Confederate statue removed from historic North Carolina courthouse

[Nostra]

What a pantload.

Refute one single thing I said or shut the fuck up....

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees

GOP Congressman: Refusing to Sell Your House to a Gay Person Is a Right

Republicans are brazenly gutting voting rights in the lame duck before they lose power

Alt-left opinion pieces.

yawn......

Where is the opinion?

They begin with the titles, and don’t stop.

Opinion?


The brief, from Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argues federal prohibitions on employer discrimination do not extend to protect individuals from being fired or otherwise disenfranchised in the workplace because of their sexual orientation.

That would be his opinion.

Thanks for confirming my post.

 

[rightwinger]

Refute one single thing I said or shut the fuck up....

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees

GOP Congressman: Refusing to Sell Your House to a Gay Person Is a Right

Republicans are brazenly gutting voting rights in the lame duck before they lose power

Alt-left opinion pieces.

yawn......

Where is the opinion?

They begin with the titles, and don’t stop.

Opinion?


The brief, from Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argues federal prohibitions on employer discrimination do not extend to protect individuals from being fired or otherwise disenfranchised in the workplace because of their sexual orientation.

If an employee tells his employer what his sexual preferences are, that's violating the employer's space. Its really not firing him because of those preferences, but because he is sharing info the employer doesn't need to know.

If I hire someone to shovel shit, I don't need to hear about how they like to take it in the caboose.

Employees have talked to employers about their wives and children for hundreds of years.
Does an employer need to know that?

 

[rightwinger]

Refute one single thing I said or shut the fuck up....

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees

GOP Congressman: Refusing to Sell Your House to a Gay Person Is a Right

Republicans are brazenly gutting voting rights in the lame duck before they lose power

Alt-left opinion pieces.

yawn......

Where is the opinion?

They begin with the titles, and don’t stop.

Opinion?


The brief, from Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argues federal prohibitions on employer discrimination do not extend to protect individuals from being fired or otherwise disenfranchised in the workplace because of their sexual orientation.

That would be his opinion.

Thanks for confirming my post.

What part is opinion?

 

[Polishprince]

Alt-left opinion pieces.

yawn......

Where is the opinion?

They begin with the titles, and don’t stop.

Opinion?


The brief, from Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argues federal prohibitions on employer discrimination do not extend to protect individuals from being fired or otherwise disenfranchised in the workplace because of their sexual orientation.

If an employee tells his employer what his sexual preferences are, that's violating the employer's space. Its really not firing him because of those preferences, but because he is sharing info the employer doesn't need to know.

If I hire someone to shovel shit, I don't need to hear about how they like to take it in the caboose.

So an employee should also be fired for telling someone he or she is Jewish or Christian too right??

...also, if someone finds out an employee is married to someone of the opposite sex -- that person should be fired for letting it be known they are straight?? gtfoh

If the employer is offended by the revelation, sure he should have the right to fire someone because they think they are normative. It happens all the time, BTW. Homo-activists demanded that Scarlett Johanssen be refused a role as a tranny by the name of "Dante Gill" because they found out that Ms. Johanssen wasn't a she-male herself.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Where is the opinion?

They begin with the titles, and don’t stop.

Opinion?


The brief, from Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argues federal prohibitions on employer discrimination do not extend to protect individuals from being fired or otherwise disenfranchised in the workplace because of their sexual orientation.

If an employee tells his employer what his sexual preferences are, that's violating the employer's space. Its really not firing him because of those preferences, but because he is sharing info the employer doesn't need to know.

If I hire someone to shovel shit, I don't need to hear about how they like to take it in the caboose.

So an employee should also be fired for telling someone he or she is Jewish or Christian too right??

...also, if someone finds out an employee is married to someone of the opposite sex -- that person should be fired for letting it be known they are straight?? gtfoh

If the employer is offended by the revelation, sure he should have the right to fire someone because they think they are normative. It happens all the time, BTW. Homo-activists demanded that Scarlett Johanssen be refused a role as a tranny by the name of "Dante Gill" because they found out that Ms. Johanssen wasn't a she-male herself.

