Modern conservatives sympathizing with The Confederacy... Is this a thing now?

[kaz]

Um...I answered that question in the post you quoted, big guy...

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

So you Einsteins actually need me to point to your treatment of blacks who dare to leave the Democratic plantation?

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, you'll want to do more than cite your claim as proof to your claim.

Duh.

You think you're taking seriously by anyone but the liberal chorus? LOL. Your advice, I don't need...

 

[kaz]

I realize you hate women, especially those who are smarter than you

How would you know that?

but I've never given anyone cause on this board to call me a slut, you lowlife ignoramus.

Now go crawl back in your basement.

And I reiterate what I said. You calling anyone else a simpleton is laughable.

I see, so you decide which insults are acceptable and which are not. You're an airhead, but I like a little more variety

 

[-S-]

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

So you Einsteins actually need me to point to your treatment of blacks who dare to leave the Democratic plantation?

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, you'll want to do more than cite your claim as proof to your claim.

Duh.

You think you're taking seriously by anyone but the liberal chorus? LOL. Your advice, I don't need...

That wasn't advice, it was the truth. Nobody will take you seriously if you cite your claim as proof of your claim.

I'm fine with you not being smart. More fun for me

 

[kaz]

So you Einsteins actually need me to point to your treatment of blacks who dare to leave the Democratic plantation?

Right, so the Democratic Party is now a planation....uhh boyeee....[/QUOTE]

It is for blacks, and you lily white overseers are their true enemy

 

[kaz]

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

So you Einsteins actually need me to point to your treatment of blacks who dare to leave the Democratic plantation?

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, you'll want to do more than cite your claim as proof to your claim.

Duh.

You think you're taking seriously by anyone but the liberal chorus? LOL. Your advice, I don't need...

That wasn't advice, it was the truth. Nobody will take you seriously if you cite your claim as proof of your claim.

I'm fine with you not being smart. More fun for me

Gotcha, I appreciate the advice from someone so roundly respected by all as you on how to be taken seriously and the time you spent explaining that to me

 

[paperview]

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.

You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

Mike Griffith: Anything after your proclamation of the "good aspects of the slavery" - is something most normal folks would stop at and say - whoa, this is really fucking insane.

I should stop here and delete that.

 

[-S-]

So you Einsteins actually need me to point to your treatment of blacks who dare to leave the Democratic plantation?

Right, so the Democratic Party is now a planation....uhh boyeee....

It is for blacks, and you lily white overseers are their true enemy

Right, and your proof for that is:

KAZ SAID: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."


I hope all libertarians aren't as daft as you

 

[Correll]

you calling anyone else a simpleton is kind of amusing.

Didn't read the post, did you slut bunny? It was pretty simpleton

I realize you hate women, especially those who are smarter than you, but I've never given anyone cause on this board to call me a slut, lowlife ignoramus.

Now go crawl back in your basement.

Don't take anything Kaz says personally.

He just says whatever pops into his head, no matter how ignorant.
Diarrhea of the mouth.

And, as an old chorus teacher of mine used to say "constipation of the brain"

I think this thread is simply a lightening rod for the stifled and oppressed Republicans.

Oh the humaity.....

First, righties can't use the "N" word anymore,

Then...women start wanting rights, and burning their bras.

After that, the doctor they've been seeing for years retires and the guy who takes over for him is named Singh, or Patel.

Then 20 years later, Patel or Singh retires, and the woman doctor who takes over for him is also named Patel, or Singh, or Chan!

It's like the only good thing since WWII was Ronald Reagan!

There are people with crazy sounding foreign names answering the phone wherever you call the local power company!!!!

Holy crap!

But then.........................a light shines through the darkness

Fox News, Conservative media, Right wing think tanks, and Family Values organizations spring up, and they tell the depressed righties that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Blacks had it okay when they were slaves. Women and gays don't like being equal. Lefties are communists. Racial integration is a failure! Affirmative Action is oppressing whites!.........good times...good times.

But yeah, there is lot's written about politics between 1830-1950, and the GOP strategists feel that making it all seem full of bad things for white males over 60 without college degrees, who attend church once a week, is a good strategy

Errr, what are you raving about?

 

[Correll]

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.

You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

Mike Griffith: Anything after your proclamation of the "good aspects of the slavery" - is something most normal folks would stop at and say - whoa, this is really fucking insane.

I should stop here and delete that.

What he really did was violate a taboo.

Dare you actually address what he said?

WHy do you need to simply history to comic book level?

 

[paperview]

Yeah, I'm correct about that and you're wrong.

& The Constitution gave him that permission, neo-confed.

It gave him permission to raise the militia, not to invade Virginia, Stalinist bootlicker.

Your screed about New York turned out to be total bullshit, didn't it?

No, it didn't you lying scumbucket.

I just quoted the New York ratification document. It reserves the right of the people to secede from the Union.

New York lost in its attempt to put in a clause about withdrawing if 33 amendments were not allowed to be considered in a later convention. After being shot down, New York still voted to ratify.

I quoted New York's ratification document. It reserves the right to secede.

