Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

[PoliticalChic]

Democrats opposed:

1. The Emancipation Proclamation

2. The 13th Amendment

3. The 14th Amendment

4. The 15th Amendment

5. The Reconstruction Act of 1867

6. The Civil Rights of 1866

7. The Enforcement Act of 1870

8. The Forced Act of 1871

9. The Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871

10. The Civil Rights Act of 1875

11. The Freeman Bureau

12. The Civil Rights Act of 1957

13. The Civil Rights Act of 1960

14. The United State Civil Rights Commission
The Democrat Party VS the Republican Party: Who is the True Champion of the Ending Slavery, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Black Community


The Democrat Party: champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.

When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.

The Democrats have never changed....champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.


Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....

"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

Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.

Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity. "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties. That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders. Again, no political party was required to participate in either.

These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections. So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.

Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew. That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans. Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery. The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force. And they had nothing to do with politics.

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?


Answer, you dunce.

Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries. Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.

Novels, however, are what we call "fiction". Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".

You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.

"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

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?


Answer, you dunce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Virginia voted for Hillary. That means she's a racist, right?

Why would that mean she's a racist??

Apparently your theory is that if a former confederate state votes for you then you are a racist.

Nah, apparently, you're an imbecile as I never said that.

Sure you did. You said Trump was a racist because former Confederate states voted for him. Since one vote for Hillary, according to your logic she must also be a racist. Of course, no one is surprised that now you are trying to weasel out of the implications of your moron theory.

Yyyyyyyeeeaahhh ummmmmmmm Fingerboy ----- you just plugged that in as a strawman, prefaced with the word "apparently".

Is the personification of the Democrat Party, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton now, and for his entire life.....a racist who has always considered blacks less as a race than whites?

Answer, you dunce.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Democrats have never changed....champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.


Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....

"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

Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.

Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity. "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties. That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders. Again, no political party was required to participate in either.

These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections. So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.

Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew. That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans. Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery. The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force. And they had nothing to do with politics.

Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?

Answer, you dunce.

Rapist?

LOLOL

Who has he raped?

Clinton Misogyny - Sext

Bill Clinton has been convicted of rape as many times as Donald Trump has been convicted of rape.

Now....about you denying the nature and character of the rapists/racist Bill Clinton:



1. When any Liberal/Progressive/Democrat bootlicker is presented with the list of Bill Clintons rape and sexual misbehaviors, the knee-jerk response of the jerk is the expected: "But...but (sputter- sputter) he was never convicted in any court of law!!



2. This, of course, is a prime example of sophistry, the use of fallacious arguments, with the intention of deceiving. (i.e., the jerk is a liar.)

This is not a court of law, and the argument does not end with a jail sentence....sadly.


It is the court of real world experience, and is based on one's judgment based on their experience and knowledge, and, especially, the past behavior of the individual in question.



3. The type of verdict demanded does not require that of a court, it is the court of public opinion.





a. Based on Clinton's history, is the charge that he refused to acknowledge his prey's refusal for sexual intercourse...possible or impossible?


.......probable or improbable?


.....exceptional or expected?



b . Has he been shown to be a liar? Yes, in fact in a court of law.



The answer is clear.


"Bill 'the rapist' Clinton" is an accurate description.




4. The same procedure should be used to examine as to whether charges would even be brought against one of his lofty political stature...and political party.


That question requires even less effort to answer.....as it has been answered previously, in an even more serious matter: responsibility in the death of a young woman.

I refer to "The Liberal Lion," Ted Kennedy.




5. An auxiliary question might be 'what type of individual would support rapists and murderers as mentioned above?


This, too, is an easy question to answer.




6. Oh.....need I bring up the rapist's many trips to Epstein's 'Sex Slave island'?
"Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender's jet much more than previously known"
Flight logs show Bill Clinton flew on sex offender's jet much more than previously known

 

[PoliticalChic]

Just when you think PC couldn't get anymore retarded.

