Confederate statue removed from historic North Carolina courthouse

[Correll]

Several northern states had very small slave populations...NJ is one of them

We do not celebrate that history

The poster with the geographical challenge is trying to float yet another dishonest argument, suggesting that the conflict might have been about who "had" slaves. It was not, of course --- it was about who could prohibit slavery. That was the whole point of secession --- control of the future power of the legality of slavery.

New Jersey had already abolished, like many states phasing out over time. West Virginia did the same, and even separated itself from the Confederate cause by seceding from the secession. The Confederacy's whole hangup was that they feared they would lose control over slavery and be forced to abandon it. But here's a poster who wants to distract to "where slaves existed" just like the other "leftist Alabama" klown who wants to make it about "George Washington".

I've seen nothing to indicate that that was his intent. Seems like something you pulled out of your ass.

Whelp --- read the post he started with and tell us what else he could have meant.

He entered the thread shortly after RW made the fucking stupid claim that a number of issues, including slavery, was the legacy of the confederacy.


It seems likely that he was pointing out that slavery, was not solely a legacy of the Confederacy.

Doooooooooooon't think so since he specified not a "legacy" but the time period DURING the War.

He listed a series of states calling them "northern" states with slavery. Only one (NJ) was actually "northern", three of them were border states, and among them Missouri, West Virginia and Maryland had all abolished slavery before the War ended. So it's fairly clear both what his time frame and his purpose were.

Correct. RW, used the word, "legacy". And one of the things he claimed was a "legacy" of the Confederacy, was slavery.


Not being in the Confederacy and having slavery, is all that would be needed to show that RW point, was wrong.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

There are Germans living today whose descendants were Nazis, they don't honor and remember them with statues and monuments because it is against the law. Anyone who treats another human being in that manner should never be honored.

That is a moronic analogy. Ask rw. He made that analogy and when challenged, he ran away from it, like a little girl.


What nations did the South try to conquer? What groups did they commit genocide on? What outside nation occupied them and ruled over them for generations? What nations were they split into?


Dumbest analogy ever. Which makes sense considering who it comes from.

The part you are missing he is, is not about conquering land it's about the treatment of another human being.

He is the one that picked his analogy. I'm just pointing out how fucking stupid he is, and how fucking stupid his analogy is.


If you want to discuss the Confederacy's "treatment" of other humans, then let's stick to that, or at last to analogies that have done something similar. Just saying "nazis" because "nazis" are the worst, is they type of thing an incredible stupid and dishonest person would do.


AND it is worth noting, that it is incredible disrespectful to those that died in the Holocaust, to use them as a partisan prop, to score a political advantage against your enemies, you soulless monster.

You are a racist idiot, if you don't understand the analogy I don't know what to tell you.

1. Calling me a racist, just shows that you are a fucking retard.

So you call yourself a dumbass racist defender.

2. I understand the analogy far better than you. I just pointed out how fucking retarded it is, and how retarded you lefties are for making it or defending it. Note your complete inability to defend your analogy in any way.

It's nothing to defend, it is spot on Jackass.

 

[Pogo]

The poster with the geographical challenge is trying to float yet another dishonest argument, suggesting that the conflict might have been about who "had" slaves. It was not, of course --- it was about who could prohibit slavery. That was the whole point of secession --- control of the future power of the legality of slavery.

New Jersey had already abolished, like many states phasing out over time. West Virginia did the same, and even separated itself from the Confederate cause by seceding from the secession. The Confederacy's whole hangup was that they feared they would lose control over slavery and be forced to abandon it. But here's a poster who wants to distract to "where slaves existed" just like the other "leftist Alabama" klown who wants to make it about "George Washington".

I've seen nothing to indicate that that was his intent. Seems like something you pulled out of your ass.

Whelp --- read the post he started with and tell us what else he could have meant.

He entered the thread shortly after RW made the fucking stupid claim that a number of issues, including slavery, was the legacy of the confederacy.


It seems likely that he was pointing out that slavery, was not solely a legacy of the Confederacy.

Doooooooooooon't think so since he specified not a "legacy" but the time period DURING the War.

He listed a series of states calling them "northern" states with slavery. Only one (NJ) was actually "northern", three of them were border states, and among them Missouri, West Virginia and Maryland had all abolished slavery before the War ended. So it's fairly clear both what his time frame and his purpose were.