Then....you should demand that your GOP campaign on discrimination against gays..up front, loud and proud.....instead of being sneaky about it.....and the next time I tell you that your party supports discrimination, don't act like a bitch and get offended....

 

[Pogo]

The South has always been CONSERVATIVE.

Look at the Governors of Alabama.

You mean like George Wallace?

Exactly.

This George Wallace?

Nape. The George Wallace who was actually active in politics.

"I am having nothing to do with this so-called civil rights bill. The liberal left-wingers have passed it. Now let them employ some pinknik social engineers in Washington, D.C., to figure out what to do with it."

But your quote from much later in his life is an inspiring reminder that people can change. Thanks for that.

The Civil Right Act of 1964 was a violation of the 10th Amendment and interfered with private businesses. Liberals like to hold-up the biggest piece of shit Amendment passed by the radical Republicans after the war...the 14th. Most abused Amendment of the Constitution. 13th and 15th are fine. Bill of Rights over time has been selectively incorporated to the states. 14th is moot. Court didn’t need the 14th to do this.

The Republicans of the period immediately after (and before) the War WERE the Liberals, Dumbass.

 

[Pogo]

Do you understand the fucking stupidity of a Nazi analogy, and pretending that 12 percent is the same as fucking ZERO POINT TWO percent?

I mean, I was talking to RW. He is the fucking moron that made that comparison, and stood by it. And that is the conversation you jumped into. If you want to comment on his fucking stupid post, then address his fucking stupid post.


I am discussing the rest of this issue, in the rest of this thread. THIS bit, is about the stupid shit you people say, and me calling you on it.

If you don't want to discuss how fucking stupid you libs are, when you just use buzz words, with no understanding of what the words actually mean, because you are fucking retarded,

THEN DON'T.

What you fucking don't fucking underfuckingstand in this fuckingly fucked analogy, is that fucking bad actors don't fucking all fucking work the same fucking way. Just because fucking Nazis fucking dealt in fucking genocide while fucking slaveholders fucking enslaved people, doesn't fucking affuckingfect the fucking fact that fucking Germany doesn't fucking hang up fucking statues and fucking monuments trying to fucking dilute and fucking sanitize and fucking whitewash the fucking inhufuckingmanity of their own fucking past, as do the fucking UDC edifices. Fucking both of them lost their fucking wars, did they fucking not?

Goodness gracious, that is a specious comparison.

And you are doing the same stupid fucking thing that rw and supercrackhead are doing. Pretending that some very minor similarity, means that they should have been dealt with the exact same way, and that if not, it is some sort of problem.


My point stands. There are good reasons for the way that we, here in America, dealt with the aftermath of the Civil War, and just saying "nazis" is not a good analogy, and in fact, is fucking stupid, and if you do that, then you are fucking stupid.



If you continue, I will point out some of the other many ways that the two sets of people are very different, and the two situations are very different, and thus, how incredibly fucking stupid you are.

NAZIS is not a good analogy ONLY because the Third Reich lasted twice as long as the loser Con-federacy did......maybe if the Con-federacy leaders had be held responsible in war crime trials like the leading NAZIS did, we wouldn't have had the Lost Cause Movement.

The analogy is flying over Purell's hood because he keeps trying to compare "the Nazis" with "the Confederates" instead of the real point of comparison, which is to compare "what the Lost Cause tried to do about the Confederacy's image" with "what Germany did NOT try to do with the Nazi image".

There is no comparison to “National Socialist “ of Nazi, Germany and the free-market agrarian society of Antebellum South.

Nobody said there was. I could explain it to your obtuse ass yet again but the actual POST YOU JUST QUOTED already spelled it out and it flew right over your hood. So if you were too stupid to read what you just clicked on, you're gonna be too stupid to read a copy of it.

 

[Pogo]

And you are doing the same stupid fucking thing that rw and supercrackhead are doing. Pretending that some very minor similarity, means that they should have been dealt with the exact same way, and that if not, it is some sort of problem.


