are foxes who show their teeth to the Negro also, but they pretend theyre smiling. The white liberal is more dangerous than the conservative. They lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf. He flees into the open jaws of the smiling fox. The job of the Negro leaders is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and fox belong to the same canine family, and no matter which one of them the Negro puts his trust in. He always ends up in the dog house."_
> 
> 
> While Malcolm X didn't like conservatives, he clearly saw progressive leftists for for the worthless trash they are.  Malcolm X hit too many raw nerves of the leftist Democrats........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He clearly saw the conservatives as the worthless trash they are. He saw them basically as the same, two sides of the same coin.................... I hope you don't think that he was giving a ringing endorsement to conservatives. I see plenty of today's conservatives playing the role of the "Fox" when they play their "Martin Luther King Game". Even then they can't hide it when they bring the likes of cain, west, and the other minstrels out to insult Blacks in general.
Click to expand...


Clearly comprehending the English language is not one of your strengths.  If wealth were attained by being an idiot, you'd be a billionaire.  Oh, how about that "fox":  Harry Reid, you know the guy who referred to Obama as a light skinned African-American with no negro dialect.


----------



## Pheonixops

Locke11_21 said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings.    Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people.    Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.
> 
> Liberals did not want the slaves freed.   Liberals did not want equal rights.   The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know.   They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites.   The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power.    Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed.   They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.
> 
> Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you put Hitler in there as a liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hitler was not a liberal, however; he was a leftist.  Too many people make the mistake of thinking leftism is synonymous with liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler hated unions??? Well, you must have missed chapter 12 in his book _"Mein Kampf"_, where he stated:
> 
> _"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence"._
> 
> When Hitler came to power, he moved to correct hyperinflation while keeping his socialist views front and center. In 1933, the Nazis disbanded the Weimar unions and replaced them with the new and improved union, the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF), which was comprised of 2 primary entities, the National Socialist Factory Organization and the National Socialist Trade and Industry Organization. The labor contracts that were Weimar contracts were now DAF-honored contracts. The Nazis funded the DAFs coffers with the Weimar unions stockpile of wealth (the existing unions were part of that inflation problem). One of the new unions most popular programs was the Strength through Joy (Kraft durch Freude, KdF)) program, which developed the KdF-wagen, that later became the Volkswagen, or Peoples Car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> intellectuals
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Intellectualism is not a staple of only people with leftist socialist politics. There are intellectuals from the far left to the far right and at every point in between.  If you weren't such a profoundly ignorant hack, you would've stated that Hitler hated intellects of opposing views, much like Barack Obama, who surrounds himself with only like-minded idealogues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Negroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Negroes?? Wow, the term you used is a completely different topic in and of itself.  Well, let's talk about hatred of black Americans....
> 
> How about good ol leftist progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson whose favorite movie was the KKK movie _"Birth of a Nation"_.  Keep in mind the last high ranking KKK member in politics was a Democrat senator, Robert Byrd.
> 
> Oh, what was it Bill Clinton told Ted Kennedy during the 2008 Democrat primary battle between Hillary and Barack Obama, Bill Clinton said to Ted Kennedy in reference to Barack Obama:
> 
> _"A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags._
> 
> Oh, and how about lefties open-mindedness and tolerance towards Clarence Thomas:
> 
> [ame=http://youtube.com/watch?v=E3ctO7fdrcc]"Progressive" Ralliers Call for Lynching of Clarence Thomas - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> 
> While the above mentioned incidents are not even scratching the surface in leftist progressive hatred of black people, the long history of it lead Malcolm X to make these statements in his: _"God's Judgement of White America"_ speech:
> 
> _"The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way. The liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negros friend and benefactor, and by winning the friendship and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political football game. Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football, and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball. Through tricks of tokenism and false promises, and they have the willing cooperation of Negro leaders. These leaders sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains.
> 
> The white conservatives arent friends of the Negro either, but at least they dont try to hide it. They are like wolves, they show you their teeth in a snarl. That always keep the Negro aware of where he stands with them, but the white liberals are foxes who show their teeth to the Negro also, but they pretend theyre smiling. The white liberal is more dangerous than the conservative. They lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf. He flees into the open jaws of the smiling fox. The job of the Negro leaders is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and fox belong to the same canine family, and no matter which one of them the Negro puts his trust in. He always ends up in the dog house."_
> 
> 
> While Malcolm X didn't like conservatives, he clearly saw progressive leftists for for the worthless trash they are.  Malcolm X hit too many raw nerves of the leftist Democrats........
Click to expand...


Since you want to quote Malcolm X, here's one:

 Im no politician. Im not even a student of politics.* Im not a Republican, nor a Democrat, nor an American, and got sense enough to know it.* Im one of the 22 million black victims of the Democrats, one of the 22 million black victims of the Republicans, and one of the 22 million black victims of Americanism. And when I speak,* I dont speak as a Democrat, or a Republican*, *nor an American.* *I speak as a victim of Americas so-called democracy*. You and I have never seen democracy; all weve seen is hypocrisy. *When we open our eyes today and look around America, we see America not through the eyes of someone who have -- who has enjoyed the fruits of Americanism, we see America through the eyes of someone who has been the victim of Americanism.* *We dont see any American dream; weve experienced only the American nightmare.* We havent benefited from Americas democracy; weve only suffered from Americas hypocrisy. And the generation thats coming up now can see it and are not afraid to say it.

If you -- If you go to jail, so what? If you black, you were born in jail. If you black, you were born in jail, in the North as well as the South. Stop talking about the South. Long as you south of the -- Long as you south of the Canadian border, youre south. *Dont call Governor Wallace (D) a Dixie governor; Romney (R) is a Dixie governor. *



LOL, are you sure that this is the guy you want to use to make your case for conservatism?


----------



## S.J.

PaintMyHouse said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, you are.  If I vote for you, against my best interests, just because you gave me something, doesn't that make me pretty stupid?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we can agree you are pretty stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, if I vote against my own best interests, like black people do now by voting for the Dems, then I'm stupid right?
Click to expand...

Blacks don't think they're voting against their own best interests because they've been deceived by their leaders into thinking they can't achieve anything on their own, not because they're stupid.


----------



## Pheonixops

Locke11_21 said:


> Pheonixops said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Locke11_21 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler was not a liberal, however; he was a leftist.  Too many people make the mistake of thinking leftism is synonymous with liberalism.
> 
> 
> 
> Hitler hated unions??? Well, you must have missed chapter 12 in his book _"Mein Kampf"_, where he stated:
> 
> _"As things stand today, the trade unions in my opinion cannot be dispensed with. On the contrary, they are among the most important institutions of the nation's economic life. Their significance lies not only in the social and political field, but even more in the general field of national politics. A people whose broad masses, through a sound trade-union movement, obtain the satisfaction of their living requirements and at the same time an education, will be tremendously strengthened in its power of resistance in the struggle for existence"._
> 
> When Hitler came to power, he moved to correct hyperinflation while keeping his socialist views front and center. In 1933, the Nazis disbanded the Weimar unions and replaced them with the new and improved union, the German Labor Front (Deutsche Arbeitsfront, DAF), which was comprised of 2 primary entities, the National Socialist Factory Organization and the National Socialist Trade and Industry Organization. The labor contracts that were Weimar contracts were now DAF-honored contracts. The Nazis funded the DAFs coffers with the Weimar unions stockpile of wealth (the existing unions were part of that inflation problem). One of the new unions most popular programs was the Strength through Joy (Kraft durch Freude, KdF)) program, which developed the KdF-wagen, that later became the Volkswagen, or Peoples Car.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intellectualism is not a staple of only people with leftist socialist politics. There are intellectuals from the far left to the far right and at every point in between.  If you weren't such a profoundly ignorant hack, you would've stated that Hitler hated intellects of opposing views, much like Barack Obama, who surrounds himself with only like-minded idealogues.
> 
> 
> 
> Negroes?? Wow, the term you used is a completely different topic in and of itself.  Well, let's talk about hatred of black Americans....
> 
> How about good ol leftist progressive Democrat, Woodrow Wilson whose favorite movie was the KKK movie _"Birth of a Nation"_.  Keep in mind the last high ranking KKK member in politics was a Democrat senator, Robert Byrd.
> 
> Oh, what was it Bill Clinton told Ted Kennedy during the 2008 Democrat primary battle between Hillary and Barack Obama, Bill Clinton said to Ted Kennedy in reference to Barack Obama:
> 
> _"A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags._
> 
> Oh, and how about lefties open-mindedness and tolerance towards Clarence Thomas:
> 
> "Progressive" Ralliers Call for Lynching of Clarence Thomas - YouTube
> 
> 
> While the above mentioned incidents are not even scratching the surface in leftist progressive hatred of black people, the long history of it lead Malcolm X to make these statements in his: _"God's Judgement of White America"_ speech:
> 
> _"The white liberal differs from the white conservative only in one way. The liberal is more deceitful than the conservative. The liberal is more hypocritical than the conservative. Both want power, but the white liberal is the one who has perfected the art of posing as the Negros friend and benefactor, and by winning the friendship and support of the Negro, the white liberal is able to use the Negro as a pawn or tool in this political football game. Politically the American Negro is nothing but a football, and the white liberals control this mentally dead ball. Through tricks of tokenism and false promises, and they have the willing cooperation of Negro leaders. These leaders sell out our people for just a few crumbs of token recognition and token gains.
> 
> The white conservatives arent friends of the Negro either, but at least they dont try to hide it. They are like wolves, they show you their teeth in a snarl. That always keep the Negro aware of where he stands with them, but the white liberals are foxes who show their teeth to the Negro also, but they pretend theyre smiling. The white liberal is more dangerous than the conservative. They lure the Negro, and as the Negro runs from the growling wolf. He flees into the open jaws of the smiling fox. The job of the Negro leaders is to make the Negro forget that the wolf and fox belong to the same canine family, and no matter which one of them the Negro puts his trust in. He always ends up in the dog house."_
> 
> 
> While Malcolm X didn't like conservatives, he clearly saw progressive leftists for for the worthless trash they are.  Malcolm X hit too many raw nerves of the leftist Democrats........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He clearly saw the conservatives as the worthless trash they are. He saw them basically as the same, two sides of the same coin.................... I hope you don't think that he was giving a ringing endorsement to conservatives. I see plenty of today's conservatives playing the role of the "Fox" when they play their "Martin Luther King Game". Even then they can't hide it when they bring the likes of cain, west, and the other minstrels out to insult Blacks in general.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Clearly comprehending the English language is not one of your strengths.  If wealth were attained by being an idiot, you'd be a billionaire.  Oh, how about that "fox":  Harry Reid, you know the guy who referred to Obama as a light skinned African-American with no negro dialect.
Click to expand...


Clearly you are either dishonest or stupid. The post I wrote after proves that you are either or both of the aforementioned.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

S.J. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, we can agree you are pretty stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I vote against my own best interests, like black people do now by voting for the Dems, then I'm stupid right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Blacks don't think they're voting against their own best interests because they've been deceived by their leaders into thinking they can't achieve anything on their own, not because they're stupid.
Click to expand...

You mean they believe lies?  Well, that sounds pretty stupid to me.  Shouldn't they be thinking for themselves?  You do that right?  Aren't people who don't think for themselves stupid?  Aren't you just being PC because it sounds kind of mean to call them too dumb to know better?


----------



## S.J.

PaintMyHouse said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, if I vote against my own best interests, like black people do now by voting for the Dems, then I'm stupid right?
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't think they're voting against their own best interests because they've been deceived by their leaders into thinking they can't achieve anything on their own, not because they're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *You mean they believe lies?  Well, that sounds pretty stupid to me.*  Shouldn't they be thinking for themselves?  You do that right?  Aren't people who don't think for themselves stupid?  Aren't you just being PC because it sounds kind of mean to call them to dumb to know better?
Click to expand...

One thing is for sure, YOU think they're stupid because you've said it several times now.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

S.J. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blacks don't think they're voting against their own best interests because they've been deceived by their leaders into thinking they can't achieve anything on their own, not because they're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> *You mean they believe lies?  Well, that sounds pretty stupid to me.*  Shouldn't they be thinking for themselves?  You do that right?  Aren't people who don't think for themselves stupid?  Aren't you just being PC because it sounds kind of mean to call them to dumb to know better?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One thing is for sure, YOU think they're stupid because you've said it several times now.
Click to expand...

Well, you keep saying that they are voting against their best interests but you won't say that that is stupid, which would mean that they are being stupid?  Why is that so hard for you to say, it's true isn't it?  Shouldn't they be voting for you because the Dems are just using them?

I mean, if you can't figure out you are being used doesn't that make you stupid?  If you are voting against yourself isn't that a dumb thing to do?


----------



## S.J.

PaintMyHouse said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> *You mean they believe lies?  Well, that sounds pretty stupid to me.*  Shouldn't they be thinking for themselves?  You do that right?  Aren't people who don't think for themselves stupid?  Aren't you just being PC because it sounds kind of mean to call them to dumb to know better?
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is for sure, YOU think they're stupid because you've said it several times now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, you keep saying that they are voting against their best interests but you won't say that that is stupid, which would mean that they are being stupid?  Why is that so hard for you to say, it's true isn't it?  Shouldn't they be voting for you because the Dems are just using them?
> 
> I mean, if you can't figure out you are being used doesn't that make you stupid?  If you are voting against yourself isn't that a dumb thing to do?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry you can't grasp what I'm saying.  I guess it's because you're stupid.


----------



## katsteve2012

The T said:


> hazlnut said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were the _*conservative party*_ during those time periods.
> 
> 
> The liberals fought for abolition and integration.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But NOT Democrats...No matter HOW YOU try to parse it. Nice try son.
> 
> DENIED.
Click to expand...


If anti slavery DEMOCRATS left the party to join Northern Whigs to form the Republican Party, how is that possible?

The historically racist faction of the Democratic Party was throughout the SOUTH all the way up until the signing of The Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Were Republicans really the party of civil rights in the 1960s? | Harry J Enten | Comment is free | theguardian.com

When geography is taken into account, in the above link, it becomes crystal clear that the Republican Party was not soley the party of Civil Rights. Nor was the Democratic Party solely the party of racism....it's as the old saying goes:

"Two wings, one left, one right, on one big, stinking bird". The American black population owes no debt of gratitude or allegiance to either.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

S.J. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> One thing is for sure, YOU think they're stupid because you've said it several times now.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you keep saying that they are voting against their best interests but you won't say that that is stupid, which would mean that they are being stupid?  Why is that so hard for you to say, it's true isn't it?  Shouldn't they be voting for you because the Dems are just using them?
> 
> I mean, if you can't figure out you are being used doesn't that make you stupid?  If you are voting against yourself isn't that a dumb thing to do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm sorry you can't grasp what I'm saying.  I guess it's because you're stupid.
Click to expand...

It's what you're not saying that's the problem.  These black people are being lied to, and they are too stupid to discover it, and therefore they are voting for the wrong party right?

Why is it so hard for you to say that?  If I tell you I vote for this guy instead of this other guy because the first one gives me free stuff, aren't I being stupid?  That's what these blacks do you said, vote for the guy who gives them stuff, which is stupid right?


----------



## S.J.

PaintMyHouse said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you keep saying that they are voting against their best interests but you won't say that that is stupid, which would mean that they are being stupid?  Why is that so hard for you to say, it's true isn't it?  Shouldn't they be voting for you because the Dems are just using them?
> 
> I mean, if you can't figure out you are being used doesn't that make you stupid?  If you are voting against yourself isn't that a dumb thing to do?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you can't grasp what I'm saying.  I guess it's because you're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *It's what you're not saying that's the problem.*  These black people are being lied to, and they are too stupid to discover it, and therefore they are voting for the wrong party right?
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to say that?  If I tell you I vote for this guy instead of this other guy because the first one gives me free stuff, aren't I being stupid?  That's what these blacks do you said, vote for the guy who gives them stuff, which is stupid right?
Click to expand...

You mean you can't get me to say what you want me to say?  Believe me, if what you think I meant were true, I would say it.  I don't need you to say if for me.


----------



## dannyboys

PaintMyHouse said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, you keep saying that they are voting against their best interests but you won't say that that is stupid, which would mean that they are being stupid?  Why is that so hard for you to say, it's true isn't it?  Shouldn't they be voting for you because the Dems are just using them?
> 
> I mean, if you can't figure out you are being used doesn't that make you stupid?  If you are voting against yourself isn't that a dumb thing to do?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you can't grasp what I'm saying.  I guess it's because you're stupid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's what you're not saying that's the problem.  These black people are being lied to, and they are too stupid to discover it, and therefore they are voting for the wrong party right?
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to say that?  If I tell you I vote for this guy instead of this other guy because the first one gives me free stuff, aren't I being stupid?  That's what these blacks do you said, vote for the guy who gives them stuff, which is stupid right?
Click to expand...

That's right. Blacks, generally have lower IQs than other races. This is the elephant in the room few people are willing to see. 
Blacks are too dumb to understand they are being used and lied to by the LIBs. As long as some LIB promises them a free cell phone and a 'Biggie' they will vote for that politician.
Even dear old JJ said the Libs keep going to the "Black 'voting well" but never get what the LIBs promised them.
This I can quarentee: The instant the LIBs no longer need the Black voter base, b/c over time the Black race is failing and being replaced by the Hispanic voting block is the moment not a single LIB politician will ever got dressed up in a huge flower print dress with matching hat and gloves and show up just before an election at a S. Bapist church somehow having learned to speak 'ebonics'. That includes a lot of LIB males BTW. 
The NY 'limousine-LIB' politicians will then all be riding around in 'low-riders' and attending 'La Semana Santa' parties.


----------



## Nyvin

Why do big money groups like the Koch Brothers and the Chamber of Commerce donate to and vote for the GOP?   Is it because the GOP gives the CoC and the Koch Brothers "free stuff" and they both are being lied to and not thinking they can make it on their own?

Does this sound ridiculous?   Probably...but it makes just as much sense as black people being lied to and coerced by Democrats.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Nyvin said:


> Why do big money groups like the Koch Brothers and the Chamber of Commerce donate to and vote for the GOP?   Is it because the GOP gives the CoC and the Koch Brothers "free stuff" and they both are being lied to and not thinking they can make it on their own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?   Probably...but it makes just as much sense as black people being lied to and coerced by Democrats.



Nope, sorry it doesn't...actually, not even close....well, maybe a 1/2 smidgen but no more..


----------



## Sallow

dannyboys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you can't grasp what I'm saying.  I guess it's because you're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> It's what you're not saying that's the problem.  These black people are being lied to, and they are too stupid to discover it, and therefore they are voting for the wrong party right?
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to say that?  If I tell you I vote for this guy instead of this other guy because the first one gives me free stuff, aren't I being stupid?  That's what these blacks do you said, vote for the guy who gives them stuff, which is stupid right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *That's right. Blacks, generally have lower IQs than other races. This is the elephant in the room few people are willing to see.
> Blacks are too dumb to understand they are being used and lied to by the LIBs. As long as some LIB promises them a free cell phone and a 'Biggie' they will vote for that politician.
> Even dear old JJ said the Libs keep going to the "Black 'voting well" but never get what the LIBs promised them.*
> This I can quarentee: The instant the LIBs no longer need the Black voter base, b/c over time the Black race is failing and being replaced by the Hispanic voting block is the moment not a single LIB politician will ever got dressed up in a huge flower print dress with matching hat and gloves and show up just before an election at a S. Bapist church somehow having learned to speak 'ebonics'. That includes a lot of LIB males BTW.
> The NY 'limousine-LIB' politicians will then all be riding around in 'low-riders' and attending 'La Semana Santa' parties.
Click to expand...


Folks..you just can't make this stuff up.

This tears your "argument" to shreds, Lumpy.


----------



## Nyvin

Lumpy 1 said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do big money groups like the Koch Brothers and the Chamber of Commerce donate to and vote for the GOP?   Is it because the GOP gives the CoC and the Koch Brothers "free stuff" and they both are being lied to and not thinking they can make it on their own?
> 
> Does this sound ridiculous?   Probably...but it makes just as much sense as black people being lied to and coerced by Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, sorry it doesn't...actually, not even close....well, maybe a 1/2 smidgen but no more..
Click to expand...


any reasoning or logic?


----------



## PaintMyHouse

S.J. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you can't grasp what I'm saying.  I guess it's because you're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> *It's what you're not saying that's the problem.*  These black people are being lied to, and they are too stupid to discover it, and therefore they are voting for the wrong party right?
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to say that?  If I tell you I vote for this guy instead of this other guy because the first one gives me free stuff, aren't I being stupid?  That's what these blacks do you said, vote for the guy who gives them stuff, which is stupid right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You mean you can't get me to say what you want me to say?  Believe me, if what you think I meant were true, I would say it.  I don't need you to say if for me.
Click to expand...

But you have said it. just not in so many words.  When you say blacks have been duped because they vote for the Dems, it means that you are saying they are STUPID, even if you aren't honest enough to just say it.  

When you say they vote for people who give them stuff that is also saying they are stupid.  Keep it in mind.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

dannyboys said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry you can't grasp what I'm saying.  I guess it's because you're stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> It's what you're not saying that's the problem.  These black people are being lied to, and they are too stupid to discover it, and therefore they are voting for the wrong party right?
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to say that?  If I tell you I vote for this guy instead of this other guy because the first one gives me free stuff, aren't I being stupid?  That's what these blacks do you said, vote for the guy who gives them stuff, which is stupid right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's right. Blacks, generally have lower IQs than other races. This is the elephant in the room few people are willing to see.
> Blacks are too dumb to understand they are being used and lied to by the LIBs. As long as some LIB promises them a free cell phone and a 'Biggie' they will vote for that politician.
> Even dear old JJ said the Libs keep going to the "Black 'voting well" but never get what the LIBs promised them.
> This I can quarentee: The instant the LIBs no longer need the Black voter base, b/c over time the Black race is failing and being replaced by the Hispanic voting block is the moment not a single LIB politician will ever got dressed up in a huge flower print dress with matching hat and gloves and show up just before an election at a S. Bapist church somehow having learned to speak 'ebonics'. That includes a lot of LIB males BTW.
> The NY 'limousine-LIB' politicians will then all be riding around in 'low-riders' and attending 'La Semana Santa' parties.
Click to expand...

One honest enough to say what others only think?  I like it.  A little non-PC talk from the right-wing.

I sure wish the rest of you guys were this honest.


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> When the slave trade started and flourished, the "Democratic Party" didn't yet exist.  Neither did the Republican.
> 
> Purty desperate stretch here, Lumpster.  Purty desperate.
> 
> What's your point then?  One-party state?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party was started in 1792..slavery expanded to their delight...
Click to expand...


Bullshit again.  1824.

First of all there's no such thing as the "Democrat" Party and never has been, and the fact that you don't know any better tells me where you're getting shit information, a certain cigar-chomping turdball with a gold-plated mic.  The Democrat*ic* Party began in *1824* when the Jeffrersonian faction split off from the earlier anti-Federalist "Democratic-Republican Party", the other half of the split going on to become the Whigs.  Meanwhile the slave trade to the Americas had begun at the beginning of the 16th century, just after the Treaty of Tordesillas split the territorial booty between Portugal and the Kingdom of Castile (Spain), and moved Africans to North America (that's this continent) in the main through the 17th and 18th centuries before such trade was banned in 1808.  Even by 1792 most of it had already happened.

Which means that at the moment this country was founded it was already swimming in slaves.  Which also means that by the time ANY political party was formed here, the slave trade had already been going on, and "expanded", for *two centuries*.

This would all be a few years before the Democrat*ic *Party was a twinkle in Andy Jackson's eye.  You could do the math.  

Or not.

Want a source?  Check your own timeline link in post 82.
Your own link.

The Whigs would go on 30 years later to form what is now the Republican Party -- but we don't call the Whigs Republicans.  Oh I'm sorry .... is that the "Republic" Party in Limblobese?