Correct. RW, used the word, "legacy". And one of the things he claimed was a "legacy" of the Confederacy, was slavery.


Not being in the Confederacy and having slavery, is all that would be needed to show that RW point, was wrong.

"Legacy" still does not mean "during". That has not changed in the last fifteen seconds.

Roll it.

What do Delaware, Maryland, Missouri, Kentucky, West Virginia, New Jersey and the capital of the Union, Washington DC all have in common?

Anyone know? Any guesses?

All were slave states/slaveholders from the North during the Civil War.

Note that his post does not quote any other post.

 

[Polishprince]

That is a moronic analogy. Ask rw. He made that analogy and when challenged, he ran away from it, like a little girl.


What nations did the South try to conquer? What groups did they commit genocide on? What outside nation occupied them and ruled over them for generations? What nations were they split into?


Dumbest analogy ever. Which makes sense considering who it comes from.

The part you are missing he is, is not about conquering land it's about the treatment of another human being.

He is the one that picked his analogy. I'm just pointing out how fucking stupid he is, and how fucking stupid his analogy is.


If you want to discuss the Confederacy's "treatment" of other humans, then let's stick to that, or at last to analogies that have done something similar. Just saying "nazis" because "nazis" are the worst, is they type of thing an incredible stupid and dishonest person would do.


AND it is worth noting, that it is incredible disrespectful to those that died in the Holocaust, to use them as a partisan prop, to score a political advantage against your enemies, you soulless monster.

You are a racist idiot, if you don't understand the analogy I don't know what to tell you.

Don't look at me, we Poles freed the Slaves in 1347 and without a war.


1. Calling me a racist, just shows that you are a fucking retard.

So you call yourself a dumbass racist defender.

2. I understand the analogy far better than you. I just pointed out how fucking retarded it is, and how retarded you lefties are for making it or defending it. Note your complete inability to defend your analogy in any way.

It's nothing to defend, it is spot on Jackass.

 

[Correll]

That is a moronic analogy. Ask rw. He made that analogy and when challenged, he ran away from it, like a little girl.


What nations did the South try to conquer? What groups did they commit genocide on? What outside nation occupied them and ruled over them for generations? What nations were they split into?


Dumbest analogy ever. Which makes sense considering who it comes from.

The part you are missing he is, is not about conquering land it's about the treatment of another human being.

He is the one that picked his analogy. I'm just pointing out how fucking stupid he is, and how fucking stupid his analogy is.


If you want to discuss the Confederacy's "treatment" of other humans, then let's stick to that, or at last to analogies that have done something similar. Just saying "nazis" because "nazis" are the worst, is they type of thing an incredible stupid and dishonest person would do.


AND it is worth noting, that it is incredible disrespectful to those that died in the Holocaust, to use them as a partisan prop, to score a political advantage against your enemies, you soulless monster.

You are a racist idiot, if you don't understand the analogy I don't know what to tell you.

1. Calling me a racist, just shows that you are a fucking retard.

So you call yourself a dumbass racist defender.

2. I understand the analogy far better than you. I just pointed out how fucking retarded it is, and how retarded you lefties are for making it or defending it. Note your complete inability to defend your analogy in any way.

It's nothing to defend, it is spot on Jackass.

Except when challenged on the specifics, you and your fellow loser RW, couldn't support your analogy at all.



YOU'VE LOST. YOU LOOK STUPID. EVEN MORE THAN NORMAL.

 

[Correll]

I've seen nothing to indicate that that was his intent. Seems like something you pulled out of your ass.

Whelp --- read the post he started with and tell us what else he could have meant.

He entered the thread shortly after RW made the fucking stupid claim that a number of issues, including slavery, was the legacy of the confederacy.


It seems likely that he was pointing out that slavery, was not solely a legacy of the Confederacy.

Doooooooooooon't think so since he specified not a "legacy" but the time period DURING the War.

He listed a series of states calling them "northern" states with slavery. Only one (NJ) was actually "northern", three of them were border states, and among them Missouri, West Virginia and Maryland had all abolished slavery before the War ended. So it's fairly clear both what his time frame and his purpose were.

Correct. RW, used the word, "legacy". And one of the things he claimed was a "legacy" of the Confederacy, was slavery.


Not being in the Confederacy and having slavery, is all that would be needed to show that RW point, was wrong.

"Legacy" still does not mean "during". That has not changed in the last fifteen seconds.