My point stands. There are good reasons for the way that we, here in America, dealt with the aftermath of the Civil War, and just saying "nazis" is not a good analogy, and in fact, is fucking stupid, and if you do that, then you are fucking stupid.



If you continue, I will point out some of the other many ways that the two sets of people are very different, and the two situations are very different, and thus, how incredibly fucking stupid you are.

NAZIS is not a good analogy ONLY because the Third Reich lasted twice as long as the loser Con-federacy did......maybe if the Con-federacy leaders had be held responsible in war crime trials like the leading NAZIS did, we wouldn't have had the Lost Cause Movement.

The analogy is flying over Purell's hood because he keeps trying to compare "the Nazis" with "the Confederates" instead of the real point of comparison, which is to compare "what the Lost Cause tried to do about the Confederacy's image" with "what Germany did NOT try to do with the Nazi image".

The Confederates were all exonerated by President Johnson with very few exceptions- those who committed war crimes, as well as President Davis and General Lee.

And Lee and Davis were exonerated posthumously- Davis having his citizenship restored by Southern Honky Jimmy Carter.

--------------------------------------------------------------- And?

This has WHAT to do with the Lost Cause Cult?

But since you bring up Robert E.Lee, I think statues of him should be festooned with a placard reading, "General Lee specifically told us not to put this shit up, but we went ahead and did it anyway, which kinda demonstrates who has the agenda here".

What do you think? Too wordy?

Jeez, sounds like you are using Lee as a Moral Authority to support your argument, almost like there is more to him that "slavery, blah, blah, blah".


You just completely DEMONSTRATED, what I have been saying for 60 pages, you potted plant.

There was a lot more to him than slavery, of course. Again, never said there wasn't. And among those was his desire that statues like this should not be put up and that the country should basically move the fuck on.

And yet, the Lost Cause and the UDC insisted their agenda was more important than his. I think that's eloquent. Kind of like posters here who can't wait to jump on the bodies of some horrific event like a mass shooting to run to the internet and score message board echobubble points. Same mentality.

I don't remember you "demonstrating" anything related to that though. All I remember you demonstrating is a continuous diarrhea of Hissyfit.

This whole issue, is ginned up shit, to give fucktards like you, an thin excuse to smear good people with vile slurs.
So, insulting you back, is completely called for, you vile little piece of shit.

Got it. Just more shit from your face anus. You lose, ass face.

Le voilà. QED. And I notice a recurring coprophilic theme

 

[Pogo]

And you are doing the same stupid fucking thing that rw and supercrackhead are doing. Pretending that some very minor similarity, means that they should have been dealt with the exact same way, and that if not, it is some sort of problem.


My point stands. There are good reasons for the way that we, here in America, dealt with the aftermath of the Civil War, and just saying "nazis" is not a good analogy, and in fact, is fucking stupid, and if you do that, then you are fucking stupid.



If you continue, I will point out some of the other many ways that the two sets of people are very different, and the two situations are very different, and thus, how incredibly fucking stupid you are.

NAZIS is not a good analogy ONLY because the Third Reich lasted twice as long as the loser Con-federacy did......maybe if the Con-federacy leaders had be held responsible in war crime trials like the leading NAZIS did, we wouldn't have had the Lost Cause Movement.

The analogy is flying over Purell's hood because he keeps trying to compare "the Nazis" with "the Confederates" instead of the real point of comparison, which is to compare "what the Lost Cause tried to do about the Confederacy's image" with "what Germany did NOT try to do with the Nazi image".

RW, said nothing about that. YOu are putting words in his mouth. HE made a very general analogy between the two, and several other leftards jumped in to defend it.

This is the first of this excuse for it, anyone has mentioned.

I just pointed out how fucking stupid what they said was.

Actually I first brought it up WAY way back, and that was ALWAYS the point.

I'm sure it was addressed then. Right now, some leftards are making an even dumber argument, and that is the matter of discussion right here, right now. Try to keep up.

Yes, post 644. I shot that shit down. He's a moron.