Unless, of course, you'd just admit that I am never wrong.

You are always hilariously wrong.

And blindingly oblivious to your bullshit.

Perhaps you'd care to provide the entire post of mine, and try to show where I'm incorrect?.

I have pointed out where you are wrong enough times to know that you will ignore the facts.

Just as you ignore anything other than your own personal obsessions.

There were three items in my post that you fear posting.

Why is that?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

There is no 'Radical Right.'

If you imagine there is....present any conservative/GOP desires, aims, programs that are at odds with the views, attitudes, or traditions of the Founders.


Radical is a term to be reserved for the socialists, communists, Liberals, Nazis of the Left.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK. That stain will never wash off.

Imbecile...

Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president



Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.

“We want Hillary Clinton to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.

The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton

 

[PoliticalChic]

Never Goldwater: How the Fight to Defeat the Arizona Senator Gave Birth to the Modern GOP

The Republican Party of 1964 had clear left and right wings in a form that would be unrecognizable today. Previous nominees had quickly worked to sew up the divisions and preached unity. In 1960, Goldwater himself had been a part of that unity effort, telling his allies on the right to “grow up” and work for the nominee, Nixon.v “If we want to take this party back—and I think we can someday—let’s go to work,” he said. In 1964 though, Goldwater was sounding a call to arms. It was fine with him if the moderates jumped in a lake.

For conservatives, Eisenhower’s victories had come at the cost of principle. The National Review, the organ of the movement, opposed Eisenhower and his move toward centrism. Its publisher, William Rusher, said that “modern American conservatism largely organized itself during, and in opposition to, the Eisenhower Administration.” Goldwater called the Eisenhower administration a “dime-store New Deal.”

As if to punctuate the point, when Eisenhower stopped in Amarillo, Texas, on the way to the ’64 convention, two young men hurled a Goldwater sign in a fit of enthusiasm. They were not aiming at the ex-president but hit him nevertheless, causing him to double over.vi

Moderate Republicans like Rockefeller supported the national consensus toward advancing civil rights by promoting national legislation to protect the vote, employment, housing, and other elements of the American promise denied to blacks. They sought to contain communism, not eradicate it, and they had faith that the government could be a force for good if it were circumscribed and run efficiently. They believed in experts and belittled the Goldwater approach, which held that complex problems could be solved merely by the application of common sense. It was not a plus to the Rockefeller camp that Goldwater had publicly admitted, “You know, I haven’t got a really first-class brain.”vii Politically, moderates believed that these positions would preserve the Republican Party in a changing America.

Conservatives wanted to restrict government from meddling in private enterprise and the free exercise of liberty. They thought bipartisanship and compromise were leading to collectivism and fiscal irresponsibility. On national security, Goldwater and his allies felt Eisenhower had been barely fighting the communists, and that the Soviets were gobbling up territory across the globe. At one point, Goldwater appeared to muse about dropping a low-yield nuclear bomb on the Chinese supply lines in Vietnam, though it may have been more a press misunderstanding than his actual view.viii


The likely nominee disagreed most violently with moderates over the issue of federal protections for the rights of black Americans. In June, a month before the convention, the Senate had voted on the Civil Rights Act. Twenty-seven of 33 Republicans voted for the legislation. Goldwater was one of the six who did not, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. “The structure of the federal system, with its 50 separate state units, has long permitted this nation to nourish local differences, even local cultures,” wrote Goldwater in Where I Stand.

1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.
2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
3. “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89
4. Who founded the Arizona chapter of the NAACP?
5. Once the Democrats got involved, civil rights became just another racket with another mob. Unlike previous civil rights laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included provisions aimed at purely private actors, raising the hackles of some constitutional purists, notably Barry Goldwater, the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nominee. Goldwater, like the rest of his party, had supported every single civil rights bill until the 1964 act. But he broke with the vast majority of his fellow Republicans to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
   
   

 

[Pogo]

When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.

The Democrats have never changed....champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.


Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....

"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

Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.

Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity. "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties. That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders. Again, no political party was required to participate in either.

These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections. So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.

Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew. That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans. Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery. The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force. And they had nothing to do with politics.

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?


Answer, you dunce.

Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries. Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.

Novels, however, are what we call "fiction". Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".

You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.

"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

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?

Answer, you dunce.

Again neither OP is responding so again I'm here to help, first of all with English:

nov·el1
ˈnävəl/
noun
noun: novel; plural noun: novels

1. a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.
   "the novels of Jane Austen"
   synonyms: book, paperback, hardcover; More
   story, tale, narrative, romance, roman à clef;
   piece of fiction;
   bestseller, blockbuster;
   potboiler, pulp (fiction)
   "curl up with a good novel"
   • the literary genre represented or exemplified by novels.
     noun: the novel
     "the novel is the most adaptable of all literary forms"

Perhaps you can find the word "fiction" in there. In two forms. Perhaps not, but in any event that's what a novel is. Perhaps you've noticed a standard disclaimer on films noting that that work is fiction and 'any resemblance to persons or events is coincidental and unintentional'. Again, perhaps not.

Whatever events this John Connolly may have written in this NOVEL, and I obviously don't have a copy here nor have you posted it, would be the product of his own what we call "imagination". As such it cannot, by definition, be "correct" or "incorrect". It would be "incorrect" in the sense that the events described never actually happened, but it would also be incorrect to label it "incorrect" since a novel by definition does not purport to be an accurate accounting of events.

As far as employing a "degree of realism" per the definition above, the selected excerpt quoted does indeed cite a realistic character dynamic based on real history; in small words it could have happened. After maybe sixteen cups of strong coffee it might even dawn on you that I've already not only volunteered that analysis but also gone into detail about exactly what these "night riders" were, where they came from and what their purpose was. Forty or fifty additional cups of caffeine might even enable you to see that that analysis is still sitting directly above in the quote nest.

Once you've discovered all this perhaps we might move on to highly complex mysteries such as "find your foot".

 

[Rambunctious]

The Democrats have never changed....champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.


Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....

"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

Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.

Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity. "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties. That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders. Again, no political party was required to participate in either.

These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections. So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.

Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew. That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans. Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery. The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force. And they had nothing to do with politics.

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?


Answer, you dunce.

Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries. Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.

Novels, however, are what we call "fiction". Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".

You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.

"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

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?

Answer, you dunce.

Again neither OP is responding so again I'm here to help, first of all with English:

nov·el1
ˈnävəl/
noun
noun: novel; plural noun: novels

1. a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.
   "the novels of Jane Austen"
   synonyms: book, paperback, hardcover; More
   story, tale, narrative, romance, roman à clef;
   piece of fiction;
   bestseller, blockbuster;
   potboiler, pulp (fiction)
   "curl up with a good novel"
   • the literary genre represented or exemplified by novels.
     noun: the novel
     "the novel is the most adaptable of all literary forms"

Perhaps you can find the word "fiction" in there. In two forms. Perhaps not, but in any event that's what a novel is. Perhaps you've noticed a standard disclaimer on films noting that that work is fiction and 'any resemblance to persons or events is coincidental and unintentional'. Again, perhaps not.

Whatever events this John Connolly may have written in this NOVEL, and I obviously don't have a copy here nor have you posted it, would be the product of his own what we call "imagination". As such it cannot, by definition, be "correct" or "incorrect". It would be "incorrect" in the sense that the events described never actually happened, but it would also be incorrect to label it "incorrect" since a novel by definition does not purport to be an accurate accounting of events.

As far as employing a "degree of realism" per the definition above, the selected excerpt quoted does indeed cite a realistic character dynamic based on real history; in small words it could have happened. After maybe sixteen cups of strong coffee it might even dawn on you that I've already not only volunteered that analysis but also gone into detail about exactly what these "night riders" were, where they came from and what their purpose was. Forty or fifty additional cups of caffeine might even enable you to see that that analysis is still sitting directly above in the quote nest.