Take it up with RW. He is the retard that doesn't seem to know that.


And since you gave him a pass, when I told you about it, but attacked the people pointing out how stupid his claim was,



you seem retarded too.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

So they saved the world from Nazis, but back home they hated their fellow Americans because they had a different skin color. Smfh.

I have no idea of the racial views of the southern troopers of WWII. I can speak to those of the North, at least the ones I knew personally growing up.


You asked a question and I answered it. Do you have something to say in response, or is this where you admit that you don't give a fuck about the facts of the matter, you just spew hate?

You have no idea of the racial views of folks from the south?

Do you think a system of Jim Crow (legal apartheid) just popped up out of nowhere despite the objections of all of those "southern troopers"??

Do you think black men who also fought for this country in that same world war were lynched and their racist murderers not even convicted despite the objections of all of those "southern troopers"??

You folks really twist yourself into pretzels to defend your confederate fetish

Correct. Support for such programs could have been very high. Or they could have relatively weak majorities. Or they could have been somewhat unpopular, but with a strongly motivated minority supporting them against a less motivated majority.


I don't know. I've never looked into the support that policy had at that time period, historically.


But regardless, I was asked something good about Southern Whites, and I gave one example, ie they helped a lot, in defeating HItler and the Nazis.


Do you want to address that fact, or are you just here to bog the thread down in mindless partisan race baiting pap?

Still playing dumb huh??

Ok....let's say there was a policy in the south that made it legal for black folks to go around and lynch and murder white women -- for no other reason than them being white women....they even nick name the policy Jane Crow...and on the rare occasion that someone is arrested for it -- the legal system insures that person gets off...

Obviously, it won't take a genius to deduce that most of the south would be against that.....

However, that is EXACTLY what the policy was in the south in regards to black men women and children-- that you some how claim you don't know much about....

Do you think this man would blow up a church killing four beautiful little girls and not expect legal punishment because he thought the white supremacist policy of Jim Crow wasn't popular??
View attachment 291796

How do you know that suspect didn't expect punishment? He was probably a liberal, at the point in time the crime was committed, Alabama was solidly leftist

What Democrats of those days were also conservative, racist.

 

[Street Juice]

Confederate statue removed from historic North Carolina courthouse


"A North Carolina county removed a Confederate statue from a historic courthouse early on Wednesday, joining the handful of places around the state where such monuments have come down in recent years despite a law protecting them.

News outlets reported that a subdued crowd of several dozen people watched as the statue of a soldier was taken down overnight outside the historic Chatham county courthouse, where it had stood since 1907. By dawn, even the base was gone..."

Burning books will be next...

Good! Remove all the traitor statues. Especially from courthouses.

Hey, Fort Fun Taliban,
You'd be a hit in Afghanistan

 

[Polishprince]

I have no idea of the racial views of the southern troopers of WWII. I can speak to those of the North, at least the ones I knew personally growing up.


You asked a question and I answered it. Do you have something to say in response, or is this where you admit that you don't give a fuck about the facts of the matter, you just spew hate?

You have no idea of the racial views of folks from the south?

Do you think a system of Jim Crow (legal apartheid) just popped up out of nowhere despite the objections of all of those "southern troopers"??

Do you think black men who also fought for this country in that same world war were lynched and their racist murderers not even convicted despite the objections of all of those "southern troopers"??

You folks really twist yourself into pretzels to defend your confederate fetish

Correct. Support for such programs could have been very high. Or they could have relatively weak majorities. Or they could have been somewhat unpopular, but with a strongly motivated minority supporting them against a less motivated majority.


I don't know. I've never looked into the support that policy had at that time period, historically.


But regardless, I was asked something good about Southern Whites, and I gave one example, ie they helped a lot, in defeating HItler and the Nazis.


Do you want to address that fact, or are you just here to bog the thread down in mindless partisan race baiting pap?

Still playing dumb huh??

Ok....let's say there was a policy in the south that made it legal for black folks to go around and lynch and murder white women -- for no other reason than them being white women....they even nick name the policy Jane Crow...and on the rare occasion that someone is arrested for it -- the legal system insures that person gets off...

Obviously, it won't take a genius to deduce that most of the south would be against that.....

However, that is EXACTLY what the policy was in the south in regards to black men women and children-- that you some how claim you don't know much about....

