Unpatriotic Dems In Virginia Erases Confederate Holiday

[Ame®icano]

Let me get this straight, I am against honoring men who enslaved, maimed, raped, brutalized, lynched and murdered black folks and it is hate.

You on the other hand you want to honor these men and you are doing it out of love.

Smfh.

I'm surprised that I even considering to reply to intellectual midget such as yourself, so let me get this straight.

To Democrats, removing Confederate statues is about racism. At least, that is the assumption, because what monument means to you, doesn't mean to everyone else. Democrats demand that negative periods of our history should be erased, and that losing side in Civil War should not have right to mourn its dead. What they actually demanding is that negative periods of THEIR history is erased.

Democrats don't want anyone to remember what THEY did in their past, and in their attempts to change the history and erase THEIR past they're becoming hysterical, they tuned into angry mob that they are. They act the same way ISIS did, or Talibans, they destroy anything they don't like, they rewrite history to exclude all the pieces they don't like.

Why do we remind ourselves about great battles every year, like Gettysburg, Shiloh, Chickamauga, Bull Run... are we going to stop doing that too? You lefties keep praising FDR (who was IMO one of the greatest failure), but let's see what he said about commemorating past: "They are brought here by the memories of old divided loyalties, but they meet here in united loyalty to a united cause which the unfolding years have made it easier to see. All of them we honor, not asking under which flag they fought then—thankful that they stand together under one flag now."

Or Eisenhower, who retired to a farm in Gettysburg: "That war was America’s most tragic experience. But like most truly great tragedies, it carries with it an enduring lesson and a profound inspiration. It was a demonstration of heroism and sacrifice by men and women of both sides who valued principle above life itself and whose devotion to duty is a part of our nation’s noblest tradition."

All you lefties have is HATE, for everything and everyone who stands in your way. Nobody, including those who have no connection to South, had a problem with monuments for over 150 years, and just now... leftists have this urge to invoke their racial agenda, to provoke the reaction from all those who were at peace with the past.

What a crock of shit.

The truth hits hard and it hurts. But sooner you acknowledge it, easier will be. Until then, keep voting for Democrats, party of slavery, KKK, segregation, lynching, Jim Crow... keep the streak alive.

The truth is that the republican party is the one that keeps the mindset of the sheet wearers going today. All we have to do is look at the words and actions. The president has brought many of you out of the wood work today.

We did look and we saw words AND actions of Democrats. They're perfectly in line with Democrats from 150 years ago. Last president started another "divide and conquer" campaign, and almost succeeded, what's is going on now it's just a correction.

 

[Ame®icano]

For the sake of this discussion only lets say they haven't...do you realize that still means that the left is the only ones to intern American citizens and use nuclear weapons on their fellow man?

Very true

And the left realizes it was wrong.
It is the right who still demonize immigrants and fight against nuclear disarmament

Japanese Americans were not just immigrants, they were citizens.

When exactly Democrats apologized to them for internment camps?

When they were given reparations.

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

 

[rightwinger]

Very true

And the left realizes it was wrong.
It is the right who still demonize immigrants and fight against nuclear disarmament

Japanese Americans were not just immigrants, they were citizens.

When exactly Democrats apologized to them for internment camps?

When they were given reparations.

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

 

[Correll]

Japanese Americans were not just immigrants, they were citizens.

When exactly Democrats apologized to them for internment camps?

When they were given reparations.

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

The nation as as a whole was moving that way, long led by the Republicans.


Without the dems flipping, we would still have continued moving this way, you dems would just have become less and less relevant.



As you should have.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Your rationalization for your actions are noted, and dismissed.


My point stands. You are holding whites to a standard you apply to no one else. That is racism. You are a racist.


That is what this is all about. For over 150 years, no one cared about the statues in the park, until anti-white racism grew strong enough to start throwing it's weight around.

Superdumbmuthafucka says it's not racist because he only hates whites, and whites are inferior.

 

[rightwinger]

When they were given reparations.

