The Party of Tolerance: Truth vs. Fantasy

[Pogo]

All the name calling, the threats, the trolling... and I lost the argument? The responses here did nothing but make my point for me.

Who made a threat? What'd I miss?

Pogo, one of your replies was pulled earlier by Doc. He said you threatened me in some manner. I didn't report you, someone else did apparently. Go back a few pages and see his red post, I suggest you inquire further.

Bull SHIT.
I know what the fuck I posted there, Joe Hardy. Because it was the only post I left before I went out. After you posted "oh yeah I'm shakin' in my boots pal", I posted "you're not gonna need boots, more likely stitches, but if you don't mind I can definitely use the boots".

Now how the FUCK is that a 'threat' in its context?
Some of y'all are stone cold jellyfish who seriously seriously need to grow a pair.

And don't sit there and tell me "somebody else did apparenty" -- my whole question about 'who made a threat' was in answer to YOUR post that cited "threats". "Somebody else apparently" didn't cite the presence of "threats"-- you did.

 

[Plasmaball]

Elton John would be very upset right now. LOL. Nope. No love here. Only trolling.

Yes, it's very shocking when you start with an adversarial OP (see trolling) and people respond in kind. Truly shocking.

If you were smart you would have ignored the obvious baiting nature of the thread and posted examples of how you are kind, and forgiving, and tolerant. Instead, TK played all of you like a fiddle.

You are like everyone else defending the kid assuming his argument is a valid one. It's not, thus should not be treated as a reasonable argument that should be respected.
This is nothing but a clone of Foxfyre threads about tolerance over in the Cdz tk wants to be seen as an intellectual on the right. That's how he carries himself on here. Just like Pc attempts to do and fails hard.

The left isn't tolerant, the right isn't tolerant and it's been designed by media to be set this way. You take the fox model and you see what you get. Get one person from each side and you let them Duke it out. Then in order to get attention you find the most outrageous people you can find. That attention gets you viewers and that gets you advertising. Which brings in money.

See had Tk made an Op like that he would have gotten more respectable answers. It would give the impression he wanted to really break the issue down. He doesnt. He wanted to take pot shots at the left and get his little pals to agree.

 

[Pogo]

Guess what, we call that a non sequitur. Along with ad hominem. That's latin I know for your argument sucks and you know it all you have to do is sling mud instead of intelligent points.. You made my point for me that very moment. Even a westwall a liberal acknowledged it.

Did I call it or what?

Well it's not obscure Latin, yet you did manage to get 'em both wrong; neither can apply here. Non sequitur means 'it does not follow'. An assessment of your fallacy doesn't need to 'follow'. Conclusions do the following. I didn't make conclusions. You did. And I'm pointing out that they're based on strawmen.

And ad hominem (as we learned earlier in the week, didn't we??) means an attack on the person. I posted nothing about your person; I posted about your arguments, and the flaws therein.

Ya really need to learn this shit before you start flinging Latin and expect people to fall away in a dead faint as if you're some kind of lawyer or Roman or sump'm. Posters here ain't stupid. You bring your A game, or suffer the consequences.

Speaking of which --- how the fuck do you figure Westwall backed you up here? Where did he reference that post?

Westwall came in and said that TK's argument was just peachy and stuff.

I can't blame him for not delving into it thoroughly; that thing was like reading the entire phone book of Tokyo. I did though. TK expects that of me. That's why he pays me the big bucks.

Once you get in there though, it was all hot air. I could see that from the beginning.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Elton John would be very upset right now. LOL. Nope. No love here. Only trolling.

Yes, it's very shocking when you start with an adversarial OP (see trolling) and people respond in kind. Truly shocking.

If you were smart you would have ignored the obvious baiting nature of the thread and posted examples of how you are kind, and forgiving, and tolerant. Instead, TK played all of you like a fiddle.

The OP's problem is he doesn't know what tolerance and intolerance are, nor does he know the degree to which any given characteristic has to be commonly occurring in a political party in order to justify declaring it to be a common characteristic of that party.


And no, he didn't play me.

 

[TemplarKormac]

1) Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingraham a "talk slut" on his radio show:

This is relevant to what? One talk show host slams another talk show host; what's this got to do with politics or parties?

2) Bill Maher refers to Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann as "Boobs":

Again, a talk show host (comedian this time) criticizing political figures... and again, so what? Bill Maher is not a politician.