Hey, maybe you could 'splain to us the iggerant why a political party would be formed two hundred years before it had a nation to attach to.  That would be cute.

Revising history must be fun.  Guess I'm just not that creative.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> When the slave trade started and flourished, the "Democratic Party" didn't yet exist.  Neither did the Republican.
> 
> Purty desperate stretch here, Lumpster.  Purty desperate.
> 
> What's your point then?  One-party state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party was started in 1792..slavery expanded to their delight...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit again.  1824.
> 
> First of all there's no such thing as the "Democrat" Party and never has been, and the fact that you don't know any better tells me where you're getting shit information, a certain cigar-chomping turdball with a gold-plated mic.  The Democrat*ic* Party began in *1824* when the Jeffrersonian faction split off from the earlier anti-Federalist "Democratic-Republican Party", the other half of the split going on to become the Whigs.  Meanwhile the slave trade to the Americas began at the beginning of the 16th century, just after the Treaty of Tordesillas split the territorial booty between Portugal and the Kingdom of Castile (Spain), and moved Africans to North America (that's this continent) in the main in the 17th and 18th century before such trade was banned in 1808.  Even by 1792 most of it had already happened.
> 
> That would be a few years before the Democrat*ic *Party was a twinkle in Andy Jackson's eye.  You could do the math.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> Revising history must be fun.  Guess I'm just not that creative.
Click to expand...

He prefers his version, where the Democrats have always been evil and never believed in exactly what he does right now.


----------



## MACAULAY

PaintMyHouse said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's what you're not saying that's the problem.  These black people are being lied to, and they are too stupid to discover it, and therefore they are voting for the wrong party right?
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to say that?  If I tell you I vote for this guy instead of this other guy because the first one gives me free stuff, aren't I being stupid?  That's what these blacks do you said, vote for the guy who gives them stuff, which is stupid right?
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. Blacks, generally have lower IQs than other races. This is the elephant in the room few people are willing to see.
> Blacks are too dumb to understand they are being used and lied to by the LIBs. As long as some LIB promises them a free cell phone and a 'Biggie' they will vote for that politician.
> Even dear old JJ said the Libs keep going to the "Black 'voting well" but never get what the LIBs promised them.
> This I can quarentee: The instant the LIBs no longer need the Black voter base, b/c over time the Black race is failing and being replaced by the Hispanic voting block is the moment not a single LIB politician will ever got dressed up in a huge flower print dress with matching hat and gloves and show up just before an election at a S. Bapist church somehow having learned to speak 'ebonics'. That includes a lot of LIB males BTW.
> The NY 'limousine-LIB' politicians will then all be riding around in 'low-riders' and attending 'La Semana Santa' parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> One honest enough to say what others only think?  I like it.  A little non-PC talk from the right-wing.
> 
> I sure wish the rest of you guys were this honest.
Click to expand...


------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, remember that National Conversation on Race that blacks have been demanding for so long... the one in which white people would be expected to "shut up and listen"....maybe it is time to discuss why, in this modern day, they still can't feed themselves in Africa, and also, why, in this modern day, they still can't feed themselves in Detroit and South Chicago.


----------



## Pogo

PaintMyHouse said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party was started in 1792..slavery expanded to their delight...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit again. 1824.
> 
> First of all there's no such thing as the "Democrat" Party and never has been, and the fact that you don't know any better tells me where you're getting shit information, a certain cigar-chomping turdball with a gold-plated mic. The Democratic Party began in 1824 when the Jeffrersonian faction split off from the earlier anti-Federalist "Democratic-Republican Party", the other half of the split going on to become the Whigs. Meanwhile the slave trade to the Americas had begun at the beginning of the 16th century, just after the Treaty of Tordesillas split the territorial booty between Portugal and the Kingdom of Castile (Spain), and moved Africans to North America (that's this continent) in the main through the 17th and 18th centuries before such trade was banned in 1808. Even by 1792 most of it had already happened.
> 
> Which means that at the moment this country was founded it was already swimming in slaves. Which also means that by the time ANY political party was formed here, the slave trade had already been going on, and "expanded", for two centuries.
> 
> This would all be a few years before the Democratic Party was a twinkle in Andy Jackson's eye. You could do the math.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> The Whigs would go on 30 years later to form what is now the Republican Party -- but we don't call the Whigs Republicans. Oh I'm sorry .... is that the "Republic" Party in Limblobese?
> 
> Hey, maybe you could 'splain to us the iggerant why a political party would be formed two hundred years before it had a nation to attach to. That would be cute.
> 
> Revising history must be fun. Guess I'm just not that creative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He prefers his version, where the Democrats have always been evil and never believed in exactly what he does right now.
Click to expand...


His version has been awarded its rightful place in TBB.  An OP consisting of nothing but a leading question based on complete bullshit.  A troll highway.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> That seems to be what YOU'RE saying.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not saying that, you are.  If I vote for you, against my best interests, just because you gave me something, doesn't that make me pretty stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, we can agree you are pretty stupid.
Click to expand...


This from the same guy who says it's "racist" that the audience of Fox Noise is predominantly white.  

Nothing like sparring with the A-team...


----------



## Sallow

MACAULAY said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's right. Blacks, generally have lower IQs than other races. This is the elephant in the room few people are willing to see.
> Blacks are too dumb to understand they are being used and lied to by the LIBs. As long as some LIB promises them a free cell phone and a 'Biggie' they will vote for that politician.
> Even dear old JJ said the Libs keep going to the "Black 'voting well" but never get what the LIBs promised them.
> This I can quarentee: The instant the LIBs no longer need the Black voter base, b/c over time the Black race is failing and being replaced by the Hispanic voting block is the moment not a single LIB politician will ever got dressed up in a huge flower print dress with matching hat and gloves and show up just before an election at a S. Bapist church somehow having learned to speak 'ebonics'. That includes a lot of LIB males BTW.
> The NY 'limousine-LIB' politicians will then all be riding around in 'low-riders' and attending 'La Semana Santa' parties.
> 
> 
> 
> One honest enough to say what others only think?  I like it.  A little non-PC talk from the right-wing.
> 
> I sure wish the rest of you guys were this honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Well, remember that National Conversation on Race that blacks have been demanding for so long... the one in which white people would be expected to "shut up and listen"....maybe it is time to discuss why, in this modern day, they still can't feed themselves in Africa, and also, why, in this modern day, they still can't feed themselves in Detroit and South Chicago.
Click to expand...


Must be kind of nice to forget the history of Colonization and Slavery.

All those African "Nations"?

They were carved up that way by Europe.


----------



## whitehall

The unfortunate truth is that the flag that flew from slave ships was the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes not the Confederate flag. Democrat activists murdered Lincoln and left wing radicals killed JFK and tried to kill Jerry Ford and Ronnie Reagan. The democrat party is the party of crazy radicals who lynched innocent Blacks during the segregation wars. LBJ's "great society" program was nothing but a slick way to keep upity Blacks on the democrat party plantation by replacing the Black head of the family with the federal government.


----------



## PaintMyHouse

whitehall said:


> The unfortunate truth is that the flag that flew from slave ships was the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes not the Confederate flag. Democrat activists murdered Lincoln and left wing radicals killed JFK and tried to kill Jerry Ford and Ronnie Reagan. The democrat party is the party of crazy radicals who lynched innocent Blacks during the segregation wars. LBJ's "great society" program was nothing but a slick way to keep upity Blacks on the democrat party plantation by replacing the Black head of the family with the federal government.


Ah, in what year did the Confederate Flag come into being?

Flags of the Confederate States of America - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## WillowTree

PaintMyHouse said:


> WillowTree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have that in English?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What language did you read it in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I attempted to read it in English.  The problem was it was written in gibberish.
Click to expand...


You need remedial education. It was perfect English.


----------



## Sallow

whitehall said:


> The unfortunate truth is that the flag that flew from slave ships was the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes not the Confederate flag. Democrat activists murdered Lincoln and left wing radicals killed JFK and tried to kill Jerry Ford and Ronnie Reagan. The democrat party is the party of crazy radicals who lynched innocent Blacks during the segregation wars. LBJ's "great society" program was nothing but a slick way to keep upity Blacks on the democrat party plantation by replacing the Black head of the family with the federal government.



Ah so..

You think that the South attacked the North.
The Confederate flag should forever be buried in the historical shitheap.
Jefferson Davis was a traitor.
Robert E. Lee was a traitor.
States Rights are bullshit.
The North was completely correct.

Right?


----------



## Moonglow

Jefferson was a democrat, Washington also..


----------



## Sallow

Moonglow said:


> Jefferson was a democrat, Washington also..



Both owned slaves.

Jefferson had kids with one.

See? These guys have a point.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit again. 1824.
> 
> First of all there's no such thing as the "Democrat" Party and never has been, and the fact that you don't know any better tells me where you're getting shit information, a certain cigar-chomping turdball with a gold-plated mic. The Democratic Party began in 1824 when the Jeffrersonian faction split off from the earlier anti-Federalist "Democratic-Republican Party", the other half of the split going on to become the Whigs. Meanwhile the slave trade to the Americas had begun at the beginning of the 16th century, just after the Treaty of Tordesillas split the territorial booty between Portugal and the Kingdom of Castile (Spain), and moved Africans to North America (that's this continent) in the main through the 17th and 18th centuries before such trade was banned in 1808. Even by 1792 most of it had already happened.
> 
> Which means that at the moment this country was founded it was already swimming in slaves. Which also means that by the time ANY political party was formed here, the slave trade had already been going on, and "expanded", for two centuries.
> 
> This would all be a few years before the Democratic Party was a twinkle in Andy Jackson's eye. You could do the math.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> The Whigs would go on 30 years later to form what is now the Republican Party -- but we don't call the Whigs Republicans. Oh I'm sorry .... is that the "Republic" Party in Limblobese?
> 
> Hey, maybe you could 'splain to us the iggerant why a political party would be formed two hundred years before it had a nation to attach to. That would be cute.
> 
> Revising history must be fun. Guess I'm just not that creative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He prefers his version, where the Democrats have always been evil and never believed in exactly what he does right now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His version has been awarded its rightful place in TBB.  An OP consisting of nothing but a leading question based on complete bullshit.  A troll highway.
Click to expand...


It must be love, two whiners posting drivel together...

Where did I say Democrats started slavery in America?

No worries though you can use the "I'm a Democrat and have comprehension problems defense". Everyone wil understand....


----------



## Lumpy 1

Sallow said:


> dannyboys said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's what you're not saying that's the problem.  These black people are being lied to, and they are too stupid to discover it, and therefore they are voting for the wrong party right?
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to say that?  If I tell you I vote for this guy instead of this other guy because the first one gives me free stuff, aren't I being stupid?  That's what these blacks do you said, vote for the guy who gives them stuff, which is stupid right?
> 
> 
> 
> *That's right. Blacks, generally have lower IQs than other races. This is the elephant in the room few people are willing to see.
> Blacks are too dumb to understand they are being used and lied to by the LIBs. As long as some LIB promises them a free cell phone and a 'Biggie' they will vote for that politician.
> Even dear old JJ said the Libs keep going to the "Black 'voting well" but never get what the LIBs promised them.*
> This I can quarentee: The instant the LIBs no longer need the Black voter base, b/c over time the Black race is failing and being replaced by the Hispanic voting block is the moment not a single LIB politician will ever got dressed up in a huge flower print dress with matching hat and gloves and show up just before an election at a S. Bapist church somehow having learned to speak 'ebonics'. That includes a lot of LIB males BTW.
> The NY 'limousine-LIB' politicians will then all be riding around in 'low-riders' and attending 'La Semana Santa' parties.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Folks..you just can't make this stuff up.
> 
> This tears your "argument" to shreds, Lumpy.
Click to expand...


Umm, he's a Democrat plant..like most...


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit.
> 
> When the slave trade started and flourished, the "Democratic Party" didn't yet exist.  Neither did the Republican.
> 
> Purty desperate stretch here, Lumpster.  Purty desperate.
> 
> What's your point then?  One-party state?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party was started in 1792..slavery expanded to their delight...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bullshit again.  1824.
> 
> First of all there's no such thing as the "Democrat" Party and never has been, and the fact that you don't know any better tells me where you're getting shit information, a certain cigar-chomping turdball with a gold-plated mic.  The Democrat*ic* Party began in *1824* when the Jeffrersonian faction split off from the earlier anti-Federalist "Democratic-Republican Party", the other half of the split going on to become the Whigs.  Meanwhile the slave trade to the Americas had begun at the beginning of the 16th century, just after the Treaty of Tordesillas split the territorial booty between Portugal and the Kingdom of Castile (Spain), and moved Africans to North America (that's this continent) in the main through the 17th and 18th centuries before such trade was banned in 1808.  Even by 1792 most of it had already happened.
> 
> Which means that at the moment this country was founded it was already swimming in slaves.  Which also means that by the time ANY political party was formed here, the slave trade had already been going on, and "expanded", for *two centuries*.
> 
> This would all be a few years before the Democrat*ic *Party was a twinkle in Andy Jackson's eye.  You could do the math.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> Want a source?  Check your own timeline link in post 82.
> Your own link.
> 
> The Whigs would go on 30 years later to form what is now the Republican Party -- but we don't call the Whigs Republicans.  Oh I'm sorry .... is that the "Republic" Party in Limblobese?
> 
> Hey, maybe you could 'splain to us the iggerant why a political party would be formed two hundred years before it had a nation to attach to.  That would be cute.
> 
> Revising history must be fun.  Guess I'm just not that creative.
Click to expand...


Did I say Democrat started slavery in America... change your diaper.. Pooh-go


----------



## Lumpy 1

Sallow said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> The unfortunate truth is that the flag that flew from slave ships was the Union Jack and the Stars and Stripes not the Confederate flag. Democrat activists murdered Lincoln and left wing radicals killed JFK and tried to kill Jerry Ford and Ronnie Reagan. The democrat party is the party of crazy radicals who lynched innocent Blacks during the segregation wars. LBJ's "great society" program was nothing but a slick way to keep upity Blacks on the democrat party plantation by replacing the Black head of the family with the federal government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah so..
> 
> You think that the South attacked the North.
> The Confederate flag should forever be buried in the historical shitheap.
> Jefferson Davis was a traitor.
> Robert E. Lee was a traitor.
> States Rights are bullshit.
> The North was completely correct.
> 
> Right?
Click to expand...


Yet Obama's a traitor and you love him...


----------



## S.J.

PaintMyHouse said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's what you're not saying that's the problem.*  These black people are being lied to, and they are too stupid to discover it, and therefore they are voting for the wrong party right?
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to say that?  If I tell you I vote for this guy instead of this other guy because the first one gives me free stuff, aren't I being stupid?  That's what these blacks do you said, vote for the guy who gives them stuff, which is stupid right?
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you can't get me to say what you want me to say?  Believe me, if what you think I meant were true, I would say it.  I don't need you to say if for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you have said it. just not in so many words.  When you say blacks have been duped because they vote for the Dems, it means that you are saying they are STUPID, even if you aren't honest enough to just say it.
> 
> When you say they vote for people who give them stuff that is also saying they are stupid.  Keep it in mind.
Click to expand...

You keep making the case that blacks are stupid, and you make some good points.  But what you are obviously trying to do is get me to say they are "inherently stupid".  If I thought that, I would say that but that is not what I think.  I've seen too many black conservatives and Tea Party members to make a blanket generalization like that.  I've also known some liberal blacks who are not stupid people, just indoctrinated and brainwashed because they trusted the wrong people.  People like you, who bribe them for their votes through welfare, not caring that you are destroying their families and any chance they may have had at achieving something in life.  The racist here is you.


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Democrat Party was started in 1792..slavery expanded to their delight...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit again.  1824.
> 
> First of all there's no such thing as the "Democrat" Party and never has been, and the fact that you don't know any better tells me where you're getting shit information, a certain cigar-chomping turdball with a gold-plated mic.  The Democrat*ic* Party began in *1824* when the Jeffrersonian faction split off from the earlier anti-Federalist "Democratic-Republican Party", the other half of the split going on to become the Whigs.  Meanwhile the slave trade to the Americas had begun at the beginning of the 16th century, just after the Treaty of Tordesillas split the territorial booty between Portugal and the Kingdom of Castile (Spain), and moved Africans to North America (that's this continent) in the main through the 17th and 18th centuries before such trade was banned in 1808.  Even by 1792 most of it had already happened.
> 
> Which means that at the moment this country was founded it was already swimming in slaves.  Which also means that by the time ANY political party was formed here, the slave trade had already been going on, and "expanded", for *two centuries*.
> 
> This would all be a few years before the Democrat*ic *Party was a twinkle in Andy Jackson's eye.  You could do the math.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> Want a source?  Check your own timeline link in post 82.
> Your own link.
> 
> The Whigs would go on 30 years later to form what is now the Republican Party -- but we don't call the Whigs Republicans.  Oh I'm sorry .... is that the "Republic" Party in Limblobese?
> 
> Hey, maybe you could 'splain to us the iggerant why a political party would be formed two hundred years before it had a nation to attach to.  That would be cute.
> 
> Revising history must be fun.  Guess I'm just not that creative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did I say Democrat started slavery in America... change your diaper.. Pooh-go
Click to expand...


You sure did, in the plural.  Unless someone who looks just like you wrote this:


Lumpy 1 said:


> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?



Change your OP and we'll get somewhere.  That sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense, let alone historical.

OK, granted you didn't say "in America".  So you're saying this imaginary "Democrat Party"-- which must have been founded in the 1400s at the latest -- brought the slave trade to where -- Brazil?


----------



## Lumpy 1

Obsess and miss the point much...... I do believe so...




Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bullshit again.  1824.
> 
> First of all there's no such thing as the "Democrat" Party and never has been, and the fact that you don't know any better tells me where you're getting shit information, a certain cigar-chomping turdball with a gold-plated mic.  The Democrat*ic* Party began in *1824* when the Jeffrersonian faction split off from the earlier anti-Federalist "Democratic-Republican Party", the other half of the split going on to become the Whigs.  Meanwhile the slave trade to the Americas had begun at the beginning of the 16th century, just after the Treaty of Tordesillas split the territorial booty between Portugal and the Kingdom of Castile (Spain), and moved Africans to North America (that's this continent) in the main through the 17th and 18th centuries before such trade was banned in 1808.  Even by 1792 most of it had already happened.
> 
> Which means that at the moment this country was founded it was already swimming in slaves.  Which also means that by the time ANY political party was formed here, the slave trade had already been going on, and "expanded", for *two centuries*.
> 
> This would all be a few years before the Democrat*ic *Party was a twinkle in Andy Jackson's eye.  You could do the math.
> 
> Or not.
> 
> Want a source?  Check your own timeline link in post 82.
> Your own link.
> 
> The Whigs would go on 30 years later to form what is now the Republican Party -- but we don't call the Whigs Republicans.  Oh I'm sorry .... is that the "Republic" Party in Limblobese?
> 
> Hey, maybe you could 'splain to us the iggerant why a political party would be formed two hundred years before it had a nation to attach to.  That would be cute.
> 
> Revising history must be fun.  Guess I'm just not that creative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say Democrat started slavery in America... change your diaper.. Pooh-go
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You sure did, in the plural.  Unless someone who looks just like you wrote this:
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Change your OP and we'll get somewhere.  That sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense, let alone historical.
> 
> OK, granted you didn't say "in America".  So you're saying this imaginary "Democrat Party"-- which must have been founded in the 1400s at the latest -- brought the slave trade to where -- Brazil?
Click to expand...

Obsess and miss the point much...... I do believe so...

Well heck.. maybe you should go back to the Egyptians, maybe they were Democrats at heart, they sure screwed over that civilization and had slaves, so it seems likely...

Lighten up Pogo, Democrats love pinning racism and slavery on Republicans, we both know it's bullshit and Democrats deserve a taste of their own history, repeatedly and often.. I'll do what I can...


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Obsess and miss the point much...... I do believe so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say Democrat started slavery in America... change your diaper.. Pooh-go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure did, in the plural.  Unless someone who looks just like you wrote this:
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Change your OP and we'll get somewhere.  That sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense, let alone historical.
> 
> OK, granted you didn't say "in America".  So you're saying this imaginary "Democrat Party"-- which must have been founded in the 1400s at the latest -- brought the slave trade to where -- Brazil?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obsess and miss the point much...... I do believe so...
> 
> Well heck.. maybe you should go back to the Egyptians, maybe they were Democrats at heart, they sure screwed over that civilization and had slaves, so it seems likely...
> 
> Lighten up Pogo, Democrats love pinning racism and slavery on Republicans, we both know it's bullshit and Democrats deserve a taste of their own history, repeatedly and often.. I'll do what I can...
Click to expand...


"Miss the point"?  Where are my facts wrong?  Your own link says your story is fucked.

You heard it here first folks - the Democratic Party was founded in Egypt, 4600 years ago.  Glad we got that cleared up.

Wacko.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obsess and miss the point much...... I do believe so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> You sure did, in the plural.  Unless someone who looks just like you wrote this:
> 
> 
> Change your OP and we'll get somewhere.  That sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense, let alone historical.
> 
> OK, granted you didn't say "in America".  So you're saying this imaginary "Democrat Party"-- which must have been founded in the 1400s at the latest -- brought the slave trade to where -- Brazil?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obsess and miss the point much...... I do believe so...
> 
> Well heck.. maybe you should go back to the Egyptians, maybe they were Democrats at heart, they sure screwed over that civilization and had slaves, so it seems likely...
> 
> Lighten up Pogo, Democrats love pinning racism and slavery on Republicans, we both know it's bullshit and Democrats deserve a taste of their own history, repeatedly and often.. I'll do what I can...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Miss the point"?  Where are my facts wrong?  Your own link says your story is fucked.
> 
> You heard it here first folks - the Democratic Party was founded in Egypt, 4600 years ago.  Glad we got that cleared up.
> 
> Wacko.
Click to expand...


Temper ..temper...you're obviously not thinking clearly, I'll get back with you when I have time to waste...


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obsess and miss the point much...... I do believe so...
> 
> 
> Obsess and miss the point much...... I do believe so...
> 
> Well heck.. maybe you should go back to the Egyptians, maybe they were Democrats at heart, they sure screwed over that civilization and had slaves, so it seems likely...
> 
> Lighten up Pogo, Democrats love pinning racism and slavery on Republicans, we both know it's bullshit and Democrats deserve a taste of their own history, repeatedly and often.. I'll do what I can...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Miss the point"?  Where are my facts wrong?  Your own link says your story is fucked.
> 
> You heard it here first folks - the Democratic Party was founded in Egypt, 4600 years ago.  Glad we got that cleared up.
> 
> Wacko.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Temper ..temper...you're obviously not thinking clearly, I'll get back with you when I have time to waste...
Click to expand...


Still trying to think up new shit?

Lumpster I like you but your head's way up your ass here.  You've got an organization being responsible for a slavery system that started two hundred years before there was even a country, let alone any political parties in it; a slave trade that was finished and banned before that party was even organized; you don't have a clue when that party was actually founded or even what it's fucking name is.  You posted a timeline (82) that backs all this up, and you're still lost on Fantasy Island.  You start a troll thread with a single statement, no links, no nothing, not even grammatically operational, proceed to insult the first respondents who want it explained, which you can't, and now when you're called on it you throw it into reverse insisting it was a joke, and now you want extra time to think up some new fabrication.

There are hobby forums here; perhaps that would be more up your alley.  Because history clearly isn't it.