 

[Pogo]

When Wallace ran for president, why didn't he run as a Democrat??

Oh I remember...because he would have been rejected....

Can you tell me the liberal policies that Wallace ran on??

Actually, George C. Wallace ran for President 4 times, in 1964-68-72-76. Three times as a liberal Democrat and once as an independent.

And he was rejected all 4 times- regardless of what ticket he ran on.

Wallace's liberal policy was Racism and Segregation. The same ones that liberal icons like Clinton's mentor, J. W. Fulbright and Al Gore's father advocated. Wallace chose to run as a Democrat 3 times, because he knew that was the party where his support was at.

George Wallace NEVER ran as a "Liberal Democrat" in his life, shit-for-brains. In 1964 he actually contacted Goldwater and volunteered to switch parties and be Goldy's running mate (he wouldn't have needed to switch parties but that was the offer), which Goldwater understandably declined. In 1968 he ran with a far-right fringe wacko party from California called the American Independent Party. And just because this is understood my most people but sailing way over your hood, "far right fringe wacko" means ultra-conservative, befitting his politics. In 1972 he was running in the Democratic primaries but ONCE AGAIN never as a "Liberal". As in every other time he was running AGAINST LIberals.

Your head's COMPLETELY up your ass pal. You have no clue in the world what "Liberal" even means. It does NOT mean "Democrat" and it does NOT mean "left". And it sure as FUCK didn't mean George Wallace.

FUCK outta here.

 

[Pogo]

When Wallace ran for president, why didn't he run as a Democrat??

Oh I remember...because he would have been rejected....

Can you tell me the liberal policies that Wallace ran on??

Actually, George C. Wallace ran for President 4 times, in 1964-68-72-76. Three times as a liberal Democrat and once as an independent.

And he was rejected all 4 times- regardless of what ticket he ran on.

Wallace's liberal policy was Racism and Segregation. The same ones that liberal icons like Clinton's mentor, J. W. Fulbright and Al Gore's father advocated. Wallace chose to run as a Democrat 3 times, because he knew that was the party where his support was at.

I think you need to look up the definition of Liberal and Conservative

Google

There is nothing conservative about forcing private businesses to maintain segregation facilities for their customers of different ethnicities. My grandfather served whoever came into his store regardless of their race,as long as they had money.

Actually conservative is exactly what that is. You can't get to the point of segregation without an underlying belief in striated classes, the idea that some are "more equal than others". Liberalism is the direct opposition to that. That's what "all men are created equal" MEANS, jackwagon.

Maybe what your grandfather should have served is brains.

 

[Pogo]

Boy do you have that wrong

The big chains like Woolworth had stores all over the country. The bad publicity hurt them nationwide

The small, hometown business did not want to offend their community and vigorously enforced Jim Crow

If a black store owner doesn’t want white customers...it’s his right as an entrepreneur.

Afraid it is not his right

Actually, you are wrong on that, RW.

Back in January, the Black Congressional Israelites entered the radar for a lot of the public, and it was revealed that the do not accept Honkies as members, or even allow them into their temples. Further, groups as wide ranging as the Black Panthers to the Black Muslims to the Cripz and Bloodz,have strict bans on whites.

Private clubs are free to accept who they want

Private businesses are not

A lot of Ladies of Easy Virtue won't accept African American men, especially young blacks, as clientele. Is that a violation?

Link?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Hey, I was told pictures are great at explaining things to kids....

See the people sitting at the lunch counter, peacefully demonstrating and fighting "AGAINST" Jim Crow segregation...those are the liberals....the people you are defending 50 years after the fact, the side that lost...they are called conservatives....

Notice how the lame attempt at attaching parties to this makes you look like idiots??

 

[Pogo]

What you want a statue for him now.

Just making the point that he was elected in the deep south, after he flipped on the segregation issue, with a base in the rural white poor.


Just another example of real history conflicting with the leftard fantasy that history was all about race.

When Wallace ran for president, why didn't he run as a Democrat??