Both (1) and (2) involving plays on words, one notes...



Uh- what "Democrats [sic] racist attacks"? What "liberal racism and misogyny"? No such thing was even claimed in that video. I had to watch the whooooole thing ... five and a half minutes I'll never get back... for nothing.

Methinks you should watch your own stuff before you post it rather than creating points and threads on the basis of what some clown named a YouTube video, because this one made no point at all. This entry has as much basis as this bullshit thread from yesterday. That is, none.

Once again, a comedian making a joke, and once again, is there a point coming sometime soon? This is why I wasn't going to put a dent in my day with this tripe. And once again, comedians are not politicians.

And btw, the butt of the joke isn't Palin's son. It's the Fox Noise audience. Duh?
------------------------------------------------------------------



"The Blaze"

No agenda there, nope.

Note the word I bolded. It's important. Once again, no evidence.

Let's see what we're up to now on the point scoreboard:

Still holding at zero. At least it's consistent.



"The Examiner"... wait, we just did this above with the Fox Nose video that went nowhere. So when somebody edits a Wiki it means ... Democrats?

Is this gonna take much longer?

Because I have a meeting of the Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things to get to. I usually don't bother but after this thread I think I'm missing out...

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




ALL THAT to observe that you see a politician waffling? Stop the presses!

How does this earth-shattering news make your point? Or indeed any point at all?

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

As for their tolerance for people of faith, they were seen striking the word "God" from their platform in 2012 during their convention in Charlotte. They did later revise their platform to return those words to the platform, not 24 hours later:



Wha?? Speeches and platforms are EDITED?? Who knew!? I always thought they were hand-delivered to each party by a man riding n a flaming pie.

Perhaps because no country in the world recognizes it either. Damn Democrats are everywhere, huh!?



Your POINT, sir?

You're rambling again; you cited this above. And once again, how exactly does a political party's editing its own platform and campaign speeches become "intolerant" simply because you're not one of the editors?

So are they the party of tolerance? That is for you the reader to decide.

What I decide is you need to get over yourself. What you have here is a multi-headed strawman with rambling points that go nowhere. I think you get smitten with the written (typed) word and lose the forest of meaning for the trees of the words and the artful phrase carefully lathed just so; in the process you forget to assign them meaning or direction. Sheer volume does not a case make.

And I also think you need to graduate to slightly higher reading fare that Glenn Beck and the Exuminer. And when you do use them, take a critical eye for a change.

Finally I think all the noises you've made in the past about being a neutral or independent political thinker have just been obliterated with this exercise in naked hyperpartisan demagoguery. That's gonna leave a mark.

This is relevant to what? One talk show host slams another talk show host; what's this got to do with politics or parties?

Uh hes a liberal political talk show host, genius. Second, liberals claim they stand for women. Except when they are Laura Ingraham and company. It isn't "one talk show host slams another." It's one liberal belonging to a party who stands for women, slamming a woman. Hence the relevance and the hypocrisy.

Again, a talk show host (comedian this time) criticizing political figures... and again, so what? Bill Maher is not a politician.

Why are you so dismissive of it? I don't give a damn if he's the fucking Lion King, Pogo. Stop obfuscating. Lets say he said this about Hillary or Michelle, would you be so dismissive of it then? No, you would probably call him a) racist or b) misogynistic. Oh but it's okay when he only jokes about Republican women. But "so what, he's not a politician" you say.

Uh- what "Democrats [sic] racist attacks"? What "liberal racism and misogyny"? No such thing was even claimed in that video. I had to watch the whooooole thing ... five and a half minutes I'll never get back... for nothing.

Apparently you had your head in your nether regions when Mia Love's wikipedia page was vandalized by some anonymous liberals. That's

Read up before you speak up.

Sick: Wikipedia entry calls Mia Love ?dirty, worthless whore? and ?House ******? | Twitchy

IMG]http://forum.blueharvest.net/style_emoticons/default/snore.gif[/IMG] Once again, a comedian making a joke, and once again, is there a point coming sometime soon? This is why I wasn't going to put a dent in my day with this tripe. And once again, comedians are not politicians.

And btw, the butt of the joke isn't Palin's son. It's the Fox Noise audience. Duh?

Why are jokes about her son okay? Huh? Why are you trying to shift the point? It's fine to go after the audience, but her son? You don't joke about anybody's disability not even if they aren't the main subject of the joke. Hence why Obama was forced to apologize for his "joke" about the Special Olympics (forgot that little tidbit, didn't you?)

