America's Poorest White Town

[LOIE]

Bulletin:

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


Same party that blocked every Republican anti-lynching bill.

"The night riders move through the darkness, white against the black road....they go about their business, their horsed draped, guns and bullwhips banging dully against saddles.

....this is the South Carolina of the 1870s, not of the turn of a new millennium, and the night riders are the terror of these times. They roam upcountry, visiting their version of justice on poor blacks and the Republicans that support them, refusing to bow to the requirements of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments."
From the novel "The White Road," by John Connolly



Try to shake off your slave mentality.

From Politifact on the KKK:

Reporter Sean Gorman discovered then that the group’s founding is murky but that "historians generally agree it was founded by a handful of Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tenn. as a social fraternity and it quickly changed into a violent group that terrorized newly empowered black and white Republicans in the South."

One historian confirmed there’s a historic link between the Democrats and the KKK: Many angry Southern whites during the 1860s and 1870s were Democrats, and some joined the KKK. But according to J. Michael Martinez, who wrote the 2007 book "Carpetbaggers, Cavalry and the KKK," it’s misleading to say the Democratic Party founded the Klan.
It was a more of a grassroots creation, Martinez said. Plus, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE PAST IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF TODAY. From the 1930s onward, "you think of the Democratic Party being considered the party of the disenfranchised," he said.

Carole Emberton, an associated professor at the University of Buffalo, agreed.

"Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to the white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," she said.

Back in the mid-19th century, various Klans in the South acted as a "strong arm" for many local Democratic politicians, Emberton said. The Confederate general believed to be the KKK’s first Grand Dragon even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.
By the time the Civil Rights Act became law, the Democratic Party supported so-called liberal causes that "had been the banner of the Republican Party."

 

[Stashman]

Go fuck yourself. Apparently that's the only language your racist ass can understand. And since you have no decency, you will get no decency.

From Politifact on the KKK:

Reporter Sean Gorman discovered then that the group’s founding is murky but that "historians generally agree it was founded by a handful of Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tenn. as a social fraternity and it quickly changed into a violent group that terrorized newly empowered black and white Republicans in the South."

One historian confirmed there’s a historic link between the Democrats and the KKK: Many angry Southern whites during the 1860s and 1870s were Democrats, and some joined the KKK. But according to J. Michael Martinez, who wrote the 2007 book "Carpetbaggers, Cavalry and the KKK," it’s misleading to say the Democratic Party founded the Klan.
It was a more of a grassroots creation, Martinez said. Plus, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE PAST IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF TODAY. From the 1930s onward, "you think of the Democratic Party being considered the party of the disenfranchised," he said.

Carole Emberton, an associated professor at the University of Buffalo, agreed.

"Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to the white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," she said.

Back in the mid-19th century, various Klans in the South acted as a "strong arm" for many local Democratic politicians, Emberton said. The Confederate general believed to be the KKK’s first Grand Dragon even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.
By the time the Civil Rights Act became law, the Democratic Party supported so-called liberal causes that "had been the banner of the Republican Party."

In all respect to you the so called party switch never happened. I think there was 1 who did. Please list for me names of those that switched. Bet ya can't. LOL!

 

[JackOfNoTrades]

The absolute worse cities in America have been in Democratic control for decades. Crime, poverty, drug use, teenage pregnancy, high school drop outs etc... They tell the blacks in these cities how they are going to help them, but never seem to do it. In fact conditions get worse every year.
Than they put planned parenthood clinics in those inner cities to make sure they can kill off as many as possible. They fight against school choice to keep blacks in failing schools.
Wake up America! The only racist I see are on the left.

Take another hit, ace. When you're down to parroting alt-right talking points..you got nothing.
Poverty??..Everywhere...and it don't care about race. Here, take a tour through Applachia..I know you haven't.

America's poorest white town: abandoned by coal, swallowed by drugs

In the first of a series of dispatches from the US’s poorest communities, we visit Beattyville, Kentucky, blighted by a lack of jobs and addiction to painkillers

www.theguardian.com

 

[PoliticalChic]

From Politifact on the KKK:

Reporter Sean Gorman discovered then that the group’s founding is murky but that "historians generally agree it was founded by a handful of Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tenn. as a social fraternity and it quickly changed into a violent group that terrorized newly empowered black and white Republicans in the South."