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

The nation as as a whole was moving that way, long led by the Republicans.


Without the dems flipping, we would still have continued moving this way, you dems would just have become less and less relevant.



As you should have.

Moving that way?
The attempt towards integration was met with terrorist attacks in the south

 

[Correll]

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

The nation as as a whole was moving that way, long led by the Republicans.


Without the dems flipping, we would still have continued moving this way, you dems would just have become less and less relevant.



As you should have.

Moving that way?
The attempt towards integration was met with terrorist attacks in the south

Correct. You do realize that what you said, does not conflict with what I said, right?

 

[rightwinger]

Just because celebrating Confederate holidays is ending does not mean an end to Southern heritage.

Southerners can continue to....

1. Marry their cousins
2. Eat road kill
3. Have sex with farm animals

You're talking about "liberalism". I don't think South prefers that flavor.

Just discussing Southern Heritage

 

[rightwinger]

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

The nation as as a whole was moving that way, long led by the Republicans.


Without the dems flipping, we would still have continued moving this way, you dems would just have become less and less relevant.



As you should have.

Moving that way?
The attempt towards integration was met with terrorist attacks in the south

Correct. You do realize that what you said, does not conflict with what I said, right?

That is the complete opposite of your ridiculous claim that the nation was moving towards integration.......It wasn’t

If it was, returning black soldiers would have been treated as heroes instead of second class citizens

 

[Ame®icano]

Japanese Americans were not just immigrants, they were citizens.

When exactly Democrats apologized to them for internment camps?

When they were given reparations.

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

Not to mention that old racist LBJ was against every CRA before that CRA of 1964.

This is what he said in 1957:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

That was the plan, and it took awhile until he convinced enough of racist Southern Democrats to vote for CRA of 1964 and Voting Act of 1965. Not all, since most voted against it, but enough to have it passed.

Everything Democrats do is partisan. They're not really for or against the issues, it's more a matter of being against someone else doing it, until they get in power and take a credit for it. LBJ did exactly that.

Like when Obama was a senator, he was against most of everything he was doing as president.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Just because celebrating Confederate holidays is ending does not mean an end to Southern heritage.

Southerners can continue to....

1. Marry their cousins
2. Eat road kill
3. Have sex with farm animals

You're talking about "liberalism". I don't think South prefers that flavor.

Just discussing Southern Heritage

You mean "Democrat" heritage.

 

[rightwinger]

When they were given reparations.

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

Not to mention that old racist LBJ was against every CRA before that CRA of 1964.

This is what he said in 1957:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

That was the plan, and it took awhile until he convinced enough of racist Southern Democrats to vote for CRA of 1964 and Voting Act of 1965. Not all, since most voted against it, but enough to have it passed.

Everything Democrats do is partisan. They're not really for or against the issues, it's more a matter of being against someone else doing it, until they get in power and take a credit for it. LBJ did exactly that.

Like when Obama was a senator, he was against most of everything he was doing as president.

LBJ had to dance with the people who elected him. As a Texas Senator, he had to vote for Texas

As President, he risked everything in order to pass Civil Rights

He could have easily have kicked it down the road and stonewalled it, especially with the 64 elections coming up.

He cost the Democrats the South for over 50 years

 

[Pogo]

Perhaps they should have demanded proper spelling and subject number instead.

Revisionist history is exactly what all this is about, for who controls the Past controls the Future. And the Lost Cause Cult taught George Orwell everything he needed to know about that.

Only revisionists here are you lefties. History is already written, and we were all at peace with it for 5 generations, until you lefties realize that your whole history is not something you could be proud with, so you're trying to change it.

History teaches us that Democrats are party of slavery, party of Jim Crow law, party of KKK, party of segregation, party of lynching laws, party that opposed 13th, 14th and 15th amendments, party that opposed civil rights. You CAN'T erase that. You own it.

That's interesting since I've already taught you that that's bullshit.

