Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[Biff_Poindexter]

Trump has received the most black votes of any president besides Jefferson Davis.

Bawahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

Its funny because I bet in a few more years -- conservatives will be trying that out as another one of their alternative facts

 

[rightwinger]

Trump has received the most black votes of any president besides Jefferson Davis.

Bawahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

Its funny because I bet in a few more years -- conservatives will be trying that out as another one of their alternative facts

Ole Jeff Davis did well with the slave vote

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Trump has received the most black votes of any president besides Jefferson Davis.

Bawahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha

Its funny because I bet in a few more years -- conservatives will be trying that out as another one of their alternative facts

Ole Jeff Davis did well with the slave vote

Jefferson Davis will be referred to by his new name "J-Rocc" -- as a way to be hip and cool with the kids

 

[Pogo]

The rich did. The indolent planter class, as I like to call them. The wealthy who had made and were continuing to make their wealth on the backs of slaves. That element was despised in vast swaths of the South such as where I'm sitting, where the residents were subsistence farming and couldn't afford slaves even if they had wanted to. That's why there was so much resistance --- which bullshit artists like the Lost Cause Cult have clouded over. That's why Andrew Johnson --- you know, Lincoln's Democrat future running mate --- spoke forcefully against secession over those mountains (pointing west) in East Tennessee, where they voted NO on secession to the tune of 95%.

That's why desertion and draft dodging and Home Guards were so prominent. That's why pockets of resistance sprang up all over the South from the Texas Hill country to Searcy County Arkansas to the Free State of Jones in Mississippi to Winston County Alabama to the area around Chattanooga/northeast Georgia, which all stayed loyal to the Union and resisted the Confederacy from inside it. That's why the counties of what is now West Virginia seceded from Virginia in protest, and why the counties of East Tennessee would have done the same thing had they not been occupied by Confederate separatist forces. You see son, when we describe the War as tearing apart families and "brother against brother", that's an internal reference to the South, which was in no way unified in its cause.

Hell, the aforementioned John Bell of the Constitutional Union Party won both Tennessee and Virginia in the 1860 election, and they were against secession.

I can tell by your writing that you're not an American and English is not your first language, so let me explain "Home Guards". These were local militia that wanted no part of war and would defend their homes from EITHER side's army. The two armies were already impersonating each other. Hence the bushwackers.

Correct, rich people made decision, except, mostly rich people were running the country and creating policies. In the south, those were mostly - Democrats.

You said: "Tennessee and Virginia were against secession." That was not a question. They were pro-slavery states, and they fought on confederate side, otherwise they would abolish slavery and join the Union.

This is where I can tell you're not from this country. Nobody here talks like that. Looks like you're a Russian, where they're not used to articles -- "Confederacy was political decision" tovarich? BUSTED.

This is what is wrong with you leftists. You imagine something, than you fixate on it. Than you run around claiming that what you imagine is truth. I know, the "Russian collusion" too the tool on you, and left large scars. I would recommend nice and cozy "safe space" until you come back to senses and stop shaking. The other option is to lay off the drugs.

By the way, it's not "tovarich", correct would be "tovarish".

Already did that above. Perhaps you were lost in your Russian-to-English dictionary.

Riiight... You see, I am not here all day monitoring threads by being paid 2c per post, as you and your buddies are. Some of us are at work and trying to squeeze few posts here and there...

Russians, everywhere...

View attachment 305894

If you're not Russian, why are you deliberately writing like one?

It seems THAT is your argument for this thread. When you can't make it, you turn to labeling and name calling. Let's try it...

If you're not faggot, why are you writing like one? Deliberately or not.

.
"Russian" is not name-calling. It's a simple observation of your writing, specifically your inability to handle articles.

TBH, I have no clue how that "the" remained there. As I said, I am at work during the day, and when I catch the break I try to reply to posts. Sometimes lose track and change sentences because of distractions or simply being in rush, etc. I don't have to explain myself to you, and I wont.

Uh huh. You just did.

Lots of posters are busy on other stuff and/or post from work, myself included. Yours has been carrying a consistent Russian flavor. Just something I pick up on.

To make it clear, I am American, and to be honest again, if I had to chose I would rather be Russian than a Democrat.

Those are not comparators. One is a nationality, the other a political party. You could be both.

You keep doing what you're doing, it doesn't bother me at all. It's not your fault that you don't know better. You're simply leftist fuck behaving just as every leftist fuck does. Now, fuck off, faggot.

Actually I'm citing history, and yes I will keep on doing it every time some revisionista like you tries to pervert it. And that's got nothing to do with sex, burning things, political parties or any of your sad shit. It has to do with basic honesty. Now if you don't want to be called out on mendacious bullshit, then don't post it in the first place. And fer fuxsake don't keep trotting out the same bogus mythology after it's already been disproven.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

If fantasy comforts you..that's not my problem. You seem married to your narrative...i give you joy of it..but it's not reality...and no matter how many times you type it..it will still be false. Bad guy, good guys..that you use the phrase is telling---you have invested something vital in this towering edifice of spin....i hope it satisfies.

Do you really think that it matter how many politicians switched..beside the fact that millions of voters switched..and why?