----------



## katsteve2012

Lumpy 1 said:


> Obsess and miss the point much...... I do believe so...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say Democrat started slavery in America... change your diaper.. Pooh-go
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You sure did, in the plural.  Unless someone who looks just like you wrote this:
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Change your OP and we'll get somewhere.  That sentence doesn't even make grammatical sense, let alone historical.
> 
> OK, granted you didn't say "in America".  So you're saying this imaginary "Democrat Party"-- which must have been founded in the 1400s at the latest -- brought the slave trade to where -- Brazil?
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Obsess and miss the point much...... I do believe so...
> 
> Well heck.. maybe you should go back to the Egyptians, maybe they were Democrats at heart, they sure screwed over that civilization and had slaves, so it seems likely...
> 
> Lighten up Pogo, Democrats love pinning racism and slavery on Republicans, we both know it's bullshit and Democrats deserve a taste of their own history, repeatedly and often.. I'll do what I can...
Click to expand...


Well, documented  historical facts are typically not debatable in the real world. 

Let's skip the fact that anti slavery Democrats defected from their party to join The Whigs to form the Republican party. 

Fast forward to 1964, and the signing of the Civil Rights Act

Here is the breakdown of votes BY PARTY and it's geographic distribution by North and South:

*Civil Rights Act
The original House version:

Southern Democrats: 787 * (793%)
Southern Republicans: 010 * (0100%)
Northern Democrats: 1459 * (946%)
Northern Republicans: 13824 * (8515%)


The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 120 * (595%) (only Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 01 * (0100%) (John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 451 * (982%) (only Robert Byrd of West Virginia voted against)
Northern Republicans: 275 * (8416%)

*Source, Wkipedia.

While it is obvious that BOTH parties in the southern region were against the inititiative, it is also clear that there is nothing in the voting that clearly distinguishes the Republican Party as "The Party For Civil Rights".


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Miss the point"?  Where are my facts wrong?  Your own link says your story is fucked.
> 
> You heard it here first folks - the Democratic Party was founded in Egypt, 4600 years ago.  Glad we got that cleared up.
> 
> Wacko.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Temper ..temper...you're obviously not thinking clearly, I'll get back with you when I have time to waste...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still trying to think up new shit?
> 
> Lumpster I like you but your head's way up your ass here.  You've got an organization being responsible for a slavery system that started two hundred years before there was even a country, let alone any political parties in it; a slave trade that was finished and banned before that party was even organized; you don't have a clue when that party was actually founded or even what it's fucking name is.  You posted a timeline (82) that backs all this up, and you're still lost on Fantasy Island.  You start a troll thread with a single statement, no links, no nothing, not even grammatically operational, proceed to insult the first respondents who want it explained, which you can't, and now when you're called on it you throw it into reverse insisting it was a joke, and now you want extra time to think up some new fabrication.
> 
> There are hobby forums here; perhaps that would be more up your alley.  Because history clearly isn't it.
Click to expand...


...I'm not forcing you to post in this thread, considering that you're a Democrat and you're pleased to be represented by liars, cheats and lawless representatives your outrage is rather humorous and outrageously hypocritical.

Here's something else you should read...Who oppressed the Blacks and believed in slavery>>>The Democratic Party...

btw... Yup, I supplied you with the link, southerners owned most of the slaves and they ended up being members of the Democratic Party.  (feel better now?)

Democratic Party Platform


----------



## jillian

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Temper ..temper...you're obviously not thinking clearly, I'll get back with you when I have time to waste...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to think up new shit?
> 
> Lumpster I like you but your head's way up your ass here.  You've got an organization being responsible for a slavery system that started two hundred years before there was even a country, let alone any political parties in it; a slave trade that was finished and banned before that party was even organized; you don't have a clue when that party was actually founded or even what it's fucking name is.  You posted a timeline (82) that backs all this up, and you're still lost on Fantasy Island.  You start a troll thread with a single statement, no links, no nothing, not even grammatically operational, proceed to insult the first respondents who want it explained, which you can't, and now when you're called on it you throw it into reverse insisting it was a joke, and now you want extra time to think up some new fabrication.
> 
> There are hobby forums here; perhaps that would be more up your alley.  Because history clearly isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice babbling...
> 
> Here's something else you should read...Who oppressed the Blacks and believed in slavery>>>The Democratic Party...
> 
> Democratic Party Platform
Click to expand...



and then all the bigots became republicans after the Civil Rights Act.

you're welcome.


----------



## Lumpy 1

jillian said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to think up new shit?
> 
> Lumpster I like you but your head's way up your ass here.  You've got an organization being responsible for a slavery system that started two hundred years before there was even a country, let alone any political parties in it; a slave trade that was finished and banned before that party was even organized; you don't have a clue when that party was actually founded or even what it's fucking name is.  You posted a timeline (82) that backs all this up, and you're still lost on Fantasy Island.  You start a troll thread with a single statement, no links, no nothing, not even grammatically operational, proceed to insult the first respondents who want it explained, which you can't, and now when you're called on it you throw it into reverse insisting it was a joke, and now you want extra time to think up some new fabrication.
> 
> There are hobby forums here; perhaps that would be more up your alley.  Because history clearly isn't it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice babbling...
> 
> Here's something else you should read...Who oppressed the Blacks and believed in slavery>>>The Democratic Party...
> 
> Democratic Party Platform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> and then all the bigots became republicans after the Civil Rights Act.
> 
> you're welcome.
Click to expand...


Like Magic...or

The rise of the Democratic Party backed race baiters...


----------



## CrusaderFrank

In NYC, Democrats are closing the Charter Schools because they represent freedom from the Democrat Plantation. Additionally, the success of charter school students destroys the Demarxist narrative that po' black chillun just can't learn and need to be wards of the state


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Temper ..temper...you're obviously not thinking clearly, I'll get back with you when I have time to waste...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to think up new shit?
> 
> Lumpster I like you but your head's way up your ass here.  You've got an organization being responsible for a slavery system that started two hundred years before there was even a country, let alone any political parties in it; a slave trade that was finished and banned before that party was even organized; you don't have a clue when that party was actually founded or even what it's fucking name is.  You posted a timeline (82) that backs all this up, and you're still lost on Fantasy Island.  You start a troll thread with a single statement, no links, no nothing, not even grammatically operational, proceed to insult the first respondents who want it explained, which you can't, and now when you're called on it you throw it into reverse insisting it was a joke, and now you want extra time to think up some new fabrication.
> 
> There are hobby forums here; perhaps that would be more up your alley.  Because history clearly isn't it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ...I'm not forcing you to post in this thread, considering that you're a Democrat and you're pleased to be represented by liars, cheats and lawless representatives your outrage is rather humorous and outrageously hypocritical.
> 
> Here's something else you should read...Who oppressed the Blacks and believed in slavery>>>The Democratic Party...
> 
> btw... Yup, I supplied you with the link, southerners owned most of the slaves and they ended up being members of the Democratic Party.  (feel better now?)
> 
> Democratic Party Platform
Click to expand...


I'm not a Democrat (or Republican); I just freaking know how history works.  You really don't get to just make it up.  It's hard to believe any life form could be quite this obtusely ignorant but obviously history and logic are not your forte.  So fuck your ignorance and the strawmen they rode in on.  You have nothing here but a troll thread that should have been in the flame zone from the start.

Here's something you should read: anything.


----------



## mamooth

CrusaderFrank said:


> In NYC, Democrats are closing the Charter Schools because they represent freedom from the Democrat Plantation. Additionally, the success of charter school students destroys the Demarxist narrative that po' black chillun just can't learn and need to be wards of the state



Good work Frank. Keep telling blacks they're stupid and brainwashed. That's sure to get you more votes. After all, it's worked so well for you in the past.

Do you think Republicans should make it part of their official party platform to write off the votes of everyone except bitter old white males, or should they merely keep it as unofficial policy?


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still trying to think up new shit?
> 
> Lumpster I like you but your head's way up your ass here.  You've got an organization being responsible for a slavery system that started two hundred years before there was even a country, let alone any political parties in it; a slave trade that was finished and banned before that party was even organized; you don't have a clue when that party was actually founded or even what it's fucking name is.  You posted a timeline (82) that backs all this up, and you're still lost on Fantasy Island.  You start a troll thread with a single statement, no links, no nothing, not even grammatically operational, proceed to insult the first respondents who want it explained, which you can't, and now when you're called on it you throw it into reverse insisting it was a joke, and now you want extra time to think up some new fabrication.
> 
> There are hobby forums here; perhaps that would be more up your alley.  Because history clearly isn't it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...I'm not forcing you to post in this thread, considering that you're a Democrat and you're pleased to be represented by liars, cheats and lawless representatives your outrage is rather humorous and outrageously hypocritical.
> 
> Here's something else you should read...Who oppressed the Blacks and believed in slavery>>>The Democratic Party...
> 
> btw... Yup, I supplied you with the link, southerners owned most of the slaves and they ended up being members of the Democratic Party.  (feel better now?)
> 
> Democratic Party Platform
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a Democrat (or Republican); I just freaking know how history works.  You really don't get to just make it up.  It's hard to believe any life form could be quite this obtusely ignorant but obviously history and logic are not your forte.  So fuck your ignorance and the strawmen they rode in on.  You have nothing here but a troll thread that should have been in the flame zone from the start.
> 
> Here's something you should read: anything.
Click to expand...


Sooo you're a fence sitter with no preferences ...that's believable and historically honest ..

I guess you weren't .... feeling better now


----------



## jasonnfree

Lumpy 1 said:


> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?



Lumpy:  You might be right but how do you know for sure only democrats bought slaves?  Even George Washington and  Tom Jefferson owned slaves. Anyway, does it really matter now.  We are now all of us way different people than the people of the 1800's.


----------



## S.J.

jasonnfree said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy:  You might be right but how do you know for sure only democrats bought slaves?  Even George Washington and  Tom Jefferson owned slaves. Anyway, does it really matter now.  We are now all of us way different people than the people of the 1800's.
Click to expand...

Democrats are still the same, they've just changed their rhetoric.


----------



## Pogo

jasonnfree said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy:  You might be right but how do you know for sure only democrats bought slaves?  Even George Washington and  Tom Jefferson owned slaves. Anyway, does it really matter now.  We are now all of us way different people than the people of the 1800's.
Click to expand...


As several of us have demonstrated, "Democrats" hadn't been invented yet when the slave ships stopped sailing.  Some revisionistas are just not deterred by trivialities like, you know, linear time.


----------



## paperview




----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy:  You might be right but how do you know for sure only democrats bought slaves?  Even George Washington and  Tom Jefferson owned slaves. Anyway, does it really matter now.  We are now all of us way different people than the people of the 1800's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As several of us have demonstrated, "Democrats" hadn't been invented yet when the slave ships stopped sailing.  Some revisionistas are just not deterred by trivialities like, you know, linear time.
Click to expand...

Really?

History of the United States Democratic Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy:  You might be right but how do you know for sure only democrats bought slaves?  Even George Washington and  Tom Jefferson owned slaves. Anyway, does it really matter now.  We are now all of us way different people than the people of the 1800's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As several of us have demonstrated, "Democrats" hadn't been invented yet when the slave ships stopped sailing.  Some revisionistas are just not deterred by trivialities like, you know, linear time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> 
> History of the United States Democratic Party - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Really.  I laid it out here and I wasn't the first.  Perhaps you missed it while you were looking for racism in Fox Noise demographics.


----------



## S.J.

Democrats were pro slavery and Republicans were the ones who fought against it.  Can't change that fact.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Democrats were pro slavery and Republicans were the ones who fought against it.  Can't change that fact.



I'll be sure to let David Duke know.


----------



## S.J.

David Duke, Robert Byrd's buddy?


----------



## hunarcy

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were pro slavery and Republicans were the ones who fought against it.  Can't change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be sure to let David Duke know.
Click to expand...


David Duke already knows...he got kicked out of the Republican Party because of his racist views.  That never happened with Robert Byrd (just one example), did it?


----------



## Political Junky

hunarcy said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats were pro slavery and Republicans were the ones who fought against it.  Can't change that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be sure to let David Duke know.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Duke already knows...he got kicked out of the Republican Party because of his racist views.  That never happened with Robert Byrd (just one example), did it?
Click to expand...

When was David Duke thrown out of the Republican Party?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_duke


----------



## S.J.

Political Junky said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be sure to let David Duke know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke already knows...he got kicked out of the Republican Party because of his racist views.  That never happened with Robert Byrd (just one example), did it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was David Duke thrown out of the Republican Party?
> 
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

He was told he was not welcome in the party and would get no support from the RNC.  This happened right after he switched from being a Democrat.  No one can "force" him to not register in any particular party.


----------



## Political Junky

S.J. said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke already knows...he got kicked out of the Republican Party because of his racist views.  That never happened with Robert Byrd (just one example), did it?
> 
> 
> 
> When was David Duke thrown out of the Republican Party?
> 
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was told he was not welcome in the party and would get no support from the RNC.  This happened right after he switched from being a Democrat.  No one can "force" him to not register in any particular party.
Click to expand...

He ran as a republican in Louisiana. 

David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## paperview

Political Junky said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was David Duke thrown out of the Republican Party?
> 
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> He was told he was not welcome in the party and would get no support from the RNC.  This happened right after he switched from being a Democrat.  No one can "force" him to not register in any particular party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He ran as a republican in Louisiana.
> 
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

It's the only way he could win.

And win a seat in the state senate he did.


----------



## S.J.

Political Junky said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was David Duke thrown out of the Republican Party?
> 
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> He was told he was not welcome in the party and would get no support from the RNC.  This happened right after he switched from being a Democrat.  No one can "force" him to not register in any particular party.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He ran as a republican in Louisiana.
> 
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...

What's your point?  He's been publicly denounced by the GOP, what more can they do?


----------



## Political Junky

S.J. said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was told he was not welcome in the party and would get no support from the RNC.  This happened right after he switched from being a Democrat.  No one can "force" him to not register in any particular party.
> 
> 
> 
> He ran as a republican in Louisiana.
> 
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's your point?  He's been publicly denounced by the GOP, what more can they do?
Click to expand...

Do you have a link for that? I know he's been forbidden in several European countries.


----------



## S.J.

Political Junky said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> He ran as a republican in Louisiana.
> 
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?  He's been publicly denounced by the GOP, what more can they do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Do you have a link for that? I know he's been forbidden in several European countries.
Click to expand...

Here, take your pick.  And stop being lazy.

https://www.google.com/search?q=gop...8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8


----------



## Political Junky

S.J. said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?  He's been publicly denounced by the GOP, what more can they do?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that? I know he's been forbidden in several European countries.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Here, take your pick.  And stop being lazy.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=gop...8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
Click to expand...

Some republicans did denounce Duke, but the party did not.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke already knows...he got kicked out of the Republican Party because of his racist views.  That never happened with Robert Byrd (just one example), did it?
> 
> 
> 
> When was David Duke thrown out of the Republican Party?
> 
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He was told he was not welcome in the party and would get no support from the RNC.  This happened right after he switched from being a Democrat.  No one can "force" him to not register in any particular party.
Click to expand...


That's ironic -- the exact same thing happened to Ray Nagin in the other party direction.  You might mention that to Paulitician and 'splain how this works.

Then the two of you can go look up Edward L. Jackson Governor of Indiana.  You'll be glad you did.


----------



## hunarcy

Political Junky said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll be sure to let David Duke know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke already knows...he got kicked out of the Republican Party because of his racist views.  That never happened with Robert Byrd (just one example), did it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When was David Duke thrown out of the Republican Party?
> 
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


If you'd read your own link, you'd have seen it happened in 1991.  

Now, when was William Fulbright repudiated by the Democrats?  Jessie (Hymietown) Jackson?  Bill (this guy (Obama) would have been carrying our bags) Clinton?


----------



## Political Junky

hunarcy said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke already knows...he got kicked out of the Republican Party because of his racist views.  That never happened with Robert Byrd (just one example), did it?
> 
> 
> 
> When was David Duke thrown out of the Republican Party?
> 
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you'd read your own link, you'd have seen it happened in 1991.
> 
> Now, when was William Fulbright repudiated by the Democrats?  Jessie (Hymietown) Jackson?  Bill (this guy (Obama) would have been carrying our bags) Clinton?
Click to expand...

Edwards received 1,057,031 votes (61.2%). Duke's 671,009 votes represented 38.8% of the total. Duke claimed victory, saying: *"I won my constituency. I won 55% of the white vote." Exit polls confirmed that he had.[17]*
David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Lumpy 1

Political Junky said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have a link for that? I know he's been forbidden in several European countries.
> 
> 
> 
> Here, take your pick.  And stop being lazy.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=gop...8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Some republicans did denounce Duke, but the party did not.
Click to expand...



How many times did Robert Byrd win a Senate seat again?


----------



## hunarcy

Political Junky said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> When was David Duke thrown out of the Republican Party?
> 
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you'd read your own link, you'd have seen it happened in 1991.
> 
> Now, when was William Fulbright repudiated by the Democrats?  Jessie (Hymietown) Jackson?  Bill (this guy (Obama) would have been carrying our bags) Clinton?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Edwards received 1,057,031 votes (61.2%). Duke's 671,009 votes represented 38.8% of the total. Duke claimed victory, saying: *"I won my constituency. I won 55% of the white vote." Exit polls confirmed that he had.[17]*
> David Duke - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


Surely you think you have a point, right?  You think a minority of people in that district means the Republican Party didn't repudiate Duke, even though everyone knows it did?  You're weird, man.


----------



## longly

PaintMyHouse said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have that in English?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll take that as a no.
Click to expand...


I understand what he means. And he is right; the Democrat party is historically the party of slavery, where as the Republican party opposed slavery.


----------



## Lumpy 1

longly said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll take that as a no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I understand what he means. And he is right; the Democrat party is historically the party of slavery, where as the Republican party opposed slavery.
Click to expand...


Democrats have the ability to put their heads in the sand and their butts in the air..


----------



## regent

It's a hard job pinning slavery on the Democrats. I mean when did slavery begin, and who began importing slaves to the British colonies, and were there even Democrats or Republicans around at that time? In a way it's sort of like pinnng poverty on Republicans. Was there poverty before there were Republicans? The real question is why do Republicans believe people will believe something like this; what kind of people are Republicans hoping to convince with this sort of stuff that is so easy to see through.


----------



## freedombecki

Regent, Republicans are being routinely denigrated as racists by President Obama, when in fact, our party is the party of anti-slavery and pro-free people, regardless of color. Didn't you know that? We are against slavery, against inequality, and against bad stuff for minorities as well as majorities.

 We've been painted by Democrats, who opposed the Anti-Slavery Amendment, opposed the right of all men to vote in an amendment, and leaders against inequality in housing, schooling, real estate, and pay for jobs doing the same things. The calumny against Rupublicans is so thick, you can't cut it with a knife, because the press is not doing its job of simply publishing the truth, and not lying through omission. I'm sorry, but we are not in our hearts as Democrats routinely paint us in order to take the onus off their latest foray into abolishing the strength of civil rights as stated in the US Constitution.

 For example, it isn't fair to treat people who pay taxes on a different basis for any reason. Democrats who are wealthy require their base to ignore their wealth in order to paint Republicans, who work hard and earned their own way honestly, as filthy rich evil, which is not true. America has always traditionally been a country in which wealth was made possible by someone deciding to set goals to earn wealth by setting aside a little from each month's paycheck and investing it in people who are thought to be sincere in wanting an idea to succeed to make life better for other people. People vote with their paychecks for winning ideas as well as losing ones. Sometimes, you can't do what you want to do when one of your lesser ideas goes to the top of other people's popularity. Persecuting winners is not a founding American principle.

 Some of our Republicans are very weary of being lied about for every single little idea that crosses the Democrat power-grab spin room. I think you should see things for what they are.

 The KKK was comprised from Democrat Party committee meeting decisions. I cannot erase history because today's Democrats know that history does not favor their past decisions in quest for total power over all other human beings on this continent. If you erase the truth, you poison the well for decision-making in the future.

 Thank you.


----------



## natstew

The difference in today's Democrats and the 19th century Democrats is, today's Democrats removed the color barrier to slavery, they want everyone except the ruling elite to be slaves of the PARTY.


----------



## regent

freedombecki said:


> Regent, Republicans are being routinely denigrated as racists by President Obama, when in fact, our party is the party of anti-slavery and pro-free people, regardless of color. Didn't you know that? We are against slavery, against inequality, and against bad stuff for minorities as well as majorities.
> 
> We've been painted by Democrats, who opposed the Anti-Slavery Amendment, opposed the right of all men to vote in an amendment, and leaders against inequality in housing, schooling, real estate, and pay for jobs doing the same things. The calumny against Rupublicans is so thick, you can't cut it with a knife, because the press is not doing its job of simply publishing the truth, and not lying through omission. I'm sorry, but we are not in our hearts as Democrats routinely paint us in order to take the onus off their latest foray into abolishing the strength of civil rights as stated in the US Constitution.
> 
> For example, it isn't fair to treat people who pay taxes on a different basis for any reason. Democrats who are wealthy require their base to ignore their wealth in order to paint Republicans, who work hard and earned their own way honestly, as filthy rich evil, which is not true. America has always traditionally been a country in which wealth was made possible by someone deciding to set goals to earn wealth by setting aside a little from each month's paycheck and investing it in people who are thought to be sincere in wanting an idea to succeed to make life better for other people. People vote with their paychecks for winning ideas as well as losing ones. Sometimes, you can't do what you want to do when one of your lesser ideas goes to the top of other people's popularity. Persecuting winners is not a founding American principle.
> 
> Some of our Republicans are very weary of being lied about for every single little idea that crosses the Democrat power-grab spin room. I think you should see things for what they are.
> 
> The KKK was comprised from Democrat Party committee meeting decisions. I cannot erase history because today's Democrats know that history does not favor their past decisions in quest for total power over all other human beings on this continent. If you erase the truth, you poison the well for decision-making in the future.
> 
> QUOTE] Good post, and perhaps our problem is that we use the words Republican and Democrat, when liberal-conservative would be more fitting? There is racism in the US and groups of people seem to support that racism and it's true that at one time most racism was to be found in the Democratic party.
> The racists found the party of Lincoln distatesful so the "solid south" voted Democratic and held key postitions in the Democratic party. Then in the Thirties the Democratic party began easing racism out of the party. Losing all those votes from the Solid South meant a lot to lose but it was done. The racists now had a problem where to go politically, they tried creating their own party and that didn't work so where did they go?


----------



## Political Junky

Lumpy 1 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here, take your pick.  And stop being lazy.
> 
> https://www.google.com/search?q=gop...8&sourceid=chrome&espv=210&es_sm=122&ie=UTF-8
> 
> 
> 
> Some republicans did denounce Duke, but the party did not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How many times did Robert Byrd win a Senate seat again?
Click to expand...

In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also:* "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck.* Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[21] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel vision&#8212;a jejune and immature outlook&#8212;seeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[22] *Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[11]
*
Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

David Duke has never apologized for his membership in the KKK.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Political Junky said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some republicans did denounce Duke, but the party did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times did Robert Byrd win a Senate seat again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also:* "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck.* Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[21] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel visiona jejune and immature outlookseeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[22] *Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[11]
> *
> Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> David Duke has never apologized for his membership in the KKK.
Click to expand...


I don't accept Byrd's excuses or apologies, he obvious made them for his own selfish political ambitions, that is made obvious by your quotes.


----------



## regent

Lumpy 1 said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times did Robert Byrd win a Senate seat again?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also:* "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck.* Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[21] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel visiona jejune and immature outlookseeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[22] *Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[11]
> *
> Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> David Duke has never apologized for his membership in the KKK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't accept Byrd's excuses or apologies, he obvious made them for his own selfish political ambitions, that is made obvious by your quotes.
Click to expand...


Whatever Byrd's reasons for changing he seemed to have changed. Even America seems to have changed and is still changing. In just my lifetime I have witnessed a number of changes, racial, sexual, and so forth.


----------



## Pogo

regent said:


> It's a hard job pinning slavery on the Democrats. I mean when did slavery begin, and who began importing slaves to the British colonies, and were there even Democrats or Republicans around at that time? In a way it's sort of like pinnng poverty on Republicans. Was there poverty before there were Republicans? The real question is why do Republicans believe people will believe something like this; what kind of people are Republicans hoping to convince with this sort of stuff that is so easy to see through.