Slavery went on, strictly limited to transAtlantic slavery and strictly limited to North America, for three hundred years before the Democratic Party existed. NOBOBDY, as in NOT A SINGLE PERSON, ever needed ANY political party to own or trade slaves, EVER. The KKK I've already schooled your ass on and have never been refuted because I know my shit and you don't. Not sure where you're going with "lynching laws" but it oughta be interesting. And finally, what I "OWN" is history books. And you do not get to rewrite them, I don't give a flying fuck how much you wish you could. You can't.

You thought me something?

No, Democrats did not invented slavery. They accepted it with open arms, and they fought for it, and tried to preserve it. When they lost, they used legislature and force (KKK) to keep their supremacy in the south, and yes, majority of them were - Democrats.

Nobody needed political party to own the slave, that's true. Except, when slave owners affiliate themselves with one party, and those who oppose slavery join the party that wants to abolish slavery, the picture is clear. Democrats supported slavery, Republicans opposed it since the establishment of the party.

You think you're only who "own" history books? Did you, at least, read any of them? List some of the titles you use to present your "knowledge".

Again, see yesterday's post (which you may not have caught up to yet), condensed version:

POTUSes from the South: three Democratic-Republicans, two Whigs (not counting VP successors), two with no party, and one Democrat. All slaveholders. I don't see a "dominant" party there.

And again, the Republican Party never existed in the South before the Civil War.

I do agree with you to some degree, by recognizing there were multiple political parties in South, over period of time. There were differences between them, for instance, Democratic-Republicans were against centralized government, while Federalists were for it. However, Democratic-Republicans didn't exist for some 30 years before Civil War, therefore you mentioning them in the context of pre and Civil War era doesn't make sense. Talking about Whigs makes little bit some sense, since they were established from former Federalists, National Republicans and some Democrats, but again, they collapsed years before Civil War. Northern Whigs (conscience fraction) joined Republican Party, while Southern (cotton fraction) joined "state rights" oriented Democrats.

Actually the Whigs were in the process of disintegrating in the 1850s for the reason already mentioned, inability to come to agreement on what position to take on Slavery, a dilemma in which they were hardly alone. Their last significant gasp was 1860, the eve of the Civil War, when John Bell's Constitutional Union Party took two significant future Confederate states plus a border state, and it's worth noting that their position was (a) retaining but not expanding Slavery and (b) staying in the Union (against secession). Democratic-Republicans, Federalists and Know Nothings were mentioned because they were all significant in the South pre-Civil War. None of them, including Democrats and Whigs, rose to a "dominating" position until after the War. It's easy to look back through contemporary glasses and presume that that post-War "Solid South" must have been already entrenched before the War ---- actually the War created it.

The outgoing Whigs (in the South), when they didn't go with the Constitutional Unionists, presumably either joined the Democrats if they needed a party (Republicans didn't yet exist) or simply didn't bother to align with a political party --- it's never been required. It's also worth noting that the Democrats nationally were also significantly split. Not split over "states' rights, not at all --- Popular Sovereignty typifies that, as does the ineffectual administration of James Buchanan --- but over what should be done about Slavery.

And so was the South itself -- Slavery was the practice of the wealthy, the element that incited the Civil War. Around where I'm sitting for example, Slavery was neither practiced nor popular, and the common subsistence-farmer element tended to despise that indolent planter class, voted heavily against seceding, and sprang up pockets of resistance to the Confederacy within it, unwilling to go fight a rich man's war for a cause that meant nothing to them. The Haves sending the Have-Nots to do their dirty work.

All of which is to say the question of what to do about Slavery was in a dramatic flux after simmering for decades, since the country's inception, and the fact that European colonial powers and most of their colonies or ex-colonies had already abolished applied the pressure to find a national direction. Something had to be done, and sadly it took a War.

Basically at that point we had determined pro-Slavery people (the rich class in the South), determined anti-Slavery people (the new Republicans) and then everybody else, including Democrats, straddling the middle ground taking no stand on it hoping it would just figure itself out.