Why is it so important to you to conflate the conservative Democrats of 100 years ago with the liberal Democrats of today? No one believes you..just your tinfoil hat friends--and the Trump hardcore. History is not your friend on this one.

It does matter, because you can't name those racists who switch the parties.

I already told you when majority blacks switched to Democrats, and the reason why is pretty much the same as the reason why they're glued to Democrats today.

Freebies.

Once they start being dependent on themselves, they run away from Democrats like from disease.

By the way, how's that list coming? Any time soon?

The voters switched parties

When?

Beginning in the late 60s and culminating with Reagan

Did you read what I posted above? No?

Than you're still talking out of your ass.

 

[Ame®icano]

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

If fantasy comforts you..that's not my problem. You seem married to your narrative...i give you joy of it..but it's not reality...and no matter how many times you type it..it will still be false. Bad guy, good guys..that you use the phrase is telling---you have invested something vital in this towering edifice of spin....i hope it satisfies.

Do you really think that it matter how many politicians switched..beside the fact that millions of voters switched..and why?

Why is it so important to you to conflate the conservative Democrats of 100 years ago with the liberal Democrats of today? No one believes you..just your tinfoil hat friends--and the Trump hardcore. History is not your friend on this one.

It does matter, because you can't name those racists who switch the parties.

I already told you when majority blacks switched to Democrats, and the reason why is pretty much the same as the reason why they're glued to Democrats today.

Freebies.

Once they start being dependent on themselves, they run away from Democrats like from disease.

By the way, how's that list coming? Any time soon?

Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms for starters.

I already gave you Strom Thurmond. Now, Helms became Senator in '72. He became republican in '70, some 6 years after CRA was passed. It doesn't really fit into switching party because of CRA or because he was racist. Even if we count him, try to give 3 more... why is it so hard, if there was massive "party switch".

 

[rightwinger]

If fantasy comforts you..that's not my problem. You seem married to your narrative...i give you joy of it..but it's not reality...and no matter how many times you type it..it will still be false. Bad guy, good guys..that you use the phrase is telling---you have invested something vital in this towering edifice of spin....i hope it satisfies.

Do you really think that it matter how many politicians switched..beside the fact that millions of voters switched..and why?

Why is it so important to you to conflate the conservative Democrats of 100 years ago with the liberal Democrats of today? No one believes you..just your tinfoil hat friends--and the Trump hardcore. History is not your friend on this one.

It does matter, because you can't name those racists who switch the parties.

I already told you when majority blacks switched to Democrats, and the reason why is pretty much the same as the reason why they're glued to Democrats today.

Freebies.

Once they start being dependent on themselves, they run away from Democrats like from disease.

By the way, how's that list coming? Any time soon?

The voters switched parties

When?

Beginning in the late 60s and culminating with Reagan

Did you read what I posted above? No?

Than you're still talking out of your ass.

I read it and found it to be ridiculous

The voters turned on the Democrats, nobody had to “switch parties”

 

[Pogo]

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

You're conflating two different things here. And you know you are, because we had that whole standoff about how you tried to avoid post 50 which spelled out the so-called "party switch". Here for convenience is that lesson again -- begin paste:

"Big switch" You're so afraid of acknowledging history that you'll pervert it into a "Big Switch" as if you're turning the lights on and off to the White House Frickin' Christmas Tree.

In the late part of the 19th century the Republican Party was moving away from its Liberalism that championed Abolition and civil rights, and toward the deep pockets of emerging corporations, the railroads, Wall Street etc. At the same time the Democrats, having experimented with "fusion" parties, absorbed the burgeoning Populist movement (and party). These two poles are personified in the two parties' POTUS candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. McKinley was also driving the US toward imperialism, which was a new direction, with the Spanish-American War, and the Philippines continuing after it.

The Democrats took on the constituencies of minorities, the labor class and farmers, immigrants, and of course with those minorities/immigrants came Jews, Catholics and eventually blacks in the 1930s. The Republicans took on the wealthy, the "haves" and the enormous wads of money that came with them. For a brief blip that trajectory was somewhat interrupted by Teddy Roosevelt who made a lot of noise about actually reeling in those corporations -- he was never in the plan to be President, he succeeded to it when McKinley was assassinated --- and that rocked the Republican boat. For evidence that it rocked that boat look to 1912, when TR came to the party convention with a commanding lead of primary delegates, yet the party snubbed him and went with Taft, the establishment guy from Ohio, who was willing to toe the corporate line (which is why TR challenged him).

Roosevelt had to go form his own party, which he did and which sent Taft down to third place and handed the WH to Woodrow Wilson with something like 42% of the vote. But 8 years later the Republicans won back the WH with what was then the biggest landslide ever, with their one-percent guy, and the rest is history.

So "Big Switch", no not a "switch". More like a mutual evolution. It took a generation to evolve, but it did.

