Leftist With a Klan Hood gets his Tail Kicked by Black Trump Supporter: Hilarious (Video)

[Pogo]

Perhaps we should, since other sources such as Dictionary.com treat the term far more thoughtfully:

racism

[rey-siz-uh m]

• Examples
• Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
​

--- and once again I'll reiterate this story you ignored as inconvenient:

I was passed over at least twice for jobs because of AA. I happened to know both applicants who got those jobs when I was more qualified. All three of us are the same race. Now how is that AA law "racist"?

"Racism" is not just another arrow in your quiver of message board barbs. It's serious stuff and is not to be trivialized for the purpose of snark points. Respect your language.

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

why haven't you answered me?

Yes? Question in the back? Please repeat. You're on ignore due to the trollling quality of your posts, so I don't always catch them.

ignore is what one does when one doesn't have an answer. I see you don't. As expected. no, no, no, don't get me wrong, I really didn't expect you to have the balls to answer them. You're whacked out libturd who can't have a reasonable discussion without going all nutso. KKK was started by democrats. And you can't prove anything otherwise. All the names you provided fought on that side, means they had a belief and a party affiliation. Whether you like it or not I give two shits about. It just makes you a libturd.

Nooooo it wasn't Splooges, and I put this all out in excruciatingly voluminous detail, most recently in post 557, all of which has yet to be touched. Standing in your echo chamber going "la la la" doesn't make it go away.

NOR does the presence of their names ---- or anybody's names, anywhere --- mean they had a party affiliation. Only an abject moron would believe that everybody has a party affiliation like they have a middle finger. I don't have the former, but I'll be happy to show you the latter.

Thanks for confirming why I have you on Ignore. Back you go until such time as you learn how to make a salient point.

 

[jc456]

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

So carelessly is now defined as you don't agree with it? Too funny.

I can't help it you didn't get hired. Most who don't say they were more qualified. Now, prove that you were.

I don't need to "prove" jack shit, Dumbass. The veracity of the incidents is irrelevant; the same thing happened to any number of other people.

The answer is there for you to figure out. Break a synapse sweat and see if you can do it.

If you make the claim you expect people to believe you do. Since you admit you won't prove it, it makes it an opinion not fact. Typical excuses from a liar.

A recounting of an incident is not what "opinion" even remotely means.
You just can't figure it out.

Very well -- if you're willing to take the zero you deserve on this test, here's the answer:
The applicants who got the jobs were women.
And yes I was told directly by the employer "you were more qualified but we had to hire a woman".

Now essplain to the class how that particular AA law was "racist".

Dumb shit.

And yes I was told directly by the employer "you were more qualified but we had to hire a woman".

that violates hiring laws, so I know that didn't happen. you wander around thinking no one knows the laws. Well, we do. you just posting up your opinion is just that, you posting up your opinion. hahahahahahahahaha you are a stupid fk.

 

[jc456]

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

why haven't you answered me?

Yes? Question in the back? Please repeat. You're on ignore due to the trollling quality of your posts, so I don't always catch them.

ignore is what one does when one doesn't have an answer. I see you don't. As expected. no, no, no, don't get me wrong, I really didn't expect you to have the balls to answer them. You're whacked out libturd who can't have a reasonable discussion without going all nutso. KKK was started by democrats. And you can't prove anything otherwise. All the names you provided fought on that side, means they had a belief and a party affiliation. Whether you like it or not I give two shits about. It just makes you a libturd.

Nooooo it wasn't Splooges, and I put this all out in excruciatingly voluminous detail, most recently in post 557, all of which has yet to be touched. Standing in your echo chamber going "la la la" doesn't make it go away.

NOR does the presence of their names ---- or anybody's names, anywhere --- mean they had a party affiliation. Only an abject moron would believe that everybody has a party affiliation like they have a middle finger. I don't have the former, but I'll be happy to show you the latter.

Thanks for confirming why I have you on Ignore. Back you go until such time as you learn how to make a salient point.

and they were all democrats. prove it otherwise.

 

[Conservative65]

Who says you were more qualified, you?

You mean dictionary.com says what YOU want it to say.

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

why haven't you answered me?