There is "one thing" that Southern parties had in common. They were all pro slavery parties, and after civil war mostly all emerged as Democrats. Even Northern Democrats under Douglas were pro slavery, although your argument is that he was for "popular sovereignty". I explained twice what that really means, but you rejected it.

Actually I explained what it means and I think you took it to a leap it didn't have. As noted above the Democrats were badly split by the same dynamic that collapsed the Whigs and started the Republicans (and also made the Know Nothings irrelevant). The Southern half of their party bolted and ran their own candidate. The pro-Slavery faction were the ones in the South, running Breckinridge. If Douglas had been on the same page they wouldn't have been running against each other nor would the Southern division have kicked the party out at Charleston in protest of the national party's position.

Put it this way; for the sake of argument, let's say US wants to admit Puerto Rico as 51st state. And although rape in US is illegal, under "popular sovereignty" doctrine, we gonna let Puerto Rico to decide if they want to allow rape to be legal in their state. Hey, it's their business, right?

Uhm, no. Those who are anti-rape, will not allow them to join the Union. And those who would let them decide about rape being legal... they're not really against rape, are they?

Bad analogy. Rape is not only already illegal in Puerto Rico, as it should be, but clearly an act of violence that was never legal anywhere. Popular Sovereignty meant something like what happened in Bleeding Kansas. It was obviously a bad idea simply because of the lengths the partisans would go to, as demonstrated. Kansas showed that leaving it up to the states wasn't going to work and stronger federal law would have to be applied to the question. Kansas in fact represented a microcosm of the War that followed it, and should have served as a warning. The Democrats' fault was in holding too fast to the position of smaller central government and "states' rights". That's (again) why Buchanan couldn't stop the War --- he was conservatively mired in that "states rights" position and unwilling to expand the power of the federal government.

 

[Pogo]

Nope. That's the DEFLECTION of this thread that you're desperately trying to start up like a 1934 Hudson on a freezing winter day. Nobody's buying it.

I didn't even mention "white people". YOU've been doing that. You even admitted the holiday (which is what the thread is REALLY about) is a white people holiday.

Seems to me that's singling out a race for marginalization based on race, wouldn't you say.

Sure, you've never mentioned them. You've just insulted them, and maligned them, and supported tearing down culturally important statues of theirs.

Your actions, demonstrate your position, as I pointed out, above.

Linky-link?

LOL!!! What kind of silly troll boy game you playing? THIS THREAD you drooling moron.


Every other group can celebrate any heroes or events, and you don't go over their heroes or events and hold them up to today's moral standards and judge them and then hold the modern people responsible for the full monty of their heroes or events.

you pick and choose who to do that to. And your different standards seems to be RACE based.


WHITES, get harsher standards then any else.

That makes you a racist.

Definitions here, Wanker:

"Racism" means the belief that one race is superior to another.

"Linky-link" means you need to show evidence of your ass-sertion.

NEITHER ONE GOT DONE.

I know, stop the presses right. Quelle surprise.

When you hold that one race is inferior to another, such as not deserving the same treatment as all other races, and groups,

then you are racist against that group.

As you have demonstrated by holding Whites to a higher standard, then any other group.

You are a racist.

Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyeah if you could, you know, go ahead and QUOTE where I did that, that'd be great.

Cue crickets.

 

[Pogo]

View attachment 308116

How exactly are those "monuments to slavery"?

You mean like this is?

​

"To" / "Built by". Know the difference.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Just because celebrating Confederate holidays is ending does not mean an end to Southern heritage.

Southerners can continue to....

1. Marry their cousins
2. Eat road kill
3. Have sex with farm animals

You're talking about "liberalism". I don't think South prefers that flavor.

You both sound like fools.

 

[Correll]

Just because celebrating Confederate holidays is ending does not mean an end to Southern heritage.

Southerners can continue to....

1. Marry their cousins
2. Eat road kill
3. Have sex with farm animals

You're talking about "liberalism". I don't think South prefers that flavor.

Just discussing Southern Heritage

And they deny that they are being the bigots and the racists here.


