Fifteen Nails In The Liberal Coffin

[PoliticalChic]

What can i say. Telling you to get a job is time well spent. Reading your trippy tripe however...

All you have done is verify something I regularly post about Liberals....they cannot compete with conservatives in the marketplace of ideas.

The response from you Liberals/Democrats/Progressive is always an attempt to shut up and/or marginalize opposing voices.

It represents a palpable fear of the truth.

Reminder: I posted fifteen arguments, complete with data, that destroy Liberal talking points....and you, with metronomic regularity, post: "stop doing so!!!!"


It will continue, but only until enough folks come to despise Liberals/Progressives.
Wish me luck.

 

[rdean]

The is that Liberal claim that, somehow, the other side is anti-science, anit-education, or some variation that paints us as 'stooopid.'

But mathematics is the language of science...and that element of mathematics known as statistics, skewers so very many Liberal policies, beliefs, and most closely held views.

The following, a series of talking-point defeats for Liberals....15 of 'em

Let's start:

As one function of the Progressive-Islamist Alliance, one can always expect Leftists to be the first to jump up to support Islamists, no matter what the outrage.
So....they'll hate this stat:

1) "....objective facts, logic and reason must yield to multiculturalist make-believe, “progressive” propaganda and political correctness run amok. Faithful Muslims want to kill you, and faithless progressives seem all too happy to help them along."
Matt Barber - Myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.”
– The Quran, Surah 9:5

“Muslims account for only about 1 percent of the U.S. population but account for about half of terrorist attacks since 9/11. That means Muslims in the United States are about 5,000 percent more likely to commit terrorist attacks than non-Muslims.” -- Mark Krikorian




Leftists live on the myth that America is racist, and only unrestricted big government can save poor, put-upon minorities.
This is gonna hurt:

2) “... in 1958 a mere 4 percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage. By 2013, that number had grown to 87 percent. In 2012 these once-taboo unions hit an all-time high. Ku Klux Klan membership has shrunk drastically from millions a century ago to fewer than 5,000 today. The Black Panthers are essentially extinct. While plenty of other hate groups have attempted to fill the void, they have always operated on the margins of society. Black politicians are now common—President Obama’s percentage of the white vote was almost perfectly in line with that received by other recent Democrats, all of whom were white.

Granted, these statistics offer but a snapshot of American society, but the more one looks, the more a trend emerges. America is a lot of things; racist isn’t one of them.” -- Greg Jones




The 'liar of the year' authorized the eponymous "ObamaCare," proving, daily, to be a fraud:

3) “The harsh reality awaiting these low-income Americans is undeniable: according to 2013 data from a 2014 Merritt Hawkins study, 55% of doctors already refuse new Medicaid patients. According to the HSC Health Tracking Physician Survey, 2008, the percentage of doctors that refuse new Medicaid patients dwarf by about 8 to 10 times the percentage that refuses new private insurance patients.

Such ‘insurance’ from Obamacare not only fails to provide access to doctors, but research in the top medical journals such as Cancer, American Journal of Cardiology, Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation and Annals of Surgery, show that Medicaid beneficiaries suffer worse outcomes than similar patients with private insurance ... all at an added cost of another $800 billion by CBO estimates to taxpayers after the decade.

It is not hyperbole to call Medicaid a disgrace at its annual cost of about $450 billion, and expanding it rather than helping poor people buy private insurance is simply inexplicable.” -- Scott Atlas
15 Stats That Destroy Liberal Narratives


That's just three.
More to come.

Why do you miss the KKK? What made you want to join?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The is that Liberal claim that, somehow, the other side is anti-science, anit-education, or some variation that paints us as 'stooopid.'

But mathematics is the language of science...and that element of mathematics known as statistics, skewers so very many Liberal policies, beliefs, and most closely held views.