One historian confirmed there’s a historic link between the Democrats and the KKK: Many angry Southern whites during the 1860s and 1870s were Democrats, and some joined the KKK. But according to J. Michael Martinez, who wrote the 2007 book "Carpetbaggers, Cavalry and the KKK," it’s misleading to say the Democratic Party founded the Klan.
It was a more of a grassroots creation, Martinez said. Plus, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE PAST IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF TODAY. From the 1930s onward, "you think of the Democratic Party being considered the party of the disenfranchised," he said.

Carole Emberton, an associated professor at the University of Buffalo, agreed.

"Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to the white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," she said.

Back in the mid-19th century, various Klans in the South acted as a "strong arm" for many local Democratic politicians, Emberton said. The Confederate general believed to be the KKK’s first Grand Dragon even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.
By the time the Civil Rights Act became law, the Democratic Party supported so-called liberal causes that "had been the banner of the Republican Party."

Politfact is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, you moron.

On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"​

sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.

PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?

But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:

For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.

On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.

Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.

That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."

This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.

There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.



VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way







This bias is evident in:

1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate

PolitiFact examination;2

2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;

and

3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis

and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.

http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf





Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com



The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ



"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.

Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." http://mediatrackers.org/florida/20...-times-scores-pants-on-fire-for-partisan-bias

PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)​

 

[IM2]

If all the racism they say is taking place really is taking place than where is it? Don't know how old you are but I remember the news networks showing the KKK rallys on the news in full regalia. Since the left controls all 99% of all media then if it existed as much as they seemed to have you fooled into believing, than they would show to you. Don't see that. Do You?

Are you such a dumbfuck to think all there is to racism are KKK rallies? Look at this place. You're looking at racism dead square in the face. The left may be fooling you but you are part of the racism.

 

[IM2]

My fav radio host, Dennis Prager, often says that courage is the lest common of virtues. Gratitude is second.

And, you just proved that.



You might consider the words of Muhammad Ali on the subject:
" In 1960, when a Soviet Union reporter asked him about being a second-class citizen in America at the Rome Olympics, he said the following, comparing America and Africa:


... after his return to the United States, Ali reportedly said “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat” after a reporter asked, “Champ, what did you think of Africa?”
Muhammad Ali thought Africa was a jungle... until he visited - Face2Face Africa

That's on Muhammad Ali. He found that he was wrong.

Maybe you need to be grateful because they let you escape Kim Jung Il and his son. But I don't have to be grateful for a damn thing. So make up your motherfucking mind bitch, if I wasn't ever a slave, whites never saved me from slavery and if no one white today is to be blamed for what their great grandparents did, then they can't credit them. If we aren't to hold past people to modern standards, then we cannot credit past people for modern freedom. Didn't they teach you this in those ivy league schools you say you attended? Or is the only ivy you know about is that poison ivy that has swollen up your face so that you look like a chipmunk. Go somewhere and eat some nuts ho.

 

[katsteve2012]

And you didn't object to the slander of all those white people who died to end slavery?


I'm surprised at you.




"At least 620,000 combatants died during the four-year struggle; recent estimates put the total closer to 750,000, or more than 2 percent of the nation’s population at that time. More soldiers died in prison camps alone than America lost during the entire Vietnam War. Perhaps more to the point, some 350,000 Union soldiers died during the conflict, abolitionists in effect if not always in intent. Adjusted for population, that would amount to almost 5 million service deaths today, amounting to a blood sacrifice more than sufficient to redeem whatever moral or intellectual inconsistencies there are to be found in America’s founding documents.

And if that’s not sufficient? Well, then, nothing will be. But for most Americans—and for much of the rest of the world—it is more than enough. "
Blood Redemption



For more than a century, it was believed that 618,000 men died in the Civil War: 360,000 from the North and 258,000 from the South. But in recent decades, historians raised the number to an estimated 750,000 deaths, mostly blamed on the under-counting of Confederate casualties.

I already know EVERY single statistic about the "War For States Rights" that are endlessly regurgitated by people like you, so please save it.

There were also close to 180,000 black soldiers who fought on behalf of the Union for LESSER pay and substandard treatment, in hopes that it would BUY their freedom, and ACCEPTANCE into American society.

Obviously, you sidestepped that fact, and if you didn't know that until now, look it up yourself, because I have no time to waste educating you.


Understand this:

I sincerely DO NOT want a SINGLE LIVING white person in America today to feel an ounce of guilt at all about slavery or Jim Crow segregation.

And in return, I feel absolutely ZERO gratitude towards those who fought in that same war for what has been misrepresented in history as a "humanitarian" effort to free slaves from bondage, because as soon as the war was over, Jim Crow was introduced and stayed in effect for the next 100 years.