Do you think this man would blow up a church killing four beautiful little girls and not expect legal punishment because he thought the white supremacist policy of Jim Crow wasn't popular??
View attachment 291796

How do you know that suspect didn't expect punishment? He was probably a liberal, at the point in time the crime was committed, Alabama was solidly leftist

What Democrats of those days were also conservative, racist.

Conservatives have never been in favor of church bombings. Where did you get the idea they were?

As far as Alabama, they were certainly leftist for many years, going for the FDR Raw Deal 4 times in succession, voted for Wilson, Cox, Adlai E Stevenson, Al Smith, etc. All the liberal candidates.

 

[rightwinger]

New Jersey?

Slavery in New Jersey

I live in NJ

Haven’t seen the monuments celebrating slavery

Why am I not shocked to find out you are ignorant of your own state's history of slavery.

Several northern states had very small slave populations...NJ is one of them

We do not celebrate that history

Exactly. Dimwingers deny their racist history.

Yea...200 years ago
We are not embracing the good ole days of slavery
You have to be Republican to do that

 

[Polishprince]

Confederate statue removed from historic North Carolina courthouse


"A North Carolina county removed a Confederate statue from a historic courthouse early on Wednesday, joining the handful of places around the state where such monuments have come down in recent years despite a law protecting them.

News outlets reported that a subdued crowd of several dozen people watched as the statue of a soldier was taken down overnight outside the historic Chatham county courthouse, where it had stood since 1907. By dawn, even the base was gone..."

Burning books will be next...

Good! Remove all the traitor statues. Especially from courthouses.

Hey, Fort Fun Taliban,
You'd be a hit in Afghanistan

I'd like to know when Georgia libs are going to blow up Stone Mountain.

 

[Pogo]

Whelp --- read the post he started with and tell us what else he could have meant.

He entered the thread shortly after RW made the fucking stupid claim that a number of issues, including slavery, was the legacy of the confederacy.


It seems likely that he was pointing out that slavery, was not solely a legacy of the Confederacy.

Doooooooooooon't think so since he specified not a "legacy" but the time period DURING the War.

He listed a series of states calling them "northern" states with slavery. Only one (NJ) was actually "northern", three of them were border states, and among them Missouri, West Virginia and Maryland had all abolished slavery before the War ended. So it's fairly clear both what his time frame and his purpose were.

Correct. RW, used the word, "legacy". And one of the things he claimed was a "legacy" of the Confederacy, was slavery.


Not being in the Confederacy and having slavery, is all that would be needed to show that RW point, was wrong.

"Legacy" still does not mean "during". That has not changed in the last fifteen seconds.

Take it up with RW. He is the retard that doesn't seem to know that.
And since you gave him a pass, when I told you about it, but attacked the people pointing out how stupid his claim was,
you seem retarded too.

RW didn't make the post. Nostril did. And WHEN he did he quoted nobody.

Just told you that too.

 

[Correll]

Slavery in New Jersey

I live in NJ

Haven’t seen the monuments celebrating slavery

Why am I not shocked to find out you are ignorant of your own state's history of slavery.

Several northern states had very small slave populations...NJ is one of them

We do not celebrate that history

Exactly. Dimwingers deny their racist history.

Yea...200 years ago
We are not embracing the good ole days of slavery
You have to be Republican to do that

Shut your face anus.

 

[Correll]

He entered the thread shortly after RW made the fucking stupid claim that a number of issues, including slavery, was the legacy of the confederacy.


It seems likely that he was pointing out that slavery, was not solely a legacy of the Confederacy.

Doooooooooooon't think so since he specified not a "legacy" but the time period DURING the War.

He listed a series of states calling them "northern" states with slavery. Only one (NJ) was actually "northern", three of them were border states, and among them Missouri, West Virginia and Maryland had all abolished slavery before the War ended. So it's fairly clear both what his time frame and his purpose were.

Correct. RW, used the word, "legacy". And one of the things he claimed was a "legacy" of the Confederacy, was slavery.


Not being in the Confederacy and having slavery, is all that would be needed to show that RW point, was wrong.

"Legacy" still does not mean "during". That has not changed in the last fifteen seconds.

Take it up with RW. He is the retard that doesn't seem to know that.
And since you gave him a pass, when I told you about it, but attacked the people pointing out how stupid his claim was,
you seem retarded too.

RW didn't make the post. Nostril did. And WHEN he did he quoted nobody.

Just told you that too.