The following, a series of talking-point defeats for Liberals....15 of 'em

Let's start:

As one function of the Progressive-Islamist Alliance, one can always expect Leftists to be the first to jump up to support Islamists, no matter what the outrage.
So....they'll hate this stat:

1) "....objective facts, logic and reason must yield to multiculturalist make-believe, “progressive” propaganda and political correctness run amok. Faithful Muslims want to kill you, and faithless progressives seem all too happy to help them along."
Matt Barber - Myth of the ‘Moderate Muslim’

“When the sacred months are over slay the idolaters wherever you find them. Arrest them, besiege them, and lie in ambush everywhere for them.”
– The Quran, Surah 9:5

“Muslims account for only about 1 percent of the U.S. population but account for about half of terrorist attacks since 9/11. That means Muslims in the United States are about 5,000 percent more likely to commit terrorist attacks than non-Muslims.” -- Mark Krikorian




Leftists live on the myth that America is racist, and only unrestricted big government can save poor, put-upon minorities.
This is gonna hurt:

2) “... in 1958 a mere 4 percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage. By 2013, that number had grown to 87 percent. In 2012 these once-taboo unions hit an all-time high. Ku Klux Klan membership has shrunk drastically from millions a century ago to fewer than 5,000 today. The Black Panthers are essentially extinct. While plenty of other hate groups have attempted to fill the void, they have always operated on the margins of society. Black politicians are now common—President Obama’s percentage of the white vote was almost perfectly in line with that received by other recent Democrats, all of whom were white.

Granted, these statistics offer but a snapshot of American society, but the more one looks, the more a trend emerges. America is a lot of things; racist isn’t one of them.” -- Greg Jones




The 'liar of the year' authorized the eponymous "ObamaCare," proving, daily, to be a fraud:

3) “The harsh reality awaiting these low-income Americans is undeniable: according to 2013 data from a 2014 Merritt Hawkins study, 55% of doctors already refuse new Medicaid patients. According to the HSC Health Tracking Physician Survey, 2008, the percentage of doctors that refuse new Medicaid patients dwarf by about 8 to 10 times the percentage that refuses new private insurance patients.

Such ‘insurance’ from Obamacare not only fails to provide access to doctors, but research in the top medical journals such as Cancer, American Journal of Cardiology, Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation and Annals of Surgery, show that Medicaid beneficiaries suffer worse outcomes than similar patients with private insurance ... all at an added cost of another $800 billion by CBO estimates to taxpayers after the decade.

It is not hyperbole to call Medicaid a disgrace at its annual cost of about $450 billion, and expanding it rather than helping poor people buy private insurance is simply inexplicable.” -- Scott Atlas
15 Stats That Destroy Liberal Narratives


That's just three.
More to come.

Why do you miss the KKK? What made you want to join?

"Why do you miss the KKK? What made you want to join?"

I'm not a Democrat, silly.

1. Liberal historian Eric Foner writes that the Klan was “…a military force serving the interests of the Democratic Party…” Foner, “Reconstruction: America’s Unfinished Revolution, 1863-1877,” p. 425

Don't forget that Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.



See, deanie....you should only open your mouth to change feet.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Don't forget that Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.


.

That is one of the most ignorant things you've ever said. And that is one high bar to clear.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
Don't forget that Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.


.

That is one of the most ignorant things you've ever said. And that is one high bar to clear.

Let's remind all that I never lie, and you, a serial liar, known as NYLiar.


Just one example....

1. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.
   1. It is interesting that one reason that Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966. Coulter, "Mugged"

Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.
In point of fact....the most popular Democrat today, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, has a long and unbroken record of racism.

Don't hesitate to ask me to prove it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Don't forget that Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.


.

That is one of the most ignorant things you've ever said. And that is one high bar to clear.

Let's remind all that I never lie, and you, a serial liar, known as NYLiar.


Just one example....

1. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.
   1. It is interesting that one reason that Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966. Coulter, "Mugged"

Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.
In point of fact....the most popular Democrat today, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, has a long and unbroken record of racism.

Don't hesitate to ask me to prove it.

None of those you named were LIBERAL southern Democrats.