And before you start the argument about "Democrats", Jim Crow laws were also enforced in northern states as well, where there were Republicans who sat by and watched.

The laws were enforced until 1965.

Both parties are equally as corrupt, and always have been and always will be, so your slavish dedication to bashing Democrats and glorifying Republicans, is an outright joke.

Jim Crow was as debilitating to the black population of America as slavery, and it's effect has lingered for generations.

That war was fought on one side to retain slave labor to sustain the southern economy, and on the other side, if slavery had encroached upon the north, it would have displaced the white labor force in that region. so that was not going to be allowed to happen.

It was a war that was about economics, and was not a "humanitarian" effort.

As an editorial comment, your slavish devotion to bashing Democrats and glorifying Republicans is truly amusing.

Because both are equally despicable.

 

[IM2]

You're not speaking to me any longer???????????


Was it something I said?

I'm speaking directly to you.
Dum Yung ho.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I don't need to do that. Republicans have fucked up this country, a republican fucked up my state, but you want to talk about cities. The fact is republicans run and lose in cities because what they offer is worse.

How would you know???

 

[IM2]

I already know EVERY single statistic about the "War For States Rights" that are endlessly regurgitated by people like you, so please save it.

There were also close to 180,000 black soldiers who fought on behalf of the Union for LESSER pay and substandard treatment, in hopes that it would BUY their freedom, and ACCEPTANCE into American society.

Obviously, you sidestepped that fact, and if you didn't know that until now, look it up yourself, because I have no time to waste educating you.


Understand this:

I sincerely DO NOT want a SINGLE LIVING white person in America today to feel a single ounce of guilt at all about slavery or Jim Crow segregation.

And in return, I feel absolutely ZERO gratitude for those who fought in that same war for what has been misrepresented in history as a "humanitarian" effort to free slaves from bondage, because as soon as the war was over, Jim Crow was introduced and stayed in effect for the next 100 years.

And before you start the argument about "Democrats", Jim Crow laws were also enforced in northern states as well, where there were "gracious" Republicans.

Both parties are equally as corrupt, and always have been, and they always will be.

Jim Crow was as debilitating to the black population of America as slavery, and it's effect has lingered for generations.

That war was fought on one side to retain slave labor to sustain the southern economy, and on the other side, if slavery had encroached upon the north, it would have displaced the white labor force in that region. so that was not going to be allowed to happen.

It was a war that was about economics, and was not a "humanitarian" effort.

Your slavish devotion to bashing Democrats and glorifying Republicans is truly amusing, because they are two very similar wings.

One left and one right, that live on one big "stinking bird".

Teach!

 

[IM2]

Politfact is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, you moron.

On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"​

sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.

PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?

But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:

For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.

On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.

Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.

That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."

This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.

There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.



VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way







This bias is evident in:

1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate

PolitiFact examination;2

2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;

and

3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis

and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.

http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf





Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com



The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ



"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.

Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." http://mediatrackers.org/florida/20...-times-scores-pants-on-fire-for-partisan-bias

PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)​

Ignorant.

 

[Natural Citizen]

It was a war that was about economics, and was not a "humanitarian" effort.

Lincoln devoted his entire political career to corrupting the established American form of government from one which was ''strictly limited'' and decentralized, as the Founders intended, to a highly centralized, activist state.

Lincoln subverted the Constitution. He tried to crush states rights. He was a Hamiltonian.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I'm speaking directly to you.
Dum Yung ho.

You're an embarrassment to your own cause.

That you're openly encouraged by those may view the way that you carry yourself as some kind of confirmation for their own beliefs is as laughable as it is disturbing.

At least you're self-contained.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Shut the hell up coolie. This ain't 1860 you stupid bitch. The republican party is now the party of the south.

The Modern South, they even have McDonald's now compared to only hardees when the democrats ran it

 

[katsteve2012]

Lincoln devoted his entire political career to corrupting the established American form of government from one which was ''strictly limited'' and decentralized, as the Founders intended, to a highly centralized, activist state.

Lincoln subverted the Constitution. He tried to crush states rights. He was a Hamiltonian.

To be clear, I've never been a Lincoln admirer. I feel that he has been romanticized in history as a great humanitarian, which he clearly was not, however to be fair, he was steered by the era that he lived in.

Furthermore, my own ancestors generally had ZERO rights during the Civil War era, and were only seeking freedom and liberation, by any means necessary.

