A new trend in politics that must be squashed under boot.

[JakeStarkey]

The right does it as much as the left, sure.

The right is not trying to change history or whitewash it. In this aspect the left is in overdrive

That is a G M U bs lie. Yes, the right lies about the past all the time.

 

[BluesLegend]

Liberals will continue to do both, or just lie outright.

Sorry super dupes the lying is all on your side, you have another planet. No respected media in the whole world agrees with your crap.

All we needed were Americans in 30 states to stomp the shit out of you leftists in 2016

 

[Pogo]

Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on mEodern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.

The second point on judging historical figures by contemporary out-of-their-time standards is a fair one and needs no further explanation. But what do you mean by things "wiped from sight"? Not aware of that.

aaaaaaaaaand STILL no response.

We sit, and we wait.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Good, good. Keep looking back at 2016.

 

[francoHFW]

Liberals will continue to do both, or just lie outright.

Sorry super dupes the lying is all on your side, you have another planet. No respected media in the whole world agrees with your crap.

All we needed were Americans in 30 states to stomp the shit out of you leftists in 2016

You are simply Dupes of the greedy idiot Rich GOP, stupid. You did not win, they did.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The above is an excellent argument against the far right that wants to revise history and somehow make JFKs the alt right of their day. Nonsense.

Jake's KKK democrat Party wants to Stalin erase all vestiges of the racist foundings

Too bad there aren't any huh.

Perhaps the second (1915) one, although that guy (Simmons) was just out for opportunism (money). But the original was just a social club modeled after a college fraternity until it got taken over by regional elements.

Was that after "the Parties switched sides"?

 

[francoHFW]

The above is an excellent argument against the far right that wants to revise history and somehow make JFKs the alt right of their day. Nonsense.

Jake's KKK democrat Party wants to Stalin erase all vestiges of the racist foundings

Too bad there aren't any huh.

Perhaps the second (1915) one, although that guy (Simmons) was just out for opportunism (money). But the original was just a social club modeled after a college fraternity until it got taken over by regional elements.

Was that after "the Parties switched sides"?

No that was 1968 to 1984 d u h.

 

[Pogo]

The above is an excellent argument against the far right that wants to revise history and somehow make JFKs the alt right of their day. Nonsense.

Jake's KKK democrat Party wants to Stalin erase all vestiges of the racist foundings

Too bad there aren't any huh.

Perhaps the second (1915) one, although that guy (Simmons) was just out for opportunism (money). But the original was just a social club modeled after a college fraternity until it got taken over by regional elements.

Was that after "the Parties switched sides"?

Nope, that was when there were no parties after the Confederacy dropped 'em.

 

[Rustic]

The right does it as much as the left, sure.

The right is not trying to change history or whitewash it. In this aspect the left is in overdrive

...and they do not want force their lifestyle on other people like progressives do.
Like Socialism/socialized medicine onPeople that want nothing to do with it, cannot afford it and will never use it. Fuck the village

 

[jillian]

The above is an excellent argument against the far right that wants to revise history and somehow make JFKs the alt right of their day. Nonsense.

Jake's KKK democrat Party wants to Stalin erase all vestiges of the racist foundings

psycho Frankie, the kkk hasn't been dems since LBJ... they're all yours now.

stop lying like a little nutter butter.

 

[blackhawk]

Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on modern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.

It reminds me of how some people try and compare pro athletes from 50 years ago to todays people from two different eras arent going to do things the same.

 

[bripat9643]

Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on modern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.

The second point on judging historical figures by contemporary out-of-their-time standards is a fair one and needs no further explanation. But what do you mean by things "wiped from sight"? Not aware of that.

He means thing like statues of Confederate generals.

 

[otto105]

Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on modern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.

Ok, I got ya. The Democratic Party wants the country to move forward, while the republics want to to return to the past.


How far in the past are you advocating for?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The above is an excellent argument against the far right that wants to revise history and somehow make JFKs the alt right of their day. Nonsense.

Jake's KKK democrat Party wants to Stalin erase all vestiges of the racist foundings

psycho Frankie, the kkk hasn't been dems since LBJ... they're all yours now.

stop lying like a little nutter butter.

So you just decided to cut off your racism after LBJ one of your favorites. Yet you still do racist things and support racist policies. You so broke ties with the racist kkk the first black president of the US actually went and spoke glowingly at the Grand Cleegal senator Birds funeral. That's some progress right there. The worst point in all of your racism is you consider blacks and hispanics too dumb to function in society without you. Voter ID is so far beyond their capabilities you can't have that, it's voter suppression asking them to have an ID. Black and brown people can't just get jobs, they need welfare from you white people or they are going to die. School choice is so far beyond black and brown people's ability to decide you have to force them into public schools. The white lady said so.