It's really not that "Republicans" are hoping to convince with this sort of stuff; it's more that narrowminded history-hater demagogues like the OP are.  This faction that wants to paint everybody into an us/them scenario poison our discourse, apparently with the goal of eliminating everybody who's not in lockstep with them, so that they can end up with a one-party monolithic state with no dissent whatsoever.

Obviously in order to do that you have to employ blanket generalizations and pretend that history is static, and pretend that the values of 2014 are the same as the values of 1945, are the same values as those of 1863 and so on, and further assume that being a "Republican" or a "Democrat" means the same thing today as it meant in 1945 or in 1863.  Which is obviously insane.  We know that attitudes toward the KKK were hardly the same in 1945 as sixty or even twenty years later.  We know that David Duke is a racist and Abe Lincoln was not; we know that Woodrow Wilson was a racist while Bill Clinton isn't.  Clearly there's no correlation, but those of limited rhetorical skills like to pretend.

I for one wouldn't want a world with only one side where nobody ever questioned anything.  Maybe that 's just me.


----------



## freedombecki

regent said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Regent, Republicans are being routinely denigrated as racists by President Obama, when in fact, our party is the party of anti-slavery and pro-free people, regardless of color. Didn't you know that? We are against slavery, against inequality, and against bad stuff for minorities as well as majorities.
> 
> We've been painted by Democrats, who opposed the Anti-Slavery Amendment, opposed the right of all men to vote in an amendment, and leaders against inequality in housing, schooling, real estate, and pay for jobs doing the same things. The calumny against Rupublicans is so thick, you can't cut it with a knife, because the press is not doing its job of simply publishing the truth, and not lying through omission. I'm sorry, but we are not in our hearts as Democrats routinely paint us in order to take the onus off their latest foray into abolishing the strength of civil rights as stated in the US Constitution.
> 
> For example, it isn't fair to treat people who pay taxes on a different basis for any reason. Democrats who are wealthy require their base to ignore their wealth in order to paint Republicans, who work hard and earned their own way honestly, as filthy rich evil, which is not true. America has always traditionally been a country in which wealth was made possible by someone deciding to set goals to earn wealth by setting aside a little from each month's paycheck and investing it in people who are thought to be sincere in wanting an idea to succeed to make life better for other people. People vote with their paychecks for winning ideas as well as losing ones. Sometimes, you can't do what you want to do when one of your lesser ideas goes to the top of other people's popularity. Persecuting winners is not a founding American principle.
> 
> Some of our Republicans are very weary of being lied about for every single little idea that crosses the Democrat power-grab spin room. I think you should see things for what they are.
> 
> The KKK was comprised from Democrat Party committee meeting decisions. I cannot erase history because today's Democrats know that history does not favor their past decisions in quest for total power over all other human beings on this continent. If you erase the truth, you poison the well for decision-making in the future.
> 
> QUOTE] Good post, and perhaps our problem is that we use the words Republican and Democrat, when liberal-conservative would be more fitting? There is racism in the US and groups of people seem to support that racism and it's true that at one time most racism was to be found in the Democratic party.
> The racists found the party of Lincoln distatesful so the "solid south" voted Democratic and held key postitions in the Democratic party. Then in the Thirties the Democratic party began easing racism out of the party. Losing all those votes from the Solid South meant a lot to lose but it was done. The racists now had a problem where to go politically, they tried creating their own party and that didn't work so where did they go?
> 
> 
> 
> Someplace else when announcing racist propositions. The Republicans at home respond quite unhappily to extremist racists, considering their reasons for being Republicans was first to see to it there was an equanimity for every race and clan represented at the political and business arenas of the land.
> 
> Some people take this to mean we are racists for avoiding reverse racism in this equanimity. We are for equality. It is up to each individual to strive to be the best that he or she can be. We support this in people. We do not vote a second time for one who perpetrates racial hatred, anti-Semitism, or those who would cause a person to lose his equality based on ethnicity or race, or on gender, or on family, or on religion.
> 
> As a consequence, racists leave the Republican party when they realize intolerance for race is not tolerated for long. So they leave, doing as much damage as possible, heralded by the press which has become a leftist institution in this day and age. Some of those RINOs even go so far as to publicly put lipstick on their racism and call it something else in order to split off a certain number of other Republicans in revenge to other groups. Others pretend to be Republicans or right-wingers, but voice hatred at Republicans for 95% of Republican decisions.
Click to expand...


----------



## S.J.

Political Junky said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some republicans did denounce Duke, but the party did not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many times did Robert Byrd win a Senate seat again?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also:* "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck.* Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[21] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel visiona jejune and immature outlookseeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[22] *Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[11]
> *
> Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> David Duke has never apologized for his membership in the KKK.
Click to expand...

What the hell do you expect Byrd to say, "I'm a devout racist and that's why I joined the KKK"?


----------



## Political Junky

S.J. said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many times did Robert Byrd win a Senate seat again?
> 
> 
> 
> In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also:* "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck.* Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[21] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel visiona jejune and immature outlookseeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[22] *Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[11]
> *
> Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> David Duke has never apologized for his membership in the KKK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What the hell do you expect Byrd to say, "I'm a devout racist and that's why I joined the KKK"?
Click to expand...

David Duke still says that he is a racist.


----------



## freedombecki

jasonnfree said:


> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings. Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people. Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.
> 
> Liberals did not want the slaves freed. Liberals did not want equal rights. The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know. They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites. The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power. Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed. They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.
> 
> Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you put Hitler in there as a liberal. Don't give up on Hitler so easily. He had a lot to be admired by modern american conservatives. He hated unions, intellectuals , homosexuals and Negroes.
Click to expand...

Wow, that broad paintbrush misses the facts: Republicans accept the work of the early unions good when it promoted equality. Republicans founded colleges that produced intellectuals from profits earned and good will toward all. Many Republicans who work hard to make a business came from intellectual backgrounds and can go toe to toe with the best journalists in the industry, because we earned street savvy the hard way. Log Cabin Republicans are in our party and don't buy the MSM/Democrat Party baloney that we are somehow hateful to homosexuals because we think marriage is an institution of agreement between a man and a woman to raise a family together and pledge fidelity to one another.

 Republicans were horrified at the treatment of Matthew Shepherd who was a student at Laramie, the University of Wyoming, when he was murdered by two homophobic individuals who are each serving a life sentence in Rawlins Prison to this day for that crime. Democrats used the incident to attempt to change Wyoming State Law to favor homosexual men and women, but the Legislature decided a maximum sentence for a crime such as life without the possibility of parole was as stiff as it gets for any crime, and refused to be pushed by the national one-world way. Republicans are for equality under the law, and the harshest life sentence is enough so that the crime has not been repeated in the state, to the best of my knowledge.

 The trouble with equality is knowing where it begins and ends. Some people learn it only to suit themselves. Equality in the law goes hand in hand with justice being blind. It takes work to keep things even. We believe the American system does that, but if it is changed to suit every extremist, ignores the Middle Class, so we do not feel we should change that in any way, since it is a founding principle, this concept of equality. The crimes  against Matthew Shepherd were committed by teenagers. It isn't fitting to hang a teenager, because that's the time of life if people are going to do inappropriate behaviors, it's most often done before the age of 21. It also just isn't fitting to kill a person who has the mentality of a child, and Wyoming had already meted out the maximum sentence that could be given to occupy the rest of a criminal life for such an egregious crime, although at least one of the perpetrators had a double-digit iq on the low scale, and one was only a few points lower than a normal intelligence.

 If you think Republicans "admire" Hitler because he hated blacks, you must not realize that the Republican Party began in Presbyterian Church Parlors in which a law against slavery was being formulated several years prior to the election won by Republican Abraham Lincoln. And it didn't stop with Presbyterians and Quaker Friends! But the work of antislavery didn't end, and to this day, Republicans still have the same regard for such notions as slavery, and so do the majority of Americans nowadays.

 But the Democrats have gone too for perpetrating this yarn, which history dispels as current politically iniquitous exaggeration and precocious power-grabbing.


----------



## S.J.

Political Junky said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also:* "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck.* Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[21] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel visiona jejune and immature outlookseeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[22] *Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[11]
> *
> Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> David Duke has never apologized for his membership in the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell do you expect Byrd to say, "I'm a devout racist and that's why I joined the KKK"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Duke still says that he is a racist.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and???


----------



## Luissa

Lumpy 1 said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
Click to expand...



Slaves came to the US as early as 1619, long before the Democratic Party was formed. Yes, they were Pro Slavery but there is nothing exclusive in their Shame . You might also want to open up a history book, google the Whig party, Zachary Taylor(for starters), and not be an idiot. 
Democrats owned slaves, my ancestors owned slaves and were in the KKK, that says nothing about me. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## Luissa

And news flash, Bryd is dead. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## paperview

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry...



Slavers.


----------



## freedombecki

paperview said:


> George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry...
> 
> Slavers.


Slavers are those who brought slaves on ships. By the time that passed between 1619 when the first known slaves arrived on European-flag ships until the Civil War, people who owned slaves were brought up in homes that had them. In fact, all of the above opposed slavery but yielded to pressure from Southern States who'd also been denied civil rights by King George of England. Benjamin Franklin shilled for slaves becoming free men in 1776 along with other American founders. None of them thought slavery was fair, but they needed the other southern states. Please eschew making judgments on men whose backgrounds are little known except for those who've studied their individual diaries as biographies. This nation would appreciate it.

Slavery is a horror to many free people, a relief to people who do not wish to make hard choices with a willingness to get out there and fend for themselves. None of the founders fit your alleged and broad-stroked paradigm of them, and many of the slaves hated their circumstance. Many more did not because it was much easier to do the do and get well fed for it than fight for who knew what. That has not disbursed one iota in all ethnicities who make up modern America. The silly child in most of us would have somebody else do the math and be free from worries.

[ame="http://youtu.be/d-diB65scQU"]Bobby McFerrin - Don't Worry Be Happy - YouTube[/ame]

Only in America: can we have it all?


----------



## Esmeralda

Duped said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  I read it several times and I can usually work out right-wing gibberish but not this one.  He's a master of it apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take your partisian blinders off: Dems started the slave trade, but cast the blame on others.
> 
> The liberal controllers are wolfs, the blacks are sheep unless they are enlightened - then they are " uncle toms " and every other castigation!
Click to expand...


----------



## paperview

freedombecki said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry...
> 
> Slavers.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavers are those who brought slaves on ships.
> ...
Click to expand...


I stopped right there.


slav·er1
&#712;sl&#257;v&#601;r/
_noun__historical_

plural noun: *slavers*
*1*. 
*a person dealing in or owning slaves.*


----------



## freedombecki

And then American society has its share of fatalists...

 [ame=http://youtu.be/4Sdfwan5tMw]Sounds Orchestral Cast Your Fate To The Wind - YouTube[/ame]

 And do-gooders...

 [ame=http://youtu.be/8ehFg66qpyo]Dr. Seuss' Horton Hatches the Egg Audio Book - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## freedombecki

paperview said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Benjamin Franklin, John Hancock, Patrick Henry...
> 
> Slavers.
> 
> 
> 
> Slavers are those who brought slaves on ships.
> ...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I stopped right there.
> 
> 
> slav·er1
> &#712;sl&#257;v&#601;r/
> _noun__historical_
> 
> plural noun: *slavers*
> *1*.
> *a person dealing in or owning slaves.*
Click to expand...

 
Technically, the language is being changed by those who want to smear the owners whose lives were basically inherited from earlier people who grew to depend upon slavery as a means of prosperity. The situation was as indentured as the slaves were, who were selected by African princes to be deported due to clan, personal, or competitive differences.

In my book, a slaver is one who trades in slaves. An owner is one who owns slaves, often by 1776, these slaves were owned by their parents, and they were raised into a kind of entitlement, a word we're hearing a lot of lately. 

Here's my dictionary's understanding of the word as a noun:



> *3slav·er*
> 
> _noun_ \&#712;sl&#257;-v&#601;r\
> *Definition of SLAVER*
> 
> 1
> _a_ *:* a ship used in the slave trade
> _b_ *:* a person engaged in the slave trade
> 
> 2
> *:* white slaver
> 
> *Origin of SLAVER*
> 
> _1slave_ First Known Use: 1827


 I stick by my dictionary's use of the word. I've been using it since 1960 when I won over people 6 years older than me the all-school Charles Palmer Davis current events award.

Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slaver


----------



## paperview

freedombecki said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavers are those who brought slaves on ships.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped right there.
> 
> 
> slav·er1
> &#712;sl&#257;v&#601;r/
> _noun__historical_
> 
> plural noun: *slavers*
> *1*.
> *a person dealing in or owning slaves.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically, the language is being changed by those who want to smear the owners whose lives were basically inherited from earlier people who grew to depend upon slavery as a means of prosperity. The situation was as indentured as the slaves were, who were selected by African princes to be deported due to clan, personal, or competitive differences.
> 
> In my book, a slaver is one who trades in slaves. An owner is one who owns slaves, often by 1776,* these slaves were owned by their parents, and they were raised into a kind of entitlement, a word we're hearing a lot of lately. *
Click to expand...


Holy fucking shit!

What the actual hell???




> Here's my dictionary's understanding of the word as a noun:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3slav·er*
> 
> _noun_ \&#712;sl&#257;-v&#601;r\
> *Definition of SLAVER*
> 
> 1
> _a_ *:* a ship used in the slave trade
> _b_ *:* a person engaged in the slave trade
> 
> 2
> *:* white slaver
> 
> *Origin of SLAVER*
> 
> _1slave_ First Known Use: 1827
> 
> 
> 
> I stick by my dictionary's use of the word. I've been using it since 1960 when I won over people 6 years older than me the all-school Charles Palmer Davis current events award.
> 
> Reference: Slaver - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Click to expand...

Poster unwittingly kills her premise.

In 1808, it was no long legal to purchase slaves from ships from Africa.

The Democratic party had not even been formed   until a few decades later.


----------



## Luissa

freedombecki said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slavers are those who brought slaves on ships.
> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I stopped right there.
> 
> 
> slav·er1
> &#712;sl&#257;v&#601;r/
> _noun__historical_
> 
> plural noun: *slavers*
> *1*.
> *a person dealing in or owning slaves.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Technically, the language is being changed by those who want to smear the owners whose lives were basically inherited from earlier people who grew to depend upon slavery as a means of prosperity. The situation was as indentured as the slaves were, who were selected by African princes to be deported due to clan, personal, or competitive differences.
> 
> In my book, a slaver is one who trades in slaves. An owner is one who owns slaves, often by 1776, these slaves were owned by their parents, and they were raised into a kind of entitlement, a word we're hearing a lot of lately.
> 
> Here's my dictionary's understanding of the word as a noun:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *3slav·er*
> 
> _noun_ \&#712;sl&#257;-v&#601;r\
> *Definition of SLAVER*
> 
> 1
> _a_ *:* a ship used in the slave trade
> _b_ *:* a person engaged in the slave trade
> 
> 2
> *:* white slaver
> 
> *Origin of SLAVER*
> 
> _1slave_ First Known Use: 1827
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I stick by my dictionary's use of the word. I've been using it since 1960 when I won over people 6 years older than me the all-school Charles Palmer Davis current events award.
> 
> Reference: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slaver
Click to expand...



The first known use is 20 years after the slave trade ended in the US?
And how does a current events award in 1960 have to do with the Slave trade? I think it was history by then, not a current event. 
The term probably did start out that way, but the broadening of it probably has nothing to do with "smearing" the reputation of slave owners. Like many terms, it probably evolved. 
As for your link, me pointing out the year it states it was first used is proof the word most likely evolved. The word had to be used before, and most likely became a slang term 20 years after "slavers" were not allowed to trade Africans in the US. 

Oh! And God forbid we smear the reputations of slave owners. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## Luissa

Duped said:


> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  I read it several times and I can usually work out right-wing gibberish but not this one.  He's a master of it apparently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Take your partisian blinders off: Dems started the slave trade, but cast the blame on others.
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal controllers are wolfs, the blacks are sheep unless they are enlightened - then they are " uncle toms " and every other castigation!
Click to expand...



How did dems start the slave trade when the slave trade ended in the US almost 20 years before the party was formed? With it starting in the US before it was it's own country. 
I do love right wing revisionist history. Lol 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## Pogo

Luissa said:


> Duped said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> I understand.  I read it several times and I can usually work out right-wing gibberish but not this one.  He's a master of it apparently.
> 
> 
> 
> Take your partisian blinders off: Dems started the slave trade, but cast the blame on others.
> 
> 
> 
> The liberal controllers are wolfs, the blacks are sheep unless they are enlightened - then they are " uncle toms " and every other castigation!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> How did dems start the slave trade when the slave trade ended in the US almost 20 years before the party was formed? With it starting in the US before it was it's own country.
> I do love right wing revisionist history. Lol
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Click to expand...


Yeah, you have to suspend the concept of linear time in order to get that to work -- which the OP is amazingly willing to do.  

Another perspective to add to Becki's background is that centuries ago slavery was a worldwide practice: there were Africans enslaving other Africans, there were Native Americans enslaving other Native Americans; and there were Europeans enslaving other Europeans, all as a kind of booty of conquest.  It's only when slaves began to get exported around the 15th century that not only the concept of slave trade began, but even the concept of race.  Before that there wasn't even a concept of "Europe".


----------



## jillian

Luissa said:


> How did dems start the slave trade when the slave trade ended in the US almost 20 years before the party was formed? With it starting in the US before it was it's own country.
> I do love right wing revisionist history. Lol
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.



yeah, that's a pretty neat trick... 

they must be doing the time warp to get to that one.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Eh yeah whiners, Southerners had slaves and they ended up voting Democratic Party .... and there's a substantiation history of Democratic racism..Democrats are the party of racists.

If the best you can do is whine about a few years while the Democratic Party was developing and you can rationalize away your racist history, well, so what's new...



I suppose I could have said this instead, to make y'all happy....

Why do Democrats include others when their "direct ancestors" bought the African Slaves in the first place?


----------



## Victory67

If the Democrats are the party of Slavery, then the Republicans are the party that burned down The South and subverted the Constitutional process with the 14th Amendment's ratification.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Victory67 said:


> If the Democrats are the party of Slavery, then the Republicans are the party that burned down The South and subverted the Constitutional process with the 14th Amendment's ratification.



Here's a link to study up on the Fourteenth Amendment...

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Luissa

Lumpy 1 said:


> Eh yeah whiners, Southerners had slaves and they ended up voting Democratic Party .... and there's a substantiation history of Democratic racism..Democrats are the party of racists.
> 
> 
> 
> If the best you can do is whine about a few years while the Democratic Party was developing and you can rationalize away your racist history, well, so what's new...




^^^^ ignores history and facts. 

Yes, democrats owned slaves. No they were not the original slavers. Yes, slavery ended 150+ years ago. Bryd is also dead, and democrats don't control most southern states today. Can we move on now?


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Luissa said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eh yeah whiners, Southerners had slaves and they ended up voting Democratic Party .... and there's a substantiation history of Democratic racism..Democrats are the party of racists.
> 
> 
> 
> If the best you can do is whine about a few years while the Democratic Party was developing and you can rationalize away your racist history, well, so what's new...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^ ignores history and facts.
> 
> Yes, democrats owned slaves. No they were not the original slavers. Yes, slavery ended 150+ years ago. Bryd is also dead, and democrats don't control most southern states today. Can we move on now?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Click to expand...


You are welcome to move-on or put your head in the sand or who knows what..

..as long as the Democrats push this racist nonsense with their party backed race baiting professionals the country will never heal..


----------



## S.J.

Luissa said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eh yeah whiners, Southerners had slaves and they ended up voting Democratic Party .... and there's a substantiation history of Democratic racism..Democrats are the party of racists.
> 
> 
> 
> If the best you can do is whine about a few years while the Democratic Party was developing and you can rationalize away your racist history, well, so what's new...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^ ignores history and facts.
> 
> Yes, democrats owned slaves. No they were not the original slavers. Yes, slavery ended 150+ years ago. *Bryd is also dead*, and democrats don't control most southern states today. Can we move on now?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Click to expand...

Yes, he's dead, but the Democrats embraced him and had nothing but praise for him until he died.


----------



## Luissa

S.J. said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eh yeah whiners, Southerners had slaves and they ended up voting Democratic Party .... and there's a substantiation history of Democratic racism..Democrats are the party of racists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the best you can do is whine about a few years while the Democratic Party was developing and you can rationalize away your racist history, well, so what's new...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^ ignores history and facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, democrats owned slaves. No they were not the original slavers. Yes, slavery ended 150+ years ago. *Bryd is also dead*, and democrats don't control most southern states today. Can we move on now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, he's dead, but the Democrats embraced him and had nothing but praise for him until he died.
Click to expand...



Yes, Dems like him praised him, then later praised him for denouncing the KKK and racial intolerance. Good thing we get wiser with age. 
I condemn his past, and I think it is great he reformed his views. Your point? 
Good thing the democrats changed their views on segregation and slavery. Of course we could keep bringing up the past, and also make up history as we go, that is fun too. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## S.J.

Luissa said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> ^^^^ ignores history and facts.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, democrats owned slaves. No they were not the original slavers. Yes, slavery ended 150+ years ago. *Bryd is also dead*, and democrats don't control most southern states today. Can we move on now?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he's dead, but the Democrats embraced him and had nothing but praise for him until he died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Dems like him praised him, then later praised him for denouncing the KKK and racial intolerance. Good thing we get wiser with age.
> I condemn his past, and I think it is great he reformed his views. Your point?
> Good thing the democrats changed their views on segregation and slavery. Of course we could keep bringing up the past, and also make up history as we go, that is fun too.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Click to expand...

He didn't reform his views, he received the KKK newsletter the whole time he was denouncing them (not that it would matter to you).


----------



## Luissa

S.J. said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he's dead, but the Democrats embraced him and had nothing but praise for him until he died.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Dems like him praised him, then later praised him for denouncing the KKK and racial intolerance. Good thing we get wiser with age.
> 
> I condemn his past, and I think it is great he reformed his views. Your point?
> 
> Good thing the democrats changed their views on segregation and slavery. Of course we could keep bringing up the past, and also make up history as we go, that is fun too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He didn't reform his views, he received the KKK newsletter the whole time he was denouncing them (not that it would matter to you).
Click to expand...



It really doesn't. I didn't follow him too much when he was alive, and I especially don't care now that he is dead. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## Luissa

Do you have proof of your statement? 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Democrats are the party of Slavery, then the Republicans are the party that burned down The South and subverted the Constitutional process with the 14th Amendment's ratification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a link to study up on the Fourteenth Amendment...
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Click to expand...


A _*link*_ -- from the anti-historians who places the Democratic party in control of building the Pyramids 

Can't make this stuff up.

Hey Lumpy -- The Republic Party [sic] invented the bubonic plague.  Deal with it.


----------



## S.J.

Luissa said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Dems like him praised him, then later praised him for denouncing the KKK and racial intolerance. Good thing we get wiser with age.
> 
> I condemn his past, and I think it is great he reformed his views. Your point?
> 
> Good thing the democrats changed their views on segregation and slavery. Of course we could keep bringing up the past, and also make up history as we go, that is fun too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't reform his views, he received the KKK newsletter the whole time he was denouncing them (not that it would matter to you).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> *It really doesn't. I didn't follow him too much when he was alive, and I especially don't care now that he is dead.*
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Click to expand...

Just like I predicted.  Nothing matters to you except that he had a "D" after his name.  He could be a child murderer and you wouldn't care as long as he's a Democrat.  Thank you for confirming.


----------



## Luissa

S.J. said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't reform his views, he received the KKK newsletter the whole time he was denouncing them (not that it would matter to you).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It really doesn't. I didn't follow him too much when he was alive, and I especially don't care now that he is dead.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just like I predicted.  Nothing matters to you except that he had a "D" after his name.  He could be a child murderer and you wouldn't care as long as he's a Democrat.  Thank you for confirming.
Click to expand...