Once you've discovered all this perhaps we might move on to highly complex mysteries such as "find your foot".

More copy and paste history revision....such a sad person you are.

 

[Faun]

When the south was Democrat. Now it's Republican.

The Democrats have never changed....champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.


Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....

"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

Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.

Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity. "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties. That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders. Again, no political party was required to participate in either.

These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections. So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.

Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew. That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans. Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery. The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force. And they had nothing to do with politics.

Has Bill 'the rapist' Clinton been a racist his entire life?

Answer, you dunce.

Rapist?

LOLOL

Who has he raped?

Clinton Misogyny - Sex
Juanita Broaddrick (AR)- rape
Eileen Wellstone (Oxford) - rape
Elizabeth Ward Gracen - rape - quid pro quo, post incident intimidation
Regina Hopper Blakely - "forced himself on her, biting, bruising her"
Kathleen Willey (WH) - sexual assault, intimidations, threats
Sandra Allen James (DC) - sexual assault
22 Year Old 1972 (Yale) - sexual assault
Kathy Bradshaw (AK) - sexual assault
Cristy Zercher - unwelcomed sexual advance, intimidations
Paula Jones (AR) - unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
Carolyn Moffet -unwelcomed sexual advance, exposure, bordering on sexual assault
1974 student at University of Arkansas - unwelcomed physical contact
1978-1980 - seven complaints per Arkansas state troopers
Monica Lewinsky - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Gennifer Flowers - quid pro quo, post incident character assault
Dolly Kyle Browning - post incident character assault
Sally Perdue - post incident threats
Betty Dalton - rebuffed his advances, married to one of his supporters
Denise Reeder - apologetic note scanned
CLINTON'S ROGUES GALLERY:


And...just recently: "Leslie Millwee says that on two of the alleged occasions, Clinton groped her while he rubbed himself against her and reached climax." EXCLUSIVE VIDEO INTERVIEW: New Bill Clinton Sexual Assault Accuser Goes Public for the First Time - Breitbart

So no rapes then. Wellstone was consensual and Broaddrick swore under oath he didn't really rape her and none of the other allegations involved rape.

 

[Faun]

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK. That stain will never wash off.

Imbecile...

Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president



Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.

“We want Hillary Clinton to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.

The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton

LOLOL

Like always, you crack me up ...

Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....

The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.

 

[Faun]

Never Goldwater: How the Fight to Defeat the Arizona Senator Gave Birth to the Modern GOP

The Republican Party of 1964 had clear left and right wings in a form that would be unrecognizable today. Previous nominees had quickly worked to sew up the divisions and preached unity. In 1960, Goldwater himself had been a part of that unity effort, telling his allies on the right to “grow up” and work for the nominee, Nixon.v “If we want to take this party back—and I think we can someday—let’s go to work,” he said. In 1964 though, Goldwater was sounding a call to arms. It was fine with him if the moderates jumped in a lake.

For conservatives, Eisenhower’s victories had come at the cost of principle. The National Review, the organ of the movement, opposed Eisenhower and his move toward centrism. Its publisher, William Rusher, said that “modern American conservatism largely organized itself during, and in opposition to, the Eisenhower Administration.” Goldwater called the Eisenhower administration a “dime-store New Deal.”

As if to punctuate the point, when Eisenhower stopped in Amarillo, Texas, on the way to the ’64 convention, two young men hurled a Goldwater sign in a fit of enthusiasm. They were not aiming at the ex-president but hit him nevertheless, causing him to double over.vi

Moderate Republicans like Rockefeller supported the national consensus toward advancing civil rights by promoting national legislation to protect the vote, employment, housing, and other elements of the American promise denied to blacks. They sought to contain communism, not eradicate it, and they had faith that the government could be a force for good if it were circumscribed and run efficiently. They believed in experts and belittled the Goldwater approach, which held that complex problems could be solved merely by the application of common sense. It was not a plus to the Rockefeller camp that Goldwater had publicly admitted, “You know, I haven’t got a really first-class brain.”vii Politically, moderates believed that these positions would preserve the Republican Party in a changing America.