/end post 50 paste

That's when the parties in significant ways traded places as far as their values and their constutuencies. The other thing you're (deliberately) conflating with it is the "Southern Strategy", when the VOTERS, rather than the parties, changed positions. That would be beginning in the 1960s, specifically when LBJ pushed the CRA through and lamented "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", when Strom Thurmond made the word flesh by doing the heretofore unthinkable and switching to the "Party of Lincoln". He was eventually followed by a cast of thousands including Trent Lott (who "voted for him" in 1948), Jesse Helms, Sonny Perdue, Nathan Deal, John Connally, Fob James, Kay Ivey, Dave Treen, David Duke, Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm, Elizabeth Dole, That Cochran, Billy Tauzin, Buddy Roemer and of course their voters from what before Thurmond's break had been called the "Solid South". They were of course following their voters, once Thurmond demonstrated that the Republican Party was going to be the natural home for their eternal conservatism. That they had ever been Democrats was a fluke of circumstance born of the emotional revulsion for the "party of Lincoln", the figure who had defeated and humilated them.

With that floodgate opened and the "party of Lincoln" becoming thinkable came the Republican Southern Strategy, infamously voiced by Republican strategist Lee Atwater:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. <<​

--- and in fact that's exactly what Reagan did, tellingly kicking off his campaign in of all places Philadelphia Mississippi, site of one of the most notorious terror crimes of the civil rights era, talking about "states rights" --- the exact same phrase the Democrats had been using in the Civil War daze and were still using (George Wallace).

So that's both a constituency migration AND an ideological one. The Democrats abandoned the racist vote, punctuating it with the 1964 CRA, and the Republicans took up the invitation.

So your "big switch" was never a 'switch" -- it was a gradual evolution, in two phases.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

There were TWO (2) Dixiecrats, one being the aforementioned Strom Thurmond and the other his running mate, Fielding Wright, then-governor of Mississippi. When they failed to upend the 1948 election they went back to their governorships, Wright then went back to his law practice, Thurmond decided to run for Senator and was kicked off the ballot by the state Democratic Party so he ran as a write-in, which he won, and that's how he got to the Senate.

 

[Theowl32]

Will they curse the 10 Native American tribes who owned slaves and fought for the confederacy?

Of course not.

Lets discuss that. It is negro patronizing month after all.

Ohhhh wait!!! That would not fit the patronizing that is always designed to enslave the negro mind into thinking they are always the victim of white Christian capitalists.

So....

Not only would the stupid hypocritical dickbags on the left not answer that, they will ignore it or giggle. Giggle uncomfortably, but giggle nonetheless.

Why?

Cause they are all brainwashed losers.

 

[Ame®icano]

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

You're conflating two different things here. And you know you are, because we had that whole standoff about how you tried to avoid post 50 which spelled out the so-called "party switch". Here for convenience is that lesson again -- begin paste:

"Big switch" You're so afraid of acknowledging history that you'll pervert it into a "Big Switch" as if you're turning the lights on and off to the White House Frickin' Christmas Tree.

In the late part of the 19th century the Republican Party was moving away from its Liberalism that championed Abolition and civil rights, and toward the deep pockets of emerging corporations, the railroads, Wall Street etc. At the same time the Democrats, having experimented with "fusion" parties, absorbed the burgeoning Populist movement (and party). These two poles are personified in the two parties' POTUS candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. McKinley was also driving the US toward imperialism, which was a new direction, with the Spanish-American War, and the Philippines continuing after it.

The Democrats took on the constituencies of minorities, the labor class and farmers, immigrants, and of course with those minorities/immigrants came Jews, Catholics and eventually blacks in the 1930s. The Republicans took on the wealthy, the "haves" and the enormous wads of money that came with them. For a brief blip that trajectory was somewhat interrupted by Teddy Roosevelt who made a lot of noise about actually reeling in those corporations -- he was never in the plan to be President, he succeeded to it when McKinley was assassinated --- and that rocked the Republican boat. For evidence that it rocked that boat look to 1912, when TR came to the party convention with a commanding lead of primary delegates, yet the party snubbed him and went with Taft, the establishment guy from Ohio, who was willing to toe the corporate line (which is why TR challenged him).

Roosevelt had to go form his own party, which he did and which sent Taft down to third place and handed the WH to Woodrow Wilson with something like 42% of the vote. But 8 years later the Republicans won back the WH with what was then the biggest landslide ever, with their one-percent guy, and the rest is history.

So "Big Switch", no not a "switch". More like a mutual evolution. It took a generation to evolve, but it did.

/end post 50 paste

That's when the parties in significant ways traded places as far as their values and their constutuencies. The other thing you're (deliberately) conflating with it is the "Southern Strategy", when the VOTERS, rather than the parties, changed positions. That would be beginning in the 1960s, specifically when LBJ pushed the CRA through and lamented "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", when Strom Thurmond made the word flesh by doing the heretofore unthinkable and switching to the "Party of Lincoln". He was eventually followed by a cast of thousands including Trent Lott (who "voted for him" in 1948), Jesse Helms, Sonny Perdue, Nathan Deal, John Connally, Fob James, Kay Ivey, Dave Treen, David Duke, Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm, Elizabeth Dole, That Cochran, Billy Tauzin, Buddy Roemer and of course their voters from what before Thurmond's break had been called the "Solid South". They were of course following their voters, once Thurmond demonstrated that the Republican Party was going to be the natural home for their eternal conservatism. That they had ever been Democrats was a fluke of circumstance born of the emotional revulsion for the "party of Lincoln", the figure who had defeated and humilated them.