Once again, I don't care who he is, he could be Mufasa himself. He will answer for his intolerance.

Wha?? Speeches and platforms are EDITED?? Who knew!? I always thought they were hand-delivered to each party by a man riding n a flaming pie.

Perhaps because no country in the world recognizes it either. Damn Democrats are everywhere, huh!?



Your POINT, sir?

Geez, you've gone off your rocker. Your inflammatory style takes away from your argument. Nevermind that they showed their true feelings about Christians in that convention. 160 of 192 countries recognize the existence of Israel. Your point about Jerusalem is moot. The intolerance lies in the fact they don't recognize Israel as a nation state, and thus believe Israel should capitulate to the Palestinians and revert to indefensible borders.

Oh and nevermind the fact the DNC flipped it's position not 24 hours later under intense pressure by the Romney campaign.

"The Blaze"

No agenda there, nope.

Note the word I bolded. It's important. Once again, no evidence.

Let's see what we're up to now on the point scoreboard:

Still holding at zero. At least it's consistent.



"The Examiner"... wait, we just did this above with the Fox Nose video that went nowhere. So when somebody edits a Wiki it means ... Democrats?

Is this gonna take much longer?

Because I have a meeting of the Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things to get to. I usually don't bother but after this thread I think I'm missing out...

You can do nothing but attack me or my sources. Is there an actual argument in there somewhere?

ALL THAT to observe that you see a politician waffling? Stop the presses!

How does this earth-shattering news make your point? Or indeed any point at all?

First of all, it speaks to his intolerance of homosexuals. He doesn't care about people he can manipulate. This also speaks to the liberal attitude as well. Do you care about their rights? Or their votes?

What I decide is you need to get over yourself. What you have here is a multi-headed strawman with rambling points that go nowhere. I think you get smitten with the written (typed) word and lose the forest of meaning for the trees of the words and the artful phrase carefully lathed just so; in the process you forget to assign them meaning or direction. Sheer volume does not a case make.

What you decide is that my argument is a strawman... without so much as trying to explain how. All you're doing is spewing self righteous anecdotes for all to see. You've attacked my sources, dodged multiple points, and acted like a 2 year old. What I decide is that you're self absorbed, you're overtly arrogant and hostile. You think your points are always right, always better and always irrefutable. Got news for you Pogo, life isn't a perch for you to sit upon and look down on the peons below.

And I also think you need to graduate to slightly higher reading fare that Glenn Beck and the Exuminer. And when you do use them, take a critical eye for a change.

Finally I think all the noises you've made in the past about being a neutral or independent political thinker have just been obliterated with this exercise in naked hyperpartisan demagoguery. That's gonna leave a mark.

Think what you will of me Pogo. I don't answer to your standards of what "hyperpartisan" are, given you are hyperpartisan yourself. You're probably so far left of center that I seem "hyperpartisan."

I'm sorry if I hurt your feewings, Pogo, but right now, liberals make themselves easy targets with the intolerance they exude toward people who disagree with them. I am quite well aware of what Republicans say and do, and some of it is just as bad as what I've demonstrated with liberals. The difference between the two, is that one side owns up to the mistake, while the other side shields the perp from the consequences of their words.

I made a good point, you made a childish one. I took you for a good debater, but you've done nothing but throw a tantrum tonight.

 

[Pogo]

Search the term "Southern Strategy" and then say that Republicans aren't racist.

Southern Democrat became Southern Republican around 1968, so when you claim to be "the party of Lincoln", you're lying. If Abraham Lincoln were to see the GOP Teabagger party in the 21st century, he'd shoot himself from immense shame.

Southern Democrats went back to being Southern Democrats after Nixon. Hence Carter. Care to try that again?

whaaaa??? Not on this planet they didn't.

 

[Pogo]

No matter. At least there are people like you who take the time. In a nutshell, I accuse liberals of being hypocrites for claiming they are for women, blacks, gays and free exercise of religion. I listed examples.

Statist Progressivism is about Total Control. Either you march in lock step, or you are thrown under the bus. You miss a step or talking point, you are thrown under the bus, you embarrass the Collective publicly, you are thrown under the bus. Funny Statist Progressivism and Sharia share a common trait, Totalitarianism.

Indeed. There is no such thing as freedom of opinion in Totalitarianism, and the Left.

And LOL at that avatar!