Actually that has nothing to do with it. I just don't care. Which is why I don't care too much about what dead republicans did. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## S.J.

Luissa said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It really doesn't. I didn't follow him too much when he was alive, and I especially don't care now that he is dead.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I predicted.  Nothing matters to you except that he had a "D" after his name.  He could be a child murderer and you wouldn't care as long as he's a Democrat.  Thank you for confirming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that has nothing to do with it. I just don't care. Which is why I don't care too much about what dead republicans did.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Click to expand...

You represent the ignorance of most Democrats.  Thank you, once again, and please keep posting.


----------



## jon_berzerk

nothing like making millions of once self supporting individuals 

dependent on government subsidies to afford health care 

where will it end 

when the whole of the country is one big reservation 

where the government promises to take of your every need 

and delivers on little if any 

Pine Ridge Indian Reservation Picture | South Dakota Native American Reservation is One of Nation's Poorest - ABC News


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> He didn't reform his views, he received the KKK newsletter the whole time he was denouncing them (not that it would matter to you).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *It really doesn't. I didn't follow him too much when he was alive, and I especially don't care now that he is dead.*
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Just like I predicted.  Nothing matters to you except that he had a "D" after his name.  He could be a child murderer and you wouldn't care as long as he's a Democrat.  Thank you for confirming.
Click to expand...


Apparently you're the one(s) counting letters -- it's the only pseudo-point you simpletons seem capable of articulating.

The fact is, racists exist and have existed, in sufficient numbers to make them targets for political exploitation by any political movement that could make hay out of them -- whether that was in the old daze when the "solid South" meant a Democratic stronghold where Republican influence was all but nonexistent, or in our modern era when the "Southern Strategy" where the exact opposite is the case.

Does that make either of those parties "racist" by nature, even within their own time?

Actually no, it doesn't.  It makes both of them _opportunists_ in those times.  The racists aren't the knights in that dynamic; they're the _pawns_.  

As for how and why these events got started, in the middle of the 19th Century the Whigs were dead; the Republican Party had only been formed in 1854, and six years later the war erupted with the first Republican President, who vanquished the South in a deeply traumatic national wound.  Now think about it -- with what party would you expect the vanquished to go with in that situation -- the Greens?

Racism/opportunism: know the difference.


----------



## Luissa

S.J. said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I predicted.  Nothing matters to you except that he had a "D" after his name.  He could be a child murderer and you wouldn't care as long as he's a Democrat.  Thank you for confirming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that has nothing to do with it. I just don't care. Which is why I don't care too much about what dead republicans did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You represent the ignorance of most Democrats.  Thank you, once again, and please keep posting.
Click to expand...



I am not a democrat. 
What ignorance? Because I am not stuck in the past. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## S.J.

Pogo said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It really doesn't. I didn't follow him too much when he was alive, and I especially don't care now that he is dead.*
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I predicted.  Nothing matters to you except that he had a "D" after his name.  He could be a child murderer and you wouldn't care as long as he's a Democrat.  Thank you for confirming.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you're the one(s) counting letters -- it's the only pseudo-point you simpletons seem capable of articulating.
> 
> The fact is, racists exist and have existed, in sufficient numbers to make them targets for political exploitation by any political movement that could make hay out of them -- whether that was in the old daze when the "solid South" meant a Democratic stronghold where Republican influence was all but nonexistent, or in our modern era when the "Southern Strategy" where the exact opposite is the case.
> 
> Does that make either of those parties "racist" by nature, even within their own time?
> 
> Actually no, it doesn't.  It makes both of them _opportunists_ in those times.  The racists aren't the knights in that dynamic; they're the _pawns_.
> 
> As for how and why these events got started, in the middle of the 19th Century the Whigs were dead; the Republican Party had only been formed in 1854, and six years later the war erupted with the first Republican President, who vanquished the South in a deeply traumatic national wound.  Now think about it -- with what party would you expect the vanquished to go with in that situation -- the Greens?
> 
> Racism/opportunism: know the difference.
Click to expand...

Look who's defending racists.


----------



## Luissa

S.J. said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just like I predicted.  Nothing matters to you except that he had a "D" after his name.  He could be a child murderer and you wouldn't care as long as he's a Democrat.  Thank you for confirming.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you're the one(s) counting letters -- it's the only pseudo-point you simpletons seem capable of articulating.
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, racists exist and have existed, in sufficient numbers to make them targets for political exploitation by any political movement that could make hay out of them -- whether that was in the old daze when the "solid South" meant a Democratic stronghold where Republican influence was all but nonexistent, or in our modern era when the "Southern Strategy" where the exact opposite is the case.
> 
> 
> 
> Does that make either of those parties "racist" by nature, even within their own time?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually no, it doesn't.  It makes both of them _opportunists_ in those times.  The racists aren't the knights in that dynamic; they're the _pawns_.
> 
> 
> 
> As for how and why these events got started, in the middle of the 19th Century the Whigs were dead; the Republican Party had only been formed in 1854, and six years later the war erupted with the first Republican President, who vanquished the South in a deeply traumatic national wound.  Now think about it -- with what party would you expect the vanquished to go with in that situation -- the Greens?
> 
> 
> 
> Racism/opportunism: know the difference.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Look who's defending racists.
Click to expand...



Such an idiot. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Victory67 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the Democrats are the party of Slavery, then the Republicans are the party that burned down The South and subverted the Constitutional process with the 14th Amendment's ratification.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a link to study up on the Fourteenth Amendment...
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A _*link*_ -- from the anti-historians who places the Democratic party in control of building the Pyramids
> 
> Can't make this stuff up.
> 
> Hey Lumpy -- The Republic Party [sic] invented the bubonic plague.  Deal with it.
Click to expand...


I find your little tantrum humorous...The visual includes you stamping your tiny feet and sniveling like a 3 year old girl...Thanks


----------



## Lumpy 1

Luissa said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually that has nothing to do with it. I just don't care. Which is why I don't care too much about what dead republicans did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You represent the ignorance of most Democrats.  Thank you, once again, and please keep posting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a democrat.
> What ignorance? Because I am not stuck in the past.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Click to expand...


Embrace your Democrat-ism..I do understand your embarrassment though...


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a link to study up on the Fourteenth Amendment...
> 
> Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A _*link*_ -- from the anti-historians who places the Democratic party in control of building the Pyramids
> 
> Can't make this stuff up.
> 
> Hey Lumpy -- The Republic Party [sic] invented the bubonic plague.  Deal with it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I find your little tantrum humorous...The visual includes you stamping your tiny feet and sniveling like a 3 year old girl...Thanks
Click to expand...


 

And I envy your power of imagination, if not your inability to channel it.  More than that I envy your charmingly flippant disregard of factual history.  I'm sure that saves a _ton_ of work. 

But no worries, the rest of us will continue to fix your fables and fill in context.  _Somebody's_ gotta do it; obviously it's over your head. 

"Mo-om! They're throwing facts again!!"
What a whiner.


----------



## Luissa

Lumpy 1 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> You represent the ignorance of most Democrats.  Thank you, once again, and please keep posting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a democrat.
> 
> What ignorance? Because I am not stuck in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Embrace your Democrat-ism..I do understand your embarrassment though...
Click to expand...



I am not a democrat. 
But I do know the history of slavery. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## Pogo

Luissa said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a democrat.
> 
> What ignorance? Because I am not stuck in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Embrace your Democrat-ism..I do understand your embarrassment though...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I am not a democrat.
> But I do know the history of slavery.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Click to expand...


If only there were some kind of, I dunno, "internet" or something -- you know, some place where _anybody_ could look this kind of stuff up before embarrassing himself...


----------



## rdean

PaintMyHouse said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PaintMyHouse said:
> 
> 
> 
> *It's what you're not saying that's the problem.*  These black people are being lied to, and they are too stupid to discover it, and therefore they are voting for the wrong party right?
> 
> Why is it so hard for you to say that?  If I tell you I vote for this guy instead of this other guy because the first one gives me free stuff, aren't I being stupid?  That's what these blacks do you said, vote for the guy who gives them stuff, which is stupid right?
> 
> 
> 
> You mean you can't get me to say what you want me to say?  Believe me, if what you think I meant were true, I would say it.  I don't need you to say if for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> But you have said it. just not in so many words.  When you say blacks have been duped because they vote for the Dems, it means that you are saying they are STUPID, even if you aren't honest enough to just say it.
> 
> When you say they vote for people who give them stuff that is also saying they are stupid.  Keep it in mind.
Click to expand...


They don't even know they sound racist when they sound racist.

If you really want to confuse them, ask if Lincoln was a "Confederate".  Ask why Southern Governors push for "Confederate History Month.  Ask why the KKK issued this statement:

KKK Disbands Claiming GOP Has Co-opted All Of Their Ideas

How does their "magically cherry picked history" explain these points?

But my favorite is, "Why is the GOP 90% white and why do all those white people vote for white candidates?"

Cracks me up when right wingers say, "We don't hate gays".

Gee, what happened to this guy:

Mitt Romney Adds Openly Gay Adviser to Team

but some Republicans want to show they really, really do belong:

GOP Source: Mitt Romney Threw "Tantrum" At Univision while wearing Brownface to appeal to Hispanics


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> A _*link*_ -- from the anti-historians who places the Democratic party in control of building the Pyramids
> 
> Can't make this stuff up.
> 
> Hey Lumpy -- The Republic Party [sic] invented the bubonic plague.  Deal with it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I find your little tantrum humorous...The visual includes you stamping your tiny feet and sniveling like a 3 year old girl...Thanks
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I envy your power of imagination, if not your inability to channel it.  More than that I envy your charmingly flippant disregard of factual history.  I'm sure that saves a _ton_ of work.
> 
> But no worries, the rest of us will continue to fix your fables and fill in context.  _Somebody's_ gotta do it; obviously it's over your head.
> 
> "Mo-om! They're throwing facts again!!"
> What a whiner.
Click to expand...

direct 

When I provide you the link that proves l was a tad off and I accept that I was wrong, that the direct ancestry of the Democratic Party voters were the slavers and you still whine and take credit for my research, well then, I know you're a freeloading Democrat..

btw. Obama, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi the Clinton's and so many more in the Democratic Party  are compulsive liars and yet you kiss their asses, you're the one that should feel incredibly  foolish...


----------



## rdean

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your little tantrum humorous...The visual includes you stamping your tiny feet and sniveling like a 3 year old girl...Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I envy your power of imagination, if not your inability to channel it.  More than that I envy your charmingly flippant disregard of factual history.  I'm sure that saves a _ton_ of work.
> 
> But no worries, the rest of us will continue to fix your fables and fill in context.  _Somebody's_ gotta do it; obviously it's over your head.
> 
> "Mo-om! They're throwing facts again!!"
> What a whiner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> direct
> 
> When I provide you the link that proves l was a tad off and I accept that I was wrong, that the direct ancestry of the Democratic Party voters were the slavers and you still whine and take credit for my research, well then, I know you're a freeloading Democrat..
> 
> btw. Obama, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi the Clinton's and so many more in the Democratic Party  are compulsive liars and yet you kiss their asses, you're the one that should feel incredibly  foolish...
Click to expand...


Was Lincoln a confederate?  If not, why not?


----------



## Luissa

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your little tantrum humorous...The visual includes you stamping your tiny feet and sniveling like a 3 year old girl...Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I envy your power of imagination, if not your inability to channel it.  More than that I envy your charmingly flippant disregard of factual history.  I'm sure that saves a _ton_ of work.
> 
> 
> 
> But no worries, the rest of us will continue to fix your fables and fill in context.  _Somebody's_ gotta do it; obviously it's over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> "Mo-om! They're throwing facts again!!"
> 
> What a whiner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> direct
> 
> 
> 
> When I provide you the link that proves l was a tad off and I accept that I was wrong, that the direct ancestry of the Democratic Party voters were the slavers and you still whine and take credit for my research, well then, I know you're a freeloading Democrat..
> 
> 
> 
> btw. Obama, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi the Clinton's and so many more in the Democratic Party  are compulsive liars and yet you kiss their asses, you're the one that should feel incredibly  foolish...
Click to expand...



All of our ancestors were slavers. Just sayin. 
Why do you care so much? It proves nothing about us now. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## rdean

rdean said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I envy your power of imagination, if not your inability to channel it.  More than that I envy your charmingly flippant disregard of factual history.  I'm sure that saves a _ton_ of work.
> 
> But no worries, the rest of us will continue to fix your fables and fill in context.  _Somebody's_ gotta do it; obviously it's over your head.
> 
> "Mo-om! They're throwing facts again!!"
> What a whiner.
> 
> 
> 
> direct
> 
> When I provide you the link that proves l was a tad off and I accept that I was wrong, that the direct ancestry of the Democratic Party voters were the slavers and you still whine and take credit for my research, well then, I know you're a freeloading Democrat..
> 
> btw. Obama, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi the Clinton's and so many more in the Democratic Party  are compulsive liars and yet you kiss their asses, you're the one that should feel incredibly  foolish...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Lincoln a confederate?  If not, why not?
Click to expand...


Why won't Republicans answer this question?  Was he or wasn't he?


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find your little tantrum humorous...The visual includes you stamping your tiny feet and sniveling like a 3 year old girl...Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I envy your power of imagination, if not your inability to channel it.  More than that I envy your charmingly flippant disregard of factual history.  I'm sure that saves a _ton_ of work.
> 
> But no worries, the rest of us will continue to fix your fables and fill in context.  _Somebody's_ gotta do it; obviously it's over your head.
> 
> "Mo-om! They're throwing facts again!!"
> What a whiner.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> direct
> 
> When I provide you the link that proves l was a tad off and I accept that I was wrong, that the direct ancestry of the Democratic Party voters were the slavers and you still whine and take credit for my research, well then, I know you're a freeloading Democrat..
Click to expand...


This thread is all I need to understand that the words "Lumpy" and "research" don't even belong on the same website.

"A tad off"...   Somebody tell him what "tad" means...



Lumpy 1 said:


> btw. Obama, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi the Clinton's and so many more in the Democratic Party  are compulsive liars and yet you kiss their asses, you're the one that should feel incredibly  foolish...



I love when they do this... I shall demonstrate exactly why.  Watch this:

- - - - _*Link*_ to me kissing any of those asses??  






He won't be back.  Safe trip home now.  

Lumpy research.  QED.


----------



## Dante

Lumpy 1 said:


> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?



Conservative Southern White Christian Democrats ???

Hmm...


----------



## Lumpy 1

Luissa said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I envy your power of imagination, if not your inability to channel it.  More than that I envy your charmingly flippant disregard of factual history.  I'm sure that saves a _ton_ of work.
> 
> 
> 
> But no worries, the rest of us will continue to fix your fables and fill in context.  _Somebody's_ gotta do it; obviously it's over your head.
> 
> 
> 
> "Mo-om! They're throwing facts again!!"
> 
> What a whiner.
> 
> 
> 
> direct
> 
> 
> 
> When I provide you the link that proves l was a tad off and I accept that I was wrong, that the direct ancestry of the Democratic Party voters were the slavers and you still whine and take credit for my research, well then, I know you're a freeloading Democrat..
> 
> 
> 
> btw. Obama, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi the Clinton's and so many more in the Democratic Party  are compulsive liars and yet you kiss their asses, you're the one that should feel incredibly  foolish...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All of our ancestors were slavers. Just sayin.
> Why do you care so much? It proves nothing about us now.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Click to expand...


Not mine, I'm Irish


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I envy your power of imagination, if not your inability to channel it.  More than that I envy your charmingly flippant disregard of factual history.  I'm sure that saves a _ton_ of work.
> 
> But no worries, the rest of us will continue to fix your fables and fill in context.  _Somebody's_ gotta do it; obviously it's over your head.
> 
> "Mo-om! They're throwing facts again!!"
> What a whiner.
> 
> 
> 
> direct
> 
> When I provide you the link that proves l was a tad off and I accept that I was wrong, that the direct ancestry of the Democratic Party voters were the slavers and you still whine and take credit for my research, well then, I know you're a freeloading Democrat..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This thread is all I need to understand that the words "Lumpy" and "research" don't even belong on the same website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A tad off"...   Somebody tell him what "tad" means...
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> btw. Obama, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi the Clinton's and so many more in the Democratic Party  are compulsive liars and yet you kiss their asses, you're the one that should feel incredibly  foolish...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love when they do this... I shall demonstrate exactly why.  Watch this:
> 
> - - - - _*Link*_ to me kissing any of those asses??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won't be back.  Safe trip home now.
> 
> Lumpy research.  QED.
Click to expand...


Slightly more than a smidgen..ask Obama..

 Looks like you crapped out, yet again... I must say, you are way past monotonous and boring.


 You need a friend that cares and doesn't mind compulsive and precocious childlike behaviors..

 btw.   I'm just about out of pity for you..


..


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> direct
> 
> When I provide you the link that proves l was a tad off and I accept that I was wrong, that the direct ancestry of the Democratic Party voters were the slavers and you still whine and take credit for my research, well then, I know you're a freeloading Democrat..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is all I need to understand that the words "Lumpy" and "research" don't even belong on the same website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A tad off"...   Somebody tell him what "tad" means...
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> btw. Obama, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi the Clinton's and so many more in the Democratic Party  are compulsive liars and yet you kiss their asses, you're the one that should feel incredibly  foolish...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I love when they do this... I shall demonstrate exactly why.  Watch this:
> 
> - - - - _*Link*_ to me kissing any of those asses??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won't be back.  Safe trip home now.
> 
> Lumpy research.  QED.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Slightly more than a smidgen..ask Obama..
> 
> Looks like you crapped out, yet again... I must say, you are way past monotonous and boring.
> 
> 
> You need a friend that cares and doesn't mind compulsive and precocious childlike behaviors..
> 
> btw.   I'm just about out of pity for you..
> 
> 
> ..
Click to expand...


Apparently you're out of links too, if not blarney. 



So those umm links... were they in white font then?  Somehow I'm not seein' 'em.  

Maybe it's my eyes?

Yeah that must be it.  I'll try the USMB Braille version.


----------



## Luissa

Lumpy 1 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> direct
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When I provide you the link that proves l was a tad off and I accept that I was wrong, that the direct ancestry of the Democratic Party voters were the slavers and you still whine and take credit for my research, well then, I know you're a freeloading Democrat..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw. Obama, Kerry, Reid, Pelosi the Clinton's and so many more in the Democratic Party  are compulsive liars and yet you kiss their asses, you're the one that should feel incredibly  foolish...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All of our ancestors were slavers. Just sayin.
> 
> Why do you care so much? It proves nothing about us now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not mine, I'm Irish
Click to expand...



Some Irish owned slaves, like my ancestors. Plus are you 100% Irish? I doubt it. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## hunarcy

Political Junky said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> In 1997, Byrd told an interviewer he would encourage young people to become involved in politics but also:* "Be sure you avoid the Ku Klux Klan. Don't get that albatross around your neck.* Once you've made that mistake, you inhibit your operations in the political arena."[21] In his last autobiography, Byrd explained that he was a KKK member because he "was sorely afflicted with tunnel visiona jejune and immature outlookseeing only what I wanted to see because I thought the Klan could provide an outlet for my talents and ambitions."[22] *Byrd also said, in 2005, "I know now I was wrong. Intolerance had no place in America. I apologized a thousand times ... and I don't mind apologizing over and over again. I can't erase what happened."[11]
> *
> Robert Byrd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> David Duke has never apologized for his membership in the KKK.
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell do you expect Byrd to say, "I'm a devout racist and that's why I joined the KKK"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> David Duke still says that he is a racist.
Click to expand...


David Duke won one election as a Republican over 20 years ago.  So, obviously, you have nothing.


----------



## GreenBean

Lumpy 1 said:


> I doubt this will help you, you don't seem overly bright...
> 
> ---------
> 
> Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South.
> In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they held that slavery was a good thing and promoted its expansion into the West. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts.
> During the 1930s, as the New Deal began to move Democrats as a whole to the left in economic policy, Southern Democrats were mostly supportive, although by the late 1930s there was a growing conservative faction. Both factions supported Roosevelt's foreign policies. By 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election. After 1964, Southern Democrats lost major battles to the civil rights movement. Federal laws ended segregation and restrictions on black voters.
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Civil Rights act 1964 Only 61 percent of Democrats supported that bill, versus 80 percent of Republicans.

Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Written by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen - 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill versus 73 percent of Democrats. The final vote on the House version - only one Senate Republican voted against it compared to seventeen Democrats.


In an effort to rationalize the Black support of Democrats, Nixon's infamous "Southern Strategy" is constantly referenced , less well remembered are Woodrow Wilson's segregation of the Federal civil service; The ascension of Robert Byrd, former member of the KKK, one time President pro tempore of the Senate, and third in line for presidential succession . 

Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. - Democratic Senator Robert Byrd


----------



## paperview

hunarcy said:


> Political Junky said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> What the hell do you expect Byrd to say, "I'm a devout racist and that's why I joined the KKK"?
> 
> 
> 
> David Duke still says that he is a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> David Duke won one election as a Republican over 20 years ago.  So, obviously, you have nothing.
Click to expand...

And Byrd was a KKK member *in the 1940's. *

Wanna tell us how long ago that was?


----------



## Truthmatters

Bird is dead.


your party is still trying to cheat black voters out of their votes


----------



## paperview

GreenBean said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt this will help you, you don't seem overly bright...
> 
> ---------
> 
> Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South.
> In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they held that slavery was a good thing and promoted its expansion into the West. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts.
> During the 1930s, as the New Deal began to move Democrats as a whole to the left in economic policy, Southern Democrats were mostly supportive, although by the late 1930s there was a growing conservative faction. Both factions supported Roosevelt's foreign policies. By 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election. After 1964, Southern Democrats lost major battles to the civil rights movement. Federal laws ended segregation and restrictions on black voters.
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Rights act 1964 Only 61 percent of Democrats supported that bill, versus 80 percent of Republicans.
> 
> Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Written by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen - 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill versus 73 percent of Democrats. The final vote on the House version - only one Senate Republican voted against it compared to seventeen Democrats.
> 
> 
> In an effort to rationalize the Black support of Democrats, Nixon's infamous "Southern Strategy" is constantly referenced , less well remembered are Woodrow Wilson's segregation of the Federal civil service; The ascension of Robert Byrd, former member of the KKK, one time President pro tempore of the Senate, and third in line for presidential succession .
> 
> Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. - Democratic Senator Robert Byrd
Click to expand...

Ah, there it is.

Now...maybe you hadn't noticed, but a shitpile of cons these days think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a major, major error and should be repealed.


----------



## GreenBean

paperview said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt this will help you, you don't seem overly bright...
> 
> ---------
> 
> Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South.
> In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they held that slavery was a good thing and promoted its expansion into the West. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts.
> During the 1930s, as the New Deal began to move Democrats as a whole to the left in economic policy, Southern Democrats were mostly supportive, although by the late 1930s there was a growing conservative faction. Both factions supported Roosevelt's foreign policies. By 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election. After 1964, Southern Democrats lost major battles to the civil rights movement. Federal laws ended segregation and restrictions on black voters.
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Rights act 1964 Only 61 percent of Democrats supported that bill, versus 80 percent of Republicans.
> 
> Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Written by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen - 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill versus 73 percent of Democrats. The final vote on the House version - only one Senate Republican voted against it compared to seventeen Democrats.
> 
> 
> In an effort to rationalize the Black support of Democrats, Nixon's infamous "Southern Strategy" is constantly referenced , less well remembered are Woodrow Wilson's segregation of the Federal civil service; The ascension of Robert Byrd, former member of the KKK, one time President pro tempore of the Senate, and third in line for presidential succession .
> 
> Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. - Democratic Senator Robert Byrd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, there it is.
> 
> Now...maybe you hadn't noticed, but a shitpile of cons these days think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a major, major error and should be repealed.
Click to expand...