The Father of Modern Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, was an unrepentant segregationist.

HIs reward was to be the first nominee for president from the modern day Republican Party.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
Don't forget that Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.


.

That is one of the most ignorant things you've ever said. And that is one high bar to clear.

Let's remind all that I never lie, and you, a serial liar, known as NYLiar.


Just one example....

1. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.
   1. It is interesting that one reason that Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966. Coulter, "Mugged"

Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.
In point of fact....the most popular Democrat today, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, has a long and unbroken record of racism.

Don't hesitate to ask me to prove it.

None of those you named were LIBERAL southern Democrats.

The Father of Modern Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, was an unrepentant segregationist.

HIs reward was to be the first nominee for president from the modern day Republican Party.

"The Father of Modern Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, was an unrepentant segregationist."

See what I mean about you being a serial liar....of course, Goldwater was no such thing, NYLiar.


Even the Washington Post refutes you...

1. “He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

 

[PoliticalChic]

"Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation. By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate. Senator Goldwater's speech may be found also on the Internet at:Washingtonpost.com: Goldwater Speech http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...#Democrats_Smeared_Dr._Martin_Luther_King__Jr.


Democrats were the face of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow, and have hidden these facts by blaming the other side for their misdeeds.

To this very day.

 

[NYcarbineer]

[
Don't forget that Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.


.

That is one of the most ignorant things you've ever said. And that is one high bar to clear.

Let's remind all that I never lie, and you, a serial liar, known as NYLiar.


Just one example....

1. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.
   1. It is interesting that one reason that Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966. Coulter, "Mugged"

Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.
In point of fact....the most popular Democrat today, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, has a long and unbroken record of racism.

Don't hesitate to ask me to prove it.

None of those you named were LIBERAL southern Democrats.

The Father of Modern Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, was an unrepentant segregationist.

HIs reward was to be the first nominee for president from the modern day Republican Party.

"The Father of Modern Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, was an unrepentant segregationist."

See what I mean about you being a serial liar....of course, Goldwater was no such thing, NYLiar.


Even the Washington Post refutes you...

1. “He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

He voted against the most important anti-segregation bill in modern history. End of story.

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation. By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate. Senator Goldwater's speech may be found also on the Internet at:Washingtonpost.com: Goldwater Speech http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...#Democrats_Smeared_Dr._Martin_Luther_King__Jr.


Democrats were the face of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow, and have hidden these facts by blaming the other side for their misdeeds.

To this very day.

Which Democrats today support bringing back Jim Crow?

 

[NYcarbineer]

"Goldwater also supported the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and the Civil Rights Act of 1960, as well as the constitutional amendment banning the poll tax. His opposition to the more comprehensive Civil Rights Act of 1964 was based on his libertarian views about government. Goldwater believed that the 1964 Act, as written, unconstitutionally extended the federal government's commerce power to private citizens, furthering the government’s efforts to "legislate morality" and restrict the rights of employers.

It is instructive to read the entire text of Goldwater's 1964 speech at the 28th Republican National Convention, accepting the nomination for president that is available from the Arizona Historical Foundation. By the end of his career, Goldwater was one of the most respected members of either party and was considered a stabilizing influence in the Senate. Senator Goldwater's speech may be found also on the Internet at:Washingtonpost.com: Goldwater Speech http://www.nationalblackrepublicans...#Democrats_Smeared_Dr._Martin_Luther_King__Jr.


Democrats were the face of slavery, segregation, and Jim Crow, and have hidden these facts by blaming the other side for their misdeeds.

To this very day.

Goldwater, the conservative Republican, voted against cloture during the 1964 Civil Rights bill fight,

thus joining forces with ALL of the Democrats you keep pretending were liberals.

More testament to your ignorance.

 

[NYcarbineer]

This is what conservative ICON Barry Goldwater voted against in 1964:

Title I[edit]
Barred unequal application of voter registration requirements.