Yes? Question in the back? Please repeat. You're on ignore due to the trollling quality of your posts, so I don't always catch them.

ignore is what one does when one doesn't have an answer. I see you don't. As expected. no, no, no, don't get me wrong, I really didn't expect you to have the balls to answer them. You're whacked out libturd who can't have a reasonable discussion without going all nutso. KKK was started by democrats. And you can't prove anything otherwise. All the names you provided fought on that side, means they had a belief and a party affiliation. Whether you like it or not I give two shits about. It just makes you a libturd.

Nooooo it wasn't Splooges, and I put this all out in excruciatingly voluminous detail, most recently in post 557, all of which has yet to be touched. Standing in your echo chamber going "la la la" doesn't make it go away.

NOR does the presence of their names ---- or anybody's names, anywhere --- mean they had a party affiliation. Only an abject moron would believe that everybody has a party affiliation like they have a middle finger. I don't have the former, but I'll be happy to show you the latter.

Thanks for confirming why I have you on Ignore. Back you go until such time as you learn how to make a salient point.

Thanks for confirming why no one believes you. You post claims yet no proof to support them. Sorry, but you saying it happened doesn't count as proof.

 

[Pogo]

I don't need to "prove" jack shit, Dumbass. The veracity of the incidents is irrelevant; the same thing happened to any number of other people.

The answer is there for you to figure out. Break a synapse sweat and see if you can do it.

If you make the claim you expect people to believe you do. Since you admit you won't prove it, it makes it an opinion not fact. Typical excuses from a liar.

A recounting of an incident is not what "opinion" even remotely means.
You just can't figure it out.

Very well -- if you're willing to take the zero you deserve on this test, here's the answer:
The applicants who got the jobs were women.
And yes I was told directly by the employer "you were more qualified but we had to hire a woman"

Now essplain to the class how that particular AA law was "racist".

What you can't figure out is that you made a claim you were more qualified. Prove it. If you can't provide objective proof of it, it's an opinion as to whether you were more qualified.

Can you provide the contact information of that employer so I can verify your claim?

Fuck no, I don't put personal info on the internet. Fuck you, dishonest gasbag.

Then, once again, you claim is dismissed for lack of evidence.

I'm not being dishonest. I asked you to prove a claim YOU made and you refused.

So you're saying nobody ever got passed over in favor of a woman because of an AA law, are you?

Run with that.

 

[Conservative65]

If you make the claim you expect people to believe you do. Since you admit you won't prove it, it makes it an opinion not fact. Typical excuses from a liar.

A recounting of an incident is not what "opinion" even remotely means.
You just can't figure it out.

Very well -- if you're willing to take the zero you deserve on this test, here's the answer:
The applicants who got the jobs were women.
And yes I was told directly by the employer "you were more qualified but we had to hire a woman"

Now essplain to the class how that particular AA law was "racist".

What you can't figure out is that you made a claim you were more qualified. Prove it. If you can't provide objective proof of it, it's an opinion as to whether you were more qualified.

Can you provide the contact information of that employer so I can verify your claim?

Fuck no, I don't put personal info on the internet. Fuck you, dishonest gasbag.

Then, once again, you claim is dismissed for lack of evidence.

I'm not being dishonest. I asked you to prove a claim YOU made and you refused.

So you're saying nobody ever got passed over in favor of a woman because of an AA law, are you?

Run with that.

When others make an equal claim, I'll ask them the same thing I asked you. It isn't about anyone else, it's about YOUR claim.

Keep digging. That you divert your attention away from your lack of proof proves my point.

 

[Pogo]

It's a far more in-depth examination of the word. The Merriam Webster entry was carelessly done.
Just compare them.

And you STILL haven't answered my anecdote.

why haven't you answered me?

Yes? Question in the back? Please repeat. You're on ignore due to the trollling quality of your posts, so I don't always catch them.

ignore is what one does when one doesn't have an answer. I see you don't. As expected. no, no, no, don't get me wrong, I really didn't expect you to have the balls to answer them. You're whacked out libturd who can't have a reasonable discussion without going all nutso. KKK was started by democrats. And you can't prove anything otherwise. All the names you provided fought on that side, means they had a belief and a party affiliation. Whether you like it or not I give two shits about. It just makes you a libturd.

Nooooo it wasn't Splooges, and I put this all out in excruciatingly voluminous detail, most recently in post 557, all of which has yet to be touched. Standing in your echo chamber going "la la la" doesn't make it go away.