Yes - Ron Paul in particular 



> Despite recent accusations of racism and homophobia, Republican presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) stuck to his libertarian principles on Sunday, criticizing the historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it "undermine[d] the concept of liberty" and "destroyed the principle of private property and private choices."
> 
> Ron Paul: Civil Rights Act Of 1964 'Destroyed' Privacy



I'm no fan of Mr. Paul, he's the lunatic fringe when it comes to Civil Rights, but I will credit his honesty so far as his somewhat bizarre opinions  - which is rare among politicians.


----------



## S.J.

paperview said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I doubt this will help you, you don't seem overly bright...
> 
> ---------
> 
> Southern Democrats are members of the U.S. Democratic Party who reside in the American South.
> In the 19th century, Southern Democrats comprised whites in the South who believed in Jacksonian democracy. In the 1850s they held that slavery was a good thing and promoted its expansion into the West. After Reconstruction ended in the late 1870s they controlled all the Southern states and disenfranchised the blacks (who were Republicans). The "Solid South" gave nearly all its electoral votes to Democrats in presidential elections. Republicans seldom were elected to office outside some mountain districts.
> During the 1930s, as the New Deal began to move Democrats as a whole to the left in economic policy, Southern Democrats were mostly supportive, although by the late 1930s there was a growing conservative faction. Both factions supported Roosevelt's foreign policies. By 1948 the protection of segregation led Democrats in the Deep South to reject Truman and run a third party ticket of Dixiecrats in the 1948 election. After 1964, Southern Democrats lost major battles to the civil rights movement. Federal laws ended segregation and restrictions on black voters.
> 
> 
> Southern Democrats - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Rights act 1964 Only 61 percent of Democrats supported that bill, versus 80 percent of Republicans.
> 
> Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Written by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen - 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill versus 73 percent of Democrats. The final vote on the House version - only one Senate Republican voted against it compared to seventeen Democrats.
> 
> 
> In an effort to rationalize the Black support of Democrats, Nixon's infamous "Southern Strategy" is constantly referenced , less well remembered are Woodrow Wilson's segregation of the Federal civil service; The ascension of Robert Byrd, former member of the KKK, one time President pro tempore of the Senate, and third in line for presidential succession .
> 
> Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. - Democratic Senator Robert Byrd
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah, there it is.
> 
> *Now...maybe you hadn't noticed, but a shitpile of cons these days think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a major, major error and should be repealed.*
Click to expand...

A "shitload"?  Name 3 of them.


----------



## GreenBean

Truthmatters said:


> Bird is dead.
> 
> 
> your party is still trying to cheat black voters out of their votes



Is there a problem with one vote per person ?
Is there a problem with insistence that only American Citizens can vote ?

In California Mexican Nationals / Illegal Aliens vote in US elections virtually unchallenged - But the socio facist Democrats like it that way they don't see them as "illegal Aliens"  they see them as undocumented democrats












*Illegal Aliens Voter Fraud Ignored by vile Obama Justice Department*


----------



## Truthmatters

GreenBean said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bird is dead.
> 
> 
> your party is still trying to cheat black voters out of their votes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a problem with one vote per person ?
> Is there a problem with insistence that only American Citizens can vote ?
> 
> In California Mexican Nationals / Illegal Aliens vote in US elections virtually unchallenged - But the socio facist Democrats like it that way they don't see them as "illegal Aliens"  they see them as undocumented democrats
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Illegal Aliens Voter Fraud Ignored by vile Obama Justice Department*
Click to expand...


right wing hack sites that wont even give the names of the people who write their crap is NOT facts


----------



## GreenBean

S.J. said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civil Rights act 1964 Only 61 percent of Democrats supported that bill, versus 80 percent of Republicans.
> 
> Voting Rights Act of 1965 - Written by Republican Senator Everett Dirksen - 94 percent of Senate Republicans voted in favor of the bill versus 73 percent of Democrats. The final vote on the House version - only one Senate Republican voted against it compared to seventeen Democrats.
> 
> 
> In an effort to rationalize the Black support of Democrats, Nixon's infamous "Southern Strategy" is constantly referenced , less well remembered are Woodrow Wilson's segregation of the Federal civil service; The ascension of Robert Byrd, former member of the KKK, one time President pro tempore of the Senate, and third in line for presidential succession .
> 
> Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds. - Democratic Senator Robert Byrd
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, there it is.
> 
> *Now...maybe you hadn't noticed, but a shitpile of cons these days think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a major, major error and should be repealed.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A "shitload"?  Name 3 of them.
Click to expand...


1. Ron
2. Paul
3. Larry
4. Moe
5. Curley


----------



## Truthmatters

Lies compared to USA court records that go all the way to the SCOTUS?


see what I mean?

these righties cant even determine what a fact is


----------



## Truthmatters

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Southern strategy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 

Jump to: navigation, search 


For the British strategy in the American Revolutionary War, see Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War.





 The Southern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau
In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5]

Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation


----------



## GreenBean

Truthmatters said:


> Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Southern strategy
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Jump to: navigation, search
> 
> 
> For the British strategy in the American Revolutionary War, see Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau
> In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5]
> 
> Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation



You are unable to refute content, so you resort to ridiculing the source.  Typical Libtard horse shit .  What a loser !


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> This thread is all I need to understand that the words "Lumpy" and "research" don't even belong on the same website.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "A tad off"...   Somebody tell him what "tad" means...
> 
> 
> 
> I love when they do this... I shall demonstrate exactly why.  Watch this:
> 
> - - - - _*Link*_ to me kissing any of those asses??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He won't be back.  Safe trip home now.
> 
> Lumpy research.  QED.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Slightly more than a smidgen..ask Obama..
> 
> Looks like you crapped out, yet again... I must say, you are way past monotonous and boring.
> 
> 
> You need a friend that cares and doesn't mind compulsive and precocious childlike behaviors..
> 
> btw.   I'm just about out of pity for you..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Apparently you're out of links too, if not blarney.
> 
> 
> 
> So those umm links... were they in white font then?  Somehow I'm not seein' 'em.
> 
> Maybe it's my eyes?
> 
> Yeah that must be it.  I'll try the USMB Braille version.
Click to expand...


..., well enough of this...Perhaps we could just agree that the Democratic Party has it's "Roots" as the pro-slavery Party

Perhaps a little history lesson is in order..the "slave trade" officially stopped previous to the Democratic Party inception but southern Democrats had slaves regardless. Democrats bought and sold Blacks, split their families, whipped them and such long after the "slave trade" stopped., otherwise why this?

---------------


The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation[1] issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[2] thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that "suitable" persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[4]



Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

..and perhaps you'd like to buy one of these...

Democratic Party (est 1792) : From the Left|Obama|Democrats|2012 Elections|


----------



## hunarcy

GreenBean said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, there it is.
> 
> *Now...maybe you hadn't noticed, but a shitpile of cons these days think the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a major, major error and should be repealed.*
> 
> 
> 
> A "shitload"?  Name 3 of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1. Ron
> 2. Paul
> 3. Larry
> 4. Moe
> 5. Curley
Click to expand...


Hiding your lies behind humor doesn't make them true...it makes them funny lies which means you're a funny liar.


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Slightly more than a smidgen..ask Obama..
> 
> Looks like you crapped out, yet again... I must say, you are way past monotonous and boring.
> 
> 
> You need a friend that cares and doesn't mind compulsive and precocious childlike behaviors..
> 
> btw.   I'm just about out of pity for you..
> 
> 
> ..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you're out of links too, if not blarney.
> 
> 
> 
> So those umm links... were they in white font then?  Somehow I'm not seein' 'em.
> 
> Maybe it's my eyes?
> 
> Yeah that must be it.  I'll try the USMB Braille version.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ..., well enough of this...Perhaps we could just agree that the Democratic Party has it's "Roots" as the pro-slavery Party
> 
> Perhaps a little history lesson is in order..the "slave trade" officially stopped previous to the Democratic Party inception but southern Democrats had slaves regardless. Democrats bought and sold Blacks, split their families, whipped them and such long after the "slave trade" stopped., otherwise why this?
> 
> ---------------
> 
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation[1] issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[2] thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that "suitable" persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[4]
> 
> 
> 
> Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ..and perhaps you'd like to buy one of these...
> 
> Democratic Party (est 1792) : From the Left|Obama|Democrats|2012 Elections|
Click to expand...


"Enough of this" -- because you made an assertion you can't prove and now look like an idiot?  

Thanks for playin'.  Do your homework next time.  You're not gonna snow me on history, dood.  Especially the history of my posts.  Looks like you found out what happens with the word _assume_.  Again.

And I already schooled you on the politics thing; there was no such thing as the "Democratic Party" in the 18th century.  There was what we call a "Democratic-Republican" Party and a Federalist Party.  The former was commonly called the "Republican" Party for short.  It was not related to _either_ today's D or R party.  What exists as the Democratic Party today started in 1828 (with Andy Jackson).

I know I've given you a lot to chew on here, but I told you all this like two weeks ago.  Catch up on your reading.

Oh the density...


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently you're out of links too, if not blarney.
> 
> 
> 
> So those umm links... were they in white font then?  Somehow I'm not seein' 'em.
> 
> Maybe it's my eyes?
> 
> Yeah that must be it.  I'll try the USMB Braille version.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ..., well enough of this...Perhaps we could just agree that the Democratic Party has it's "Roots" as the pro-slavery Party
> 
> Perhaps a little history lesson is in order..the "slave trade" officially stopped previous to the Democratic Party inception but southern Democrats had slaves regardless. Democrats bought and sold Blacks, split their families, whipped them and such long after the "slave trade" stopped., otherwise why this?
> 
> ---------------
> 
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation[1] issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[2] thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that "suitable" persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[4]
> 
> 
> 
> Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ..and perhaps you'd like to buy one of these...
> 
> Democratic Party (est 1792) : From the Left|Obama|Democrats|2012 Elections|
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Enough of this" -- because you made an assertion you can't prove and now look like an idiot?
> 
> Thanks for playin'.  Do your homework next time.  You're not gonna snow me on history, dood.  Especially the history of my posts.  Looks like you found out what happens with the word _assume_.  Again.
> 
> And I already schooled you on the politics thing; there was no such thing as the "Democratic Party" in the 18th century.  There was what we call a "Democratic-Republican" Party and a Federalist Party.  The former was commonly called the "Republican" Party for short.  It was not related to _either_ today's D or R party.  What exists as the Democratic Party today started in 1828 (with Andy Jackson).
> 
> I know I've given you a lot to chew on here, but I told you all this like two weeks ago.  Catch up on your reading.
> 
> Oh the density...
Click to expand...


Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.

Your childish distractions are boring.

Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?


----------



## Lumpy 1

Excerpt from an interesting link...

---

While I have only scratched the surface of civil rights history, here&#8217;s an except from yet another list of historical bullet points that dispute Democrat claims of civil rights support. As you read through it, remember, Democrats claim they &#8220;are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;ve worked to pass every one of our nation&#8217;s Civil Rights laws&#8221;&#8230;

October 13, 1858
During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: &#8220;I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever&#8221;; Douglas became Democratic Party&#8217;s 1860 presidential nominee

April 16, 1862
President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no

&#8220;Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;ve worked to pass every one of our nation&#8217;s Civil Rights laws&#8230; On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.&#8221;

July 17, 1862
Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy &#8220;shall be forever free&#8221;

January 31, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition

April 8, 1865
13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition

November 22, 1865
Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting &#8220;black codes,&#8221; which institutionalized racial discrimination

February 5, 1866
U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement &#8220;40 acres and a mule&#8221; relief by distributing land to former slaves

&#8220;Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;ve worked to pass every one of our nation&#8217;s Civil Rights laws&#8230; On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.&#8221;

April 9, 1866
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnson&#8217;s veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law

May 10, 1866
U.S. House passes Republicans&#8217; 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no

June 8, 1866
U.S. Senate passes Republicans&#8217; 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no

&#8220;Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;ve worked to pass every one of our nation&#8217;s Civil Rights laws&#8230; On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.&#8221;

January 8, 1867
Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnson&#8217;s veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.

July 19, 1867
Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnson&#8217;s veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans

March 30, 1868
Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: &#8220;This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men&#8221;

September 12, 1868
Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress

&#8220;Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;ve worked to pass every one of our nation&#8217;s Civil Rights laws&#8230; On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.&#8221;

October 7, 1868
Republicans denounce Democratic Party&#8217;s national campaign theme: &#8220;This is a white man&#8217;s country: Let white men rule&#8221;

October 22, 1868
While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan

December 10, 1869
Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office

February 3, 1870
After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans&#8217; 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race

&#8220;Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;ve worked to pass every one of our nation&#8217;s Civil Rights laws&#8230; On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.&#8221;

May 31, 1870
President U.S. Grant signs Republicans&#8217; Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any American&#8217;s civil rights

June 22, 1870
Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South

September 6, 1870
Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after women&#8217;s suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell

February 28, 1871
Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters

April 20, 1871
Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans

&#8220;Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;ve worked to pass every one of our nation&#8217;s Civil Rights laws&#8230; On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.&#8221;

October 10, 1871
Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands

October 18, 1871
After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan

November 18, 1872
Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for &#8220;the Republican ticket, straight&#8221;

January 17, 1874
Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government

September 14, 1874
Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed

&#8220;Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. That&#8217;s why we&#8217;ve worked to pass every one of our nation&#8217;s Civil Rights laws&#8230; On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.&#8221;

March 1, 1875
Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition

January 10, 1878
U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for women&#8217;s suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong

February 8, 1894
Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans&#8217; Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote

January 15, 1901
Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Party&#8217;s refusal to permit voting by African-Americans

...and it goes on..visit the link

The Democrat Race Lie » Black & Right


----------



## Luissa

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..., well enough of this...Perhaps we could just agree that the Democratic Party has it's "Roots" as the pro-slavery Party
> 
> Perhaps a little history lesson is in order..the "slave trade" officially stopped previous to the Democratic Party inception but southern Democrats had slaves regardless. Democrats bought and sold Blacks, split their families, whipped them and such long after the "slave trade" stopped., otherwise why this?
> 
> ---------------
> 
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation[1] issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[2] thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that "suitable" persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[4]
> 
> 
> 
> Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ..and perhaps you'd like to buy one of these...
> 
> Democratic Party (est 1792) : From the Left|Obama|Democrats|2012 Elections|
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Enough of this" -- because you made an assertion you can't prove and now look like an idiot?
> 
> Thanks for playin'.  Do your homework next time.  You're not gonna snow me on history, dood.  Especially the history of my posts.  Looks like you found out what happens with the word _assume_.  Again.
> 
> And I already schooled you on the politics thing; there was no such thing as the "Democratic Party" in the 18th century.  There was what we call a "Democratic-Republican" Party and a Federalist Party.  The former was commonly called the "Republican" Party for short.  It was not related to _either_ today's D or R party.  What exists as the Democratic Party today started in 1828 (with Andy Jackson).
> 
> I know I've given you a lot to chew on here, but I told you all this like two weeks ago.  Catch up on your reading.
> 
> Oh the density...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.
> 
> Your childish distractions are boring.
> 
> Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?
Click to expand...



You are the one being anal. 
And the whole country including you has it's roots in slavery. Stop starting stupid discussions. All you have proven is the US once allowed slavery. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Excerpt from an interesting link...
> 
> ---
> 
> While I have only scratched the surface of civil rights history, heres an except from yet another list of historical bullet points that dispute Democrat claims of civil rights support. As you read through it, remember, Democrats claim they are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws
> 
> October 13, 1858
> During Lincoln-Douglas debates, U.S. Senator Stephen Douglas (D-IL) states: I do not regard the Negro as my equal, and positively deny that he is my brother, or any kin to me whatever; Douglas became Democratic Partys 1860 presidential nominee
> 
> April 16, 1862
> President Lincoln signs bill abolishing slavery in District of Columbia; in Congress, 99% of Republicans vote yes, 83% of Democrats vote no
> 
> Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
> 
> July 17, 1862
> Over unanimous Democrat opposition, Republican Congress passes Confiscation Act stating that slaves of the Confederacy shall be forever free
> 
> January 31, 1865
> 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. House with unanimous Republican support, intense Democrat opposition
> 
> April 8, 1865
> 13th Amendment banning slavery passed by U.S. Senate with 100% Republican support, 63% Democrat opposition
> 
> November 22, 1865
> Republicans denounce Democrat legislature of Mississippi for enacting black codes, which institutionalized racial discrimination
> 
> February 5, 1866
> U.S. Rep. Thaddeus Stevens (R-PA) introduces legislation, successfully opposed by Democrat President Andrew Johnson, to implement 40 acres and a mule relief by distributing land to former slaves
> 
> Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
> 
> April 9, 1866
> Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Johnsons veto; Civil Rights Act of 1866, conferring rights of citizenship on African-Americans, becomes law
> 
> May 10, 1866
> U.S. House passes Republicans 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the laws to all citizens; 100% of Democrats vote no
> 
> June 8, 1866
> U.S. Senate passes Republicans 14th Amendment guaranteeing due process and equal protection of the law to all citizens; 94% of Republicans vote yes and 100% of Democrats vote no
> 
> Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
> 
> January 8, 1867
> Republicans override Democrat President Andrew Johnsons veto of law granting voting rights to African-Americans in D.C.
> 
> July 19, 1867
> Republican Congress overrides Democrat President Andrew Johnsons veto of legislation protecting voting rights of African-Americans
> 
> March 30, 1868
> Republicans begin impeachment trial of Democrat President Andrew Johnson, who declared: This is a country for white men, and by God, as long as I am President, it shall be a government of white men
> 
> September 12, 1868
> Civil rights activist Tunis Campbell and 24 other African-Americans in Georgia Senate, every one a Republican, expelled by Democrat majority; would later be reinstated by Republican Congress
> 
> Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
> 
> October 7, 1868
> Republicans denounce Democratic Partys national campaign theme: This is a white mans country: Let white men rule
> 
> October 22, 1868
> While campaigning for re-election, Republican U.S. Rep. James Hinds (R-AR) is assassinated by Democrat terrorists who organized as the Ku Klux Klan
> 
> December 10, 1869
> Republican Gov. John Campbell of Wyoming Territory signs FIRST-in-nation law granting women right to vote and to hold public office
> 
> February 3, 1870
> After passing House with 98% Republican support and 97% Democrat opposition, Republicans 15th Amendment is ratified, granting vote to all Americans regardless of race
> 
> Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
> 
> May 31, 1870
> President U.S. Grant signs Republicans Enforcement Act, providing stiff penalties for depriving any Americans civil rights
> 
> June 22, 1870
> Republican Congress creates U.S. Department of Justice, to safeguard the civil rights of African-Americans against Democrats in the South
> 
> September 6, 1870
> Women vote in Wyoming, in FIRST election after womens suffrage signed into law by Republican Gov. John Campbell
> 
> February 28, 1871
> Republican Congress passes Enforcement Act providing federal protection for African-American voters
> 
> April 20, 1871
> Republican Congress enacts the Ku Klux Klan Act, outlawing Democratic Party-affiliated terrorist groups which oppressed African-Americans
> 
> Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
> 
> October 10, 1871
> Following warnings by Philadelphia Democrats against black voting, African-American Republican civil rights activist Octavius Catto murdered by Democratic Party operative; his military funeral was attended by thousands
> 
> October 18, 1871
> After violence against Republicans in South Carolina, President Ulysses Grant deploys U.S. troops to combat Democrat terrorists who formed the Ku Klux Klan
> 
> November 18, 1872
> Susan B. Anthony arrested for voting, after boasting to Elizabeth Cady Stanton that she voted for the Republican ticket, straight
> 
> January 17, 1874
> Armed Democrats seize Texas state government, ending Republican efforts to racially integrate government
> 
> September 14, 1874
> Democrat white supremacists seize Louisiana statehouse in attempt to overthrow racially-integrated administration of Republican Governor William Kellogg; 27 killed
> 
> Democrats are unwavering in our support of equal opportunity for all Americans. Thats why weve worked to pass every one of our nations Civil Rights laws On every civil rights issue, Democrats have led the fight.
> 
> March 1, 1875
> Civil Rights Act of 1875, guaranteeing access to public accommodations without regard to race, signed by Republican President U.S. Grant; passed with 92% Republican support over 100% Democrat opposition
> 
> January 10, 1878
> U.S. Senator Aaron Sargent (R-CA) introduces Susan B. Anthony amendment for womens suffrage; Democrat-controlled Senate defeated it 4 times before election of Republican House and Senate guaranteed its approval in 1919. Republicans foil Democratic efforts to keep women in the kitchen, where they belong
> 
> February 8, 1894
> Democrat Congress and Democrat President Grover Cleveland join to repeal Republicans Enforcement Act, which had enabled African-Americans to vote
> 
> January 15, 1901
> Republican Booker T. Washington protests Alabama Democratic Partys refusal to permit voting by African-Americans
> 
> ...and it goes on..visit the link
> 
> The Democrat Race Lie » Black & Right



Are you actually trying to make the case that the name of a political party _determines  personal characteristics_?  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




That's why I can't take this thread seriously, dood.  Because it isn't.


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ..., well enough of this...Perhaps we could just agree that the Democratic Party has it's "Roots" as the pro-slavery Party
> 
> Perhaps a little history lesson is in order..the "slave trade" officially stopped previous to the Democratic Party inception but southern Democrats had slaves regardless. Democrats bought and sold Blacks, split their families, whipped them and such long after the "slave trade" stopped., otherwise why this?
> 
> ---------------
> 
> 
> The Emancipation Proclamation was a presidential proclamation[1] issued by President Abraham Lincoln on January 1, 1863, as a war measure during the American Civil War, directed to all areas in rebellion and all segments of the Executive branch (including the Army and Navy) of the United States. It proclaimed the freedom of slaves in the ten states that were still in rebellion,[2] thus applying to 3.1 million of the 4 million slaves in the U.S. at the time. The Proclamation was based on the president's constitutional authority as commander in chief of the armed forces;[3] it was not a law passed by Congress. The Proclamation also ordered that "suitable" persons among those freed could be enrolled into the paid service of United States' forces, and ordered the Union Army (and all segments of the Executive branch) to "recognize and maintain the freedom of" the ex-slaves. The Proclamation did not compensate the owners, did not itself outlaw slavery, and did not make the ex-slaves (called freedmen) citizens. It made the eradication of slavery an explicit war goal, in addition to the goal of reuniting the Union.[4]
> 
> 
> 
> Emancipation Proclamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> ..and perhaps you'd like to buy one of these...
> 
> Democratic Party (est 1792) : From the Left|Obama|Democrats|2012 Elections|
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Enough of this" -- because you made an assertion you can't prove and now look like an idiot?
> 
> Thanks for playin'.  Do your homework next time.  You're not gonna snow me on history, dood.  Especially the history of my posts.  Looks like you found out what happens with the word _assume_.  Again.
> 
> And I already schooled you on the politics thing; there was no such thing as the "Democratic Party" in the 18th century.  There was what we call a "Democratic-Republican" Party and a Federalist Party.  The former was commonly called the "Republican" Party for short.  It was not related to _either_ today's D or R party.  What exists as the Democratic Party today started in 1828 (with Andy Jackson).
> 
> I know I've given you a lot to chew on here, but I told you all this like two weeks ago.  Catch up on your reading.
> 
> Oh the density...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.
> 
> Your childish distractions are boring.
> 
> Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?
Click to expand...


I got your history lesson right here.

Democrats owned slaves; Democratic-Republicans owned slaves; Federalists owned slaves; Whigs owned slaves; National Republicans and Anti-Masonics and American Party (Know Nothings) and those with no party at all (e.g. George Washington) owned slaves.  Moreover, English and French and Spanish and Portuguese colonists owned slaves, as did some of the Africans and Native Americans from which they acquired them, as did their ancestors enslaving other Europeans.  Except for the first on that list, none of them were "Democrats".  Nor did they invent slavery.  Nor was the DP "founded on slavery" -- it was 1828 and that wasn't a big issue yet.  Or by your calendar it was 1792 and it was even *less* of an issue, so you're trying to have it both ways temporally.  The slavery question came up as a political matter in the 1840s and '50s.  Fun fact: to be a slave owner it wasn't necessary to be a Democrat, or to have any interest in politics at all.  Indeed when the DP was formed (whether your date or mine), few people _were_ interested in politics or in voting.  Most everyday people simply had no party.