Title I did not eliminate literacy tests, which were one of the main methods used to exclude Black voters, other racial minorities, and poor Whites in the South, nor did it address economic retaliation, police repression, or physical violence against nonwhite voters. While the Act did require that voting rules and procedures be applied equally to all races, it did not abolish the concept of voter "qualification", that is to say, it accepted the idea that citizens do not have an automatic right to vote but rather might have to meet some standard beyond citizenship.[38][39] It was the Voting Rights Act, enacted one year later in 1965, that directly addressed and eliminated most voting qualifications beyond citizenship.

Title II[edit]
Outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion or national origin in hotels, motels, restaurants, theaters, and all other public accommodations engaged in interstate commerce; exempted private clubs without defining the term "private".[40]

Title III[edit]
Prohibited state and municipal governments from denying access to public facilities on grounds of race, color, religion or national origin.

Title IV[edit]
Encouraged the desegregation of public schools and authorized the U.S. Attorney General to file suits to enforce said act.

Title V[edit]
Expanded the Civil Rights Commission established by the earlier Civil Rights Act of 1957 with additional powers, rules and procedures.

Title VI[edit]
Prevents discrimination by government agencies that receive federal funds. If an agency is found in violation of Title VI, that agency may lose its federal funding.

General

This title declares it to be the policy of the United States that discrimination on the ground of race, color, or national origin shall not occur in connection with programs and activities receiving Federal financial assistance and authorizes and directs the appropriate Federal departments and agencies to take action to carry out this policy. This title is not intended to apply to foreign assistance programs. Section 601 – This section states the general principle that no person in the United States shall be excluded from participation in or otherwise discriminated against on the ground of race, color, or national origin under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.

Section 602 directs each Federal agency administering a program of Federal financial assistance by way of grant, contract, or loan to take action pursuant to rule, regulation, or order of general applicability to effectuate the principle of section 601 in a manner consistent with the achievement of the objectives of the statute authorizing the assistance. In seeking the effect compliance with its requirements imposed under this section, an agency is authorized to terminate or to refuse to grant or to continue assistance under a program to any recipient as to whom there has been an express finding pursuant to a hearing of a failure to comply with the requirements under that program, and it may also employ any other means authorized by law. However, each agency is directed first to seek compliance with its requirements by voluntary means.

Section 603 provides that any agency action taken pursuant to section 602 shall be subject to such judicial review as would be available for similar actions by that agency on other grounds. Where the agency action consists of terminating or refusing to grant or to continue financial assistance because of a finding of a failure of the recipient to comply with the agency's requirements imposed under section 602, and the agency action would not otherwise be subject to judicial review under existing law, judicial review shall nevertheless be available to any person aggrieved as provided in section 10 of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 1009). The section also states explicitly that in the latter situation such agency action shall not be deemed committed to unreviewable agency discretion within the meaning of section 10. The purpose of this provision is to obviate the possible argument that although section 603 provides for review in accordance with section 10, section 10 itself has an exception for action "committed to agency discretion," which might otherwise be carried over into section 603. It is not the purpose of this provision of section 603, however, otherwise to alter the scope of judicial review as presently provided in section 10(e) of the Administrative Procedure Act.

Title VII[edit]
Title VII of the Act, codified as Subchapter VI of Chapter 21 of title 42 of the United States Code, prohibits discrimination by covered employers on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2[41]). Title VII applies to and covers an employer "who has fifteen (15) or more employees for each working day in each of twenty or more calendar weeks in the current or preceding calendar year" as written in the Definitions section under 42 U.S.C. §2000e(b). Title VII also prohibits discrimination against an individual because of his or her association with another individual of a particular race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, such as by an interracial marriage.[42] The EEO Title VII has also been supplemented with legislation prohibiting pregnancy, age, and disability discrimination (SeePregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, Age Discrimination in Employment Act,[43] Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990).