With that floodgate opened and the "party of Lincoln" becoming thinkable came the Republican Southern Strategy, infamously voiced by Republican strategist Lee Atwater:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. <<​

--- and in fact that's exactly what Reagan did, tellingly kicking off his campaign in of all places Philadelphia Mississippi, site of one of the most notorious terror crimes of the civil rights era, talking about "states rights" --- the exact same phrase the Democrats had been using in the Civil War daze and were still using (George Wallace).

So that's both a constituency migration AND an ideological one. The Democrats abandoned the racist vote, punctuating it with the 1964 CRA, and the Republicans took up the invitation.

So your "big switch" was never a 'switch" -- it was a gradual evolution, in two phases.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

There were TWO (2) Dixiecrats, one being the aforementioned Strom Thurmond and the other his running mate, Fielding Wright, then-governor of Mississippi. When they failed to upend the 1948 election they went back to their governorships, Wright then went back to his law practice, Thurmond decided to run for Senator and was kicked off the ballot by the state Democratic Party so he ran as a write-in, which he won, and that's how he got to the Senate.

Your post #50 was reply to post #33.

Post #33 is about "party switch" in late 20 century, You replied to it in post #50, completely unrelated to what was asked.

Unlike you, I addressed the post #33 in my reply post #53, and ignored yours because it has nothing to do with the post #33.

****************

Put it this way... some random member writes post #10 "Trump is impeached for obstruction of Congress"

In post #11 you quote post #10 and reply something like "Hillary won by 3 million votes".

In post #12 I quote and reply to post #10 something like: "Trump is acquitted by Senate".

Some 200 posts later you complain how I ignored your post #11. What drugs are you on, please?

 

[Pogo]

It is the plain Truth..when the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed, the racist, Jim Crow loving members of the party, with a few exceptions, bolted to the Republican party. You types will always bring up the few who stayed..while ignoring the historical reality of what happened.

I guess you could style it that the South did not, "kick them out" but rather they left when their party became the one that ended Jim Crow, and put the final nail in the coffin of 'separate but equal'.

The Democrats who remained either shut their pie-holes and went with the flow..or became pro-civil rights..after they cleansed themselves of their conservative elements and became the party of today.

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

You're conflating two different things here. And you know you are, because we had that whole standoff about how you tried to avoid post 50 which spelled out the so-called "party switch". Here for convenience is that lesson again -- begin paste:

"Big switch" You're so afraid of acknowledging history that you'll pervert it into a "Big Switch" as if you're turning the lights on and off to the White House Frickin' Christmas Tree.

In the late part of the 19th century the Republican Party was moving away from its Liberalism that championed Abolition and civil rights, and toward the deep pockets of emerging corporations, the railroads, Wall Street etc. At the same time the Democrats, having experimented with "fusion" parties, absorbed the burgeoning Populist movement (and party). These two poles are personified in the two parties' POTUS candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. McKinley was also driving the US toward imperialism, which was a new direction, with the Spanish-American War, and the Philippines continuing after it.

The Democrats took on the constituencies of minorities, the labor class and farmers, immigrants, and of course with those minorities/immigrants came Jews, Catholics and eventually blacks in the 1930s. The Republicans took on the wealthy, the "haves" and the enormous wads of money that came with them. For a brief blip that trajectory was somewhat interrupted by Teddy Roosevelt who made a lot of noise about actually reeling in those corporations -- he was never in the plan to be President, he succeeded to it when McKinley was assassinated --- and that rocked the Republican boat. For evidence that it rocked that boat look to 1912, when TR came to the party convention with a commanding lead of primary delegates, yet the party snubbed him and went with Taft, the establishment guy from Ohio, who was willing to toe the corporate line (which is why TR challenged him).

Roosevelt had to go form his own party, which he did and which sent Taft down to third place and handed the WH to Woodrow Wilson with something like 42% of the vote. But 8 years later the Republicans won back the WH with what was then the biggest landslide ever, with their one-percent guy, and the rest is history.

So "Big Switch", no not a "switch". More like a mutual evolution. It took a generation to evolve, but it did.

/end post 50 paste

That's when the parties in significant ways traded places as far as their values and their constutuencies. The other thing you're (deliberately) conflating with it is the "Southern Strategy", when the VOTERS, rather than the parties, changed positions. That would be beginning in the 1960s, specifically when LBJ pushed the CRA through and lamented "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", when Strom Thurmond made the word flesh by doing the heretofore unthinkable and switching to the "Party of Lincoln". He was eventually followed by a cast of thousands including Trent Lott (who "voted for him" in 1948), Jesse Helms, Sonny Perdue, Nathan Deal, John Connally, Fob James, Kay Ivey, Dave Treen, David Duke, Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm, Elizabeth Dole, That Cochran, Billy Tauzin, Buddy Roemer and of course their voters from what before Thurmond's break had been called the "Solid South". They were of course following their voters, once Thurmond demonstrated that the Republican Party was going to be the natural home for their eternal conservatism. That they had ever been Democrats was a fluke of circumstance born of the emotional revulsion for the "party of Lincoln", the figure who had defeated and humilated them.