NOR does the presence of their names ---- or anybody's names, anywhere --- mean they had a party affiliation. Only an abject moron would believe that everybody has a party affiliation like they have a middle finger. I don't have the former, but I'll be happy to show you the latter.

Thanks for confirming why I have you on Ignore. Back you go until such time as you learn how to make a salient point.

Thanks for confirming why no one believes you. You post claims yet no proof to support them. Sorry, but you saying it happened doesn't count as proof.

Anecdotes don't need "proof", Dumbass. It's there to express a principle. It's what we call on this planet an "example".
Sorry if your Special class hasn't covered that yet. Come back when it does. Until then --- you lose.

 

[Conservative65]

why haven't you answered me?

Yes? Question in the back? Please repeat. You're on ignore due to the trollling quality of your posts, so I don't always catch them.

ignore is what one does when one doesn't have an answer. I see you don't. As expected. no, no, no, don't get me wrong, I really didn't expect you to have the balls to answer them. You're whacked out libturd who can't have a reasonable discussion without going all nutso. KKK was started by democrats. And you can't prove anything otherwise. All the names you provided fought on that side, means they had a belief and a party affiliation. Whether you like it or not I give two shits about. It just makes you a libturd.

Nooooo it wasn't Splooges, and I put this all out in excruciatingly voluminous detail, most recently in post 557, all of which has yet to be touched. Standing in your echo chamber going "la la la" doesn't make it go away.

NOR does the presence of their names ---- or anybody's names, anywhere --- mean they had a party affiliation. Only an abject moron would believe that everybody has a party affiliation like they have a middle finger. I don't have the former, but I'll be happy to show you the latter.

Thanks for confirming why I have you on Ignore. Back you go until such time as you learn how to make a salient point.

Thanks for confirming why no one believes you. You post claims yet no proof to support them. Sorry, but you saying it happened doesn't count as proof.

Anecdotes don't need "proof", Dumbass. It's there to express a principle. It's what we call on this planet an "example".
Sorry if your Special class hasn't covered that yet. Come back when it does.

Claims need proof and you made a claim. Come back when you can prove the CLAIM.

 

[Roudy]

"In 1868, the Klan elected its first Grand Wizard, Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Decades later, his grandson wrote in the September 1928 issue of the Klan’s Kourier Magazine:

I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party."

All of which is irrelevant. Forrest was not a founder of the Klan; he was recruited BY it to be its figurehead. And in less than two years, he officially disbanded it, citing its out-of-control violence. Either way it was not a political outfit when he got there and it was still not a political outfit when he disbanded it.

So therefore, to conclude, the KKK were indeed Democrats? I'm just wondering how it is that blacks have been brainwashed to have such blind loyalty to a party that gave rise to the KKK?

Unfortunately for your blind partisan hackitude, there's no such thing. No political party "gave rise to the KKK" at all, and I proved that in post 467 and again in 557. Gave you a dozen links ALL of which refute that.

Moreover your original claim you're STILL trying desperately to dance away from was that the Klan started as a "leftist organization". I continue to challenge you to support that. You continue to run away from it.

dude you have failed in every way in here. Give it up. The original members were members of the democratic party, you don't disagree, you listed them on a monument for us all to see. Then they were dissolved. Still unclear where you're driving to.

What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.

The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.

Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.

Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.

If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.

The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.

Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.

You can run but you can't hide.

 

[Roudy]

Moron .... again ... the parties switched. The racist south which seceded to keep slavery and which started the KKK was largely Democrat then.

Today, they're largely Republican.

Blacks were mostly Republican then. Today, they're mostly Democrat.

Blacks aren't brainwashed to vote Democrat. They're smart enough to recognize the racist conservative south switched from Democrat to Republican. Why would they support the political party of the racist south?

The parties didn't switch. You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig. Democrats have managed to fool Americans into thinking they are the party of tolerance and equality. They aren't, in fact Democrats are the most intolerant fascistic people, with a strong vein American socialistic based principles. They divide and demonize Americans along racial, ethnic, and economic lines in order to gain votes. Just because they call republicans "racist" doesn't make them so. Republicans still call themselves the party of Lincoln. Blacks should learn the history of the party they are so loyal too.

There it is again -- the bottomless well of ignorance blissfully enjoyed by armchair wags who get their history from Googly Image meme generators and easily-refuted blogs with no links.