In very narrowly defined situations, an employer is permitted to discriminate on the basis of a protected trait where the trait is a bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) reasonably necessary to the normal operation of that particular business or enterprise. To prove the bona fide occupational qualifications defense, an employer must prove three elements: a direct relationship between the protected trait and the ability to perform the duties of the job, the BFOQ relates to the "essence" or "central mission of the employer's business", and there is no less-restrictive or reasonable alternative (United Automobile Workers v. Johnson Controls, Inc., 499 U.S. 187(1991) 111 S.Ct. 1196). The Bona Fide Occupational Qualification exception is an extremely narrow exception to the general prohibition of discrimination based on protected traits (Dothard v. Rawlinson, 433 U.S. 321 (1977) 97 S.Ct. 2720). An employer or customer's preference for an individual of a particular religion is not sufficient to establish a Bona Fide Occupational Qualification (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Kamehameha School — Bishop Estate, 990 F.2d 458 (9th Cir. 1993)).

Title VII allows for any employer, labor organization, joint labor-management committee, or employment agency to bypass the "unlawful employment practice" for any person involved with the Communist Party of the United States or of any other organization required to register as a Communist-action or Communist-front organization by final order of the Subversive Activities Control Board pursuant to the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950.[44]

There are partial and whole exceptions to Title VII for four types of employers:

• Federal government; (Comment: The proscriptions against employment discrimination under Title VII are now applicable to certain federal government offices under42 U.S.C. Section 2000e-16)
• Federally recognized Native American tribes
• Religious groups performing work connected to the group's activities, including associated education institutions;
• Bona fide nonprofit private membership organizations.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) as well as certain state fair employment practices agencies (FEPAs) enforce Title VII (see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-4[41]). The EEOC and state FEPAs investigate, mediate, and may file lawsuits on behalf of employees. Where a state law is contradicted by a federal law, it is overridden.[45] Every state, except Arkansas and Mississippi, maintains a state FEPA (see EEOC and state FEPA directory ). Title VII also provides that an individual can bring a private lawsuit. An individual must file a complaint of discrimination with the EEOC within 180 days of learning of the discrimination or the individual may lose the right to file a lawsuit. Title VII only applies to employers who employ 15 or more employees for 20 or more weeks in the current or preceding calendar year (42 U.S.C. § 2000e(b)).

In the late 1970s courts began holding that sexual harassment is also prohibited under the Act. Chrapliwy v. Uniroyal is a notable Title VII case relating to sexual harassment that was decided in favor of the plaintiffs. In 1986 the Supreme Court held in Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986), that sexual harassment is sex discrimination and is prohibited by Title VII. Same-sex sexual harassment has also been held in a unanimous decision written by Justice Scalia to be prohibited by Title VII (Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998), 118 S.Ct. 998).

In 2012, the EEOC ruled that employment discrimination on the basis of gender identity or transgender status is prohibited under Title VII. The decision held that discrimination on the basis of gender identity qualified as discrimination on the basis of sex whether the discrimination was due to sex stereotyping, discomfort with the fact of an individual's transition, or discrimination due to a perceived change in the individual's sex.[46][47] In 2014, the EEOC initiated two lawsuits against private companies for discrimination on the basis of gender identity, with additional litigation under consideration.[48] As of November 2014, Commissioner Chai Feldblum is making an active effort to increase awareness of Title VII remedies for individuals discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity.[49][50]

Title VIII[edit]
Required compilation of voter-registration and voting data in geographic areas specified by the Commission on Civil Rights.

Title IX[edit]
Title IX made it easier[how?] to move civil rights cases from state courts with segregationist judges[who?] and all-white juries to federal court. This was of crucial importance to civil rights activists[who?] who contended that they could not get fair trials in state courts.[citation needed]

Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 should not be confused with Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education programs and activities.

Title X[edit]
Established the Community Relations Service, tasked with assisting in community disputes involving claims of discrimination.

Title XI[edit]
Title XI gives a defendant accused of certain categories of criminal contempt in a matter arising under title II, III, IV, V, VI, or VII of the Act the right to a jury trial. If convicted, the defendant can be fined an amount not to exceed $1,000 or imprisoned for not more than six months.