With that floodgate opened and the "party of Lincoln" becoming thinkable came the Republican Southern Strategy, infamously voiced by Republican strategist Lee Atwater:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. <<​

--- and in fact that's exactly what Reagan did, tellingly kicking off his campaign in of all places Philadelphia Mississippi, site of one of the most notorious terror crimes of the civil rights era, talking about "states rights" --- the exact same phrase the Democrats had been using in the Civil War daze and were still using (George Wallace).

So that's both a constituency migration AND an ideological one. The Democrats abandoned the racist vote, punctuating it with the 1964 CRA, and the Republicans took up the invitation.

So your "big switch" was never a 'switch" -- it was a gradual evolution, in two phases.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

There were TWO (2) Dixiecrats, one being the aforementioned Strom Thurmond and the other his running mate, Fielding Wright, then-governor of Mississippi. When they failed to upend the 1948 election they went back to their governorships, Wright then went back to his law practice, Thurmond decided to run for Senator and was kicked off the ballot by the state Democratic Party so he ran as a write-in, which he won, and that's how he got to the Senate.

Your post #50 was reply to post #33.

Post #33 is about "party switch" in late 20 century, You replied to it in post #50, completely unrelated to what was asked.

Unlike you, I addressed the post #33 in my reply post #53, and ignored yours because it has nothing to do with the post #33.

****************

Put it this way... some random member writes post #10 "Trump is impeached for obstruction of Congress"

In post #11 you quote post #10 and reply something like "Hillary won by 3 million votes".

In post #12 I quote and reply to post #10 something like: "Trump is acquitted by Senate".

Some 200 posts later you complain how I ignored your post #11. What drugs are you on, please?

You tell me, because NONE of those posts are mine.

 

[Theowl32]

I'd like to know what period you're talking about. His claim was that "South kicked the Democratic Party out".

Second, since you claim that racist, Jim Crow loving members bolted to Republican party, I will ask you the same thing as I asked earlier in the thread. Name five racist Democrats that left the party and joined Republicans. I'll give you the first name, you fill the rest... since you're so confident, I'm sure it wont be a problem.

1. Strom Thurmond
2.
3.
4.
5.

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

You're conflating two different things here. And you know you are, because we had that whole standoff about how you tried to avoid post 50 which spelled out the so-called "party switch". Here for convenience is that lesson again -- begin paste:

"Big switch" You're so afraid of acknowledging history that you'll pervert it into a "Big Switch" as if you're turning the lights on and off to the White House Frickin' Christmas Tree.

In the late part of the 19th century the Republican Party was moving away from its Liberalism that championed Abolition and civil rights, and toward the deep pockets of emerging corporations, the railroads, Wall Street etc. At the same time the Democrats, having experimented with "fusion" parties, absorbed the burgeoning Populist movement (and party). These two poles are personified in the two parties' POTUS candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. McKinley was also driving the US toward imperialism, which was a new direction, with the Spanish-American War, and the Philippines continuing after it.

The Democrats took on the constituencies of minorities, the labor class and farmers, immigrants, and of course with those minorities/immigrants came Jews, Catholics and eventually blacks in the 1930s. The Republicans took on the wealthy, the "haves" and the enormous wads of money that came with them. For a brief blip that trajectory was somewhat interrupted by Teddy Roosevelt who made a lot of noise about actually reeling in those corporations -- he was never in the plan to be President, he succeeded to it when McKinley was assassinated --- and that rocked the Republican boat. For evidence that it rocked that boat look to 1912, when TR came to the party convention with a commanding lead of primary delegates, yet the party snubbed him and went with Taft, the establishment guy from Ohio, who was willing to toe the corporate line (which is why TR challenged him).

Roosevelt had to go form his own party, which he did and which sent Taft down to third place and handed the WH to Woodrow Wilson with something like 42% of the vote. But 8 years later the Republicans won back the WH with what was then the biggest landslide ever, with their one-percent guy, and the rest is history.

So "Big Switch", no not a "switch". More like a mutual evolution. It took a generation to evolve, but it did.

/end post 50 paste

That's when the parties in significant ways traded places as far as their values and their constutuencies. The other thing you're (deliberately) conflating with it is the "Southern Strategy", when the VOTERS, rather than the parties, changed positions. That would be beginning in the 1960s, specifically when LBJ pushed the CRA through and lamented "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", when Strom Thurmond made the word flesh by doing the heretofore unthinkable and switching to the "Party of Lincoln". He was eventually followed by a cast of thousands including Trent Lott (who "voted for him" in 1948), Jesse Helms, Sonny Perdue, Nathan Deal, John Connally, Fob James, Kay Ivey, Dave Treen, David Duke, Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm, Elizabeth Dole, That Cochran, Billy Tauzin, Buddy Roemer and of course their voters from what before Thurmond's break had been called the "Solid South". They were of course following their voters, once Thurmond demonstrated that the Republican Party was going to be the natural home for their eternal conservatism. That they had ever been Democrats was a fluke of circumstance born of the emotional revulsion for the "party of Lincoln", the figure who had defeated and humilated them.

With that floodgate opened and the "party of Lincoln" becoming thinkable came the Republican Southern Strategy, infamously voiced by Republican strategist Lee Atwater:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. <<​

--- and in fact that's exactly what Reagan did, tellingly kicking off his campaign in of all places Philadelphia Mississippi, site of one of the most notorious terror crimes of the civil rights era, talking about "states rights" --- the exact same phrase the Democrats had been using in the Civil War daze and were still using (George Wallace).