The so-called "Constitution" had absolutely no impact upon the quality of their lives during that era, except to identify them as less than human.

So I have no dog in that fight.

 

[LOIE]

Politfact is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, you moron.

On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"​

sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.

PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?

But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:

For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.

On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.

Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.

That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."

This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.

There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.



VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way







This bias is evident in:

1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate

PolitiFact examination;2

2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;

and

3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis

and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.

http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf





Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com



The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ



"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.

Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." http://mediatrackers.org/florida/20...-times-scores-pants-on-fire-for-partisan-bias

PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)​

And you believe the things you post from conservative, right-wing news outlets are NOT biased?

 

[otto105]

I keep reminding you to eschew the sort of language that was directed at you during your formative years.....it was child abuse, poor parenting, and should be dealt with by the authorities.


I'd be happy to be on the jury, you poor thing.

In russia, putin tells you what language you speak in...

 

[Wyatt earp]

From Politifact on the KKK:

Reporter Sean Gorman discovered then that the group’s founding is murky but that "historians generally agree it was founded by a handful of Confederate veterans in Pulaski, Tenn. as a social fraternity and it quickly changed into a violent group that terrorized newly empowered black and white Republicans in the South."

One historian confirmed there’s a historic link between the Democrats and the KKK: Many angry Southern whites during the 1860s and 1870s were Democrats, and some joined the KKK. But according to J. Michael Martinez, who wrote the 2007 book "Carpetbaggers, Cavalry and the KKK," it’s misleading to say the Democratic Party founded the Klan.
It was a more of a grassroots creation, Martinez said. Plus, THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF THE PAST IS NOT THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY OF TODAY. From the 1930s onward, "you think of the Democratic Party being considered the party of the disenfranchised," he said.

Carole Emberton, an associated professor at the University of Buffalo, agreed.

"Although the names stayed the same, the platforms of the two parties reversed each other in the mid-20th century, due in large part to the white ‘Dixiecrats’ flight out of the Democratic Party and into the Republican Party after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964," she said.

Back in the mid-19th century, various Klans in the South acted as a "strong arm" for many local Democratic politicians, Emberton said. The Confederate general believed to be the KKK’s first Grand Dragon even spoke at the 1868 Democratic National Convention.
By the time the Civil Rights Act became law, the Democratic Party supported so-called liberal causes that "had been the banner of the Republican Party."

Jimmy Carter won the South and only three dixicrats left the party, Al Gores dad for example remained

 

[otto105]

My fav radio host, Dennis Prager, often says that courage is the lest common of virtues. Gratitude is second.

And, you just proved that.



You might consider the words of Muhammad Ali on the subject:
" In 1960, when a Soviet Union reporter asked him about being a second-class citizen in America at the Rome Olympics, he said the following, comparing America and Africa:


... after his return to the United States, Ali reportedly said “Thank God my granddaddy got on that boat” after a reporter asked, “Champ, what did you think of Africa?”
Muhammad Ali thought Africa was a jungle... until he visited - Face2Face Africa

Denis prayger?

Sounds like an asshole.

Has he tried to buttfuck you?

 

[otto105]

Politfact is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democrat Party, you moron.

On a national level, most people now know PolitiFact is nothing but another Obama-shilling mainstream media joke -- an entity so in the tank for the White House it ruled as mostly true that "Barack Obama has lowest spending record of any recent president:"​

sing inflation-adjusted dollars, Obama had the second-lowest increase -- in fact, he actually presided over a decrease once inflation is taken into account.

Yes, you read that correctly. According to PolitiFact, when indexed for inflation, Obama reduced spending.

PolitiFact's motto appears to be: The bigger the lie the more people will believe it. Hm. Sounds familiar. But how else can you palace guard for a failed president?

But PolitiFact isn't just a national cancer on all of us. This reprehensible outfit also "fact-checks" in a number of individual states, including the crucial swing states of Florida, Wisconsin, Ohio, New Hampshire, and Virginia.

Unfortunately, my lack of superpowers makes it impossible for me to monitor the left-wing propaganda PolitiFact is surely spewing in each individual state. Thankfully, though, the Republican Party of Virginia has had enough and late yesterday hit back at PolitiFact Virginia with both barrels:

For quite some time we've had growing concerns regarding PolitiFact Virginia's approach towards Republicans in general, and in specific, "separating fact from fiction" against Republican candidates, officials and committees.

