Democrat "Slavers Party"

[Pogo]

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

Bullshit again. 1824.

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

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

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pogo]

That seems to be what YOU'RE saying.

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

Yes, we can agree you are pretty stupid.

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

Nothing like sparring with the A-team...

 

[Sallow]

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

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

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

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

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

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

All those African "Nations"?

They were carved up that way by Europe.

 

[whitehall]

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

 

[PaintMyHouse]

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

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

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

 

[WillowTree]

Do you have that in English?

What language did you read it in?

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

You need remedial education. It was perfect English.

 

[Sallow]

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

Ah so..

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

Right?

 

[Moonglow]

Jefferson was a democrat, Washington also..

 

[Sallow]

Jefferson was a democrat, Washington also..

Both owned slaves.

Jefferson had kids with one.

See? These guys have a point.

 

[Lumpy 1]

Bullshit again. 1824.

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

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

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where did I say Democrats started slavery in America?

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

 

[Lumpy 1]

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

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

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

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

This tears your "argument" to shreds, Lumpy.

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

 

[Lumpy 1]

Bullshit.

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

Purty desperate stretch here, Lumpster. Purty desperate.

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

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

Bullshit again. 1824.

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

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

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lumpy 1]

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

Ah so..

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

Right?

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

 

[S.J.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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

Bullshit again. 1824.

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

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

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Lumpy 1]

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

Bullshit again. 1824.

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

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

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

Or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wacko.

 

[Lumpy 1]

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wacko.

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

 

[Pogo]

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


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

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

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

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

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

Wacko.

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

Still trying to think up new shit?

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

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

 

[katsteve2012]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

*Civil Rights Act
The original House version:

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


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

*Source, Wkipedia.

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