So that's both a constituency migration AND an ideological one. The Democrats abandoned the racist vote, punctuating it with the 1964 CRA, and the Republicans took up the invitation.

So your "big switch" was never a 'switch" -- it was a gradual evolution, in two phases.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

There were TWO (2) Dixiecrats, one being the aforementioned Strom Thurmond and the other his running mate, Fielding Wright, then-governor of Mississippi. When they failed to upend the 1948 election they went back to their governorships, Wright then went back to his law practice, Thurmond decided to run for Senator and was kicked off the ballot by the state Democratic Party so he ran as a write-in, which he won, and that's how he got to the Senate.

Your post #50 was reply to post #33.

Post #33 is about "party switch" in late 20 century, You replied to it in post #50, completely unrelated to what was asked.

Unlike you, I addressed the post #33 in my reply post #53, and ignored yours because it has nothing to do with the post #33.

****************

Put it this way... some random member writes post #10 "Trump is impeached for obstruction of Congress"

In post #11 you quote post #10 and reply something like "Hillary won by 3 million votes".

In post #12 I quote and reply to post #10 something like: "Trump is acquitted by Senate".

Some 200 posts later you complain how I ignored your post #11. What drugs are you on, please?

You tell me, because NONE of those posts are mine.

Don't think I don't notice you ignoring me and don't think for one second that I don't know why.

You pathetic hypocritical dirtbag loser.

 

[Pogo]

I was speaking to the the membership of the Democratic party in the south--more than the politicians...many racist Jim Crow loving Democrats stayed in the party..because they did, truly represent their districts, after all. Politicians are going to go with what keeps them in office.

It was a gradual process, as these sorts of things are. But the move that started with the Dixicrats of the 50's...was completed by 1980. The Dems of 1940 became the R's of 1980..but still conservative. Reagan reaped the rewards of that switch.

But the south DID shift Republican, and was always predominantly Conservative..no matter the party affiliation.

As other posters have pointed out..you and your party want to make it about parties..when it has always been about ideology. The conservative ideology of the southern white voter has not changed all that much...except in this--that the cities are Democratic strongholds..and they are often able to rule the rural areas--despite the prevailing conservative attitude.

Thus rural vs urban equals Conservative and Liberal..but in a representative republic...it's the numbers that matter.

To the topic....This is the United States..we do not celebrate the holidays of traitors. It is a promising sign..that a southern state is moving to see that point.

I'll write it only once, so read carefully.

There was no "party switch". Bad guys did not become "good guys" and vice versa. The leftist academia story that sounds something like: "Republicans couldn't win national election and they appealed to the worst of the worst, i.e. to southern racists. It never happened.

You're conflating two different things here. And you know you are, because we had that whole standoff about how you tried to avoid post 50 which spelled out the so-called "party switch". Here for convenience is that lesson again -- begin paste:

"Big switch" You're so afraid of acknowledging history that you'll pervert it into a "Big Switch" as if you're turning the lights on and off to the White House Frickin' Christmas Tree.

In the late part of the 19th century the Republican Party was moving away from its Liberalism that championed Abolition and civil rights, and toward the deep pockets of emerging corporations, the railroads, Wall Street etc. At the same time the Democrats, having experimented with "fusion" parties, absorbed the burgeoning Populist movement (and party). These two poles are personified in the two parties' POTUS candidates, William McKinley and William Jennings Bryan. McKinley was also driving the US toward imperialism, which was a new direction, with the Spanish-American War, and the Philippines continuing after it.

The Democrats took on the constituencies of minorities, the labor class and farmers, immigrants, and of course with those minorities/immigrants came Jews, Catholics and eventually blacks in the 1930s. The Republicans took on the wealthy, the "haves" and the enormous wads of money that came with them. For a brief blip that trajectory was somewhat interrupted by Teddy Roosevelt who made a lot of noise about actually reeling in those corporations -- he was never in the plan to be President, he succeeded to it when McKinley was assassinated --- and that rocked the Republican boat. For evidence that it rocked that boat look to 1912, when TR came to the party convention with a commanding lead of primary delegates, yet the party snubbed him and went with Taft, the establishment guy from Ohio, who was willing to toe the corporate line (which is why TR challenged him).

Roosevelt had to go form his own party, which he did and which sent Taft down to third place and handed the WH to Woodrow Wilson with something like 42% of the vote. But 8 years later the Republicans won back the WH with what was then the biggest landslide ever, with their one-percent guy, and the rest is history.

So "Big Switch", no not a "switch". More like a mutual evolution. It took a generation to evolve, but it did.