Conservatives wanted to restrict government from meddling in private enterprise and the free exercise of liberty. They thought bipartisanship and compromise were leading to collectivism and fiscal irresponsibility. On national security, Goldwater and his allies felt Eisenhower had been barely fighting the communists, and that the Soviets were gobbling up territory across the globe. At one point, Goldwater appeared to muse about dropping a low-yield nuclear bomb on the Chinese supply lines in Vietnam, though it may have been more a press misunderstanding than his actual view.viii


The likely nominee disagreed most violently with moderates over the issue of federal protections for the rights of black Americans. In June, a month before the convention, the Senate had voted on the Civil Rights Act. Twenty-seven of 33 Republicans voted for the legislation. Goldwater was one of the six who did not, arguing that the law was unconstitutional. “The structure of the federal system, with its 50 separate state units, has long permitted this nation to nourish local differences, even local cultures,” wrote Goldwater in Where I Stand.

1. According to this liberal myth, Goldwater and the Republicans were racists and used racism to appeal to racist southerners to change the electoral map. To believe the tale, one must be either a reliable Democrat voter, and/or be ignorant of the history of the time.
2. When Goldwater voted against the 1964 Civil Rights act, it was due to libertarian belief that the commerce clause did not allow restrictions on private property.
3. “ He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89
4. Who founded the Arizona chapter of the NAACP?
5. Once the Democrats got involved, civil rights became just another racket with another mob. Unlike previous civil rights laws, the 1964 Civil Rights Act included provisions aimed at purely private actors, raising the hackles of some constitutional purists, notably Barry Goldwater, the Republicans’ 1964 presidential nominee. Goldwater, like the rest of his party, had supported every single civil rights bill until the 1964 act. But he broke with the vast majority of his fellow Republicans to oppose the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
   

"It is both unfortunate and disastrous that the Republican Party has nominated senator Barry Goldwater as its candidate for the presidency of the United States. In foreign policy, Mr. Goldwater advocates a narrow nationalism, a crippling isolationism and a trigger-happy attitude that could plunge the whole world into the dark abyss of annihilation. On social and economic issues, Mr. Godlwater represents an unrealistic conservatism that is totally out of touch with the realities of the twentieth century. The issue of poverty throughout this land compels the attention of all citizens of our country. It is our conviction that senator Goldwater has neither the concern nor the comprehensive necessary to grapple with this problem in the fashion that the historical moments dictates. On the urgent issue of civil rights, senator Goldwater represents a philosophy that is morally indefensible and politically and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulates a philosophy which gives aid and comfort to the racists. His candidacy and philosophy will serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes will stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I have no alternative but to urge every negro and every white person of good will to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that does not publicly disassociate himself from senator Godlwater and his philosophy. While I have followed a policy of not endorsing political candidates, I feel that the prospect of senator Goldwater being president of the United States so threatens the health, morality and survival of our nation that I can not in good conscious fail to take a stand against what he represents." ~ Martin Luther King Jr.

If MLK Jr. were alive today, he would equate Trump with Barry Goldwater in terms of civil rights.

 

[paperview]

The Republican Party geared its appeal and program to racism, reaction, and extremism. All people of goodwill viewed with alarm and concern the frenzied wedding at the Cow Palace of the KKK with the radical right. The “best man” at this ceremony was a senator whose voting record, philosophy, and program were anathema to all the hard-won achievements of the past decade.

Senator Goldwater had neither the concern nor the comprehension necessary to grapple with this problem of poverty in the fashion that the historical moment dictated. On the urgent issue of civil rights, Senator Goldwater represented a philosophy that was morally indefensible and socially suicidal. While not himself a racist, Mr. Goldwater articulated a philosophy which gave aid and comfort to the racist. His candidacy and philosophy would serve as an umbrella under which extremists of all stripes would stand. In the light of these facts and because of my love for America, I had no alternative but to urge every Negro and white person of goodwill to vote against Mr. Goldwater and to withdraw support from any Republican candidate that did not publicly disassociate himself from Senator Goldwater and his philosophy.