And I told you that he entered the thread shortly after RW made his post.


I did not say that rw made Nost's post. I did not say that he quoted RW.


Everything I said stands.




Take it up with RW. He is the retard that doesn't seem to know that.
And since you gave him a pass, when I told you about it, but attacked the people pointing out how stupid his claim was,
you seem retarded too.

 

[rightwinger]

Why am I not shocked to find out you are ignorant of your own state's history of slavery.

Several northern states had very small slave populations...NJ is one of them

We do not celebrate that history

The poster with the geographical challenge is trying to float yet another dishonest argument, suggesting that the conflict might have been about who "had" slaves. It was not, of course --- it was about who could prohibit slavery. That was the whole point of secession --- control of the future power of the legality of slavery.

New Jersey had already abolished, like many states phasing out over time. West Virginia did the same, and even separated itself from the Confederate cause by seceding from the secession. The Confederacy's whole hangup was that they feared they would lose control over slavery and be forced to abandon it. But here's a poster who wants to distract to "where slaves existed" just like the other "leftist Alabama" klown who wants to make it about "George Washington".

I've seen nothing to indicate that that was his intent. Seems like something you pulled out of your ass.

Whelp --- read the post he started with and tell us what else he could have meant.

He entered the thread shortly after RW made the fucking stupid claim that a number of issues, including slavery, was the legacy of the confederacy.


It seems likely that he was pointing out that slavery, was not solely a legacy of the Confederacy.

The Confederacy was formed to ensure the perpetual conduct of Slavery

Celebrating the Confederacy is celebrating slavery

 

[Pogo]

I have no idea of the racial views of the southern troopers of WWII. I can speak to those of the North, at least the ones I knew personally growing up.


You asked a question and I answered it. Do you have something to say in response, or is this where you admit that you don't give a fuck about the facts of the matter, you just spew hate?

You have no idea of the racial views of folks from the south?

Do you think a system of Jim Crow (legal apartheid) just popped up out of nowhere despite the objections of all of those "southern troopers"??

Do you think black men who also fought for this country in that same world war were lynched and their racist murderers not even convicted despite the objections of all of those "southern troopers"??

You folks really twist yourself into pretzels to defend your confederate fetish

Correct. Support for such programs could have been very high. Or they could have relatively weak majorities. Or they could have been somewhat unpopular, but with a strongly motivated minority supporting them against a less motivated majority.


I don't know. I've never looked into the support that policy had at that time period, historically.


But regardless, I was asked something good about Southern Whites, and I gave one example, ie they helped a lot, in defeating HItler and the Nazis.


Do you want to address that fact, or are you just here to bog the thread down in mindless partisan race baiting pap?

Still playing dumb huh??

Ok....let's say there was a policy in the south that made it legal for black folks to go around and lynch and murder white women -- for no other reason than them being white women....they even nick name the policy Jane Crow...and on the rare occasion that someone is arrested for it -- the legal system insures that person gets off...

Obviously, it won't take a genius to deduce that most of the south would be against that.....

However, that is EXACTLY what the policy was in the south in regards to black men women and children-- that you some how claim you don't know much about....

Do you think this man would blow up a church killing four beautiful little girls and not expect legal punishment because he thought the white supremacist policy of Jim Crow wasn't popular??
View attachment 291796

How do you know that suspect didn't expect punishment? He was probably a liberal, at the point in time the crime was committed, Alabama was solidly leftist

What Democrats of those days were also conservative, racist.

Actually he didn't say "Democrat"; he said that Alabama was "leftist".

And I didn't notice before but he also tried to say the perp was a "liberal".

He's actually trying to connect two opposites, a race supremacist as a "Liberal". Like an arsonist firefighter or cold heat. Ignorance is strength.

Of course this is the same asshat who tried to bring George Washington and Thomas Jefferson to a Lost Cause.

But wait. In a massive stroke of Can You Top This, he's now contradicted himself. Roll it.

I'd like to know when Georgia libs are going to blow up Stone Mountain.

Suddenly his "liberals" are in direct opposition to his other "liberals". And he wonders why his posts are laughed at.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

Since 40% of the Confederacy was in slavery......

Shouldn’t 40% of Confederate statues depict slaves?

Now count how many of the Confederate Statues, celebrate slavery, and I'll be happy to see you match that number with statues about slaves. God. There are other stories you boring fucker.

The Confederacy was more about maintaining slavery than noble Generals on horseback

True.