/end post 50 paste

That's when the parties in significant ways traded places as far as their values and their constutuencies. The other thing you're (deliberately) conflating with it is the "Southern Strategy", when the VOTERS, rather than the parties, changed positions. That would be beginning in the 1960s, specifically when LBJ pushed the CRA through and lamented "we (Democrats) have lost the South for a generation", when Strom Thurmond made the word flesh by doing the heretofore unthinkable and switching to the "Party of Lincoln". He was eventually followed by a cast of thousands including Trent Lott (who "voted for him" in 1948), Jesse Helms, Sonny Perdue, Nathan Deal, John Connally, Fob James, Kay Ivey, Dave Treen, David Duke, Richard Shelby, Phil Gramm, Elizabeth Dole, That Cochran, Billy Tauzin, Buddy Roemer and of course their voters from what before Thurmond's break had been called the "Solid South". They were of course following their voters, once Thurmond demonstrated that the Republican Party was going to be the natural home for their eternal conservatism. That they had ever been Democrats was a fluke of circumstance born of the emotional revulsion for the "party of Lincoln", the figure who had defeated and humilated them.

With that floodgate opened and the "party of Lincoln" becoming thinkable came the Republican Southern Strategy, infamously voiced by Republican strategist Lee Atwater:

>> You start out in 1954 by saying, "******, ******, ******." By 1968 you can't say "******"—that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. <<​

--- and in fact that's exactly what Reagan did, tellingly kicking off his campaign in of all places Philadelphia Mississippi, site of one of the most notorious terror crimes of the civil rights era, talking about "states rights" --- the exact same phrase the Democrats had been using in the Civil War daze and were still using (George Wallace).

So that's both a constituency migration AND an ideological one. The Democrats abandoned the racist vote, punctuating it with the 1964 CRA, and the Republicans took up the invitation.

So your "big switch" was never a 'switch" -- it was a gradual evolution, in two phases.

Republican party has been always champion of civil rights and party of emancipation, from its inception, thru civil war, passing 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, and passage of 1964 CRA. Blacks were already largely Democrats before Johnson signed CRA, and have been for some time. In 60's Kennedy won nearly 70% of black vote, mostly due to FDR's "new deal".

You mentioned Dixicrats, name came from Southern Democrats (Dixie + crats), from which very small percentage became Republicans. I asked lefties here to name five racists that left Democratic party and switched to Republican. It doesn't matter how many times I asked, that list never get populated. Pretty much all racists, with few exceptions remained Democrats.

There were TWO (2) Dixiecrats, one being the aforementioned Strom Thurmond and the other his running mate, Fielding Wright, then-governor of Mississippi. When they failed to upend the 1948 election they went back to their governorships, Wright then went back to his law practice, Thurmond decided to run for Senator and was kicked off the ballot by the state Democratic Party so he ran as a write-in, which he won, and that's how he got to the Senate.

Your post #50 was reply to post #33.

Post #33 is about "party switch" in late 20 century, You replied to it in post #50, completely unrelated to what was asked.

Unlike you, I addressed the post #33 in my reply post #53, and ignored yours because it has nothing to do with the post #33.

****************

Put it this way... some random member writes post #10 "Trump is impeached for obstruction of Congress"

In post #11 you quote post #10 and reply something like "Hillary won by 3 million votes".

In post #12 I quote and reply to post #10 something like: "Trump is acquitted by Senate".

Some 200 posts later you complain how I ignored your post #11. What drugs are you on, please?

You tell me, because NONE of those posts are mine.

Don't think I don't notice you ignoring men and don't think for one second that I don't know why.

You pathetic hypocritical dirtbag loser.

DING what's an example of a post that makes even less sense than the one it quotes for 600 Alex

 

[Correll]

Sure, a slave owning agrarian 19th century confederacy in rebellion and a 20th century totalitarian industrial genocidal state waging a massive war of conquest,

two peas in a pod.


If you are a drooling retard, too stupid to wipe his own ass.



For everyone else, that bit where you seriously and literally argued that they were the same, all you did was verify that you are just a monkey throwing shit at the wall, hoping someone is stupid enough to believe it,


and thus support your side.

I am speaking of the atrocities that so called Christians inflicted on other human beings and then call other races of people savages.

Funny, your point was to show that these two very different nations, were the same, to justify your claim that they should have had the same treatment after they both lost.

I guess you sort of realized how stupid that claim was, and moved on to smearing Christians, for some reason.


So, you willing to admit that your previous point was silly and we move on to your next excuse for hating the South?

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

Slavery is not genocide. There is a reason they are different words.


Your position is delusional.

It's the inhumane treatment that both suffered. Study the history of the treatment that slaves endured and you night learn something. Well never mind folks like you probably thought it was a good thing.

Nothing in your post, supports your insane claim that genocide and slavery are the same thing.


THus, you have utterly failed to support your insane idea that the 19th slave holding agrarian rebellious Confederacy is the same as the 20th century totalitarian industrial wars of conquest genocidal state National Socialists.


THUS, your point that you dont' understand why two completely different situations have different outcomes,


is revealed to be more about your intellectual limitations, rather than any real, sane expectation that they should.

 

[Correll]

Sure, a slave owning agrarian 19th century confederacy in rebellion and a 20th century totalitarian industrial genocidal state waging a massive war of conquest,

two peas in a pod.


If you are a drooling retard, too stupid to wipe his own ass.



For everyone else, that bit where you seriously and literally argued that they were the same, all you did was verify that you are just a monkey throwing shit at the wall, hoping someone is stupid enough to believe it,


and thus support your side.

I am speaking of the atrocities that so called Christians inflicted on other human beings and then call other races of people savages.