In the mid-18th Century the RP became the home of Abolitionists -- which means Liberals. It formed in 1854 out of that group and out of the Whig Party (Lincoln had been one), which believed in Big Government. The Whigs fell apart because they could not reconcile between themselves how they wanted to proceed on slavery, so the new Republican Party took on that faction that wanted Abolition. The Democratic Party at the same time was the conservative home of "states rights" and smaller decentralized government.

Given time, by the end of that century and after several political successes, the RP started taking on the interests of the corporations and the rich, while the DP absorbed a growing populist movement ---- which is how it came to be the choice of, and sympathetic to, immigrants... minorities ... trade unions and the like.

To pretend political parties just sit there in one ideological spot and never budge through time is to expose oneself as eminently ignorant. Politics doesn't work that way and never did.

who are you referring to as rich? Isn't Soro's rich, he ain't no fkn republican. Who the fk are you referring to?

The left fails to mention that the socialist commie candidate Obama had record amount of super pack funding at his disposal during his election campaign.

Completely irrelevant deflection.

Fits right into the hypocrisy of the intolerant leftist fascists.

 

[Pogo]

"In 1868, the Klan elected its first Grand Wizard, Nathaniel Bedford Forrest. Decades later, his grandson wrote in the September 1928 issue of the Klan’s Kourier Magazine:

I have never voted for any man who was not a regular Democrat. My father … never voted for any man who was not a Democrat. My grandfather was …the head of the Ku Klux Klan in reconstruction days…. My great-grandfather was a life-long Democrat…. My great-great-grandfather was…one of the founders of the Democratic party."

All of which is irrelevant. Forrest was not a founder of the Klan; he was recruited BY it to be its figurehead. And in less than two years, he officially disbanded it, citing its out-of-control violence. Either way it was not a political outfit when he got there and it was still not a political outfit when he disbanded it.

So therefore, to conclude, the KKK were indeed Democrats? I'm just wondering how it is that blacks have been brainwashed to have such blind loyalty to a party that gave rise to the KKK?

Unfortunately for your blind partisan hackitude, there's no such thing. No political party "gave rise to the KKK" at all, and I proved that in post 467 and again in 557. Gave you a dozen links ALL of which refute that.

Moreover your original claim you're STILL trying desperately to dance away from was that the Klan started as a "leftist organization". I continue to challenge you to support that. You continue to run away from it.

dude you have failed in every way in here. Give it up. The original members were members of the democratic party, you don't disagree, you listed them on a monument for us all to see. Then they were dissolved. Still unclear where you're driving to.

What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.

The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.

Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.

Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.

If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.

The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.

Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.

You can run but you can't hide.

The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.

Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.

 

[Roudy]

All of which is irrelevant. Forrest was not a founder of the Klan; he was recruited BY it to be its figurehead. And in less than two years, he officially disbanded it, citing its out-of-control violence. Either way it was not a political outfit when he got there and it was still not a political outfit when he disbanded it.


Unfortunately for your blind partisan hackitude, there's no such thing. No political party "gave rise to the KKK" at all, and I proved that in post 467 and again in 557. Gave you a dozen links ALL of which refute that.

Moreover your original claim you're STILL trying desperately to dance away from was that the Klan started as a "leftist organization". I continue to challenge you to support that. You continue to run away from it.

dude you have failed in every way in here. Give it up. The original members were members of the democratic party, you don't disagree, you listed them on a monument for us all to see. Then they were dissolved. Still unclear where you're driving to.

What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.

The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.

Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.

Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.

If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.

The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.

Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.

You can run but you can't hide.

The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.

Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.

Never said the Klan was a "party". However, the Klan was indeed the military wing of the Democrat party, and it's first Grand Wizard was hardcore Democrat. That is a historical fact.

 

[edthecynic]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

CON$ervatism is a HATE religion.

 

[edthecynic]

Seven years later, Obama and his clown followers are still whining and blaming Bush.

36 years later the Right are still whining and blaming Carter.

 

[Pogo]

dude you have failed in every way in here. Give it up. The original members were members of the democratic party, you don't disagree, you listed them on a monument for us all to see. Then they were dissolved. Still unclear where you're driving to.

What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.

The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.

Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.

Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.

If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.

The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.

Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.

You can run but you can't hide.

The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.

Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.

Never said the Klan was a "party". However, the Klan was indeed the military wing of the Democrat party, and it's first Grand Wizard was hardcore Democrat. That is a historical fact.