You find murderers funny?

 

[TemplarKormac]

Who made a threat? What'd I miss?

Pogo, one of your replies was pulled earlier by Doc. He said you threatened me in some manner. I didn't report you, someone else did apparently. Go back a few pages and see his red post, I suggest you inquire further.

Bull SHIT.
I know what the fuck I posted there, Joe Hardy. Because it was the only post I left before I went out. After you posted "oh yeah I'm shakin' in my boots pal", I posted "you're not gonna need boots, more likely stitches, but if you don't mind I can definitely use the boots".

Now how the FUCK is that a 'threat' in its context?
Some of y'all are stone cold jellyfish who seriously seriously need to grow a pair.

And don't sit there and tell me "somebody else did apparenty" -- my whole question about 'who made a threat' was in answer to YOUR post that cited "threats". "Somebody else apparently" didn't cite the presence of "threats"-- you did.

You claimed you read my post but you cant find where Doc cleaned my thread. I replied "Are you threatening me?" Before you replied, Doc had pulled my comment and yours and reprimanded you for making a threat. As per the rules, "no direct or implied threats of violence" meaning literal or metaphorical. Don't get your tighty whities in a bunch with me, I didn't report you. You would do well to take a chill pill.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Statist Progressivism is about Total Control. Either you march in lock step, or you are thrown under the bus. You miss a step or talking point, you are thrown under the bus, you embarrass the Collective publicly, you are thrown under the bus. Funny Statist Progressivism and Sharia share a common trait, Totalitarianism.

Indeed. There is no such thing as freedom of opinion in Totalitarianism, and the Left.

And LOL at that avatar!

You find murderers funny?

Perhaps you should be asking him that, not me. Your attempt to derail this thread is denied.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Search the term "Southern Strategy" and then say that Republicans aren't racist.

Southern Democrat became Southern Republican around 1968, so when you claim to be "the party of Lincoln", you're lying. If Abraham Lincoln were to see the GOP Teabagger party in the 21st century, he'd shoot himself from immense shame.

Southern Democrats went back to being Southern Democrats after Nixon. Hence Carter. Care to try that again?

whaaaa??? Not on this planet they didn't.

Apparently on this planet they did

United States presidential election, 1976 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[TemplarKormac]

Come on Pogo, I dare you to make one intelligent point.

And you failed.

Moving on.

 

[LoneLaugher]

1) Ed Schultz calls Laura Ingraham a "talk slut" on his radio show:

This is relevant to what? One talk show host slams another talk show host; what's this got to do with politics or parties?



Again, a talk show host (comedian this time) criticizing political figures... and again, so what? Bill Maher is not a politician.

Both (1) and (2) involving plays on words, one notes...



Uh- what "Democrats [sic] racist attacks"? What "liberal racism and misogyny"? No such thing was even claimed in that video. I had to watch the whooooole thing ... five and a half minutes I'll never get back... for nothing.

Methinks you should watch your own stuff before you post it rather than creating points and threads on the basis of what some clown named a YouTube video, because this one made no point at all. This entry has as much basis as this bullshit thread from yesterday. That is, none.

Once again, a comedian making a joke, and once again, is there a point coming sometime soon? This is why I wasn't going to put a dent in my day with this tripe. And once again, comedians are not politicians.

And btw, the butt of the joke isn't Palin's son. It's the Fox Noise audience. Duh?
------------------------------------------------------------------



"The Blaze"

No agenda there, nope.

Note the word I bolded. It's important. Once again, no evidence.

Let's see what we're up to now on the point scoreboard:

Still holding at zero. At least it's consistent.



"The Examiner"... wait, we just did this above with the Fox Nose video that went nowhere. So when somebody edits a Wiki it means ... Democrats?

Is this gonna take much longer?

Because I have a meeting of the Society for Putting Things on Top of Other Things to get to. I usually don't bother but after this thread I think I'm missing out...

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




ALL THAT to observe that you see a politician waffling? Stop the presses!

How does this earth-shattering news make your point? Or indeed any point at all?

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



You're rambling again; you cited this above. And once again, how exactly does a political party's editing its own platform and campaign speeches become "intolerant" simply because you're not one of the editors?



What I decide is you need to get over yourself. What you have here is a multi-headed strawman with rambling points that go nowhere. I think you get smitten with the written (typed) word and lose the forest of meaning for the trees of the words and the artful phrase carefully lathed just so; in the process you forget to assign them meaning or direction. Sheer volume does not a case make.