On February 16th of this year, the Republican Party of Virginia had a meeting with the Editor and Publisher of the Richmond Times-Dispatch regarding the paper's PolitiFact Virginia unit. In late April - two months later - we had a subsequent conference call to follow up on our original meeting.

Since the original meeting - nearly five months ago - PolitiFact Virginia has meted-out 36 rulings, not including recent "Ad Watch" articles. Of those rulings, 26 targeted Republican candidates, elected officials, our State Party, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Crossroads. At the same time, PolitiFact Virginia handed down only 10 rulings on Democrats and one 3rd party organization.

That might not sound like both barrels, but included in the press release is this 87-page document which goes into great detail to refute a number of PolitiFact's lies, some of them nearly as absurd as PolitiFact's mostly true ruling that "Obama has the lowest spending record of any recent president."

This pushback is crucial and hopefully this is just the beginning. Whether it's on a national or local level, Republicans must treat the media as what it truly is: an adversary.

There is no downside anymore in pushing back and going on offense against the corrupt media. New Media is here to stay and not fighting back against the likes of PolitiFact is no different than not fighting back against the DNC.



VA Pushes Back Against PolitiFact, Shows Other States the Way







This bias is evident in:

1) The targeting of Republican political figures for lopsidedly disproportionate

PolitiFact examination;2

2) The showering of Republican politicians with suspiciously negative determinations;

and

3) The basing of these supposed “factual” determinations on highly subjective analysis

and even opinion masquerading as “fact checks.

http://library.constantcontact.com/...nia+--+Political+Bias+--+Final+--+7-10-12.pdf





Now comes a study from the George Mason University Center for Media and Public Affairs that demonstrates empirically that PolitiFact.org, one of the nation's leading "fact checkers," finds that Republicans are dishonest in their claims three times as often as Democrats. "PolitiFact.com has rated Republican claims as false three times as often as Democratic claims during President Obama's second term," the Center said in a release, "despite controversies over Obama administration statements on Benghazi, the IRS and the AP."

The fact that, as the Lichter study shows, "A majority of Democratic statements (54 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely true, compared to only 18 percent of Republican statements," probably has more to do with how the statements were picked and the subjective bias of the fact checker involved than anything remotely empirical. Likewise, the fact that "a majority of Republican statements (52 percent) were rated as mostly or entirely false, compared to only 24 percent of Democratic statements" probably has more to do with spinning stories than it does with evaluating statements.

There is a "truth gap" in Washington, but it doesn't exist along the lines the fact checkers would have you think. It was Obama who said you could keep the health care you had if you liked it, even if Obamacare became law. It was Obama who said the Citizens United decision would open the floodgates of foreign money into U.S. campaigns. It was Obama who said Benghazi happened because of a YouTube video. It was Obama's IRS that denied conservative political groups had been singled out for special scrutiny. And it was Obama who promised that taxes would not go up for any American making less than $250,000 per year.

All of these statements and plenty more are demonstrably false,

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/peter-roff/2013/05/28/study-finds-fact-checkers-biased-against-republicans

PolitiFact.com is a project operated by the Tampa Bay Times, in which reporters and editors from the Times and affiliated media outlets "fact-check statements by members of Congress, the White House, lobbyists and interest groups".https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PolitiFact.com



The St. PetersburgTampa Bay Times, which started PolitiFact in conjunction with the Congressional Quarterly, is a traditionally liberal paper. We note that PolitiFact's stories appear to damage Republicans far more often than Democrats despite the fact that PF tends to choose about as many stories dealing with Republicans as for Democrats. If the selection process was blind then either proportions should be approximately even or else the party with worse ratings should receive more ratings overall according to what PolitiFact lists as its selection criteria. Plus our independent research helps confirm the hypothesis. About PolitiFact Bias/FAQ



"The Tampa Bay Times, which produces the PolitFact Truth-o-Meter, has not endorsed a single Republican candidate this century for any of the three most important positions on the Florida election ballot. Accordingly, the Times scores a “Pants on Fire” for its lack of objectivity, according to an extensive analysis by Media Trackers Florida.

Since 2000, the Times has issued 10 endorsements in elections for U.S. President, U.S. Senate, and Florida Governor. Nine of the 10 endorsements went to Democrats, with the sole exception being theTimes’ endorsement of Democrat-leaning Independent Charlie Crist in the 2010 U.S. Senate contest." http://mediatrackers.org/florida/20...-times-scores-pants-on-fire-for-partisan-bias

PolitiFact’s liberal bias, yet again (Arizona law; Climategate)​

In russia, putin does the fact checkering for you.