No, it doesn't dumbass.

 

[toxicmedia]

Um...I answered that question in the post you quoted, big guy...

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

There isn' as much wrong with him, as there is with the people he's been exposed to.

The great Lee Atwater made use of a strategy that has become a cornerstone for Fox News, Rush, and the GOP. It's where you accuse the other guy of being far worse than you are, when it comes to your worst perceptions.

That's whay you see righties on this site saying that Democrats/Lefties/etc enslave blacks, hate gays, oppress women, etc.....

who accused the GOP of having a war on women?

Who states that that when the GOP is in favor of voter ID that the GOP are racists?

Who accuses the taxed enough already party of being racists?

who accuses the GOP of keepin' the black man down?

you are a lair

Nobody accuses the GOP of having a war on women. Lot's of people accuse Rush Limbaugh of hating women, becase the fat loser can't keep a wife no matter how much he tries to buy them, and they criticized Mitt Romney for having binders full of women. The rest is all in yur head.

The motivations for the GOP's proposed voter fraud protection laws are based in their desire to prevent minorities from voting.

Not all Tea Partiers are racists, but some are.

Nobody accuses the GOP of keeping the black man down, they accuse Stormfronters, KKK types, and other bigots of trying to do that

 

[Correll]

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

There isn' as much wrong with him, as there is with the people he's been exposed to.

The great Lee Atwater made use of a strategy that has become a cornerstone for Fox News, Rush, and the GOP. It's where you accuse the other guy of being far worse than you are, when it comes to your worst perceptions.

That's whay you see righties on this site saying that Democrats/Lefties/etc enslave blacks, hate gays, oppress women, etc.....

who accused the GOP of having a war on women?

Who states that that when the GOP is in favor of voter ID that the GOP are racists?

Who accuses the taxed enough already party of being racists?

who accuses the GOP of keepin' the black man down?

you are a lair

Nobody accuses the GOP of having a war on women. Lot's of people accuse Rush Limbaugh of hating women, becase the fat loser can't keep a wife no matter how much he tries to buy them, and they criticized Mitt Romney for having binders full of women. The rest is all in yur head.

The motivations for the GOP's proposed voter fraud protection laws are based in their desire to prevent minorities from voting.

Not all Tea Partiers are racists, but some are.

Nobody accuses the GOP of keeping the black man down, they accuse Stormfronters, KKK types, and other bigots of trying to do that

I suggest you goggle "GOP war on women".

 

[bripat9643]

It gave him permission to raise the militia, not to invade Virginia, Stalinist bootlicker.

Your screed about New York turned out to be total bullshit, didn't it?

No, it didn't you lying scumbucket.

I just quoted the New York ratification document. It reserves the right of the people to secede from the Union.

New York lost in its attempt to put in a clause about withdrawing if 33 amendments were not allowed to be considered in a later convention. After being shot down, New York still voted to ratify.

I quoted New York's ratification document. It reserves the right to secede.

No, it doesn't dumbass.

ROFL! Of course it does.

I can already see how this is going to become a tit-for-tat exchange that goes on for hundreds of posts.

 

[paperview]

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.

You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

Mike Griffith: Anything after your proclamation of the "good aspects of the slavery" - is something most normal folks would stop at and say - whoa, this is really fucking insane.

I should stop here and delete that.

What he really did was violate a taboo.

Dare you actually address what he said?

WHy do you need to simply history to comic book level?

^ And we shall entitle this post "In praise of eternal, generational human bondage."

 

[bripat9643]

Um...No you didn't.

You made the claim in the post he quoted. He wanted you to substantiate that claim.

You're really bad at this 'debate' stuff..

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

There isn' as much wrong with him, as there is with the people he's been exposed to.

The great Lee Atwater made use of a strategy that has become a cornerstone for Fox News, Rush, and the GOP. It's where you accuse the other guy of being far worse than you are, when it comes to your worst perceptions.

That's whay you see righties on this site saying that Democrats/Lefties/etc enslave blacks, hate gays, oppress women, etc.....

who accused the GOP of having a war on women?

Who states that that when the GOP is in favor of voter ID that the GOP are racists?

Who accuses the taxed enough already party of being racists?

who accuses the GOP of keepin' the black man down?

you are a lair

Nobody accuses the GOP of having a war on women.

Wrong, moron, that's exactly what liberals have been saying.

Lot's of people accuse Rush Limbaugh of hating women, becase the fat loser can't keep a wife no matter how much he tries to buy them, and they criticized Mitt Romney for having binders full of women. The rest is all in yur head.

ROFL! What a sleazy weasel. Did you have anything besides cheap personal attacks?

The motivations for the GOP's proposed voter fraud protection laws are based in their desire to prevent minorities from voting.

Not all Tea Partiers are racists, but some are.

Nobody accuses the GOP of keeping the black man down, they accuse Stormfronters, KKK types, and other bigots of trying to do that

You're too stupid to waste time responding to.

 

[Correll]

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.

You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

Mike Griffith: Anything after your proclamation of the "good aspects of the slavery" - is something most normal folks would stop at and say - whoa, this is really fucking insane.