And I also think you need to graduate to slightly higher reading fare that Glenn Beck and the Exuminer. And when you do use them, take a critical eye for a change.

Finally I think all the noises you've made in the past about being a neutral or independent political thinker have just been obliterated with this exercise in naked hyperpartisan demagoguery. That's gonna leave a mark.

Uh hes a liberal political talk show host, genius. Second, liberals claim they stand for women. Except when they are Laura Ingraham and company. It isn't "one talk show host slams another." It's one liberal belonging to a party who stands for women, slamming a woman. Hence the relevance and the hypocrisy.



Why are you so dismissive of it? I don't give a damn if he's the fucking Lion King, Pogo. Stop obfuscating. Lets say he said this about Hillary or Michelle, would you be so dismissive of it then? No, you would probably call him a) racist or b) misogynistic. Oh but it's okay when he only jokes about Republican women. But "so what, he's not a politician" you say.



Apparently you had your head in your nether regions when Mia Love's wikipedia page was vandalized by some anonymous liberals. That's

Read up before you speak up.

Sick: Wikipedia entry calls Mia Love ?dirty, worthless whore? and ?House ******? | Twitchy




Why are jokes about her son okay? Huh? Why are you trying to shift the point? It's fine to go after the audience, but her son? You don't joke about anybody's disability not even if they aren't the main subject of the joke. Hence why Obama was forced to apologize for his "joke" about the Special Olympics (forgot that little tidbit, didn't you?)

Once again, I don't care who he is, he could be Mufasa himself. He will answer for his intolerance.




Geez, you've gone off your rocker. Your inflammatory style takes away from your argument. Nevermind that they showed their true feelings about Christians in that convention. 160 of 192 countries recognize the existence of Israel. Your point about Jerusalem is moot. The intolerance lies in the fact they don't recognize Israel as a nation state, and thus believe Israel should capitulate to the Palestinians and revert to indefensible borders.

Oh and nevermind the fact the DNC flipped it's position not 24 hours later under intense pressure by the Romney campaign.




You can do nothing but attack me or my sources. Is there an actual argument in there somewhere?



First of all, it speaks to his intolerance of homosexuals. He doesn't care about people he can manipulate. This also speaks to the liberal attitude as well. Do you care about their rights? Or their votes?

What I decide is you need to get over yourself. What you have here is a multi-headed strawman with rambling points that go nowhere. I think you get smitten with the written (typed) word and lose the forest of meaning for the trees of the words and the artful phrase carefully lathed just so; in the process you forget to assign them meaning or direction. Sheer volume does not a case make.

What you decide is that my argument is a strawman... without so much as trying to explain how. All you're doing is spewing self righteous anecdotes for all to see. You've attacked my sources, dodged multiple points, and acted like a 2 year old. What I decide is that you're self absorbed, you're overtly arrogant and hostile. You think your points are always right, always better and always irrefutable. Got news for you Pogo, life isn't a perch for you to sit upon and look down on the peons below.

And I also think you need to graduate to slightly higher reading fare that Glenn Beck and the Exuminer. And when you do use them, take a critical eye for a change.

Finally I think all the noises you've made in the past about being a neutral or independent political thinker have just been obliterated with this exercise in naked hyperpartisan demagoguery. That's gonna leave a mark.

Think what you will of me Pogo. I don't answer to your standards of what "hyperpartisan" are, given you are hyperpartisan yourself. You're probably so far left of center that I seem "hyperpartisan."

I'm sorry if I hurt your feewings, Pogo, but right now, liberals make themselves easy targets with the intolerance they exude toward people who disagree with them. I am quite well aware of what Republicans say and do, and some of it is just as bad as what I've demonstrated with liberals. The difference between the two, is that one side owns up to the mistake, while the other side shields the perp from the consequences of their words.

I made a good point, you made a childish one. I took you for a good debater, but you've done nothing but throw a tantrum tonight.

Your point is that liberals are intolerant of women, minorities and homosexuals.....as long as the women, minorities and homosexuals are ideologically conservative.

Right?

 

[Pogo]

Southern Democrats went back to being Southern Democrats after Nixon. Hence Carter. Care to try that again?

Are you trying to imply that Southern Republicans are the "party of Lincoln"?

Search the term "Southern Strategy" and read what comes up.

Are you trying to derail the thread?