Republicans didn't do slaves.  Nor did Communists, Socialists, Progressives or Greens; it would have been impossible for a simple basic reason they all have in common: _they're not old enough_.  You may find this hard to believe but Federalists and Whigs didn't own airplanes either.  Again -- linear time.

Read you some history, son.  When the roots of an institution stretch back that far, the mores and values of the times in which they originated are going to be a part of it, and the DP is the oldest still-extant political party in the world (which is why you never see me using the term "GOP" -- it's historically inaccurate).  That longevity however doesn't mean that institution doesn't change along with the times; quite the contrary.  All those other parties I just mentioned?  They're all dead, exactly because they _*didn't*_ adjust with the changing times.

Take those racists you like to use as your broad paintbrush from the time the South was a one-party Democrat subnation: when the changing times demanded the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal" be exercised in reality, the DP (starting with Truman and Humphrey) changed along with the times rather than stand rigid to protect its power base.  Lyndon Johnson, while personally a power-hungry bastard, understood political dynamics astutely when he observed "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation" (a period of time he obviously underestimated).  The times change, you flex.  If you don't flex, you break and become the Federalists.

I could point you to a radio station that plays "urban hip hop" (rap) all day; that same station was my father's go-to station when I was growing up.  Why?  Because at that time that same station was the _classical_ music station.  It changed with the times.  But by your logic, are we to now to conclude that Rap and Rachmaninoff are the same thing, just because the station's call letters haven't changed?

I understand your frustration; your party is splitting like the Whigs, so you're lashing out at the other major party in a jealous hissyfit.  Maybe your energy might be better put into defending the original fine and admirable standards of the Republican Party against those who would split it in two and wend its way to Whigdom.  Maybe you should lift a finger to _preserve_ it, instead of pissing time away on this Eliminationist bullshit whose only conclusion can be a one-party state.  That what you want?

Much as I despise the idea of parties, I'd rather we have two viable ones than have one running away with a monopoly.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Enough of this" -- because you made an assertion you can't prove and now look like an idiot?
> 
> Thanks for playin'.  Do your homework next time.  You're not gonna snow me on history, dood.  Especially the history of my posts.  Looks like you found out what happens with the word _assume_.  Again.
> 
> And I already schooled you on the politics thing; there was no such thing as the "Democratic Party" in the 18th century.  There was what we call a "Democratic-Republican" Party and a Federalist Party.  The former was commonly called the "Republican" Party for short.  It was not related to _either_ today's D or R party.  What exists as the Democratic Party today started in 1828 (with Andy Jackson).
> 
> I know I've given you a lot to chew on here, but I told you all this like two weeks ago.  Catch up on your reading.
> 
> Oh the density...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.
> 
> Your childish distractions are boring.
> 
> Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I got your history lesson right here.
> 
> Democrats owned slaves; Democratic-Republicans owned slaves; Federalists owned slaves; Whigs owned slaves; National Republicans and Anti-Masonics and American Party (Know Nothings) and those with no party at all (e.g. George Washington) owned slaves.  Moreover, English and French and Spanish and Portuguese colonists owned slaves, as did some of the Africans and Native Americans from which they acquired them, as did their ancestors enslaving other Europeans.  Except for the first on that list, none of them were "Democrats".  Nor did they invent slavery.  Nor was the DP "founded on slavery" -- it was 1828 and that wasn't a big issue yet.  Or by your calendar it was 1792 and it was even *less* of an issue, so you're trying to have it both ways temporally.  The slavery question came up as a political matter in the 1840s and '50s.  Fun fact: to be a slave owner it wasn't necessary to be a Democrat, or to have any interest in politics at all.  Indeed when the DP was formed (whether your date or mine), few people _were_ interested in politics or in voting.  Most everyday people simply had no party.
> 
> Republicans didn't do slaves.  Nor did Communists, Socialists, Progressives or Greens; it would have been impossible for a simple basic reason they all have in common: _they're not old enough_.  You may find this hard to believe but Federalists and Whigs didn't own airplanes either.  Again -- linear time.
> 
> Read you some history, son.  When the roots of an institution stretch back that far, the mores and values of the times in which they originated are going to be a part of it, and the DP is the oldest still-extant political party in the world (which is why you never see me using the term "GOP" -- it's historically inaccurate).  That longevity however doesn't mean that institution doesn't change along with the times; quite the contrary.  All those other parties I just mentioned?  They're all dead, exactly because they _*didn't*_ adjust with the changing times.
> 
> Take those racists you like to use as your broad paintbrush from the time the South was a one-party Democrat subnation: when the changing times demanded the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal" be exercised in reality, the DP (starting with Truman and Humphrey) changed along with the times rather than stand rigid to protect its power base.  Lyndon Johnson, while personally a power-hungry bastard, understood political dynamics astutely when he observed "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation" (a period of time he obviously underestimated).  The times change, you flex.  If you don't flex, you break and become the Federalists.
> 
> I could point you to a radio station that plays "urban hip hop" (rap) all day; that same station was my father's go-to station when I was growing up.  Why?  Because at that time that same station was the _classical_ music station.  It changed with the times.  But by your logic, are we to now to conclude that Rap and Rachmaninoff are the same thing, just because the station's call letters haven't changed?
> 
> I understand your frustration; your party is splitting like the Whigs, so you're lashing out at the other major party in a jealous hissyfit.  Maybe your energy might be better put into defending the original fine and admirable standards of the Republican Party against those who would split it in two and wend its way to Whigdom.  Maybe you should lift a finger to _preserve_ it, instead of pissing time away on this Eliminationist bullshit whose only conclusion can be a one-party state.  That what you want?
> 
> Much as I despise the idea of parties, I'd rather we have two viable ones than have one running away with a monopoly.
Click to expand...


I guess you didn't read and comprehend my last link..and I was simply bored by your post...


----------



## Lumpy 1

Luissa said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Enough of this" -- because you made an assertion you can't prove and now look like an idiot?
> 
> Thanks for playin'.  Do your homework next time.  You're not gonna snow me on history, dood.  Especially the history of my posts.  Looks like you found out what happens with the word _assume_.  Again.
> 
> And I already schooled you on the politics thing; there was no such thing as the "Democratic Party" in the 18th century.  There was what we call a "Democratic-Republican" Party and a Federalist Party.  The former was commonly called the "Republican" Party for short.  It was not related to _either_ today's D or R party.  What exists as the Democratic Party today started in 1828 (with Andy Jackson).
> 
> I know I've given you a lot to chew on here, but I told you all this like two weeks ago.  Catch up on your reading.
> 
> Oh the density...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.
> 
> Your childish distractions are boring.
> 
> Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one being anal.
> And the whole country including you has it's roots in slavery. Stop starting stupid discussions. All you have proven is the US once allowed slavery.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
Click to expand...


Democrats like everyone to join in when their hand is found in the cookie jar, I suppose you didn't have time to read my previous link also..and no wonder.

Nothing can be proven to you, you refuse to learn.


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.
> 
> Your childish distractions are boring.
> 
> Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got your history lesson right here.
> 
> Democrats owned slaves; Democratic-Republicans owned slaves; Federalists owned slaves; Whigs owned slaves; National Republicans and Anti-Masonics and American Party (Know Nothings) and those with no party at all (e.g. George Washington) owned slaves.  Moreover, English and French and Spanish and Portuguese colonists owned slaves, as did some of the Africans and Native Americans from which they acquired them, as did their ancestors enslaving other Europeans.  Except for the first on that list, none of them were "Democrats".  Nor did they invent slavery.  Nor was the DP "founded on slavery" -- it was 1828 and that wasn't a big issue yet.  Or by your calendar it was 1792 and it was even *less* of an issue, so you're trying to have it both ways temporally.  The slavery question came up as a political matter in the 1840s and '50s.  Fun fact: to be a slave owner it wasn't necessary to be a Democrat, or to have any interest in politics at all.  Indeed when the DP was formed (whether your date or mine), few people _were_ interested in politics or in voting.  Most everyday people simply had no party.
> 
> Republicans didn't do slaves.  Nor did Communists, Socialists, Progressives or Greens; it would have been impossible for a simple basic reason they all have in common: _they're not old enough_.  You may find this hard to believe but Federalists and Whigs didn't own airplanes either.  Again -- linear time.
> 
> Read you some history, son.  When the roots of an institution stretch back that far, the mores and values of the times in which they originated are going to be a part of it, and the DP is the oldest still-extant political party in the world (which is why you never see me using the term "GOP" -- it's historically inaccurate).  That longevity however doesn't mean that institution doesn't change along with the times; quite the contrary.  All those other parties I just mentioned?  They're all dead, exactly because they _*didn't*_ adjust with the changing times.
> 
> Take those racists you like to use as your broad paintbrush from the time the South was a one-party Democrat subnation: when the changing times demanded the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal" be exercised in reality, the DP (starting with Truman and Humphrey) changed along with the times rather than stand rigid to protect its power base.  Lyndon Johnson, while personally a power-hungry bastard, understood political dynamics astutely when he observed "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation" (a period of time he obviously underestimated).  The times change, you flex.  If you don't flex, you break and become the Federalists.
> 
> I could point you to a radio station that plays "urban hip hop" (rap) all day; that same station was my father's go-to station when I was growing up.  Why?  Because at that time that same station was the _classical_ music station.  It changed with the times.  But by your logic, are we to now to conclude that Rap and Rachmaninoff are the same thing, just because the station's call letters haven't changed?
> 
> I understand your frustration; your party is splitting like the Whigs, so you're lashing out at the other major party in a jealous hissyfit.  Maybe your energy might be better put into defending the original fine and admirable standards of the Republican Party against those who would split it in two and wend its way to Whigdom.  Maybe you should lift a finger to _preserve_ it, instead of pissing time away on this Eliminationist bullshit whose only conclusion can be a one-party state.  That what you want?
> 
> Much as I despise the idea of parties, I'd rather we have two viable ones than have one running away with a monopoly.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you didn't read and comprehend my last link..and I was simply bored by your post...
Click to expand...


Meaning it's too much ponderation for you?  Or meaning you just don't want to face it, just as you couldn't face my challenge to link my "ass licking"?  That never happened, yanno... it's what happens when you make stuff up.

I'm sure you'd rather get the premasticated Lush Rimjob sound bites.  I can tell that's where you're getting it from -- he's the only guy who uses that malaprop "Democrat Party".  The thing is, historical context is a fuck of a lot more complex than that.  It cannot be reduced to bite-size morsels tailored not so much to educate but to keep you riveted with cloak and dagger stories so he can sell ads at "confiscatory rates" (his term).  Limblob of course is limited to three hours broken up into smaller segments, and since his goal is making money off you he doesn't think he has the requirement to be accurate.  But you don't have that limitation.

Oh well, you can lead a Lump to water...


----------



## Lumpy 1

Pogo said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> I got your history lesson right here.
> 
> Democrats owned slaves; Democratic-Republicans owned slaves; Federalists owned slaves; Whigs owned slaves; National Republicans and Anti-Masonics and American Party (Know Nothings) and those with no party at all (e.g. George Washington) owned slaves.  Moreover, English and French and Spanish and Portuguese colonists owned slaves, as did some of the Africans and Native Americans from which they acquired them, as did their ancestors enslaving other Europeans.  Except for the first on that list, none of them were "Democrats".  Nor did they invent slavery.  Nor was the DP "founded on slavery" -- it was 1828 and that wasn't a big issue yet.  Or by your calendar it was 1792 and it was even *less* of an issue, so you're trying to have it both ways temporally.  The slavery question came up as a political matter in the 1840s and '50s.  Fun fact: to be a slave owner it wasn't necessary to be a Democrat, or to have any interest in politics at all.  Indeed when the DP was formed (whether your date or mine), few people _were_ interested in politics or in voting.  Most everyday people simply had no party.
> 
> Republicans didn't do slaves.  Nor did Communists, Socialists, Progressives or Greens; it would have been impossible for a simple basic reason they all have in common: _they're not old enough_.  You may find this hard to believe but Federalists and Whigs didn't own airplanes either.  Again -- linear time.
> 
> Read you some history, son.  When the roots of an institution stretch back that far, the mores and values of the times in which they originated are going to be a part of it, and the DP is the oldest still-extant political party in the world (which is why you never see me using the term "GOP" -- it's historically inaccurate).  That longevity however doesn't mean that institution doesn't change along with the times; quite the contrary.  All those other parties I just mentioned?  They're all dead, exactly because they _*didn't*_ adjust with the changing times.
> 
> Take those racists you like to use as your broad paintbrush from the time the South was a one-party Democrat subnation: when the changing times demanded the Liberal tenet of "all men are created equal" be exercised in reality, the DP (starting with Truman and Humphrey) changed along with the times rather than stand rigid to protect its power base.  Lyndon Johnson, while personally a power-hungry bastard, understood political dynamics astutely when he observed "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation" (a period of time he obviously underestimated).  The times change, you flex.  If you don't flex, you break and become the Federalists.
> 
> I could point you to a radio station that plays "urban hip hop" (rap) all day; that same station was my father's go-to station when I was growing up.  Why?  Because at that time that same station was the _classical_ music station.  It changed with the times.  But by your logic, are we to now to conclude that Rap and Rachmaninoff are the same thing, just because the station's call letters haven't changed?
> 
> I understand your frustration; your party is splitting like the Whigs, so you're lashing out at the other major party in a jealous hissyfit.  Maybe your energy might be better put into defending the original fine and admirable standards of the Republican Party against those who would split it in two and wend its way to Whigdom.  Maybe you should lift a finger to _preserve_ it, instead of pissing time away on this Eliminationist bullshit whose only conclusion can be a one-party state.  That what you want?
> 
> Much as I despise the idea of parties, I'd rather we have two viable ones than have one running away with a monopoly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didn't read and comprehend my last link..and I was simply bored by your post...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Meaning it's too much ponderation for you?  Or meaning you just don't want to face it, just as you couldn't face my challenge to link my "ass licking"?  That never happened, yanno... it's what happens when you make stuff up.
> 
> I'm sure you'd rather get the premasticated Lush Rimjob sound bites.  I can tell that's where you're getting it from -- he's the only guy who uses that malaprop "Democrat Party".  The thing is, historical context is a fuck of a lot more complex than that.  It cannot be reduced to bite-size morsels tailored not so much to educate but to keep you riveted with cloak and dagger stories so he can sell ads at "confiscatory rates" (his term).  Limblob of course is limited to three hours broken up into smaller segments, and since his goal is making money off you he doesn't think he has the requirement to be accurate.  But you don't have that limitation.
> 
> Oh well, you can lead a Lump to water...
Click to expand...


 I said I was bored..

I hardly ever listen to Limbaugh but you seem intimately involved, much like a jilted lover.


----------



## Pogo

Lumpy 1 said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I guess you didn't read and comprehend my last link..and I was simply bored by your post...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning it's too much ponderation for you?  Or meaning you just don't want to face it, just as you couldn't face my challenge to link my "ass licking"?  That never happened, yanno... it's what happens when you make stuff up.
> 
> I'm sure you'd rather get the premasticated Lush Rimjob sound bites.  I can tell that's where you're getting it from -- he's the only guy who uses that malaprop "Democrat Party".  The thing is, historical context is a fuck of a lot more complex than that.  It cannot be reduced to bite-size morsels tailored not so much to educate but to keep you riveted with cloak and dagger stories so he can sell ads at "confiscatory rates" (his term).  Limblob of course is limited to three hours broken up into smaller segments, and since his goal is making money off you he doesn't think he has the requirement to be accurate.  But you don't have that limitation.
> 
> Oh well, you can lead a Lump to water...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I said I was bored..
> 
> I hardly ever listen to Limbaugh but you seem intimately involved, much like a jilted lover.
Click to expand...


Not at all, I'm a cunning linguist so I notice when someone doesn't know the difference between a noun and an adjective.  I just find that level of ignorance fascinating.


----------



## Luissa

Lumpy 1 said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bottom line.. the Democrat Party has it's roots in slavery, Democrats were slave owners and your being anal and repetitive.
> 
> 
> 
> Your childish distractions are boring.
> 
> 
> 
> Btw. have you ever had a thread that was an original idea and motivated discussion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the one being anal.
> 
> And the whole country including you has it's roots in slavery. Stop starting stupid discussions. All you have proven is the US once allowed slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats like everyone to join in when their hand is found in the cookie jar, I suppose you didn't have time to read my previous link also..and no wonder.
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing can be proven to you, you refuse to learn.
Click to expand...



Actually it is you who refuses to learn, many people have provided links proving democrats weren't the only ones who were pro slavery or owned slaves. Of course that doesn't fit your stereotypes or the dumb game you are playing so you ignore the truth and actual truth. 
Whigs owned slaves, even African Americans owned slaves, along with the Irish etc.. For one some of the first slaves entered into a Spanish colony. You have no concept of actual history. I suggest going back to school or getting your head out of your ass. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## hunarcy

Luissa said:


> Actually it is you who refuses to learn, many people have provided links proving democrats weren't the only ones who were pro slavery or owned slaves. Of course that doesn't fit your stereotypes or the dumb game you are playing so you ignore the truth and actual truth.
> Whigs owned slaves, even African Americans owned slaves, along with the Irish etc.. For one some of the first slaves entered into a Spanish colony. You have no concept of actual history. I suggest going back to school or getting your head out of your ass.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.



While slavery did predate the Democratic Party (the first African slaves were brought to the Western Hemisphere by the Spanish), the Democrats were HEAVILY invested in slavery during the mid-1800's.  In fact, slavery split the Democratic Party vote so completely that it's the reason Lincoln was elected.


----------



## katsteve2012

hunarcy said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is you who refuses to learn, many people have provided links proving democrats weren't the only ones who were pro slavery or owned slaves. Of course that doesn't fit your stereotypes or the dumb game you are playing so you ignore the truth and actual truth.
> Whigs owned slaves, even African Americans owned slaves, along with the Irish etc.. For one some of the first slaves entered into a Spanish colony. You have no concept of actual history. I suggest going back to school or getting your head out of your ass.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While slavery did predate the Democratic Party (the first African slaves were brought to the Western Hemisphere by the Spanish), the Democrats were HEAVILY invested in slavery during the mid-1800's.  In fact, slavery split the Democratic Party vote so completely that it's the reason Lincoln was elected.
Click to expand...


Which is proof of the fact that there was a segment of the Democratic party that was anti slavery.


----------



## Spoonman

Fact is, welfare is a greater form of slavery than any chains ever were.


----------



## S.J.

Spoonman said:


> Fact is, welfare is a greater form of slavery than any chains ever were.


----------



## Luissa

hunarcy said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually it is you who refuses to learn, many people have provided links proving democrats weren't the only ones who were pro slavery or owned slaves. Of course that doesn't fit your stereotypes or the dumb game you are playing so you ignore the truth and actual truth.
> 
> Whigs owned slaves, even African Americans owned slaves, along with the Irish etc.. For one some of the first slaves entered into a Spanish colony. You have no concept of actual history. I suggest going back to school or getting your head out of your ass.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> While slavery did predate the Democratic Party (the first African slaves were brought to the Western Hemisphere by the Spanish), the Democrats were HEAVILY invested in slavery during the mid-1800's.  In fact, slavery split the Democratic Party vote so completely that it's the reason Lincoln was elected.
Click to expand...



Isn't that what I said? 
I do love how Lumpy thanked you though. 


Sent from my iPhone using the tears of Raider's fans.


----------



## jasonnfree

Clementine said:


> jasonnfree said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clementine said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings.    Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people.    Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.
> 
> Liberals did not want the slaves freed.   Liberals did not want equal rights.   The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know.   They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites.   The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power.    Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed.   They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.
> 
> Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I see you put Hitler in there as a liberal.  Don't give up on Hitler so easily.  He had a lot to be admired by modern american conservatives.  He hated unions, intellectuals , homosexuals and Negroes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have a lot to learn about Republicans.    A dislike of today's unions is the only thing they have in common with that tyrant.    Highly religious people likely can't accept gays, but those people are on both sides of the political spectrum.
> 
> The rest is a bunch of myths pushed by the left.     It's the left who has done harm to blacks over the years and it's time for them to admit that.    Some lefties think they are intellectual because their liberal professors taught them well.    Sadly, they tend to confuse being educated with being intelligent.
> 
> Your response here is similar to every other hit and run post.    Drop some talking points and pretend you know what you're talking about.
Click to expand...


Hit and run?  I'm back though.    You do know that Chavez won his elections, don't you. So how was he a tyrant?  Another why.  Republicans trying to align themselves with MLK.  He was marching with unions for higher wages.  Don't sound republican to me.  Hitler hated unions and homosexuals.  Sounds pretty republican to me.    The republicans or conservatives if you like, really like the black man.  Really do, if he would just stop voting for liberals that keep him enslaved.  In other words, he's not bright enough to think for himself.
Liberals didn't want slaves freed, didn't want equal rights.  They treat minorities as subhumans.  Where do you get this stuff from?


----------



## jasonnfree

Spoonman said:


> Fact is, welfare is a greater form of slavery than any chains ever were.



Can you elaborate on this?   You must be reading the same material as Clementine.  Have you ever read anything about  slavery by the way?


----------



## Vigilante

Seems that this should fit in here....

*When Blacks Voted 80 Percent Dem, Malcolm X Called Them 'Chumps'*

When blacks gave 80 percent of their vote to the Democratic Party in 1964, black activist Malcolm X called them "political chumps."

White voters, X said, "are so evenly divided that every time they vote, the race is so close they have to go back and count the votes all over again. Which means that any bloc, any minority that has a bloc that sticks together is in a strategic position. Either way you go, that's who gets it."

Yet Democrats, said Malcolm X, failed to deliver on a promised and much anticipated new civil rights bill, knowing the party could still count on their blind support in the next election.

"You put them first," said Malcolm X, "and they put you last. 'Cause you're a chump. A political chump! ... Any time you throw your weight behind a political party that controls two-thirds of the government, and that party can't keep the promise that it made to you during election time, and you are dumb enough to walk around continuing to identify yourself with that party -- you're not only a chump but you're a traitor to your race."

What would Malcolm X say about today's 95 percent black vote? Did the Democratic Party keep its promises to promote family stability, push education and encourage job creation?

The black community, over the last 50 years, has suffered an unparalleled breakdown in family unity. Even during slavery when marriage was illegal, a black child was more likely than today to be raised under a roof with his or her biological mother and father. According to census data, from 1890 to 1940, said economist Walter Williams, a black child was slightly more likely to grow up with married parents than a white child. What happened?

When President Lyndon Johnson launched the War on Poverty in 1965, 24 percent of black babies were born to unmarried mothers. Today that number is 72 percent. Then-presidential candidate Barack Obama said in 2008: "Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home, or become teenage parents themselves."

Not only has family breakdown coincided with increased government spending, but the money has not done much to reduce the rate of poverty. From 1965 until now, the government has spent $15-20 trillion to fight poverty. In 1949, the poverty rate stood at 34 percent. By 1965, it was cut in half, to 17 percent -- all before the so-called War on Poverty. But after the war began in 1965, poverty began to flat line. It appears that the generous welfare system allowed women to, in essence, marry the government -- and it allowed men to abandon their financial and moral responsibility, while surrendering the dignity that comes from being a good provider. Psychologists call dependency "learned helplessness."

About the importance of education, Malcolm X once said, "My alma mater was books, a good library. ... I could spend the rest of my life reading, just satisfying my curiosity." What would he say about the Democratic opposition to school vouchers -- where the money would follow the student rather than the other way around?