Yeah actually you did:

the KKK was a wing Democrat party

Don't know about "hardcore" though I believe he did run for office at some point. But that's got nothing to do with the Klan, who ---- already in existence ---- approached him to be its figurehead, because of his high status as a military man. And as I also already pointed out, he declared its actions were out of control and used that position to officially disband it in 1869, less than two years later. The fact that the rest of the Klan ignored the disband order and continued to terrorize, merely emphasizes how irrelevant he was to that part of its operation.

So to sum up for you kids in the special class:
Founding of Klan: Christmas 1865
Hiring of NB Forrest as figurehead: April 1867
Forrest's order dissolving the Klan: January 1869
Actual demise of the (original) Klan: mid-1870s

You cannot play with linear time.

Once again -- prove me wrong.

Bonus track:

>> “After only a year as Grand Wizard, in January 1869, faced with an ungovernable membership employing methods that seemed increasingly counterproductive, Forrest issued KKK General Order Number One: “It is therefore ordered and decreed, that the masks and costumes of this Order be entirely abolished and destroyed.” By the end of his life, Forrest’s racial attitudes would evolve — in 1875, he advocated for the admission of blacks into law school — and he lived to fully renounce his involvement with the all-but-vanished Klan.”

If you read Eddy W. Davison’s “Nathan Bedford Forrest: In Search of the Enigma,” on page 464 and 474-475, you can see that Forrest not only publicly disavowed the KKK and worked to terminate it, but in August 1874, Forrest “volunteered to help ‘exterminate’ those men responsible for the continued violence against the blacks.” After the murder of four blacks by a lynch mob after they were arrested for defending themselves at a BBQ, Forrest wrote to Tennessee Governor Brown, offering “to exterminate the white marauders who disgrace their race by this cowardly murder of Negroes.” << (both here)​

And just as yet another daily reminder, the original claim you're STILL desperately running away from is that the Klan was founded as a "leftist organization".

*STILL* waiting on that.

 

[edthecynic]

the KKK was a wing Democrat party.

If so, then it was the CON$ervative wing!

 

[Roudy]

Liberalism is a mental disorder.

CON$ervatism is a HATE religion.

More proof that liberalism is a mental disorder.

 

[Roudy]

What they're saying is the names don't count, Democrat back then was actually republican. Even though they clearly called themselves Democrats and were attacking republicans. Only the mentally ill would try to make an argument like that.

The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.

Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.

Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.

If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.

The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.

Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.

You can run but you can't hide.

The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.

Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.

Never said the Klan was a "party". However, the Klan was indeed the military wing of the Democrat party, and it's first Grand Wizard was hardcore Democrat. That is a historical fact.

Yeah actually you did:

the KKK was a wing Democrat party

Don't know about "hardcore" though I believe he did run for office at some point. But that's got nothing to do with the Klan, who ---- already in existence ---- approached him to be its figurehead, because of his high status as a military man. And as I also already pointed out, he declared its actions were out of control and used that position to officially disband it in 1869, less than two years later. The fact that the rest of the Klan ignored the disband order and continued to terrorize, merely emphasizes how irrelevant he was to that part of its operation.

So to sum up for you kids in the special class:
Founding of Klan: Christmas 1865
Hiring of NB Forrest as figurehead: April 1867
Forrest's order dissolving the Klan: January 1869
Actual demise of the (original) Klan: mid-1870s

You cannot play with linear time.

Once again -- prove me wrong.

Bonus track:

>> “After only a year as Grand Wizard, in January 1869, faced with an ungovernable membership employing methods that seemed increasingly counterproductive, Forrest issued KKK General Order Number One: “It is therefore ordered and decreed, that the masks and costumes of this Order be entirely abolished and destroyed.” By the end of his life, Forrest’s racial attitudes would evolve — in 1875, he advocated for the admission of blacks into law school — and he lived to fully renounce his involvement with the all-but-vanished Klan.”

If you read Eddy W. Davison’s “Nathan Bedford Forrest: In Search of the Enigma,” on page 464 and 474-475, you can see that Forrest not only publicly disavowed the KKK and worked to terminate it, but in August 1874, Forrest “volunteered to help ‘exterminate’ those men responsible for the continued violence against the blacks.” After the murder of four blacks by a lynch mob after they were arrested for defending themselves at a BBQ, Forrest wrote to Tennessee Governor Brown, offering “to exterminate the white marauders who disgrace their race by this cowardly murder of Negroes.” << (both here)​

And just as yet another daily reminder, the original claim you're STILL desperately running away from is that the Klan was founded as a "leftist organization".