In fact, there was nothing noble about ‘confederate’ generals and leaders in any regard – they were traitors, war criminals, and purveyors of slavery.

Lee actually pursued a policy where captured freedmen were returned to slavery; he and the other ‘confederate’ generals were in fact reprehensible and repugnant – in no manner deserving of commemoration.

Funny, that the people they fought against, did not feel so strongly about it.


Who are you, to renege on their judgement on the issue? What is your moral authority, that out weights their sacrifice of life and limb?

You're trying to defend immoral men who raped, maimed, lynched, brutalized and murdered people. Why in the hell would these traitors need to be honored.

 

[Pogo]

New Jersey?

Slavery in New Jersey

I live in NJ

Haven’t seen the monuments celebrating slavery

Why am I not shocked to find out you are ignorant of your own state's history of slavery.

t

Several northern states had very small slave populations...NJ is one of them

We do not celebrate that history

Exactly. Dimwingers deny their racist history.

Actually New Jersey abolished in 1804, decades before there even were any Democrats.

NJ was the only state on your list that was actually in the north, btw, and it abolished 1804, not "during" or "after" the War.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

You have no idea of the racial views of folks from the south?

Do you think a system of Jim Crow (legal apartheid) just popped up out of nowhere despite the objections of all of those "southern troopers"??

Do you think black men who also fought for this country in that same world war were lynched and their racist murderers not even convicted despite the objections of all of those "southern troopers"??

You folks really twist yourself into pretzels to defend your confederate fetish

Correct. Support for such programs could have been very high. Or they could have relatively weak majorities. Or they could have been somewhat unpopular, but with a strongly motivated minority supporting them against a less motivated majority.


I don't know. I've never looked into the support that policy had at that time period, historically.


But regardless, I was asked something good about Southern Whites, and I gave one example, ie they helped a lot, in defeating HItler and the Nazis.


Do you want to address that fact, or are you just here to bog the thread down in mindless partisan race baiting pap?

Still playing dumb huh??

Ok....let's say there was a policy in the south that made it legal for black folks to go around and lynch and murder white women -- for no other reason than them being white women....they even nick name the policy Jane Crow...and on the rare occasion that someone is arrested for it -- the legal system insures that person gets off...

Obviously, it won't take a genius to deduce that most of the south would be against that.....

However, that is EXACTLY what the policy was in the south in regards to black men women and children-- that you some how claim you don't know much about....

Do you think this man would blow up a church killing four beautiful little girls and not expect legal punishment because he thought the white supremacist policy of Jim Crow wasn't popular??
View attachment 291796

How do you know that suspect didn't expect punishment? He was probably a liberal, at the point in time the crime was committed, Alabama was solidly leftist

What Democrats of those days were also conservative, racist.

Conservatives have never been in favor of church bombings. Where did you get the idea they were?

The South has always been CONSERVATIVE.

As far as Alabama, they were certainly leftist for many years, going for the FDR Raw Deal 4 times in succession, voted for Wilson, Cox, Adlai E Stevenson, Al Smith, etc. All the liberal candidates.

Look at the Governors of Alabama.

 

[Superbadbrutha]

The part you are missing he is, is not about conquering land it's about the treatment of another human being.

He is the one that picked his analogy. I'm just pointing out how fucking stupid he is, and how fucking stupid his analogy is.


If you want to discuss the Confederacy's "treatment" of other humans, then let's stick to that, or at last to analogies that have done something similar. Just saying "nazis" because "nazis" are the worst, is they type of thing an incredible stupid and dishonest person would do.


AND it is worth noting, that it is incredible disrespectful to those that died in the Holocaust, to use them as a partisan prop, to score a political advantage against your enemies, you soulless monster.

You are a racist idiot, if you don't understand the analogy I don't know what to tell you.

1. Calling me a racist, just shows that you are a fucking retard.

So you call yourself a dumbass racist defender.

2. I understand the analogy far better than you. I just pointed out how fucking retarded it is, and how retarded you lefties are for making it or defending it. Note your complete inability to defend your analogy in any way.

It's nothing to defend, it is spot on Jackass.

Except when challenged on the specifics, you and your fellow loser RW, couldn't support your analogy at all.



YOU'VE LOST. YOU LOOK STUPID. EVEN MORE THAN NORMAL.

Says the fool who honors men that terrorized a people because of the color of their skin.