Sorry, turd, but the Democrat party owns the KKK. That stain will never wash off.

Imbecile...

Ku Klux Klan Grand Dragon Will Quigg Endorses Hillary Clinton for President
https://www.usnews.com/news/article...-quigg-endorses-hillary-clinton-for-president



Will Quigg, a grand dragon of the Klan’s California chapter and responsible for recruitment in the western United States, is less keen to give Mr Trump the dubious benefit of his support.

“We want Hillary Clinton to win,” Mr Quigg told The Telegraph. “She is telling everybody one thing, but she has a hidden agenda. She’s telling everybody what they want to hear so she can get elected, because she’s Bill Clinton’s wife, she’s close to the Bushes. [But] once she’s in the presidency, she’s going to come out and her true colours are going to show.

The KKK leader who says he backs Hillary Clinton

LOLOL

Like always, you crack me up ...

Your KKK Grand Dragon switched sides before the election....

The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.

Funny how stupid as a stick PC takes the word of a trolling KKK white supremacist - who has the following of about 12 people. Maybe she's Quigg's twin sister.

 

[Rambunctious]

The KKK, neo-Nazi's, alt-right, all backed Trump. They're all on the right with you.

Make sure and keep repeating that right up to election day...it's a winner for our team.

 

[Auld Phart]

'klanbake' didn't happen at the 1924 democratic convention?

Digital History

"The two leading candidates symbolized a deep cultural divide. Al Smith, New York's governor, was a Catholic and an opponent of prohibition and was bitterly opposed by Democrats in the South and West. Former Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo, a Protestant, defended prohibition and refused to repudiate the Ku Klux Klan, making himself unacceptable to Catholics and Jews in the Northeast.
Newspapers called the convention a "Klanbake," as pro-Klan and anti-Klan delegates wrangled bitterly over the party platform. The convention opened on a Monday and by Thursday night, after 61 ballots, the convention was deadlocked. The next day, July 4, some 20,000 Klan supporters wearing white hoods and robes held a picnic in New Jersey. One speaker denounced the "clownvention in Jew York." They threw baseballs at an effigy of Al Smith. A cross-burning culminated the event. "

 

[Faun]

'klanbake' didn't happen at the 1924 democratic convention?

Digital History

"The two leading candidates symbolized a deep cultural divide. Al Smith, New York's governor, was a Catholic and an opponent of prohibition and was bitterly opposed by Democrats in the South and West. Former Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo, a Protestant, defended prohibition and refused to repudiate the Ku Klux Klan, making himself unacceptable to Catholics and Jews in the Northeast.
Newspapers called the convention a "Klanbake," as pro-Klan and anti-Klan delegates wrangled bitterly over the party platform. The convention opened on a Monday and by Thursday night, after 61 ballots, the convention was deadlocked. The next day, July 4, some 20,000 Klan supporters wearing white hoods and robes held a picnic in New Jersey. One speaker denounced the "clownvention in Jew York." They threw baseballs at an effigy of Al Smith. A cross-burning culminated the event. "

Who said the 1924 DNC wasn't referred to as a "klanbake?"

 

[Rambunctious]

Who said the 1924 DNC wasn't referred to as a "klanbake?"

That's good to see that you are coming around to the main point...thumbs up!

 

[Faun]

Who said the 1924 DNC wasn't referred to as a "klanbake?"

That's good to see that you are coming around to the main point...thumbs up!

LOLOL

The "main point" was about a photograph. One purported to be of the Klan marching at Madison Square Garden; when in fact, the photo is actually from a Klan march in Madison, Wisconsin.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Democrats have never changed....champions of slavery, segregation, and second-class citizenship.....always and forever.


Here....let's prove it together.....at an earlier time....