Liberals. All the self awareness of a potted plant.

 

[Correll]

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

The nation as as a whole was moving that way, long led by the Republicans.


Without the dems flipping, we would still have continued moving this way, you dems would just have become less and less relevant.



As you should have.

Moving that way?
The attempt towards integration was met with terrorist attacks in the south

Correct. You do realize that what you said, does not conflict with what I said, right?

That is the complete opposite of your ridiculous claim that the nation was moving towards integration.......It wasn’t

If it was, returning black soldiers would have been treated as heroes instead of second class citizens

That the nation as a whole was moving towards more and more civil rights and equality for blacks, which is my position, is not refuted by the existence of some resistance, ie what you posted.


You are acting like you think it did.


I mean, am I being mean to you? Is there a reason that you are not up to normal functioning today? If so, let me know and I will make allowances.

 

[Pogo]

When they were given reparations.

Who signed that law?

Ronald Reagan and if we are using that analogy, who signed the CRA and the VRA?

That's exactly what I was aiming at. When you look who voted against CRA, how can you take a credit for Johnson signing it, when even he was against CRA for decades? Democrats like to take credit for things they haven't done, and blame others for things they've done.

If you can give credit to Johnson for signing CRA, then at least you should give credit to Reagan for signing CLA of 1988.

While we're at it, maybe we should give credits to Democrats for voting, signing and enforcing segregation, Jim Crow laws, Lynching laws... you know, give credits when credits are due.

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

Not to mention that old racist LBJ was against every CRA before that CRA of 1964.

This is what he said in 1957:

"These Negroes, they're getting pretty uppity these days and that's a problem for us since they've got something now they never had before, the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we've got to do something about this, we've got to give them a little something, just enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference. For if we don't move at all, then their allies will line up against us and there'll be no way of stopping them, we'll lose the filibuster and there'll be no way of putting a brake on all sorts of wild legislation. It'll be Reconstruction all over again."

That quote, if accurate, was a conversation with a Georgia Senator, calculated specifically for him. LBJ was a master of persuasion certainly including code-switching in his speech and even pronunciations, whatever would persuade the other party to accept his argument. Even down to a single vowel:

>> According to Johnson biographer Robert Caro, Johnson would calibrate his pronunciations by region, using “nigra” with some southern legislators and “negra” with others. Discussing civil rights legislation with men like Mississippi Democrat James Eastland, who committed most of his life to defending white supremacy, he’d simply call it “the ****** bill.” <<​

-- all personalized for that individual. In the case of Richard Russell (your quote), to convince him that it would be in his best interest to pass the 1957 bill. Johnson got the bill through the Senate, where it passed 72 to 18. In other words he's cajoling Russell the racist in his own terms -- it's Johnson working to get his way by any means necessary.

It looks like this --- here's the two of them:

Russell was btw a founding member of the "Conservative Coalition", bonding Republicans with Southern Democrats in the 'states rights' cause.

 

[rightwinger]

The CRA act would not have passed without LBJ

I doubt if JFK could have gotten as strong a bill

The nation as as a whole was moving that way, long led by the Republicans.


Without the dems flipping, we would still have continued moving this way, you dems would just have become less and less relevant.



As you should have.

Moving that way?
The attempt towards integration was met with terrorist attacks in the south

Correct. You do realize that what you said, does not conflict with what I said, right?

That is the complete opposite of your ridiculous claim that the nation was moving towards integration.......It wasn’t

If it was, returning black soldiers would have been treated as heroes instead of second class citizens

That the nation as a whole was moving towards more and more civil rights and equality for blacks, which is my position, is not refuted by the existence of some resistance, ie what you posted.


You are acting like you think it did.


I mean, am I being mean to you? Is there a reason that you are not up to normal functioning today? If so, let me know and I will make allowances.

Some resistance?

Like bombing churches, beating marchers in Selma, police dogs, fire hoses, beating Freedom Riders

All because people wanted to vote and be treated with dignity