I know all about the Southern Strategy, and how it suddenly went away with the GASP election of Jimmy Carter.

Go away.

It did no such thing, and I understand why you'd want that insane post to 'go away'. In 1976 the country was pissed off about Watergate, and nobody who represented the party that brought about Watergate was going to have much of a shot, least of all a weak President who had already promised he would not seek election and then reneged on it. Carter being a Southerner, a favorite son in Georgia, and a deacon who teaches Sunday school, all had appeal to the conservative South. Carter won in spite of the Southern strategy. As did Clinton, as did O'bama. And all three benefitted from challenging an incumbent party that had taken their presidency to turns somewhere between uninspired and disastrous.

Learn some freakin' history, boy.

 

[Pogo]

I'm still waiting for some factual rebuttals here. All I've gotten is a steady stream of trolls. Isn't there anybody out there who has the guts to challenge my argument?

He posts a series of strawmen and irrelevancies, then wants "factual rebuttals"...

 

[Pogo]

Are you trying to derail the thread?

I know all about the Southern Strategy, and how it suddenly went away with the GASP election of Jimmy Carter.

Go away.

Man you are so wrong and the sad thing is you do not realize it.

Got to be some kid (younger than 30) and living up north somewhere I could not help but notice how my family and neighbors changed their voting habits from the 70s to the 80s, anyone who lives down here cannot seriously make the silly argument that that the sons and grandsons of the segregationists still vote democrat.

Perhaps this is a sneak preview of the next bullshit revision of history, since Hitler being a liberal and Democrats founding the KKK worked out so well...

 

[TemplarKormac]

Are you trying to imply that Southern Republicans are the "party of Lincoln"?

Search the term "Southern Strategy" and read what comes up.

Are you trying to derail the thread?

I know all about the Southern Strategy, and how it suddenly went away with the GASP election of Jimmy Carter.

Go away.

It did no such thing, and I understand why you'd want that insane post to 'go away'. In 1976 the country was pissed off about Watergate, and nobody who represented the party that brought about Watergate was going to have much of a shot, least of all a weak President who had already promised he would not seek election and then reneged on it. Carter being a Southerner, a favorite son in Georgia, and a deacon who teaches Sunday school, all had appeal to the conservative South. Carter won in spite of the Southern strategy. As did Clinton, as did O'bama. And all three benefitted from challenging an incumbent party that had taken their presidency to turns somewhere between uninspired and disastrous.

Learn some freakin' history, boy.

Oh I know a lot more history.

My point is proven by the fact that from 1976 until around 1995 or so, on the local and state level, Democrats held the majorities of Governorships and legislatures in the South. Yeah you heard me right. While voting for Republicans, nationally, they remained loyal to Democrats on the local and state level. Meaning, Pogo, the Southern Strategy failed.

Game, set, match.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Man you are so wrong and the sad thing is you do not realize it.

Got to be some kid (younger than 30) and living up north somewhere I could not help but notice how my family and neighbors changed their voting habits from the 70s to the 80s, anyone who lives down here cannot seriously make the silly argument that that the sons and grandsons of the segregationists still vote democrat.

Perhaps this is a sneak preview of the next bullshit revision of history, since Hitler being a liberal and Democrats founding the KKK worked out so well...

Godwin's law is now in effect.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm still waiting for some factual rebuttals here. All I've gotten is a steady stream of trolls. Isn't there anybody out there who has the guts to challenge my argument?

He posts a series of strawmen and irrelevancies, then wants "factual rebuttals"...

Your nonchalant attitude shows me you had no intent of taking this discussion seriously. Grow a pair, coward. If you didn't have an argument to begin with, you should have just said so.

 

[Pogo]

Perhaps you don't recognize your own folly? Read my previous response.

TEmplar, which party today is advocating states rights and secession? Could it be that political parties change over time?

Who was it said "Republicans don't belong here"? Wanna give that a go? And while I'm at it, are you saying states shouldn't have any rights? Oh, and I oppose succession. I favor preservation of the union. Oh, and guess which party gave birth to the KKK? Who tried to filibuster the Civil Rights Act?

Next.

Oh no he di'int...

You and I have already been through this, and you know it. And from that you know as well as I do that the KKK was not founded by, nor ever associated with, a political party. If you're about to float yet another history revision turd, don't bother.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Every now and then....an intelligent person gets pulled into the TK vortex. Chemical showers are prescribed.