I should stop here and delete that.

What he really did was violate a taboo.

Dare you actually address what he said?

WHy do you need to simply history to comic book level?

^ And we shall entitle this post "In praise of eternal, generational human bondage."

Nothing I said supports your response.

Are you being dishonest, or are you so knee jerk that it is interfering with your reading comprehension?

 

[bripat9643]

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution." - Mike Griffith

Google it.

You dishonestly snipped that quote--here's the whole quote:

"Most history books and documentaries that discuss slavery are full of tragic stories about the bad aspects of slavery, but they rarely mention the good aspects of the institution. Historians typically cite the worst cases of mistreatment and abuse but ignore or minimize the far more numerous cases of humane treatment, mutual respect, and genuine friendship. True, the good aspects of slavery don't outweigh the fact that slavery was wrong, but they should be noted in the interest of fairness and historical truth."

And what were the "good aspects" of slavery? Well, many slaves learned a trade that they were able to use after emancipation. Many slaves formed lasting friendships with the white family on the plantation and stayed close or stayed in touch with them long after emancipation. Many slaves were converted to Christianity. The vast majority of slaves had a better standard of living--in terms of food, clothing, housing, and work hours--than they would have had in Africa during that period. Most slaves were not abused, and many had easier lives than many Northern industrial workers in that era, as many NORTHERN workers rights advocates noted at the time.

Mike Griffith: Anything after your proclamation of the "good aspects of the slavery" - is something most normal folks would stop at and say - whoa, this is really fucking insane.

I should stop here and delete that.

What he really did was violate a taboo.

Dare you actually address what he said?

WHy do you need to simply history to comic book level?

^ And we shall entitle this post "In praise of eternal, generational human bondage."

Nothing I said supports your response.

Are you being dishonest, or are you so knee jerk that it is interfering with your reading comprehension?

Paperview claims the New York Ratification document doesn't contain a clause that reserves the right to secede despite the fact that he even quoted the exact clause he claims doesn't exist.

 

[toxicmedia]

Fine, here you go, morons. Since you can't find it yourself I color coded it for you. Here are some crayons to play with

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

There isn' as much wrong with him, as there is with the people he's been exposed to.

The great Lee Atwater made use of a strategy that has become a cornerstone for Fox News, Rush, and the GOP. It's where you accuse the other guy of being far worse than you are, when it comes to your worst perceptions.

That's whay you see righties on this site saying that Democrats/Lefties/etc enslave blacks, hate gays, oppress women, etc.....

who accused the GOP of having a war on women?

Who states that that when the GOP is in favor of voter ID that the GOP are racists?

Who accuses the taxed enough already party of being racists?

who accuses the GOP of keepin' the black man down?

you are a lair

Nobody accuses the GOP of having a war on women. Lot's of people accuse Rush Limbaugh of hating women, becase the fat loser can't keep a wife no matter how much he tries to buy them, and they criticized Mitt Romney for having binders full of women. The rest is all in yur head.

The motivations for the GOP's proposed voter fraud protection laws are based in their desire to prevent minorities from voting.

Not all Tea Partiers are racists, but some are.

Nobody accuses the GOP of keeping the black man down, they accuse Stormfronters, KKK types, and other bigots of trying to do that

I suggest you goggle "GOP war on women".

I did google it, and all the articles coming up refer to Democrats saying the GOP has a war on women.

Not lefties in general, but Democratic officials and politicians.

What do you expect?

 

[kaz]

Nobody accuses the GOP of having a war on women

WAR On WOMEN By Republicans US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The Worldwide War on Women US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Republican abortion bill tone-deaf as usual. War on Women Pt. 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

The pub s War On Women US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

Error US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

But but there s no war on women... US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[kaz]

Talk about a circular argument...

You state a claim: "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party."
He asked you for facts to back up that^ claim.
You then refer him back to your claim, "Now of course blacks are free to be slaves of the Democratic party", as if you typing that is proof enough .

What is wrong with you?

So you Einsteins actually need me to point to your treatment of blacks who dare to leave the Democratic plantation?

Well, if you want to be taken seriously, you'll want to do more than cite your claim as proof to your claim.

Duh.

You think you're taking seriously by anyone but the liberal chorus? LOL. Your advice, I don't need...

That wasn't advice, it was the truth. Nobody will take you seriously if you cite your claim as proof of your claim.

I'm fine with you not being smart. More fun for me

Gotcha, I appreciate the advice from someone so roundly respected by all as you on how to be taken seriously and the time you spent explaining that to me

You're welcome.

I see your point. When I said you equate supporting the Confederacy's right to secession that means you support slavery, and you admitted you did that with bripat, I mean yeah, you agreed with that, but you wanted more examples which I wasn't interested in searching for. Score one for you. I mean if you want 19 examples, it's my job to provide them. One? Seriously? What is that?

As to why you can't find any examples to support your claim bripat supports slavery? OK, I don't understand that. but you must have a good reason, you are so roundly respected. I certainly see why you consider yourself to be on the high horse