You're so fucking racist you need laws to keep these poor black and brown people under control and making your predetermined decisions you decided they should make. You can't even fathom a black person making their own decisions, voting their way, choosing a school or getting a job without your divine white woman input. you didn't quit with LBJ, bitch you just took over.

 

[Pogo]

Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on modern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.

The second point on judging historical figures by contemporary out-of-their-time standards is a fair one and needs no further explanation. But what do you mean by things "wiped from sight"? Not aware of that.

He means thing like statues of Confederate generals.

I dunno, I asked him, but if that is what he means it's no wonder he ran away. He knows what I'll do with that. I was hoping he had come up with something else. Guess not.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on modern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.

The second point on judging historical figures by contemporary out-of-their-time standards is a fair one and needs no further explanation. But what do you mean by things "wiped from sight"? Not aware of that.

He means thing like statues of Confederate generals.

I dunno, I asked him, but if that is what he means it's no wonder he ran away. He knows what I'll do with that. I was hoping he had come up with something else. Guess not.

Are you confused about how history works?

 

[Pogo]

Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on modern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.

The second point on judging historical figures by contemporary out-of-their-time standards is a fair one and needs no further explanation. But what do you mean by things "wiped from sight"? Not aware of that.

He means thing like statues of Confederate generals.

I dunno, I asked him, but if that is what he means it's no wonder he ran away. He knows what I'll do with that. I was hoping he had come up with something else. Guess not.

Are you confused about how history works?

Not nearly like you are about how spelling works. Holy crap that was a bus full of nuns crash.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Judging today based on historical standards and judging the past based on today's standards.

Both are polar opposites of of each other but being widely used today, especially by the radical left as well as the uninformed.

On one hand we have historical figures being wiped from sight based on today's so called acceptable standards.
On the other hand we have people claiming historical figures (Reagan, King etc) would apply today's standards to their historical positions.

Both are ridiculous and are unprovable because the political climate of yesterday is not the same as today.

The radical left wants to preach that we must learn from history by studying it at the same time they strive to erase it. When it suits their cause they are all to happy to point to historical travestys in their arguments all the while trying to whitewash that history. Then they go on to make baseless proclamations about what certain historical figures would do or say based on modern political thinking.

It's all a bunch of bullshit masquerading as fact to win over the gullible or to win an argument that they otherwise could not win based on the facts as we know them today.

The second point on judging historical figures by contemporary out-of-their-time standards is a fair one and needs no further explanation. But what do you mean by things "wiped from sight"? Not aware of that.

He means thing like statues of Confederate generals.

I dunno, I asked him, but if that is what he means it's no wonder he ran away. He knows what I'll do with that. I was hoping he had come up with something else. Guess not.

Are you confused about how history works?

Not nearly like you are about how spelling works. Holy crap that was a bus full of nuns crash.

It was seven words. All seem to be fine. I'm pretty much able to misspell some things but I have my pet peeves. For the benefit of the class can you please correct my seven word nun crash? I'm thinking all the nun's are going to live through this just fine. Not even a scratch.

 

[Pogo]

The second point on judging historical figures by contemporary out-of-their-time standards is a fair one and needs no further explanation. But what do you mean by things "wiped from sight"? Not aware of that.

He means thing like statues of Confederate generals.

I dunno, I asked him, but if that is what he means it's no wonder he ran away. He knows what I'll do with that. I was hoping he had come up with something else. Guess not.

Are you confused about how history works?

Not nearly like you are about how spelling works. Holy crap that was a bus full of nuns crash.

It was seven words. All seem to be fine. I'm pretty much able to misspell some things but I have my pet peeves. For the benefit of the class can you please correct my seven word nun crash? I'm thinking all the nun's are going to live through this just fine. Not even a scratch.

Not that post --- the previous one.

"Cleagles".

"Senator Bird".

Bus was pretty well off the road at that point. We won't even go to the coherency other than to note that the bars in Missouri must definitely be open on Sunday.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

He means thing like statues of Confederate generals.

I dunno, I asked him, but if that is what he means it's no wonder he ran away. He knows what I'll do with that. I was hoping he had come up with something else. Guess not.

Are you confused about how history works?

Not nearly like you are about how spelling works. Holy crap that was a bus full of nuns crash.

It was seven words. All seem to be fine. I'm pretty much able to misspell some things but I have my pet peeves. For the benefit of the class can you please correct my seven word nun crash? I'm thinking all the nun's are going to live through this just fine. Not even a scratch.

Not that post --- the previous one.

"Cleagles".

"Senator Bird".

Bus was pretty well off the road at that point. We won't even go to the coherency other than to note that the bars in Missouri must definitely be open on Sunday.

Then why didn't you quote and rebut that post? Hit a bit too close to reality for you to deal with?