Urban schools, where students are disproportionately black and brown, are simply not producing children who can read, write and compute at grade level. The dropout rate can approach 50 percent in some urban districts. Nationwide, 10 percent of parents send their kids to private school. But in cities like Philadelphia and Chicago, 40 percent or more of teachers send their own kids to private schools.

Democrats don't do blacks any favor by supporting "race-based preferences" in admissions to colleges and universities. Turns out, the more a school lowers standards to achieve "diversity," the greater the chance the "diverse" student drops out.

More than that, Democrats have convinced blacks that but for race-based preferences, black growth would suffer. Nonsense. Respected researchers Stephan and Abigail Thernstrom wrote: "The growth of the black middle class long predates the adoption of race-conscious social policies. In some ways, indeed, the black middle class was expanding more rapidly before 1970 than after."

Finally, as to the economy, then-chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, Emanuel Cleaver, D-Mo., admitted: "With 14 percent (black) unemployment, if we had a white president we'd be marching around the White House. ...The President knows we are going to act in deference to him in a way we wouldn't to someone white."

Democratic policies have contributed to family breakdown, maintained underperforming urban schools -- with no opt out for parents -- and have promoted tax-spend-and-regulate economic policies that have resulted in a level of unemployment described as "unconscionable" by Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus.

So would Malcolm X call today's black voter a political "chump" -- or a political "traitor"?

Brought to you by ...


----------



## Moonglow

Clementine said:


> When I look at liberalism, I see people at the top who envision themselves as masters of the universe who believe they are more intelligent and special than other human beings.    Look at Castro, Chavez, Hitler and other sleazebags who ruled over the people.    Those are the types of people who would not have a problem with slavery because they see others as lesser human beings.
> 
> Liberals did not want the slaves freed.   Liberals did not want equal rights.   The only thing that has changed now is that they pretend to feel differently, but their policies that treat minorities like subhuman idiots tell you all you need to know.   They honestly don't believe that minorities are as smart as the whites.   The sad part is that they have been busy trying to dumb down America, destroy the black families and constantly gin up the anger to stay in power.    Liberals use blacks, but they don't want to see them succeed.   They want to keep them in their place and they do just that with all their liberal programs.
> 
> Going from the real plantations to the liberal plantations wasn't much of a change in the long run.



Yuk-yuk....


----------



## jasonnfree

GreenBean said:


> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Southern strategy
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Jump to: navigation, search
> 
> 
> For the British strategy in the American Revolutionary War, see Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau
> In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5]
> 
> Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are unable to refute content, so you resort to ridiculing the source.  Typical Libtard horse shit .  What a loser !
Click to expand...


Another republican trying to explain what wonderful people they can be to blacks.  As long as the black man gets off his lazy butt and gets a job (none of them work you know),  stops having illegitimate children, and starts acting white.


----------



## S.J.

jasonnfree said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Southern strategy
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Jump to: navigation, search
> 
> 
> For the British strategy in the American Revolutionary War, see Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau
> In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5]
> 
> Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are unable to refute content, so you resort to ridiculing the source.  Typical Libtard horse shit .  What a loser !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another republican trying to explain what wonderful people they can be to blacks.  As long as the black man gets off his lazy butt and gets a job (none of them work you know),  stops having illegitimate children, and starts acting white.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they should stay shiftless and lazy, live a life of crime, and keep having out of wedlock kids to put on welfare so the rest of us can support them and repeat the cycle over and over and over.


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Seems that this should fit in here....
> 
> *When Blacks Voted 80 Percent Dem, Malcolm X Called Them 'Chumps'* <snipped for copyright protection>



Uh huh. 

Tell me, who's been demonizing blacks with scare stories about ACORN, Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, "New Black Panthers"  , "Knockout games" and the like, so that morons like the red fender boy perpetuate racial stereotypes?  Is that Lyndon Johnson?

By the way you can't take blogs and dump them in here verbatim -- even with attribution.  Against the rules.  And when you do quote them in part, *link* them.  

Try to come up with an original thought.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems that this should fit in here....
> 
> *When Blacks Voted 80 Percent Dem, Malcolm X Called Them 'Chumps'* <snipped for copyright protection>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> Tell me, who's been demonizing blacks with scare stories about ACORN, Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, "New Black Panthers"  , "Knockout games" and the like, so that morons like the red fender boy perpetuate racial stereotypes?  Is that Lyndon Johnson?
> 
> By the way you can't take blogs and dump them in here verbatim -- even with attribution.  Against the rules.  And when you do quote them in part, *link* them.
> 
> Try to come up with an original thought.
Click to expand...


Acorn was totally disbanding. As a result of over 20 investigations into voter fraud and other illegal activity of the organization.

Obuma Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy and Being A Self Proclaimed Communist

These days, Sherrod has returned to the work she was doing before all the publicity.

The New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, sometimes known simply as the Black Panther Case, were Found GUILTY BUT Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Obama Justice Dept. 

Knock Out game is primarily black thugs attacking white and Jewish citizens!

Now if you'd care to refute them!


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seems that this should fit in here....
> 
> *When Blacks Voted 80 Percent Dem, Malcolm X Called Them 'Chumps'* <snipped for copyright protection>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> Tell me, who's been demonizing blacks with scare stories about ACORN, Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, "New Black Panthers"  , "Knockout games" and the like, so that morons like the red fender boy perpetuate racial stereotypes?  Is that Lyndon Johnson?
> 
> By the way you can't take blogs and dump them in here verbatim -- even with attribution.  Against the rules.  And when you do quote them in part, *link* them.
> 
> Try to come up with an original thought.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Acorn was totally disbanding. As a result of over 20 investigations into voter fraud and other illegal activity of the organization.
> 
> Obuma Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy and Being A Self Proclaimed Communist
> 
> These days, Sherrod has returned to the work she was doing before all the publicity.
> 
> The New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, sometimes known simply as the Black Panther Case, were Found GUILTY BUT Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.
> 
> Knock Out game is primarily black thugs attacking white and Jewish citizens!
> 
> Now if you'd care to refute them!
Click to expand...


You seem to have missed the question entirely, which is not about Jones, Sherrod et al. 
I asked... who's PUSHING them as if legitimate stories?

Here's a hint:


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> Tell me, who's been demonizing blacks with scare stories about ACORN, Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, "New Black Panthers"  , "Knockout games" and the like, so that morons like the red fender boy perpetuate racial stereotypes?  Is that Lyndon Johnson?
> 
> By the way you can't take blogs and dump them in here verbatim -- even with attribution.  Against the rules.  And when you do quote them in part, *link* them.
> 
> Try to come up with an original thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acorn was totally disbanding. As a result of over 20 investigations into voter fraud and other illegal activity of the organization.
> 
> Obuma Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy and Being A Self Proclaimed Communist
> 
> These days, Sherrod has returned to the work she was doing before all the publicity.
> 
> The New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, sometimes known simply as the Black Panther Case, were Found GUILTY BUT Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.
> 
> Knock Out game is primarily black thugs attacking white and Jewish citizens!
> 
> Now if you'd care to refute them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have missed the question entirely, which is not about Jones, Sherrod et al.
> I asked... who's PUSHING them as if legitimate stories?
> 
> Here's a hint:
Click to expand...


And as I stated, refute any of those stories I replied to you with!....Here, I'll even give you something to refute!

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A]BLACK PANTHERS ATTACK VOTERS IN PHILLY VOTING PLACE - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Political Junky

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh huh.
> 
> Tell me, who's been demonizing blacks with scare stories about ACORN, Van Jones, Shirley Sherrod, "New Black Panthers"  , "Knockout games" and the like, so that morons like the red fender boy perpetuate racial stereotypes?  Is that Lyndon Johnson?
> 
> By the way you can't take blogs and dump them in here verbatim -- even with attribution.  Against the rules.  And when you do quote them in part, *link* them.
> 
> Try to come up with an original thought.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Acorn was totally disbanding. As a result of over 20 investigations into voter fraud and other illegal activity of the organization.
> 
> Obuma Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy and Being A Self Proclaimed Communist
> 
> These days, Sherrod has returned to the work she was doing before all the publicity.
> 
> The New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, sometimes known simply as the Black Panther Case, were Found GUILTY BUT Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.
> 
> Knock Out game is primarily black thugs attacking white and Jewish citizens!
> 
> Now if you'd care to refute them!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You seem to have missed the question entirely, which is not about Jones, Sherrod et al.
> I asked... who's PUSHING them as if legitimate stories?
> 
> Here's a hint:
Click to expand...

The Right must be so proud.


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Acorn was totally disbanding. As a result of over 20 investigations into voter fraud and other illegal activity of the organization.
> 
> Obuma Adviser Van Jones Resigns Amid Controversy and Being A Self Proclaimed Communist
> 
> These days, Sherrod has returned to the work she was doing before all the publicity.
> 
> The New Black Panther Party voter intimidation case, sometimes known simply as the Black Panther Case, were Found GUILTY BUT Charges Against 'New Black Panthers' Dropped by Obama Justice Dept.
> 
> Knock Out game is primarily black thugs attacking white and Jewish citizens!
> 
> Now if you'd care to refute them!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You seem to have missed the question entirely, which is not about Jones, Sherrod et al.
> I asked... who's PUSHING them as if legitimate stories?
> 
> Here's a hint:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And as I stated, refute any of those stories I replied to you with!....Here, I'll even give you something to refute!
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qX4dcvIYk9A]BLACK PANTHERS ATTACK VOTERS IN PHILLY VOTING PLACE - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Your refutation is in the lower left corner of that image.
That's why I put a  by that one.  It's the silliest.  "Oooh, scary black man! Must be New Black Panthers!"  

I think that was Fox Noise's way of finding out where the silly-envelope is... "just how gullible are sheeple"?

The same thing going on in all of those "stories".  See the pattern.


----------



## Vigilante

Oh, I should have remembered when subversives are faced with video bitch slapping them, they must look for the FOX NEWS logo to divert from the truth., simply because the lap dog subversive media won't cover that news. Next, I'll be called a racist, or sexist, or some other silly thing that most will laugh at.....you mental patients are so predictable.


----------



## paperview

Vigilante said:


> Oh, I should have remembered when subversives are faced with video bitch slapping them, they must look for the FOX NEWS logo to divert from the truth., simply because the lap dog subversive media won't cover that news. Next, I'll be called a racist, or sexist, or some other silly thing that most will laugh at.....you mental patients are so predictable.


You've been caught plagiarizing, 

http://www.usmessageboard.com/8772296-post55.html


so for now, I'll just call you a thief.


----------



## GreenBean

jasonnfree said:


> GreenBean said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truthmatters said:
> 
> 
> 
> Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> Southern strategy
> 
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> Jump to: navigation, search
> 
> 
> For the British strategy in the American Revolutionary War, see Southern theater of the American Revolutionary War.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Southern United States as defined by the United States Census Bureau
> In American politics, the Southern strategy refers to a Republican Party strategy of gaining political support for certain candidates in the Southern United States by appealing to racism against African Americans.[1][2][3][4][5]
> 
> Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery before the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are unable to refute content, so you resort to ridiculing the source.  Typical Libtard horse shit .  What a loser !
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another republican trying to explain what wonderful people they can be to blacks.  As long as the black man gets off his lazy butt and gets a job (none of them work you know),  stops having illegitimate children, and starts acting white.
Click to expand...


And yet another Liberal, unable to address the facts *because the facts refute his stance.*


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Oh, I should have remembered when subversives are faced with video bitch slapping them, they must look for the FOX NEWS logo to divert from the truth., simply because the lap dog subversive media won't cover that news. Next, I'll be called a racist, or sexist, or some other silly thing that most will laugh at.....you mental patients are so predictable.









I didn't need to "look for" jack squat; I know this circus already and what its source is.

The other media "won't cover it" because it isn't a story.  It's made-up bullshit bread and circus that Fox Noise sells to the gullible.  The circus is this part; the bread is what they make feeding you an endless stream of commercials after establishing a link with you on the basis of emotion and drama and the mythological bullshit of fear fables.  The DOJ (of the Bush Administration) found nothing here, but that doesn't stop Fox Noise.

See the scary black man.  Fear him.  The other media won't tell you but we will.  And we'll tell you more right after six more commercials.  Feel the fear and stay right here.

Fox noise ain't there to inform you.  They're there to sell you fear and emotional dependence. And you're still buyin'.  

Gullible's Travels...


----------



## hunarcy

paperview said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I should have remembered when subversives are faced with video bitch slapping them, they must look for the FOX NEWS logo to divert from the truth., simply because the lap dog subversive media won't cover that news. Next, I'll be called a racist, or sexist, or some other silly thing that most will laugh at.....you mental patients are so predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> You've been caught plagiarizing,
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/8772296-post55.html
> 
> 
> so for now, I'll just call you a thief.
Click to expand...


Way to attack the messenger so you can avoid the message because you can't refute it.


----------



## Spoonman

jasonnfree said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fact is, welfare is a greater form of slavery than any chains ever were.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can you elaborate on this?   You must be reading the same material as Clementine.  Have you ever read anything about  slavery by the way?
Click to expand...


you want to know another similarity between the slavery of chains and the slavery of welfare?

Like the slavery of chains it is going to take a republican to free them of the bondage of welfare.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

For the racists -


----------



## S.J.

Luddly Neddite said:


> For the racists -


Irony at it's best.


----------



## Pogo

S.J. said:


> Luddly Neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the racists -
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Irony at it's best.
Click to expand...


-- which ironically, is punctuation at its worst.


----------



## Vigilante

paperview said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I should have remembered when subversives are faced with video bitch slapping them, they must look for the FOX NEWS logo to divert from the truth., simply because the lap dog subversive media won't cover that news. Next, I'll be called a racist, or sexist, or some other silly thing that most will laugh at.....you mental patients are so predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> You've been caught plagiarizing,
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/8772296-post55.html
> 
> 
> so for now, I'll just call you a thief.
Click to expand...


Simply passing on a truism, which subversives just explode their heads over....don't they!


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I should have remembered when subversives are faced with video bitch slapping them, they must look for the FOX NEWS logo to divert from the truth., simply because the lap dog subversive media won't cover that news. Next, I'll be called a racist, or sexist, or some other silly thing that most will laugh at.....you mental patients are so predictable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't need to "look for" jack squat; I know this circus already and what its source is.
> 
> The other media "won't cover it" because it isn't a story.  It's made-up bullshit bread and circus that Fox Noise sells to the gullible.  The circus is this part; the bread is what they make feeding you an endless stream of commercials after establishing a link with you on the basis of emotion and drama and the mythological bullshit of fear fables.  The DOJ (of the Bush Administration) found nothing here, but that doesn't stop Fox Noise.
> 
> See the scary black man.  Fear him.  The other media won't tell you but we will.  And we'll tell you more right after six more commercials.  Feel the fear and stay right here.
> 
> Fox noise ain't there to inform you.  They're there to sell you fear and emotional dependence. And you're still buyin'.
> 
> Gullible's Travels...
Click to expand...


I imagine the RACE shit is the reason more people, including subversive/democrats watch it than any other.... But, you're in your own little racist world with Al, Louie, and Jesse to form a circle jerk!....You can even call off the strokes!


----------



## Pogo

No idea.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> No idea.



Of course not, you've been clueless since you started posting!

BTW, do you ever work, or simply LIVE on the board, and gather FREE SHIT from your Mess...iah?


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, you've been clueless since you started posting!
> 
> BTW, do you ever work, or simply LIVE on the board, and gather FREE SHIT from your Mess...iah?
Click to expand...


Fatter o' mact I'm at work right now.  Do you ever bother to find anything out first, or do you just assssssume?

And what the fuck would you know about my religion, my "messiah" or my politics?  You just got here.  Fuck you.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No idea.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, you've been clueless since you started posting!
> 
> BTW, do you ever work, or simply LIVE on the board, and gather FREE SHIT from your Mess...iah?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fatter o' mact I'm at work right now.  Do you ever bother to find anything out first, or do you just assssssume?
> 
> And what the fuck would you know about my religion, my "messiah" or my politics?  You just got here.  Fuck you.
Click to expand...


So you fuck off at work all day an LIVE on this forum.... What's to know, anyone with an IQ over 100 knows your a subversive, and loves da Manchuriam muslim in da White House


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course not, you've been clueless since you started posting!
> 
> BTW, do you ever work, or simply LIVE on the board, and gather FREE SHIT from your Mess...iah?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fatter o' mact I'm at work right now.  Do you ever bother to find anything out first, or do you just assssssume?
> 
> And what the fuck would you know about my religion, my "messiah" or my politics?  You just got here.  Fuck you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you fuck off at work all day an LIVE on this forum.... What's to know, anyone with an IQ over 100 knows your a subversive, and loves da Manchuriam muslim in da White House
Click to expand...


Links to all of that...?

Links to _any_ of that...?

No I'm not "fucking off"; I've got the system running itself and I stand by to see that it stays that way, which leaves me this to keep me awake.  It's how I roll.

I will cop to 'subversive'.  As long as you're referring to the dominant paradigm. 

But all that other stuff .... well you can join the ranks of Quantum_Dickbag and Sawbriars and all the other clowns who made the mistake of presuming blanket generalizations only to find out they couldn't document it.  Happy huntin'.


----------



## mamooth

I think poor Vigilante actually thinks we've never seen his race-baiting bedwetter act before. To quote Freddy Krueger, "How sweet, fresh meat."

The only thing original about him is his preference for that McCarthyist term "subversive". Looks like we have a big fan of Senator Joe McCarthy in Vigilante.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fatter o' mact I'm at work right now.  Do you ever bother to find anything out first, or do you just assssssume?
> 
> And what the fuck would you know about my religion, my "messiah" or my politics?  You just got here.  Fuck you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you fuck off at work all day an LIVE on this forum.... What's to know, anyone with an IQ over 100 knows your a subversive, and loves da Manchuriam muslim in da White House
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Links to all of that...?
> 
> Links to _any_ of that...?
> 
> No I'm not "fucking off"; I've got the system running itself and I stand by to see that it stays that way, which leaves me this to keep me awake.  It's how I roll.
> 
> I will cop to 'subversive'.  As long as you're referring to the dominant paradigm.
> 
> But all that other stuff .... well you can join the ranks of Quantum_Dickbag and Sawbriars and all the other clowns who made the mistake of presuming blanket generalizations only to find out they couldn't document it.  Happy huntin'.
Click to expand...


Yes, you are the very definition of a subversive, Links, you have all day long to look them up, need help now with a search engine? Ah, just think (I know it's hard) you now have something useful to do for an hour or so, and not make yourself look like the little toad, you are.


----------



## Vigilante

mamooth said:


> I think poor Vigilante actually thinks we've never seen his race-baiting bedwetter act before. To quote Freddy Krueger, "How sweet, fresh meat."
> 
> The only thing original about him is his preference for that McCarthyist term "subversive". Looks like we have a big fan of Senator Joe McCarthy in Vigilante.



You're already lost, your first 2 words in your opening diatribe are an oxymoron!


----------



## Pogo

mamooth said:


> I think poor Vigilante actually thinks we've never seen his race-baiting bedwetter act before. To quote Freddy Krueger, "How sweet, fresh meat."
> 
> The only thing original about him is his preference for that McCarthyist term "subversive". Looks like we have a big fan of Senator Joe McCarthy in Vigilante.



Oh I hope so.  That would be fun.  It's been weeks.  (/rubs hands, salivates)


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> mamooth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think poor Vigilante actually thinks we've never seen his race-baiting bedwetter act before. To quote Freddy Krueger, "How sweet, fresh meat."
> 
> The only thing original about him is his preference for that McCarthyist term "subversive". Looks like we have a big fan of Senator Joe McCarthy in Vigilante.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I hope so.  That would be fun.  It's been weeks.  (/rubs hands, salivates)
Click to expand...


Yes, this will be fun, gollywog!


----------



## Pogo

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you fuck off at work all day an LIVE on this forum.... What's to know, anyone with an IQ over 100 knows your a subversive, and loves da Manchuriam muslim in da White House
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Links to all of that...?
> 
> Links to _any_ of that...?
> 
> No I'm not "fucking off"; I've got the system running itself and I stand by to see that it stays that way, which leaves me this to keep me awake.  It's how I roll.
> 
> I will cop to 'subversive'.  As long as you're referring to the dominant paradigm.
> 
> But all that other stuff .... well you can join the ranks of Quantum_Dickbag and Sawbriars and all the other clowns who made the mistake of presuming blanket generalizations only to find out they couldn't document it.  Happy huntin'.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, you are the very definition of a subversive, Links, you have all day long to look them up, need help now with a search engine? Ah, just think (I know it's hard) you now have something useful to do for an hour or so, and not make yourself look like the little toad, you are.
Click to expand...


Uh -- no, I don't need links.  YOU need links.  To wit:  





> loves da Manchuriam muslim in da White House



That's at least two links right there if not three... 



> gather FREE SHIT from your Mess...iah



Two more.

You have a good deal of homework.  Me I have a good meal and a movie waiting.
Choices.


----------



## Vigilante

Pogo said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Links to all of that...?
> 
> Links to _any_ of that...?
> 
> No I'm not "fucking off"; I've got the system running itself and I stand by to see that it stays that way, which leaves me this to keep me awake.  It's how I roll.
> 
> I will cop to 'subversive'.  As long as you're referring to the dominant paradigm.
> 
> But all that other stuff .... well you can join the ranks of Quantum_Dickbag and Sawbriars and all the other clowns who made the mistake of presuming blanket generalizations only to find out they couldn't document it.  Happy huntin'.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are the very definition of a subversive, Links, you have all day long to look them up, need help now with a search engine? Ah, just think (I know it's hard) you now have something useful to do for an hour or so, and not make yourself look like the little toad, you are.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Uh -- no, I don't need links.  YOU need links.  To wit:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> loves da Manchuriam muslim in da White House
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's at least two links right there if not three...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gather FREE SHIT from your Mess...iah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two more.
> 
> You have a good deal of homework.  Me I have a good meal and a movie waiting.
> Choices.
Click to expand...


Yes, that will happen when this jerkoff makes a hole in one! ...And LOOK, he works as hard as you do!


----------



## Political Junky

Vigilante said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you are the very definition of a subversive, Links, you have all day long to look them up, need help now with a search engine? Ah, just think (I know it's hard) you now have something useful to do for an hour or so, and not make yourself look like the little toad, you are.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uh -- no, I don't need links.  YOU need links.  To wit:
> 
> That's at least two links right there if not three...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gather FREE SHIT from your Mess...iah
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Two more.
> 
> You have a good deal of homework.  Me I have a good meal and a movie waiting.
> Choices.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that will happen when this jerkoff makes a hole in one! ...And LOOK, he works as hard as you do!
Click to expand...

What would the Right do without Photoshop?


----------



## Vigilante

Political Junky said:


> Vigilante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Uh -- no, I don't need links.  YOU need links.  To wit:
> 
> That's at least two links right there if not three...
> 
> 
> 
> Two more.
> 
> You have a good deal of homework.  Me I have a good meal and a movie waiting.
> Choices.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that will happen when this jerkoff makes a hole in one! ...And LOOK, he works as hard as you do!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What would the Right do without Photoshop?
Click to expand...


I can't help the fact that subversives don't have the mental capacity to do them effectively!


----------



## Lumpy 1

Oh what the heck..get the juices flowing


----------



## Discombobulated

Lumpy 1 said:


> Nyvin said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do Democrats include others when they bought the African Slaves in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no flipping clue what this is trying to say or ask
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That figures, Democrats bought, brought, tortured, hung, segregated and enslaved Africans (etc,), yet they like to include all other Americans in their well earned and exclusive shame..
Click to expand...


Some people should be ashamed, some a lot more than others.


----------



## Vigilante




----------



## Discombobulated

Fortunately we have the Tea Party now to carry on the grand traditions of the Confederacy.


----------



## rupol2000

Regardless of the African slaves, the leftist system is slavery. The slave must be completely subordinate and controlled


----------