Oh I remember...because he would have been rejected....

Can you tell me the liberal policies that Wallace ran on??

I really do get tired of having to slap the shit out of closet racists with facts...but I got time today.....

"But by the fall of 1968, George Wallace had pulled the major parties to the right" <<-- liberals don't pull both parties to the right do they??

"Republican presidential nominee Richard Nixon conceded the Deep South to him and came up with a “southern strategy” designed to appeal to white backlash over civil rights." <<-- Who were the ones pissed off at the civil rights movement?? Liberals or Conservatives??

"[Wallace] boasted of his crowd sizes; complained of “rigged polls” and accused the media of treating him unfairly, all while working to ensure the spotlight stayed on him." Like Trump....

His platform was very much conservative, instead of "Make America Great Again" -- Wallace named his campaign "Stand Up For America" -- and his supporters were known for saying things like “When George Wallace is elected president, he’s going to line up all these n-----s and shoot them,’’ Tom Turnipseed recalled. “I said, ‘Oh, hell no’ … this guy was dead serious.”

Stand Up For America: George Wallace's chaotic, prophetic campaign

We have seen this before...and we have also seen how folks like you will blatantly try to rewrite that history because once again, you are on the wrong side of it....sounds like a personal problem to me

Why did you not address my point, about what happened after he flipped on that issue?

I have 50 years of policy and facts that tells what happened.....

50 years later, it is the Republican party (CONSERVATIVES) who are still butt hurt about the civil rights movement....

50 years later, it is the Republican party (CONSERVATIVES) who are still trying to gut the Voting Rights Act....

50 years later, it is the Republican party (CONSERVATIVES) who are still trying to pass policies that discriminate against minority groups....

Now, who are these prominent conservatives who were standing along side of MLK during the civil rights movement?

What a pantload.

Yes, you may go potty. You don't need to ask the board.

 

[Pogo]

50 years later, it is the Republican party (CONSERVATIVES) who are still butt hurt about the civil rights movement....

Au contraire.

The GOP's success in getting Civil Rights passed and achieving final victory eliminated it as an issue, and enabled conservatives to start appealing to southern voters. Before the Civil Rights Act, when it was an issue, the libs had a death clutch on the land of cotton.

The Republicans would be history today, if it wasn't for the Civil Rights Act, and their success in getting this passed.

How can you abbreviate "Lyndon Johnson" as "GOP"?

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Here is another picture for the slow thinkers......hope this helps...

 

[Pogo]

Refute one single thing I said or shut the fuck up....

Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Legalize Workplace Discrimination Against Gay Employees

GOP Congressman: Refusing to Sell Your House to a Gay Person Is a Right

Republicans are brazenly gutting voting rights in the lame duck before they lose power

Alt-left opinion pieces.

yawn......

Where is the opinion?

They begin with the titles, and don’t stop.

Opinion?


The brief, from Solicitor General Noel Francisco, argues federal prohibitions on employer discrimination do not extend to protect individuals from being fired or otherwise disenfranchised in the workplace because of their sexual orientation.

If an employee tells his employer what his sexual preferences are, that's violating the employer's space. Its really not firing him because of those preferences, but because he is sharing info the employer doesn't need to know.

If I hire someone to shovel shit, I don't need to hear about how they like to take it in the caboose.

More insanity.

Suppose I go to work and mention to my employer that I went to a ball game last night. We're not running a sports team, so that's info he doesn't need to know. Gonna fire me for that?

Dickhead.

/offtopic

 

[bdtex]

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...

Let's not forget the Warren plan for that:

Elizabeth Warren calls to remove Confederate monuments ‘and put them in museums where they belong’

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

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...

Let's not forget the Warren plan for that:

Elizabeth Warren calls to remove Confederate monuments ‘and put them in museums where they belong’

And the problem with that is?????

 

[Nostra]

Dimwingers are working overtime today on their revisionist history.

Your party is the party of Jim Crow, filibustering the Civil Rights Act, electing KKK Leaders as Senate Majority Leader, and the formation of the KKK.