________________

And that is why conservatives will always lose, eventually. They are on the wrong side of history.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[
Don't forget that Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.


.

That is one of the most ignorant things you've ever said. And that is one high bar to clear.

Let's remind all that I never lie, and you, a serial liar, known as NYLiar.


Just one example....

1. Even with a Democratic President behind the 1964 Civil Rights Bill, a far greater percentage of Republicans (82%) voted for it than Democrats (66%). Nay votes included Ernest Hollings, Sam Ervin, Albert Gore, Sr., J. William Fulbright, and Robert Byrd.
   1. It is interesting that one reason that Nixon chose Spiro Agnew as VP, was that he had passed some of the nation’s first bans on racial discrimination in public housing- before federal laws. He had beaten Democrat segregationist George Mahoney for governor of Maryland in 1966. Coulter, "Mugged"

Jim Crow was an example of Democrat liberal big government in action.
In point of fact....the most popular Democrat today, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, has a long and unbroken record of racism.

Don't hesitate to ask me to prove it.

None of those you named were LIBERAL southern Democrats.

The Father of Modern Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, was an unrepentant segregationist.

HIs reward was to be the first nominee for president from the modern day Republican Party.

"The Father of Modern Conservatism, Barry Goldwater, was an unrepentant segregationist."

See what I mean about you being a serial liar....of course, Goldwater was no such thing, NYLiar.


Even the Washington Post refutes you...

1. “He ended racial segregation in his family department stores, and he was instrumental in ending it in Phoenix schools and restaurants and in the Arizona National Guard.” Washingtonpost.com: Barry Goldwater Dead at 89

He voted against the most important anti-segregation bill in modern history. End of story.

And in your post one finds the basic characteristic that identifies Liberals: everyone must think the same, behave the same, and obeisance to the great and wonderful "Oz," big government.


Toe the line, genuflect, doff the cap. Lock-Step Liberals.


Gads, Liberals are disgusting....a step back in human social evolution.


Goldwater was a true civil rights hero, including the civil right of thinking for oneself.



Curious that you refrained from asking me to prove what a racist your hero, Bill 'the rapist' Clinton, is.

 

[imawhosure]

PC, everything you stated was 100% correct, which is why the left will not even attempt to refute it and have been relegated to name calling as usual.

Still, I think they may have a slight point on what drugs the left has attempted to legalize. If you are suggesting they are turning the other cheek as far as marijuana legalization, then their refrain would be states rights, and rightfully so.

So, if you could clarify exactly what drugs they did let by, I would appreciate it, or at least clarify the position.

Still, all in all, a pretty good synopsis of failed lefty policies. I am sure Debbie Wasserman Shultz is at this very moment, trying to figure a way to refute the facts put forth. But may I suggest, a better set of facts is from the beloved government itself that every lefty on here loves. I have no doubt that the same facts put forth by your sources, also reside in the government archives, which has been proven over and over again by Mark Levin. In his book "Plunder and Deceit," almost 100% of the statistics he brings forth to prove lefties are full of baloney, macaroni, and cheese; are from the lefties favorite source, their OWN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

Carry on! It is actually enjoyable to watch our resident lefties mumble, grumble, whine, and moan about what you are putting forth, without ever coming up with a statistic to prove it inaccurate. And yet, if the statistic you provide CAME from the federal government itself, then ANY source they provide to refute it would be laughable-)

Of course, that is probably to hard for them anyway, lol. It appears they are struggling to come up with statistics from any place to refute what you are saying-)

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC, everything you stated was 100% correct, which is why the left will not even attempt to refute it and have been relegated to name calling as usual.

Still, I think they may have a slight point on what drugs the left has attempted to legalize. If you are suggesting they are turning the other cheek as far as marijuana legalization, then their refrain would be states rights, and rightfully so.

So, if you could clarify exactly what drugs they did let by, I would appreciate it, or at least clarify the position.