"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

Leave it to a brain circulation cut off by Spandex to think she makes a point by quoting a novel.

Still, this particular fiction's scene does cite a genuinely historical entity. "Night riders", also called "Regulators" or "Slave patrols" were operating since at least the eighteenth century, before there was a country and way before there were any political parties. That's a major part of the element that took over the Klan from its original founders. Again, no political party was required to participate in either.

These "night riders", considered a civic duty of the (white) menfolk, operated primarily to hunt down and return runaway slaves -- and when there weren't any to hunt in that area, to ride around intimidating existing slaves as a way of discouraging runaways and insurrections. So while the Klan brought in costumes and a framework of secret rituals, its activities concerning ex-slaves were already long-established practice.

Slave escapes and insurrections quite naturally had been going on since literally the first African slaves were brought to these shores in the 1530s by a Spanish crew. That group of captives escaped and happily were never caught, presumably joining with, and surviving with the aid of, local Native Americans. Other revolts and escapes occurred, naturally, throughout the infamous history of slavery. The "night riders" were the white establishment's remedy for such escapes; a civil 'security' force. And they had nothing to do with politics.

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?


Answer, you dunce.

Whelp --- Fingerboy's not responding so I'll answer for him.
The author of the novel's citation of "night riders" is accurate in that they did exist, for centuries. Which, for those of you in the slow-reader section is what I just described.

Novels, however, are what we call "fiction". Inasmuch as fiction is creative storytelling, it cannot be "correct" or "incorrect".

You must find that concept mind-numbingly deep.

"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

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?

Answer, you dunce.

Again neither OP is responding so again I'm here to help, first of all with English:

nov·el1
ˈnävəl/
noun
noun: novel; plural noun: novels

1. a fictitious prose narrative of book length, typically representing character and action with some degree of realism.
   "the novels of Jane Austen"
   synonyms: book, paperback, hardcover; More
   story, tale, narrative, romance, roman à clef;
   piece of fiction;
   bestseller, blockbuster;
   potboiler, pulp (fiction)
   "curl up with a good novel"
   • the literary genre represented or exemplified by novels.
     noun: the novel
     "the novel is the most adaptable of all literary forms"

Perhaps you can find the word "fiction" in there. In two forms. Perhaps not, but in any event that's what a novel is. Perhaps you've noticed a standard disclaimer on films noting that that work is fiction and 'any resemblance to persons or events is coincidental and unintentional'. Again, perhaps not.

Whatever events this John Connolly may have written in this NOVEL, and I obviously don't have a copy here nor have you posted it, would be the product of his own what we call "imagination". As such it cannot, by definition, be "correct" or "incorrect". It would be "incorrect" in the sense that the events described never actually happened, but it would also be incorrect to label it "incorrect" since a novel by definition does not purport to be an accurate accounting of events.

As far as employing a "degree of realism" per the definition above, the selected excerpt quoted does indeed cite a realistic character dynamic based on real history; in small words it could have happened. After maybe sixteen cups of strong coffee it might even dawn on you that I've already not only volunteered that analysis but also gone into detail about exactly what these "night riders" were, where they came from and what their purpose was. Forty or fifty additional cups of caffeine might even enable you to see that that analysis is still sitting directly above in the quote nest.

Once you've discovered all this perhaps we might move on to highly complex mysteries such as "find your foot".

"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

Is the author of the novel 100% correct or not?


Answer, you dunce.

 

[John Baron]

Wonder why?

-Geaux
--------

The picture was taken during the 1924 Democratic Convention.

It was also known as “Klanbake.”

In Madison Square Garden, New York City, from June 24 to July 9, a dispute during came up revolving around an attempt by non-Klan delegates, led by Forney Johnston of Alabama, to condemn the organization for its violence in the Democratic Party’s platform.



Liberals Aren’t Liking This Newly-Discovered Photo Of The 1924 Democratic Convention…

Is anyone who attended still alive?

Was that when Donald Trump' father was arrested with KKK?