Funny, your point was to show that these two very different nations, were the same, to justify your claim that they should have had the same treatment after they both lost.

I guess you sort of realized how stupid that claim was, and moved on to smearing Christians, for some reason.


So, you willing to admit that your previous point was silly and we move on to your next excuse for hating the South?

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

Slavery is not genocide. There is a reason they are different words.


Your position is delusional.

Very true

Slaves were being bred for profit. Doesn’t make it more desirable

Superbrother was arguing that they are the same thing.. He is delusional.



If you admit that they are not the same thing, then you are agreeing with me, and disagreeing with him.



Neither of us were claiming it was desirable, so, thanks for... stating the obvious I guess. Just in case some one reading this was very confused.

 

[Correll]

I am speaking of the atrocities that so called Christians inflicted on other human beings and then call other races of people savages.

Funny, your point was to show that these two very different nations, were the same, to justify your claim that they should have had the same treatment after they both lost.

I guess you sort of realized how stupid that claim was, and moved on to smearing Christians, for some reason.


So, you willing to admit that your previous point was silly and we move on to your next excuse for hating the South?

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

Slavery is not genocide. There is a reason they are different words.


Your position is delusional.

Very true

Slaves were being bred for profit. Doesn’t make it more desirable

Along with the evil that was done to them.

He just disagreed with your position. Did you not catch that? What is wrong with you?

 

[rightwinger]

I am speaking of the atrocities that so called Christians inflicted on other human beings and then call other races of people savages.

Funny, your point was to show that these two very different nations, were the same, to justify your claim that they should have had the same treatment after they both lost.

I guess you sort of realized how stupid that claim was, and moved on to smearing Christians, for some reason.


So, you willing to admit that your previous point was silly and we move on to your next excuse for hating the South?

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

Slavery is not genocide. There is a reason they are different words.


Your position is delusional.

Very true

Slaves were being bred for profit. Doesn’t make it more desirable

Superbrother was arguing that they are the same thing.. He is delusional.



If you admit that they are not the same thing, then you are agreeing with me, and disagreeing with him.



Neither of us were claiming it was desirable, so, thanks for... stating the obvious I guess. Just in case some one reading this was very confused.

The forced labor of Nazi Germany and our beloved Confederacy are the same

 

[Correll]

Funny, your point was to show that these two very different nations, were the same, to justify your claim that they should have had the same treatment after they both lost.

I guess you sort of realized how stupid that claim was, and moved on to smearing Christians, for some reason.


So, you willing to admit that your previous point was silly and we move on to your next excuse for hating the South?

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

Slavery is not genocide. There is a reason they are different words.


Your position is delusional.

Very true

Slaves were being bred for profit. Doesn’t make it more desirable

Superbrother was arguing that they are the same thing.. He is delusional.



If you admit that they are not the same thing, then you are agreeing with me, and disagreeing with him.



Neither of us were claiming it was desirable, so, thanks for... stating the obvious I guess. Just in case some one reading this was very confused.

The forced labor of Nazi Germany and our beloved Confederacy are the same

Nazi Germany is not remembered for it's forced labor.


Vastly different situations had vastly different outcomes. No reasonable person is surprised by that.


Superbrother's position is utterly senseless.

 

[rightwinger]

Pay attention simpleton, the atrocities that they inflicted on other human beings were the same. The atrocities that Southerners inflicted on slaves was no different than the atrocities the Nazis inflicted on the Jewish people.

So just like Nazis should never be honored neither should Confederates.

Slavery is not genocide. There is a reason they are different words.


Your position is delusional.

Very true

Slaves were being bred for profit. Doesn’t make it more desirable

Superbrother was arguing that they are the same thing.. He is delusional.



If you admit that they are not the same thing, then you are agreeing with me, and disagreeing with him.



Neither of us were claiming it was desirable, so, thanks for... stating the obvious I guess. Just in case some one reading this was very confused.

The forced labor of Nazi Germany and our beloved Confederacy are the same

Nazi Germany is not remembered for it's forced labor.


Vastly different situations had vastly different outcomes. No reasonable person is surprised by that.


Superbrother's position is utterly senseless.

Virginia should dump it’s Lee/Jackson holiday and just get on to honoring Adolph Hitler

 

[Correll]

Slavery is not genocide. There is a reason they are different words.


Your position is delusional.

Very true

Slaves were being bred for profit. Doesn’t make it more desirable

Superbrother was arguing that they are the same thing.. He is delusional.



If you admit that they are not the same thing, then you are agreeing with me, and disagreeing with him.



Neither of us were claiming it was desirable, so, thanks for... stating the obvious I guess. Just in case some one reading this was very confused.

The forced labor of Nazi Germany and our beloved Confederacy are the same

Nazi Germany is not remembered for it's forced labor.


Vastly different situations had vastly different outcomes. No reasonable person is surprised by that.


Superbrother's position is utterly senseless.

Virginia should dump it’s Lee/Jackson holiday and just get on to honoring Adolph Hitler

And you move to hide that fact that even you cannot defend Superbrothers absurd claim that genocide and slavery are the same thing.




Liberals such as yourselfs, are motivated by racism and bigotry, in your refusal to allow Southern Whites the Right to celebrate their heritage and culture.


You know this, which is why you are so dishonest.