*STILL* waiting on that.

I'm tired of slapping you with the truth. Find someone else to troll, troll.

 

[edthecynic]

The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.

Exactly, the KKK can belong to any Party or no Party.
The Klan do belong to one ideology and one ideology only, CON$ervatism!

 

[Pogo]

The names absolutely count, as they tell us who's who. That's why I POSTED them repeatedly. And that's how I know they had no known political affiliations or activities. I'm STILL the only one to post anybody's name, other than your desperate flailing attempts to somehow connect Nathan Bedford Forrest to an even that he wasn't present for, a founding that took place two years before he was involved.

Go ahead -- post me links showing some other founders that refute that. Post even ONE. From a credible source, not these wannabe blogs that can't link themselves or stand up to scrutiny.

Democrat was actually Republican? In a sense --- if you're so naïve to believe that political parties plant themselves on whatever ideology and never move from that spot like Ron Jaworski setting for a pass. If you believe that, I have a bridge to sell you. The fact is, political parties are floating entities that shift with the wind; they float among "left" and "right" and "liberal" and "conservative". "Liberal" does not necessarily mean "Democrat" and "conservative" certainly does not automatically mean "Republican" --- even within a single time frame, let alone over a century and a half.

If you don't know these basics, you need to go back to PoliSci class and this time shut the fuck up and learn something instead of rambling on and on and on with your endless babble.

The white-gentry South was always conservative ---- no matter which political party they worked with. The purpose of a political party is to consolidate power ---- it is not to represent a fixed ideology.

Nice word play but, fact still remains, the KKK was a wing Democrat party.

You can run but you can't hide.

The Klan has never been a "party". Ever.
Prove me wrong.

Ever notice whenever I say "prove me wrong" --- no one can?
I do.

Never said the Klan was a "party". However, the Klan was indeed the military wing of the Democrat party, and it's first Grand Wizard was hardcore Democrat. That is a historical fact.

Yeah actually you did:

the KKK was a wing Democrat party

Don't know about "hardcore" though I believe he did run for office at some point. But that's got nothing to do with the Klan, who ---- already in existence ---- approached him to be its figurehead, because of his high status as a military man. And as I also already pointed out, he declared its actions were out of control and used that position to officially disband it in 1869, less than two years later. The fact that the rest of the Klan ignored the disband order and continued to terrorize, merely emphasizes how irrelevant he was to that part of its operation.

So to sum up for you kids in the special class:
Founding of Klan: Christmas 1865
Hiring of NB Forrest as figurehead: April 1867
Forrest's order dissolving the Klan: January 1869
Actual demise of the (original) Klan: mid-1870s

You cannot play with linear time.

Once again -- prove me wrong.

Bonus track:

>> “After only a year as Grand Wizard, in January 1869, faced with an ungovernable membership employing methods that seemed increasingly counterproductive, Forrest issued KKK General Order Number One: “It is therefore ordered and decreed, that the masks and costumes of this Order be entirely abolished and destroyed.” By the end of his life, Forrest’s racial attitudes would evolve — in 1875, he advocated for the admission of blacks into law school — and he lived to fully renounce his involvement with the all-but-vanished Klan.”

If you read Eddy W. Davison’s “Nathan Bedford Forrest: In Search of the Enigma,” on page 464 and 474-475, you can see that Forrest not only publicly disavowed the KKK and worked to terminate it, but in August 1874, Forrest “volunteered to help ‘exterminate’ those men responsible for the continued violence against the blacks.” After the murder of four blacks by a lynch mob after they were arrested for defending themselves at a BBQ, Forrest wrote to Tennessee Governor Brown, offering “to exterminate the white marauders who disgrace their race by this cowardly murder of Negroes.” << (both here)​

And just as yet another daily reminder, the original claim you're STILL desperately running away from is that the Klan was founded as a "leftist organization".

*STILL* waiting on that.

I'm tired of slapping you with the truth. Find someone else to troll, troll.

So...... nothing. After two days, can't defend it, can't admit it either.
Foot-in-mouth disease wins. Color me surprised.

​