Still, all in all, a pretty good synopsis of failed lefty policies. I am sure Debbie Wasserman Shultz is at this very moment, trying to figure a way to refute the facts put forth. But may I suggest, a better set of facts is from the beloved government itself that every lefty on here loves. I have no doubt that the same facts put forth by your sources, also reside in the government archives, which has been proven over and over again by Mark Levin. In his book "Plunder and Deceit," almost 100% of the statistics he brings forth to prove lefties are full of baloney, macaroni, and cheese; are from the lefties favorite source, their OWN FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

Carry on! It is actually enjoyable to watch our resident lefties mumble, grumble, whine, and moan about what you are putting forth, without ever coming up with a statistic to prove it inaccurate. And yet, if the statistic you provide CAME from the federal government itself, then ANY source they provide to refute it would be laughable-)

Of course, that is probably to hard for them anyway, lol. It appears they are struggling to come up with statistics from any place to refute what you are saying-)

Two of the fifteen deal with drugs:

This one, Obama's push to release drug offenders from prison....but the lie is that they are only drug users

“...the state-prison population (which accounts for 87% of the nation’s prisoners) is dominated by violent criminals and serial thieves. In 2013 drug offenders made up less than 16% of the state-prison population;violent felons were 54% and property offenders 19%. Reducing drug-related admissions to 15 large state penitentiaries by half would lower those states’ prison count by only 7%, according to the Urban Institute.

In federal prisons—which hold only 13% of the nation’s prisoners—drug offenders make up half of the inmate population. But these offenders aren’t casual drug users;overwhelmingly, they are serious traffickers. Fewer than 1% of drug offenders sentenced in federal court in 2014 were convicted of simple drug possession,according to the U.S. Sentencing Commission. Most of those possession convictions were plea-bargained down from trafficking charges.” --Heather Mac Donald

Drug sellers....whose actions go beyond causing addiction...but the actions which allow them to prosper.




And this one, that drug usage isn't harmful:
6) “In 2010, 38,329 people died from drug overdoses, twice the number a decade earlier. More people died of drug overdoses than from automobile accidents (30,196), murders (13,000) or gun accidents (700).”
--Ann Coulter
15 Stats That Destroy Liberal Narratives


The links are in red.

 

[jillian]

Wow...that's quite a cornucopia of cut and pastiness. PC throwing her shit against the wall to see what sticks...

*snip*

she doesn't do anything but cut and paste. it makes her feel like she's won something when people can't be bothered responding.

suffice it to say there is no "liberal coffin" except in her imagination.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So when will Liberalism die?

When will all the advances of Liberalism in the last several centuries be rolled back to the content of all the conservatives in history who unsuccessfully fought to stop them?

When will slavery return, for example?

lol

 

[PoliticalChic]

Wow...that's quite a cornucopia of cut and pastiness. PC throwing her shit against the wall to see what sticks...

*snip*

she doesn't do anything but cut and paste. it makes her feel like she's won something when people can't be bothered responding.

suffice it to say there is no "liberal coffin" except in her imagination.

"...when people can't be bothered responding."

It's not the 'bother," it's that everything is true, correct, and accurate.....so there is no way for you to respond without admitting that Liberal claims are tall tales.

Don't bother responding if you recognize that I am correct.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So when will Liberalism die?

When will all the advances of Liberalism in the last several centuries be rolled back to the content of all the conservatives in history who unsuccessfully fought to stop them?

When will slavery return, for example?

lol

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
-- Mark Twain

And that's what I showed about Liberals in this thread.

 

[NYcarbineer]

So when will Liberalism die?

When will all the advances of Liberalism in the last several centuries be rolled back to the content of all the conservatives in history who unsuccessfully fought to stop them?

When will slavery return, for example?

lol

It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.
-- Mark Twain

And that's what I showed about Liberals in this thread.

Name the conservative victories on major issues in the last 100 years.

And then while you're at it explain why you have the right to vote if conservatism is winning.